综合食物网结构与稳健性之间的关系

IF 7.6 1区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 ECOLOGY Ecology Letters Pub Date : 2024-10-22 DOI:10.1111/ele.14533
Aislyn A. Keyes, Allison K. Barner, Laura E. Dee
{"title":"综合食物网结构与稳健性之间的关系","authors":"Aislyn A. Keyes,&nbsp;Allison K. Barner,&nbsp;Laura E. Dee","doi":"10.1111/ele.14533","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n <p>For many decades, ecologists have sought to understand the extent to which species losses lead to secondary extinctions—that is, the additional loss of species that occurs when resources or key interactions are lost (i.e. robustness). In particular, ecologists aim to identify generalisable rules that explain which types of food webs are more or less robust to secondary extinctions. Food web structure, or the patterns formed by species and their interactions, has been extensively studied as a potential factor that influences robustness to species loss. We systematically reviewed 28 studies to identify the relationships between food web structure and robustness to species loss and how the conclusions depend on methodological differences. Contrary to popular belief and theory, we found relatively consistent, positive relationships between connectance and robustness, among other generalities. Yet, we also found that conflicting conclusions about structure-robustness relationships can be, in part, attributed to differences in the type of data that studies use, particularly studies that use empirical data versus those generated from theoretical models. This review points towards a need to standardise methodology to answer the open question of whether robustness and its relationship with food web structure and to provide applicable insights for managing complex systems.</p>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":161,"journal":{"name":"Ecology Letters","volume":"27 10","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/ele.14533","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Synthesising the Relationships Between Food Web Structure and Robustness\",\"authors\":\"Aislyn A. Keyes,&nbsp;Allison K. Barner,&nbsp;Laura E. Dee\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/ele.14533\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n <p>For many decades, ecologists have sought to understand the extent to which species losses lead to secondary extinctions—that is, the additional loss of species that occurs when resources or key interactions are lost (i.e. robustness). In particular, ecologists aim to identify generalisable rules that explain which types of food webs are more or less robust to secondary extinctions. Food web structure, or the patterns formed by species and their interactions, has been extensively studied as a potential factor that influences robustness to species loss. We systematically reviewed 28 studies to identify the relationships between food web structure and robustness to species loss and how the conclusions depend on methodological differences. Contrary to popular belief and theory, we found relatively consistent, positive relationships between connectance and robustness, among other generalities. Yet, we also found that conflicting conclusions about structure-robustness relationships can be, in part, attributed to differences in the type of data that studies use, particularly studies that use empirical data versus those generated from theoretical models. This review points towards a need to standardise methodology to answer the open question of whether robustness and its relationship with food web structure and to provide applicable insights for managing complex systems.</p>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":161,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ecology Letters\",\"volume\":\"27 10\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":7.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/ele.14533\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ecology Letters\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ele.14533\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"环境科学与生态学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ecology Letters","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ele.14533","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

几十年来,生态学家一直试图了解物种损失在多大程度上会导致次生灭绝--即当资源或关键相互作用丧失时发生的额外物种损失(即稳健性)。特别是,生态学家旨在找出可通用的规则,以解释哪些类型的食物网对次级灭绝的稳健性更强或更弱。食物网结构,即物种及其相互作用所形成的模式,作为影响物种损失稳健性的潜在因素,已被广泛研究。我们系统地回顾了28项研究,以确定食物网结构与物种损失稳健性之间的关系,以及结论如何取决于方法论的差异。与流行的观点和理论相反,我们发现连通性和稳健性之间存在相对一致的正相关关系,以及其他一些普遍性。然而,我们也发现,关于结构-稳健性关系的结论相互矛盾,部分原因是研究使用的数据类型不同,特别是使用经验数据的研究与使用理论模型生成的数据的研究。本综述指出,有必要对方法进行标准化,以回答稳健性及其与食物网结构的关系这一未决问题,并为复杂系统的管理提供适用的见解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Synthesising the Relationships Between Food Web Structure and Robustness

For many decades, ecologists have sought to understand the extent to which species losses lead to secondary extinctions—that is, the additional loss of species that occurs when resources or key interactions are lost (i.e. robustness). In particular, ecologists aim to identify generalisable rules that explain which types of food webs are more or less robust to secondary extinctions. Food web structure, or the patterns formed by species and their interactions, has been extensively studied as a potential factor that influences robustness to species loss. We systematically reviewed 28 studies to identify the relationships between food web structure and robustness to species loss and how the conclusions depend on methodological differences. Contrary to popular belief and theory, we found relatively consistent, positive relationships between connectance and robustness, among other generalities. Yet, we also found that conflicting conclusions about structure-robustness relationships can be, in part, attributed to differences in the type of data that studies use, particularly studies that use empirical data versus those generated from theoretical models. This review points towards a need to standardise methodology to answer the open question of whether robustness and its relationship with food web structure and to provide applicable insights for managing complex systems.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Ecology Letters
Ecology Letters 环境科学-生态学
CiteScore
17.60
自引率
3.40%
发文量
201
审稿时长
1.8 months
期刊介绍: Ecology Letters serves as a platform for the rapid publication of innovative research in ecology. It considers manuscripts across all taxa, biomes, and geographic regions, prioritizing papers that investigate clearly stated hypotheses. The journal publishes concise papers of high originality and general interest, contributing to new developments in ecology. Purely descriptive papers and those that only confirm or extend previous results are discouraged.
期刊最新文献
The Impact of Microbial Interactions on Ecosystem Function Intensifies Under Stress Mycorrhizal Types Regulate Tree Spatial Associations in Temperate Forests: Ectomycorrhizal Trees Might Favour Species Coexistence Acclimation Unifies the Scaling of Carbon Assimilation Across Climate Gradients and Levels of Organisation Seasonally Changing Interactions of Species Traits of Termites and Trees Promote Complementarity in Coarse Wood Decomposition Seasonality Structures Avian Functional Diversity and Niche Packing Across North America
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1