Mutualistic strategies minimize coextinction in plant–disperser networks

The global decline of mutualists such as pollinators and seed dispersers may cause negative direct and indirect impacts on biodiversity. Mutualistic network models used to understand the stability of mutualistic systems indicate that species with low partner diversity are most vulnerable to coextinc...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Proceedings of the Royal Society. B, Biological sciences Biological sciences, 2017-05, Vol.284 (1854), p.20162302-20162302
Main Authors: Fricke, Evan C., Tewksbury, Joshua J., Wandrag, Elizabeth M., Rogers, Haldre S.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Animals
Biodiversity
Computer simulation
Defaunation
Dispersal
Dispersion
Ecological Networks
Ecology
Ecosystem
Field tests
Global Change
Mutualism
Plants
Plants (botany)
Plant–animal Interactions
Pollinators
Reproduction (biology)
Seed Dispersal
Species
Species diversity
Structural stability
Symbiosis
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:The global decline of mutualists such as pollinators and seed dispersers may cause negative direct and indirect impacts on biodiversity. Mutualistic network models used to understand the stability of mutualistic systems indicate that species with low partner diversity are most vulnerable to coextinction following mutualism disruption. However, existing models have not considered how species vary in their dependence on mutualistic interactions for reproduction or survival, overlooking the potential influence of this variation on species' coextinction vulnerability and on network stability. Using global databases and field experiments focused on the seed dispersal mutualism, we found that plants and animals that depend heavily on mutualistic interactions have higher partner diversity. Under simulated network disruption, this empirical relationship strongly reduced coextinction because the species most likely to lose mutualists depend least on their mutualists. The pattern also reduced the importance of network structure for stability; nested network structure had little effect on coextinction after simulations incorporated the empirically derived relationship between partner diversity and mutualistic dependence. Our results highlight a previously unknown source of stability in mutualistic networks and suggest that differences among species in their mutualistic strategy, rather than network structure, primarily accounts for stability in mutualistic communities.
ISSN:0962-8452
1471-2954
DOI:10.1098/rspb.2016.2302