A hybrid behavioural rule of adaptation and drift explains the emergent architecture of antagonistic networks

Nuwagaba, Savannah; Zhang, F.; Hui, Cang

doi:10.1098/rspb.2015.0320

Cited by 27 publications

(38 citation statements)

References 61 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This is often a simplifying assumption, as adaptive foraging (see review in Valdovinos et al 2010) or other forms of adaptive behaviour in response, e.g., to environmental changes (Strona and Lafferty 2016) can often cause links to form, change in strength, or disappear as time progresses. Adaptive networks has been shown to reproduce realistic food-web structures (Nuwagaba et al 2015), to promote stability (Nuwagaba et al 2017), and to allow for positive complexity-stability relationships. For example, Kondoh (2003) and Kondoh (2006) showed that foraging adaptation enhances stability of trophic communities.…”

Section: Trait-mediated Interactions and Adaptive Network: Food Websmentioning

confidence: 99%

Complexity and stability of ecological networks: a review of the theory

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Our planet is changing at paces never observed before. Species extinction is happening at faster rates than ever, greatly exceeding the five mass extinctions in the fossil record. Nevertheless, our lives are strongly based on services provided by ecosystems, thus the responses to global change of our natural heritage are of immediate concern. Understanding the relationship between complexity and stability of ecosystems is of key importance for the maintenance of the balance of human growth and the conservation of all the natural services that ecosystems provide. Mathematical network models can be used to simplify the vast complexity of the real world, to formally describe and investigate ecological phenomena, and to understand ecosystems propensity of returning to its functioning regime after a stress or a perturbation. The use of ecological-network models to study the relationship between complexity and stability of natural ecosystems is the focus of this review. The concept of ecological networks and their characteristics are first introduced, followed by central and occasionally contrasting definitions of complexity and stability. The literature on the relationship between complexity and stability in different types of models and in real ecosystems is then reviewed, highlighting the theoretical debate and the lack of consensual agreement. The summary of the importance of this line of research for the successful management and conservation of biodiversity and ecosystem services concludes the review.

show abstract

Section: Trait-mediated Interactions and Adaptive Network: Food Websmentioning

confidence: 99%

Complexity and stability of ecological networks: a review of the theory

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Some recent assembly-level models further allow limited evolutionary processes (e.g. Drossel et al 2001;McKane 2004) and adaptive response to disturbance (Kondoh 2003;Zhang et al 2011;Suweis et al 2013;Nuwagaba et al 2015;Minoarivelo and Hui 2016;Hui et al 2015). In particular, the model proposed by Loeuille and Loreau (2005) can depict the emergence of complex food webs through ecological and evolutionary processes involving trait-mediated interactions.…”

Section: Invasion Fitnessmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…More recently, it has been recognised that species assemblages in unsaturated local communities are at least in part driven by neutral forcing via the continuous influx of regional and alien species (Hubbell 2001;Stohlgren et al 2003). Despite contrasting opinions on the applicability of neutral theory to real world communities (Chase 2005;Clark 2012;Rosindell et al 2012), it is now widely accepted that both deterministic and stochastic processes interact to structure species assemblages (Bar-Massada et al 2014;Nuwagaba et al 2015).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Recent progress in resolving the complexity-stability debate has involved exploring the causal relationship between the architecture and stability of many mutualistic (e.g., plantfrugivore and plant-pollinator), trophic (food web) and antagonistic (predator-prey and host-parasite/pathogen) networks (e.g. Memmott et al 2004;Eklöf and Ebenman 2006;Bascompte et al 2006;Burgos et al 2007;Estrada 2007;Bastola et al 2009;Kiers et al 2010;Thébault and Fontaine 2010;Brose 2011;de Visser et al 2011;Stouffer and Bascompte 2011;James et al 2012), and explaining emergent network structures using dynamic network models with adaptive and random species rewiring (van Baalen et al 2001;Kondoh 2003;Rezende et al 2007;Vacher et al 2008;Valdovinos et al 2010;Zhang et al 2011;Suweis et al 2013;Minoarivelo et al 2014;Nuwagaba et al 2015).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Defining invasiveness and invasibility in ecological networks

