Coevolution by different functional mechanisms modulates the structure and dynamics of antagonistic and mutualistic networks

A central problem in the study of species interactions is to understand the underlying ecological and evolutionary mechanisms that shape and are shaped by trait evolution in interacting assemblages. The patterns of interaction among species (i.e. network structure) provide the pathways for evolution and coevolution, which are modulated by how traits affect individual fitness (i.e. functional mechanisms). Functional mechanisms, in turn, also affect the likelihood of an ecological interaction, shaping the structure of interaction networks. Here, we build adaptive network models to explore the potential role of coevolution by two functional mechanisms, trait matching and exploitation barrier, in driving trait evolution and the structure of interaction networks. We use these models to explore how different scenarios of coevolution and functional mechanisms reproduce the empirical network patterns observed in antagonistic and mutualistic interactions and affect trait evolution. Scenarios assuming coevolutionary feedback with a strong effect of functional mechanism better reproduce the empirical structure of networks. Antagonistic and mutualistic networks, however, are better explained by different functional mechanisms and the structure of antagonisms is better reproduced than that of mutualisms. Scenarios assuming coevolution by strong trait matching between interacting partners better explain the structure of antagonistic networks, whereas those assuming strong barrier effects better reproduce the structure of mutualistic networks. The dynamics resulting from the feedback between strong functional mechanisms and coevolution favor the stability of antagonisms and mutualisms. Selection favoring trait matching reduces temporal trait fluctuation and the magnitude of arms races in antagonisms, whereas selection due to exploitation barriers reduces temporal trait fluctuations in mutualisms. Our results indicate that coevolutionary models better reproduce the network structure of antagonisms than those of mutualisms and that different functional mechanisms may favor the persistence of antagonistic and mutualistic interacting assemblages.     

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.     

Neutral biogeography of phylogenetically structured interaction networks

Little is known about how biogeographic processes affect the dynamics of species interactions in space and time, although it is widely accepted that they drive community assemblage. In functional interactions, such as pollination and seed dispersal, species that share common ancestry tend to retain a common number of interactions and interact with similar sets of species, a pattern more commonly observed for animals than plants. On the one hand, the most coherent explanation for the phylogenetic structure of pollination and seed dispersal networks is that species retain ecological traits over evolution, which would cause the conservation of interaction partners. On the other hand, fundamental processes of biodiversity, such as dispersal and evolutionary rates seem to have important roles shaping the observed phylogenetic structure of mutualistic networks, but no model has been created to study the effect of these processes in the phylogenetic structure of mutualistic interactions. Here, we developed a stochastic simulation model to study the evolution of two interacting groups of species, which evolve independently over the same geographical domain. In our model, individuals of the same interaction group share ecological traits, whereas individuals of different trophic groups are ecologically distinct. We show that even in the absence of ecological differences between individuals, and disregarding any conservation of phenotypical and phenological traits between species, the interplay of dispersal and speciation is still a major driver of complex phylogenetic structure of functional interactions, such as pollination and seed dispersal.     

Associated evolution of fruit size,fruit colour and spines in Neotropical palms

Understanding how ecological interactions have shaped the evolutionary dynamics of species traits remains a challenge in evolutionary ecology. Combining trait evolution models and phylogenies, we analysed the evolution of characters associated with seed dispersal (fruit size and colour) and herbivory (spines) in Neotropical palms to infer the role of these opposing animal–plant interactions in driving evolutionary patterns. We found that the evolution of fruit colour and fruit size was associated in Neotropical palms, supporting the adaptive interpretation of seed‐dispersal syndromes and highlighting the role of frugivores in shaping plant evolution. Furthermore, we revealed a positive association between fruit size and the presence of spines on palm leaves, bracteas and stems. We hypothesize that interactions between palms and large‐bodied frugivores/herbivores may explain the evolutionary relationship between fruit size and spines. Large‐bodied frugivores, such as extinct megafauna, besides consuming the fruits and dispersing large seeds, may also have consumed the leaves or damaged the plants, thus simultaneously favouring the evolution of large fruits and defensive structures. Our findings show how current trait patterns can be understood as the result of the interplay between antagonistic and mutualistic interactions that have happened throughout the evolutionary history of a clade.     

