Scaling up keystone effects from simple to complex ecological networks

Predicting the consequences of species loss requires extending our traditional understanding of simpler dynamic systems of few interacting species to the more complex ecological networks found in natural ecosystems. Especially important is the scaling up of our limited understanding of how and under what conditions loss of ‘keystone’ species causes large declines of many other species. Here we explore how these keystone effects vary among simulations progressively scaled up from simple to more complex systems. Simpler simulations of four to seven interacting species suggest that species up to four links away can strongly alter keystone effects and make the consequences of keystone loss potentially indeterminate in more realistically complex communities. Instead of indeterminacy, we find that more complex networks of up to 32 species generally buffer distant influences such that variation in keystone effects is well predicted by surprisingly local ‘top-down’, ‘bottom-up’, and ‘horizontal‘ constraints acting within two links of the keystone subsystem. These results demonstrate that: (1) strong suppression of the competitive dominant by the keystone may only weakly affect subordinate competitors; (2) the community context of the target species determines whether strong keystone effects are realized; (3) simple, measurable, and local attributes of complex communities may explain much of the empirically observed variation in keystone effects; and (4) increasing network complexity per se does not inherently make the prediction of strong keystone effects more complicated.

[1]  Donald R. Strong,et al.  ARE TROPHIC CASCADES ALL WET? DIFFERENTIATION AND DONOR-CONTROL IN SPECIOSE ECOSYSTEMS' , 1992 .

[2]  Gerd Heber,et al.  Food web complexity and chaotic population dynamics , 2002 .

[3]  E. Berlow,et al.  The Keystone Species Concept: Variation in Interaction Strength in a Rocky Intertidal Habitat , 1994 .

[4]  J. Huisman,et al.  Biodiversity of plankton by species oscillations and chaos , 1999, Nature.

[5]  E. Berlow,et al.  Strong effects of weak interactions in ecological communities , 1999, Nature.

[6]  James H. Brown,et al.  Control of a Desert-Grassland Transition by a Keystone Rodent Guild , 1990, Science.

[7]  E. Sala,et al.  Community-wide distribution of predator–prey interaction strength in kelp forests , 2002, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

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

[9]  Denise L. Doolan,et al.  Killer Whale Predation on Sea Otters Linking Oceanic and Nearshore Ecosystems , 1998 .

[10]  R. Paine,et al.  Food-web analysis through field measurement of per capita interaction strength , 1992, Nature.

[11]  David S. Fox,et al.  Upwelling-driven nearshore hypoxia signals ecosystem and oceanographic changes in the northeast Pacific , 2004, Nature.

[12]  R. Paine A Note on Trophic Complexity and Community Stability , 1969, The American Naturalist.

[13]  B. Menge,et al.  Indirect Effects in Marine Rocky Intertidal Interaction Webs: Patterns and Importance , 1995 .

[14]  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.

[15]  Neo D. Martinez,et al.  Comment on "Foraging Adaptation and the Relationship Between Food-Web Complexity and Stability" , 2003, Science.

[16]  D. Doak,et al.  The Keystone-Species Concept in Ecology and ConservationManagement and policy must explicitly consider the complexity of interactions in natural systems , 1993 .

[17]  R. Holt Predation, apparent competition, and the structure of prey communities. , 1977, Theoretical population biology.

[18]  From Food Webs to Ecological Networks: Linking Non-Linear Trophic Interactions with Nutrient Competition , 2006 .

[19]  S. Navarrete Variable predation : Effects of whelks on a mid-intertidal successional community , 1996 .

[20]  James P. Grover,et al.  Simple Rules for Interspecific Dominance in Systems with Exploitative and Apparent Competition , 1994, The American Naturalist.

[21]  Mathew A. Leibold,et al.  A Graphical Model of Keystone Predators in Food Webs: Trophic Regulation of Abundance, Incidence, and Diversity Patterns in Communities , 1996, The American Naturalist.

[22]  C. S. Holling Some Characteristics of Simple Types of Predation and Parasitism , 1959, The Canadian Entomologist.

[23]  James P. Grover,et al.  Assembly Rules for Communities of Nutrient-Limited Plants and Specialist Herbivores , 1994, The American Naturalist.

[24]  Tinker,et al.  Killer whale predation on sea otters linking oceanic and nearshore ecosystems , 1998, Science.

[25]  J. Castilla,et al.  Experimental determination of predation intensity in an intertidal predator guild: dominant versus subordinate prey , 2003 .

[26]  B. Menge,et al.  Keystone predation and interaction strength : Interactive effects of predators on their main prey , 1996 .

[27]  Michio Kondoh,et al.  Foraging Adaptation and the Relationship Between Food-Web Complexity and Stability , 2003, Science.

[28]  Jessica Gurevitch,et al.  THE META‐ANALYSIS OF RESPONSE RATIOS IN EXPERIMENTAL ECOLOGY , 1999 .

[29]  R. Davic,et al.  Linking Keystone Species and Functional Groups: A New Operational Definition of the Keystone Species Concept , 2003 .

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

[31]  J. Timothy Wootton,et al.  THEORETICAL CONCEPTS AND EMPIRICAL APPROACHES TO MEASURING INTERACTION STRENGTH , 1998 .

[32]  Owen L. Petchey,et al.  Interaction strengths in food webs: issues and opportunities , 2004 .

[33]  E. Berlow,et al.  QUANTIFYING VARIATION IN THE STRENGTHS OF SPECIES INTERACTIONS , 1999 .

[34]  P. Morin Predation, Competition, and the Composition of Larval Anuran Guilds , 1983 .

[35]  J. Castilla,et al.  Challenges in the Quest for Keystones , 1996 .

[36]  G. De’ath,et al.  CLASSIFICATION AND REGRESSION TREES: A POWERFUL YET SIMPLE TECHNIQUE FOR ECOLOGICAL DATA ANALYSIS , 2000 .

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

[38]  L. Oksanen,et al.  Exploitation Ecosystems in Gradients of Primary Productivity , 1981, The American Naturalist.

[39]  J. Huisman,et al.  Towards a solution of the plankton paradox : the importance of physiology and life history , 2001 .

[40]  D. Tilman Resource Competition between Plankton Algae: An Experimental and Theoretical Approach , 1977 .

[41]  A. Hastings,et al.  Weak trophic interactions and the balance of nature , 1998, Nature.

[42]  P. Yodzis,et al.  DIFFUSE EFFECTS IN FOOD WEBS , 2000 .

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

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

[45]  G. Polis,et al.  Food Web Complexity and Community Dynamics , 1996, The American Naturalist.

[46]  Neo D. Martinez,et al.  Stabilization of chaotic and non-permanent food-web dynamics , 2004 .

[47]  Sanford,et al.  Regulation of keystone predation by small changes in ocean temperature , 1999, Science.

[48]  P. Yodzis,et al.  Body Size and Consumer-Resource Dynamics , 1992, The American Naturalist.