Compartments revealed in food-web structure


Compartments1 in food webs are subgroups of taxa in which many strong interactions occur within the subgroups and few weak interactions occur between the subgroups2. Theoretically, compartments increase the stability in networks1,2,3,4,5, such as food webs. Compartments have been difficult to detect in empirical food webs because of incompatible approaches6,7,8,9 or insufficient methodological rigour8,10,11. Here we show that a method for detecting compartments from the social networking science12,13,14 identified significant compartments in three of five complex, empirical food webs. Detection of compartments was influenced by food web resolution, such as interactions with weights. Because the method identifies compartmental boundaries in which interactions are concentrated, it is compatible with the definition of compartments. The method is rigorous because it maximizes an explicit function, identifies the number of non-overlapping compartments, assigns membership to compartments, and tests the statistical significance of the results12,13,14. A graphical presentation14 reveals systemic relationships and taxa-specific positions as structured by compartments. From this graphic, we explore two scenarios of disturbance to develop a hypothesis for testing how compartmentalized interactions increase stability in food webs15,16,17.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.

Figure 1: Graphical display of the results for the Chesapeake Bay food web with 45 taxa and weighted by interaction strength.


  1. 1

    Pimm, S. L. The structure of food webs. Theor. Popul. Biol. 16, 144–158 (1979)

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2

    May, R. M. Stability and Complexity in Model Ecosystems (Princeton Univ. Press, 1973)

    Google Scholar 

  3. 3

    Simon, H. A. in General Systems: Yearbook of the Society for General Systems (eds von Bertalanffy, L. & Rapaport, A.) Vol. 10 63–76 (Society for General Systems, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1965)

    Google Scholar 

  4. 4

    McNaughton, S. J. Stability and diversity of ecological communities. Nature 274, 251–252 (1978)

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5

    Simmel, G. The Sociology of Georg Simmel (transl. and ed. Wolff, K. H.) (Free Press, Glencoe, Illinois, 1950)

    Google Scholar 

  6. 6

    Pimm, S. L. & Lawton, J. H. Are food webs divided into compartments? J. Anim. Ecol. 49, 879–898 (1980)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7

    Yodiz, P. The compartmentation of real and assembled ecosystems. Am. Nat. 120, 551–570 (1982)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8

    Raffaelli, D. & Hall, S. J. Compartments and predation in an estuarine food web. J. Anim. Ecol. 61, 551–560 (1992)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9

    Dicks, L. V., Corbet, S. A. & Pywell, R. F. Compartmentalization in plant–insect flower visitor webs. J. Anim. Ecol. 71, 32–43 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10

    Moore, J. C. & Hunt, H. W. Resource compartmentation and the stability of real ecosystems. Nature 333, 261–263 (1988)

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11

    Girvan, M. & Newman, M. E. J. Community structure in social and biological networks. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 99, 8271–8276 (2002)

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12

    Frank, K. Identifying cohesive subgroups. Soc. Networks 17, 27–56 (1995)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13

    Frank, K. Mapping interactions within and between cohesive subgroups. Soc. Networks 18, 93–119 (1996)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14

    Frank, K. & Yasumoto, J. Y. Linking action to social structure within a system: social capital within and between groups. Am. J. Sociol. 104, 642–686 (1998)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15

    Grimm, V. A down-to-earth assessment of stability concepts in ecology: dreams, demands, and the real problems. Senckenbergiana maritima 27, 215–226 (1996)

    Google Scholar 

  16. 16

    McCann, K. S. The diversity–stability debate. Nature 405, 228–233 (2000)

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17

    Dunne, J. A., Williams, R. J. & Martinez, N. D. Network structure and biodiversity loss in food webs: robustness increases with connectance. Ecol. Lett. 5, 558–567 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18

    Johnson, J. C., Borgatti, S. P., Luczkovich, J. J. & Everett, M. G. Network role analysis in the study of food webs: an application of regular role coloration. J. Soc. Structure 2; published online at 〈〉 (2001)

  19. 19

    McMahon, S. M., Miller, K. H. & Drake, J. Networking tips for social scientists and ecologists. Science 293, 1604–1605 (2001)

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20

    Simmel, G. Conflict and the Web of Group Affiliations transl. Wolff, K. (Free Press, Glencoe, Illinois, 1955)

    Google Scholar 

  21. 21

    Blau, P. M. Inequality and Heterogeneity (Macmillan, New York, 1977)

    Google Scholar 

  22. 22

    Martinez, N. D. Artifacts or attributes? Effects of resolution on the Little Rock Lake food web. Ecol. Monogr. 61, 367–392 (1991)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23

    Raffaelli, D. From Elton to mathematics and back again. Science 296, 1035–1037 (2002)

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24

    Huxham, M., Beaney, S. & Raffaelli, D. Do parasites reduce the chances of triangulation in a real food web? Oikos 76, 284–300 (1996)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25

    Williams, R. J. & Martinez, N. D Simple rules yield complex food webs. Nature 404, 180–183 (2000)

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26

    Goldwasser, L. & Roughgarden, J. Construction and analysis of a large Caribbean food web. Ecology 74, 1216–1233 (1993)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27

    Ulanowicz, R. E. & Baird, D. Nutrient controls on ecosystem dynamics: the Chesapeake mesohaline community. J. Mar. Syst. 19, 159–172 (1999)

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28

    Abarca-Arenas, L. G. & Ulanowicz, R. E. The effects of taxonomic aggregation on network analysis. Ecol. Modell. 149, 285–296 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29

    Polis, G. A. Complex trophic interactions in deserts: an empirical critique of food-web theory. Am. Nat. 138, 123–155 (1991)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30

    Neutel, A. M., Heesterneek, J. A. P. & de Ruiter, P. C. Stability in real food webs: weak links in long loops. Science 296, 1120–1123 (2002)

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references


We thank M. Huxham and D. Raffaelli for providing data on the Ythan Estuary food web; N. Martinez and J. Dunne for providing data on the Little Rock Lake food webs; L. Abarca-Arenas for providing data on the 45-taxa Chesapeake Bay food web; C. Darnell for enhancing the diagram; and C. Goddard and J. Liu for comments and suggestions. This work was supported by the Great Lakes Fishery Commission (A.E.K., D.M.M.), the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (K.A.F.) and the National Science Foundation (K.A.F.). Opinions reflect those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the granting agency.

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ann E. Krause.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing financial interests.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Krause, A., Frank, K., Mason, D. et al. Compartments revealed in food-web structure. Nature 426, 282–285 (2003).

Download citation

Further reading


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.


Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter for a daily update on COVID-19 science.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing