Major dimensions in food-web structure properties.

The covariance among a range of 20 network structural properties of food webs plus net primary productivity was assessed for 14 published food webs using principal components analysis. Three primary components explained 84% of the variability in the data sets, suggesting substantial covariance among the properties employed in the literature. The first dimension explained 48% of the variance and could be ascribed to connectance, covarying significantly with the proportion of intermediate species and characteristic path length. The second dimension explained 19% and was related to trophic species richness. The third axis explained 17% and was related to ecosystem net primary productivity. A distinct opposite clustering of connectance, the proportion of intermediate species, and mean trophic level vs. the proportion of top and basal species and path length suggests a dichotomy in food-web structure. Food webs appear either clustered and highly interconnected or elongated with fewer links.

[1]  Neo D. Martinez.  Artifacts or Attributes? Effects of Resolution on the Little Rock Lake Food Web , 1991 .

[2]  Neo D. Martinez.  Constant Connectance in Community Food Webs , 1992, The American Naturalist.

[3]  Joel E. Cohen,et al.  Community food webs have scale-invariant structure , 1984, Nature.

[4]  S. Hall,et al.  Food-web patterns : lessons from a species-rich web , 1991 .

[5]  Jennifer A. Dunne,et al.  Network structure and robustness of marine food webs , 2004 .

[6]  P. Warren.  Making connections in food webs. , 1994, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[7]  Neo D. Martinez,et al.  Food-web structure and network theory: The role of connectance and size , 2002, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[8]  Bradford A. Hawkins,et al.  EFFECTS OF SAMPLING EFFORT ON CHARACTERIZATION OF FOOD-WEB STRUCTURE , 1999 .

[9]  R. Guimerà,et al.  QUANTITATIVE PATTERNS IN THE STRUCTURE OF MODEL AND EMPIRICAL FOOD WEBS , 2004, q-bio/0401023.

[10]  Jan Bengtsson,et al.  CONFOUNDING VARIABLES AND INDEPENDENT OBSERVATIONS IN COMPARATIVE ANALYSES OF FOOD WEBS , 1994 .

[11]  Neo D. Martinez,et al.  Network structure and biodiversity loss in food webs: robustness increases with connectance , 2002, Ecology Letters.

[12]  L. Vitt,et al.  Food Web Laws or Niche Theory? Six Independent Empirical Tests , 2001, The American Naturalist.

[13]  Neo D. Martinez,et al.  Two degrees of separation in complex food webs , 2002, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[14]  A. Dobson,et al.  Parasites dominate food web links. , 2006, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[15]  Neo D. Martinez,et al.  Trophic Levels in Complex Food Webs : Theory and Data , 2022 .

[16]  Andrew D. Huberman,et al.  Finger-length ratios and sexual orientation , 2000, Nature.

[17]  J. Randerson,et al.  Primary production of the biosphere: integrating terrestrial and oceanic components , 1998, Science.

[18]  Neo D. Martinez,et al.  Simple rules yield complex food webs , 2000, Nature.

[19]  Owen L. Petchey,et al.  Foraging biology predicts food web complexity , 2006, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[20]  McIntosh,et al.  Disturbance, resource supply, and food-web architecture in streams , 1998 .

[21]  Neo D. Martinez,et al.  Limits to Trophic Levels and Omnivory in Complex Food Webs: Theory and Data , 2004, The American Naturalist.

[22]  Neo D. Martinez.  Scale-Dependent Constraints on Food-Web Structure , 1994, The American Naturalist.

[23]  K. Havens,et al.  Scale and Structure in Natural Food Webs , 1992, Science.

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