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The success of a biological invasion is context dependent, and yet two key concepts-the invasiveness of species and the invasibility of recipient ecosystems-are often defined and considered separately. We propose a framework that can elucidate the complex relationship between invasibility and invasiveness. It is based on trait-mediated interactions between species and depicts the response of an ecological network to the intrusion of an alien species, drawing on the concept of community saturation. Here, invasiveness of an introduced species with a particular trait is measured by its per capita population growth rate when the initial propagule pressure of the introduced species is very low. The invasibility of the recipient habitat or ecosystem is dependent on the structure of the resident ecological network and is defined as the total width of an opportunity niche in the trait space susceptible to invasion. Invasibility is thus a measure of network instability. We also correlate invasibility with the asymptotic stability of resident ecological network, measured by the leading eigenvalue of the interaction matrix that depicts traitbased interaction intensity multiplied by encounter rate (a pairwise product of propagule pressure of all members in a community). We further examine the relationship between invasibility and network architecture, including network connectance, nestedness and modularity. We exemplify this framework with a trait-based assembly model under perturbations in ways to emulate fluctuating resources and random trait composition in ecological networks. The maximum invasiveness of a potential invader (greatest Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article

show abstract

“…; Nuwagaba et al. ; Minoarivelo and Hui ):

\frac{d A_{i}}{A_{i} d t} = f_{A} false(x_{i} false) = r_{A} - \frac{r_{A} \sum_{k} italicγ (x_{i}, x_{k}) A_{k}}{K_{A} false(x_{i} false)} + \frac{\sum_{j} b_{A_{i} P_{j}} w_{A_{i} P_{j}} P_{j}}{1 + h \sum_{j} w_{A_{i} P_{j}} P_{j}}

\frac{d P_{j}}{P_{j} d t} = f_{P} false(y_{j} false) = r_{P} - \frac{r_{P} \sum_{k} italicγ (y_{j}, y_{k}) P_{k}}{K_{P} false(y_{j} false)} + \frac{\sum_{i} b_{P_{j} A_{i}} w_{P_{j} A_{i}} A_{i}}{1 + h \sum_{i} w_{P_{j} A_{i}} A_{i}}

where r is the intrinsic population growth rate, and h the handling time that animals spend for visiting a plant and digesting the nutrients extracted from the plant; both are assumed to be trait‐independent to avoid overparameterization of the model ( r A = r P = 1; h = 0.1). Note that parameter values provided below in brackets are used as reference for sensitivity tests.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Invading a mutualistic network: to be or not to be similar

Minoarivelo

Hui

2016

Ecology and Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Biological invasion remains a major threat to biodiversity in general and a disruptor to mutualistic interactions in particular. While a number of empirical studies have directly explored the role of invasion in mutualistic pollination networks, a clear picture is yet to emerge and a theoretical model for comprehension still lacking. Here, using an eco‐evolutionary model of bipartite mutualistic networks with trait‐mediated interactions, we explore invader trait, propagule pressure, and network features of recipient community that contribute importantly to the success and impact of an invasion. High level of invasiveness is observed when invader trait differs from those of the community average, and level of interaction generalization equals to that of the community average. Moreover, multiple introductions of invaders with declining propagules enhance invasiveness. Surprisingly, the most successful invader is not always the one having the biggest impact on the recipient community. The network structure of recipient community, such as nestedness and modularity, is not a primary indicator of its invasibility; rather, the invasibility is best correlated with measurements of network stability such as robustness, resilience, and disruptiveness (a measure of evolutionary instability). Our model encompasses more general scenarios than previously studied in predicting invasion success and impact in mutualistic networks, and our results highlight the need for coupling eco‐evolutionary processes to resolve the invasion dilemma.

show abstract

A hybrid behavioural rule of adaptation and drift explains the emergent architecture of antagonistic networks

Cited by 27 publications

References 61 publications

Complexity and stability of ecological networks: a review of the theory

Complexity and stability of ecological networks: a review of the theory

Defining invasiveness and invasibility in ecological networks

Invading a mutualistic network: to be or not to be similar

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About