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 plantÁanimal mutualistic networks. Our results show that neutral mutualistic communities give rise to networks considerably more nested than real communities. RSA explains 60Á70% of nested patterns in two real communities studied here, while 30Á40% of nestedness is still unexplained. The nested pattern in real communities is better explained when we introduce interactionspecific 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.

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 plantÁanimal mutualistic networks. Our results show that neutral mutualistic communities give rise to networks considerably more nested than real communities. RSA explains 60Á70% of nested patterns in two real communities studied here, while 30Á40% of nestedness is still unexplained. The nested pattern in real communities is better explained when we introduce interactionspecific 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.Recent studies demonstrate that mutualisms among free living species often form nested networks, i.e. those species with fewer interactions are preferentially associated with a subset of species that interact with the most connected ones (Bascompte et al.

Recent studies have described the architecture of plant-animal mutualistic networks, but little is known on how such networks disassemble as a consequence of global change. This is a relevant question because 1) species interactions seem to be very susceptible to habitat loss, and 2) the loss of a critical fraction of interactions can abruptly change the topology of the entire network with potential consequences for its functioning. Here we develop a spatially explicit metacommunity model based on the structure of 30 real mutualistic networks. We find that there is a critical value of habitat destruction beyond which interactions are lost very fast. Second, there is a homogeneous distribution of the number of interactions per patch when the habitat is pristine, while this becomes very skewed at the brink of extinction. This increase in skewness is discussed in the context of potential indicators of network collapse.The consequences of global change have mainly been assessed at the level of individual species. There is now ample evidence that global change affects the distribution, abundance, and physiology of species (Sala et al. 2000, Parmesan 2003. Less attention has been given to the consequences for species interactions, but a recent review has concluded that pairwise interactions are very sensitive to several drivers of global change (Tylianakis et al. 2008). The next step is to scale from such pairwise effects to entire networks of interactions.Recently, several papers have shown that plant-animal mutualistic networks such as those describing pollination and seed dispersal have a well-defined architecture (Bascompte and Jordano 2007). As a preliminary assessment of the implications of network architecture for their robustness to habitat loss, Fortuna and Bascompte (2006) analyzed a spatially implicit meta-community model based on the structure of interactions of real mutualistic networks. This paper found that the number of species collapses after a critical fraction of habitat has been destroyed. However, this implicit approach can not inform on how interactions are lost since two previously interacting species can be found on separate habitat patches and therefore their interaction is lost despite both partners are regionally present. As Janzen (Janzen 1974) already noted it, there is a 'much more insidious kind of extinction: the extinction of ecological interactions'. To tackle the extinction of interactions we need a spatially explicit framework. This spatially explicit approach could ultimately inform us on how to scale from local to regional networks.Previous studies have already considered spatially explicit models of seed dispersal. These papers have emphasized that since the spatial distribution of individuals in a community may influence species interaction probabilities -which in turn will determine network patterns -bird density, landscape structure, and neighborhood effects will affect fruitremoval rates and seed dispersal (Carlo et al. 2007, Morales and Vázquez 2008, Morales et al. 2012. Non...

In a fascinating tussle of perspectives in Volume 6 and issue no 3 of april 2008 Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, Martin A Nuñez and Gregory M Crustinger enlist ways to brace up with the recent literature. They advocate that PhD students should choose a well studied system to have better chances of success. On the other side of this fascinating tussle Daniel Simberloff and Nathan J Sanders agree with there enthusiastic case and approaches for bracing up with the recent literature. However, they disagree with the play safe strategy of start-ups in ecology and evolution.For me this tussle of perspectives is really fascinating. It underlines the story of our times. In the times of information explosion, should we concentrate on mining this information for knowledge or should we keep adding to this information explosion. This dilemma fits well in the context of the tussle by a quote from Nassim Nicholas Taleb “ It is almost impossible these days to finish PhD without excessive intellectual curiosity and it is impossible to get a faculty position without narrowly specializing in a chosen field ”.Here in this letter, I want to harmonize the two perspectives by arguing that coexistence of information explosion and data mining is possible. We should strive for that ever elusive balance and I discuss below how Web 2.0 will enable it. Web 2.0, still in its infancy already shows promising results and I discuss below these usages.

Compared to other natural sciences ecological sciences has always been about seeing the bigger picture. The realization that local actions can have global impact has been the hallmark of ecological research. This integrative view is getting more and more accepted now with the recognition that whole is definitely more then sum of its parts. Advancement in computer sciences has now made it possible to comprehend the complexity arising from an integrative approach. This has given rise to a field interfacing computer science and ecological sciences called Ecoinformatics. The other popular parallel and more mature field is bioinformatics or computational biology. The presentation will take the audience on an Ecoinformatics tour touching on present status of Ecoinformatics tools and applications, a futuristic account of where Ecoinformatics is heading, and the pragmatic step by step method to transform future into reality; applying insights from lessons learnt from a more mature interface science 'Bioinformatics'. Audience will be introduced to Ecoinformatics projects namely Kepler, Vegbank, Jalama, Knowledge network for biocomplexity (KNB), Science Environment for Ecological Knowledge (SEEK). The presentation will also explore the importance of Ecoinformatics for the icons and upstarts in ecology.