A conceptual framework for studying the strength of plant–animal mutualistic interactions

The strength of species interactions influences strongly the structure and dynamics of ecological systems. Thus, quantifying such strength is crucial to understand how species interactions shape communities and ecosystems. Although the concepts and measurement of interaction strength in food webs have received much attention, there has been comparatively little progress in the context of mutualism. We propose a conceptual scheme for studying the strength of plant–animal mutualistic interactions. We first review the interaction strength concepts developed for food webs, and explore how these concepts have been applied to mutualistic interactions. We then outline and explain a conceptual framework for defining ecological effects in plant–animal mutualisms. We give recommendations for measuring interaction strength from data collected in field studies based on a proposed approach for the assessment of interaction strength in plant–animal mutualisms. This approach is conceptually integrative and methodologically feasible, as it focuses on two key variables usually measured in field studies: the frequency of interactions and the fitness components influenced by the interactions.     

Network structural properties mediate the stability of mutualistic communities

Key advances are being made on the structures of predator–prey food webs and competitive communities that enhance their stability, but little attention has been given to such complexity–stability relationships for mutualistic communities. We show, by way of theoretical analyses with empirically informed parameters, that structural properties can alter the stability of mutualistic communities characterized by nonlinear functional responses among the interacting species. Specifically, community resilience is enhanced by increasing community size (species diversity) and the number of species interactions (connectivity), and through strong, symmetric interaction strengths of highly nested networks. As a result, mutualistic communities show largely positive complexity–stability relationships, in opposition to the standard paradox. Thus, contrary to the commonly-held belief that mutualism's positive feedback destabilizes food webs, our results suggest that interplay between the structure and function of ecological networks in general, and consideration of mutualistic interactions in particular, may be key to understanding complexity–stability relationships of biological communities as a whole.     

Diversity in a complex ecological network with two interaction types

Most studies on ecological networks consider only a single interaction type (e.g. competitive, predatory or mutualistic), and try to developrules for system stability based exclusively on properties of this interaction type. However, the stability of ecological networks may be more dependent on the way different interaction types are combined in real communities. To address this issue, we start by compiling an ecological network in the Doñana Biological Reserve, southern Spain, with 390 species and 798 mu-tualistic and antagonistic interactions. We characterize network structure by looking at how mutualistic and antagonistic interactions are combined across all plant species. Both the ratio of mutualistic to antagonistic interactions per plant, and the number of basic modules with an antagonistic and a mutualistic interaction are very heterogeneous across plant species, with a few plant species showing very high values for these parameters. To assess the implications of these network patterns on species diversity, we study analytically and by simulation a model of this ecological network. We find that the observed correlation between strong interaction strengths and high mutualistic to antagonistic ratios in a few plant species significantly increases community diversity. Thus, to predict the persistence of biodiversity we need to understand how interaction strength and the architecture of ecological networks with different interaction types are combined.     

Structure–stability relationships in networks combining mutualistic and antagonistic interactions

The relationship between the structure of ecological networks and community stability has been studied for decades. Recent developments highlighted that this relationship depended on whether interactions were antagonistic or mutualistic. Different structures promoting stability in different types of ecological networks, i.e. mutualistic or antagonistic, have been pointed out. However, these findings come from studies considering mutualistic and antagonistic interactions separately whereas we know that species are part of both types of networks simultaneously. Understanding the relationship between network structure and community stability, when mutualistic and antagonistic interactions are merged in a single network, thus appears as the next challenge to improve our understanding of the dynamics of natural communities. Using a theoretical approach, we test whether the structural characteristics known to promote stability in networks made of a single interaction type still hold for network merging mutualistic and antagonistic interactions. We show that the effects of diversity and connectance remain unchanged. But the effects of nestedness and modularity are strongly weakened in networks combining mutualistic and antagonistic interactions. By challenging the stabilizing mechanisms proposed for networks with a single interaction type, our study calls for new measures of structure for networks that integrate the diversity of interaction.     

