Interaction strength in plant-pollinator networks: Are we using the right measure?
Autoři:
Roberto Novella-Fernandez aff001; Anselm Rodrigo aff002; Xavier Arnan aff003; Jordi Bosch aff003
Působiště autorů:
School of Biological Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, England, United Kingdom
aff001; Universitat Autònoma Barcelona, Cerdanyola del Vallès, Catalunya, Spain
aff002; CREAF, Cerdanyola del Vallès, Catalunya, Spain
aff003
Vyšlo v časopise:
PLoS ONE 14(12)
Kategorie:
Research Article
prolekare.web.journal.doi_sk:
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225930
Souhrn
Understanding how ecological networks are assembled is important because network structure reflects ecosystem functioning and stability. Quantitative network analysis incorporates measures of interaction strength as an estimate of the magnitude of the effect of interaction partners on one another. Most plant-pollinator network studies use frequency of interaction between individual pollinators and individual plants (encounter) as a surrogate of interaction strength. However, the number of flowers visited per encounter may strongly vary among pollinator and plant species, and therefore not all encounters are quantitatively equivalent. We sampled plant-pollinator interactions in a Mediterranean scrubland and tested whether using a measure of interaction strength based on the number of flowers visited resulted in changes in species (species strength, interaction species asymmetry, specialization) and network descriptors (nestedness, H2’, interaction evenness, plant generality, pollinator generality) compared to the encounter-based measure. Several species (including some of the most abundant ones) showed important changes in species descriptors, notably in specialization. These changes were especially important in plant species with large floral displays, which became less specialized with the visit-based measure of interaction strength. At the network level we found significant changes in all properties analysed. With the encounter-based approach plant generality was much higher than pollinator generality (high specialization asymmetry between trophic levels). However, with the visit-based approach plant generality was greatly reduced so that plants and pollinators had similar levels of generalization. Interaction evenness also decreased strongly with the visit-based approach. We conclude that accounting for the number of flowers visited per encounter provides a more ecologically relevant measure of interaction strength. Our results have important implications for the stability of pollination networks and the evolution of plant-pollinator interactions. The use of a visit-based approach is especially important in studies relating interaction network structure and ecosystem function (pollination and/or exploitation of floral resources).
Klíčová slova:
Plants – Network analysis – Community structure – Species interactions – Trophic interactions – Flowering plants – Flowers – Pollen
Zdroje
1. Johnson MTJ, Stinchcombe JR. An emerging synthesis between community ecology and evolutionary biology. Trends Ecol Evol. 2007;22: 250–257. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2007.01.014 17296244
2. Bascompte J, Jordano P. Plant-Animal Mutualistic Networks: The Architecture of Biodiversity. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst. 2007;38: 567–593. doi: 10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.38.091206.095818
3. Vázquez DP, Bluthgen N, Cagnolo L, Chacoff NP. Uniting pattern and process in plant-animal mutualistic networks: A review. Ann Bot. 2009;103: 1445–1457. doi: 10.1093/aob/mcp057 19304996
4. Landi P, Minoarivelo HO, Brännström Å, Hui C, Dieckmann U. Complexity and stability of adaptive ecological networks: A survey of the theory in community ecology. Popul Ecol. 2018;60: 319–345. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-71486-8_12
5. Guimarães PR, Jordano P, Thompson JN. Evolution and coevolution in mutualistic networks. Ecol Lett. 2011;14: 877–885. doi: 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2011.01649.x 21749596
6. Gómez JM, Perfectti F, Jordano P. The Functional Consequences of Mutualistic Network Architecture. PLoS One. 2011;6: 1435–1439. doi: 10.1371/Citation
7. Jordano P, Bascompte J, Olesen JM. The ecological consequences of complex topology and nested structure in pollination webs. In: Waser N.M. & Ollerton J, editor. Complex plant-pollinator networks. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 2006. pp. 173–199. Available: http://books.google.com/books?hl=ca&lr=&id=Fbl5c9fUxTIC&pgis=1
8. Bascompte J, Jordano P, Olesen JM. Asymetric Coevolutionary Networks Facilitate Biodiversity Maintenance. Science (80-). 2006;312: 431–433. doi: 10.1126/science.1123412 16627742
9. Kaiser-Bunbury CN, Muff S, Memmott J, Müller CB, Caflisch A. The robustness of pollination networks to the loss of species and interactions: A quantitative approach incorporating pollinator behaviour. Ecol Lett. 2010;13: 442–452. doi: 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2009.01437.x 20100244
10. Lopezaraiza-Mikel ME, Hayes RB, Whalley MR, Memmott J. The impact of an alien plant on a native plant-pollinator network: An experimental approach. Ecol Lett. 2007;10: 539–550. doi: 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2007.01055.x 17542933
11. Aizen MA, Morales CL, Morales JM. Invasive mutualists erode native pollination webs. PLoS Biol. 2008;6: 0396–0403. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.0060031 18271628
12. Memmott J, Waser NM, Price M V. Tolerance of pollination networks to species extinctions. Proc Biol Sci. 2004;271: 2605–2611. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2004.2909 15615687
13. Tylianakis JM, Tscharntke T, Lewis OT. Habitat modification alters the structure of tropical host-parasitoid food webs. Nature. 2007;445: 202–205. doi: 10.1038/nature05429 17215842
14. Weiner CN, Werner M, Linsenmair KE, Blüthgen N. Land-use impacts on plant-pollinator networks: Interaction strength and specialization predict pollinator declines. Ecology. 2014;95: 466–474. doi: 10.1890/13-0436.1 24669739
15. Osorio S, Arnan X, Bassols E, Vicens N, Bosch J. Local and landscape effects in a host-parasitoid interaction network along a forest-cropland gradient. Ecol Appl. 2015;25: 1869–1879. doi: 10.1890/14-2476.1 26591453
16. Hegland SJ, Nielsen A, Lázaro A, Bjerknes AL, Totland Ø. How does climate warming affect plant-pollinator interactions? Ecol Lett. 2009;12: 184–195. doi: 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2008.01269.x 19049509
17. Memmott J, Craze PG, Waser NM, Price M V. Global warming and the disruption of plant-pollinator interactions. Ecol Lett. 2007;10: 710–717. doi: 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2007.01061.x 17594426
18. Jordano P. Patterns of Mutualistic Interactions in Pollination and Seed Dispersal: Connectance, Dependence Asymetries, and Coevolution. Am Nat. 1987;129: 657–677.
19. Laska MS, Wootton JT. Theoretical concepts and empirical approaches to measuring interaction strength. Ecology. 1998;79: 461–476. doi: 10.1890/0012-9658(1998)079[0461:TCAEAT]2.0.CO;2
20. Memmott J. The structure of a plant-pollination food web. Ecol Lett. 1999;2: 276–280.
21. Almeida-Neto M, Ulrich W. A straightforward computational approach for measuring nestedness using quantitative matrices. Environ Model Softw. 2011;26: 173–178. doi: 10.1016/j.envsoft.2010.08.003
22. Bersier LF, Banašek-Richter C, Cattin MF. Quantitative descriptors of food-web matrices. Ecology. 2002;83: 2394–2407. doi: 10.1890/0012-9658(2002)083[2394:QDOFWM]2.0.CO;2
23. Blüthgen N, Menzel F, Blüthgen N. Measuring specialization in species interaction networks. BMC Ecol. 2006;6: 1–12. doi: 10.1186/1472-6785-6-1 16412253
24. Poisot T, Canard E, Mouquet N, Hochberg ME. A comparative study of ecological specialization estimators. Methods Ecol Evol. 2012;3: 537–544. doi: 10.1111/j.2041-210X.2011.00174.x
25. Herrera CM. Components of Pollinator “Quality”: Comparative Analysis of a Diverse Insect Assemblage. Oikos. 1987;50: 79–90. doi: 10.2307/3565403
26. Herrera CM. Pollinator abundance, morphology, and flower visitation rate: analysis of the “quantity” component in a plant-pollinator system. Oecologia. 1989;80: 241–248. doi: 10.1007/BF00380158 28313114
27. Vázquez DP, Morris WF, Jordano P. Interaction frequency as a surrogate for the total effect of animal mutualists on plants. Ecol Lett. 2005;8: 1088–1094. doi: 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2005.00810.x
28. Wilson P, Thomson JD. Heterogeneity Among Floral Visitors Leads to Discordance Between Removal and Deposition of Pollen. Ecology. 1991;72: 1503–1507.
