Food webs : linkage, interaction strength and community infrastructure
Food webs : linkage, interaction strength and community infrastructure
复制标题
DOI：
10.2307/4220
复制
发表时间：
1980-10
影响因子：
4.8
通讯作者：
R. Paine
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
R. Paine
在这里讨论食物网及其结构的演变观点似乎特别合适，因为它们的起源和第一个现代治疗（Elton 1927）以及它们后来的发展（1973年5月；Pimm＆Lawton 1978）显然带有英国口音。网的核心意义源于这样一个事实：物种之间的联系通常很容易识别，并且由此产生的营养支架提供了一个诱人的群落结构描述符。如果这种结构以任何方式与自然群落的持久性或其稳定性相关，无论如何定义，那么我们正在处理具有至关重要的生态重要性的问题。埃尔顿的观点令人钦佩地经受住了时间的考验。它们对野外生物学家特别有用，并鼓励将数据收集和组织到营养结合物种或更高级分类群的网络中。早期的重点是连通性本身。也许与这一主题的第一个重大偏离是 Lindeman (1942) 营养动态观点的发展以及随后所有描述社区能量转移和物质流动的努力。第二个出发点是网络结构和社区稳定性相关的观点的形式化，我认为这个出发点在概念上更丰富（MacArthur 1955）。 May（1973）在另一篇具有里程碑意义的出版物中质疑了这种关系，并呼吁人们注意四个主要的网络特征：所涉及的物种数量、它们相互联系的性质、每个物种的连接数量以及网络成员之间的互动强度。这一重点刺激了农业生态系统的应用（Southwood & Way 1970）、对营养级数量的新解释（Pimm & Lawton 1977）以及对互利共生重要性的重新兴趣（Vance 1978）。它并没有取得惊人的突破，生态稳定性仍然是一个令人沮丧的问题，对于现场生态学家来说，模型与现实之间的联系有时显得遥远；在这些最近的发展中几乎被忽视的是一种深刻的认识，即营养途径可能对生态系统的稳定性贡献不大，而答案在于环境的空间格局（Smith 1972）。我希望以自然学家和实验学家的身份回到对食物网的基本观察，并采用阿瑟坦斯利爵士（Godwin 1977）倡导的方法，询问我们是否正在模拟它们的正确属性，如果不是，可以进行哪些修改。
It seems particularly opportune to discuss food webs and evolving views on their structure here for both their genesis and first modern treatment (Elton 1927) and much of their later development (May 1973; Pimm & Lawton 1978) has a decidedly British accent to it. The central significance of webs is derived from the fact that the links between species are often easily identified and the resultant trophic scaffolding provides a tempting descriptor of community structure. If this structure is in any fashion related to the persistence of natural communities or their stability, however defined, then we are dealing with issues of vital ecological importance. Elton's views have admirably withstood the tests of time. They were especially useful to field biologists, and encouraged the assembly and organization of feeding data into networks of trophically bonded species or higher taxa. The early emphasis was on connectedness per se. Perhaps the first significant deviation from this theme was the development of the trophic dynamic viewpoint of Lindeman (1942) and all subsequent efforts to describe energy transfer and material flow through communities. A second departure, and one I believe to be conceptually richer, was the formalization of the view that web structure and community stability were related (MacArthur 1955). May (1973) in another landmark publication questioned this relationship and called attention to four primary web features: the number of species involved, the nature of their interconnections, the number of connections per species, and the intensity of interaction between web members. This focus has stimulated application to agroecosystems (Southwood & Way 1970), new interpretations of the number of trophic levels (Pimm & Lawton 1977), and a resurgence of interest in the significance of mutualism (Vance 1978). It has not been characterized by stunning breakthroughs, ecological stability remains a frustrating issue, and to a field ecologist, the ties between model and reality at times appear remote; All but ignored in these recent developments is an insightful recognition that trophic pathways might contribute little to ecosystem stability, and that the answers lie in the spatial patterning of the environment (Smith 1972). I wish to return to the basic observations on food webs as a naturalist and experimentalist, and employing an approach advocated by Sir Arthur Tansley (Godwin 1977), ask whether we are modelling their correct properties, and if not, what modifications might be made.