Advertisement

Theoretical Ecology

, Volume 9, Issue 1, pp 95–106 | Cite as

Patterns in intraspecific interaction strengths and the stability of food webs

  • Cassandra van AltenaEmail author
  • Lia Hemerik
  • Johan A. P. Heesterbeek
  • Peter C. de Ruiter
ORIGINAL PAPER

Abstract

A common approach to analyse stability of biological communities is to calculate the interaction strength matrix. Problematic in this approach is defining intraspecific interaction strengths, represented by diagonal elements in the matrix, due to a lack of empirical data for these strengths. Theoretical studies have shown that an overall increase in these strengths enhances stability. However, the way in which the pattern in intraspecific interaction strengths, i.e. the variation in these strengths between species, influences stability has received little attention. We constructed interaction strength matrices for 11 real soil food webs in which four patterns for intraspecific interaction strengths were chosen, based on the ecological literature. These patterns included strengths that were (1) similar for all species, (2) trophic level dependent, (3) biomass dependent, or (4) death rate dependent. These four patterns were analysed for their influence on (1) ranking food webs by their stability and (2) the response in stability to variation of single interspecific interaction strengths. The first analysis showed that ranking the 11 food webs by their stability was not strongly influenced by the choice of diagonal pattern. In contrast, the second analysis showed that the response of food web stability to variation in single interspecific interaction strengths was sensitive to the choice of diagonal pattern. Notably, stability could increase using one pattern and decrease using another. This result asks for deliberate approaches to choose diagonal element values in order to make predictions on how particular species, interactions, or other food web parameters affect food web stability.

Keywords

Food web stability Interaction strength matrix Intraspecific interaction strength Press perturbations 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank two anonymous reviewers for their very helpful comments. This research was funded by the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO), as project 645.000.013.

