Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Location and foraging as basis for classification of biotic interactions

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Theory in Biosciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Ecologists face an overwhelming diversity of ecological relationships in natural communities. In this paper, I propose to differentiate various types of the interspecific relations on the basis of two factors: relative localization and foraging activity of interacting partners. I advocate recognition of four types of environments: internal, surface, proximate external and distant external. Then I distinguish four types of synoikia—one partner lives in different degree of proximity to another; and four types of synmensalism: one partner forages in different degree of proximity to another. Intersection of localization-based (four subtypes of synoikia) and foraging-based (four subtypes of synmensalism) rows results in 16 types of interactions. This scheme can serve as a framework that manages diverse biotic interactions in a standardized way. I have made the first step to set up nomenclature standards for terms describing interspecific interactions and hope that this will facilitate research and communication.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Allen TFH, Starr TB (1982) Hierarchy: perspectives for ecological complexity. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Alley TR (1985) Organism-environment mutuality epistemics, and the concept of an ecological niche. Synthese 65:411–444

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderwald P, Evans PGH, Gygax L, Hoelzel AR (2011) Role of feeding strategies in seabird-minke whale associations. Mar Ecol-Prog Ser 424:219–227

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andrewartha HG, Birch LC (1984) The ecological web: more on the distribution and abundance of animals. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Borrett SR, Freeze MA (2011) Reconnecting environs to their environment. Ecol Model 222(14):2393–2403. doi:10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2010.10.015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Breed MD, Cook C, Krasnec MO (2012) Cleptobiosis in social insects. Psyche 2012:7. doi:10.1155/2012/484765

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buttigieg P, Morrison N, Smith B, Mungall C, Lewis S (2013) The environment ontology: contextualising biological and biomedical entities. J Biomed Semant 4:43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Callaway RM (2010) Do positive interactions among plants matter? In: Pugnaire FI (ed) Positive plant interactions and community dynamics. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 1–16

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Canguilhem G, Savage J (2001) The living and its milieu. Grey Room 3:6–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Costa JT, Fitzgerald TD (2005) Social terminology revisited: where are we ten years later? Ann Zool Fenn 42:559–564

    Google Scholar 

  • Degrati M, Dans SL, Garaffo GV, Crespo EA (2014) Seabird and dolphin associations: do seabirds benefit from feeding in association with dusky dolphins in Patagonia? J Mar Biol Assoc UK 94(6):1147–1153

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dogiel VA (1965) General parasitology. Oliver and Boyd, London and Edinburgh

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischbach MA, Sonnenburg JL (2011) Eating for two: how metabolism establishes interspecies interactions in the gut. Cell Host Microbe 10:336–347

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Furness P (2012) Coroners and medical examiners: mutualism, commensalism or parasitism? Med Leg J 80(3):86–101

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Garba M, Dobigny G (2014) Reproduction in urban commensal rodents: the case of Mastomys natalensis from Niamey. Niger Mammalia 78(2):185–189

    Google Scholar 

  • Gordillo S, Archuby F (2014) Live-live and live-dead interactions in marine death assemblages: the case of the patagonian clam Venus antiqua. Acta Palaeontol Pol 59(2):429–442

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton CE, Bauerle TL (2012) A new currency for mutualism? Fungal endophytes alter antioxidant activity in hosts responding to drought. Fungal Divers 54:39–49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henmi Y, Itani G (2014) Burrow utilization in the goby Eutaeniichthys gilli associated with the mud shrimp Upogebia yokoyai. Zool Sci 31(8):523–528

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Herrando-Perez S, Brook BW, Bradshaw CJA (2014) Ecology needs a convention of nomenclature. Bioscience 64:311–321. doi:10.1093/biosci/biu013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hodges KE (2008) Defining the problem: terminology and progress in ecology. Front Ecol Environ 6:35–42. doi:10.1890/060108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • James R, Bennett PG, Krause J (2004) Geometry for mutualistic and selfish herds: the limited domain of danger. J Theor Biol 228(1):107–113

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kearney M (2006) Habitat, environment and niche: what are we modelling? Oikos 115(1):186–191

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kefi S, Berlow EL, Wieters EA, Joppa LN, Wood SA, Brose U, Navarrete SA (2015) Network structure beyond food webs: mapping non-trophic and trophic interactions on Chilean rocky shores. Ecology 96(1):291–303

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lidicker WZ Jr (1979) Clarification of interactions in ecological systems. Bioscience 29:475–477. doi:10.2307/1307540

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loehle C (1988) Philosophical tools: potential contributions to ecology. Oikos 51:97–104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Margulis L (1990) Words as battle cries: symbiogenesis and the new field of endocytobiology. Bioscience 40:673–677. doi:10.2307/1311435

