Meta-analysis: trophic level, habitat, and productivity shape the food web effects of resource subsidies
Studies of the effects of cross-habitat resource subsidies have been a feature of food web ecology over the past decade. To date, most studies have focused on demonstrating the magnitude of a subsidy or documenting its effect in the recipient habitat. Ecologists have yet to develop a satisfactory fr...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Ecology (Durham) 2007, Vol.88 (1), p.140-148 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 148 |
---|---|
container_issue | 1 |
container_start_page | 140 |
container_title | Ecology (Durham) |
container_volume | 88 |
creator | Marczak, Laurie B. Thompson, Ross M. Richardson, John S. |
description | Studies of the effects of cross-habitat resource subsidies have been a feature of food web ecology over the past decade. To date, most studies have focused on demonstrating the magnitude of a subsidy or documenting its effect in the recipient habitat. Ecologists have yet to develop a satisfactory framework for predicting the magnitude of these effects. We used 115 data sets from 32 studies to compare consumer responses to resource subsidies across recipient habitat type, trophic level, and functional group. Changes in consumer density or biomass in response to subsidies were inconsistent across habitats, trophic, and functional groups. Responses in stream cobble bar and coastline habitats were larger than in other habitats. Contrary to expectation, the magnitude of consumer response was not affected by recipient habitat productivity or the ratio of productivity between donor and recipient habitats. However, consumer response was significantly related to the ratio of subsidy resources to equivalent resources in the recipient habitat. Broad contrasts in productivity are modified by subsidy type, vector, and the physical and biotic characteristics of both donor and recipient habitats. For this reason, the ratio of subsidy to equivalent resources is a more useful tool for predicting the possible effect of a subsidy than coarser contrasts of in situ productivity. The commonness of subsidy effects suggests that many ecosystems need to be studied as open systems. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1890/0012-9658(2007)88[140:mtlhap]2.0.co;2 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>jstor_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_70475986</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>27651075</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>27651075</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c6800-d21e0435e6be3b2e6576c9bcb56d2c8ce4eae50aee8d810051ee3641825499333</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqdkV9rFDEUxQdR7Fr9CGoQFIXOevNnMkl9KstqhS0t2D6ISMhk7rhZZjfrZKZlv70ZdmnBF8H7kofzy7knOVmWU5hSpeEjAGW5loV6zwDKD0r9oAJO1327tNufbApTFz6xR9mEaq5zTUt4nE3u7xxlz2JcQRoq1NPsiJZCaSHZJFteYG9zu7HtLvp4SvoubJfekRZvsT0hS1v53vYnxG5qsu1CPbje3_p-R2Lai6RfImlCqMkdVgSbBl0fSWhIhzEMnUMShyr62mN8nj1pbBvxxeE8zm4-z69n5_ni8svX2dkid1IB5DWjCIIXKCvkFUNZlNLpylWFrJlTDgVaLMAiqlpRgIIicimoYoXQmnN-nL3b-6a0vweMvVn76LBt7QbDEE0Joiy0kv8EqZZMcEET-OYvcJXeln4sGpaqkeMkaL6HXBdi7LAx286vbbczFMxYoBnLMGMZZizQKGVSgebienF-dmWYATO7NCz5vDosG6o11g8uh8YS8PYA2Ohs23R243x84JQseSl14q723J1vcfd_acx89n2UlaJJTZYv95ar2Ifu3pKVsqBQFkl_vdcbG4z91aVYN98YUA6gOCjK-R-w7tEd</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>218966666</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Meta-analysis: trophic level, habitat, and productivity shape the food web effects of resource subsidies</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Access via Wiley Online Library</source><source>JSTOR Archive Collection A-Z Listing</source><creator>Marczak, Laurie B. ; Thompson, Ross M. ; Richardson, John S.</creator><creatorcontrib>Marczak, Laurie B. ; Thompson, Ross M. ; Richardson, John S.