Indirect interactions among species emerge from the complexity of ecological networks and can strongly affect the response of communities to disturbances. To determine these indirect interactions and understand better community dynamics, ecologists focused on the interactions within small sets of species or modules. Thanks to their analytical tractability, modules bring insights on the mechanisms occurring in complex interaction networks. So far, most studies have considered modules with a single type of interaction although numerous species are involved in mutualistic and antagonistic interactions simultaneously. In this study, we analyse the dynamics of a diamond-shaped module with multiple interaction types: two resource species sharing a mutualist and a consumer. We describe the different types of indirect interaction occurring between the resource species and the conditions for a stable coexistence of all species. We show that the nature of indirect interactions between resource species (i.e. apparent facilitation, competition or antagonism), as well as stable coexistence, depend on the species generalism and asymmetry of interactions, or in other words, on the distribution of interaction strengths among species. We further unveil that a balance between mutualistic and antagonistic interactions at the level of resource species favours stable coexistence, and that species are more likely to coexist stably if there is apparent facilitation between the two resource species rather than apparent competition. Our results echo existing knowledge on the trophic diamond-shaped module, and confirm that our understanding of communities combining different interaction types can gain from module analyses.
Indirect interactions Diversity of interaction types Mutualism Antagonism Diamond-shaped module Stability Species coexistence Interaction strength
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
We warmly thank Pierre Collet whose advices greatly contributed to this work, and Nicolas Loeuille whose comments improved the present manuscript. AMCS was supported with a fellowship by the Chaire “Modélisation Mathématique et Biodiversité” of Veolia Environnement – École Polytechnique – Museum National d’Histoire Naturelle – Fondation X.
Adler LS, Karban R, Strauss SY (2001) Direct and indirect effects of alkaloids on plant fitness via herbivory and pollination. Ecology 82:2032–2044CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adler LS, Wink M, Distl M, Lentz AJ (2006) Leaf herbivory and nutrients increase nectar alkaloids. Ecol Lett 9:960–967CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Armstrong RA (1979) Prey species replacement along a gradient of nutrient enrichment: a graphical approach. Ecology 60:76–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arroyo MTK, Till-Bottraud I, Torres C et al (2007) Display size preferences and foraging habits of high Andean butterflies pollinating Chaetanthera lycopodioides (Asteraceae) in the subnival of the Central Chilean Andes. Arct Antarct Alp Res 39:347–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bascompte J, Melián CJ (2005) Simple trophic modules for complex food webs. Ecology 86:2868–2873CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carvalheiro LG, Beismeijer JC, Benadi G et al (2014) The potential for indirect effects between co-flowering plants via shared pollinators depends on resource abundance, accessibility and relatedness. Ecol Lett 17(11):1389–1399CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Casper BB, Jackson RB (1997) Plant competition underground. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 28:545–570CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chaneton E, Bonsall M (2000) Enemy-mediated apparent competition: empirical patterns and the evidence. Oikos 88:380–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Connell JH (1983) Importance of interspecific competition: evidence from field experiments. Am Nat 122:661–696CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Ruiter PC, Neutel A-M, Moore J (1995) Energetics, patterns of interaction strengths, and stability in real ecosystems. Science 269:1257–1260CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Elias M, Fontaine C, van Veen FJF (2013) Evolutionary history and ecological processes shape a local multilevel antagonistic network. Curr Biol 23:1355–1359CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar