2018
Power, Mary; Estes, James; Kareiva, Peter; Levin, Simon; Lubchenco, Jane; Palumbi, Stephen
Biographical Memoire: Robert Paine Miscellaneous
2018.
Abstract | Links | BibTeX | Tags: keystone species, memoire, patch dynamics, trophic cascades
@misc{Power2018,
title = {Biographical Memoire: Robert Paine},
author = {Mary Power and James Estes and Peter Kareiva and Simon Levin and Jane Lubchenco and Stephen Palumbi},
url = {https://angelo.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/59/PNAS-2018-Power.pdf},
year = {2018},
date = {2018-01-01},
journal = {Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the United States of America},
number = {1},
pages = {1-20},
abstract = {Robert Paine changed the science of ecology profoundly.
Fascinated with nature and greatly skilled as a naturalist,
he took delight in linking results from field experiments to
general, often novel concepts. Paine’s development of the
concepts of keystone species, trophic cascades, and patch
dynamics are milestones in community ecology. He will
long be revered for his remarkable humanity, including his
devotion to and respect for students, both his own and
the many others he encouraged and guided. Paine took a
bachelor’s degree in paleontology from Harvard in 1954.
After service in the army he earned a Ph.D. in zoology
from the University of Michigan in 1961 followed by a brief
but influential postdoc at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography.
He then joined the faculty of the University of
Washington where he spent the remainder of his career.},
keywords = {keystone species, memoire, patch dynamics, trophic cascades},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {misc}
}
Robert Paine changed the science of ecology profoundly.
Fascinated with nature and greatly skilled as a naturalist,
he took delight in linking results from field experiments to
general, often novel concepts. Paine’s development of the
concepts of keystone species, trophic cascades, and patch
dynamics are milestones in community ecology. He will
long be revered for his remarkable humanity, including his
devotion to and respect for students, both his own and
the many others he encouraged and guided. Paine took a
bachelor’s degree in paleontology from Harvard in 1954.
After service in the army he earned a Ph.D. in zoology
from the University of Michigan in 1961 followed by a brief
but influential postdoc at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography.
He then joined the faculty of the University of
Washington where he spent the remainder of his career.
Fascinated with nature and greatly skilled as a naturalist,
he took delight in linking results from field experiments to
general, often novel concepts. Paine’s development of the
concepts of keystone species, trophic cascades, and patch
dynamics are milestones in community ecology. He will
long be revered for his remarkable humanity, including his
devotion to and respect for students, both his own and
the many others he encouraged and guided. Paine took a
bachelor’s degree in paleontology from Harvard in 1954.
After service in the army he earned a Ph.D. in zoology
from the University of Michigan in 1961 followed by a brief
but influential postdoc at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography.
He then joined the faculty of the University of
Washington where he spent the remainder of his career.
2016
Estes, James; Dayton, Paul; Kareiva, Peter; Levin, Simon; Lubchenco, Jane; Menge, Bruce; Palumbi, Stephen; Mary,; Power,; Terborgh, John
A keystone ecologist: Robert Treat Paine, 1933–2016 Journal Article
In: Ecology, vol. 97, no. 11, pp. 2905-2909, 2016.
