The aim in this paper is to offer an overview of the mechanisms influencing the structure of plant-animal mutualistic networks. A brief summary is presented of the salient network patterns, the potential mechanisms are discussed and the studies that have evaluated them are reviewed. This review shows that researchers of plant-animal mutualisms have made substantial progress in the understanding of the processes behind the patterns observed in mutualistic networks. At the same time, we are still far from a thorough, integrative mechanistic understanding. We close with specific suggestions for directions of future research, which include developing methods to evaluate the relative importance of mechanisms influencing network patterns and focusing research efforts on selected representative study systems throughout the world.

The structure of mutualistic networks is likely to result from the simultaneous influence of neutrality and the constraints imposed by complementarity in species phenotypes, phenologies, spatial distributions, phylogenetic relationships, and sampling artifacts. We develop a conceptual and methodological framework to evaluate the relative contributions of these potential determinants. Applying this approach to the analysis of a plant-pollinator network, we show that information on relative abundance and phenology suffices to predict several aggregate network properties (connectance, nestedness, interaction evenness, and interaction asymmetry). However, such information falls short of predicting the detailed network structure (the frequency of pairwise interactions), leaving a large amount of variation unexplained. Taken together, our results suggest that both relative species abundance and complementarity in spatiotemporal distribution contribute substantially to generate observed network patters, but that this information is by no means sufficient to predict the occurrence and frequency of pairwise interactions. Future studies could use our methodological framework to evaluate the generality of our findings in a representative sample of study systems with contrasting ecological conditions.