Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25190216›Full record

ArticleOecologia2014

Population densities and density-area relationships in a community with advective dispersal and variable mosaics of resource patches.

Jill Lancaster, Barbara J Downes

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Oecologia, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Jill LancasterDepartment of Resource Management and Geography, University of Melbourne, 221 Bouverie Street, Parkville, VIC, 3010, Australia, JillL@unimelb.edu.au.
Barbara J Downes

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Many communities comprise species that select resources that are patchily distributed in an environment that is otherwise unsuitable or suboptimal. Effects of this patchiness can depend on the characteristics of patch arrays and animal movements, and produce non-intuitive outcomes in which population densities are unrelated to resource abundance. Resource mosaics are predicted to have only weak effects, however, where patches are ephemeral or organisms are transported advectively. The running waters of streams and benthic invertebrates epitomize such systems, but empirical tests of resource mosaics are scarce. We sampled 15 common macroinvertebrates inhabiting distinct detritus patches at four sites within a sand-bed stream, where detritus formed a major resource of food and living space. At each site, environmental variables were measured for 100 leaf packs; invertebrates were counted in 50 leaf packs. Sites differed in total abundance of detritus, leaf pack sizes and invertebrate densities. Multivariate analysis indicated that patch size was the dominant environmental variable, but invertebrate densities differed significantly between sites even after accounting for patch size. Leaf specialists showed positive and strong density-area relationships, except where the patch size range was small and patches were aggregated. In contrast, generalist species had weaker and variable responses to patch sizes. Population densities were not associated with total resource abundance, with the highest densities of leaf specialists in sites with the least detritus. Our results demonstrate that patchy resources can affect species even in communities where species are mobile, have advective dispersal, and patches are relatively ephemeral.

Indexed as

EcosystemFeeding BehaviorInvertebratesPlant LeavesAnimalsEnvironmentPopulation DensityRivers

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.