title: Disentangling the influences of mean body size and size structure on ecosystem functioning: an example of nutrient recycling by a non-native crayfish.
abstract: Body size is a fundamental functional trait that can be used to forecast individuals' responses to environmental change and their contribution to ecosystem functioning. However, information on the mean and variation of size distributions often confound one another when relating body size to aggregate functioning. Given that size-based metrics are used as indicators of ecosystem status, it is important to identify the specific aspects of size distributions that mediate ecosystem functioning. Our goal was to simultaneously account for the mean, variance, and shape of size distributions when relating body size to aggregate ecosystem functioning. We take advantage of habitat-specific differences in size distributions to estimate nutrient recycling by a non-native crayfish using mean-field and variance-incorporating approaches. Crayfishes often substantially influence ecosystem functioning through their omnivorous role in aquatic food webs. As predicted from Jensen's inequality, considering only the mean body size of crayfish overestimated aggregate effects on ecosystem functioning. This bias declined with mean body size such that mean-field and variance-incorporating estimates of ecosystem functioning were similar for samples at mean body sizes >7.5 g. At low mean body size, mean-field bias in ecosystem functioning mismatch predictions from Jensen's inequality, likely because of the increasing skewness of the size distribution. Our findings support the prediction that variance around the mean can alter the relationship between body size and ecosystem functioning, especially at low mean body size. However, methods to account for mean-field bias performed poorly in samples with highly skewed distributions, indicating that changes in the shape of the distribution, in addition to the variance, may confound mean-based estimates of ecosystem functioning. Given that many biological functions scale allometrically, explicitly defining and experimentally or statistically isolating the effects of the mean, variance, and shape of size distributions is necessary to begin generalizing relationships between animal body size and ecosystem functioning.
authors.affiliation: School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences University of Washington Seattle Washington 98105.
authors.forename: Keith J
authors.initials: KJ
authors.lastname: Fritschie
authors.affiliation: School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences University of Washington Seattle Washington 98105.
authors.forename: Julian D
authors.initials: JD
authors.lastname: Olden
keywords: Biodiversity‐ecosystem function; Colorado River Basin; Orconectes virilis; intraspecific variability; invasive; nonlinear averaging
references.citation: Mol Ecol. 2008 Jan;17(1):209-20
references.pmid: 17868288
references.citation: Trends Ecol Evol. 1999 Sep;14(9):361-366
references.pmid: 10441312
references.citation: Ecology. 2008 Aug;89(8):2335-46
references.pmid: 18724743
references.citation: Ecol Lett. 2005 May;8(5):538-47
references.pmid: 21352458
references.citation: Ecology. 2013 May;94(5):1046-56
references.pmid: 23858645
references.citation: Sci Rep. 2014 Apr 09;4:4616
references.pmid: 24714619
references.citation: Ecol Lett. 2009 Nov;12(11):1261-76
references.pmid: 19740111
references.citation: Ecology. 2006 Jul;87(7):1696-709
references.pmid: 16922320
references.citation: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007 Mar 13;104(11):4461-6
references.pmid: 17360546
references.citation: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2014 Sep 23;111(38):13894-9
references.pmid: 25136090
references.citation: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2014 Sep 23;111(38):13690-6
references.pmid: 25225414
references.citation: Science. 2004 Nov 12;306(5699):1177-80
references.pmid: 15539601
references.citation: Am Nat. 2011 Mar;177(3):346-57
references.pmid: 21460543
references.citation: Biol Lett. 2010 Aug 23;6(4):434-7
references.pmid: 20444761
references.citation: Trends Ecol Evol. 2013 Jul;28(7):423-31
references.pmid: 23623003
references.citation: Nat Commun. 2013;4:2318
references.pmid: 23933614
references.citation: Evolution. 2004 Jul;58(7):1608-12
references.pmid: 15341162
references.citation: Q Rev Biol. 2000 Dec;75(4):385-407
references.pmid: 11125698
references.citation: Ecology. 2012 Dec;93(12):2615-25
references.pmid: 23431592
references.citation: Ecology. 2013 Jun;94(6):1359-69
references.pmid: 23923499
references.citation: J Anim Ecol. 2012 Sep;81(5):1065-76
references.pmid: 22435774
references.citation: Sci Rep. 2013;3:2646
references.pmid: 24025973
references.citation: PLoS One. 2013 May 07;8(5):e63274
references.pmid: 23667600
references.citation: Trends Ecol Evol. 2005 Jul;20(7):402-9
references.pmid: 16701403
references.citation: Proc Biol Sci. 2012 Aug 7;279(1740):3011-9
references.pmid: 22496185
references.citation: Ecology. 2013 Feb;94(2):521-9
references.pmid: 23691670
references.citation: Glob Chang Biol. 2014 Aug;20(8):2459-72
references.pmid: 24692262
references.citation: J Struct Biol. 2015 Jan;189(1):28-36
references.pmid: 25433275
references.citation: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2015 May 19;112(20):E2640-7
references.pmid: 25877152