The dissimilarity of species interaction networks

Poisot, Timothée; Canard, Elsa; Mouillot, David; Mouquet, Nicolas; Gravel, Dominique

doi:10.1111/ele.12002

Cited by 395 publications

(677 citation statements)

References 77 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

663

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Tracking these two kinds of link turnover over geographical distance may provide insight into the finer mechanics of ecological complexity and the general influence of space. Indeed, Poisot et al [9] emphasize that species and interactions may be filtered by different mechanisms and that the level of species turnover is not necessarily a reliable predictor of, for example, the level of interaction rewiring between co-occurring species.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Geographical variation in mutualistic networks: similarity, turnover and partner fidelity

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although species and their interactions in unison represent biodiversity and all the ecological and evolutionary processes associated with life, biotic interactions have, contrary to species, rarely been integrated into the concepts of spatial b-diversity. Here, we examine b-diversity of ecological networks by using pollination networks sampled across the Canary Islands. We show that adjacent and distant communities are more and less similar, respectively, in their composition of plants, pollinators and interactions than expected from random distributions. We further show that replacement of species is the major driver of interaction turnover and that this contribution increases with distance. Finally, we quantify that species-specific partner compositions (here called partner fidelity) deviate from random partner use, but vary as a result of ecological and geographical variables. In particular, breakdown of partner fidelity was facilitated by increasing geographical distance, changing abundances and changing linkage levels, but was not related to the geographical distribution of the species. This highlights the importance of space when comparing communities of interacting species and may stimulate a rethinking of the spatial interpretation of interaction networks. Moreover, geographical interaction dynamics and its causes are important in our efforts to anticipate effects of large-scale changes, such as anthropogenic disturbances.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Geographical variation in mutualistic networks: similarity, turnover and partner fidelity

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…When separate food webs are reconstructed with reference to standardized protocols and assumptions, then comparison of food web structures across environmental and disturbance gradients can reliably help to quantify the effect of natural and anthropogenic stressors on biodiversity and ecosystems (Layer et al 2010, Careddu et al 2015. Furthermore, when samplings are replicated through space and time, food web reconstruction makes it possible to obtain timeintegrated and space-integrated information on community organization, response to disturbance and vulnerability to biodiversity loss across multiple scales of observation (Ings et al 2009, O'Gorman et al 2009, Poisot et al 2012.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of multiple disturbances on food web vulnerability to biodiversity loss in detritus‐based systems

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Citation: Calizza, E., M. L. Costantini, and L. Rossi. 2015. Effect of multiple disturbances on food web vulnerability to biodiversity loss in detritus-based systems. Ecosphere 6(7):124. http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/ES14-00489.1Abstract. Global biodiversity is affected by human pressure and climate change, and the present rate of biodiversity loss is probably higher than ever before. Community composition is also changing, and interspecific interactions are under severe pressure. The extinction of one species within a food web can result in further secondary extinctions, due to bottom-up effects that can be even more intense and less predictable than the direct effects of disturbance, undermining our capacity for ecosystem management and conservation. Here we investigated a metric for assessing the structural stability of food webs in the face of species loss, referred to as ''Resistance'', based on two fundamental web properties: (1) the proportion of key species in the web, a ''key'' species being one whose deletion leads to at least one secondary extinction, and (2) the mean number of secondary extinctions observed per key species deletion. We compared web Resistance with web Robustness (Dunne et al. 2002) based on 12 detritus-based riverine food webs under four species extinction scenarios on various temporal and spatial scales. We investigated the effect of multiple disturbances (extreme flood and river basin urbanization) on community vulnerability to biodiversity loss, assessing the behavior of Robustness and Resistance under the applied species extinction scenarios and testing their dependence on web topology. We estimated the contribution of the rarest and the most dominant species, and that of the most and least connected species, to web Resistance.Urbanization negatively affected community vulnerability to biodiversity loss. Only food web Resistance showed a significant flood effect and interaction between flood and urbanization. The most connected species contributed the most to food web resistance, whereas the rarest and the most abundant species had a similar, intermediate structural importance. Both food web Resistance and the role of selected key species varied across web description scales. Food web Resistance values were coherent across species extinction scenarios, demonstrating the suitability of the proposed approach for quantifying community vulnerability to species loss and the importance of considering food webs in monitoring and impact assessment programs. The approach is thus seen to be a promising research pathway supporting ecosystem management.

show abstract

“…A relatively new approach explores the network structure of multiple networks of the same type over large spatial extents (e.g., [166,172]). This approach has potential for identifying drivers of change in network structure, how species' roles change within networks over space and time [173], and the assembly of local networks from networks at continental and regional scales (a.k.a., metawebs; [174]). …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Interplay Between Landscape Structure and Biotic Interactions

Zarnetske

Baiser

Strecker

et al. 2017

Curr Landscape Ecol Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Landscape structure and biotic interactions are closely linked. We identify five aspects of landscape structure that contribute to the co-occurrence of species and restrict or enable different types of biotic interactions: patch size and habitat amount, isolation of patches, barriers to dispersal and movement, persistence of landscape structure, and landscape complexity. In addition, these aspects of landscape structure influence the strength and outcome of biotic interactions. Whereas most research focuses on the effects of the abiotic environment on species and their biotic interactions, research on foundation species and ecosystem engineers demonstrates the important influence of biotic interactions on landscape structure itself, including effects on landscape complexity, extent of habitat, and the structure of landscape features. In this review, we describe ecological theories that lay the foundation for interplay between landscape structure and biotic interactions, and summarize these connections across an array of interacting species in freshwater, marine, and terrestrial systems. We end with suggestions for integrating the fields of landscape ecology and community ecology to better understand the connections between landscape structure and biotic interactions and better predict their dynamics in light of global change.

show abstract

The dissimilarity of species interaction networks

Cited by 395 publications

References 77 publications

Geographical variation in mutualistic networks: similarity, turnover and partner fidelity

Geographical variation in mutualistic networks: similarity, turnover and partner fidelity

Effect of multiple disturbances on food web vulnerability to biodiversity loss in detritus‐based systems

The Interplay Between Landscape Structure and Biotic Interactions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About