Literature DB >> 24735225

How context dependent are species interactions?

Scott A Chamberlain1, Judith L Bronstein, Jennifer A Rudgers.   

Abstract

The net effects of interspecific species interactions on individuals and populations vary in both sign (-, 0, +) and magnitude (strong to weak). Interaction outcomes are context-dependent when the sign and/or magnitude change as a function of the biotic or abiotic context. While context dependency appears to be common, its distribution in nature is poorly described. Here, we used meta-analysis to quantify variation in species interaction outcomes (competition, mutualism, or predation) for 247 published articles. Contrary to our expectations, variation in the magnitude of effect sizes did not differ among species interactions, and while mutualism was most likely to change sign across contexts (and predation least likely), mutualism did not strongly differ from competition. Both the magnitude and sign of species interactions varied the most along spatial and abiotic gradients, and least as a function of the presence/absence of a third species. However, the degree of context dependency across these context types was not consistent among mutualism, competition and predation studies. Surprisingly, study location and ecosystem type varied in the degree of context dependency, with laboratory studies showing the highest variation in outcomes. We urge that studying context dependency per se, rather than focusing only on mean outcomes, can provide a general method for describing patterns of variation in nature.
© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd/CNRS.

Keywords:  Coefficient of variation; community context; conditionality; distributed outcomes; interaction strength; meta-analysis

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24735225     DOI: 10.1111/ele.12279

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ecol Lett        ISSN: 1461-023X            Impact factor:   9.492


  76 in total

1.  Asymmetric competition prevents the outbreak of an opportunistic species after coral reef degradation.

Authors:  Manuel González-Rivero; Yves-Marie Bozec; Iliana Chollett; Renata Ferrari; Christine H L Schönberg; Peter J Mumby
Journal:  Oecologia       Date:  2016-01-11       Impact factor: 3.225

2.  Below-ground abiotic and biotic heterogeneity shapes above-ground infection outcomes and spatial divergence in a host-parasite interaction.

Authors:  Ayco J M Tack; Anna-Liisa Laine; Jeremy J Burdon; Andrew Bissett; Peter H Thrall
Journal:  New Phytol       Date:  2015-04-13       Impact factor: 10.151

3.  Adding biotic complexity alters the metabolic benefits of mutualism.

Authors:  William R Harcombe; Alex Betts; Jason W Shapiro; Christopher J Marx
Journal:  Evolution       Date:  2016-06-24       Impact factor: 3.694

4.  The demographic consequences of mutualism: ants increase host-plant fruit production but not population growth.

Authors:  Kevin R Ford; Joshua H Ness; Judith L Bronstein; William F Morris
Journal:  Oecologia       Date:  2015-05-24       Impact factor: 3.225

Review 5.  How sample heterogeneity can obscure the signal of microbial interactions.

Authors:  David W Armitage; Stuart E Jones
Journal:  ISME J       Date:  2019-06-27       Impact factor: 10.302

6.  Digestive mutualism in a pitcher plant supports the monotonic rather than hump-shaped stress-gradient hypothesis model.

Authors:  Felicia Wei Shan Leong; Weng Ngai Lam; Hugh Tiang Wah Tan
Journal:  Oecologia       Date:  2019-05-06       Impact factor: 3.225

7.  Trade-offs in an ant-plant-fungus mutualism.

Authors:  Jérôme Orivel; Pierre-Jean Malé; Jérémie Lauth; Olivier Roux; Frédéric Petitclerc; Alain Dejean; Céline Leroy
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2017-03-15       Impact factor: 5.349

8.  Symbiosis with systemic fungal endophytes promotes host escape from vector-borne disease.

Authors:  L I Perez; P E Gundel; H J Marrero; A González Arzac; M Omacini
Journal:  Oecologia       Date:  2017-03-18       Impact factor: 3.225

9.  Gene flow and metacommunity arrangement affects coevolutionary dynamics at the mutualism-antagonism interface.

Authors:  Paula Lemos-Costa; Ayana B Martins; John N Thompson; Marcus A M de Aguiar
Journal:  J R Soc Interface       Date:  2017-05       Impact factor: 4.118

10.  Decreased snowpack and warmer temperatures reduce the negative effects of interspecific competitors on regenerating conifers.

Authors:  Chhaya M Werner; Derek J N Young; Hugh D Safford; Truman P Young
Journal:  Oecologia       Date:  2019-11-08       Impact factor: 3.225

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.