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Menzel F, Blüthgen N (2010) Parabiotic associations between tropical ants: equal partnership or parasitic exploitation? J Anim Ecol 79:71–81

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Menzel F, Kriesell H, Witte V (2014) Parabiotic ants: the costs and benefits of symbiosis. Ecol Entomol 39(4):436–444

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mougi A, Kondoh M (2012) Diversity of interaction types and ecological community stability. Science 337:349–351. doi:10.1126/science.1220529

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Niven BS (1980) The formal definition of the environment of an animal. Aust J Ecol 5:37–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Niven BS, Liddle MJ (1994) Towards a classification of the environment and the community of Quercus robur. J Veg Sci 5(3):317–326

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Odum E (1953) Fundamentals of ecology. Saunders, Philadelphia

    Google Scholar 

  • Parmentier E, Michel L (2013) Boundary lines in symbiosis forms. Symbiosis 60:1–5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peel JS (2014) Failed predation, commensalism and parasitism on lower Cambrian linguliformean brachiopods. Alcheringa 39(2):149–163. doi:10.1080/03115518.2015.964055

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pizzolotto R (2009) Characterization of different habitats on the basis of the species traits and eco-field approach. Acta Oecol 35:142–148. doi:10.1016/j.actao.2008.09.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poelen JH, Simons JD, Mungall CJ (2014) Global biotic interactions: an open infrastructure to share and analyze species-interaction datasets. Ecol Inform 24:148–159

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poreau B (2014) The history of commensalism: a contemporary history of microbiology [L’histoire du commensalisme: une histoire contemporaine de la microbiologie.]. Hist Sci Med 48(1):61–68

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Poulin R (2007) Are there general laws in parasite ecology? Parasitology 134:763–776. doi:10.1017/S0031182006002150

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Purcell SW, Eriksson H (2015) Echinoderms piggybacking on sea cucumbers: benign effects on sediment turnover and movement of hosts. Mar Biol Res 11(6):666–670

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sætre GP, Riyahi S, Aliabadian M, Hermansen JS, Hogner S, Olsson U, Gonzalez Rojas MF, Sæther SA, Trier CN, Elgvin TO (2012) Single origin of human commensalism in the house sparrow. J Evol Biol 25(4):788–796

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Smith B, Varzi AC (2002) Surrounding space on the ontology of organism-environment relations. Theor Biosci 120:139–162. doi:10.1007/s12064-002-0017-4

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith B, Ceusters W, Klagges B, Kohler J, Kumar A, Lomax J, Mungall C, Neuhaus F, Rector A, Rosse C (2005) Relations in biomedical ontologies. Genome Biol 6:R46

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Southwood TRE (1977) Habitat, the templet for ecological strategies? J Anim Ecol 46:337–365

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Torto-Alalibo T, Collmer CW, Gwinn-Giglio M (2009) The plant-associated microbe gene ontology (PAMGO) Consortium: community development of new gene ontology terms describing biological processes involved in microbe-host interactions. BMC Microbiol 9(Suppl. 1):S1

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Van der Steen WJ (1990) Concepts in biology: a survey of practical methodological principles. J Theor Biol 143:383–403

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wagman JB, Miller DB (2003) Nested reciprocities: the organism–environment system in perception–action and development. Dev Psychobiol 42(4):317–334. doi:10.1002/dev.10114

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Walls RL, Guralnick R, Deck J, Buntzman A, Buttigieg PL, Davies N, Denslow MW, Gallery RE, Parnell JJ, Osumi-Sutherland D, Robbins RJ, Rocca-Serra P, Wieczorek J, Zheng J (2014) Meeting report: advancing practical applications of biodiversity ontologies. Stand Genom Sci 9:17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilkinson DM (2001) At cross purposes. Nature 412:485

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Winemiller KO, Fitzgerald DB, Bower LM, Pianka ER (2015) Functional traits, convergent evolution, and periodic tables of niches. Ecol Lett 18:737–751. doi:10.1111/ele.12462

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Wootton JT (1994) The nature and consequences of indirect effects in ecological communities. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 25:443–466. doi:10.1146/annurev.es.25.110194.002303

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wright JP, Jones CG (2006) The concept of organisms as ecosystem engineers ten years on: progress, limitations, and challenges. Bioscience 56:203–209

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The author received no personal or institutional funding for this work.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Human Physiology and Zoology, Bashkir State University, Zaki-Validy str., 32, Ufa, Bashkortostan, 450076, Russia

    Viner F. Khabibullin

Authors
  1. Viner F. Khabibullin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Viner F. Khabibullin.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Khabibullin, V.F. Location and foraging as basis for classification of biotic interactions. Theory Biosci. 135, 89–96 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12064-016-0228-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12064-016-0228-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation