Abstract
Trophic interactions govern biomass fluxes in ecosystems, and stability in food webs. Knowledge of how trophic interaction strengths are affected by differences among habitats is crucial for understanding variation in ecological systems. Here we show how substantial variation in consumption-rate data, and hence trophic interaction strengths, arises because consumers tend to encounter resources more frequently in three dimensions (3D) (for example, arboreal and pelagic zones) than two dimensions (2D) (for example, terrestrial and benthic zones). By combining new theory with extensive data (376 species, with body masses ranging from 5.24 × 10−14 kg to 800 kg), we find that consumption rates scale sublinearly with consumer body mass (exponent of approximately 0.85) for 2D interactions, but superlinearly (exponent of approximately 1.06) for 3D interactions. These results contradict the currently widespread assumption of a single exponent (of approximately 0.75) in consumer–resource and food-web research. Further analysis of 2,929 consumer–resource interactions shows that dimensionality of consumer search space is probably a major driver of species coexistence, and the stability and abundance of populations.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 51 print issues and online access
$199.00 per year
only $3.90 per issue
Rent or buy this article
Prices vary by article type
from$1.95
to$39.95
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Cohen, J. E. & Fenchel, T. Marine and continental food webs: three paradoxes? Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 343, 57–69 (1994)
Savage, V. M., Webb, C. T. & Norberg, J. A general multi-trait-based framework for studying the effects of biodiversity on ecosystem functioning. J. Theor. Biol. 247, 213–229 (2007)
Ritchie, M. E. Scale, Heterogeneity, and the Structure and Diversity of Ecological Communities. Vol. 112 (Princeton Univ. Press, 2009)
Briand, F. & Cohen, J. E. Environmental correlates of food-chain length. Science 238, 956–960 (1987)
Rip, J. M. K. & McCann, K. S. Cross-ecosystem differences in stability and the principle of energy flux. Ecol. Lett. 14, 733–740 (2011)
Cyr, H., Peters, R. H. & Downing, J. A. Population density and community size structure: comparison of aquatic and terrestrial systems. Oikos 80, 139–149 (1997)
Farlow, J. O. A consideration of the trophic dynamics of a late Cretaceous large-dinosaur community (Oldman formation). Ecology 57, 841–857 (1976)
Peters, R. H. The Ecological Implications of Body Size. (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1983)
Brown, J. H., Gillooly, J. F., Allen, A. P., Savage, V. M. & West, G. B. Toward a metabolic theory of ecology. Ecology 85, 1771–1789 (2004)
Otto, S. B., Rall, B. C. & Brose, U. Allometric degree distributions facilitate food-web stability. Nature 450, 1226–1229 (2007)
Berlow, E. L. et al. Simple prediction of interaction strengths in complex food webs. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106, 187–191 (2009)
Lewis, H. M., Law, R. & McKane, A. J. Abundance–body size relationships: the roles of metabolism and population dynamics. J. Anim. Ecol. 77, 1056–1062 (2008)
Yodzis, P. & Innes, S. Body size and consumer resource dynamics. Am. Nat. 139, 1151–1175 (1992)
Savage, V. M., Gillooly, J. F., Brown, J. H., West, G. B. & Charnov, E. L. Effects of body size and temperature on population growth. Am. Nat. 163, 429–441 (2004)
Brose, U., Williams, R. J. & Martinez, N. D. Allometric scaling enhances stability in complex food webs. Ecol. Lett. 9, 1228–1236 (2006)
Brose, U. Body-mass constraints on foraging behaviour determine population and food-web dynamics. Funct. Ecol. 24, 28–34 (2010)
McGill, B. J. & Mittelbach, G. G. An allometric vision and motion model to predict prey encounter rates. Evol. Ecol. Res. 8, 691–701 (2006)
Alexander, R. M. Principles of Animal Locomotion. (Princeton Univ. Press, 2003)
Schmidt-Nielsen, K. Scaling, Why is Animal Size so Important? (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1984)
Jetz, W., Carbone, C., Fulford, J. & Brown, J. H. The scaling of animal space use. Science 306, 266–268 (2004)
Weibel, E. R., Bacigalupe, L. D., Schmitt, B. & Hoppeler, H. Allometric scaling of maximal metabolic rate in mammals: muscle aerobic capacity as determinant factor. Respir. Physiol. Neurobiol. 140, 115–132 (2004)
Holling, C. S. Cross-scale morphology, geometry, and dynamics of ecosystems. Ecol. Monogr. 62, 447–502 (1992)