Disentangling the effect of hybrid interactions and of the constant effort hypothesis on ecological community stability

In the last years, a remarkable theoretical effort has been made in order to understand the relation between stability and complexity in ecological communities. Yet, what maintains species diversity in real ecological communities is still an open question. The non‐random structures of ecological interaction networks have been recognized as one key ingredient impacting the maximum number of coexisting species within the ecological community. However most of the earlier theoretical studies have considered communities with only one interaction type (either antagonistic, competitive or mutualistic). Recently, it has been proposed that multiple interaction types might stabilize ecosystems and that, in this hybrid case, increasing complexity increases stability. Here we show that these results depend on ad hoc hypothesis that the authors used in their model and we highlight the need to disentangle the role of multiple interaction types and constant interaction effort allocation on community stability. Indeed, we find that mixing of mutualistic and predator–prey interaction types does not stabilize the community dynamics and we demonstrate that a positive correlation between complexity and stability is observed only if a constant effort allocation is imposed in the ecological interactions. Synthesis In recent years a sparkling research has been devoted to the search of new theoretical mechanisms to explain way ecosystems may persist despite their complexity. Here we show that, contrary to what recently suggested (Mougi et al. 2012), the mismatch between theoretical results and empirical evidences on the stability of ecological community is still there also for communities with both mutualistic and antagonistic interactions, and the ‘complexity‐stability’ paradox is still alive. Indeed, we demonstrate that their results arise as an artifact of the peculiar rescaling of the interaction strengths they imposed. Our study suggests that further theoretical studies and experimental evidences are still needed to better understand the role of interaction strengths in real ecological communities.     

Network structure, predator–prey modules, and stability in large food webs

Large, complex networks of ecological interactions with random structure tend invariably to instability. This mathematical relationship between complexity and local stability ignited a debate that has populated ecological literature for more than three decades. Here we show that, when species interact as predators and prey, systems as complex as the ones observed in nature can still be stable. Moreover, stability is highly robust to perturbations of interaction strength, and is largely a property of structure driven by predator–prey loops with the stability of these small modules cascading into that of the whole network. These results apply to empirical food webs and models that mimic the structure of natural systems as well. These findings are also robust to the inclusion of other types of ecological links, such as mutualism and interference competition, as long as consumer–resource interactions predominate. These considerations underscore the influence of food web structure on ecological dynamics and challenge the current view of interaction strength and long cycles as main drivers of stability in natural communities. Electronic Supplementary Material The online version of this article (doi:) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.     

Instability of a hybrid module of antagonistic and mutualistic interactions

Mutualistic and antagonistic interactions coexist in nature. However, little is understood about their relative roles and interactive effects on multispecies coexistence. Here, using a three-species population dynamics model of a resource species, its exploiter, and a mutualist species, we show that a mixture of different interaction types may lead to dynamics that differ completely from those of the isolated interacting pairs. More specifically, a combination of globally stable antagonistic and mutualistic subsystems can lead to unstable population oscillations, suggesting the potential difficulty in the coexistence of antagonism and mutualism. Mutualism-induced instability arises from the indirect positive effect of mutualism on the exploiter. Furthermore, for a three-species system with a stronger mutualistic interaction to persist stably, a weaker antagonistic interaction is required. Network studies of communities composed of one type of interaction may not capture the dynamics of natural communities.     

Interspecific interactions affect species and community responses to climate shifts

The response of individual species to climate change may alter the composition and dynamics of communities. Here, we show that the impacts of environmental change on communities can depend on the nature of the interspecific interactions: mutualistic communities typically respond differently than commensalistic or parasitic communities. We model and analyse the geographic range shifting of metapopulations of two interacting species – a host and an obligate species. Different types of interspecific interactions are implemented by modifying local extinction rates according to the presence/absence of the other species. We distinguish and compare three fundamentally different community types: mutualism, commensalism and parasitism. We find that community dynamics during geographic range shifting critically depends on the type of interspecific interactions. Parasitic interactions exacerbate the negative effect of environmental change whereas mutualistic interactions only partly compensate it. Commensalistic interactions exhibit an intermediate response. Based on these model outcomes, we predict that parasitic species interactions may be more vulnerable to geographic range shifting than commensalistic or mutualistic ones. However, we observe that when climate stabilises following a period of change, the rate of community recovery is largely independent of the type of interspecific interactions. These results emphasize that communities respond delicately to environmental change, and that local interspecific interactions can affect range shifting communities at large spatial scales.     

What Can Interaction Webs Tell Us About Species Roles?

The group model is a useful tool to understand broad-scale patterns of interaction in a network, but it has previously been limited in use to food webs, which contain only predator-prey interactions. Natural populations interact with each other in a variety of ways and, although most published ecological networks only include information about a single interaction type (e.g., feeding, pollination), ecologists are beginning to consider networks which combine multiple interaction types. Here we extend the group model to signed directed networks such as ecological interaction webs. As a specific application of this method, we examine the effects of including or excluding specific interaction types on our understanding of species roles in ecological networks. We consider all three currently available interaction webs, two of which are extended plant-mutualist networks with herbivores and parasitoids added, and one of which is an extended intertidal food web with interactions of all possible sign structures (+/+, -/0, etc.). Species in the extended food web grouped similarly with all interactions, only trophic links, and only nontrophic links. However, removing mutualism or herbivory had a much larger effect in the extended plant-pollinator webs. Species removal even affected groups that were not directly connected to those that were removed, as we found by excluding a small number of parasitoids. These results suggest that including additional species in the network provides far more information than additional interactions for this aspect of network structure. Our methods provide a useful framework for simplifying networks to their essential structure, allowing us to identify generalities in network structure and better understand the roles species play in their communities.     

