A food web is a vital concept in ecology, illustrating the feeding relationships between different species within a community. It reveals the intricate interactions between species, the structure of the community, and how energy is transferred within an ecosystem.
Introduction to Food Webs
A food web essentially represents the feeding relationships within a community, demonstrating how food energy moves from plants, through herbivores, to carnivores. Think of it as a complex network of interconnected food chains. Each food chain is a series of arrows, each pointing from one species to another, showing the flow of energy from one group of organisms to another.
There are two main types of food chains:
- Grazing food chain: Begins with autotrophs (organisms that produce their own food, like plants).
- Detrital food chain: Starts with dead organic matter.
In a grazing food chain, energy and nutrients travel from plants to the herbivores that eat them, and then to the carnivores or omnivores that prey on the herbivores. A detrital food chain involves dead plant and animal matter being broken down by decomposers like bacteria and fungi, moving to detritivores (organisms that eat dead organic matter), and then to carnivores.
Figure 1: A simple six-member food web for a representative desert grassland. This illustrates the flow of energy from plants to herbivores to carnivores.
Charles Elton first proposed the idea of applying food chains to ecology. In 1927, he observed that these food chains typically had only 4 or 5 links and were interconnected, forming food webs (which he termed “food cycles”). The feeding interactions depicted by a food web can significantly impact a community’s species diversity, ecosystem productivity, and stability.
Types of Food Webs: Different Perspectives
Food webs illustrate the relationships or connections among species within an ecosystem. These relationships differ in their importance regarding energy flow and population dynamics. Robert Paine identified three types of food webs based on how species influence each other.
- Connectedness Webs (Topological Food Webs): These webs emphasize the feeding relationships between species, portrayed as links.
- Energy Flow Webs: These quantify the energy flow from one species to another. The thickness of an arrow in the web reflects the strength of the relationship and the amount of energy transferred.
- Functional Webs (Interaction Food Webs): These represent the importance of each species in maintaining the community’s integrity and reflect how each species influences the growth rate of other species’ populations.
Figure 2: Three types of food web diagrams based on species of a rocky intertidal zone on the coast of Washington. This demonstrates the varying perspectives on species interactions within a food web.
Applications of Food Webs: Unveiling Ecosystem Dynamics
Food webs are valuable tools for understanding various aspects of ecosystem dynamics. Here’s how they are applied:
Describing Species Interactions (Direct Relationships)
The primary function of food webs is to describe the feeding relationships between species in a community. All species within a food web can be classified as:
- Basal Species (Autotrophs): Such as plants, which produce their own food.
- Intermediate Species (Herbivores and Intermediate-Level Carnivores): Like grasshoppers and scorpions.
- Top Predators (High-Level Carnivores): Such as foxes.
These groups are referred to as trophic levels. Basal species occupy the lowest level as primary producers, converting inorganic chemicals and solar energy into chemical energy. Herbivores make up the second trophic level as primary consumers. The remaining levels include carnivores that consume animals from lower trophic levels.
Grouping species into functional or trophic levels helps simplify and understand the relationships between them.
Illustrating Indirect Interactions
Food webs also help illustrate indirect interactions, where two species influence each other through a third species. Keystone predation, demonstrated by Robert Paine, is an example. In an intertidal zone, starfish prey on various invertebrate herbivores like mussels and barnacles. Paine’s experiment showed that removing starfish led to a decrease in prey species due to increased competition among mussels and barnacles. The starfish predation reduced mussel abundance, creating space for other species to colonize. This indirect interaction is known as keystone predation.
Figure 3: The rocky intertidal zone and its food web, showcasing how the removal of starfish can reduce prey species diversity due to increased competition.
Another study highlighted indirect interactions in aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. Researchers found that fish in ponds reduced dragonfly populations, which in turn decreased the number of pollinators visiting nearby plants. Fewer pollinators resulted in lower seed production, showing how adding fish to a pond can indirectly affect the reproductive success of land plants.
Figure 4: An interaction food web shows that fish have indirect effects on the populations of several species in and around ponds.
Studying Bottom-Up and Top-Down Control
Food webs are essential for studying how community structure is controlled, either from the bottom-up or top-down.
- Bottom-Up Control: Suggests that productivity and abundance at any trophic level are controlled by the levels below them. For example, plant populations control herbivore populations, which in turn control carnivore populations.
- Top-Down Control: Occurs when a consumer’s population density controls that of its resource. Predators, for example, can control prey species’ abundance.
A trophic cascade is a type of top-down interaction where predators have indirect effects that cascade down the food chain, affecting organisms at least two links away.
Revealing Energy Transfer Patterns in Different Ecosystems
Food webs can also reveal different energy transfer patterns in terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. Energy flow and biomass partitioning differ significantly between these ecosystems. For example, phytoplankton turnover rates are much faster than those of grasslands and forests, leading to less carbon storage in autotroph biomass and a higher consumption rate by aquatic herbivores. In terrestrial ecosystems, the detrital food chain is dominant due to high standing biomass and low primary production harvest by herbivores.
Figure 5: Differences in pathways of carbon flow and pools between aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems.
Conclusion
Food webs are effective tools for illustrating species interactions and testing research hypotheses. They help us understand the associations between species richness, diversity, food web complexity, ecosystem productivity, and stability. By visualizing these intricate relationships, scientists can gain deeper insights into the dynamics of ecological communities and the flow of energy within them.
References
- Cain, M. L., Bowman, W. D. & Hacker, S. D. Ecology. Sunderland MA: Sinauer Associate Inc. 2008.
- Cebrian, J. Patterns in the fate of production in plant communities. American Naturalist 154, 449-468 (1999)
- Cebrian, J. Role of first-order consumers in ecosystem carbon flow. Ecology Letters 7, 232-240 (2004)
- Elton, C. S. Animal Ecology. Chicago, MI: University of Chicago Press, 1927, Republished 2001.
- Knight, T. M., et al. Trophic cascades across ecosystems. Nature 437, 880-883 (2005)
- Krebs, C. J. Ecology 6th ed. San Francisco CA: Pearson Benjamin Cummings, 2009.
- Marquis, R. J. & Whelan, C. Insectivorous birds increase growth of white oak through consumption of leaf-chewing insects. Ecology 75, 2007-2017 (1994)
- Molles, M. C. Jr. Ecology: Concepts and Applications 5th ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Higher Education, 2010.
- Paine, R. T. The Pisaster-Tegula interaction: Prey parches, predator food preferences and intertide community structure. Ecology 60, 950-961 (1969)
- Paine, R. T. Food web complexity and species diversity. The American Naturalist 100, 65-75 (1966)
- Paine, R. T. Food webs: Linkage, interaction strength and community infrastructure. Journal of Animal Ecology 49, 667-685 (1980)
- Pimm, S. L., Lawton, J. H. & Cohen, J. E. Food web patterns and their consequences. Nature 350, 669-674 (1991)
- Power, M. E. Top-down and bottom-up forces in food webs: do plants have primacy? Ecology 73, 733-746 (1992)
- Schoender, T. W. Food webs from the small to the large. Ecology 70, 1559-1589 (1989)
- Shurin, J. B., Gruner, D. S. & Hillebrand, H. All wet dried up? Real differences between aquatic and terrestrial food webs. Proc. R. Soc. B 273, 1-9 (2006) doi:10.1098/rspb.2005.3377
- Smith, T. M. & Smith, R. L. Elements of Ecology 7th ed. San Francisco CA: Pearson Benjamin Cummings, 2009.
