A neutral‐niche theory of nestedness in mutualistic networks

Recently, there has been a vigorous interest in community ecology about the structure of mutualistic networks and its importance for species persistence and coevolution. However, the mechanisms shaping mutualistic networks have been rarely explored. Here we extend for the first time the neutral theory of biodiversity to a multi trophic system. We focus on nestedness, a distinctive pattern of mutualistic community assembly showing two characteristics, namely, asymmetrical specialization (specialists interacting with generalists) and a generalist core (generalists interacting with generalists). We investigate the importance of relative species abundance (RSA) for the nested assembly of plant–animal mutualistic networks. Our results show that neutral mutualistic communities give rise to networks considerably more nested than real communities. RSA explains 60–70% of nested patterns in two real communities studied here, while 30–40% of nestedness is still unexplained. The nested pattern in real communities is better explained when we introduce interaction‐specific species traits such as forbidden links and intensity of dependence (relative importance of fruits for the diet of a frugivore) in our analysis. The fact that neutral mutualistic communities exhibit a perfectly nested structure and do not show a random or compartmentalized structure, underlines the importance of RSA in the assembly of mutualistic networks.     

Traits and phylogenetic history contribute to network structure across Canadian plant–pollinator communities

Interaction webs, or networks, define how the members of two or more trophic levels interact. However, the traits that mediate network structure have not been widely investigated. Generally, the mechanism that determines plant-pollinator partnerships is thought to involve the matching of a suite of species traits (such as abundance, phenology, morphology) between trophic levels. These traits are often unknown or hard to measure, but may reflect phylogenetic history. We asked whether morphological traits or phylogenetic history were more important in mediating network structure in mutualistic plant-pollinator interaction networks from Western Canada. At the plant species level, sexual system, growth form, and flower symmetry were the most important traits. For example species with radially symmetrical flowers had more connections within their modules (a subset of species that interact more among one another than outside of the module) than species with bilaterally symmetrical flowers. At the pollinator species level, social species had more connections within and among modules. In addition, larger pollinators tended to be more specialized. As traits mediate interactions and have a phylogenetic signal, we found that phylogenetically close species tend to interact with a similar set of species. At the network level, patterns were weak, but we found increasing functional trait and phylogenetic diversity of plants associated with increased weighted nestedness. These results provide evidence that both specific traits and phylogenetic history can contribute to the nature of mutualistic interactions within networks, but they explain less variation between networks.     

Nested structure is dependent on visitor sex in the flower‒visitor networks in Kyoto,Japan

The characteristics of flower‒visitor networks, comprised of multiple species interacting with each other, predict ecological and evolutionary processes. Intraspecific and interspecific variations in interaction patterns should affect network structures. Because female and male visitors usually differ in flower‐visiting patterns due to mating strategy, visitor sex should affect nestedness, in which specialist species interact with a subset of species that interact with generalist species. I hypothesized that a network of male visitors and flowering plants would be more nested than a female network because males are less picky about which flowers they visit. To examine the effect of visitor sex on nestedness, I used museum specimens of insects and built 11 flower–visitor species networks, each composed of female and male subnetworks, and compared the strength of nestedness and related network metrics between the subnetworks. I found that male subnetworks were significantly more nested than female ones, and species networks were less nested than male or female subnetworks. The result may be attributable to the by‐chance selection of flowers by males. Because a nested structure is predicted to promote community stability in mutualistic flower–visitor networks, the greater nestedness of male subnetworks may suggest a positive effect of male visitors on pollination community stability.     

The network structure of plant-arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi

Ecological network theory predicts that in mutualistic systems specialists tend to interact with a subset of species with which generalists interact (i.e. nestedness). Approaching plant-arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) association using network analyses will allow the generality of this pattern to be expanded to the ubiquitous plant-AMF mutualism. Based on certain plant-AMF specificity recently suggested, networks are expected to be nested as a result of their mutualistic nature, and modular, with certain species interacting more tightly than others. Network analyses were used to test for nestedness and modularity and to compare the different contribution of plant and AMF to the overall nestedness. Plant-AMF networks share general network properties with other mutualisms. Plant species with few AMFs in their roots tend to associate with those AMFs recorded in most plant species. AMFs present in a few plant species occur in plant species sheltering most AMF (i.e. nestedness). This plant-AMF network presents weakly interlinked subsets of species, strongly connected internally (i.e. modularity). Both plants and AMF show a nested structure, although AMFs have lower nestedness than plants. The plant-AMF interaction pattern is interpreted in the context of how plant-AMF associations can be underlying mechanisms shaping plant community assemblages.     

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.     

