ArticleThe Journal of animal ecology2025
Bottom-up and top-down effects combine to drive predator-prey interactions in a forest biodiversity experiment.
Article in The Journal of animal ecology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Metabarcoding reveals the dietary diversity and food web structure of spider functional guilds in a highly diverse subtropical forest.Oecologia · 2026Article
- Genomic signature of repeated transitions to diurnality in spiders.Molecular biology and evolution · 2026Article
- Multitrophic interaction networks mediate biodiversity effects on ecosystem multifunctionality.Nature communications · 2026Article
- Turnover-Dominated β-Diversity and Its Temperature and Trophic Drivers of Scarabaeoidea Assemblages Along an Elevational Gradient in a Tropical Island Rainforest in China.Ecology and evolution · 2026Article
- Bottom-up and top-down effects combine to drive predator-prey interactions in a forest biodiversity experiment.The Journal of animal ecology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The bottom-up effect of producers and the top-down effect of predators are well-known factors shaping community assembly and ecosystem functioning through trophic interactions. Communities differing in their functional composition may induce ecological effects with varying directions and intensities, but previous studies in highly diverse ecosystems have struggled with reliably quantifying these interactions at the community level. We used spider gut-content metabarcoding in a subtropical tree diversity experiment to examine the impact of multiple diversity components of both trees and spiders on prey diversity and the network structure of predator-prey interactions. Our findings reveal that prey richness and spider-prey network structure are simultaneously driven by the bottom-up effects of tree communities and the top-down effects of the spider communities. When categorized by hunting modes, the drivers of prey richness and network structure differed between spider guilds. Large phylogenetic and functional differences within web-building spider communities promoted coexistence, leading to increases in the utilized prey richness, generality, niche overlap and prey vulnerability. For hunting spiders, the effects of vertical tree structure complexity indicated restricted mobility but facilitated coexistence through increased shelter availability, and a concomitant reduction of prey richness and dietary breadth. Our study underscores the significance of integrating multiple diversity components and considering functional trait composition across trophic levels when analysing the ecological effects of generalist predators. Our findings enable a better understanding of how predator-prey interaction patterns may be altered under current environmental changes that result in biodiversity loss.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.