Abstract | Links | BibTeX | Tags: intermediate disturbance, keystone species, mentor, patch dynamics, tribute to life, trophic cascade, zonation
@article{Estes2016,
title = {A keystone ecologist: Robert Treat Paine, 1933–2016},
author = {James Estes and Paul Dayton and Peter Kareiva and Simon Levin and Jane Lubchenco and Bruce Menge and Stephen Palumbi and Mary and Power and John Terborgh},
doi = {https://doi.org/10.1002/ecy.1572},
year = {2016},
date = {2016-08-13},
journal = {Ecology},
volume = {97},
number = {11},
pages = {2905-2909},
abstract = {Robert T. Paine, who passed away on 13 June 2016, is among the most influential people in the history of ecology. Paine was an experimentalist, a theoretician, a practitioner, and proponent of the “ecology of place,” and a deep believer in the importance of natural history to ecological understanding. His scientific legacy grew from the discovery of a link between top‐down forcing and species diversity, a breakthrough that led to the ideas of both keystone species and trophic cascades, and to our early understanding of the mosaic nature of biological communities, causes of zonation across physical gradients, and the intermediate‐disturbance hypothesis of species diversity. Paine's influence as a mentor was equally important to the growth of ecological thinking, natural resource conservation, and policy. He served ecology as an Ecological Society of America president, an editor of the Society's journals, a member of and contributor to the National Academy of Sciences and the National Research Council, and an in‐demand advisor to various state and federal agencies. Paine's broad interests, enthusiasm, charisma, and humor deeply affected our lives and the lives of so many others.},
keywords = {intermediate disturbance, keystone species, mentor, patch dynamics, tribute to life, trophic cascade, zonation},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Robert T. Paine, who passed away on 13 June 2016, is among the most influential people in the history of ecology. Paine was an experimentalist, a theoretician, a practitioner, and proponent of the “ecology of place,” and a deep believer in the importance of natural history to ecological understanding. His scientific legacy grew from the discovery of a link between top‐down forcing and species diversity, a breakthrough that led to the ideas of both keystone species and trophic cascades, and to our early understanding of the mosaic nature of biological communities, causes of zonation across physical gradients, and the intermediate‐disturbance hypothesis of species diversity. Paine’s influence as a mentor was equally important to the growth of ecological thinking, natural resource conservation, and policy. He served ecology as an Ecological Society of America president, an editor of the Society’s journals, a member of and contributor to the National Academy of Sciences and the National Research Council, and an in‐demand advisor to various state and federal agencies. Paine’s broad interests, enthusiasm, charisma, and humor deeply affected our lives and the lives of so many others.
Afkhami, Michelle E.; Strauss, Sharon Y.
Native fungal endophytes suppress an exotic dominant and increase plant diversity over small and large spatial scales Journal Article
In: Ecology, vol. 97, no. 5, pp. 1159–1169, 2016.
Abstract | Links | BibTeX | Tags: biodiversity, Bromus laevipes, Epichloë, evenness, fungal endophyte, grass, hidden players, invasive species, keystone species, mutualism, richness, symbiosis
@article{Afkhami2016,
title = {Native fungal endophytes suppress an exotic dominant and increase plant diversity over small and large spatial scales},
author = {Michelle E. Afkhami and Sharon Y. Strauss},
url = {https://angelo.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/59/Afkhami_2016_Eco.pdf},
doi = {10.1890/15-1166.1},
year = {2016},
date = {2016-01-01},
journal = {Ecology},
volume = {97},
number = {5},
pages = {1159–1169},
abstract = {Understanding community dynamics and processes, such as the factors that
generate and maintain biodiversity, drive succession, and affect invasion susceptibility, is
a central goal in ecology and evolution. While most studies of how species interactions
affect communities have focused on highly visible macroorganisms, we show that mutualistic
microfungal endophytes have community-level effects across their host plant’s range and
provide the first example of fungal endophytes enhancing plant diversity. A three-year
field study in which we experimentally manipulated endophyte abundance in a native
Californian grass showed that despite their minute biomass, endophytes dramatically increased
plant community diversity (~110% greater increase with endophytes) by suppressing a
dominant invasive grass, Bromus diandrus. This effect was also detectable, but smaller,
across five additional common gardens spanning ecologically diverse habitats, different
climates, and >400 km of the host grass’ range as well as at microspatial scales within
gardens. Our study illustrates that mutualistic microbes, while often hidden players, can
have unexpectedly large ecological impacts across a wide range of habitats and scales and
may be important for promoting diverse communities and ecosystems.},
keywords = {biodiversity, Bromus laevipes, Epichloë, evenness, fungal endophyte, grass, hidden players, invasive species, keystone species, mutualism, richness, symbiosis},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Understanding community dynamics and processes, such as the factors that
generate and maintain biodiversity, drive succession, and affect invasion susceptibility, is
a central goal in ecology and evolution. While most studies of how species interactions
affect communities have focused on highly visible macroorganisms, we show that mutualistic
microfungal endophytes have community-level effects across their host plant’s range and
provide the first example of fungal endophytes enhancing plant diversity. A three-year
field study in which we experimentally manipulated endophyte abundance in a native
Californian grass showed that despite their minute biomass, endophytes dramatically increased
plant community diversity (~110% greater increase with endophytes) by suppressing a
dominant invasive grass, Bromus diandrus. This effect was also detectable, but smaller,
across five additional common gardens spanning ecologically diverse habitats, different
climates, and >400 km of the host grass’ range as well as at microspatial scales within
gardens. Our study illustrates that mutualistic microbes, while often hidden players, can
have unexpectedly large ecological impacts across a wide range of habitats and scales and
may be important for promoting diverse communities and ecosystems.
