Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-d8cs5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-13T09:22:42.744Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

11 - The question of scale in trophic ecology

from Part III - Patterns and Processes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 May 2015

By
Lee A. Dye ,
Tara J. Massad  and
Matthew L. Forister
Edited by
Torrance C. Hanley  and
Kimberly J. La Pierre
Lee A. Dye
Affiliation:
University of Nevada
Tara J. Massad
Affiliation:
University of Sao Paulo
Matthew L. Forister
Affiliation:
University of Nevada
Torrance C. Hanley
Affiliation:
Northeastern University, Boston
Kimberly J. La Pierre
Affiliation:
University of California, Berkeley
Get access

Summary

Introduction

The thousands of studies on determinants and effects of top-down and bottom-up trophic forces (hereafter, TDBU) in aquatic and terrestrial communities include approaches that usually focus on specific scales; however, as a combined body of work, these studies span temporal scales from minutes to centuries and spatial scales from bench-top microcosms (cm3) to entire forests, lakes, or oceans (km3). How do empiricists synthesize this extensive literature and how do theorists calculate meaningful model parameters given these massive scale disparities? Levin (1992) argues that issues of scale are among the most important in ecology and perhaps all of the sciences, and there are both practical and theoretical reasons for using a variety of spatial and temporal scales in ecological studies. However, spatial and temporal scales are often ignored in syntheses of literature on trophic interactions. For example, a 4m2 plot and a 100 cm3 microcosm are the most appropriate scales for units of replication in experiments examining how arthropod foraging affects alpha diversity of primary producers in long leaf pine understories and ephemeral pool communities respectively, but these studies cannot in either case demonstrate population-level effects and should not be included in syntheses that examine top-down effects on beta diversity for entire forests or streams. In this chapter, we examine scaling issues associated with empirical studies of trophic interactions (for theoretical considerations, see Chapter 1, this volume).

We are interested in the extent to which processes and mechanisms observed at particular spatial and temporal scales are relevant for processes and patterns at other scales. To that end, we present examples of a concerted research effort with a model terrestrial system (ant-plants and associated rain forest communities), as well as multiple examples from freshwater and marine systems that have utilized a mix of experimental, observational, and modeling approaches across a continuum of spatial and temporal scales.

Type
Chapter
Information
Trophic Ecology
Bottom-up and Top-down Interactions across Aquatic and Terrestrial Systems
 , pp. 288 - 317
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2015

