One to function of this research were to check out the if our very own effect out-of models in size structure (elizabeth.grams. predator–victim dating) in environmental teams will be altered since solution from empirical datasets will get finer. We show that habits discover while using the kinds-aggregated data deviate regarding the individuals whenever individual investigation can be used, for a wide range of variables and you may across the multiple analysis expertise. Particularly, for everyone seven possibilities, we unearthed that the fresh hill out of prey bulk once the a function out-of predator size try constantly underestimated and hill off PPMR once the a purpose of predator bulk is actually overestimated, whenever kinds averages were utilized as opposed to the personal-height data ( Figure cuatro B and D). It is quite really worth listing one not one of one’s around three Chilean streams got a serious mountain away from prey bulk while the a features away from predator size when variety averages were utilized but performed whenever individual-level data were utilized ( Figure cuatro B and you can Dining table A1 ). Others response variable establishes (diet and predator adaptation) were not impacted by the degree of resolution ( Profile 8 B, D and you can eleven B, D).
Having fun with study out-of individual eating incidents from just one ) eating webs, we discover another dating between predator muscles bulk, Yards
The prey mass and PPMR response variables are directly related-the slope of the PPMR–predator mass relationship equals 1 minus the slope of the prey mass–predator mass relationship, and the intercepts have the same magnitude but opposite signs (for an analytical proof, see Box 1 ). The high- and low-resolution prey mass–predator mass relationships had slopes between 0 and 1, except for Trancura River (slope > 1 in resolution A, D and C) and Coilaco (slope < 0 in resolution D). The slopes of the prey mass–predator mass and PPMR–predator mass relationships give us valuable information on the size structure of a community. However, to be able to compare the PPMR between resolutions within a system, we also need to consider the intercepts of the scaling relationships. The regression lines in Figures 14 and 15 illustrate prey mass and PPMR as functions of predator mass for the different resolutions (individual-level data (A) and species averages (D)) for each of the seven systems. For all systems, except Trancura River, the slopes of the PPMR–predator mass relationships derived from species averages are steeper than those derived from individual-level data. Hence, the strength of the PPMR scaling with predator mass based on species averaging would nearly always be exaggerated. Moreover, for all systems except Tadnoll Brook and Trancura River, the high- (individual-level data) and low-(species averages) resolution regression lines cross somewhere within the observed size range of predator individuals. Thus, using species averages would result in an underestimate of PPMR for predators in the lower end of the size spectrum (to the left of the point of intersection) and an overestimate for predators in the higher end (to the right of the point of intersection).
Interdependence one of scaling relationship
Some of the response variables (scaling relationships) in our analysis are strongly correlated. Indeed, if we know the relationship between predator body mass adultspace seznamka and prey body mass, the relationship between predator body mass and PPMR can be predicted (see also Riede et al., 2011). P, and the body mass of its prey, MR:
Figure 14 parison of the slopes from the mixed effect models of log10 prey body mass as a function of log10 predator body mass, for four of the different aggregations. The particular resolutions and groupings are represented by different colours. The grey points are the individual-level predator–prey interactions. The dashed line represents one-to-one scaling. Each panel represents one of the seven study systems.