Using niche breadth theory to explain generalization in mutualisms

Batstone, Rebecca T.; Carscadden, Kelly A.; Afkhami, Michelle E.; Frederickson, Megan E.

doi:10.1002/ecy.2188

Cited by 81 publications

(101 citation statements)

References 140 publications

(230 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Greater richness of submerged wetland plants decreased competition due to a sampling effect, resulting in increased algal and total plant biomass (Engelhardt & Ritchie, ). Positive interactions may have strong indirect benefits on diversity because of the sampling effect or complementarity (Batstone, Carscadden, Afkhami, & Frederickson, ; Cardinale, Palmer, & Collins, ; Stachowicz et al, ). Furthermore, foundation species (sensu Dayton 1972) or habitat modifiers may have direct effects; symbiont or indirect benefactor diversity may increase, while non‐associative species or weak, facultative symbionts may exhibit diversity declines (Bulleri, Bruno, Silliman, & Stachowicz, ; Hacker & Gaines, ).…”

Section: A Research Directive For Studying Positive Interactions In Fmentioning

confidence: 99%

Positive biotic interactions in freshwaters: A review and research directive

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Positive interspecific interactions such as mutualism, commensalism, and facilitation are globally ubiquitous. Although research on positive interactions in terrestrial and marine systems has progressed over the past few decades, comparatively little is known about them in freshwater ecosystems. However, recent advances have brought the study of positive interactions in freshwater systems to a point where synthesis is warranted. In this review, we catalogue the variety of direct positive interactions described to date in freshwater ecosystems, discuss factors that could influence prevalence and impact of these interactions, and provide a framework for future research. In positive interactions, organisms exchange key resources such as nutrients, protection, transportation, or habitat to a net benefit for at least one participant. A few mutualistic relationships have received research attention to date, namely seed‐dispersing fishes, crayfishes and their ectosymbiotic cleaners, and communal‐spawning stream fishes. Similarly, only a handful of commensalisms have been studied, primarily phoretic relationships. Facilitation via ecosystem engineering has received more attention, for example habitat modification by beavers and bioturbation by salmon. It is well known that interaction outcomes vary with abiotic and biotic context. However, only a few of studies have examined context dependency in positive interactions in freshwater systems. Likewise, positive interactions incur costs as well as benefits; conceptualising interactions in terms of net cost/benefit to participants will help to clarify complex interactions. It is likely that there are many positive interactions that have yet to be discovered in freshwater systems. To identify these interactions, we encourage inductive natural history studies combined with hypotheses deduced from general ecological models. Research on positive interactions must move beyond small‐scale experiments and observational studies and adopt a cross‐scale approach. Likewise, we must progress from reducing systems to oversimplified pairwise interactions, toward studying positive interactions in broader community contexts. Positive interactions have been greatly overlooked in applied freshwater ecology, but have great potential for conservation, restoration, and aquaculture.

show abstract

Section: A Research Directive For Studying Positive Interactions In Fmentioning

confidence: 99%

Positive biotic interactions in freshwaters: A review and research directive

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Additionally, in a given area, higher species abundance leads to greater conspecific competition for available resources, resulting in increased generalization as predicted by optimal foraging theory (Fontaine et al 2008, Tinoco et al 2017). On the other hand, generalisation can have a selective advantage over specialisation, leading to higher abundance (Batstone et al 2018). For example, the wider diet breadth of generalist individuals could allow them to receive a more stable benefit over time in communities with high levels of variability or species turnover; generalisation increases the likelihood that a given mutualist will interact with the most beneficial partner; and generalists benefit from having diverse partners that occupy different niches but provide the same rewards via different mechanisms (complementarity) (Waser et al 1996, Albrecht et al 2012, CaraDonna et al 2017, Batstone et al 2018.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Abundance drives broad patterns of generalisation in plant–hummingbird pollination networks

Simmons

Vizentin‐Bugoni

Maruyama

et al. 2019

Oikos

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abundant pollinators are often more generalised than rare pollinators. This could be because abundant species have more chance encounters with potential interaction partners. On the other hand, generalised species could have a competitive advantage over specialists, leading to higher abundance. Determining the direction of the abundance–generalisation relationship is therefore a ‘chicken‐and‐egg’ dilemma. Here we determine the direction of the relationship between abundance and generalisation in plant–hummingbird pollination networks across the Americas. We find evidence that hummingbird pollinators are generalised because they are abundant, and little evidence that hummingbirds are abundant because they are generalised. Additionally, most patterns of species‐level abundance and generalisation were well explained by a null model that assumed interaction neutrality (interaction probabilities defined by species relative abundances). These results suggest that neutral processes play a key role in driving broad patterns of generalisation in animal pollinators across large spatial scales.

show abstract

“…Conversely, there are also cases of plants that are mycorrhizal specialists (van der Heijden, Martin, Selosse, & Sanders, 2015), although the precise factors leading to specialist or generalist interactions are not well understood (Shefferson et al, 2019). Interacting with a broad range of partners may increase niche availability and allow survival in a large diversity of environments (Batstone, Carscadden, Afkhami, & Frederickson, 2018).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Similarity in mycorrhizal communities associating with two widespread terrestrial orchids decays with distance

Xing

Gao

Zhao

et al. 2019

Journal of Biogeography

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim Interactions with mycorrhizal fungi are increasingly recognized as an important factor underlying the distribution and abundance of orchid species. However, the geographical distribution of orchid mycorrhizal fungi (OMF) and how their communities vary over large geographical areas are less well understood. Because climatic and environmental similarity may decrease with geographical distance or because some OMF have limited dispersal capabilities, similarities in orchid mycorrhizal communities can be expected to decrease with increasing distances separating orchid populations. However, up till now empirical evidence is largely lacking. Location Eurasia. Taxa Gymnadenia conopsea (L.) R. Brown and Epipactis helleborine (L.) Crantz. Methods High‐throughput sequencing was used to perform a cross‐continental comparison of OMF that associate with two widespread Eurasian terrestrial orchids, Epipactis helleborine and Gymnadenia conopsea. Both phylogenetic and nonphylogenetic measures of community dissimilarity and their components were calculated and related to geographical distances using Mantel tests. Results Our results showed that in both orchid species similarity in mycorrhizal communities decreased significantly with geographical distance. Decomposing the contribution of spatial turnover and nestedness to overall dissimilarity showed that the observed dissimilarity was mainly the result of species replacement between regions, and not of species loss. Similarly, a strong relationship was observed between phylogenetic community dissimilarity and geographical distance. Decomposing PCD values into a nonphylogenetic and phylogenetic component showed that orchid populations located closely next to each other were likely to contain the same operational taxonomic units (OTUs), but that the non‐shared taxa came from different phylogenetic clades. Species indicator analyses showed that the majority of OMF OTUs were restricted to particular geographical areas. However, some OTUs occurred in both continents, indicating that some fungi have very wide distributions. Main conclusions Overall, these results demonstrate that orchid mycorrhizal communities differ substantially across large geographical areas, but that the distribution of orchids is not necessarily restricted by the distribution of particular OMF. Hence, widespread orchid species can be considered mycorrhizal generalists that are flexible in the OMF with which they associate across large geographical areas.

show abstract

Using niche breadth theory to explain generalization in mutualisms

Cited by 81 publications

References 140 publications

Positive biotic interactions in freshwaters: A review and research directive

Positive biotic interactions in freshwaters: A review and research directive

Abundance drives broad patterns of generalisation in plant–hummingbird pollination networks

Similarity in mycorrhizal communities associating with two widespread terrestrial orchids decays with distance

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About