Stability of a diamond-shaped module with multiple interaction types

Indirect interactions among species emerge from the complexity of ecological networks and can strongly affect the response of communities to disturbances. To determine these indirect interactions and understand better community dynamics, ecologists focused on the interactions within small sets of species or modules. Thanks to their analytical tractability, modules bring insights on the mechanisms occurring in complex interaction networks. So far, most studies have considered modules with a single type of interaction although numerous species are involved in mutualistic and antagonistic interactions simultaneously. In this study, we analyse the dynamics of a diamond-shaped module with multiple interaction types: two resource species sharing a mutualist and a consumer. We describe the different types of indirect interaction occurring between the resource species and the conditions for a stable coexistence of all species. We show that the nature of indirect interactions between resource species (i.e. apparent facilitation, competition or antagonism), as well as stable coexistence, depend on the species generalism and asymmetry of interactions, or in other words, on the distribution of interaction strengths among species. We further unveil that a balance between mutualistic and antagonistic interactions at the level of resource species favours stable coexistence, and that species are more likely to coexist stably if there is apparent facilitation between the two resource species rather than apparent competition. Our results echo existing knowledge on the trophic diamond-shaped module, and confirm that our understanding of communities combining different interaction types can gain from module analyses.     

Positive interactions and the emergence of community structure in metacommunities

The significant role of space in maintaining species coexistence and determining community structure and function is well established. However, community ecology studies have mainly focused on simple competition and predation systems, and the relative impact of positive interspecific interactions in shaping communities in a spatial context is not well understood. Here we employ a spatially explicit metacommunity model to investigate the effect of local dispersal on the structure and function of communities in which species are linked through an interaction web comprising mutualism, competition and exploitation. Our results show that function, diversity and interspecific interactions of locally linked communities undergo a phase transition with changes in the rate of species dispersal. We find that low spatial interconnectedness favors the spontaneous emergence of strongly mutualistic communities which are more stable but less productive and diverse. On the other hand, high spatial interconnectedness promotes local biodiversity at the expense of local stability and supports communities with a wide range of interspecific interactions. We argue that investigations of the relationship between spatial processes and the self-organization of complex interaction webs are critical to understanding the geographic structure of interactions in real landscapes.     

Do Food Web Models Reproduce the Structure of Mutualistic Networks?

Background

Simple models inspired by processes shaping consumer-resource interactions have helped to establish the primary processes underlying the organization of food webs, networks of trophic interactions among species. Because other ecological interactions such as mutualisms between plants and their pollinators and seed dispersers are inherently based in consumer-resource relationships we hypothesize that processes shaping food webs should organize mutualistic relationships as well.

Methodology/Principal Findings

We used a likelihood-based model selection approach to compare the performance of food web models and that of a model designed for mutualisms, in reproducing the structure of networks depicting mutualistic relationships. Our results show that these food web models are able to reproduce the structure of most of the mutualistic networks and even the simplest among the food web models, the cascade model, often reproduce overall structural properties of real mutualistic networks.

Conclusions/Significance

Based on our results we hypothesize that processes leading to feeding hierarchy, which is a characteristic shared by all food web models, might be a fundamental aspect in the assembly of mutualisms. These findings suggest that similar underlying ecological processes might be important in organizing different types of interactions.     

A simple stochastic model for complex coextinctions in mutualistic networks: robustness decreases with connectance

Understanding and predicting species extinctions and coextinctions is a major goal of ecological research in the face of a biodiversity crisis. Typically, models based on network topology are used to simulate coextinctions in mutualistic networks. However, such topological models neglect two key biological features of species interactions: variation in the intrinsic dependence of species on the mutualism, and variation in the relative importance of each interacting partner. By incorporating both types of variation, we developed a stochastic coextinction model capable of simulating extinction cascades far more complex than those observed in previous topological models. Using a set of empirical mutualistic networks, we show that the traditional topological model may either underestimate or overestimate the number and likelihood of coextinctions, depending on the intrinsic dependence of species on the mutualism. More importantly, contrary to topological models, our stochastic model predicts extinction cascades to be more likely in highly connected mutualistic communities.     

