Abstract
Both ecological and evolutionary timescales are of importance when considering an ecological system; population dynamics affect the evolution of species traits, and vice versa. Recently, these two timescales have been used to explain structural patterns in host-parasite networks, where the evolution of the manner in which species balance the use of their resources in interactions with each other was examined.
One of these patterns was nestedness, in which the set of parasite species within a particular host forms a subset of those within a more species-rich host. Patterns of both nestedness and anti-nestedness have been observed significantly more often than expected due to chance in host-parasite networks. In contrast, mutualistic networks tend to display a significant degree of nestedness, but are rarely anti-nested. Within networks with different interaction types, therefore, there appears to be a feature promoting non-random structural patterns, such as nestedness and anti-nestedness, depending on the interaction types involved.
Here, we invoke the co-evolution of species trait-values when allocating resources to interactions to explain the structural pattern of nestedness in a mutualistic community. We look at a bipartite, multi-species system, in which the strength of an interaction between two species is determined by the resources that each species invests in that relationship. We then analyze the evolution of these interactions using adaptive dynamics.
We found that the evolution of these interactions, reflecting the trade-off of resources, could be used to accurately predict that nestedness occurs significantly more often than expect due to chance alone in a mutualistic network. This complements previous results applying the same concept to an antagonistic network. We conclude that population dynamics and resource trade-offs could be important promoters of structural patterns in ecological networks of different types.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Almeida-Neto, M., & Ulrich, W. (2011). A straightforward computational approach for measuring nestedness using quantitative matrices. Environ. Model. Softw., 26, 173–178.
Almeida-Neto, M., Guimarães, P., Guimarães, P. R. Jr., Loyola, R. D., & Ulrich, W. (2008). A consistent metric for nestedness analysis in ecological systems: reconciling concept and measurement. Oikos, 117, 1227–1239.
Atmar, W., & Patterson, B. D. (1993). The measure of order and disorder in the distribution of species in fragmented habitat. Oecologia, 96, 373–382.
Bascompte, J., & Jordano, P. (2007). Plant-animal mutualistic networks: the architecture of biodiversity. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst., 38, 567–593.
Bascompte, J., Jordano, P., Melián, C. J., & Olesen, J. M. (2003). The nested assembly of plant–animal mutualistic networks. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 100, 9383–9387.
Bastolla, U., Fortuna, M. A., Pascual-García, A., Ferrera, A., Luque, B., & Bascompte, J. (2009). The architecture of mutualistic networks minimizes competition and increases biodiversity. Nature, 458, 1018–1020.
Bezerra, E. L. S., Machado, I. C., & Mello, M. A. (2009). Pollination networks of oil-flowers: a tiny world within the smallest of all worlds. J. Anim. Ecol., 78, 1096–1101.
Blüthgen, N., Menzel, F., Hovestadt, T., Fiala, B., & Blüthgen, N. (2007). Specialization, constraints, and conflicting interests in mutualistic networks. Curr. Biol., 17, 341–346.
Brauer, F., & Castillo-Chávez, C. (2001). Mathematical models in population biology and epidemiology (pp. 199–206). Berlin: Springer.
Brauer, F., & Soudack, A. (1985). Mutualism models with non-linear growth rates. Int. J. Control, 41, 1601–1612.
Carney, J., & Dick, T. (2000). Helminth communities of yellow perch (Perca flavescens (Mitchill)): determinants of pattern. Can. J. Zool., 78, 538–555.
Dean, A. (1983). A simple model of mutualism. Am. Nat., 121, 409–417.
Dicks, L., Corbet, S., & Pywell, R. (2002). Compartmentalization in plant-insect flower visitor webs. J. Anim. Ecol., 71, 32–43.
Dieckmann, U., & Law, R. (1996). The dynamical theory of coevolution: a derivation from stochastic ecological processes. J. Math. Biol., 34, 579–612.
Flores, C. O., Meyer, J. R., Valverde, S., Farr, L., & Weitz, J. S. (2011). Statistical structure of host-phage interactions. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 108, E288–E297.
Fortuna, M. A., Stouffer, D. B., Olesen, J. M., Jordano, P., Mouillot, D., Krasnov, B. R., Poulin, R., & Bascompte, J. (2010). Nestedness versus modularity in ecological networks: two side of the same coin? J. Anim. Ecol., 79, 811–817.
Geritz, S., Kisdi, E., Meszéna, G., & Metz, J. (1998). Evolutionarily singular strategies and the adaptive growth and branching of the evolutionary tree. Evol. Ecol., 12, 35–57.
Gillespie, D. T. (1976). Exact stochastic simulation of coupled chemical reactions. J. Phys. Chem., 81(25), 2340–2361.
Graham, S. P., Hassan, H. K., Burkett-Cadena, N. D., Guyer, C., & Unnasch, T. R. (2009). Nestedness of ectoparasite–vertebrate host networks. PLoS ONE, 4, 1–8.
Guimarães, P. R. Jr., & Guimarães, P. (2006). Improving the analyses of nestedness for large sets of matrices. Environ. Model. Softw., 21, 1512–1513.
Guimarães, P. R. Jr., Rico-Gray, V., Furtado do Reis, S., & Thompson, J. N. (2006). Improving the analyses of nestedness for large sets of matrices. Proc. R. Soc. B, 273, 2041–2047.
Holland, J. N., DeAngelis, D. L., & Bronstein, J. L. (2002). Population dynamics and mutualism: functional responses of benefits and costs. Am. Nat., 159, 231–244.
James, A., Pitchford, J. W., & Plank, M. J. (2012). Disentangling nestedness from models of ecological complexity. Nature, 487, 227–229.
