Food Webs - Real-life applications
Keystone Species
The keystone in an archway is a wedge-shaped stone at the top of the arch. It's position is extraordinarily important: if the keystone is removed, the arch will collapse. Thus, the key-stone has become an often-used metaphor in other circumstances, as, for instance, in the nickname of Pennsylvania, the "Keystone State." In the realm of ecology, the term keystone species refers to those organisms that, like a keystone in
Within a food web, for instance, a keystonespecies can have a powerful influence, one that is far out of proportion to its relative biomass orproductivity. Typically, a keystone species is a toppredator (that is, a large secondary or even tertiary consumer), though occasionally an herbivore can occupy the keystone position. Often, the role of the keystone species becomes apparent only once it is removed, either experimentally or by natural forces, from an ecosystem.
STARFISH AND MUSSELS.
In temperate ecosystems on the west coast of North America, for instance, removal of a certain species of starfish ( Pisaster ochraceous ) was found to cause a rapid growth in the numbers and biomass of the mussel Mytilus californianus. The latter then forced out other species and proceeded to dominate the biological community. As it turned out, the starfish acted as a keystone predator by consuming these mussels.
Specifically, the starfish prevented the mussel from gaining dominance that it otherwise would have gained, owing to its competitive superiority in relation to other species within this particular coastal ecosystem. Yet the starfish could not eliminate the mussel, because it was incapable of feeding on larger individuals of that species. The result was that the community enjoyed a much greater degree of diversity and complexity than it would have if the mussel had been allowed to dominate.
SEA OTTERS AND KELP FORESTS.
Another keystone species in a geographic area close to that of the starfish we have just described is the sea otter, native to western North America. Its principal food source is the sea urchin, an herbivore that, in turn, survives by consuming kelp, a large form of algae. By controlling the numbers and densities of sea urchins, sea otters allowed kelp to retain a relatively large biomass within the community, thus facilitating the growth of "kelp forests."
When humans began hunting sea otters for their fur during the late eighteenth and into the nineteenth centuries, however, the ecological effect soon was felt in the form of declining kelp forests. Fortunately, hunting did not render the species extinct, and since the 1930s, sea otters have been colonizing many of their former habitats. This colonization has resulted in a corresponding increase in the density of surrounding kelp forests.
Indicator Species
A concept similar to that of the keystone species is the idea of an indicator species: plants or animals that, by their presence, abundance, or chemical composition, demonstrate a distinctive aspect of the character or quality of the environment. For instance, in an ecosystem affected by pollution, examination of indicator plant species may reveal the pollution patterns. By their presence, indicator species also may serve to show the quality or integrity of an ecosystem. Such is the case, for instance, with the spotted owl, or Strix occidentalis, and other species that depend on old-growth forests. (See Succession and Climax for more on this subject.) Because the needs of these species are so particular, their presence or absence can illustrate the health or lack thereof of the biome in question.
Other indicator plants also can be used to determine the presence of valuable mineral deposits in the soil, because those minerals make their way into the tissues of the plants themselves. Nickel concentrations as great as 10% have been found in the tissues of Russian plants from the mustard family, and a mintlike species called Becium homblei has proved useful for locating copper deposits in parts of Africa. Since the plant can tolerate more than 7% copper in soil (a great amount and many times the percentage of copper in the human body, for instance), it can and does live near enormous copper deposits.
INDICATING TOXINS.
Some plants can serve as indicators of serpentine minerals, varieties of compounds that can be toxic in large concentrations. In California, for instance, where serpentine soils are not uncommon, there plant species unique to specific ecosystems high in serpentine mineral content. Elsewhere, there are types of lichens that are sensitive to toxic gases, such as sulfur dioxide, and thus these lichens can be monitored as a way of keeping tabs on air pollution.
In semiarid regions where soils contain large quantities of the element selenium, plants can accumulate such large concentrations of the element that they become poisonous to primary consumers (for example, rabbits) who eat them. The result may be temporary or even permanent blindness. In such situations, legumes of the genus Astragalus, which can accumulate as much as 15,000 ppm (parts per million)—a comparatively enormous concentration—serve as indicators. Their heavy selenium concentration gives them a noticeably unpleasant smell.
Aquatic invertebrates and fish often have been surveyed for what they can show as to the quality of water and the health of aquatic ecosystems.
Bioaccumulation and Biomagnification
The subject of indicator species leads us, naturally enough, to the topic of pollution in the food web, which can be seen on a small scale in the phenomenon of bioaccumulation and which manifests on a much broader scale as biomagnification. One of the key concepts in ecological studies is the idea that a disturbance in one area can lead to serious consequences elsewhere. The interconnectedness of components in the environment thus makes it impossible for any event or phenomenon to be truly isolated.
Nowhere is this principle better illustrated that in the processes of bioaccumulation and biomagnification. The first of these is the buildup of toxins, and particularly chemical pollutants, in the tissues of individual organisms. Part of the danger in these toxins is the fact that the organism cannot easily process them either by metabolizing them (i.e., incorporating them into the metabolic system, as one does food or water) or by excreting them through urine or other substances produced by the body.
The only way for the organism to release toxins, in fact, is by passing them on to other members of the food web. Because organisms at each successive trophic level must consume more biomass to meet their energy requirements, they experience an increase in contamination, a phenomenon known as biomagnification. The following example illustrates how toxins enter the food web and gradually make their way down the line, growing in proportion as they do.
