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.