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abe, T. and Higashi, M. (1991). Cellulose centered perspective on terrestrial community structure. Oikos, 60, 127–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allen, D. C., Vaughn, C. C., Kelly, J. F., Cooper, J. T. and Engel, M. H. (2012). Bottom-up biodiversity effects increase resource subsidy flux between ecosystems. Ecology, 93, 2165–2174.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Babcock, R. C., Shears, N. T., Alcala, A. C., et al. (2010). Decadal trends in marine reserves reveal differential rates of change in direct and indirect effects. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 107, 18256–18261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barton, N. H. and Keightley, P. D. (2002). Understanding quantitative genetic variation. Nature Reviews Genetics, 3, 11–21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baxter, C. V., Fausch, K. D., Murakami, M. and Chapman, P. L. (2004). Fish invasion restructures stream and forest food webs by interrupting reciprocal prey subsidies. Ecology, 85, 2656–2663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, T., Neill, W. E. and Schluter, D. (2003). The effect of temporal scale on the outcome of trophic cascade experiments. Oecologia, 134, 578–586.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brehm, G. and Fiedler, K. (2003). Faunal composition of geometrid moths changes with altitude in an Andean montane rain forest. Journal of Biogeography, 30, 431–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brehm, G., Bodner, F., Strutzenberger, P., Hunefeld, F. and Fiedler, K. (2011). Neotropical Eois (Lepidoptera: Geometridae): checklist, biogeography, diversity, and description patterns. Annals of the Entomological Society of America, 104, 1091–1107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bryant, J. P., Provenza, F. D., Pastor, J. T., et al. (1991). Interactions between woody-plants and browsing mammals mediated by secondary metabolites. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 22, 431–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cardinale, B. J., Bennett, D. M., Nelson, C. E. and Gross, K. (2009). Does productivity drive diversity or vice versa? A test of the multivariate productivity–diversity hypothesis in streams. Ecology, 90, 1227–1241.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carpenter, S. R., Cole, J. J., Hodgson, J. R., et al. (2001). Trophic cascades, nutrients, and lake productivity: whole-lake experiments. Ecological Monographs, 71, 163–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carpenter, S. R., Cole, J. J., Kitchell, J. F. and Pace, M. L. (2010). Trophic cascades in lakes: lessons and prospects. In Trophic Cascades, ed. Terborgh, J and Estes, J.. Washington, DC: Island Press, pp. 55–69.Google Scholar
Carroll, S. P., Hendry, A. P., Reznick, D. N. and Fox, C. W. (2007). Evolution on ecological time-scales. Functional Ecology, 21, 387–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carson, W. P. and Root, R. B. (2000). Herbivory and plant species coexistence: Community regulation by an outbreaking phytophagous insect. Ecological Monographs, 70, 73–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Castejón-Silvo, I., Terrados, J., Domínguez, M. and Morales-Nin, B. (2012). Epiphyte response to in situ manipulation of nutrient availability and fish presence in a Posidonia oceanica (L.) Delile meadow. Hydrobiologia, 696, 159–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chave, J. (2013). The problem of pattern and scale in ecology: what have we learned in 20 years?Ecology Letters, 16, 4–16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clemente, S., Hernandez, J. C. and Brito, A. (2011). Context-dependent effects of marine protected areas on predatory interactions. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 437, 119–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coley, P. D., Bryant, J. P. and Chapin III, F. S. (1985). Resource availability and plant antiherbivore defense. Science, 230, 895–899.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Connahs, H., Rodríguez-Castañeda, G., Walters, T., Walla, T. R. and Dyer, L. A. (2009). Geographical variation in host-specificity and parasitoid pressure of an herbivore (Geometridae) associated with the tropical genus Piper. Journal of Insect Science, 9(28), 1–11; available online: insectscience. org/9.28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coverdale, T. C., Altieri, A. H. and Bertness, M. D. (2012). Belowground herbivory increases vulnerability of New England salt marshes to die-off. Ecology, 93, 2085–2094.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dyer, L. A. and Letourneau, D. K. (1999a). Trophic cascades in a complex, terrestrial community. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 96, 5072–5076.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dyer, L. A. and Letourneau, D. K. (1999b). Relative strengths of top-down and bottom-up forces in a tropical forest community. Oecologia, 119, 265–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dyer, L. A. and Letourneau, D. K. (2003). Top-down and bottom-up diversity cascades in detrital versus living food webs. Ecology Letters, 6, 60–68.Google Scholar
Dyer, L. A. and Letourneau, D. K. (2007). Determinants of lichen diversity in a rainforest understory. Biotropica, 39, 525–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dyer, L. A. and Letourneau, D. K. (2013). Can climate change trigger massive diversity cascades in terrestrial ecosystems?Diversity, 5, 1–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dyer, L. A. and Palmer, A. N. (2004). Piper. A Model Genus for Studies of Evolution, Chemical Ecology, and Trophic Interactions. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Dyer, L. A., Dodson, C. D., Beihoffer, J. and Letourneau, D. K. (2001). Trade offs in anti-herbivore defenses in Piper cenocladum: ant mutualists versus plant secondary metabolites. Journal of Chemical Ecology, 27, 581–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dyer, L. A., Dodson, C. D., Stireman III, J. O., et al. (2003). Synergistic effects of three Piper amides on generalist and specialist herbivores. Journal of Chemical Ecology, 29, 2499–2514.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dyer, L. A., Dodson, C. D., Letourneau, D. K., et al. (2004a). Ecological causes and consequences of variation in defensive chemistry of a neotropical shrub. Ecology, 85, 2795–2803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dyer, L. A., Dodson, C. D. and Richards, J. (2004b). Isolation, synthesis, and evolutionary ecology of Piper amides. In Piper. A Model Genus for Studies of Evolution, Chemical Ecology, and Trophic Interactions, ed. Dyer, L. A. and Palmer, A. N.. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 117–139.Google Scholar
