Measuring specialization in species interaction networks

BackgroundNetwork analyses of plant-animal interactions hold valuable biological information. They are often used to quantify the degree of specialization between partners, but usually based on qualitative indices such as 'connectance' or number of links. These measures ignore interaction frequencies or sampling intensity, and strongly depend on network size.ResultsHere we introduce two quantitative indices using interaction frequencies to describe the degree of specialization, based on information theory. The first measure (d') describes the degree of interaction specialization at the species level, while the second measure (H2') characterizes the degree of specialization or partitioning among two parties in the entire network. Both indices are mathematically related and derived from Shannon entropy. The species-level index d' can be used to analyze variation within networks, while H2' as a network-level index is useful for comparisons across different interaction webs. Analyses of two published pollinator networks identified differences and features that have not been detected with previous approaches. For instance, plants and pollinators within a network differed in their average degree of specialization (weighted mean d'), and the correlation between specialization of pollinators and their relative abundance also differed between the webs. Rarefied sampling effort in both networks and null model simulations suggest that H2' is not affected by network size or sampling intensity.ConclusionQuantitative analyses reflect properties of interaction networks more appropriately than previous qualitative attempts, and are robust against variation in sampling intensity, network size and symmetry. These measures will improve our understanding of patterns of specialization within and across networks from a broad spectrum of biological interactions.

[1]  ROBERT M. MAY,et al.  Will a Large Complex System be Stable? , 1972, Nature.

[2]  S. Hurlbert The Measurement of Niche Overlap and Some Relatives , 1978 .

[3]  M. Rejmánek,et al.  Connectance in real biotic communities and critical values for stability of model ecosystems , 1979, Nature.

[4]  F. Bazzaz,et al.  Difference in Pollination Niche Relationships in Early and Late Successional Plant Communities , 1979 .

[5]  P. Feinsinger,et al.  A Simple Measure of Niche Breadth , 1981 .

[6]  W. Patefield,et al.  An Efficient Method of Generating Random R × C Tables with Given Row and Column Totals , 1981 .

[7]  E. Smith Niche Breadth, Resource Availability, and Inference , 1982 .

[8]  M. Auerbach 24. Stability, Probability, and the Topology of Food Webs , 1984 .

[9]  Daniel Simberloff,et al.  Ecological Communities: Conceptual Issues and the Evidence , 1984 .

[10]  Pedro Jordano,et al.  Patterns of Mutualistic Interactions in Pollination and Seed Dispersal: Connectance, Dependence Asymmetries, and Coevolution , 1987, The American Naturalist.

[11]  A. Magurran Ecological Diversity and Its Measurement , 1988, Springer Netherlands.

[12]  K. Winemiller,et al.  Must Connectance Decrease with Species Richness? , 1989, The American Naturalist.

[13]  Craig Loehle,et al.  Are Food Webs Randomly Connected , 1991 .

[14]  Neo D. Martinez Constant Connectance in Community Food Webs , 1992, The American Naturalist.

[15]  N. Gotelli,et al.  NULL MODELS IN ECOLOGY , 1996 .

[16]  C. Fonseca,et al.  Asymmetries, compartments and null interactions in an Amazonian ant-plant community , 1996 .

[17]  Lars Chittka,et al.  Generalization in Pollination Systems, and Why it Matters , 1996 .

[18]  Huaiyu Zhu On Information and Sufficiency , 1997 .

[19]  Lloyd Goldwasser,et al.  SAMPLING EFFECTS AND THE ESTIMATION OF FOOD‐WEB PROPERTIES , 1997 .

[20]  G. Beccaloni,et al.  Phylogenetic indices for measuring the diet breadths of phytophagous insects , 1999, Oecologia.

[21]  Y. Basset Diversity and abundance of insect herbivores foraging on seedlings in a rainforest in Guyana , 1999 .

[22]  J Memmott,et al.  The structure of a plant-pollinator food web. , 1999, Ecology letters.

[23]  Steiner,et al.  Generalization versus specialization in plant pollination systems. , 2000, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[24]  N. Gotelli Null model analysis of species co-occurrence patterns , 2000 .

[25]  N. Blüthgen,et al.  Ant nests in tank bromeliads — an example of non-specific interaction , 2000, Insectes Sociaux.

[26]  J. Bascompte,et al.  Invariant properties in coevolutionary networks of plant-animal interactions , 2002 .

[27]  Elizabeth T. Borer,et al.  Topological approaches to food web analyses: a few modifications may improve our insights , 2002 .

[28]  Campbell O. Webb,et al.  Phylogenies and Community Ecology , 2002 .

[29]  Vojtech Novotny,et al.  Low host specificity of herbivorous insects in a tropical forest , 2002, Nature.

[30]  D. Simberloff,et al.  Ecological Specialization and Susceptibility to Disturbance: Conjectures and Refutations , 2002, The American Naturalist.

[31]  Lynn V. Dicks,et al.  Compartmentalization in plant–insect flower visitor webs , 2002 .

[32]  Jeff Ollerton,et al.  Latitudinal trends in plant‐pollinator interactions: are tropical plants more specialised? , 2002 .

[33]  Louis-Félix Bersier,et al.  QUANTITATIVE DESCRIPTORS OF FOOD-WEB MATRICES , 2002 .

[34]  Neo D. Martinez,et al.  Network structure and biodiversity loss in food webs: robustness increases with connectance , 2002, Ecology Letters.

[35]  Pedro Jordano,et al.  GEOGRAPHIC PATTERNS IN PLANT–POLLINATOR MUTUALISTIC NETWORKS , 2002 .

[36]  Diego P. Vázquez,et al.  Changes in interaction biodiversity induced by an introduced ungulate , 2003 .

[37]  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.

[38]  Diego P. Vázquez,et al.  NULL MODEL ANALYSES OF SPECIALIZATION IN PLANT–POLLINATOR INTERACTIONS , 2003 .

[39]  Michele R. Dudash,et al.  Pollination Syndromes and Floral Specialization , 2004 .

[40]  Diego P. Vázquez,et al.  ASYMMETRIC SPECIALIZATION: A PERVASIVE FEATURE OF PLANT-POLLINATOR INTERACTIONS , 2004 .

[41]  D. Schemske,et al.  Geographic patterns in plant-pollinator mutualistic networks: Comment , 2004 .

[42]  Jane Memmott,et al.  Tolerance of pollination networks to species extinctions , 2004, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[43]  Y. Basset,et al.  Host specificity of insect herbivores in tropical forests , 2005, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[44]  C. Herrera,et al.  Plant generalization on pollinators: species property or local phenomenon? , 2005, American journal of botany.

[45]  Pedro Jordano,et al.  Interaction frequency as a surrogate for the total effect of animal mutualists on plants , 2005 .

[46]  Diego P. Vázquez,et al.  Degree distribution in plant–animal mutualistic networks: forbidden links or random interactions? , 2005 .

[47]  Jeff Ollerton,et al.  Plant-pollinator interactions: from specialization to generalization. , 2005 .

[48]  M. Devoto,et al.  Patterns of interaction between plants and pollinators along an environmental gradient , 2005 .

[49]  H. Sahli,et al.  Characterizing ecological generalization in plant-pollination systems , 2006, Oecologia.

[50]  Jordi Bascompte,et al.  Asymmetric Coevolutionary Networks Facilitate Biodiversity Maintenance , 2006, Science.

[51]  Andrew P. Robinson,et al.  Randomization, Bootstrap and Monte Carlo Methods in Biology , 2007 .

[52]  R. Irwin Plant-Pollinator Interactions: From Specialization to Generalization , 2007 .