References

  1. Allesina S, Tang S (2012) Stability criteria for complex ecosystems. Nature 483:205–208CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Andrén O, Lindberg T, Boström U, Clarholm M, Hansson A-C, Johansson G, Lagerlöf J, Paustian K, Persson J, Petterson R, Schnürer J, Sohlenius B, Wivstad MIOA, Lindberg T, Paustian K, Rosswall T (1990) Ecology of Arable land—organisms, carbon, and nitrogen-cycling 40: organic carbon and nitrogen flows. Ecol Bull 40:85–125Google Scholar
  3. Banašek-Richter C, Bersier L-F, Cattin M-F, Baltensperger R, Gabriel J-P, Merz Y, Ulanowicz RE, Tavares AF, Williams DD, de Ruiter PC, Winemiller KO, Naisbit RE (2009) Complexity in quantitative food webs. Ecology 90:470–1477Google Scholar
  4. Berg S, Christianou M, Jonsson T, Ebenman B (2011) Using sensitivity analysis to identify keystone species and keystone links in size-based food webs. Oikos 120:510–519CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Berlow EL, Neutel AM, Cohel JE, de Ruiter PC, Ebenman B, Emmerson M, Fox JW, Jansen VAA, Jones JI, Kokkoris GD, Logofet DO, McKane AJ, Montoya JM, Petchey O (2004) Interaction strengths in food webs: issues and opportunities. Journal of Animal Ecology in pressGoogle Scholar
  6. de Ruiter PC, Moore JC, Bloem J, Zwart KB, Bouwman LA, Hassink J, De Vos JA, Marinissen JCY, Didden WAM, Lebbink G, Brussaard L (1993) Simulation of nitrogen dynamics in the belowground food webs of two winter-wheat fields. J Appl Ecol 30:95–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. de Ruiter PC, Neutel AM, Moore JC (1995) Energetics, patterns of interaction strengths, and stability in real ecosystems. Science 269:1257–1260CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. DeAngelis DL (1975) Stability and connectance in food web models. Ecology 56:238–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Emmerson M, Raffaelli D (2004) Predator–prey body size, interaction strength and the stability of a real food web. J Anim Ecol 73:399–499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hairston NGJ, Hairston NGS (1993) Cause-effect relationships in energy flow, trophic structure, and interspecific interactions. Am Nat 142:379–411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Haydon D (1994) Pivotal assumptions determining the relationship between stability and complexity—an analytical synthesis of the stability-complexity debate. Am Nat 144(1):14–29. doi: 10.1086/285658 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hendrix PF, Parmelee RW, Crossley DAJ, Coleman DC, Odum EP, Groffman PM (1986) Detritus food webs in conventional and no-tillage agroecosystems. Bioscience 36:374–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hofbauer J, Sigmund K (1988) The theory of evolution and dynamical systems. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  14. Hunt HW, Coleman DC, Ingham ER, Ingham RE, Elliott ET, Moore JC, Rose SL, Reid CPP, Morley CR (1987) The detrital food web in a shortgrass prairie. Biol Fertil Soils 3:57–68Google Scholar
  15. May RM (1972) Will a large complex system be stable? Nature 238:413–414CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. May RM (1973) Stability and complexity in model ecosystems, 2nd edn. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  17. McCann KS, Hastings A, Huxel GR (1998) Weak trophic interactions and the balance of nature. Nature 395:794–798CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Montoya JM, Woodward G, M.C. E, Solé RV (2009) Press perturbations and indirect effects in real food webs. Ecology 90:2426–2433CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Moore JC, Hunt HW (1988) Resource compartmentation and the stability of real ecosystems. Nature 333:261–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Moore JC, de Ruiter PC, Hunt HW (1993) Influence of productivity on the stability of real and model ecosystems. Science 261:906–908CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Moore JC, Berlow EL, Coleman DC, de Ruiter PC, Dong Q, Hastings A, Collins Johnson N, McCann KS, Melville K, Morin PJ, Nadelhoffer K, Rosemond AD, Post DM, Sabo JL, Scow KM, Vanni MJ, Wall DH (2004) Detritus, trophic dynamics and biodiversity. Ecol Lett 7(7):584–600CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Neutel AM, Heesterbeek JAP, de Ruiter PC (2002) Stability in real food webs: weak links in long loops. Science 296:1120–1123CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Neutel A-M, Heesterbeek JAP, van de Koppel J, Vos GHA, Kaldeway C, Berendse F, de Ruiter PC (2007) Reconciling complexity with stability in naturally assembling food webs. Nature 449:599–602CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Paine RT (1980) Food webs: linkage, interaction strength and community infrastructure. J Anim Ecol 49:667–685CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Pimm SL, Lawton JH (1977) The number of trophic levels in ecological communities. Nature 268:329–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pimm SL, Lawton JH (1978) On feeding on more than one trophic level. Nature 275:542–544CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rip JMK, McCann K (2011) Cross-ecosystem differences in stability and the principle of energy flux. Ecol Lett 14:733–740CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Rosenzweig ML (1971) Paradox of enrichment: destabilisation of exploitation ecosystems in ecological time. Science 171:385–387CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Schmitz OJ (1997) Press perturbations and the predictability of ecological interactions in a food web. Ecology 78:55–69Google Scholar
  30. Wootton J (1994) Predicting direct and indirect effects: an integrated approach using experiments and path analysis. Ecology 75:151–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Yodzis P (1981) The stability of real ecosystems. Nature 289:674–676CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Yodzis P (1988) The indeterminacy of ecological interactions as perceived by perturbation experiments. Ecology 72:1964–1972Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Cassandra van Altena
    • 1
    Email author
  • Lia Hemerik
    • 1
  • Johan A. P. Heesterbeek
    • 2
  • Peter C. de Ruiter
    • 1
  1. 1.Biometris, Plant Sciences GroupWageningen UniversityWageningenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of Farm Animal Health, Faculty of Veterinary MedicineUniversity of UtrechtUtrechtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations