Geographical variation in mutualistic networks: similarity, turnover and partner fidelity

Trøjelsgaard, Kristian; Jordano, Pedro; Carstensen, Daniel; Olesen, Jens M.

doi:10.1098/rspb.2014.2925

Cited by 143 publications

(257 citation statements)

References 52 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

225

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Empirical studies have shown a high variability of mutualistic plant–animal interactions across years3031, suggesting a high flexibility in these networks. In contrast, recent studies have highlighted the importance of partner fidelity in both antagonistic and mutualistic ecological networks3233 that might be associated with a high degree of trait matching between interacting species in these networks3435. According to these studies, the flexibility of interactions will be constrained in ecological networks under future conditions, suggesting that unconstrained rewiring of interactions is unlikely even for generalized mutualistic networks.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Ecological networks are more sensitive to plant than to animal extinction under climate change

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Impacts of climate change on individual species are increasingly well documented, but we lack understanding of how these effects propagate through ecological communities. Here we combine species distribution models with ecological network analyses to test potential impacts of climate change on >700 plant and animal species in pollination and seed-dispersal networks from central Europe. We discover that animal species that interact with a low diversity of plant species have narrow climatic niches and are most vulnerable to climate change. In contrast, biotic specialization of plants is not related to climatic niche breadth and vulnerability. A simulation model incorporating different scenarios of species coextinction and capacities for partner switches shows that projected plant extinctions under climate change are more likely to trigger animal coextinctions than vice versa. This result demonstrates that impacts of climate change on biodiversity can be amplified via extinction cascades from plants to animals in ecological networks.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Ecological networks are more sensitive to plant than to animal extinction under climate change

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…To explore similarity between sites, we calculated pairwise Sorenson dissimilarity indices for plant species observed in the three sites (see Trojelsgaard et al, 2015) where values close to 0 indicate very similar community composition and values close to 1 indicate very distinct communities. For our sites, Sorenson values ranged from 0.13 to 0.25, indicating very similar plant composition.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Species interactions in an Andean bird–flowering plant network: phenology is more important than abundance or morphology

González

Loiselle

2016

PeerJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Biological constraints and neutral processes have been proposed to explain the properties of plant–pollinator networks. Using interactions between nectarivorous birds (hummingbirds and flowerpiercers) and flowering plants in high elevation forests (i.e., “elfin” forests) of the Andes, we explore the importance of biological constraints and neutral processes (random interactions) to explain the observed species interactions and network metrics, such as connectance, specialization, nestedness and asymmetry. In cold environments of elfin forests, which are located at the top of the tropical montane forest zone, many plants are adapted for pollination by birds, making this an ideal system to study plant–pollinator networks. To build the network of interactions between birds and plants, we used direct field observations. We measured abundance of birds using mist-nets and flower abundance using transects, and phenology by scoring presence of birds and flowers over time. We compared the length of birds’ bills to flower length to identify “forbidden interactions”—those interactions that could not result in legitimate floral visits based on mis-match in morphology. Diglossa flowerpiercers, which are characterized as “illegitimate” flower visitors, were relatively abundant. We found that the elfin forest network was nested with phenology being the factor that best explained interaction frequencies and nestedness, providing support for biological constraints hypothesis. We did not find morphological constraints to be important in explaining observed interaction frequencies and network metrics. Other network metrics (connectance, evenness and asymmetry), however, were better predicted by abundance (neutral process) models. Flowerpiercers, which cut holes and access flowers at their base and, consequently, facilitate nectar access for other hummingbirds, explain why morphological mis-matches were relatively unimportant in this system. Future work should focus on how changes in abundance and phenology, likely results of climate change and habitat fragmentation, and the role of nectar robbers impact ecological and evolutionary dynamics of plant–pollinator (or flower-visitor) interactions.

show abstract

“…2B) will do so wherever and whenever they meet. While studies of ecological networks to date have mostly been concerned with the distribution of interactions within locations, and less so with the variation among locations, there is now ample evidence that ecological interactions vary in space and time (Poisot et al 2012;Trøjelsgaard et al 2015). It is in resolving how interaction structure varies with the environment (see Poisot et al 2012Poisot et al , 2015 that DNA barcodes will reveal their true potential.…”

Section: Towards Network Of Ecological Network In Space and Timementioning

confidence: 99%

The use of DNA barcodes in food web construction—terrestrial and aquatic ecologists unite!

Roslin

Majaneva

2016

Genome

104

103

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

By depicting who eats whom, food webs offer descriptions of how groupings in nature (typically species or populations) are linked to each other. For asking questions on how food webs are built and work, we need descriptions of food webs at different levels of resolution. DNA techniques provide opportunities for highly resolved webs. In this paper, we offer an exposé of how DNA-based techniques, and DNA barcodes in particular, have recently been used to construct food web structure in both terrestrial and aquatic systems. We highlight how such techniques can be applied to simultaneously improve the taxonomic resolution of the nodes of the web (i.e., the species), and the links between them (i.e., who eats whom). We end by proposing how DNA barcodes and DNA information may allow new approaches to the construction of larger interaction webs, and overcome some hurdles to achieving adequate sample size. Most importantly, we propose that the joint adoption and development of these techniques may serve to unite approaches to food web studies in aquatic and terrestrial systems-revealing the extent to which food webs in these environments are structured similarly to or differently from each other, and how they are linked by dispersal.Key words: DNA barcodes, food webs, species delimitation, species identification, trophic links, ecological networks.Résumé : En brossant le tableau de qui mange qui, les réseaux trophiques livrent une description des liens qui unissent des groupes d'espèces ou de populations. Afin de déterminer comment ces réseaux sont constitués et comment ils fonctionnent, il nous faut une description de ces réseaux à différents niveaux de résolution. Les techniques de l'ADN permettent de produire des réseaux trophiques de grande résolution. Dans ce travail, les auteurs décrivent comment les techniques fondées sur l'ADN, en particulier les codes à barres de l'ADN, ont récemment été employées pour étudier la structure des réseaux trophiques chez des systèmes tant terrestres qu'aquatiques. Les auteurs soulignent comment ces techniques peuvent servir à simultanément améliorer la résolution taxonomique des noeuds d'un réseau (i.e. les espèces) ainsi que les relations entre eux (qui mange qui). Les auteurs terminent en proposant des moyens via lesquels les codes à barres et l'information tirée de l'ADN rendent possible de nouvelles approches en vue de la construction de plus grands réseaux d'interaction et permettent de surmonter des difficultés rencontrées dans l'acquisition d'échantillons de taille suffisante. Surtout, les auteurs proposent que l'adoption et le développement conjoints de ces techniques peut contribuer à unifier les approches employées dans l'étude des réseaux trophiques au sein des systèmes aquatiques et terrestres. Cela permettra de révéler l'étendue de la similarité ou de la dissimilarité dans la façon dont sont structurés les réseaux dans ces différents environnements et comment ils sont liés par la dispersion. [Traduit par la Rédaction]

show abstract

Geographical variation in mutualistic networks: similarity, turnover and partner fidelity

Cited by 143 publications

References 52 publications

Ecological networks are more sensitive to plant than to animal extinction under climate change

Ecological networks are more sensitive to plant than to animal extinction under climate change

Species interactions in an Andean bird–flowering plant network: phenology is more important than abundance or morphology

The use of DNA barcodes in food web construction—terrestrial and aquatic ecologists unite!

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About