Spatial distance and climate determine modularity in a cross‐biomes plant–hummingbird interaction network in Brazil

Abstract

Aim We examined the effects of space, climate, phylogeny and species traits on module composition in a cross‐biomes plant–hummingbird network. Location Brazil, except Amazonian region. Methods We compiled 31 local binary plant–hummingbird networks, combining them into one cross‐biomes metanetwork. We conducted a modularity analysis and tested the relationship between species’ module membership with traits, geographical location, climatic conditions and range sizes, employing random forest models. We fitted reduced models containing groups of related variables (climatic, spatial, phylogenetic, traits) and combinations of groups to partition the variance explained by these sets into unique and shared components. Results The Brazilian cross‐biomes network was composed of 479 plant and 42 hummingbird species, and showed significant modularity. The resulting six modules conformed well to vegetation domains. Only plant traits, not hummingbird traits, differed between modules, notably plants’ growth form, corolla length, flower shape and colour. Some modules included plant species with very restricted distributions, whereas others encompassed more widespread ones. Widespread hummingbirds were the most connected, both within and between modules, whereas widespread plants were the most connected between modules. Among traits, only nectar concentration had a weak effect on among‐module connectivity. Main conclusions Climate and spatial filters were the main determinants of module composition for hummingbirds and plants, potentially related to resource seasonality, especially for hummingbirds. Historical dispersal‐linked contingency, or environmental variations not accounted for by the explanatory factors here evaluated, could also contribute to the spatial component. Phylogeny and morphological traits had no unique effects on the assignment of species to modules. Widespread species showed higher within‐ and/or among‐module connectivity, indicating their key role connecting biomes, and, in the case of hummingbirds, communities within biomes. Our results indicate that biogeography and climate not only determine the variation of modularity in local plant–animal networks, as previously shown, but also affect the cross‐biomes network structure.

Similar composition of functional roles in Andean seed‐dispersal networks, despite high species and interaction turnover

“…For instance, the approach can be used to describe species' functions that are difficult to assess indirectly via species' traits (e.g., physiological and metabolic processes) or to describe the environmental conditions under which species can exist, i.e., their Grinnellian niches (Dehling and Stouffer 2018). Taking into account species' functional roles could prove to be especially useful for comparisons of networks and ecological processes between sites that have few or no species in common, e.g., in comparisons on large spatial scales, across habitats, and in regional meta-networks (Araujo et al 2018, Dugger et al 2019). However, while the method we used allows the direct comparison of all species that contribute to an ecological process, independent of their taxonomic relationships, most networks have so far been sampled for single taxa in the upper trophic level (e.g., bird-plant or bat-plant networks).…”

The geographical variation of network structure is scale dependent: understanding the biotic specialization of host–parasitoid networks

“…Indeed, a regional network (or metaweb) characterizes all potential interactions among all species that are susceptible to both co-occur and interact at the scale considered (Dunne 2006, Gravel et al 2013, Morales-Castilla et al 2015, Redhead et al 2018). Similar to variations in regional species diversity across geographical gradients, variation in regional network structure can occur, for example, because of the presence of more specialized species in certain regions or due to habitat heterogeneity that can promote the emergence of network modules at the regional scale (Araujo et al 2018). The motivation for comparing local and regional networks is thus similar to the motivation for comparing local and regional diversity: what and how spatial processes affect the changes of network properties.…”

Global patterns in anuran–prey networks: structure mediated by latitude

“…Modularity is a network property that emerges when groups of species are densely connected and have sparser connections to other groups of interacting species. The organization of interactions into modules may reflect similarity of traits, phylogeny, biogeography and climate among species, providing information on how the interactions are partitioned in the community (Maruyama et al 2014, Araujo et al 2018. We analyzed modularity using the recently implemented LPAwb + algorithm (Liu andMurata 2010, Beckett 2016).…”