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.     

Seeing through the static: the temporal dimension of plant–animal mutualistic interactions

Most studies of plant–animal mutualistic networks have come from a temporally static perspective. This approach has revealed general patterns in network structure, but limits our ability to understand the ecological and evolutionary processes that shape these networks and to predict the consequences of natural and human‐driven disturbance on species interactions. We review the growing literature on temporal dynamics of plant–animal mutualistic networks including pollination, seed dispersal and ant defence mutualisms. We then discuss potential mechanisms underlying such variation in interactions, ranging from behavioural and physiological processes at the finest temporal scales to ecological and evolutionary processes at the broadest. We find that at the finest temporal scales (days, weeks, months) mutualistic interactions are highly dynamic, with considerable variation in network structure. At intermediate scales (years, decades), networks still exhibit high levels of temporal variation, but such variation appears to influence network properties only weakly. At the broadest temporal scales (many decades, centuries and beyond), continued shifts in interactions appear to reshape network structure, leading to dramatic community changes, including loss of species and function. Our review highlights the importance of considering the temporal dimension for understanding the ecology and evolution of complex webs of mutualistic interactions.     

Inferring coevolution in a plant–pollinator network

Mutualistic interactions are at the core of community dynamics, determining dispersal, colonization and differential survival and reproduction among individuals and species. Mutualistic interactions therefore affect the fitness of interaction partners, hence modifying their respective evolutionary trajectories reciprocally, potentially leading to coevolution. Although mathematical models predict coevolution in mutualistic interaction networks, no empirical data are available. By taking into account the patterns of interactions and reconstructing evolutionary change in plant and pollinator traits, we tested the hypothesis that coevolution occurs between plants and insects that interact more frequently, or more symmetrically. To test this hypothesis, we built an interaction network with data from five flowering seasons, measured plant and insect morphology, mapped morphology on the plant and insect phylogenies, and reconstructed ancestral character changes based on maximum parsimony. We calculated an index, called the coevolutionary ratio, which represents the amount of correlated change in traits that mediate the interaction between plants and pollinators (i.e. proboscis versus corolla length, and body width and corolla aperture). Our results suggest that high frequency of interaction, i.e. the number of times two species interact, does not lead to coevolution. Instead, symmetry of interaction strength, i.e. the reciprocal similarity in the mutual effect of interaction partners, may lead to coevolution, in spite of a pervasive lack of reciprocal specialization and high interaction frequency. Although the statistical signal is quite weak, our results hold for three statistical tests of very different nature. The most specialized species, expected to be under directional selection, do not show more evolutionary change than do generalist species, expected to be under different, perhaps opposing, selective pressures. By dissecting the complexity of an interaction network we show that coevolution may partially shape functional morphology of interaction partners, thus providing the closest evidence to date of mutualistic adaptation of organisms within a community.     

Evolutionary history shapes patterns of mutualistic benefit in Acacia–rhizobial interactions

The ecological and evolutionary factors that drive the emergence and maintenance of variation in mutualistic benefit (i.e., the benefits provided by one partner to another) in mutualistic symbioses are not well understood. In this study, we evaluated the role that host and symbiont phylogeny might play in determining patterns of mutualistic benefit for interactions among nine species of Acacia and 31 strains of nitrogen‐fixing rhizobial bacteria. Using phylogenetic comparative methods we compared patterns of variation in mutualistic benefit (host response to inoculation) to rhizobial phylogenies constructed from housekeeping and symbiosis genes; and a multigene host phylogeny. We found widespread genotype‐by‐genotype variation in patterns of plant growth. A relatively large component of this variation (21–28%) was strongly influenced by the interacting evolutionary histories of both partners, such that phylogenetically similar host species had similar growth responses when inoculated with phylogenetically similar rhizobia. We also found a relatively large nonphylogenetic effect for the average mutualistic benefit provided by rhizobia to plants, such that phylogenetic relatedness did not predict the overall benefit provided by rhizobia across all hosts. We conclude that phylogenetic relatedness should frequently predict patterns of mutualistic benefit in acacia‐rhizobial mutualistic interactions; but that some mutualistic traits also evolve independently of the phylogenies.     

Can the evolution of plant defense lead to plant-herbivore mutualism?

