Community Ecology

, Volume 7, Issue 1, pp 81–90 | Cite as

Architectural classes of aquatic food webs based on link distribution

  • F. JordánEmail author
  • I. Scheuring
  • V. Vasas
  • J. Podani


Link distribution is an important architectural feature of ecological networks, since it is thought to influence community dynamics. Several attempts have been made in order to characterize the typical link distribution of food webs, but the number of webs studied thus far is low and their quality is unbalanced. Comparability is a rarely asked methodological question, and as far as we see only two data bases are available which allow reliable comparison of food webs: one for terrestrial, high resolution, host-parasitoid webs and another for highly aggregated, marine trophic networks. We present an analysis of a set of food webs belonging to the latter type, since the host-parasitoid networks are only subgraphs and therefore uninformative on the structure of the entire community. We address the following three questions: (1) how to characterize the link distribution of these small networks which cannot always be fitted statistically to well-known distributions (such as the exponential or the Poisson, etc.), (2) are these distributions of more or less similar shape or they belong to different „architectural classes”, and (3) if there are different classes, then what are their distinctive topological and biological properties. We suggest that link distribution of such small networks can be compared to each other by principal coordinates ordination and clustering. We conclude that (1) the webs can be categorized into two different classes, and (2) one of the classes contains significantly larger and topologically more heterogeneous webs for which net output of material is also of higher variance. We emphasize that link distribution is an interesting and important property not only in case of complex, speciose food webs, but also in highly aggregated, low-resolution webs.


Aquatic ecosystems Classification Food web Link distribution Network Ordination 



Dissolved Organic Carbon


Coefficient of Variation of Net Output Values


Principal Components Analysis


Principal Coordinates Analysis


Particulate Organic Carbon


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Baird, D. and Ulanowicz, R. E. 1989. The seasonal dynamics of the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem. Ecological Monographs 59:329–364.Google Scholar
  2. Baird, D., McGlade, J. M. and Ulanowicz, R. E. 1991. The comparative ecology of six marine ecosystems. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, London, series B 333:15–29.Google Scholar
  3. Baird, D. and Ulanowicz, R. E. 1993. Comparative study on the trophic structure, cycling and ecosystem properties of four tidal estuaries. Marine Ecology Progress Series 99:221–237.Google Scholar
  4. Baird, D., Ulanowicz, R. E. and Boynton, W. R. 1995. Seasonal nitrogen dynamics in Chesapeake Bay: a network approach. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 41:137–162.Google Scholar
  5. Briand, F. 1983. Environmental control of food web structure. Ecology 64: 253–263.Google Scholar
  6. Buckley, H. L., Miller, T. E., Ellison, A. M. and Gotelli, N. J. 2003. Reverese latitudinal trends in species richness of pitcher-plant food webs. Ecology Letters 6: 825–829.Google Scholar
  7. Carrer, S. and Opitz, S. 1999. Trophic network model of a shallow water area in the northern part of the Lagoon of Venice. Ecological Modelling 124:193–219.Google Scholar
  8. Christensen, V. 1995. Ecosystem maturity – towards quantification. Ecological Modelling 77:3–32.Google Scholar
  9. Christensen, V. and Pauly, D. 1992. ECOPATH II – a software for balancing steady-state ecosystem models and calculating network characteristics. Ecological Modelling 61:169–185.Google Scholar
  10. Christensen, V. and Pauly, D. (eds.) 1993. Trophic Models of Aquatic Ecosystems. ICLARM Conf. Proc. 26, 390 p.Google Scholar
  11. Christian, R. R. and Luczkovich J. J. 1999. Organising and understanding a winter’s seagrass foodweb network through effective trophic levels. Ecological Modelling 117:99–124.Google Scholar
  12. Cohen, J. E. 1978. Food Webs and Niche Space. Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton.Google Scholar
  13. Cohen, J. E., Briand, F. and Newman, C. M. 1990. Community Food Webs: Data and Theory. Springer Verlag, Berlin.Google Scholar
  14. Cohen, J. E., Beaver, R. A., Cousins, S. H., De Angelis, D. L., Goldwasser, L., Heong, K. L., Holt, R. D., Kohn, A. J., Lawton, J. H., Martinez, N. D., O’Malley, R., Page, L. M., Patten, B. C., Pimm, S. L., Polis, G. A., Rejmánek, M., Schoener, T. W., Schoenly, K., Sprules, W. G., Teal, J. M., Ulanowicz, R. E., Warren, P. H., Wilbur, H. M. and Yodzis, P. 1993. Improving food webs. Ecology 74:252–258.Google Scholar
  15. De Ruiter, P. C. et al. 1995. Energetics, patterns of interaction strengths, and stability in real ecosystems. Science 269: 1257–1260.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Dunne, J. A., Williams, R. J. and Martinez, N. D. 2002 Network structure and biodiversity loss in food webs: robustness increases with connectance. Ecology Letters 5:558–567.Google Scholar
  17. Goldwasser,L. and Roughgarden, J. 1993. Construction and analysis of a large Caribbean food web. Ecology 74:1216–1233.Google Scholar
  18. Herbst, D. B. 2001. Salinity-dependent changes in the organization of aquatic food webs in salt evaporation ponds in the Mojave Desert. ESA Annual Meeting, Abstract Volume, #0709.Google Scholar
  19. Heymans,J. J. and Baird, D. 2000. A carbon flow model and network analysis of the northern Benguela upwelling system, Namibia. Ecological Modelling 126:9–32.Google Scholar
  20. Jávor, B., Jordán, F. and Török, J. 2005. A comparative sink web analysis of two birds in two habitats: trophic structure, functionality, aggregation and system-level indication. Community Ecology 6:13–22.Google Scholar
  21. Jordán, F. 2003. On the functional trophic height of whiting. Ecological Indicators 3:223–225.Google Scholar
  22. Jordán, F., Scheuring, I. and Vida, G. 2002. Species positions and extinction dynamics in simple food webs. Journal of Theoretical Biology 215:441–448.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Jordán, F. and Scheuring, I. 2002. Searching for keystones in ecological networks. Oikos 99:607–612.Google Scholar
  24. Jordán, F., Scheuring, I. and Molnár, I. 2003. Persistence and flow reliability in simple food webs. Ecological Modelling 161:117–124.Google Scholar
  25. Kitching, R. L. 2000. Food Webs and Container Habitats. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  26. Lionard, M., Muylaert, K., Van Gansbeke, D. and Vyverman, W. 2005. Influence of changes in salinity and light intensity on growth of phytoplankton communities from the Schelde river and estuary (Belgium/The Netherlands). Hydrobiologia 540: 105–115.Google Scholar
  27. Martinez, N. D. 1991. Artifacts or attributes? Effects of resolution on the Little Rock Lake food web. Ecological Monographs 61: 367–392.Google Scholar
  28. Montoya, J. M. and Solé, R. V. 2002. Small world patterns in food webs. Journal of Theoretical Biology 214:405–412.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Müller, C. B., Adriaanse, I. C. T., Belshaw, R. and Godfray, H. C. J. 1999. The structure of an aphid-parasitoid community. J. Anim. Ecol. 68: 346–370.Google Scholar
  30. Newman, M. E. J. 2003. Ego-centered networks and the ripple effect. Social Networks 25: 83–95.Google Scholar
  31. Ortiz, M. and Wolff, M. 2002. Dynamical simulation of mass-balance trophic models for benthic communities of north-central Chile: assessment of resilience time under alternative management scenarios. Ecological Modelling 148:277–291.Google Scholar
  32. Pauly, D., Christensen, V. and Walters, C. 2000. Ecopath, Ecosim, and Ecospace as tools for evaluating ecosystem impact of fisheries. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 57:697–706.Google Scholar
  33. Pedros-Alio, C., Calderon-Paz, J. I., MacLean, M. H., Medina, G., Marrase, C., Gasol, J. M. and Guixa-Boixereu, N. 2000. The microbial food web along salinity gradients. FEMS Microbiol. Ecology 32: 143–155.Google Scholar
  34. Podani, J. 2001. SYN-TAX 2000. User’s Manual. Scientia, Budapest.Google Scholar
  35. Polis, G. A. 1991. Complex trophic interactions in deserts: an empirical critique of food web theory. American Naturalist 138: 123–155.Google Scholar
  36. Rosado-Solórzano, R. and Guzmán del Próo, S. A. 1998. Preliminary trophic structure model for Tampamachoco lagoon, Veracruz, Mexico. Ecological Modelling 109:141–154.Google Scholar
  37. Solé, R. V. and Montoya, J. M. 2001. Complexity and fragility in ecological networks. Proc. Roy. Soc. L. B 268: 2039–2045.Google Scholar
  38. Steneck, R. S. and Dethier, M. N. 1994. A functional group approach to the structure of algal- dominated communities. Oikos 69: 476–498.Google Scholar
  39. Strogatz, S. H. 2001. Exploring complex networks. Nature 410: 268–276.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  40. Ulanowicz, R. E. 1996. Trophic flow networks as indicators of ecosystem stress. In: Polis, G. A. and Winemiller, K. O. (eds.) Food Webs: Integration of Patterns and Dynamics. Chapman and Hall, London. pp. 358–368.Google Scholar
  41. Ulanowicz, R. E. and Baird, D. 1999. Nutrient controls on ecosystem dynamics: the Chesapeake mesohaline community. Journal of Marine Systems 19:159–172.Google Scholar
  42. Vega-Cendejas, M. E. and Arreguín-Sánchez, F. 2001. Energy fluxes in a mangrove ecosystem from a coastal lagoon in Yucatan Peninsula, Mexico. Ecological Modelling 137:119–133.Google Scholar
  43. Walters, C. J., Christensen, V. and Pauly, D. 1997. Structuring dynamic models of exploited ecosystems from trophic mass balance assessments. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 7:139–172.Google Scholar
  44. Williams, R. J., Berlow, E. L., Dunne, J. A., Barabási, A.-L. and Martinez, N. D. 2002. Two degrees of separation in complex food webs. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 99: 12913–12916.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest 2006

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Authors and Affiliations

  • F. Jordán
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • I. Scheuring
    • 3
  • V. Vasas
    • 4
  • J. Podani
    • 4
  1. 1.Institute of Ecology and BotanyHungarian Academy of SciencesVácrátótHungary
  2. 2.Collegium BudapestInstitute for Advanced StudyBudapestHungary
  3. 3.Department of Plant Taxonomy and Ecology, Research Group of Ecology and Theoretical Biology of HASEötvös UniversityBudapestHungary
  4. 4.Department of Plant Taxonomy and EcologyEötvös UniversityBudapestHungary

Personalised recommendations