Distinct responses of antagonistic and mutualistic networks to agricultural intensification

被引:20
|
作者
Morrison, Beth M. L. [1 ]
Dirzo, Rodolfo [1 ]
机构
[1] Stanford Univ, Dept Biol, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
基金
美国国家科学基金会;
关键词
agroecology; antagonisms; community ecology; mutualisms; plant-animal interactions; species interaction networks; PLANT-POLLINATOR DIVERSITY; SPECIALIZATION; MODULARITY; STABILITY; CONSEQUENCES; ARCHITECTURE; ROBUSTNESS; EXTINCTION; TURNOVER; PATTERNS;
D O I
10.1002/ecy.3116
中图分类号
Q14 [生态学(生物生态学)];
学科分类号
071012 ; 0713 ;
摘要
Species interaction networks, which govern the maintenance of biodiversity and ecosystem processes within ecological communities, are being rapidly altered by anthropogenic activities worldwide. Studies on the response of species interaction networks to anthropogenic disturbance have almost exclusively focused on one interaction type at a time, such as mutualistic or antagonistic interactions, making it challenging to decipher how networks of different interaction types respond to the same anthropogenic disturbance. Moreover, few studies have simultaneously focused on the two main components of network structure: network topology (i.e., architecture) and network ecology (i.e., species identities and interaction turnover), thereby limiting our understanding of the ecological drivers underlying changes in network topology in response to anthropogenic disturbance. Here, we used 16,400 plant-pollinator and plant-herbivore interaction observations from 16 sites along an agricultural intensification gradient to compare changes in network topology and ecology between mutualistic and antagonistic networks. We measured two aspects of network topology-nestedness and modularity-and found that although the mutualistic networks were consistently more nested than antagonistic networks and antagonistic networks were consistently more modular, the rate of change in nestedness and modularity along the gradient was comparable between the two network types. Change in network ecology, however, was distinct between mutualistic and antagonistic networks, with partner switching making a significantly larger contribution to interaction turnover in the mutualistic networks than in the antagonistic networks, and species turnover being a strong contributor to interaction turnover in the antagonistic networks. The ecological and topological changes we observed in the antagonistic and mutualistic networks have different implications for pollinator and herbivore communities in agricultural landscapes, and support the idea that pollinators are more labile in their interaction partner choice, whereas herbivores form more reciprocally specialized, and therefore more vulnerable, interactions. Our results also demonstrate that studying both topological and ecological network structure can help to elucidate the effects of anthropogenic disturbance on ecological communities, with applications for conservation and restoration of species interactions and the ecosystem processes they maintain.
引用
收藏
页数:11
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Mutualistic strategies minimize coextinction in plant-disperser networks
    Fricke, Evan C.
    Tewksbury, Joshua J.
    Wandrag, Elizabeth M.
    Rogers, Haidre S.
    PROCEEDINGS OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY B-BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES, 2017, 284 (1854)
  • [22] Bifurcations and multistability in empirical mutualistic networks
    Giraldo, Andrus
    Lee, Deok-Sun
    PHYSICAL REVIEW E, 2024, 110 (06)
  • [23] Geographical variation in the heterogeneity of mutualistic networks
    Sakai, Shoko
    Metelmann, Soeren
    Toquenaga, Yukihiko
    Telschow, Arndt
    ROYAL SOCIETY OPEN SCIENCE, 2016, 3 (06):
  • [24] Functional roles of frugivores and plants shape hyper-diverse mutualistic interactions under two antagonistic conservation scenarios
    Fuzessy, Lisieux
    Sobral, Gisela
    Carreira, Daiane
    Rother, Debora Cristina
    Barbosa, Gedimar
    Landis, Mariana
    Galetti, Mauro
    Dallas, Tad
    Claudio, Vinicius Cardoso
    Culot, Laurence
    Jordano, Pedro
    BIOTROPICA, 2022, 54 (02) : 444 - 454
  • [25] Cheating interactions favor modularity in mutualistic networks
    Camacho, Lucas A.
    de Andreazzi, Cecilia Siliansky
    Medeiros, Lucas P.
    Birskis-Barros, Irina
    Emer, Carine
    Reigada, Carolina
    Guimaraes Jr, Paulo R. R.
    OIKOS, 2023, 2023 (03)
  • [26] Including rewiring in the estimation of the robustness of mutualistic networks
    Vizentin-Bugoni, Jeferson
    Debastiani, Vanderlei J.
    Bastazini, Vinicius A. G.
    Maruyama, Pietro K.
    Sperry, Jinelle H.
    METHODS IN ECOLOGY AND EVOLUTION, 2020, 11 (01): : 106 - 116
  • [27] Socio-semantic networks as mutualistic networks
    St-Onge, Jonathan
    Renaud-Desjardins, Louis
    Mongeau, Pierre
    Saint-Charles, Johanne
    SCIENTIFIC REPORTS, 2022, 12 (01)
  • [28] Why nestedness in mutualistic networks?
    Burgos, Enrique
    Ceva, Horacio
    Perazzo, Roberto P. J.
    Devoto, Mariano
    Medan, Diego
    Zimmermann, Martin
    Delbue, Ana Maria
    JOURNAL OF THEORETICAL BIOLOGY, 2007, 249 (02) : 307 - 313
  • [29] Structure of trophic and mutualistic networks across broad environmental gradients
    Welti, Ellen A. R.
    Joern, Anthony
    ECOLOGY AND EVOLUTION, 2015, 5 (02): : 326 - 334
  • [30] Do Food Web Models Reproduce the Structure of Mutualistic Networks?
    Pires, Mathias M.
    Prado, Paulo I.
    Guimaraes, Paulo R., Jr.
    PLOS ONE, 2011, 6 (11):