Data from: Restored streams recover food web properties but with different scaling relationships when compared to natural streams
Data files
Feb 11, 2025 version files 8.73 MB
-
fw1773.Zip
8.72 MB
-
README.md
4.35 KB
Abstract
Despite extensive studies revealing differences in the composition of aquatic assemblages between restored streams and natural or pre-restoration states, understanding the ecological consequences and trajectories of stream restoration remains challenging. Food webs are an important way of mapping biodiversity to ecosystem functioning by describing feeding linkages and energy transfer pathways. Describing food webs can provide ecological insights into stream restoration. This study analyzed an unprecedentedly large quantity of food web data (> 1,700 webs) based on long-term (2008–2018) biomonitoring data in South Korea using a feeding link extrapolation. By doing so, we aimed to describe general patterns for the reassembly of aquatic food webs in restored streams. Specifically, we analyzed 12 indices related to the food web structure and robustness of restored streams and compared them with those of natural streams. First, the species richness, link numbers, link density, and connectance of the restored streams were all lower than those of the natural streams, indicating smaller food webs with less complexity. Second, the scaling relationship analyses between the other food-web indices and species richness and connectance showed different mechanisms for structuring food webs in restored streams compared to natural streams. In particular, greater generalist feeding by consumers was identified as a major mechanism that increased the connectance of restored streams, which may increase their robustness against external disturbances. The fractions of the top, intermediate, and basal nodes in the restored streams changed rapidly as species richness increased compared with those of natural streams. Food web connectance and robustness in the restored streams tended to increase over time, reaching a level similar to that of natural streams. This suggests that the long-term ecological recovery of the restored food webs is underway. Overall, our findings indicate that restored stream food webs have ecological features distinct from those of natural streams, suggesting high compositional flexibility, and that consumers with a broad diet are the major driving forces for these differences. Our food web analyses provide a greater understanding of restored streams and help support sustainable stream management through restoration strategies. These results provide new insights into the ecological potential of stream restoration.
https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.mgqnk998s
Description of the data and file structure
This dataset contains food web data provided in the community object format of the R cheddar package. A total of 1,773 food webs are included, representing data from 284 survey locations, constructed annually over the period from 2008 to 2018. Please note that data is not available for all years.
Each food web is stored as a community object in the R cheddar package format and is named sequentially as Web1, Web2, ..., Web1773. Each community object contains three main components:
nodes: Taxonomic information for each observed taxon in the food web.
properties: Metadata including the survey year and stream type (restored or natural).
trophic.links: Consumer-resource interactions in the food web.
Files and variables
File: fw1773.Zip
Description: This dataset contains 1,773 food webs, each represented as a community object.
To facilitate accurate species identification, the GBIF (Global Biodiversity Information Facility) Backbone taxonomy key is provided for each taxonomic entry in the nodes and trophic.links data, ensuring consistency and reducing ambiguity in taxon names.
==Community Object Details==
1. nodes: This component contains taxonomic information for each observed taxon in the food web. Most taxa are identified at the species level, while some are at higher levels. Each entry includes:
• node: Unique taxonomic identifier for each taxon (GBIF taxonomic key).
• kingdom: Kingdom-level classification (GBIF key).
• phylum: Phylum-level classification (GBIF key).
• class: Class-level classification (GBIF key).
• order: Order-level classification (GBIF key).
• family: Family-level classification (GBIF key).
• genus: Genus-level classification (GBIF key).
• node.name: Taxon name (e.g., Nitzschia vermicularis for species, Limnodrilus for genus, Chironomidae for family).
• kingdom.name: Kingdom name (e.g., Animalia, Chromista).
• phylum.name: Phylum name (e.g., Annelida, Arthropoda).
• class.name: Class name (e.g., Clitellata, Insecta).
• order.name: Order name (e.g., Haplotaxida, Ephemeroptera).
• family.name: Family name (e.g., Naididae, Baetidae).
• genus.name: Genus name (e.g., Limnodrilus, Baetis).
2. trophic.links: This component describes consumer-resource interactions for each food web. Both resource and consumer taxa are identified primarily at the species level, but some are at higher levels. Each interaction includes:
• resource: Taxonomic identifier (GBIF key) for the resource taxon.
• consumer: Taxonomic identifier (GBIF key) for the consumer taxon.
• res.node.name: Taxon name of the resource.
• res.kingdom, res.phylum, res.class, res.order, res.family, res.genus: Taxonomic hierarchy for the resource taxon (GBIF keys).
• res.kingdom.name, res.phylum.name, res.class.name, res.order.name, res.family.name, res.genus.name: Taxonomic names for the resource taxon.
• con.node.name: Taxon name of the consumer.
• con.kingdom, con.phylum, con.class, con.order, con.family, con.genus: Taxonomic hierarchy for the consumer taxon (GBIF keys).
• con.kingdom.name, con.phylum.name, con.class.name, con.order.name, con.family.name, con.genus.name: Taxonomic names for the consumer taxon.
3. properties: This component provides metadata for each food web. The dataset covers 284 survey locations, including 53 restored stream sites and 231 natural stream sites. The properties field contains:
• title: Unique identifier combining stream type and sequential numbering (e.g., restored1,... restored53, natural1,... natural231).
• year: The year the biological monitoring survey was conducted (e.g., 2010).
Code/software
The data can be viewed and analyzed using R, version 4.1.0 (R Core Team, 2021). The analysis specifically requires the R cheddar package.
This dataset was generated using data from the National Aquatic Ecological Monitoring Program (NAEMP) in South Korea, which includes species-level and some higher taxonomic group data for fish, benthic macroinvertebrates, and epilithic diatoms collected from 284 stream survey sites. Trophic links between these taxa were extrapolated using the Global Biotic Interactions (GloBI) database to construct food webs for each of the survey sites.