MEASUREMENT OF INTERACTION STRENGTH IN NATURE

By J. Timothy Wootton, M. Emmerson. 2005

458 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics, Genetics, Nature and Landscape Conservation

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/ae4051732288c64ada5afd46b7e8f01b82638e26

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics

In Genetics

In Nature and Landscape Conservation

Citations in the corpus

A quantitative review of abundance-based species distribution models (2021, background): “2017), or direct estimation of interaction strengths (Wootton and Emmerson 2005) are promising tools to help address such questions.”
How to make more out of community data? A conceptual framework and its implementation as models and software. (2017, background): “However, community ecologists will oftentimes hold interaction matrices constructed from other types of data, arising e.g. from experiments (Wootton & Emmerson 2005) or information on species traits which might influence species interactions (e.g. Sch€ob et al. 2013).”
Seeing Double:: Size-Based and Taxonomic Views of Food Web Structure (2011, background): “Specifically, both empirical work (Emmerson and Raffaelli, 2004; Wootton and Emmerson, 2005) and theory based on metabolic considerations (Lewis et al.”
Stability criteria for complex ecosystems (2011, background): “However, in natural food webs, which seem to persist in time, weak interactions are preponderan”
Towards novel approaches to modelling biotic interactions in multispecies assemblages at large spatial extents (2012, methodology): “…of predator– prey interaction strength have been applied, ranging from simple linear Lotka–Volterra interaction coefficients to more complex (i.e. nonlinear) prey density-dependent coefficients and even multiple predator interference (see reviews by Berlow et al., 2004; Wootton & Emmerson, 2005).”
Invasive species impact: asymmetric interactions between invasive and endemic freshwater snails (2008, background): “Interaction strengths estimate the magnitude and direction of the effect of one species on another (Paine 1992, Wootton 1997, Laska and Wootton 1998, Berlow et al. 1999, 2004, Wootton and Emmerson 2005).”
Consumer-resource body-size relationships in natural food webs. (2006, background): “…species population dynamics, interaction strengths, and food web structure could depend on consumer–resource body-size ratios (Yodzis and Innes 1992, Jonsson and Ebenman 1998, Emmerson and Raffaelli 2004, Brose et al. 2005a, Reuman and Cohen 2005, Woodward et al. 2005, Wootton and Emmerson 2005).”
Freshwater food webs: towards a more fundamental understanding of biodiversity and community dynamics (2012, background): “…are many ways to quantify linkage or interaction strength, one of the key aspects of food-web research (Berlow et al., 2004, Berlow et al., 2009; Wootton & Emmerson, 2005), 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Freshwater Biology, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2427.2012.02808.x and the particular form used will…”
Context‐dependent fruit–frugivore interactions: partner identities and spatio‐temporal variations (2013, methodology): “Many quantitative estimates of interaction strength have been proposed (Laska and Wootton 1998, Wootton and Emmerson 2005), including the frequency of interaction, which has been used as a successful surrogate of interaction strength (Vázquez et al. 2005).”
The relationship between invader abundance and impact (2018, background): “Notably, these same terms emerge in theories that predict the coexistence of species within the same trophic level (MacDougall et al. 2009) and that quantify the importance (i.e., impact) of a species within a multi-trophic food web (Wootton and Emmerson 2005).”
On nestedness in ecological networks (2010, background): “As with binary data, there are considerable concerns with quantitative data, especially regarding the effects of sampling effort and the interpretation of the importance of a visit (Wootton and Emmerson, 2005).”