Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-2lccl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T17:04:19.527Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

17 - Body size in aquatic ecology: important, but not the whole story

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 December 2009

Alan G. Hildrew
Affiliation:
School of Biological and Chemical Sciences Queen Mary University of London
David G. Raffaelli
Affiliation:
Environment Department University of York
Ronni Edmonds-Brown
Affiliation:
Division of Geography and Environmental Sciences University of Hertfordshire
Alan G. Hildrew
Affiliation:
Queen Mary University of London
David G. Raffaelli
Affiliation:
University of York
Ronni Edmonds-Brown
Affiliation:
University of Hertfordshire
Get access

Summary

Introduction

Ecologists have long been aware of regularities and patterns in the body size of organisms in populations and communities, observations that go back at least to Alfred Wallace and continue through the works of Elton, Thienemann, Hutchinson, MacArthur and many others. The classical contribution of R. H. Peters (1983) codified such patterns through the concept of body-size allometry, of metabolic rate and other features, and led on to many of the phenomena now included under macroecology (Blackburn & Gaston, 2003). Brown and colleagues (Brown et al., 2004; Brown, Allen & Gillooly, this volume), in particular, added new advances in scaling theory and, incorporating the exponential effect of temperature on metabolic rate, sought to explain a wide variety of patterns and processes in ecology at levels of organization from individuals to ecosystems.

The focus on aquatic systems at the Hatfield symposium, and in this resultant volume, is justified because body-size patterns may be more important, or at least more obvious, in aquatic ecosystems. Woodward and Warren (this volume) offer three possible reasons. First, the most important primary producers in water are small and, along with small heterotrophic micro-organisms and small detritus particles, are gathered from suspension by larger consumers. Second, they point out that conventional predators, larger in turn than their prey, seem particularly prominent in aquatic systems where there may be fewer parasite food chains (see Cohen, this volume).

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Blackburn, T. M. & Gaston, K. J. (2003). Macroecology: Concepts and Consequences. Oxford: Blackwell Science.Google Scholar
Brown, J. H. (1995). Macroecology. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Brown, J. H., Gillooly, J. F., Allen, A. P., Savage, V. M. & West, G. B. (2004). Towards a metabolic theory of ecology. Ecology, 85, 1771–1789.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cousins, S. H., Bracewell, K. V. & Attree, K. (2005). Measuring the ability of food to fuel work in ecosystems. In Dynamic Food Webs, ed. Ruiter, et al. London: Academic Press, pp. 248–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dixon, P. M. & Pechmann, J. H. K. (2005). A statistical test to show neglible trend. Ecology, 86, 1751–1756.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leaper, R. & Raffaelli, D. G. (1999). Defining the body size-abundance constraint space: data from a real web. Ecology Letters, 2, 191–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peters, R. H. (1983). The Ecological Implications of Body Size. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raffaelli, D., Solan, M. & Webb, T. J. (2005). Do marine and terrestrial ecologists do it differently?Marine Ecology Progress Series, 304, 271–307.Google Scholar
Schwinghamer, P. (1981). Characteristic size distributions of integral benthic communities. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 38, 1255–1263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stead, T. K., Schmid-Araya, J. M., Schmid, P. & Hildrew, A. G. (2005). The distribution of body size in a stream community: one system, many patterns. Journal of Animal Ecology, 74, 475–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strong, D. R. (1992). Are trophic cascades all wet? – differentiation and donor-control in speciose ecosytems. Ecology, 73, 747–754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Southwood, T. R. E. (1977). The habitat, the templet for ecological strategies. Journal of Animal Ecology, 46, 337–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Townsend, C. R. & Hildrew, A. G. (1994). Species traits in relation to a habitat templet for river systems. Freshwater Biology, 31, 265–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×