</creatorcontrib><description>Studies of the effects of cross-habitat resource subsidies have been a feature of food web ecology over the past decade. To date, most studies have focused on demonstrating the magnitude of a subsidy or documenting its effect in the recipient habitat. Ecologists have yet to develop a satisfactory framework for predicting the magnitude of these effects. We used 115 data sets from 32 studies to compare consumer responses to resource subsidies across recipient habitat type, trophic level, and functional group. Changes in consumer density or biomass in response to subsidies were inconsistent across habitats, trophic, and functional groups. Responses in stream cobble bar and coastline habitats were larger than in other habitats. Contrary to expectation, the magnitude of consumer response was not affected by recipient habitat productivity or the ratio of productivity between donor and recipient habitats. However, consumer response was significantly related to the ratio of subsidy resources to equivalent resources in the recipient habitat. Broad contrasts in productivity are modified by subsidy type, vector, and the physical and biotic characteristics of both donor and recipient habitats. For this reason, the ratio of subsidy to equivalent resources is a more useful tool for predicting the possible effect of a subsidy than coarser contrasts of in situ productivity. The commonness of subsidy effects suggests that many ecosystems need to be studied as open systems.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0012-9658</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1939-9170</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1890/0012-9658(2007)88[140:mtlhap]2.0.co;2</identifier><identifier>PMID: 17489462</identifier><identifier>CODEN: ECGYAQ</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Washington, DC: Ecological Society of America</publisher><subject>Animal and plant ecology ; Animal, plant and microbial ecology ; Animals ; Biological and medical sciences ; biomass ; Birds ; City states ; Coastal ecology ; coasts ; Ecology ; Ecosystem ; ecosystems ; Effects ; Food Chain ; Food chains ; Food webs ; functional group ; Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology ; General aspects ; habitat productivity ; habitat type ; Habitats ; literature reviews ; Marine ecology ; Meta-analysis ; Models, Biological ; Natural resources ; Productivity ; resource subsidies ; spatial ecology ; Spiders ; Stream habitats ; streams ; Subsidies ; taxonomic group ; trophic level ; trophic relationships ; Wildlife habitats</subject><ispartof>Ecology (Durham), 2007, Vol.88 (1), p.140-148</ispartof><rights>Copyright 2007 Ecological Society of America</rights><rights>2007 by the Ecological Society of America</rights><rights>2007 INIST-CNRS</rights><rights>Copyright Ecological Society of America Jan 2007</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c6800-d21e0435e6be3b2e6576c9bcb56d2c8ce4eae50aee8d810051ee3641825499333</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c6800-d21e0435e6be3b2e6576c9bcb56d2c8ce4eae50aee8d810051ee3641825499333</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/27651075$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/27651075$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>315,781,785,804,1418,4025,27928,27929,27930,45579,45580,58022,58255</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=18673769$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17489462$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Marczak, Laurie B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Thompson, Ross M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Richardson, John S.</creatorcontrib><title>Meta-analysis: trophic level, habitat, and productivity shape the food web effects of resource subsidies</title><title>Ecology (Durham)</title><addtitle>Ecology</addtitle><description>Studies of the effects of cross-habitat resource subsidies have been a feature of food web ecology over the past decade. To date, most studies have focused on demonstrating the magnitude of a subsidy or documenting its effect in the recipient habitat. Ecologists have yet to develop a satisfactory framework for predicting the magnitude of these effects. We used 115 data sets from 32 studies to compare consumer responses to resource subsidies across recipient habitat type, trophic level, and functional group. Changes in consumer density or biomass in response to subsidies were inconsistent across habitats, trophic, and functional groups. Responses in stream cobble bar and coastline habitats were larger than in other habitats. Contrary to expectation, the magnitude of consumer response was not affected by recipient habitat productivity or the ratio of productivity between donor and recipient habitats. However, consumer response was significantly related to the ratio of subsidy resources to equivalent resources in the recipient habitat. Broad contrasts in productivity are modified by subsidy type, vector, and the physical and biotic characteristics of both donor and recipient habitats. For this reason, the ratio of subsidy to equivalent resources is a more useful tool for predicting the possible effect of a subsidy than coarser contrasts of in situ productivity. The commonness of subsidy effects suggests that many ecosystems need to be studied as open systems.</description><subject>Animal and plant ecology</subject><subject>Animal, plant and microbial ecology</subject><subject>Animals</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>biomass</subject><subject>Birds</subject><subject>City states</subject><subject>Coastal ecology</subject><subject>coasts</subject><subject>Ecology</subject><subject>Ecosystem</subject><subject>ecosystems</subject><subject>Effects</subject><subject>Food Chain</subject><subject>Food chains</subject><subject>Food webs</subject><subject>functional group</subject><subject>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</subject><subject>General aspects</subject><subject>habitat productivity</subject><subject>habitat type</subject><subject>Habitats</subject><subject>literature reviews</subject><subject>Marine ecology</subject><subject>Meta-analysis</subject><subject>Models, Biological</subject><subject>Natural resources</subject><subject>Productivity</subject><subject>resource subsidies</subject><subject>spatial ecology</subject><subject>Spiders</subject><subject>Stream habitats</subject><subject>streams</subject><subject>Subsidies</subject><subject>taxonomic group</subject><subject>trophic level</subject><subject>trophic relationships</subject><subject>Wildlife habitats</subject><issn>0012-9658</issn><issn>1939-9170</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2007</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqdkV9rFDEUxQdR7Fr9CGoQFIXOevNnMkl9KstqhS0t2D6ISMhk7rhZZjfrZKZlv70ZdmnBF8H7kofzy7knOVmWU5hSpeEjAGW5loV6zwDKD0r9oAJO1327tNufbApTFz6xR9mEaq5zTUt4nE3u7xxlz2JcQRoq1NPsiJZCaSHZJFteYG9zu7HtLvp4SvoubJfekRZvsT0hS1v53vYnxG5qsu1CPbje3_p-R2Lai6RfImlCqMkdVgSbBl0fSWhIhzEMnUMShyr62mN8nj1pbBvxxeE8zm4-z69n5_ni8svX2dkid1IB5DWjCIIXKCvkFUNZlNLpylWFrJlTDgVaLMAiqlpRgIIicimoYoXQmnN-nL3b-6a0vweMvVn76LBt7QbDEE0Joiy0kv8EqZZMcEET-OYvcJXeln4sGpaqkeMkaL6HXBdi7LAx286vbbczFMxYoBnLMGMZZizQKGVSgebienF-dmWYATO7NCz5vDosG6o11g8uh8YS8PYA2Ohs23R243x84JQseSl14q723J1vcfd_acx89n2UlaJJTZYv95ar2Ifu3pKVsqBQFkl_vdcbG4z91aVYN98YUA6gOCjK-R-w7tEd</recordid><startdate>2007</startdate><enddate>2007</enddate><creator>Marczak, Laurie B.</creator><creator>Thompson, Ross M.</creator><creator>Richardson, John S.</creator><general>Ecological Society of America</general><scope>FBQ</scope><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>7T7</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>SOI</scope><scope>7U6</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>2007</creationdate><title>Meta-analysis: trophic level, habitat, and productivity shape the food web effects of resource subsidies</title><author>Marczak, Laurie B. ; Thompson, Ross M. ; Richardson, John S.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c6800-d21e0435e6be3b2e6576c9bcb56d2c8ce4eae50aee8d810051ee3641825499333</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2007</creationdate><topic>Animal and plant ecology</topic><topic>Animal, plant and microbial ecology</topic><topic>Animals</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>biomass</topic><topic>Birds</topic><topic>City states</topic><topic>Coastal ecology</topic><topic>coasts</topic><topic>Ecology</topic><topic>Ecosystem</topic><topic>ecosystems</topic><topic>Effects</topic><topic>Food Chain</topic><topic>Food chains</topic><topic>Food webs</topic><topic>functional group</topic><topic>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</topic><topic>General aspects</topic><topic>habitat productivity</topic><topic>habitat type</topic><topic>Habitats</topic><topic>literature reviews</topic><topic>Marine ecology</topic><topic>Meta-analysis</topic><topic>Models, Biological</topic><topic>Natural resources</topic><topic>Productivity</topic><topic>resource subsidies</topic><topic>spatial ecology</topic><topic>Spiders</topic><topic>Stream habitats</topic><topic>streams</topic><topic>Subsidies</topic><topic>taxonomic group</topic><topic>trophic level</topic><topic>trophic relationships</topic><topic>Wildlife habitats</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Marczak, Laurie B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Thompson, Ross M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Richardson, John S.