Figure legends
FIGURE 1 Comparison of the FCL, mean TP, and i TP between
more diverse (A) and less diverse (B) communities. Triangles and squares
indicate basal resources and circles consumers. The TP of each consumer
can be quantitatively estimated via stable isotope analysis.
Circle size with number and arrow thickness represent consumer biomass
and trophic energy flows, respectively. The two communities have the
same FCLs (4.0) and similar arithmetic mean of consumer TPs (i.e., 2.81
for community A and 2.80 for community B), whereas community A has
higher i TP (2.62) than community B (2.42), indicating that more
energy flowed up through the former food web. In dynamical aspects, a
top predator population may be less stable in community B than A due to
its smaller population size supporting less available energy, resulting
in greater FCL fluctuation.
FIGURE 2 Allometric relationships between body size and TP (a),
between body size and numerical abundance (b), between numerical
abundance and TP (c), and between biomass abundance and TP (d) in
coastal benthic macroinvertebrate communities of Lake Biwa.
FIGURE 3 BEF relationships in coastal benthic macroinvertebrate
communities of Lake Biwa. Biomass as a universal measure of ecosystem
productivity is plotted against taxonomic richness (a) or biodiversity
index (H ’) (b). As indicators for trophic energy flows, thei TP (c) or maximum TP (d) is plotted against H ’.
FIGURE 4 Consumer basal biomass (CBB ),
back-calculated to the primary consumer biomass, against the
biodiversity index (H ’) of macroinvertebrate communities with
minimum (β = 3.7%) and maximum (β = 27.1%) TTE values.