Advertisement

Theory in Biosciences

, Volume 135, Issue 1–2, pp 89–96 | Cite as

Location and foraging as basis for classification of biotic interactions

  • Viner F. Khabibullin
Original Paper
  • 133 Downloads

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.

Keywords

Interspecific interactions Synoikia Synmensalism Theoretical scheme 

Notes

Acknowledgments

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

References

  1. Allen TFH, Starr TB (1982) Hierarchy: perspectives for ecological complexity. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  2. Alley TR (1985) Organism-environment mutuality epistemics, and the concept of an ecological niche. Synthese 65:411–444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderwald P, Evans PGH, Gygax L, Hoelzel AR (2011) Role of feeding strategies in seabird-minke whale associations. Mar Ecol-Prog Ser 424:219–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Andrewartha HG, Birch LC (1984) The ecological web: more on the distribution and abundance of animals. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  5. Borrett SR, Freeze MA (2011) Reconnecting environs to their environment. Ecol Model 222(14):2393–2403. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2010.10.015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Breed MD, Cook C, Krasnec MO (2012) Cleptobiosis in social insects. Psyche 2012:7. doi: 10.1155/2012/484765 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Buttigieg P, Morrison N, Smith B, Mungall C, Lewis S (2013) The environment ontology: contextualising biological and biomedical entities. J Biomed Semant 4:43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Callaway RM (2010) Do positive interactions among plants matter? In: Pugnaire FI (ed) Positive plant interactions and community dynamics. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Canguilhem G, Savage J (2001) The living and its milieu. Grey Room 3:6–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Costa JT, Fitzgerald TD (2005) Social terminology revisited: where are we ten years later? Ann Zool Fenn 42:559–564Google Scholar
  11. 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):1147–1153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dogiel VA (1965) General parasitology. Oliver and Boyd, London and EdinburghGoogle Scholar
  13. Fischbach MA, Sonnenburg JL (2011) Eating for two: how metabolism establishes interspecies interactions in the gut. Cell Host Microbe 10:336–347CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. Furness P (2012) Coroners and medical examiners: mutualism, commensalism or parasitism? Med Leg J 80(3):86–101CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Garba M, Dobigny G (2014) Reproduction in urban commensal rodents: the case of Mastomys natalensis from Niamey. Niger Mammalia 78(2):185–189Google Scholar
  16. 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):429–442Google Scholar
  17. Hamilton CE, Bauerle TL (2012) A new currency for mutualism? Fungal endophytes alter antioxidant activity in hosts responding to drought. Fungal Divers 54:39–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Henmi Y, Itani G (2014) Burrow utilization in the goby Eutaeniichthys gilli associated with the mud shrimp Upogebia yokoyai. Zool Sci 31(8):523–528CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Herrando-Perez S, Brook BW, Bradshaw CJA (2014) Ecology needs a convention of nomenclature. Bioscience 64:311–321. doi: 10.1093/biosci/biu013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hodges KE (2008) Defining the problem: terminology and progress in ecology. Front Ecol Environ 6:35–42. doi: 10.1890/060108 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. James R, Bennett PG, Krause J (2004) Geometry for mutualistic and selfish herds: the limited domain of danger. J Theor Biol 228(1):107–113CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Kearney M (2006) Habitat, environment and niche: what are we modelling? Oikos 115(1):186–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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):291–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lidicker WZ Jr (1979) Clarification of interactions in ecological systems. Bioscience 29:475–477. doi: 10.2307/1307540 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Loehle C (1988) Philosophical tools: potential contributions to ecology. Oikos 51:97–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Margulis L (1990) Words as battle cries: symbiogenesis and the new field of endocytobiology. Bioscience 40:673–677. doi: 10.2307/1311435 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Menzel F, Blüthgen N (2010) Parabiotic associations between tropical ants: equal partnership or parasitic exploitation? J Anim Ecol 79:71–81CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Menzel F, Kriesell H, Witte V (2014) Parabiotic ants: the costs and benefits of symbiosis. Ecol Entomol 39(4):436–444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mougi A, Kondoh M (2012) Diversity of interaction types and ecological community stability. Science 337:349–351. doi: 10.1126/science.1220529 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Niven BS (1980) The formal definition of the environment of an animal. Aust J Ecol 5:37–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Niven BS, Liddle MJ (1994) Towards a classification of the environment and the community of Quercus robur. J Veg Sci 5(3):317–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Odum E (1953) Fundamentals of ecology. Saunders, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  33. Parmentier E, Michel L (2013) Boundary lines in symbiosis forms. Symbiosis 60:1–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Peel JS (2014) Failed predation, commensalism and parasitism on lower Cambrian linguliformean brachiopods. Alcheringa 39(2):149–163. doi: 10.1080/03115518.2015.964055 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Poelen JH, Simons JD, Mungall CJ (2014) Global biotic interactions: an open infrastructure to share and analyze species-interaction datasets. Ecol Inform 24:148–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 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):61–68PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Poulin R (2007) Are there general laws in parasite ecology? Parasitology 134:763–776. doi: 10.1017/S0031182006002150 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Purcell SW, Eriksson H (2015) Echinoderms piggybacking on sea cucumbers: benign effects on sediment turnover and movement of hosts. Mar Biol Res 11(6):666–670CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 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):788–796CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 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
  42. 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:R46CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  43. Southwood TRE (1977) Habitat, the templet for ecological strategies? J Anim Ecol 46:337–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 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):S1CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  45. Van der Steen WJ (1990) Concepts in biology: a survey of practical methodological principles. J Theor Biol 143:383–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 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 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 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 9:17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wilkinson DM (2001) At cross purposes. Nature 412:485CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 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 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  50. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Wright JP, Jones CG (2006) The concept of organisms as ecosystem engineers ten years on: progress, limitations, and challenges. Bioscience 56:203–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Human Physiology and ZoologyBashkir State UniversityUfaRussia

Personalised recommendations