Skip to main content
Log in

Pawar et al. reply

  • Brief Communications Arising
  • Published:

From Nature

View current issue Submit your manuscript

Abstract

replying to H. C. Giacomini, B. Shuter, D. T. de Kerckhove & P. A. Abrams Nature 493, 10.1038/nature11829 (2012)

Current studies assume that per-capita consumption rates always scale with body mass to an exponent of 0.75. We showed that, contrary to this assumption, consumption rates scale sublinearly (exponent of approximately 0.85) when organisms forage in two dimensions (2D), and superlinearly (exponent of approximately 1.06) when they forage in 3D1. Giacomini et al. argue that the superlinear scaling in 3D interactions we observed cannot be reconciled with life-history theory for maximal body size2. Consequently, they search for biases in our study that might cause this superlinear scaling. However, their comments do not challenge our central result that consumption rates scale superlinearly in 3D, and significantly more steeply than in 2D. We propose instead that life-history theory may need revision to include interaction dimensionality.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Figure 1: Effect of ontogeny on scaling of 3D per-capita consumption rates.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Pawar, S., Dell, A. I. & Savage, V. M. Dimensionality of consumer search space drives trophic interaction strengths. Nature 486, 485–489 (2012)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Giacomini, H. C., Shuter, B., de Kerckhove D. T & Abrams, P. A. Does consumption rate scale superlinearly? Nature 493, http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature11829 (2012)

  3. Savage, V. M. et al. Comment on ‘The illusion of invariant quantities in life histories’. Science 312, 198 (2006)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Peters, R. H. The Ecological Implications of Body Size (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1983)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  5. Nagy, K. A. Field metabolic rate and food requirement scaling in mammals and birds. Ecol. Monogr. 57, 111–128 (1987)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Harrison, J. F., Kaiser, A. & VandenBrooks, J. M. Atmospheric oxygen level and the evolution of insect body size. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 277, 1937–1946 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Charnov, E. L. Evolution of mammal life histories. Evol. Ecol. Res. 3, 521–535 (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Charnov, E. L. & Gillooly, J. F. Size and temperature in the evolution of fish life histories. Integr. Comp. Biol. 44, 494–497 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Quince, C., Abrams, P., a, Shuter, B. J. & Lester, N. P. Biphasic growth in fish I: theoretical foundations. J. Theor. Biol. 254, 197–206 (2008)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  10. Hartvig, M., Andersen, K. H. & Beyer, J. E. Food web framework for size-structured populations. J. Theor. Biol. 272, 113–122 (2011)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Samraat Pawar.

PowerPoint slides

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Pawar, S., Dell, A. & Van M. Savage Pawar et al. reply. Nature 493, E2–E3 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11830

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11830

  • Springer Nature Limited

This article is cited by

Navigation