Finding NEMO: nestedness engendered by mutualistic organization in anemonefish and their hosts

The interaction structure of mutualistic relationships, in terms of relative specialization of the partners, is important to understanding their ecology and evolution. Analyses of the mutualistic interaction between anemonefish and their host sea anemones show that the relationship is highly nested in structure, generalist species interacting with one another and specialist species interacting mainly with generalists. This supports the hypothesis that the configuration of mutualistic interactions will tend towards nestedness. In this case, the structure of the interaction is at a much larger scale than previously hypothesized, across more than 180° of longitude and some 60° of latitude, probably owing to the pelagic dispersal capabilities of these species in a marine environment. Additionally, we found weak support for the hypothesis that geographically widespread species should be more generalized in their interactions than species with small ranges. This study extends understanding of the structure of mutualistic relationships into previously unexplored taxonomic and physical realms, and suggests how nestedness analysis can be applied to the conservation of obligate species interactions.

[1]  D. Fautin,et al.  Defense of host actinians by anemonefishes , 1992 .

[2]  Jeff Ollerton,et al.  The pollination ecology of an assemblage of grassland asclepiads in South Africa. , 2003, Annals of botany.

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

[4]  D. Richardson.  Correlates of Environmental Variables with Patterns in the Distribution and Abundance of Two Anemonefishes (Pomacentridae: Amphiprion) on an Eastern Australian Sub-tropical Reef System , 1999, Environmental Biology of Fishes.

[5]  Jordi Bascompte,et al.  The ecological consequences of complex topology and nested structure in pollination webs. , 2006 .

[6]  Jens M. Olesen,et al.  Structure of a plant–flower‐visitor network in the high‐altitude sub‐alpine desert of Tenerife, Canary Islands , 2003 .

[7]  M. Aizen,et al.  Chapter 9 Community-Wide Patterns of Specialization in Plant – Pollinator Interactions Revealed by Null Models , 2004 .

[8]  Paulo R Guimarães,et al.  Asymmetries in specialization in ant–plant mutualistic networks , 2006, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[9]  S. Holbrook,et al.  Growth, reproduction and survival of a tropical sea anemone (Actiniaria): benefits of hosting anemonefish , 2005, Coral Reefs.

[10]  D. F. Dunn.  Stichodactylidae (Coelenterate:Actiniaria) and other sea anemones symbiotic with pomacentrid fishes. , 1981 .

[11]  N. Chadwick-Furman,et al.  Effects of anemonefish on giant sea anemones: expansion behavior, growth, and survival , 2004, Hydrobiologia.

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

[13]  N. E. Chadwick,et al.  abundance of giant sea anemones and patterns of association with anemonefish in the northern red sea , 2005, Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom.

[14]  D. F. Dunn.  The clownfish sea anemones : Stichodactylidae (Coelenterata : Actiniaria) and other sea anemones symbiotic with pomacentrid fishes , 1981 .

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

[16]  J. T. Moyer.  Geographical Variation and Social Dominance in Japanese Populations of the Anemonefish Amphiprion clarkii , 1976 .

[17]  H. Baylis,et al.  Some Records of Parasitic Worms from Marine Fishes at Plymouth , 1933, Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom.

[18]  P. Kellaway.  WHAT IS KNOWN AND WHAT IS NOT KNOWN ABOUT NEONATAL EEG , 1999 .

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

[20]  Bruce D. Patterson,et al.  On the temporal development of nested subset patterns of species composition. , 1990 .

[21]  William J. Bond,et al.  Do mutualisms matter? Assessing the impact of pollinator and disperser disruption on plant extinction , 1994 .

[22]  Vernon Ahmadjian,et al.  Symbiosis: An Introduction to Biological Associations , 1988 .

[23]  A. Hattori.  Small and large anemonefishes can coexist using the same patchy resources on a coral reef, before habitat destruction , 2002 .

[24]  S. Holbrook,et al.  Mutualism can mediate competition and promote coexistence , 2003 .

[25]  A. Hattori.  Coexistence of two anemonefishes, Amphiprion clarkii and A. perideraion, which utilize the same host sea anemone , 1995, Environmental Biology of Fishes.

[26]  J. Lawrey,et al.  Algae and Symbioses: Plants, Animals, Fungi, Viruses, Interactions Explored , 1993 .

[27]  J. Elliott,et al.  Coexistence of nine anemonefish species: differential host and habitat utilization, size and recruitment , 2001 .

[28]  P. Boag,et al.  Molecular phylogenetic evidence for the evolution of specialization in anemonefishes , 1999, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[29]  M. Caley,et al.  Experimental evaluation of the roles of habitat selection and interspecific competition in determining patterns of host use by two anemonefishes , 1999 .

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

[31]  D. Boucher.  The Biology of mutualism :: ecology and evolution , 1985 .

[32]  A. Solé-Cava,et al.  Extensive genetic divergence between populations of the common intertidal sea anemone Actinia equina from Britain, the Mediterranean and the Cape Verde Islands , 1997 .

[33]  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.

[34]  Angela E. Douglas,et al.  The Biology of Symbiosis , 1992 .

[35]  G. Jones,et al.  Coral Reef Fish Larvae Settle Close to Home , 2005, Current Biology.

[36]  J. Thompson.  The Geographic Mosaic of Coevolution , 2005 .

[37]  D. Fautin.  Anemonefish recruitment: the roles of order and chance , 1992 .

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

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

[40]  C. Shuman,et al.  Population impacts of collecting sea anemones and anemonefish for the marine aquarium trade in the Philippines , 2005, Coral Reefs.

[41]  D. Fautin.  Why do anemonefishes inhabit only some host actinians? , 1986, Environmental Biology of Fishes.

[42]  J. M. Elliott,et al.  Host selection, location, and association behaviors of anemonefishes in field settlement experiments , 1995 .

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

[44]  M. McCormick,et al.  Host recognition and possible imprinting in the anemonefish Amphiprion melanopus (Pisces: Pomacentridae) , 1999 .

[45]  N. Chadwick-Furman,et al.  Effects of anemonefish on giant sea anemones: Ammonium uptake, zooxanthella content and tissue regeneration , 2005 .