Particles of pollutant may stick to algae, for instance, which are so small that the toxin does little damage at this level of the food web. But even a small herbivore, such as a zooplankton, takes in larger quantities of the pollutant when it consumes the algae, and so begins the cycle of biomagnification. By the time the toxin has passed from a zooplankton to a small fish, the amount of pollutant in a single organism might be 100 times what it was at the level of the algae. The reason, again, is that the fish can consume 10 zooplankton that each has consumed 10 algae.
These particular numbers, of course, are used simply for the sake of convenience, as were those cited earlier in relation to the ecological pyramid. Note, incidentally, the similarity of the relationships between this "pyramid of poison" and the ecological pyramid, whereby energy, which is beneficial, passes between trophic levels. The higher the trophic level, the smaller the amounts of energy that the organism extracts from its food—but the higher the amount of toxic content. By the time the toxins have passed on to a few more levels in the food web, they might be appearing in concentrations as great as 10,000 times their original amount.
DDT BIOMAGNIFICATION.
Among the most prominent examples of chemical pollutants that are bioaccumulated are such pesticides as DDT (dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane). DDT is an insecticide of the hydrocarbon family, a large group of chemical compounds of which the many varieties of petroleum are examples. Because it is based in hydrocarbons, DDT is hydrophobic ("water-fearing") and instead mixes with oils—including the fat of organisms.
In the twenty or so years leading up to 1972, Americans used vast amounts of DDT for the purpose of controlling mosquitoes and other pests. DDT appeared to be a remarkably successful killer, and in fact it turned out to be a little too successful. As it found its way into water sources, DDT entered the bodies of fish, and then those of predatory birds such as osprey, peregrine falcons, brown pelicans, and even the bald eagle.
The detrimental effect of DDT on America's national symbol, a bird protected by law since 1940, aptly illustrates the ravages exacted by this powerful insecticide. DDT levels in birds became so high that the birds' eggshells were abnormally thin, and adult birds sitting on the nest would accidentally break the shells of unhatched chicks. As a result, baby birds died, and populations of these species dwindled. Environmentalists in the late 1960s and early 1970s raised public awareness of this phenomenon, and this led to the banning of DDT spraying in 1972. The period since that time has seen dramatic increases in bird populations.
THE HUMAN FACTOR.
Because the species of bird affected were not ones that people normally consume for food, DDT biomagnification did not have a wide-ranging effect on human populations. However, tests showed that some DDT had made its way into the fat deposits of some members of the population. In any case, bioaccumulation and biomagnification have threatened humans, for instance in the late 1940s and early 1950s, when cows fed on grass that had been exposed to nuclear radiation, and this radioactive material found its way into milk.
Traces of the radioactive isotope strontium-90, a by-product of nuclear weapons testing in the atmosphere from the late 1940s onward, fell to earth in a fine powder that coated the grass. Later the cows ate the grass, and strontium-90 wound up in the milk they produced. Because of its similarities to calcium, the isotope became incorporated into the teeth and gums of children who drank the milk, posing health concerns that helped bring an end to atmospheric testing in the early 1960s.
Humans themselves can serve as repositories for contaminants, a particular concern for a mother nursing her baby. Assuming the mother's own system has been contaminated by toxins, it is likely that her milk contains traces of the harmful chemical, which will be passed on to her child. Obviously, this is a very serious matter. Nursing mothers, babies, and their loved ones are not the only people affected by bioaccumulation and the storing of toxins in fatty tissues. In fact, some physicians and nutritionists maintain that one of the reasons for the buildup of fat on a person's body (though certainly not the only reason) may be as a response to toxins, the idea being that the body produces fat cells as a means of keeping the toxins away from the bloodstream.
Another case of large-scale bioaccumulation occurred during the 1970s and 1980s, when fish such as tuna were found to contain bioaccumulated levels of mercury. In the face of such concerns, governments have intervened in several ways, including the banning of DDT spraying, as mentioned earlier. The U.S. federal government and the governments of some states have issued warnings against the consumption of certain types of fish, owing to bioaccumulated levels of toxic pollutants. Bioaccumulation is particularly serious in the case of species that live a long time, because a longer life allows for much longer periods of bioaccumulation. For this reason, some governments warn against consuming fish over a certain age or size: the older and larger the creature, the more contaminated it is likely to be.
WHERE TO LEARN MORE
A to Z of Food Chains and Webs (Web site). <http://www.education.leeds.ac.uk/~edu/technology/epb97/forest/azfoodcw.htm> .
Bioaccumulation and Biomagnification (Web site). <http://www.marietta.edu/~biol/102/2bioma95.html> .
Busch, Phyllis S. Dining on a Sunbeam: Food Chains and Food Webs. Photos Les Line. New York: Four Winds Press, 1973.
Extension Toxicology Network (EXTOXNET): Toxicology Information Briefs (Web site). <http://ace.orst.edu/info/extoxnet/tibs/bioaccum.htm> .
Food Chains and Food Webs: An Introduction (Web site). <http://www.si.edu/sites/educate/troprain/foodchai.htm> .
Food Webs: Build Your Own (Web site). <http://www.gould.edu.au/foodwebs/kids_web.htm> .
Fox, Nicols. Spoiled: The Dangerous Truth About a Food Chain Gone Haywire. New York: Basic Books, 1997.
Introduction to Biogeography and Ecology: Trophic Pyramids and Food Webs. Fundamentals of Physical Geography (Web site). <www.geog.ouc.bc.ca/physgeog/contents/9o.html> .
Pimm, Stuart L. Food Webs. New York: Chapman and Hall, 1982.
Wallace, Holly. Food Chains and Webs. Chicago: Heinemann Library, 2001.
Comment about this article, ask questions, or add new information about this topic: