Most studies of plant-animal mutualisms involve a small number of species. There is almost no information on the structural organization of species-rich mutualistic networks despite its potential importance for the maintenance of diversity. Here we analyze 52 mutualistic networks and show that they are highly nested; that is, the more specialist species interact only with proper subsets of those species interacting with the more generalists. This assembly pattern generates highly asymmetrical interactions and organizes the community cohesively around a central core of interactions. Thus, mutualistic networks are neither randomly assembled nor organized in compartments arising from tight, parallel specialization. Furthermore, nestedness increases with the complexity (number of interactions) of the network: for a given number of species, communities with more interactions are significantly more nested. Our results indicate a nonrandom pattern of community organization that may be relevant for our understanding of the organization and persistence of biodiversity.

In natural communities, species and their interactions are often organized as nonrandom networks, showing distinct and repeated complex patterns. A prevalent, but poorly explored pattern is ecological modularity, with weakly interlinked subsets of species (modules), which, however, internally consist of strongly connected species. The importance of modularity has been discussed for a long time, but no consensus on its prevalence in ecological networks has yet been reached. Progress is hampered by inadequate methods and a lack of large datasets. We analyzed 51 pollination networks including almost 10,000 species and 20,000 links and tested for modularity by using a recently developed simulated annealing algorithm. All networks with >150 plant and pollinator species were modular, whereas networks with <50 species were never modular. Both module number and size increased with species number. Each module includes one or a few species groups with convergent trait sets that may be considered as coevolutionary units. Species played different roles with respect to modularity. However, only 15% of all species were structurally important to their network. They were either hubs (i.e., highly linked species within their own module), connectors linking different modules, or both. If these key species go extinct, modules and networks may break apart and initiate cascades of extinction. Thus, species serving as hubs and connectors should receive high conservation priorities.coevolution ͉ compartment ͉ module ͉ nestedness ͉ species role B iodiversity encompasses not just species but also interactions among species. Within habitats, species and their interactions assemble into large, complex ecological networks. Such networks are rich in structural heterogeneity (1). Understanding network structure and its underlying causes are essential parts of any study of biodiversity and its responses to disturbances, yet it is a conceptual and methodological challenge to address these problems in highly diversified communities with thousands of interactions.Moving through an ecological network of species and their connecting links, one traverses a heterogeneous universe of link-dense and -sparse areas. Link-dense regions are termed compartments (2) or, here, modules (3), whereas link-sparse regions demarcate their boundaries. Species within a module are linked more tightly together than they are to species in other modules. The extent to which species interactions are organized into modules is termed the modularity of the network. Modularity may reflect habitat heterogeneity, divergent selection regimes, and phylogenetic clustering of closely related species (4, 5), leading to nonrandom patterns of interaction and ultimately contributing to the complexity of ecological networks. Modules with their tightly linked species may even be the long-sought key units of coevolution, in which reciprocal selection leads to trait convergence in unrelated species (6). However, modularity has been notoriously difficult to demonstrate either because of it...

In every year over a third of the total EU population suffers from mental disorders. The true size of "disorders of the brain" including neurological disorders is even considerably larger. Disorders of the brain are the largest contributor to the all cause morbidity burden as measured by DALY in the EU. No indications for increasing overall rates of mental disorders were found nor of improved care and treatment since 2005; less than one third of all cases receive any treatment, suggesting a considerable level of unmet needs. We conclude that the true size and burden of disorders of the brain in the EU was significantly underestimated in the past. Concerted priority action is needed at all levels, including substantially increased funding for basic, clinical and public health research in order to identify better strategies for improved prevention and treatment for disorders of the brain as the core health challenge of the 21st century.