Disentangling nestedness from models of ecological complexity

Complex networks of interactions are ubiquitous and are particularly important in ecological communities, in which large numbers of species exhibit negative (for example, competition or predation) and positive (for example, mutualism) interactions with one another. Nestedness in mutualistic ecological networks is the tendency for ecological specialists to interact with a subset of species that also interact with more generalist species. Recent mathematical and computational analysis has suggested that such nestedness increases species richness. By examining previous results and applying computational approaches to 59 empirical data sets representing mutualistic plant–pollinator networks, we show that this statement is incorrect. A simpler metric—the number of mutualistic partners a species has—is a much better predictor of individual species survival and hence, community persistence. Nestedness is, at best, a secondary covariate rather than a causative factor for biodiversity in mutualistic communities. Analysis of complex networks should be accompanied by analysis of simpler, underpinning mechanisms that drive multiple higher-order network properties.

[1]  Robert M. May,et al.  Stability and Complexity in Model Ecosystems , 2019, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics.

[2]  S. Wiggins Introduction to Applied Nonlinear Dynamical Systems and Chaos , 1989 .

[3]  J. S. Long,et al.  Regression Models for Categorical and Limited Dependent Variables , 1997 .

[4]  J. A. Calvin Regression Models for Categorical and Limited Dependent Variables , 1998 .

[5]  Carlos J. Melián,et al.  The nested assembly of plant–animal mutualistic networks , 2003, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[6]  Wirt Atmar,et al.  The measure of order and disorder in the distribution of species in fragmented habitat , 1993, Oecologia.

[7]  Michael Lässig,et al.  Biodiversity in model ecosystems, I: coexistence conditions for competing species. , 2005, Journal of theoretical biology.

[8]  Patrick C Phillips,et al.  Network thinking in ecology and evolution. , 2005, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[9]  A. Klein,et al.  Importance of pollinators in changing landscapes for world crops , 2007, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[10]  Jordi Bascompte,et al.  Non-random coextinctions in phylogenetically structured mutualistic networks , 2007, Nature.

[11]  Werner Ulrich,et al.  A consistent metric for nestedness analysis in ecological systems: reconciling concept and measurement , 2008 .

[12]  Richard J. Williams,et al.  Simple MaxEnt models explain food web degree distributions , 2010, Theoretical Ecology.

[13]  Jennifer A Dunne,et al.  Major dimensions in food-web structure properties. , 2009, Ecology.

[14]  Jordi Bascompte,et al.  The architecture of mutualistic networks minimizes competition and increases biodiversity , 2009, Nature.

[15]  Colin Fontaine,et al.  Stability of Ecological Communities and the Architecture of Mutualistic and Trophic Networks , 2010, Science.

[16]  Michio Kondoh,et al.  Food webs are built up with nested subwebs. , 2010, Ecology.

[17]  S. Valverde,et al.  Statistical structure of host–phage interactions , 2011, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[18]  Serguei Saavedra,et al.  Strong contributors to network persistence are the most vulnerable to extinction , 2011, Nature.

[19]  Richard J. Williams Biology, Methodology or Chance? The Degree Distributions of Bipartite Ecological Networks , 2011, PloS one.

[20]  Cang Hui,et al.  An interaction switch predicts the nested architecture of mutualistic networks. , 2011, Ecology letters.

[21]  Si Tang,et al.  Stability criteria for complex ecosystems , 2011, Nature.