Predicting the effect of competition on secondary plant extinctions in plant–pollinator networks

Bewick, Sharon; Brosi, Berry J.; Armsworth, Paul R.

doi:10.1111/j.1600-0706.2013.00016.x

Cited by 6 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 43 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Important groundwork for these considerations has been made in terms of: (1) modeling network 're-wiring' or dynamic topological changes (e.g. Kaiser-Bunbury et al, 2010;Zhang et al, 2011;Ramos-Jiliberto et al, 2012); (2) 'adaptive foraging' or quantitative changes in pollinator foraging effort ; and (3) explicit consideration of plantplant competition in pollination network dynamics (e.g., Bewick et al, 2013).…”

Section: New Phytologistmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pollinator specialization: from the individual to the community

Brosi

2016

New Phytologist

Self Cite

118

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

1190I.1190II.1191III.1191IV.1193V.11931194References1194 Summary Most spermatophytes need conspecific pollen in order to produce seed. This need for specialization seems to conflict with the generalized nature of most plant–pollinator interactions. Specialization and generalization are dynamic – not fixed – and exist simultaneously in multiple states at different levels of biological hierarchy. Over the short term, specialization ensures conspecific pollen transfer, whereas over the long term, generalization improves system‐level robustness. The balance between specialization and generalization at different scales is critical for different kinds of ecological functioning and is an important factor in plant speciation and the evolution of plant mating systems. Community context, including diversity and interaction network structure at different levels of aggregation, is a key driver of specialization dynamics.

show abstract

Section: New Phytologistmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pollinator specialization: from the individual to the community

Brosi

2016

New Phytologist

Self Cite

118

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Mathematical models and simulations show that some properties of mutualistic networks (e.g., low connectance and high nestedness) make them more resistant against cascading extinctions [1], more likely to sustain large numbers of species [2], and more stable demographically [3]. However, simulations [4,5] also indicate that mutualism increases competitive asymmetries, causing complex communities to be less persistent. These studies consider large numbers of species, parameters and initial conditions, making it difficult to understand the interplay between mutualisms (e.g., between plant and animal guilds) and antagonisms (e.g., resource competition between plants).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pollinator Foraging Adaptation and Coexistence of Competing Plants

Revilla

Křivan

2016

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We use the optimal foraging theory to study coexistence between two plant species and a generalist pollinator. We compare conditions for plant coexistence for non-adaptive vs. adaptive pollinators that adjust their foraging strategy to maximize fitness. When pollinators have fixed preferences, we show that plant coexistence typically requires both weak competition between plants for resources (e.g., space or nutrients) and pollinator preferences that are not too biased in favour of either plant. We also show how plant coexistence is promoted by indirect facilitation via the pollinator. When pollinators are adaptive foragers, pollinator’s diet maximizes pollinator’s fitness measured as the per capita population growth rate. Simulations show that this has two conflicting consequences for plant coexistence. On the one hand, when competition between pollinators is weak, adaptation favours pollinator specialization on the more profitable plant which increases asymmetries in plant competition and makes their coexistence less likely. On the other hand, when competition between pollinators is strong, adaptation promotes generalism, which facilitates plant coexistence. In addition, adaptive foraging allows pollinators to survive sudden loss of the preferred plant host, thus preventing further collapse of the entire community.

show abstract

“…Others drive primary extinctions by imposing external forcing onto population dynamics, e.g. using directional changes to parameter values (Fortuna and Bascompte 2006, Abramson et al 2011, Jiang et al 2018) or removing species after the transient period (Bewick et al 2013).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Environmental stochasticity increases extinction risk to a greater degree in pollination specialists than in generalists

Dumoulin

Armsworth

2022

Oikos

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Pollination sustains terrestrial food webs and agricultural systems and links the dynamics of interacting plant and pollinator species. Although environmental stochasticity is ubiquitous and can propagate through communities via species interactions in a way that increases extinction risk, it is unknown whether stochasticity affects species uniformly across pollination networks. In this paper, we introduce a stochastic dynamic model that makes novel use of the birth function, and apply it to pollination networks of increasing size. We start with two‐ and four‐species networks, in order to first illustrate the effects of stochasticity per se and then how those effects combine with specialization. We then describe the relationship between partner number and stochastic extinction risk in empirical networks with > 20 species. In the two‐species network, increasing the variance of the stochastic term of the model increased the size of the region in parameter space where extinctions occur. In networks with four or more species, specialists were more vulnerable to extinction than generalists over a broad range of variances. Extinction risk in networks with > 20 species declined nonlinearly with increasing mutualist partner number. Our results demonstrate the importance of including species interactions and stochasticity when using population‐dynamic models to compare species' extinction risk. While models that omit either of these factors are likely to underestimate extinction risk, they disproportionately underestimate the vulnerability of specialists.

show abstract

Predicting the effect of competition on secondary plant extinctions in plant–pollinator networks

Cited by 6 publications

References 43 publications

Pollinator specialization: from the individual to the community

Pollinator specialization: from the individual to the community

Pollinator Foraging Adaptation and Coexistence of Competing Plants

Environmental stochasticity increases extinction risk to a greater degree in pollination specialists than in generalists

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About