Cheaters in mutualism networks

Mutualism-network studies assume that all interacting species are mutualistic partners and consider that all links are of one kind. However, the influence of different types of links, such as cheating links, on network organization remains unexplored. We studied two flower-visitation networks (Malpighiaceae and Bignoniaceae and their flower visitors), and divide the types of link into cheaters (i.e. robbers and thieves of flower rewards) and effective pollinators. We investigated if there were topological differences among networks with and without cheaters, especially with respect to nestedness and modularity. The Malpighiaceae network was nested, but not modular, and it was dominated by pollinators and had much fewer cheater species than Bignoniaceae network (28% versus 75%). The Bignoniaceae network was mainly a plant–cheater network, being modular because of the presence of pollen robbers and showing no nestedness. In the Malpighiaceae network, removal of cheaters had no major consequences for topology. In contrast, removal of cheaters broke down the modularity of the Bignoniaceae network. As cheaters are ubiquitous in all mutualisms, the results presented here show that they have a strong impact upon network topology.

[1]  Roger Guimerà,et al.  Cartography of complex networks: modules and universal roles , 2005, Journal of statistical mechanics.

[2]  Jordi Bascompte,et al.  Diversity in a complex ecological network with two interaction types , 2009 .

[3]  Jens M. Olesen,et al.  The structure of a high latitude plant‐flower visitor system: the dominance of flies , 1999 .

[4]  M. Sazima,et al.  Pollination and reproductive biology of twelve species of neotropical Malpighiaceae: stigma morphology and its implications for the breeding system. , 2004, Annals of botany.

[5]  J. Bascompte,et al.  The modularity of pollination networks , 2007, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[6]  Paulo Guimarães,et al.  Improving the analyses of nestedness for large sets of matrices , 2006, Environ. Model. Softw..

[7]  J. Bascompte,et al.  Structure in plant–animal interaction assemblages , 2006 .

[8]  Jordi Bascompte,et al.  Disentangling the Web of Life , 2009, Science.

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

[10]  A. Dobson,et al.  Parasites dominate food web links. , 2006, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[11]  Marco A. R. Mello,et al.  Pollination networks of oil-flowers: a tiny world within the smallest of all worlds. , 2009, The Journal of animal ecology.

[12]  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.