generate and maintain biodiversity, drive succession, and affect invasion susceptibility, is
a central goal in ecology and evolution. While most studies of how species interactions
affect communities have focused on highly visible macroorganisms, we show that mutualistic
microfungal endophytes have community-level effects across their host plant’s range and
provide the first example of fungal endophytes enhancing plant diversity. A three-year
field study in which we experimentally manipulated endophyte abundance in a native
Californian grass showed that despite their minute biomass, endophytes dramatically increased
plant community diversity (~110% greater increase with endophytes) by suppressing a
dominant invasive grass, Bromus diandrus. This effect was also detectable, but smaller,
across five additional common gardens spanning ecologically diverse habitats, different
climates, and >400 km of the host grass’ range as well as at microspatial scales within
gardens. Our study illustrates that mutualistic microbes, while often hidden players, can
have unexpectedly large ecological impacts across a wide range of habitats and scales and
may be important for promoting diverse communities and ecosystems.
1999
Berlow, Eric L.; Navarrete, Sergio A.; Briggs, Cheryl J.; Power, Mary E.; Menge, Bruce A.
Quantifying variation in the strengths of species interactions Journal Article
In: Ecology, vol. 80, no. 7, pp. 2206-2224, 1999, ISSN: 0012-9658.
Abstract | Links | BibTeX | Tags: density dependence, food web, functional response, interaction strength, keystone species, per capita effects, predator–prey interaction, simulation, species impact, species interactions
@article{Berlow1999,
title = {Quantifying variation in the strengths of species interactions},
author = {Eric L. Berlow and Sergio A. Navarrete and Cheryl J. Briggs and Mary E. Power and Bruce A. Menge},
url = {https://angelo.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/59/QUANTIFYING-VARIATION-IN-THE-STRENGTHS-OF-SPECIES-INTERACTIONS_Berlow_1999.pdf},
doi = {10.1890/0012-9658(1999)080[2206:QVITSO]2.0.CO;2},
issn = {0012-9658},
year = {1999},
date = {1999-10-00},
journal = {Ecology},
volume = {80},
number = {7},
pages = {2206-2224},
abstract = {Understanding how the strengths of species interactions are distributed among species is critical for developing predictive models of natural food webs as well as for developing management and conservation strategies. Recently a number of ecologists have attempted to clarify the concepts of "strong-" and "weak-interactors" in a community, and to derive techniques for quantifying interaction strengths in the field, using metrics that are consistent, comparable, and of relevance to theoreticians. In this paper we examine potential biases in different empirical approaches to quantifying variation in interaction strengths within and among natural communities.
