A dark Arctic tale set after the ice melts

A dark Arctic tale set after the ice melts — latimes.com. Yours truly is quoted in the book, regarding the Arctic ice paper (see previous post). I’ll post a review when I’ve completed reading the book.

Posted using ShareThis

Climate change in Arctic could bring Pacific mollusks, other species to Atlantic

Climate change in Arctic could bring Pacific mollusks, other species to Atlantic. A short news article based on a 2008 paper.

Coral reefs and climate change, a message for Copenhagen

Coral reefs and climate change, a message for Copenhagen from Earth Touch on Vimeo.

Scientists Work To Protect Cuba’s Unspoiled Reefs

Los Jardines de la Reina, Cuba (NPR photo)

Scientists Work To Protect Cuba’s Unspoiled Reefs

Coral reef fish food webs

Reef fish food web, Greater Antilles

Here are a couple of renderings of the vertebrate-only component of the coral reef food web. Reminder: the food web is what we expect to see for a reef in the Greater Antilles of the Caribbean, based on data collected around the mid-20th century. The vertebrate component comprises all fish and sea turtle species. The upper figure is the expected food web, and includes 196 species and 995 trophic interactions. Species are arranged on the periphery of the diagram, with interaction represented by the lines crossing the interior. The very busy, or hub species are higher trophic level predators, mostly carcharhinid sharks.

Jamaica coral reef fish food web

The lower figure is what we observe today in Jamaica. (Note: Jamaica is of particular interest for me as a starting comparison, both because of the excellent documentation of those reefs, and my Jamaican heritage; not picking on Jamaica). The number of species, out of 196, observed there over the past 10 years is dramatically smaller. Perhaps more obvious is the loss of interactions. I won’t present the actual data yet, since we will eventually prepare a paper to report all this, but the differences between the two food webs are obvious. We are currently rendering the complete food web, including primary producers and invertebrates, which will be an update of the figures presented in earlier posts. But there are a lot of species in there, and the computers have been churning now for about 17 hours!

Jamaican coral reef I

Fig. 1 - Species-level trophic link distribution for entire coral reef.

We’ve examined records of fish occurrences on Jamaican reefs for the past 10 years, and compared it to our “master” food web. Of the 196 species in our food web, 136 have records in Jamaica. Many of these species are present in very low numbers, and some reefs are noticeably depauperate, recording less than 60 species. Nevertheless, to be conservative, we assume that we can integrate over all the reefs, thereby counting all 136 species as being present. We next expanded our metanetwork, or guild-level food web (in this case almost exactly the same as a trophic species-based web) to the species level, therefore accounting for all expected links in the food web. For the master or pristine web, this yields an overall connectance of 0.059. The trophic link distribution is shown in Fig. 1. Interestingly, this is clearly not a decay distribution (e.g. power law), but has a definite modality of about 25 links. One needs to question the extent to which under-sampling of natural food webs, and aggregation into trophic species, affects interpretation of link distributions.

The next step of course is to assess the state of the Jamaican reef system. Our initial analysis has been to simply remove the “missing” species (extirpated) from the web, and to re-calculate the statistics. Connectance declines to 0.055. Is this significant? Probably impossible to answer that question for network connectance. Also, it should be noted that hundreds of invertebrate species are included here, and they will dampen the impact of any fish removals or additions. Perhaps the next question regards the link properties of the extirpated species.

New paper: Ecological modeling of paleocommunity food webs

Roopnarine, P. D. 2009. Ecological modeling of paleocommunity food webs. in G. Dietl and K. Flessa, eds., Conservation Paleobiology, The Paleontological Society Papers, 15: 195-220.

Find the paper here:
http://zeus.calacademy.org/roopnarine/Selected_Publications/Roopnarine_09.pdf
or here
http://zeus.calacademy.org/publications/

Sobering

I started to match our Caribbean coral reef food web data to assessments of Jamaican reefs today. I used 10 years of careful observations. I basically just sat there and watched my dataset fall apart as species after species failed to appear on the Jamaica list. Where have all the species gone? I’ve worked on extinction for quite some time now, I know many of the people who work on these systems well and we talk, and I talk a lot with relatives (mom included) who are Jamaican and remember the way that it was. It is depressing, it’s sobering, and it’s humbling. I don’t think that I’ve ever had a more depressing day of science. Our species is both remarkable, and remarkably stupid. Sigh.

Power law confirmed

Species-level trophic link distribution

Okay, this post just disappeared, so let’s try again. The updated and correct coral reef food web comprises 759 species. The incoming trophic link distribution, when expanded to the species level (compared to the guild level in the previous post), is a definite power law distribution. The log-transformed data (see figure) yield a function of , i.e. . See the earlier coral reef posts to understand why this is significant.

Coral reef trophic levels, & update

Guild-level trophic link distribution

Spent a great week at the Annual Meeting of the Geological Society of America. The Paleontology Society session on Conservation Paleobiology was a lot of fun, and my students also presented great posters. Now back to the coral reef.

I’ve been cleaning up the data, because with some much data, errors are bound to creep in. I believe that the current data are now accurate, and the metanetwork statistics are 265 guilds (including primary producers) and 4,651 links. That yields a metanetwork connectance of 0.066. The link distribution should therefore also be different, and indeed it is. The figure shows the no. of links per guild, and the regression plot demonstrates that the distribution is still a power law distribution. The exponent is smaller than previously calculated, (), but this is the guild-level network and does not reflect species richnesses (yet).

Trophic level vs. no. of links

The next question that I’m looking at is the distribution of trophic levels among guilds and species. I therefore calculated trophic level for all guilds. The first figure (scatter plot) plots trophic level against the number of prey or incoming links to each guild. There are two things to notice: First, the variance of trophic levels decreases as the number of links, or diet generality of the guild increases. Second, the decrease in the variance is asymmetric, in that there is a bias against being a generalist of low trophic level. This is obvious if you look at all the empty space being vacated below the data points as no. of links increases. I can think of two non-exclusive explanations for this. If you think about a food chain, consumers toward the top of the chain simply have more prey to select from (on an evolutionary timescale), and therefore there should be a natural increase in the number of generalists as trophic level increases. Also, note that there are also many specialists of high trophic level. Perhaps the ability to exert power over other species, as a predator, combined with the previous statement, explains this observation. Finally, what is the distribution of trophic levels within the community? The second figure is a simple histogram plot of all non-primary consumer guilds (i.e. omnivores and carnivores). The distribution is approximately normal, with a definite central tendency. On average, most guilds in the reef are of similar trophic level! That’s very interesting. And referring to the previous scatter plot, we know that there is a biased composition in the tails of the distribution, in that the upper tail (higher trophic level) is a mixed composition of specialist to generalist guilds, but the lower tail is basically restricted to low trophic level specialists.

Guild trophic level distribution

Some of you may have noticed that our trophic levels are non-integer numbers. Primary producers all occupy trophic level 1, and primary consumers are trophic level 2. “Above” that, trophic level is calculated on the basis of the trophic levels of your prey. Exactly how we do that will remain a secret for now.