On the structure and stability of mutualistic systems: Analysis of predator-prey and competition models as modified by the action of a slow-growing mutualist

Two basic models of mutualism are presented in which interactions among three species lead to mutualism between two of them. The models represent 2-species predator-prey or competition systems in which a third species acts as a mutualist with either the predator, the prey, or one of the competitors. The models include the assumptions that there is a cost of associating with the mutualist and that the mutualist population grows much more slowly than the other two populations. Special cases of these two models correspond to six qualitatively different types of mutualistic benefit, all of which are known to occur in nature: deterring predation, increasing prey availability, feeding on (or competing with) a predator, increasing competitive interactions, decreasing competitive interactions, and feeding on (or competing with) a competitor. These models and their special cases are subjected to a local stability analysis. The results show that mutualism based upon deterring predation, competing with a predator, or decreasing competitive interactions enhances local stability, while mutualism based upon increasing prey availability or increasing competitive interactions reduces local stability. These results clearly reject the idea that mutualism is an inherently unstable process, and reinforces the idea that each different kind of mutualism will have to be considered separately. Compared to 2-species models of mutualism, the 3-species models provide a more realistic representation of the structure of many mutualistic systems, the mechanisms by which one species benefits another, and the regulation of the interaction.     

Strategy Diversity Stabilizes Mutualism through Investment Cycles,Phase Polymorphism,and Spatial Bubbles

There is continuing interest in understanding factors that facilitate the evolution and stability of cooperation within and between species. Such interactions will often involve plasticity in investment behavior, in response to the interacting partner''s investments. Our aim here is to investigate the evolution and stability of reciprocal investment behavior in interspecific interactions, a key phenomenon strongly supported by experimental observations. In particular, we present a comprehensive analysis of a continuous reciprocal investment game between mutualists, both in well-mixed and spatially structured populations, and we demonstrate a series of novel mechanisms for maintaining interspecific mutualism. We demonstrate that mutualistic partners invariably follow investment cycles, during which mutualism first increases, before both partners eventually reduce their investments to zero, so that these cycles always conclude with full defection. We show that the key mechanism for stabilizing mutualism is phase polymorphism along the investment cycle. Although mutualistic partners perpetually change their strategies, the community-level distribution of investment levels becomes stationary. In spatially structured populations, the maintenance of polymorphism is further facilitated by dynamic mosaic structures, in which mutualistic partners form expanding and collapsing spatial bubbles or clusters. Additionally, we reveal strategy-diversity thresholds, both for well-mixed and spatially structured mutualistic communities, and discuss factors for meeting these thresholds, and thus maintaining mutualism. Our results demonstrate that interspecific mutualism, when considered as plastic investment behavior, can be unstable, and, in agreement with empirical observations, may involve a polymorphism of investment levels, varying both in space and in time. Identifying the mechanisms maintaining such polymorphism, and hence mutualism in natural communities, provides a significant step towards understanding the coevolution and population dynamics of mutualistic interactions.     

Consumer–resource dynamics of indirect interactions in a mutualism–parasitism food web module

Food web dynamics are well known to vary with indirect interactions, classic examples including apparent competition, intraguild predation, exploitative competition, and trophic cascades of food chains. Such food web modules entailing predation and competition have been the focus of much theory, whereas modules involving mutualism have received far less attention. We examined an empirically common food web module involving mutualistic (N ₂) and parasitic (N ₃) consumers exploiting a resource of a basal mutualist (N ₁), as illustrated by plants, pollinators, and nectar robbers. This mutualism–parasitism food web module is structurally similar to exploitative competition, suggesting that the module of two consumers exploiting a resource is unstable. Rather than parasitic consumers destabilizing the module through (?,?) indirect interactions, two mechanisms associated with the mutualism can actually enhance the persistence of the module. First, the positive feedback of mutualism favors coexistence in stable limit cycles, whereby (+,?) indirect interactions emerge in which increases in N ₂ have positive effects on N ₃ and increases in N ₃ have negative effects on N ₂. This (+,?) indirect interaction arising from the saturating positive feedback of mutualism has broad feasibility across many types of food web modules entailing mutualism. Second, optimization of resource exploitation by the mutualistic consumer can lead to persistence of the food web module in a stable equilibrium. The mutualism–parasitism food web module is a basic unit of food webs in which mutualism favors its persistence simply through density-dependent population dynamics, rather than parasitism destabilizing the module.     

