Advertisement

Theoretical Ecology

, Volume 3, Issue 3, pp 195–208 | Cite as

Why allometric scaling enhances stability in food web models

  • Boris Kartascheff
  • Lotta Heckmann
  • Barbara Drossel
  • Christian GuillEmail author
Original Paper

Abstract

It has recently been shown that the incorporation of allometric scaling into the dynamic equations of food web models enhances network stability if predators are assigned a higher body mass than their prey. We investigate the underlying mechanisms leading to this stability increase. The dynamic equations can be written such that allometric scaling influences these equations at three places: the time scales of predator and prey dynamics become separated, the energy outflow to the predators is decreased, and intraspecific competition is increased relative to metabolic rates. For five food web topologies and various network sizes (i.e., species richness), we study the effect of each of these modifications on the percentage of surviving species separately and find that the decreased interaction strengths and the increased intraspecific competition are responsible for the enhanced stability. We also investigate the range of parameter values for which an enhanced stability is observed.

Keywords

Metabolic theory Population dynamics Complexity–stability relation Time scale effect Interaction strength Intraspecific competition 

Notes

Acknowledgements

C.G. is supported by the German Research Foundation (BR 2315/9-1). We are grateful for comments and help by Ulrich Brose.

References

  1. Allesina S, Alonso D, Pascual M (2008) A general model for food web structure. Science 320:658–661CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Beddington JR (1975) Mutual interference between parasites or predators and its effect on searching efficiency. J Anim Ecol 44:331–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bokma F (2004) Evidence against universal metabolic allometry. Funct Ecol 18:184–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brose U, Williams RJ, Martinez ND (2006) Allometric scaling enhances stability in food web models. Ecol Lett 9:1228–1236CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Brose U, Ehnes RB, Rall BC, Vucic-Pestic O, Berlow EL, Scheu S (2008) Foraging theory predicts predator–prey energy fluxes. J Anim Ecol 77:1072–1078CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Brown JH, Gillooly JF, Allen AP, Savage VM, West GB (2004) Toward a metabolic theory of ecology. Ecology 85:1771–1789CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cattin MF, Bersier LF, Banašek-Richter C, Baltensperger R, Gabriel JP (2004) Phylogenetic constraints and adaptation explain food-web structure. Nature 427:835–839CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Cohen JE, Newman CM (1985) A stochastic theory of community food webs. Models and aggregated data. Proc R Soc Lond B 224:421–448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cohen JE, Briand, EF, Newman, CM (1990) Community food webs: Data and theory. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. DeAngelis DL, Waterhouse JC (1987) Equilibrium and nonequilibrium concepts in ecological models. Ecol Monogr 57:1–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dodds PS, Rothman DH, Weitz JS (2001) Re-examination of the “3/4-law” of metabolism. J Theor Biol 209:9–27CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Drossel B, Higgs PG, McKane AJ (2001) The influence of predator-prey dynamics on the long-term evolution of food web structure. J Theor Biol 208:91–107CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Dunne JA (2006) The network structure of food webs. In: Pascual M, Dunne JA (eds) Ecological networks: linking structure to dynamics in food webs. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 27–86Google Scholar
  14. Elton CS (1958) Ecology of invasions by animals and plants. Chapman & Hall, London.Google Scholar
  15. Enquist BJ, West GB, Charnow EL, Brown JH (1999) Allometric scaling of production and life-history variation in vascular plants. Nature 401:907–911CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Glazier DS (2005) Beyond the ’3/4-power law’: variation in the intra- and interspecific scaling of metabolic rate in animals. Biol Rev 80:611–662CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Kartascheff B, Guill C, Drossel B (2009) Complexity-stability relations in complex model food webs without foraging adaptation. J Theor Biol 259:12–23CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Koen-Alonso M (2007) A process-oriented approach to the multispecies functional response. In: Rooney N, McCann KS, Noakes DLG (eds) From energetics to ecosystems: the dynamics and structure of ecological systems. Springer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  19. Kondoh M (2003) Foraging adaptation and the relationship between food-web complexity and stability. Science 299:1388–1391CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Martinez ND, Williams, RJ, Dunne, JA (2006) Diversity, complexity, and persistence in large model ecosystems. In: Pascual M, Dunne JA (eds) Ecological networks: linking structure to dynamics in food webs. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 163–185Google Scholar
  21. May RM (1972) Will a large complex system be stable? Nature 238:413–414CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. MacArthur RH (1955) Fluctuations of animal populations and a measure of community stability. Ecology 36:533–536CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. McCann K, Hastings A, Huxel GR (1998) Weak trophic interactions and the balance of nature. Nature 395:794–798CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. McCann KS (2000) The diversity-stability debate. Nature 405:228–233CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Neutel AM, Heesterbeek JAP, de Ruiter PC (2002) Stability in real food webs: weak links in long loops. Science 296:1120–1123CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Odum E (1953) Fundamentals of ecology. Saunders, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  27. Otto SB, Rall BC, Brose, U (2007) Allometric degree distributions facilitate food-web stability. Nature 450:1226–1230CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Paine RT (1980) Food webs, linkage interaction strength, and community infrastructure. J Anim Ecol 49:667–685Google Scholar
  29. Pimm SL (1984) The complexity and stability of ecosystems. Nature 307:321–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Price CA, Ogle K, White EP, Weitz JS (2009) Evaluating scaling models in biology using hierarchical Bayesian approaches. Ecol Lett 12:641–651CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Rall BC, Guill C, Brose U (2008) Food-web connectance and predator interference dampen the paradox of enrichment. Oikos 117:202–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Rossberg AG, Matsuda H, Amemiya T, Itoh K (2006) Food webs: experts consuming families of experts. J Theor Biol 241:552–563CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Ushida S, Drossel B (2007) Relation between complexity and stability in food webs with adaptive behaviour. J Theor Biol 247:713–722CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Weitz JS, Levin SA (2006) Size and scaling of predator-prey dynamics. Ecol Lett 9:548–557CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. West CB, Brown JH, Enquist BJ (1999) The fourth dimension of life: fractal geonetry and allometric scaling of organisms. Science 284:1677–1679CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. White CR, Seymour RS (2003) Mammalian basal metabolic rate is proportional to body mass\(^{\frac{2}{3}}\). Proc Natl Acad Sci 100:4046–4049CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Williams RJ, Martinez ND (2000) Simple rules yield complex food webs. Nature 404:180–183CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Williams RJ, Martinez ND (2004) Stabilizaton of chaotic and non-permanent food web dynamics. Eur Phys J B 38:297–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Yodzis P (1981) The stability of real ecosystems. Nature 289:674–676CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Yodzis P, Innes S (1992) Body size and consumer-resource dynamics. Am Nat 139:1151–1175CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Boris Kartascheff
    • 1
  • Lotta Heckmann
    • 1
  • Barbara Drossel
    • 1
  • Christian Guill
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Institute of Condensed Matter PhysicsDarmstadt University of TechnologyDarmstadtGermany

Personalised recommendations