↓ Skip to main content

Permanence does not predict the commonly measured food web structural attributes.

Overview of attention for article published in The American Naturalist, February 2008
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (78th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
54 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Permanence does not predict the commonly measured food web structural attributes.
Published in
The American Naturalist, February 2008
DOI 10.1086/524953
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nadiah P Kristensen

Abstract

Food web assembly algorithms show great promise for investigating issues involving the dynamics of whole webs, such as succession, rehabilitation, and invasibility. Permanence, which requires that all species densities remain positive and finite, has been suggested as a good stability constraint. This study tests the validity of the permanence constraint by comparing real webs and model webs from the literature to the predictions of three assembly algorithms: one constrained by permanence and feasibility, one constrained by feasibility alone, and one with no dynamical constraint. It is found that the addition of the permanence constraint does not improve the predictive ability of the algorithm. Its main effect is to increase the efficiency of species selected for the web. Dynamically constrained webs have lower connectance and indistinct trophic levels compared to real webs and webs from other models, which is a consequence of omitting species' physiology. Although webs are less likely to be permanent if they have high omnivory and cycling, the web-building process circumvents this constraint. The challenges of testing and justifying system-level hypotheses, including isolating and detecting their effects, are discussed.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 54 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 4 7%
France 2 4%
United Kingdom 2 4%
Mexico 1 2%
Saudi Arabia 1 2%
Japan 1 2%
Namibia 1 2%
Unknown 42 78%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 20%
Researcher 9 17%
Professor 7 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 7%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 7%
Other 11 20%
Unknown 8 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 25 46%
Environmental Science 10 19%
Mathematics 3 6%
Psychology 1 2%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 1 2%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 14 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 May 2018.
All research outputs
#5,854,991
of 22,711,242 outputs
Outputs from The American Naturalist
#1,504
of 3,799 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#34,043
of 156,616 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The American Naturalist
#5
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,711,242 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,799 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 156,616 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.