Using both simulated and published data, we explore the behavior of four commonly used or recently proposed empirical measures of the strength of consumer-prey interactions. The type of index used, the experimental protocol, and the underlying model of predator-prey interaction all strongly influence one's perception of both (1) the distribution of interaction strengths among species (e.g., presence of "keystone" species), and (2) the specific identity of the interactions that appear to be most important. Raw treatment differences tend to emphasize effects on very abundant prey, while the three proportional indices tend to emphasize effects on extremely rare prey. Two of the proportional indices are inherently asymmetric about zero, and they inflate positive or negative effects, respectively. When predators exhibit a saturating functional response, the three proportional measures of per capita effect are biased toward a skewed distribution of interaction strengths dominated by effects on the rarest prey. Predator interference causes the per capita measures to emphasize the effects of rare predators. Estimates of per capita effects are also problematic when (1) the per capita effects are back-calculated from experiments designed to measure collective effects (e.g., predator exclusions), and (2) the collective effect of a predator is constant across a wide range of predator densities, as may be common for keystone predators. Finally, since all of the indices show time-dependent behavior, they are differentially suited fur different experimental protocols (e.g., short-term vs, long-term results, or community initially near vs. far from equilibrium). All the indices explored here have the potential to provide useful, complementary information about ecological impacts of species in natural communities. In this analysis, we attempt to clarify what each index actually measures and the conditions under which each is most revealing.},
keywords = {density dependence, food web, functional response, interaction strength, keystone species, per capita effects, predator–prey interaction, simulation, species impact, species interactions},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Understanding how the strengths of species interactions are distributed among species is critical for developing predictive models of natural food webs as well as for developing management and conservation strategies. Recently a number of ecologists have attempted to clarify the concepts of “strong-” and “weak-interactors” in a community, and to derive techniques for quantifying interaction strengths in the field, using metrics that are consistent, comparable, and of relevance to theoreticians. In this paper we examine potential biases in different empirical approaches to quantifying variation in interaction strengths within and among natural communities.
Using both simulated and published data, we explore the behavior of four commonly used or recently proposed empirical measures of the strength of consumer-prey interactions. The type of index used, the experimental protocol, and the underlying model of predator-prey interaction all strongly influence one’s perception of both (1) the distribution of interaction strengths among species (e.g., presence of “keystone” species), and (2) the specific identity of the interactions that appear to be most important. Raw treatment differences tend to emphasize effects on very abundant prey, while the three proportional indices tend to emphasize effects on extremely rare prey. Two of the proportional indices are inherently asymmetric about zero, and they inflate positive or negative effects, respectively. When predators exhibit a saturating functional response, the three proportional measures of per capita effect are biased toward a skewed distribution of interaction strengths dominated by effects on the rarest prey. Predator interference causes the per capita measures to emphasize the effects of rare predators. Estimates of per capita effects are also problematic when (1) the per capita effects are back-calculated from experiments designed to measure collective effects (e.g., predator exclusions), and (2) the collective effect of a predator is constant across a wide range of predator densities, as may be common for keystone predators. Finally, since all of the indices show time-dependent behavior, they are differentially suited fur different experimental protocols (e.g., short-term vs, long-term results, or community initially near vs. far from equilibrium). All the indices explored here have the potential to provide useful, complementary information about ecological impacts of species in natural communities. In this analysis, we attempt to clarify what each index actually measures and the conditions under which each is most revealing.
Using both simulated and published data, we explore the behavior of four commonly used or recently proposed empirical measures of the strength of consumer-prey interactions. The type of index used, the experimental protocol, and the underlying model of predator-prey interaction all strongly influence one’s perception of both (1) the distribution of interaction strengths among species (e.g., presence of “keystone” species), and (2) the specific identity of the interactions that appear to be most important. Raw treatment differences tend to emphasize effects on very abundant prey, while the three proportional indices tend to emphasize effects on extremely rare prey. Two of the proportional indices are inherently asymmetric about zero, and they inflate positive or negative effects, respectively. When predators exhibit a saturating functional response, the three proportional measures of per capita effect are biased toward a skewed distribution of interaction strengths dominated by effects on the rarest prey. Predator interference causes the per capita measures to emphasize the effects of rare predators. Estimates of per capita effects are also problematic when (1) the per capita effects are back-calculated from experiments designed to measure collective effects (e.g., predator exclusions), and (2) the collective effect of a predator is constant across a wide range of predator densities, as may be common for keystone predators. Finally, since all of the indices show time-dependent behavior, they are differentially suited fur different experimental protocols (e.g., short-term vs, long-term results, or community initially near vs. far from equilibrium). All the indices explored here have the potential to provide useful, complementary information about ecological impacts of species in natural communities. In this analysis, we attempt to clarify what each index actually measures and the conditions under which each is most revealing.