Dyer, L. A., Gentry, G. and Tobler, M. (2004c). Fitness consequences of herbivory: impacts on asexual reproduction of tropical rainforest understory plants. Biotropica, 36, 68–73.Google Scholar
Dyer, L. A., Letourneau, D. K., Vega Chavarria, G. and Salazar Amoretti, D. (2010). Herbivores on a dominant understory shrub increase local plant diversity in rain forest communities. Ecology, 91, 3707–3718.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dyer, L. A., Carson, W. P. and Leigh, E. G. (2012). Insect outbreaks in tropical forests: patterns, mechanisms, and consequences. In Insect Outbreaks Revisited, ed. Barbosa, P., Letourneau, D. K. and Agrawal, A. A.. New Jersey: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 219–245.Google Scholar
Estes, J. A. and Palmisano, J. F. (1974). Sea otters: their role in structuring nearshore communities. Science, 185, 1058–1060.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fincher, R. M., Dyer, L. A., Dodson, C. D., et al. (2008). Inter- and intraspecific comparisons of antiherbivore defenses in three species of rainforest understory shrubs. Journal of Chemical Ecology, 34, 558–574.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Forister, M. L. and Feldman, C. R. (2011). Phylogenetic cascades and the origins of tropical diversity. Biotropica, 43, 270–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franks, S. J., Sim, S. and Weis, A. E. (2007). Rapid evolution of flowering time by an annual plant in response to a climate fluctuation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 104, 1278–1282.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gurevitch, J. and Hedges, L. V. (2001). Meta analysis: combining the results of independent experiments. In Design and Analysis of Ecological Experiments, ed. Scheiner, S. M. and Gurevitch, J.. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 347–369.Google Scholar
Hairston, N. G., Smith, F. E. and Slobodkin, L. B. (1960). Community structure, population control, and competition. American Naturalist, 94, 421–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hairston, N. G., Ellner, S. P., Geber, M. A., Yoshida, T. and Fox, J. A. (2005). Rapid evolution and the convergence of ecological and evolutionary time. Ecology Letters, 8, 1114–1127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamilton, J., Zangerl, A. R., Berenbaum, M. R., et al. (2012). Elevated atmospheric CO2 alters the arthropod community in a forest understory. Acta Oecologica, 43, 80–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hay, M. E. (1996). Marine chemical ecology: what's known and what's next? Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 200, 103–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hillstrom, M. L. and Lindroth, R. L. (2008). Elevated atmospheric carbon dioxide and ozone alter forest insect abundance and community composition: carbon dioxide and ozone alter forest insect communities. Insect Conservation and Diversity, 1, 233–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howeth, J. G. and Leibold, M. A. (2010). Prey dispersal rate affects prey species composition and trait diversity in response to multiple predators in metacom-munities: multiple predators in prey metacommunities. Journal of Animal Ecology, 79, 1000–1011.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hubbell, S. P. (2001). The Unified Neutral Theory of Biodiversity and Biogeography. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Hunt, G. (2007). The relative importance of directional change, random walks, and stasis in the evolution of fossil lineages. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 104, 18404–18408.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hunter, M. D. (2001). Multiple approaches to estimating the relative importance of top-down and bottom-up forces on insect populations: experiments, life tables, and time-series analysis. Basic and Applied Ecology, 2, 295–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hutchinson, G. E. (1965). The Ecological Theater and the Evolutionary Play. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Isbell, F., Reich, P. B., Tilman, D., et al. (2013). Nutrient enrichment, biodiversity loss, and consequent declines in ecosystem productivity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 110, 11911–11916.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Knepp, R. G., Hamilton, J. G., Mohan, J. E., et al. (2005). Elevated CO2 reduces leaf damage by insect herbivores in a forest community. New Phytologist, 167, 207–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knight, T. M., McCoy, M. W., Chase, J. M., McCoy, K. A. and Holt, R. D. (2005). Trophic cascades across ecosystems. Nature, 437, 880–883.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Koricheva, J. (2003). Non-significant results in ecology: a burden or a blessing in disguise?Oikos, 102, 397–401.Google Scholar
Letourneau, D. K. (1983). Passive aggression: an alternative hypothesis for the Piper-Pheidole Association. Oecologia, 60, 122–126.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Letourneau, D. K. (1990). Code of ant-plant mutualism broken by parasite. Science, 248, 215–217.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Letourneau, D. K. (2004). Mutualism, antiherbivore defense, and trophic cascades: ant-plants as a mesocosm for experimentation. In Piper. A Model Genus for Studies Of Evolution, Chemical Ecology, and Trophic Interactions, ed. Dyer, L. A. and Palmer, A. N.. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 5–32.Google Scholar
Letourneau, D. K. and Dyer, L. A. (1998a). Density patterns of Piper ant-plants and associated arthropods: top predator cascades in a terrestrial system?Biotropica, 30, 162–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Letourneau, D. K. and Dyer, L. A. (1998b). Experimental manipulations in lowland tropical forest demonstrate top-down cascades through four trophic levels. Ecology, 79, 1678–1687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Letourneau, D. K. and Dyer, L. A. (2005). Multi-trophic interactions and biodiversity: beetles, ants, caterpillars, and plants. In Biotic Interactions in the Tropics: Their Role in the Maintenance of Species Diversity, ed. Burslem, D. F. R. P., Pinard, M. A. and Hartley, S. E.. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 366–385.Google Scholar
Levin, S. A. (1992). The problem of pattern and scale in ecology. Ecology, 73, 1943–1967.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Menge, B. A. and Olson, A. M. (1990). Role of scale and environmental-factors in regulation of community structure. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 5, 52–57.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Micheli, F., Halpern, B. S., Botsford, L. W. and Warner, R. R. (2004). Trajectories and correlates of community change in no-take marine reserves. Ecological Applications, 14, 1709–1723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, T. E. and Travis, J. (1996). The evolutionary role of indirect effects in communities. Ecology, 5, 1329–1335.Google Scholar
Nelson, C. E., Bennett, D. M. and Cardinale, B. J. (2013). Consistency and sensitivity of stream periphyton community structural and functional responses to nutrient enrichment. Ecological Applications, 23, 159–173.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pace, M. L., Cole, J. J. and Carpenter, S. R. (1998). Trophic cascades and compensation: differential responses of microzooplankton in whole-lake experiments. Ecology, 79, 138–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polis, G. A. and Strong, D. R. (1996). Food web complexity and commuity dynamics. American Naturalist, 147, 813–846.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Post, D. M. and Palkovacs, E. P. (2009). Eco-evolutionary feedbacks in community and ecosystem ecology: interactions between the ecological theatre and the evolutionary play. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 364, 1629–1640.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Power, M. E. (1990). Effects of fish in river food webs. Science, 250, 811–814.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reznick, D. N. and Ghalambor, C. K. (2001). The population ecology of contemporary adaptations: what empirical studies reveal about the conditions that promote adaptive evolution. Genetica, 112, 183–198.Google ScholarPubMed
Rodríguez-Castañeda, G., Dyer, L. A., Brehm, G., et al. (2010). Tropical forests are not flat: how mountains affect herbivore diversity. Ecology Letters, 13, 1348–1357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rodríguez-Castañeda, G., Forkner, R. E., Tepe, E. J., Gentry, G. L. and Dyer, L. A. (2011). Weighing defensive and nutritive roles of ant mutualists across a tropical altitudinal gradient. Biotropica, 43, 343–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Root, R. B. and Cappuccino, N. (1992). Patterns in population change and the organization of an insect community associated with goldenrod, Solidago altissima. Ecological Monographs, 62, 393–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salamin, N., Wüest, R. O., Lavergne, S., Thuiller, W. and Pearman, P. B. (2010). Assessing rapid evolution in a changing environment. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 25, 692–698.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sangil, C., Clemente, S., Martín-García, L. and Hernández, J. C. (2012). No-take areas as an effective tool to restore urchin barrens on subtropical rocky reefs. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 112, 207–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmitz, O. J., Krivan, V. and Ovadia, O. (2004). Trophic cascades: the primacy of trait-mediated indirect interactions. Ecology Letters, 7, 153–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmitz, O. J., Grabowski, J. H., Peckarsky, B. L., et al. (2008). From individuals to ecosystem function: toward an integration of evolutionary and ecosystem ecology. Ecology, 89, 2436–2445.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schoener, T. W. (2011). The newest synthesis: understanding the interplay of evolutionary and ecological dynamics. Science, 331, 426–429.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shears, N. T., Babcock, R. C. and Salomon, A. K. (2008). Context-dependent effects of fishing: variation in trophic cascades across environmental gradients. Ecological Applications, 18, 1860–1873.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Siepielski, A. M., Gotanda, K. M., Morrissey, M. B., et al. (2013). The spatial patterns of directional phenotypic selection. Ecology Letters, 16, 1382–1392.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Slobodkin, L. B. (1960). Ecological energy relationships at the population level. American Naturalist, 94, 213–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strong, D. R. (1992). Are trophic cascades all wet? Differentiation and donor-control in speciose ecosystems. Ecology, 73, 747–754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tepe, E. J., Kelley, W. A., Rodríguez-Castañeda, G. and Dyer, L. A. (2009). Characterizing the cauline domatia of two newly discovered Ecuadorian ant-plants in Piper: An example of convergent evolution. Journal of Insect Science, 9, available online: insectscience.org/9.27.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Terborgh, J. and Estes, J. A. (2010). Trophic Cascades: Predators, Prey, and the Changing Dynamics of Nature. Washington: Island Press.Google Scholar
Tscharntke, T. and Hawkins, B. A. (2001). Multitrophic Level Interactions. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Vermeij, G. J. (1994). The evolutionary interaction among species: selection, escalation, and coevolution. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 25, 219–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verreydt, D., De Meester, L., Decaestecker, E., et al. (2012). Dispersal-mediated trophic interactions can generate apparent patterns of dispersal limitation in aquatic metacommunities: dispersal-mediated metacommunity responses. Ecology Letters, 15, 218–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walsh, M. R., DeLong, J. P., Hanley, T. C. and Post, D. M. (2012). A cascade of evolutionary change alters consumer-resource dynamics and ecosystem function. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 279, 3184–3192.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wesner, J. S. (2010). Aquatic predation alters a terrestrial prey subsidy. Ecology, 91, 1435–1444.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wilson, J. S., Forister, M. L., Dyer, L. A., et al. (2012). Host conservatism, host shifts and diversification across three trophic levels in two Neotropical forests. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 25, 532–546.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Winter, T. R. and Rostás, M. (2010). Nitrogen deficiency affects bottom-up cascade without disrupting indirect plant defense. Journal of Chemical Ecology, 36, 642–651.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×