The Effects of Spatial Scale on Trophic Interactions

Food chain models have dominated empirical studies of trophic interactions in the past decades, and have lead to important insights into the factors that control ecological communities. Despite the importance of food chain models in instigating ecological investigations, many empirical studies still show a strong deviation from the dynamics that food chain models predict. We present a theoretical framework that explains some of the discrepancies by showing that trophic interactions are likely to be strongly influenced by the spatial configuration of consumers and their resources. Differences in the spatial scale at which consumers and their resources function lead to uncoupling of the population dynamics of the interacting species, and may explain overexploitation and depletion of resource populations. We discuss how changed land use, likely the most prominent future stress on natural systems, may affect food web dynamics by interfering with the scale of interaction between consumers and their resource.     

The specialization and structure of antagonistic and mutualistic networks of beetles on rainforest canopy trees

Different kinds of species interactions can lead to different structures within ecological networks. Antagonistic interactions (such as between herbivores and host plants) often promote increasing host specificity within a compartmentalized network structure, whereas mutualistic networks (such as pollination networks) are associated with higher levels of generalization and form nested network structures. However, we recently showed that the host specificity of flower‐visiting beetles from three different feeding guilds (herbivores, fungivores, and predators) in an Australian rainforest canopy was equal to that of herbivores on leaves, suggesting that antagonistic herbivores on leaves are no more specialized than flower‐visitors. We therefore set out to test whether similarities in the host specificity of these different assemblages reflect similarities in underlying network structures. As shown before at the species level, mutualistic communities on flowers showed levels of specialization at the network scale similar to those of the antagonistic herbivore community on leaves. However, the network structure differed, with flower‐visiting assemblages displaying a significantly more nested structure than folivores, and folivores displaying a significantly more compartmentalized structure than flower‐visitors. These results, which need further testing in other forest systems, demonstrate that both antagonistic and mutualistic interactions can result in equally high levels of host specialization among beetle assemblages in tropical rainforests. If this is a widespread phenomenon, it may alter our current perceptions of food web dynamics, species diversity patterns, and co‐evolution in tropical rainforests. © 2014 The Linnean Society of London, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2015, 114 , 287–295.     

Network Dynamics Contribute to Structure: Nestedness in Mutualistic Networks

Both ecological and evolutionary timescales are of importance when considering an ecological system; population dynamics affect the evolution of species traits, and vice versa. Recently, these two timescales have been used to explain structural patterns in host-parasite networks, where the evolution of the manner in which species balance the use of their resources in interactions with each other was examined. One of these patterns was nestedness, in which the set of parasite species within a particular host forms a subset of those within a more species-rich host. Patterns of both nestedness and anti-nestedness have been observed significantly more often than expected due to chance in host-parasite networks. In contrast, mutualistic networks tend to display a significant degree of nestedness, but are rarely anti-nested. Within networks with different interaction types, therefore, there appears to be a feature promoting non-random structural patterns, such as nestedness and anti-nestedness, depending on the interaction types involved. Here, we invoke the co-evolution of species trait-values when allocating resources to interactions to explain the structural pattern of nestedness in a mutualistic community. We look at a bipartite, multi-species system, in which the strength of an interaction between two species is determined by the resources that each species invests in that relationship. We then analyze the evolution of these interactions using adaptive dynamics. We found that the evolution of these interactions, reflecting the trade-off of resources, could be used to accurately predict that nestedness occurs significantly more often than expect due to chance alone in a mutualistic network. This complements previous results applying the same concept to an antagonistic network. We conclude that population dynamics and resource trade-offs could be important promoters of structural patterns in ecological networks of different types.     

The effect of space in plant–animal mutualistic networks: insights from a simulation study

The topology of plant–animal mutualistic networks has the potential to determine the ecological and evolutionary dynamics of interacting species. Many mechanisms have been proposed as explanations of observed network patterns; however, the fact that plant–animal interactions are inherently spatial has so far been ignored. Using a simulation model of frugivorous birds foraging in spatially explicit landscapes we evaluated how plant distribution and the scale of bird movement decisions influenced species interaction probabilities and the resulting network properties. Spatial aggregation and limited animal mobility restricted encounter probabilities, so that the distribution of animal visits per plant deviated strongly from the binomial distribution expected for a well-mixed system. Lack of mixing in turn resulted in a strong decrease in network connectance, a weak decrease in nestedness, stronger interactions, greater strength asymmetry and the unexpected presence/absence of some interactions. Our results suggest that spatial processes may contribute substantially to structure plant–animal mutualistic networks.