Joppa, L. N., & Williams, R. (2011). The influence of single elements on nested community structure. Methods Ecol Evol., 2, 541–549.
Joppa, L. N., Montoya, J. M., Solé, R., Sanderson, J., & Pimm, S. L. (2010). On nestedness in ecological networks. Evol. Ecol. Res., 12, 35–46.
Jordano, P., Bascompte, J., & Olesen, J. M. (2003). Invariant properties in coevolutionary networks of plant-animal interactions. Ecol. Lett., 6, 69–81.
Jordano, P., Bascompte, J., & Olesen, J. M. (2006). The ecological consequences of complex topology and nested structure in pollination webs. In N. M. Waser & J. Ollerton (Eds.), Plant-pollinator interactions: from specialization to generalization (pp. 173–199). Bristol: University Presses Marketing.
Kermack, W., & McKendrick, A. (1927). Contributions to the mathematical theory of epidemics. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A, 115, 700–721.
Kisdi, E. (2006). Trade-off geometries and the adaptive dynamics of two co-evolving species. Evol. Ecol. Res., 8, 959–973.
Kondoh, M. (2003). Foraging adaption and the relationship between food-web complexity and stability. Science, 299, 1388–1391.
Kondoh, M., Kato, S., & Sakato, Y. (2010). Food webs are built up with nested subwebs. Ecology, 91, 3123–3130.
Krishna, A., Guimarães, P. R. Jr., Jordano, P., & Bascompte, J. (2008). A neutral-niche theory of nestedness in mutualistic networks. Oikos, 117, 1609–1918.
Law, R., Bronstein, J. L., & Ferrière, R. (2001). On mutualists and exploiters: plant-insect coevolution in pollinating seed-parasite systems. J. Theor. Biol., 212, 373–389.
Lewinsohn, T. M., Prado, P. I., Jordano, P., Bascompte, J., & Olesen, J. M. (2006). Structure in plant-animal interaction assemblages. Oikos, 113, 174–184.
Melián, C. J., & Bascompte, J. (2002). Complex networks: two ways to be robust? Ecol. Lett., 5, 705–708.
Melián, C. J., & Bascompte, J. (2004). Food web cohesion. Ecology, 85, 352–358.
Metz, J., Geritz, S., Meszéna, G., Jacobs, F., & van Heerwaarden, J. (1996). Adaptive dynamics: a geometrical study of the consequences of nearly faithful reproduction. In S. van Strien & S. Verduyn Lunel (Eds.), Stochastic and spatial structures of dynamical systems (pp. 183–231). Amsterdam: North-Holland/Elsevier.
McQuaid, C. F., & Britton, N. F. (2013a). Co-evolution of resource trade-offs driving species interactions in a host-parasite network: An exploratory model. Theor. Ecol. doi:10.1007/s12080-013-0179-3.
McQuaid, C. F., & Britton, N. F. (2013b). Host-parasite nestedness a result of co-evolving trait values. Ecol. Complex. 13, 53–59.
Okuyama, T., & Holland, J. N. (2008). Network structural properties mediate the stability of mutualistic communities. Ecol. Lett., 11, 208–216.
Olesen, J. M., Bascompte, J., Elberling, H., & Jordano, P. (2008). Temporal dynamics in a pollination network. Ecology, 89, 1573–1582.
Poitrineau, K., Brown, S., & Hochberg, M. (2003). Defence against multiple enemies. J. Evol. Biol., 16, 1319–1327.
Poulin, R. (2007). Are there general laws in parasite ecology? Parasitology, 134, 763–776.
Saavedra, S., Stouffer, D. B., Uzzi, B., & Bascompte, J. (2011). Strong contributors to network persistence are the most vulnerable to extinction. Nature, 478, 233–235.
Santamaría, L., & Rodríguez-Gironés, M. A. (2007). Linkage rules for plant-pollinator networks: trait complementarity or exploitation barriers? PLoS Biol., 5, 354–362.
Stang, M., Klinkhamer, P. G., & van der Meijden, E. (2007). Asymmetric specialization and extinction risk in plant-flower visitor webs: a matter of morphology or abundance? Oecologia, 151, 442–453.
Sugihara, G., & Ye, H. (2009). Cooperative network dynamics. Nature, 458, 979–980.
Thébault, E., & Fontaine, C. (2008). Does asymmetric specialization differ between mutualistic and trophic networks? Oikos, 117, 555–563.
Thébault, E., & Fontaine, C. (2010). Stability of ecological communities and the architecture of mutualistic and trophic networks. Science, 329, 853–856.
Ulrich, W., Almeida-Neto, M., & Gotelli, N. J. (2009). A consumer’s guide to nestedness analysis. Oikos, 118, 3–17.
Vázquez, D. P., & Aizen, M. A. (2003). Null model analyses of specialization in plant-pollinator interactions. Ecology, 84, 2493–2501.
Vázquez, D. P., & Aizen, M. A. (2004). Asymmetric specialization: a pervasive feature of plant-pollinator interactions. Ecology, 85, 1251–1257.
Vázquez, D. P., Blüthgen, N., Cagnolo, L., & Chacoff, N. P. (2009). Uniting pattern and process in plant-animal mutualistic networks: a review. Ann. Bot., 103, 1445–1457.
Zhang, F., Hui, C., & Terblanche, J. S. (2011). An interaction switch predicts the nested architecture of mutualistic networks. Ecol. Lett., 14, 797–803.
Acknowledgements
C.F. McQuaid is a Commonwealth Scholar, funded by the Department for International Development, UK.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
McQuaid, C.F., Britton, N.F. Network Dynamics Contribute to Structure: Nestedness in Mutualistic Networks. Bull Math Biol 75, 2372–2388 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11538-013-9896-4
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11538-013-9896-4