Cited by 217Isotope Analysis in EcologyFreshwater macroinvertebrate diversity and ecologyFish Ecology and Management Studies

Dual influences of ecosystem size and disturbance on food chain length in streams

McHugh, Peter A., McIntosh, Angus R., Jellyman, Phillip G.·2010·Ecology Letters

Abstract

The number of trophic transfers occurring between basal resources and top predators, food chain length (FCL), varies widely in the world's ecosystems for reasons that are poorly understood, particularly for stream ecosystems. Available evidence indicates that FCL is set by energetic constraints, environmental stochasticity, or ecosystem size effects, although no single explanation has yet accounted for FCL patterns in a broad sense. Further, whether environmental disturbance can influence FCL has been debated on both theoretical and empirical grounds for quite some time. Using data from sixteen South Island, New Zealand streams, we determined whether the so-called ecosystem size, disturbance, or resource availability hypotheses could account for FCL variation in high country fluvial environments. Stable isotope-based estimates of maximum trophic position ranged from 2.6 to 4.2 and averaged 3.5, a value on par with the global FCL average for streams. Model-selection results indicated that stream size and disturbance regime best explained across-site patterns in FCL, although resource availability was negatively correlated with our measure of disturbance; FCL approached its maximum in large, stable springs and was <3.5 trophic levels in small, fishless and/or disturbed streams. Community data indicate that size influenced FCL, primarily through its influence on local fish species richness (i.e., via trophic level additions and/or insertions), whereas disturbance did so via an e…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2010.01484.x

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The positive relationship between mussel and fish species richness and watershed area could be due to both greater habitat availability and more stable environments typically associated with larger streams.

    “The positive relationship between mussel and fish species richness and watershed area could be due to both greater habitat availability and more stable environments typically associated with larger streams (McHugh et al., 2010).”

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
McHugh, P. A., McIntosh, A. R., & Jellyman, P. G.
Affiliations
University of Canterbury (NZ)
Corresponding author
McHugh, Peter A.
Venue
Ecology Letters
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2010-06-14
Volume
13
Issue
7
Pages
881-890
ISSN
  • 1461-023X (ISSN-L)
  • 1461-0248
OpenAlex
W2100972551
Cited by
217
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 26 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 38 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 13
FWCI
10.15
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Ecology Letters (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Isotope Analysis in Ecology
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Freshwater macroinvertebrate diversity and ecology
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Fish Ecology and Management Studies
Keywords
food chain length, trophic levels, stream ecosystems, ecosystem size, environmental disturbance, resource availability, food web structure, fish species richness, predatory invertebrates, springs, trophic transfer, energetic constraints
MeSH terms
Animals, Fresh Water, New Zealand, Ecosystem, Food Chain

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review