Strong contributors to network persistence are the most vulnerable to extinction

Abstract

The architecture of mutualistic networks facilitates coexistence of individual participants by minimizing competition relative to facilitation. However, it is not known whether this benefit is received by each participant node in proportion to its overall contribution to network persistence. This issue is critical to understanding the trade-offs faced by individual nodes in a network. We address this question by applying a suite of structural and dynamic methods to an ensemble of flowering plant/insect pollinator networks. Here we report two main results. First, nodes contribute heterogeneously to the overall nested architecture of the network. From simulations, we confirm that the removal of a strong contributor tends to decrease overall network persistence more than the removal of a weak contributor. Second, strong contributors to collective persistence do not gain individual survival benefits but are in fact the nodes most vulnerable to extinction. We explore the generality of these results to other cooperative networks by analysing a 15-year time series of the interactions between designer and contractor firms in the New York City garment industry. As with the ecological networks, a firm's survival probability decreases as its individual nestedness contribution increases. Our results, therefore, introduce a new paradox into the study of the persistence of cooperative networks, and potentially address questions about the impact of invasive species in ecological systems and new competitors in economic systems.

Evolution along the Great Rift Valley: phenotypic and genetic differentiation of East African white‐eyes (Aves, Zosteropidae)

“…We used the nestedness contribution (the difference in the degree of nestedness of the total allele × site matrix and a matrix where a certain site has been excluded; Saavedra et al. 2011) as measured by the NODF metric (nestedness from overlap and decreasing fill; Almeida‐Neto et al. 2008) to infer the role of each site in the decline of allele diversity.…”

Food webs: reconciling the structure and function of biodiversity

“…Dynamical models are also being used to explore primary and secondary species extinctions [72,73]. The position of species in a network has been used to estimate their dynamic importance [27] and vulnerability to extinction [74]. In an applied context, food-web studies have now been used to determine future vulnerability to species loss.…”

The ghost of nestedness in ecological networks

“…The concept was first proposed in the early twentieth century but only became popular among ecologists with its application to the biogeographic pattern of species occurrence in islands and other fragmented landscapes 1,2 . More recently, nestedness in species interaction networks has received significant attention [3][4][5][6][7] , where it has been suggested that a nested pattern of interactions leads to greater biodiversity in mutualistic systems such as plant-pollinator networks 8,9 . In a nested bipartite network or graph, interactions are organized such that specialists (for example, pollinators that visit few plants) interact with subsets of the species with whom generalists (for example, pollinators that visit many plants) interact.…”