Phylogenetic signal in predator-prey body-size relationships.

Body mass is a fundamental characteristic that affects metabolism, life history, and population abundance and frequently sets bounds on who eats whom in food webs. Based on a collection of topological food webs, Ulrich Brose and colleagues presented a general relationship between the body mass of predators and their prey and analyzed how mean predator-prey body-mass ratios differed among habitats and predator metabolic categories. Here we show that the general body-mass relationship conceals significant variation associated with both predator and prey phylogeny. Major-axis regressions between the log body mass of predators and prey differed among taxonomic groups. The global pattern for Kingdom Animalia had slope > 1, but phyla and classes varied, and several had slopes significantly < 1. The predator-prey body-mass ratio can therefore decrease or increase with increasing body mass, depending on the taxon considered. We also found a significant phylogenetic signal in analyses of prey body-mass range for predators and predator body-mass range for prey, with stronger signal in the former. Besides providing insights into how characteristics of trophic interactions evolve, our results emphasize the need to integrate phylogeny to improve models of community structure and dynamics or to achieve a metabolic theory of food-web ecology.

[1]  Jens O. Riede,et al.  Stepping in Elton's footprints: a general scaling model for body masses and trophic levels across ecosystems. , 2011, Ecology letters.

[2]  Christian Mazza,et al.  Modeling Food Webs: Exploring Unexplained Structure Using Latent Traits , 2010, The American Naturalist.

[3]  Ulrich Brose,et al.  Body‐mass constraints on foraging behaviour determine population and food‐web dynamics , 2010 .

[4]  Jordi Bascompte,et al.  Compartments in a marine food web associated with phylogeny, body mass, and habitat structure. , 2009, Ecology letters.

[5]  Jean-Pierre Gabriel,et al.  Complexity in quantitative food webs. , 2009, Ecology.

[6]  Erick Greene,et al.  Allometry of behavior. , 2008, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[7]  L. Bersier,et al.  The signature of phylogenetic constraints on food-web structure , 2008 .

[8]  Owen L Petchey,et al.  Size, foraging, and food web structure , 2008, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[9]  Ulrich Brose,et al.  Allometric degree distributions facilitate food-web stability , 2007, Nature.

[10]  Jordi Bascompte,et al.  Non-random coextinctions in phylogenetically structured mutualistic networks , 2007, Nature.

[11]  Neo D. Martinez,et al.  Allometric scaling enhances stability in complex food webs. , 2006, Ecology letters.

[12]  Werner Ulrich,et al.  Consumer-resource body-size relationships in natural food webs. , 2006, Ecology.

[13]  A. Rossberg,et al.  Food webs: experts consuming families of experts. , 2005, Journal of theoretical biology.

[14]  Werner Ulrich,et al.  BODY SIZES OF CONSUMERS AND THEIR RESOURCES , 2005 .

[15]  Nicolas Loeuille,et al.  Evolutionary emergence of size-structured food webs. , 2005, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[16]  Peter C de Ruiter and Volkmar Wolters.  DYNAMIC FOOD WEBS: MULTISPECIES ASSEMBLAGES, ECOSYSTEM DEVELOPMENT, AND ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE , 2005 .

[17]  M. Loreau,et al.  FOOD WEBS AND THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM FUNCTIONING , 2005 .

[18]  Walter Jetz,et al.  The Scaling of Animal Space Use , 2004, Science.

[19]  James H. Brown,et al.  Toward a metabolic theory of ecology , 2004 .

[20]  M. Emmerson,et al.  Predator–prey body size, interaction strength and the stability of a real food web , 2004 .

[21]  Jean-Pierre Gabriel,et al.  Phylogenetic constraints and adaptation explain food-web structure , 2004, Nature.

[22]  J. Lawton,et al.  Invertebrate predator-prey body size relationships: an explanation for upper triangular food webs and patterns in food web structure? , 1987, Oecologia.

[23]  Stephen R. Carpenter,et al.  Ecological community description using the food web, species abundance, and body size , 2003, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[24]  M. Pagel,et al.  Phylogenetic Analysis and Comparative Data: A Test and Review of Evidence , 2002, The American Naturalist.

[25]  P. Price.  Macroevolutionary Theory on Macroecological Patterns , 2002 .

[26]  Kevin D. Lafferty,et al.  Trophic strategies, animal diversity and body size , 2002 .

[27]  S. Jennings,et al.  Weak cross‐species relationships between body size and trophic level belie powerful size‐based trophic structuring in fish communities , 2001 .

[28]  Caldarelli,et al.  Modelling Coevolution in Multispecies Communities. , 1998, Journal of theoretical biology.

[29]  James H. Brown,et al.  A General Model for the Origin of Allometric Scaling Laws in Biology , 1997, Science.

[30]  David Tilman,et al.  Insect species diversity, abundance and body size relationships , 1996, Nature.

[31]  B. Hawkins.  Pattern and Process in Host-Parasitoid Interactions , 1994 .

[32]  Joan Saldaña,et al.  Body sizes of animal predators and animal prey in food webs , 1993 .

[33]  A. Grafen.  The phylogenetic regression. , 1989, Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences.

[34]  J H Lawton,et al.  Static and dynamic explanations for patterns in food webs. , 1988, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[35]  J. Felsenstein.  Phylogenies and the Comparative Method , 1985, The American Naturalist.

[36]  R. Peters.  The Ecological Implications of Body Size , 1983 .

[37]  J. Damuth,et al.  Population density and body size in mammals , 1981, Nature.

[38]  E. Werner.  The Fish Size, Prey Size, Handling Time Relation in Several Sunfishes and Some Implications , 1974 .

[39]  P. Raven,et al.  BUTTERFLIES AND PLANTS: A STUDY IN COEVOLUTION , 1964 .

[40]  T DOBZHANSKY,et al.  BIOLOGY, MOLECULAR AND ORGANISMIC. , 1964, American zoologist.