The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Artifacts or Attributes? Effects of Resolution on the Little Rock Lake Food Web
Abstract
A detailed and relatively evenly resolved food web of Little Rock Lake, Wisconsin, was constructed to evaluate the sensitivity of food—web patterns to the level of detail (degree of resolution) in food—web data. This study presents definitions (e.g., ecosystem food webs) and methods for constructing and reducing the resolution of food webs to provide relatively pragmatic and rigorous touchstones for consistency in future food—web studies. This analysis suggests that food—web patterns such as the scale—invariant links—per—species ratio, short chain lengths, and limited number of trophic levels are constrained by the resolution of food—web data rather than by ecological factors. Patterns less sensitive to changes in resolution such as directed connectance (the proportion of observed directed links to all possible directed links) may be robust food—web attributes. The food web of Little Rock Lake appears to be the first highly and evenly resolved food web of a large natural ecosystem originally documented for the purpose of examining quantitative food—web patterns. This ecosystem food web contains roughly twice as many species as the largest web to date. It also may provide the most credible portrait available of the detailed trophic structure of a whole ecosystem. The 93—trophic—species web of Little Rock Lake differs from previously published trophic—species webs by having more links per species (L/S = 11), longer chain lengths (average: ≥10, maximum: ≥16), species at higher trophic levels (maximum: = 12), higher fractions of intermediate species, and smaller fractions of top species and links to top species. The sensitivity of quantitative food—web patterns to changes in resolution was examined in several series of tropically aggregated Little Rock Lake webs. Each of the series starts with a highly and relatively evenly resolved web with 182 consumer, producer, and decomposer taxa and ends with low—resolution webs with 9 aggregates of taxa. Taxa were aggregated based on the proportion of predators and prey shared by the taxa. Different series of webs were generated using different criteria for linking aggregates to evaluate the sensitivity of food—web patterns to linkage criteria. The sensitivity analysis revealed that several, but not all, quantitative food—web patterns are very sensitive to systematic aggregation of the web. Sensitive patterns include number of links per species, linkage complexity, the distributions of chain lengths and species among trophic levels, and the proportions of top species and links to top species. Less—sensitive patterns include connectance, the ratio of predators to prey, the proportions of intermediate and basal species, and the proportions of links that are between intermediate and basal species. Directed connectance is the only pattern examined that is both very robust to trophic aggregation and generally comparable to other community webs. Quantitative food—web patterns in published community webs are generally similar to highly aggregated Little Rock Lake webs (versions with 9—40 aggregates). These findings suggest that previously described community food webs are severely aggregated versions of more elaborate webs similar to that of Little Rock Lake.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Will a Large Complex System be Stable?
MAY, R. M. (1972) · Nature · doi:10.1038/238413a0 · Cited by 2,869
Cited by
The Structure and Function of Complex Networks
Newman, M. E. J. (2003) · SIAM Review · doi:10.1137/s003614450342480 · Cited by 18,719
The nested assembly of plant–animal mutualistic networks
Bascompte, J., Jordano, P., Melián, C. J., & Olesen, J. M. (2003) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1633576100 · Cited by 2,497
Network ‘Small-World-Ness’: A Quantitative Method for Determining Canonical Network Equivalence
Humphries, M. D., & Gurney, K. (2008) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0002051 · Cited by 1,442
Compartments revealed in food-web structure.
Krause, A. E., Frank, K. A., Mason, D. M., Ulanowicz, R. E., & Taylor, W. W. (2003) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature02115 · Cited by 795
Compilation and Network Analyses of Cambrian Food Webs
Dunne, J. A., Williams, R. J., Martinez, N. D., Wood, R. A., & Erwin, D. H. (2008) · PLoS Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0060102 · Cited by 269
Self-citationHierarchy Measure for Complex Networks
Mones, E., Vicsek, L., & Vicsek, T. (2012) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0033799 · Cited by 259
A landscape theory for food web architecture.
Rooney, N., McCann, K. S., & Moore, J. C. (2008) · Ecology Letters · doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2008.01193.x · Cited by 245
Origin of compartmentalization in food webs
Guimerà, R., Stouffer, D. B., Sales-Pardo, M., Leicht, E. A., Newman, M. E. J., & Amaral, L. A. N. (2010) · Ecology · doi:10.1890/09-1175.1 · Cited by 201
Self-regulation and the stability of large ecological networks
Barabás, G., Michalska-Smith, M. J., & Allesina, S. (2017) · Nature Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1038/s41559-017-0357-6 · Cited by 138
Hierarchy in directed random networks
Mones, E. (2013) · Physical Review E · doi:10.1103/physreve.87.022817 · Cited by 16
Metadata
- Authors
- Martinez, N. D.
- Venue
- Ecological Monographs
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1991-12
- Volume
- 61
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 367-392
- ISSN
- 0012-9615 (ISSN-L)
- 1557-7015
- OpenAlex
- W2047827879
- Cited by
- 696
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 19.10
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.