29. Ne’Eman G, Jürgens A, Newstrom-Lloyd L, Potts SG, Dafni A. A framework for comparing pollinator performance: Effectiveness and efficiency. Biol Rev. 2010;85: 435–451. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-185X.2009.00108.x 20015317
30. King C, Ballantyne G, Willmer PG. Why flower visitation is a poor proxy for pollination: Measuring single-visit pollen deposition, with implications for pollination networks and conservation. Methods Ecol Evol. 2013;4: 811–818. doi: 10.1111/2041-210X.12074
31. Santiago-Hernández MH, Martén-Rodríguez S, Lopezaraiza-Mikel M, Oyama K, González-Rodríguez A, Quesada M. The role of pollination effectiveness on the attributes of interaction networks: from floral visitation to plant fitness. Ecology. 2019;100: 1–15. doi: 10.1002/ecy.2803 31240696
32. Vázquez DP, Lomascolo SB, Belen Maldonado M, Chacoff NP, Dorado J, Stevani EL, et al. The strength of plant-pollinator interactions. Ecology. 2012;93: 719–725. doi: 10.1890/11-1356.1 22690622
33. Sahli HF, Conner JK. Characterizing ecological generalization in plant-pollination systems. Oecologia. 2006;148: 365–372. doi: 10.1007/s00442-006-0396-1 16514533
34. Castro-Urgal R, Tur C, Albrecht M, Traveset A. How different link weights affect the structure of quantitative flower-visitation networks. Basic Appl Ecol. 2012;13: 500–508. doi: 10.1016/j.baae.2012.08.002
35. Arnan X, Escolà A, Rodrigo A, Bosch J. Female reproductive success in gynodioecious Thymus vulgaris: Pollen versus nutrient limitation and pollinator foraging behaviour. Bot J Linn Soc. 2014;175: 395–408. doi: 10.1111/boj.12173
36. Herrera CM. Flower-to-seedling consequences of different pollination regimes in an insect-pollinated shrub. Ecology. 2000;81: 15–29. doi: 10.1890/0012-9658(2000)081[0015:FTSCOD]2.0.CO;2
37. Thompson JD. How do visitation patterns vary among pollinators in relation to floral display and floral design in a generalist pollination system? Oecologia. 2001;126: 386–394. doi: 10.1007/s004420000531 28547453
38. Ohashi K, Yahara T. Effects of Variation in Flower Number on Pollinator Visits in Cirsium purpuratum (Asteraceae). Am J Bot. 1998;85: 219–224. 21684905
39. Kaiser-Bunbury CN, Memmott J, Müller CB. Community structure of pollination webs of Mauritian heathland habitats. Perspect Plant Ecol Evol Syst. 2009;11: 241–254. doi: 10.1016/j.ppees.2009.04.001
40. Vázquez DP, Melián CJ, Williams NM, Blüthgen N, Krasnov BR, Poulin R. Species abundance and asymmetric interaction strength in ecological networks. Oikos. 2007;116: 1120–1127. doi: 10.1111/j.2007.0030–1299.15828.x
41. Dormann CF, Frund J, Bluthgen N, Gruber B. Indices, Graphs and Null Models: Analyzing Bipartite Ecological Networks. Open Ecol J. 2009;2: 7–24. doi: 10.2174/1874213000902010007
42. R core team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Core Team; 2019.
43. Bates D, Mächler M, Bolker BM, Walker SC. Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4. J Stat Softw. 2015;67: 1–48. doi: 10.18637/jss.v067.i01
44. Berlow EL, Neutel AM, Cohen JE, De Ruiter PC, Ebenman B, Emmerson M, et al. Interaction strengths in food webs: Issues and opportunities. J Anim Ecol. 2004;73: 585–598. doi: 10.1111/j.0021-8790.2004.00833.x
45. Jordano P. Sampling networks of ecological interactions. Funct Ecol. 2016;30: 1883–1893. doi: 10.1111/1365-2435.12763
46. Miranda PN, Ribeiro JEL da S, Luna P, Brasil I, Delabie JHC, Dáttilo W. The dilemma of binary or weighted data in interaction networks. Ecol Complex. 2019;38: 1–10. doi: 10.1016/j.ecocom.2018.12.006
47. Mitchell RJ, Karron JD, Holmquist KG, Bell JM. The influence of Mimulus ringens floral display size on pollinator visitation patterns. Funct Ecol. 2004;18: 116–124. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2435.2004.00812.x
48. Miyake YC, Sakai S. Effects of number of flowers per raceme and number of racemes per plant on bumblebee visits and female reproductive success in Salvia nipponica (Labiatae). Ecol Res. 2005;20: 395–403. doi: 10.1007/s11284-004-0035-4
49. Abramson G, Trejo Soto CA, Oña L. The role of asymmetric interactions on the effect of habitat destruction in mutualistic networks. PLoS One. 2011;6: e21028. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0021028 21698298
50. Armbruster WS. The specialization continuum in pollination systems: diversity of concepts and implications for ecology, evolution and conservation. Funct Ecol. 2017;31: 88–100. doi: 10.1111/1365-2435.12783
51. Mitchell RJ, Irwin RE, Flanagan RJ, Karron JD. Ecology and evolution of plant–pollinator interactions. Ann Bot. 2009;103: 1355–1363. doi: 10.1093/aob/mcp122 19482881
Článok vyšiel v časopise
PLOS One
2019 Číslo 12
- Metamizol jako analgetikum první volby: kdy, pro koho, jak a proč?
- Masturbační chování žen v ČR − dotazníková studie
- Nejasný stín na plicích – kazuistika
- Těžké menstruační krvácení může značit poruchu krevní srážlivosti. Jaký management vyšetření a léčby je v takovém případě vhodný?
- Somatizace stresu – typické projevy a možnosti řešení
Najčítanejšie v tomto čísle
- Methylsulfonylmethane increases osteogenesis and regulates the mineralization of the matrix by transglutaminase 2 in SHED cells
- Oregano powder reduces Streptococcus and increases SCFA concentration in a mixed bacterial culture assay
- The characteristic of patulous eustachian tube patients diagnosed by the JOS diagnostic criteria
- Parametric CAD modeling for open source scientific hardware: Comparing OpenSCAD and FreeCAD Python scripts