Species activity promote the stability of fruit-frugivore interactions across a five-year multilayer network

Costa, José Miguel; Ramos, Jaime A.; Timóteo, Sérgio; Silva, Luís P. da; Ceia, Ricardo S.; Heleno, Rúben

doi:10.1101/421941

Cited by 3 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 62 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These periods of strong coevolution between frugivores and fleshy-fruited angiosperms are interspersed by periods of more stable and weaker interactions, as the previously opened niches become saturated by evolving frugivores, decreasing subsequent codiversification (Eriksson 2014, Price et al 2016. The stability of plant-frugivore interactions undermines the strength of directional selective pressures, thus promoting diffuse, group-wise coevolution, rather than pairwise coevolution (Costa et al 2018). Eriksson (2014) argued that angiosperm diversification from the Late Cretaceous to the Eocene (80~55 Mya) may represent a long pulse of strong reciprocal coevolution between fleshyfruits and the multituberculates and that since then coevolutionary pulses became weaker and more localized in space and time.…”

Section: What Is the Role Of Mutualistic Interactions In The (Co)evolution Of Fleshy-fruited Angiosperms And Frugivores?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Was the Evolution of Angiosperm-Frugivore Interactions Driven by Reciprocal Coevolution Between Them?

Pires

Melo

2020

Oecol. Ast.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The evolution of fruits contributed to the dominance of angiosperms and provided new ecological opportunities for frugivore vertebrates to diversify. However, it is not yet clear whether reciprocal coevolution between plants and frugivores drove the evolution of their mutualistic interactions. This review aimed at discussing major events of the evolution of fleshy-fruited angiosperms and their major seed dispersers, in order to elucidate if and how they responded to mutual selective pressures. Angiosperms evolved between the Mid and Late Cretaceous and they experienced a large diversification until the early Eocene. However, all main lineages of extant frugivores originated from the Eocene onward: frugivorous birds evolved in the Eocene but diversified in the Oligocene; primates evolved in the early Eocene and frugivorous bats diversified in the Oligocene-Miocene. This divergence in the times of the origins of angiosperm and their modern seed dispersers suggest that other animals interacted with early angiosperms. The most likely candidates are the rodent-like multituberculates. Several studies investigated how plant-frugivore mutualistic interactions contribute to the diversification in both plants and animals and we draw two main hypotheses from them: the plant-frugivore coevolutionary hypothesis and the neutral hypothesis. There are consistent evidences supporting each of these hypotheses, which suggest that they may not be mutually exclusives. An integrative approach is that plant-frugivore coevolution happens in pulses. Times of high environmental disturbances promote significant changes in mutualistic interactions and release new ecological opportunities for emerging species, which in turn exert stronger selective pressures and adaptive changes on fruit and frugivores traits. As evolving frugivores occupies those niches, interactions become more stable and coevolution is weaker and diffuse. We are currently undergoing a new period of unstable plant-frugivore interactions and we need more information on plant-frugivore coevolution in order to predict how species will respond to a changing world.

show abstract

Section: What Is the Role Of Mutualistic Interactions In The (Co)evolution Of Fleshy-fruited Angiosperms And Frugivores?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Was the Evolution of Angiosperm-Frugivore Interactions Driven by Reciprocal Coevolution Between Them?

Pires

Melo

2020

Oecol. Ast.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This variation is crucial because it will eventually affect within‐patch population dynamics (Rosenheim, ). Likewise in temporal networks constructed for highly seasonal ecosystems, inter‐layer edges representing fluctuations in species’ abundance are bound to be non‐uniform because uniform inter‐layer edges will ignore the species‐specific responses to seasonality and therefore distort conclusions about how temporal resource competition or availability structures the community (Costa et al, ). Accordingly, if inter‐layer edges linking plant species across seasons are uniform they assume that the effect of season on plant biomass is equivalent across species despite the fact that annuals may switch from low to high biomass while a woody perennial maintains biomass between seasons (e.g., Singh & Yadava, ).…”

Section: Inter‐layer Edges: Why When Howmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In many cases, inter‐layer edges will represent ecological processes familiar to community ecologists. For example, in spatial EMNs (Figure d), inter‐layer edges can represent movement between layers, similar to meta‐communities; in temporal EMNs (e.g., Costa et al, ; Figure c), they can represent changes in abundance, echoing the interplay between abundance and foraging inherent in population and functional response theories; in pathogen systems, they can represent temporal genetic changes, similar to phylogenetic trees in phylodynamics (Pilosof et al, ). That each of the processes represented by inter‐layer edges already have theoretical frameworks built around them begs the question: why study them with an EMN approach?…”

Section: Inter‐layer Edges: Why When Howmentioning

confidence: 99%

Seeing the forest for the trees: Putting multilayer networks to work for community ecology

