Cited by 195Ecology and Vegetation Dynamics StudiesInsect-Plant Interactions and ControlMathematical and Theoretical Epidemiology and Ecology Models

Effects of predator richness on prey suppression: a meta‐analysis

Open access
Griffin, John N., Byrnes, Jarrett E. K., Cardinale, Bradley J.·2013·Ecology

Abstract

It is well established that species richness of primary producers and primary consumers can enhance efficiency of resource uptake and biomass production of respective trophic levels. At the level of secondary consumers (predators), however, conclusions about the functional role of biodiversity have been mixed. We take advantage of a recent surge of published experiments (totaling 46 since 2005) to both evaluate general effects of predator richness on aggregate prey suppression (top‐down control) and explore sources of variability among experiments. Our results show that, across experiments, predator richness enhances prey suppression relative to the average single predator species (mean richness effect), but not the best‐performing species. Mean richness effects in predator experiments were stronger than those for primary producers and detritivores, suggesting that relationships between richness and function may increase with trophic height in food webs. The strength of mean predator richness effects increased with the spatial and temporal scale of experiments, and the taxonomic distinctness (TD, used as a proxy of phylogenetic diversity) of species present. This latter result suggests that TD captures important aspects of functional differentiation among predators and that measures of biodiversity that go beyond species richness may help to better predict the effects of predator species loss.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1890/13-0179.1

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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 study's results agree with findings from recent meta-analyses comparing consumer biodiversity effect sizes with those for primary producers.

    “This result also agrees with findings from recent meta-analyses comparing consumer biodiversity effect sizes with those for primary producers”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 55 · Cited by 195

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. R eports 19399170, 2013, 10, Downloaded from https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1890/13-0179. · DOI
  2. by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [19/06/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
  3. R eports 19399170, 2013, 10, Downloaded from https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1890/13-0179. · DOI
  4. by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [19/06/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License

Authors
Griffin, J. N., Byrnes, J. E. K., & Cardinale, B. J.
Affiliations
  • Swansea University (GB)
  • University of Massachusetts System (US)
  • University of Michigan (US)
Corresponding author
Griffin, John N.
Venue
Ecology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2013-10
Volume
94
Issue
10
Pages
2180-2187
ISSN
  • 0012-9658 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-9170
OpenAlex
W2149984039
Cited by
195
References
55
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 20 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 21 · 2015: 26 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 1
FWCI
2.05
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Ecology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Deep Blue (University of Michigan) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Ecology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Insect Science › Insect-Plant Interactions and Control
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Mathematical and Theoretical Epidemiology and Ecology Models
Keywords
top-down control, biodiversity-function relationships, trophic levels, taxonomic distinctness, phylogenetic diversity, spatial and temporal scales
MeSH terms
Animals, Models, Biological, Population Density, Predatory Behavior, Food Chain, Biodiversity

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