Moderate rates of herbivory can enhance primary production. This hypothesis has led to a controversy as to whether such positive effects can result in mutualistic interactions between plants and herbivores. We present a model for the ecology and evolution of plant-herbivore systems to address this question. In this model, herbivores have a positive indirect effect on plants through recycling of a limiting nutrient. Plants can evolve but are constrained by a trade-off between growth and antiherbivore defense. Although evolution generally does not lead to optimal plant performance, our evolutionary analysis shows that, under certain conditions, the plant-herbivore interaction can be considered mutualistic. This requires in particular that herbivores efficiently recycle nutrients and that plant reproduction be positively correlated with primary production. We emphasize that two different definitions of mutualism need to be distinguished. A first ecological definition of mutualism is based on the short-term response of plants to herbivore removal, whereas a second evolutionary definition rests on the long-term response of plants to herbivore removal, allowing plants to adapt to the absence of herbivores. The conditions for an evolutionary mutualism are more stringent than those for an ecological mutualism. A particularly counterintuitive result is that higher herbivore recycling efficiency results both in increased plant benefits and in the evolution of increased plant defense. Thus, antagonistic evolution occurs within a mutualistic interaction.     

The relative contribution of abundance and phylogeny to the structure of plant facilitation networks

The structure of the real ecological networks is determined by multiple factors including neutral processes, the relative abundances of species, and the phylogenetic relationships of the interacting species. Previous efforts directed to analyze the relative contribution of these factors to network structure have not been able to fully incorporate the phylogenetic relationships between the interacting species. This limitation stems from the difficulty of predicting interaction probabilities based on the independent phylogenies of interacting species (e.g. plants and animals). This is not the case for plant facilitation networks, where nurse and facilitated species evolve in a common phylogeny (e.g. spermatophyte phylogeny). Facilitation networks are characterized by both high nestedness and interactions tending to occur between distantly related nurse and facilitated species. We evaluate the relative contribution of phylogeny and species abundance to explain both the frequency of observed interactions as well as the network structure in a real plant facilitation network at Tehuacán Valley (central Mexico). Our results show that the combined effects of phylogeny and species abundance were, by far, the best predictors of both the frequency of the interactions observed in this community and the parameters (nestedness and connectance) defining the network structure. This finding indicates that species interact proportionally to both their phylogenetic distances and abundances simultaneously. In short, the phylogenetic history of species, acting together with other ecological factors, has a pervasive influence in the structure of ecological networks.     

Predicting the effect of competition on secondary plant extinctions in plant–pollinator networks

What are the limitations of models that predict the behavior of an ecological community based on a single type of species interaction? Using plant–pollinator network models as an example, we contrast the predicted vulnerability of a community to secondary extinctions under the assumption of purely mutualistic interactions versus mutualistic and competitive interactions. We find that competition among plant species increases the risk of secondary extinctions and extinction cascades. Simulations over a number of different network structures indicate that this effect is stronger in larger networks, more strongly connected networks and networks with higher plant:pollinator ratios. We conclude that efforts to model plant–pollinator communities will systematically over‐estimate community robustness to species loss if plant competition is ignored. However, because the effect of plant competition depends on network architecture, and because characterization of plant competition is work intensive, we suggest that efforts to account for plant competition in plant–pollinator network models should be focused on large, strongly connected networks with high plant:pollinator ratios.     

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.     

Species abundance and asymmetric interaction strength in ecological networks

The strength of interactions among species in a network tends to be highly asymmetric. We evaluate the hypothesis that this asymmetry results from the distribution of abundance among species, so that species interactions occur randomly among individuals. We used a database on mutualistic and antagonistic bipartite quantitative interaction networks. We show that across all types of networks asymmetry was correlated with abundance, so that rare species were asymmetrically affected by their abundant partners, while pairs of interacting abundant species tended to exhibit more symmetric, reciprocally strong effects. A null model shows that abundance provides a sufficient explanation of the asymmetry structure in some networks, but suggests the role of additional factors in others. Although not universal, our hypothesis holds for a substantial fraction of networks analyzed here, and should be considered as a null model in all studies aimed at evaluating the ecological and evolutionary consequences of species interactions.     

