2015
DOI: 10.1038/ncomms9412
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Adaptive rewiring aggravates the effects of species loss in ecosystems

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

2
65
2

Year Published

2017
2017
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
8
1
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 67 publications
(74 citation statements)
references
References 69 publications
(77 reference statements)
2
65
2
Order By: Relevance
“…However, our results only provide a snapshot of community properties in time, with the caveat that intense trophic interactions in fragmented pools are likely to be transient before predators exhaust their preferred food sources (Ledger et al., ). Nonetheless, rewiring of predator–prey linkages following prey loss can be strongly destabilising in freshwater food webs, potentially leading to the extinction of secondary prey species (Gilljam, Curtsdotter, & Ebenman, ). Given that the dominant predators in our mesocosms were generalists (tanypods), and hence likely to be able to exploit alternative prey, the population crashes of prey species we observed may thus have negative implications for network resistance over the longer term.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, our results only provide a snapshot of community properties in time, with the caveat that intense trophic interactions in fragmented pools are likely to be transient before predators exhaust their preferred food sources (Ledger et al., ). Nonetheless, rewiring of predator–prey linkages following prey loss can be strongly destabilising in freshwater food webs, potentially leading to the extinction of secondary prey species (Gilljam, Curtsdotter, & Ebenman, ). Given that the dominant predators in our mesocosms were generalists (tanypods), and hence likely to be able to exploit alternative prey, the population crashes of prey species we observed may thus have negative implications for network resistance over the longer term.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, because most plant–pollinator relationships are not strictly specialist (not exclusive; Menz et al, ; Vázquez & Aizen, ), field data show that species often interact with alternative partners in the absence of, or in addition to, favoured partners and loss of a species does not inevitably mean extinction for its partners (Carstensen, Sabatino, Trøjelsgaard, & Morellato, ; Trøjelsgaard, Jordano, Carstensen, & Olesen, ; Tylianakis & Morris, ). Moreover, modelling studies have found large differences in network stability and resilience when nodes are allowed to dynamically rewire (CaraDonna et al, ; Gilljam, Curtsdotter, & Ebenman, ). Given the wide variation in quality, quantity and availability of resource rewards offered by plant species, and behavioural attributes and physiological requirements of pollinators, pollinators’ choices of partners and alternative partners is unlikely to be random (Trøjelsgaard et al, ).…”
Section: How Much and What Type Of Floral Resources Are Necessary To mentioning
confidence: 95%
“…An important driver of the relationship between richness and connectance, next to spatial dynamics [23], and the capacity of species to change their interactions with other species (e.g. diet shifts[24]), is the diversity of interaction types [25]. Thus, biotic stress, the term used in the present paper to denote effects of species interactions on species richness, by definition plays an important role in shaping the richness-connectance relationship.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%