</creatorcontrib><collection>AGRIS</collection><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Industrial and Applied Microbiology Abstracts (Microbiology A)</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Sustainability Science Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Ecology (Durham)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Marczak, Laurie B.</au><au>Thompson, Ross M.</au><au>Richardson, John S.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Meta-analysis: trophic level, habitat, and productivity shape the food web effects of resource subsidies</atitle><jtitle>Ecology (Durham)</jtitle><addtitle>Ecology</addtitle><date>2007</date><risdate>2007</risdate><volume>88</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>140</spage><epage>148</epage><pages>140-148</pages><issn>0012-9658</issn><eissn>1939-9170</eissn><coden>ECGYAQ</coden><abstract>Studies of the effects of cross-habitat resource subsidies have been a feature of food web ecology over the past decade. To date, most studies have focused on demonstrating the magnitude of a subsidy or documenting its effect in the recipient habitat. Ecologists have yet to develop a satisfactory framework for predicting the magnitude of these effects. We used 115 data sets from 32 studies to compare consumer responses to resource subsidies across recipient habitat type, trophic level, and functional group. Changes in consumer density or biomass in response to subsidies were inconsistent across habitats, trophic, and functional groups. Responses in stream cobble bar and coastline habitats were larger than in other habitats. Contrary to expectation, the magnitude of consumer response was not affected by recipient habitat productivity or the ratio of productivity between donor and recipient habitats. However, consumer response was significantly related to the ratio of subsidy resources to equivalent resources in the recipient habitat. Broad contrasts in productivity are modified by subsidy type, vector, and the physical and biotic characteristics of both donor and recipient habitats. For this reason, the ratio of subsidy to equivalent resources is a more useful tool for predicting the possible effect of a subsidy than coarser contrasts of in situ productivity. The commonness of subsidy effects suggests that many ecosystems need to be studied as open systems.</abstract><cop>Washington, DC</cop><pub>Ecological Society of America</pub><pmid>17489462</pmid><doi>10.1890/0012-9658(2007)88[140:mtlhap]2.0.co;2</doi><tpages>9</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0012-9658 |
ispartof | Ecology (Durham), 2007, Vol.88 (1), p.140-148 |
issn | 0012-9658 1939-9170 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_70475986 |
source | MEDLINE; Access via Wiley Online Library; JSTOR Archive Collection A-Z Listing |
subjects | Animal and plant ecology Animal, plant and microbial ecology Animals Biological and medical sciences biomass Birds City states Coastal ecology coasts Ecology Ecosystem ecosystems Effects Food Chain Food chains Food webs functional group Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology General aspects habitat productivity habitat type Habitats literature reviews Marine ecology Meta-analysis Models, Biological Natural resources Productivity resource subsidies spatial ecology Spiders Stream habitats streams Subsidies taxonomic group trophic level trophic relationships Wildlife habitats |
title | Meta-analysis: trophic level, habitat, and productivity shape the food web effects of resource subsidies |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-12T08%3A11%3A36IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Meta-analysis:%20trophic%20level,%20habitat,%20and%20productivity%20shape%20the%20food%20web%20effects%20of%20resource%20subsidies&rft.jtitle=Ecology%20(Durham)&rft.au=Marczak,%20Laurie%20B.&rft.date=2007&rft.volume=88&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=140&rft.epage=148&rft.pages=140-148&rft.issn=0012-9658&rft.eissn=1939-9170&rft.coden=ECGYAQ&rft_id=info:doi/10.1890/0012-9658(2007)88%5B140:mtlhap%5D2.0.co;2&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_proqu%3E27651075%3C/jstor_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=218966666&rft_id=info:pmid/17489462&rft_jstor_id=27651075&rfr_iscdi=true |