Comparing the conservatism of ecological interactions in plant–pollinator and plant–herbivore networks

Conservatism in species interaction, meaning that related species tend to interact with similar partners, is an important feature of ecological interactions. Studies at community scale highlight variations in conservatism strength depending on the characteristics of the ecological interaction studied. However, the heterogeneity of datasets and methods used prevent to compare results between mutualistic and antagonistic networks. Here we perform such a comparison by taking plant–insect communities as a study case, with data on plant–herbivore and plant–pollinator networks. Our analysis reveals that plants acting as resources for herbivores exhibit the strongest conservatism in species interaction among the four interacting groups. Conservatism levels are similar for insect pollinators, insect herbivores and plants as interacting partners of pollinators, although insect pollinators tend to have a slightly higher conservatism than the two others. Our results thus clearly support the current view that within antagonistic networks, conservatism is stronger for species as resources than for species as consumer. Although the pattern tends to be opposite for plant–pollinator networks, our results suggest that asymmetry in conservatism is much less pronounced between the pollinators and the plant they interact with. We discuss these differences in conservatism strength in relation with the processes structuring plant–insect communities.     

Do extrafloral nectar resources, species abundances, and body sizes contribute to the structure of ant–plant mutualistic networks?

Recent research has shown that many mutualistic communities display non-random structures. While our understanding of the structural properties of mutualistic communities continues to improve, we know little of the biological variables resulting in them. Mutualistic communities include those formed between ants and extrafloral (EF) nectar-bearing plants. In this study, we examined the contributions of plant and ant abundance, plant and ant size, and plant EF nectar resources to the network structures of nestedness and interaction frequency of ant–plant networks across five sites within one geographic locality in the Sonoran Desert. Interactions between ant and plant species were largely symmetric. That is, ant and plant species exerted nearly equivalent quantitative interaction effects on one another, as measured by their frequency of interaction. The mutualistic ant–plant networks also showed nested patterns of structure, in which there was a central core of generalist ant and plant species interacting with one another and few specialist–specialist interactions. Abundance and plant size and ant body size were the best predictors of symmetric interactions between plants and ants, as well as nestedness. Despite interactions in these communities being ultimately mediated by EF nectar resources, the number of EF nectaries had a relatively weak ability to explain variation in symmetric interactions and nestedness. These results suggest that different mechanisms may contribute to structure of bipartite networks. Moreover, our results for ant–plant mutualistic networks support the general importance of species abundances for the structure of species interactions within biological communities.     

Species traits and abundances predict metrics of plant–pollinator network structure,but not pairwise interactions

Plant–pollinator mutualistic networks represent the ecological context of foraging (for pollinators) and reproduction (for plants and some pollinators). Plant–pollinator visitation networks exhibit highly conserved structural properties across diverse habitats and species assemblages. The most successful hypotheses to explain these network properties are the neutrality and biological constraints hypotheses, which posit that species interaction frequencies can be explained by species relative abundances, and trait mismatches between potential mutualists respectively. However, previous network analyses emphasize the prediction of metrics of qualitative network structure, which may not represent stringent tests of these hypotheses. Using a newly documented temporally explicit alpine plant–pollinator visitation network, we show that metrics of both qualitative and quantitative network structure are easy to predict, even by models that predict the identity or frequency of species interactions poorly. A variety of phenological and morphological constraints as well as neutral interactions successfully predicted all network metrics tested, without accurately predicting species observed interactions. Species phenology alone was the best predictor of observed interaction frequencies. However, all models were poor predictors of species pairwise interaction frequencies, suggesting that other aspects of species biology not generally considered in network studies, such as reproduction for dipterans, play an important role in shaping plant–pollinator visitation network structure at this site. Future progress in explaining the structure and dynamics of mutualistic networks will require new approaches that emphasize accurate prediction of species pairwise interactions rather than network metrics, and better reflect the biology underlying species interactions.     

From species to individuals: does the variation in ant–plant networks scale result in structural and functional changes?