Interaction type and intimacy structure networks between forest-dwelling organisms and their host trees

Species interact in many ways. Potentially, the type of interaction, e.g. mutualistic, commensalistic or antagonistic, determines the structure of interaction networks, but this remains poorly tested. Here we investigate whether epiphytes and wood decomposers, having different types of interaction with their host trees, show different network properties. We also test whether the traits of host trees affect network architecture. We recorded presence/absence of organisms colonizing trees, and traits of host trees, in 102 forest plots. Epiphytic bryophytes (64 species) and lichens (119 species) were recorded on c. 2300 trees. Similarly, wood-inhabiting fungi (193 species) were recorded on c. 900 dead wood items. We studied the patterns of species aggregation on host trees by comparing network metrics of species specialization, nestedness and modularity. Next, we tested whether the prevalence of interactions was influenced by host tree traits. We found non-random interaction patterns between host trees and the three ecological groups (bryophytes, lichens and fungi), with nested and modular structures associated with high host specificity. A higher modularity and number of modules was found for fungi than for epiphytes, which is likely related to their trophic relationship with the host plant, whilst the stronger nestedness for epiphytes is likely reflecting the commensalistic nature of their interactions. For all three groups, the difference in prevalence of interaction across modules was determined by a gradient in interaction intimacy (i.e. host tree specialization), driven by host tree traits. We conclude that the type of interaction with host trees defines the properties of each network: while autotrophic epiphyte networks show similar properties to mutualistic networks, the heterotrophic wood decomposers show similarity with antagonistic networks.     

Abiotic factors shape temporal variation in the structure of an ant–plant network

Despite recognition of key biotic processes in shaping the structure of biological communities, few empirical studies have explored the influences of abiotic factors on the structural properties of mutualistic networks. We tested whether temperature and precipitation contribute to temporal variation in the nestedness of mutualistic ant–plant networks. While maintaining their nested structure, nestedness increased with mean monthly precipitation and, particularly, with monthly temperature. Moreover, some species changed their role in network structure, shifting from peripheral to core species within the nested network. We could summarize that abiotic factors affect plant species in the vegetation (e.g., phenology), meaning presence/absence of food sources, consequently an increase/decrease of associations with ants, and finally, these variations to fluctuations in nestedness. While biotic factors are certainly important, greater attention needs to be given to abiotic factors as underlying determinants of the structures of ecological networks.     

Asymmetries in specialization in ant-plant mutualistic networks

Mutualistic networks involving plants and their pollinators or frugivores have been shown recently to exhibit a particular asymmetrical organization of interactions among species called nestedness: a core of reciprocal generalists accompanied by specialist species that interact almost exclusively with generalists. This structure contrasts with compartmentalized assemblage structures that have been verified in antagonistic food webs. Here we evaluated whether nestedness is a property of another type of mutualism-the interactions between ants and extrafloral nectary-bearing plants--and whether species richness may lead to differences in degree of nestedness among biological communities. We investigated network structure in four communities in Mexico. Nested patterns in ant-plant networks were very similar to those previously reported for pollination and frugivore systems, indicating that this form of asymmetry in specialization is a common feature of mutualisms between free-living species, but not always present in species-poor systems. Other ecological factors also appeared to contribute to the nested asymmetry in specialization, because some assemblages showed more extreme asymmetry than others even when species richness was held constant. Our results support a promising approach for the development of multispecies coevolutionary theory, leading to the idea that specialization may coevolve in different but simple ways in antagonistic and mutualistic assemblages.     

The nested structure of marine cleaning symbiosis: is it like flowers and bees?

In a given area, plant-animal mutualistic interactions form complex networks that often display nestedness, a particular type of asymmetry in interactions. Simple ecological and evolutionary factors have been hypothesized to lead to nested networks. Therefore, nestedness is expected to occur in other types of mutualisms as well. We tested the above prediction with the network structure of interactions in cleaning symbiosis at three reef assemblages. In this type of interaction, shrimps and fishes forage on ectoparasites and injured tissues from the body surface of fish species. Cleaning networks show strong patterns of nestedness. In fact, after controlling for species richness, cleaning networks are even more nested than plant-animal mutualisms. Our results support the notion that mutualisms evolve to a predictable community-level structure, be it in terrestrial or marine communities.     

Soil and vegetation features determine the nested pattern of ant–plant networks in a tropical rainforest

相似文献   

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.     

Nestedness of Ectoparasite-Vertebrate Host Networks

Determining the structure of ectoparasite-host networks will enable disease ecologists to better understand and predict the spread of vector-borne diseases. If these networks have consistent properties, then studying the structure of well-understood networks could lead to extrapolation of these properties to others, including those that support emerging pathogens. Borrowing a quantitative measure of network structure from studies of mutualistic relationships between plants and their pollinators, we analyzed 29 ectoparasite-vertebrate host networks—including three derived from molecular bloodmeal analysis of mosquito feeding patterns—using measures of nestedness to identify non-random interactions among species. We found significant nestedness in ectoparasite-vertebrate host lists for habitats ranging from tropical rainforests to polar environments. These networks showed non-random patterns of nesting, and did not differ significantly from published estimates of nestedness from mutualistic networks. Mutualistic and antagonistic networks appear to be organized similarly, with generalized ectoparasites interacting with hosts that attract many ectoparasites and more specialized ectoparasites usually interacting with these same “generalized” hosts. This finding has implications for understanding the network dynamics of vector-born pathogens. We suggest that nestedness (rather than random ectoparasite-host associations) can allow rapid transfer of pathogens throughout a network, and expand upon such concepts as the dilution effect, bridge vectors, and host switching in the context of nested ectoparasite-vertebrate host networks.     