Whitehead, H. & Walde, S. J. Habitat dimensionality and mean search distances of top predators: implications for ecosystem structure. Theor. Popul. Biol. 42, 1–9 (1992)
Witting, L. The body mass allometries as evolutionarily determined by the foraging of mobile organisms. J. Theor. Biol. 177, 129–137 (1995)
Milne, B. T., Turner, M. G., Wiens, J. A. & Johnson, A. R. Interactions between the fractal geometry of landscapes and allometric herbivory. Theor. Popul. Biol. 41, 337–353 (1992)
Weitz, J. S. & Levin, S. A. Size and scaling of predator-prey dynamics. Ecol. Lett. 9, 548–557 (2006)
Holling, C. S. Some characteristics of simple types of predation and parasitism. Can. Entomol. 91, 385–398 (1959)
Laska, M. S. & Wootton, T. J. Theoretical concepts and empirical approaches to measuring interaction strength. Ecology 79, 461–476 (1998)
Pawar, S. Community assembly, stability and signatures of dynamical constraints on food web structure. J. Theor. Biol. 259, 601–612 (2009)
Jeschke, J. M., Kopp, M. & Tollrian, R. Consumer-food systems: why type I functional responses are exclusive to filter feeders. Biol. Rev. Camb. Phil. Soc. 79, 337–349 (2004)
Brose, U. et al. Consumer–resource body-size relationships in natural food webs. Ecology 87, 2411–2417 (2006)
Shurin, J. B., Gruner, D. S. & Hillebrand, H. All wet or dried up? Real differences between aquatic and terrestrial food webs. Proc. R. Soc. B 273, 1–9 (2006)
Chase, J. M. Are there real differences among aquatic and terrestrial food webs? Trends Ecol. Evol. 15, 408–412 (2000)
Damuth, J. Population density and body size in mammals. Nature 290, 699–700 (1981)
Reuman, D. C. et al. Allometry of body size and abundance in 166 food webs. Adv. Ecol. Res. 41, 1–44 (2009)
Leaper, R. & Raffaelli, D. Defining the abundance body-size constraint space: data from a real food web. Ecol. Lett. 2, 191–199 (1999)
Cermeño, P., Maranon, E., Harbour, D. & Harris, R. P. Invariant scaling of phytoplankton abundance and cell size in contrasting marine environments. Ecol. Lett. 9, 1210–1215 (2006)
Belgrano, A., Allen, A. P., Enquist, B. J. & Gillooly, J. F. Allometric scaling of maximum population density: a common rule for marine phytoplankton and terrestrial plants. Ecol. Lett. 5, 611–613 (2002)
Field, C. B., Behrenfeld, M. J., Randerson, J. T. & Falkowski, P. Primary production of the biosphere: integrating terrestrial and oceanic components. Science 281, 237–240 (1998)
Vucic-Pestic, O., Rall, B. C., Kalinkat, G. & Brose, U. Allometric functional response model: body masses constrain interaction strengths. J. Anim. Ecol. 79, 249–256 (2010)
Acknowledgements
We thank the authors who contributed data (Supplementary Tables 5–8), and P. Amarasekare, J. H. Brown, E. Economo, A. Mikheyev, C. Estrada, C. Johnson, M. Johnson and K. Lafferty for helpful discussions and comments. S.P., A.I.D. and V.M.S. were supported by University of California, Los Angeles Biomathematics start-up funds and by the US National Science Foundation Division of Environmental Biology award 1021010. The data reported in this paper are available in the Supplementary Information online.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
S.P., A.I.D. and V.M.S. contributed equally to this work. All authors discussed the results and commented on the manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing financial interests.
Supplementary information
Supplementary Information
This file contains Supplementary Text and Data, Supplementary Figures 1-4 and Supplementary Tables 1-8. (PDF 4567 kb)
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Pawar, S., Dell, A. & Van M. Savage Dimensionality of consumer search space drives trophic interaction strengths. Nature 486, 485–489 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11131
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11131
This article is cited by
-
Mechanical traits as drivers of trophic interaction between macrodetritivores and leaf litter
Oecologia (2024)
-
Predicting movement speed of beetles from body size and temperature
Movement Ecology (2023)
-
Multiple predator effects are modified by search area and prey size
Hydrobiologia (2023)
-
Another step towards a unifying theory for ecosystems?
Journal of Biosciences (2023)
-
Analysis on the stability of plankton in a food web with empirical organism body mass distribution
Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2022)
Comments
By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.