Food web structure alters ecological communities top-heaviness with little effect on the biodiversity-functioning relationship
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In a rapidly changing world, the composition, diversity and structure of ecological communities face many threats. Biodiversity-Ecosystem Functioning (BEF) and community food-chain analyses have focused on investigating the consequences of these changes on ecosystem processes and the resulting functions. These different and diverging conceptual frameworks have each produced important results and identified a set of important mechanisms, that shape ecosystem functions. But the disconnection between these frameworks, and the various simplifications of the study systems are not representative of the complexity of real-world communities. Here we use food webs as a more realistic depiction of communities, and use a bioenergetic model to simulate their biomass dynamics and quantify the resulting flows and stocks of biomass. We use tools from food web analysis to investigate how the predictions from BEF and food-chain analyses fit together, how they correlate to food-web structure and how it might help us understand the interplay between various drivers of ecosystem functioning. We show that food web structure is correlated to the community’s efficiency in storing the captured biomass, which may explain the distribution of biomass (top heaviness) across the different trophic compartments (producers, primary and secondary consumers). While we know that ecological network structure is important in shaping ecosystem dynamics, identifying structural attributes important in shaping ecosystem processes and synthesizing how it affects various underpinning mechanisms may help prioritize key conservation targets to protect not only biodiversity but also its structure and the resulting services.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".