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.     

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.     

Are Nested Networks More Robust to Disturbance? A Test Using Epiphyte-Tree,Comensalistic Networks

Recent research on ecological networks suggests that mutualistic networks are more nested than antagonistic ones and, as a result, they are more robust against chains of extinctions caused by disturbances. We evaluate whether mutualistic networks are more nested than comensalistic and antagonistic networks, and whether highly nested, host-epiphyte comensalistic networks fit the prediction of high robustness against disturbance. A review of 59 networks including mutualistic, antagonistic and comensalistic relationships showed that comensalistic networks are significantly more nested than antagonistic and mutualistic networks, which did not differ between themselves. Epiphyte-host networks from old-growth forests differed from those from disturbed forest in several topological parameters based on both qualitative and quantitative matrices. Network robustness increased with network size, but the slope of this relationship varied with nestedness and connectance. Our results indicate that interaction networks show complex responses to disturbances, which influence their topology and indirectly affect their robustness against species extinctions.     

An interaction switch predicts the nested architecture of mutualistic networks

Nested architecture is distinctive in plant-animal mutualistic networks. However, to date an integrative and quantitative explanation has been lacking. It is evident that species often switch their interactive partners in real-world mutualistic networks such as pollination and seed-dispersal networks. By incorporating an interaction switch into a novel multi-population model, we show that the nested architecture rapidly emerges from an initially random network. The model allowing interaction switches between partner species produced predictions which fit remarkably well with observations from 81 empirical networks. Thus, the nested architecture in mutualistic networks could be an intrinsic physical structure of dynamic networks and the interaction switch is likely a key ecological process that results in nestedness of real-world networks. Identifying the biological processes responsible for network structures is thus crucial for understanding the architecture of ecological networks.     

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.     

Using intraspecific variation of functional traits and environmental factors to understand the formation of nestedness patterns of a local forest community

从功能性状的种内变异和环境因子的角度理解局域森林群落嵌套格局的成因     

COEVOLUTION AND THE ARCHITECTURE OF MUTUALISTIC NETWORKS

Although coevolution is widely recognized as an important evolutionary process for pairs of reciprocally specialized species, its importance within species‐rich communities of generalized species has been questioned. Here we develop and analyze mathematical models of mutualistic communities, such as those between plants and pollinators or plants and seed‐dispersers to evaluate the importance of coevolutionary selection within complex communities. Our analyses reveal that coevolutionary selection can drive significant changes in trait distributions with important consequences for the network structure of mutualistic communities. One such consequence is greater connectance caused by an almost invariable increase in the rate of mutualistic interaction within the community. Another important consequence is altered patterns of nestedness. Specifically, interactions mediated by a mechanism of phenotype matching tend to be antinested when coevolutionary selection is weak and even more strongly antinested as increasing coevolutionary selection favors the emergence of reciprocal specialization. In contrast, interactions mediated by a mechanism of phenotype differences tend to be nested when coevolutionary selection is weak, but less nested as increasing coevolutionary selection favors greater levels of generalization in both plants and animals. Taken together, our results show that coevolutionary selection can be an important force within mutualistic communities, driving changes in trait distributions, interaction rates, and even network structure.     

Invading a mutualistic network: to be or not to be similar

Biological invasion remains a major threat to biodiversity in general and a disruptor to mutualistic interactions in particular. While a number of empirical studies have directly explored the role of invasion in mutualistic pollination networks, a clear picture is yet to emerge and a theoretical model for comprehension still lacking. Here, using an eco‐evolutionary model of bipartite mutualistic networks with trait‐mediated interactions, we explore invader trait, propagule pressure, and network features of recipient community that contribute importantly to the success and impact of an invasion. High level of invasiveness is observed when invader trait differs from those of the community average, and level of interaction generalization equals to that of the community average. Moreover, multiple introductions of invaders with declining propagules enhance invasiveness. Surprisingly, the most successful invader is not always the one having the biggest impact on the recipient community. The network structure of recipient community, such as nestedness and modularity, is not a primary indicator of its invasibility; rather, the invasibility is best correlated with measurements of network stability such as robustness, resilience, and disruptiveness (a measure of evolutionary instability). Our model encompasses more general scenarios than previously studied in predicting invasion success and impact in mutualistic networks, and our results highlight the need for coupling eco‐evolutionary processes to resolve the invasion dilemma.