Literature DB >> 17949981

Interaction intimacy affects structure and coevolutionary dynamics in mutualistic networks.

Paulo R Guimarães1, Victor Rico-Gray, Paulo S Oliveira, Thiago J Izzo, Sérgio F dos Reis, John N Thompson.   

Abstract

The structure of mutualistic networks provides clues to processes shaping biodiversity [1-10]. Among them, interaction intimacy, the degree of biological association between partners, leads to differences in specialization patterns [4, 11] and might affect network organization [12]. Here, we investigated potential consequences of interaction intimacy for the structure and coevolution of mutualistic networks. From observed processes of selection on mutualistic interactions, it is expected that symbiotic interactions (high-interaction intimacy) will form species-poor networks characterized by compartmentalization [12, 13], whereas nonsymbiotic interactions (low intimacy) will lead to species-rich, nested networks in which there is a core of generalists and specialists often interact with generalists [3, 5, 7, 12, 14]. We demonstrated an association between interaction intimacy and structure in 19 ant-plant mutualistic networks. Through numerical simulations, we found that network structure of different forms of mutualism affects evolutionary change in distinct ways. Change in one species affects primarily one mutualistic partner in symbiotic interactions but might affect multiple partners in nonsymbiotic interactions. We hypothesize that coevolution in symbiotic interactions is characterized by frequent reciprocal changes between few partners, but coevolution in nonsymbiotic networks might show rare bursts of changes in which many species respond to evolutionary changes in a single species.

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17949981     DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2007.09.059

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Curr Biol        ISSN: 0960-9822            Impact factor:   10.834


  49 in total

1.  Mutualism favours higher host specificity than does antagonism in plant-herbivore interaction.

Authors:  Atsushi Kawakita; Tomoko Okamoto; Ryutaro Goto; Makoto Kato
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2010-04-28       Impact factor: 5.349

2.  Resource availability affects the structure of a natural bacteria-bacteriophage community.

Authors:  Timothée Poisot; Gildas Lepennetier; Esteban Martinez; Johan Ramsayer; Michael E Hochberg
Journal:  Biol Lett       Date:  2010-10-20       Impact factor: 3.703

3.  Interaction type influences ecological network structure more than local abiotic conditions: evidence from endophytic and endolichenic fungi at a continental scale.

Authors:  Pierre-Luc Chagnon; Jana M U'Ren; Jolanta Miadlikowska; François Lutzoni; A Elizabeth Arnold
Journal:  Oecologia       Date:  2015-09-29       Impact factor: 3.225

Review 4.  Uniting pattern and process in plant-animal mutualistic networks: a review.

Authors:  Diego P Vázquez; Nico Blüthgen; Luciano Cagnolo; Natacha P Chacoff
Journal:  Ann Bot       Date:  2009-03-21       Impact factor: 4.357

5.  Long-term temporal variation in the organization of an ant-plant network.

Authors:  Cecilia Díaz-Castelazo; Ingrid R Sánchez-Galván; Paulo R Guimarães; Rafael L Galdini Raimundo; Víctor Rico-Gray
Journal:  Ann Bot       Date:  2013-06       Impact factor: 4.357

6.  Emergence of structural and dynamical properties of ecological mutualistic networks.

Authors:  Samir Suweis; Filippo Simini; Jayanth R Banavar; Amos Maritan
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2013-08-22       Impact factor: 49.962

7.  Interaction intimacy organizes networks of antagonistic interactions in different ways.

Authors:  Mathias M Pires; Paulo R Guimarães
Journal:  J R Soc Interface       Date:  2012-09-26       Impact factor: 4.118

8.  Are insect pollinators more generalist than insect herbivores?

Authors:  Colin Fontaine; Elisa Thébault; Isabelle Dajoz
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2009-06-10       Impact factor: 5.349

9.  The modularity of seed dispersal: differences in structure and robustness between bat- and bird-fruit networks.

Authors:  Marco Aurelio Ribeiro Mello; Flávia Maria Darcie Marquitti; Paulo R Guimarães; Elisabeth Klara Viktoria Kalko; Pedro Jordano; Marcus Aloizio Martinez de Aguiar
Journal:  Oecologia       Date:  2011-04-09       Impact factor: 3.225

10.  Cultural assemblages show nested structure in humans and chimpanzees but not orangutans.

Authors:  Jason M Kamilar; Quentin D Atkinson
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2013-12-09       Impact factor: 11.205

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.