How plants connect pollination and herbivory networks and their contribution to community stability

Abstract

Abstract.Pollination and herbivory networks have mainly been studied separately, highlighting their distinct structural characteristics and the related processes and dynamics. However, most plants interact with both pollinators and herbivores, and there is evidence that both types of interaction affect each other. Here we investigated the way plants connect these mutualistic and antagonistic networks together, and the consequences for community stability. Using an empirical data set, we show that the way plants connect pollination and herbivory networks is not random and promotes community stability. Analyses of the structure of binary and quantitative networks show different results: the plants' generalism with regard to pollinators is positively correlated to their generalism with regard to herbivores when considering binary interactions, but not when considering quantitative interactions. We also show that plants that share the same pollinators do not share the same herbivores. However, the way plants connect pollination and herbivory networks promotes stability for both binary and quantitative networks. Our results highlight the relevance of considering the diversity of interaction types in ecological communities, and stress the need to better quantify the costs and benefits of interactions, as well as to develop new metrics characterizing the way different interaction types are combined within ecological networks.

The effect of multiple biotic interaction types on species persistence

“…, , Sauve et al. ). Due to the difficulty in obtaining reliable estimates of multiple interactions at once in empirical communities (García‐Callejas et al.…”

“…, Sauve et al. , ). The conflicting results over this fundamental question can be explained by the sheer diversity of modeling assumptions, structural constraints, and varying sets of interaction types included in the studies.…”

“…, Sauve et al. , ) analyzed communities consisting of only antagonistic and mutualistic interactions in which a central group of species (usually plants) is the guild connecting the mutualistic (e.g. plant‐pollinator) and antagonistic (e.g.…”

Agricultural intensification drives changes in hybrid network robustness by modifying network structure

“…Overall, changes in network structure can impact the outcome of direct interactions (Burkle et al ) and intra‐guild and inter‐specific competition (Bastolla et al ; Bascompte & Jordano ; Brosi & Briggs ; Goldstein & Zych ), potentially altering ecological and evolutionary trajectories of species within communities (Guimarães et al ; Pires & Guimaraes ). In the context of hybrid networks, the implications of changes in network structure further extend to indirect interactions between connected guilds (Melián et al ; Pocock et al ; Sauve et al ; Astegiano et al ; Rusman et al ).…”

Dealing with mutualists and antagonists: Specificity of plant‐mediated interactions between herbivores and flower visitors, and consequences for plant fitness

“…To maximize reproductive output, plants need to maintain interactions with mutualists, such as pollinators, and at the same time deal with antagonists, such as herbivores (Herrera et al., ; Sauve, Thébault, Pocock, & Fontaine, ; Strauss, Irwin, & Lambrix, ). On one hand, traits evolved in plants to attract mutualists, can be exploited by antagonists to find host plants (Nunes, Peñaflor, Bento, Salvador, & Sazima, ; Theis & Adler, ).…”