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A framework for the description and analysis of multilayer networks is established in statistical physics, and calls are increasing for their adoption by community ecologists. Multilayer networks in community ecology will allow space, time and multiple interaction types to be incorporated into species interaction networks. While the multilayer network framework is applicable to ecological questions, it is one thing to be able to describe ecological communities as multilayer networks and another for multilayer networks to actually prove useful for answering ecological questions. Importantly, documenting multilayer network structure requires substantially greater empirical investment than standard ecological networks. In response, we argue that this additional effort is worthwhile and describe a series of research lines where we expect multilayer networks will generate the greatest impact. Inter‐layer edges are the key component that differentiate multilayer networks from standard ecological networks. Inter‐layer edges join different networks—termed layers—together and represent ecological processes central to the species interactions studied (e.g., inter‐layer edges representing movement for networks separated in space). Inter‐layer edges may take a variety of forms, be species‐ or network‐specific, and be measured with a large suite of empirical techniques. Additionally, the sheer size of ecological multilayer networks also requires some changes to empirical data collection around interaction quantification, collaborative efforts and collation in public databases. Network ecology has already touched on a wide swath of ecology and evolutionary biology. Because network stability and patterns of species linkage are the most developed areas of network ecology, they are a natural starting place for multilayer investigations. However, multilayer networks will also provide novel insights to niche partitioning, the connection between traits and species’ interactions, and even the geographic mosaic of co‐evolution. Synthesis. Multilayer networks provide a formal way to bring together the study of species interaction networks and the processes that influence them. However, describing inter‐layer edges and the increasing amounts of data required represent challenges. The pay‐off for added investment will be ecological networks that describe the composition and capture the dynamics of ecological communities more completely and, consequently, have greater power for understanding the patterns and processes that underpin diversity in ecological communities. A http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1365-2435.13237/suppinfo is available for this article.

show abstract

“…Recently, some studies have empirically addressed β‐diversity of mutualistic (CaraDonna et al, 2017; Carstensen et al, 2014; Costa et al, 2018; Dáttilo et al, 2013; Dáttilo & Vasconcelos, 2019; Luna, Peñaloza‐Arellanes, Castillo‐Meza, García‐Chávez, & Dáttilo, 2018; Norfolk, Eichhorn, & Gilbert, 2015; Simanonok & Burkle, 2014; Trøjelsgaard et al, 2015) and antagonistic (Novotny, 2009; Poisot et al, 2012, 2017) interactions. However, our understanding of the mechanisms underlying the distribution of interactions is still fragmentary.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For instance, there is no consensus on the relative contribution of species turnover and rewiring to interaction dissimilarity. Current evidence suggests that species turnover is more important than rewiring across spatial gradients (Novotny, 2009, Poisot et al, 2012, Carstensen et al, 2014, Trøjelsgaard et al, 2015; but see Dáttilo & Vasconcelos, 2019), whereas rewiring is more important across temporal gradients (Caradonna et al, 2017; Costa et al, 2018; Luna et al, 2018). It is also important to understand how the species turnover of each trophic level contributes to interaction turnover.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Spatial variability of hosts, parasitoids and their interactions across a homogeneous landscape

Torné‐Noguera

Arnán

Rodrigo

et al. 2020

Ecology and Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Species assemblages and their interactions vary through space, generating diversity patterns at different spatial scales. Here, we study the local-scale spatial variation of a cavity-nesting bee and wasp community (hosts), their nest associates (parasitoids), and the resulting antagonistic network over a continuous and homogeneous habitat. To obtain bee/wasp nests, we placed trap-nests at 25 sites over a 32 km 2 area.We obtained 1,541 nests (4,954 cells) belonging to 40 host species and containing 27 parasitoid species. The most abundant host species tended to have higher parasitism rate. Community composition dissimilarity was relatively high for both hosts and parasitoids, and the main component of this variability was species turnover, with a very minor contribution of ordered species loss (nestedness). That is, local species richness tended to be similar across the study area and community composition tended to differ between sites. Interestingly, the spatial matching between host and parasitoid composition was low. Host β-diversity was weakly (positively) but significantly related to geographic distance. On the other hand, parasitoid and host-parasitoid interaction β-diversities were not significantly related to geographic distance. Interaction β-diversity was even higher than host and parasitoid β-diversity, and mostly due to species turnover. Interaction rewiring between plots and between local webs and the regional metaweb was very low. In sum, species composition was rather idiosyncratic to each site causing a relevant mismatch between hosts and parasitoid composition. However, pairs of host and parasitoid species tended to interact similarly wherever they co-occurred. Our results additionally show that interaction β-diversity is better explained by parasitoid than by host β-diversity. We discuss the importance of identifying the sources of variation to understand the drivers of the observed heterogeneity. K E Y W O R D Sbeta-diversity, homogeneous habitat, host-parasitoid food web, local scale, spatial variation, species interactions, trap-nests | 3697 TORNÉ-NOGUERA ET Al.

show abstract

Species activity promote the stability of fruit-frugivore interactions across a five-year multilayer network

Cited by 3 publications

References 62 publications

Was the Evolution of Angiosperm-Frugivore Interactions Driven by Reciprocal Coevolution Between Them?

Was the Evolution of Angiosperm-Frugivore Interactions Driven by Reciprocal Coevolution Between Them?

Seeing the forest for the trees: Putting multilayer networks to work for community ecology

Spatial variability of hosts, parasitoids and their interactions across a homogeneous landscape

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About