Predicting the outcomes of any mutualistic interaction between ants and plants can be a very difficult task, since these outcomes are often determined by the ecological context in which the interacting species are embedded. Network theory has been an important tool to improve our understanding about the organizational patterns of animal–plant interactions. Nevertheless, traditionally, network studies have focused mainly on species-based differences and ignoring the importance of individual differences within populations. In this study, we evaluated if downscaling an ant–plant network from species to the individual level results in structural and functional changes in a network involving different-sized plant individuals. For this, we studied the extrafloral-nectar producing-tree Caryocar brasiliense (Caryocaraceae) and their associated ants in a Neotropical savanna. We observed 254 interactions involving 43 individuals of C. brasiliense and 47 ant species. The individual-based ant–plant network exhibited a nested pattern of interactions, with all developmental stages contributing equally to structuring this non-random pattern. We also found that plants with greater centrality within the network were better protected by their ant partners. However, plants with higher levels of individual specialization were not necessarily better protected by ants. Overall, we presented empirical evidence that intra-population variations are important for shaping ant–plant networks, since they can change the level of protection against herbivores conferred by the ants. These results highlight the importance of individual-based analyses of ecological networks, opening new research venues in the eco-evolutionary dynamics of ant–plant interactions.     

Defaunation leads to interaction deficits,not interaction compensation,in an island seed dispersal network

Following defaunation, the loss of interactions with mutualists such as pollinators or seed dispersers may be compensated through increased interactions with remaining mutualists, ameliorating the negative cascading impacts on biodiversity. Alternatively, remaining mutualists may respond to altered competition by reducing the breadth or intensity of their interactions, exacerbating negative impacts on biodiversity. Despite the importance of these responses for our understanding of the dynamics of mutualistic networks and their response to global change, the mechanism and magnitude of interaction compensation within real mutualistic networks remains largely unknown. We examined differences in mutualistic interactions between frugivores and fruiting plants in two island ecosystems possessing an intact or disrupted seed dispersal network. We determined how changes in the abundance and behavior of remaining seed dispersers either increased mutualistic interactions (contributing to “interaction compensation”) or decreased interactions (causing an “interaction deficit”) in the disrupted network. We found a “rich‐get‐richer” response in the disrupted network, where remaining frugivores favored the plant species with highest interaction frequency, a dynamic that worsened the interaction deficit among plant species with low interaction frequency. Only one of five plant species experienced compensation and the other four had significant interaction deficits, with interaction frequencies 56–95% lower in the disrupted network. These results do not provide support for the strong compensating mechanisms assumed in theoretical network models, suggesting that existing network models underestimate the prevalence of cascading mutualism disruption after defaunation. This work supports a mutualist biodiversity‐ecosystem functioning relationship, highlighting the importance of mutualist diversity for sustaining diverse and resilient ecosystems.     

Analysis and assembling of network structure in mutualistic systems

It has been observed that mutualistic bipartite networks have a nested structure of interactions. In addition, the degree distributions associated with the two guilds involved in such networks (e.g., plants and pollinators or plants and seed dispersers) approximately follow a truncated power law (TPL). We show that nestedness and TPL distributions are intimately linked, and that any biological reasons for such truncation are superimposed to finite size effects. We further explore the internal organization of bipartite networks by developing a self-organizing network model (SNM) that reproduces empirical observations of pollination systems of widely different sizes. Since the only inputs to the SNM are numbers of plant and animal species, and their interactions (i.e., no data on local abundance of the interacting species are needed), we suggest that the well-known association between species frequency of interaction and species degree is a consequence rather than a cause, of the observed network structure.     

Trait-mediated interaction leads to structural emergence in mutualistic networks

As asymmetric structures of mutualistic networks can potentially contribute to system resilience, elucidating drivers behind the emergence of particular network architectures remains a major endeavour in ecology. Here, using an eco-evolutionary model for bipartite mutualistic networks with trait-mediated interactions, we explore how particular levels of connectance, nestedness and modularity are affected by three network assembly forces: resource accessibility, tolerance to trait difference between mutualistic pairs and competition intensity. We found that a moderate accessibility to intra-trophic resources and cross-trophic mutualistic support can result in a highly nested web, while low tolerance to trait difference between interacting pairs leads to a high level of modularity. Network-level trait complementarity leads to low connectance and high modularity, while network-level specialization can result in nested structures. Consequently, we argue that the interplay of ecological and evolutionary processes through trait-mediated interactions can explain these widely observed architectures in mutualistic networks.