Stabilization of chaotic and non-permanent food-web dynamics

By Richard J. Williams, Neo D. Martinez. 2004

220 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics, Genetics, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/e265b8e8dfd9c85ac72d129f4fb424334e827eaa

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 Sociology and Political Science

Citations in the corpus

Interaction strengths in food webs: issues and opportunities (2004, background): “New approaches to numerically simulating realistically large webs will also allow computer-based perturbation experiments to be tested directly against field and microcosm experiments (Caldarelli et al. 1998; Drossel et al. 2001; Williams & Martinez 2001; Quince et al. 2002; Montoya & Solé 2003).”
Food webs: reconciling the structure and function of biodiversity. (2012, background): “This means that it is possible to model how factors such as the functional responses in consumer–resource interactions [33], adaptive consumer behaviour [34], and body-size distributions across species [35] inﬂuence biodiversity in complex communities.”
Evidence for the existence of a robust pattern of prey selection in food webs (2007, background): “Therefore, the debate regarding omnivory's true significance remains open ( Yodzis 1984; Pimm 2002; Williams & Martinez 2004; Tanabe & Namba 2005).”
Food‐web connectance and predator interference dampen the paradox of enrichment (2008, unknown): “Deviations from this assumption in natural food webs (Williams and Martinez 2004a) are likely to result in destabilising enrichment effects on a few strong links, whereas the majority of weak links may be unaffected.”
Body‐mass constraints on foraging behaviour determine population and food‐web dynamics (2010, background): “One generalized functional response model is based onHolling’s disk equation: FðRÞ ¼ bR h 1þ iCþ bThRh eqn 3 where F is the consumer’s per capita consumption rate, R and C are the abundances of the resource and consumer, respectively, Th is the handling time that includes the time the consumer needs”
Robustness to secondary extinctions: Comparing trait-based sequential deletions in static and dynamic food webs (2011, background): “The functional response varies among the webs from a pure Holling type II (Hill exponent = 1) to one dynamically similar to the Holling type III (approx. at Hill exponent ≈ 1.2; see (Williams & Martinez 2004; Rall et al. 2008)).”
Predator-free space, functional responses and biological invasions (2015, background): “Predator–prey dynamical modelling has partially corroborated the notion that Type II functional responses drive destabilization, but also suggests that very small deviations from an absolute Type II shape are sufficient to impart stability (Williams & Martinez 2004).”
Scaling up keystone effects from simple to complex ecological networks (2005, methodology): “We use a bioenergetic consumer‐resource model for the species trophic interactions (Yodzis & Innes 1992; McCann et al. 1998; Brose et al. 2003; Williams & Martinez 2004b ) that describes the biomass density changes over time t in an n-species system by”