32 research outputs found

    Strength of top-down control as indicated by log response ratios (LRR) of the biomass on day 90 of (a) emerging aquatic invertebrates, (b) detritus, and (c) algae to the presence of steelhead trout, salamanders, and both predators.

    No full text
    <p>Each predator combination was modeled under six different aquatic invertebrate assemblages ranging from only vulnerable invertebrates (0% armored) to 100% armored. LRR’s of each predator combination are expressed as a relative measure of the natural log of the final biomass (day 90) of each group in the presence minus the absence of the predator(s). Reference conditions for invertebrate vulnerability (56% armored) represented by dashed vertical lines.</p

    Response of model food web to changes in the magnitude of terrestrial prey subsidies in 90-day simulations for predators (top panels, a,b), primary consumers (middle panels, c,d), and basal resource pools (bottom panels, e,f).

    No full text
    <p>Solid line indicates natural background level of terrestrial prey inputs (100%, 0.261 g·m<sup>−2</sup>), short dashed lines represent reduced prey subsidies relative to natural (0%, 50%), and long dashed lines represent elevated prey subsidies relative to natural (150%, 200%).</p

    Biomass of emerging aquatic invertebrates (a,b), algae (c,d), and detritus (e,f) after 90-day model simulations, in the presence of steelhead trout (square), salamanders (triangle), both predators (cross), or no predators (circle).

    No full text
    <p>Each predator combination was modeled under six invertebrate assemblage scenarios (left panels), ranging from only vulnerable invertebrates (0% armored) to 100% armored, and also six levels of terrestrial prey influx rates (right panels, 0%, 50%, 100%, 150%, 200%). Reference conditions for invertebrate vulnerability (left panels, 56% armored) are represented by dashed vertical lines.</p

    Appendix E. Comparison of support for candidate models with up to two- or three-way predictor interactions.

    No full text
    Comparison of support for candidate models with up to two- or three-way predictor interactions
    corecore