Citation Context

...o move forwards. THE ARCHITECTURE OF BIPARTITE NETWORKS VARIES ACCORDING TO THE TYPE AND INTIMACY OF THE INTERACTION CONSIDERED The determinants of network architecture An important body of work has looked for the determinants of network architecture. Most of the studies to date have looked for these in species traits such as body size in food webs (Woodward et al. 2005; Petchey et al. 2008), morphology and phenology in pollination networks (Stang et al. 2006; Olesen et al. 2008) or integrative proxies for species traits with the use of the evolutionary history of species (Cattin et al. 2004; Rezende et al. 2007a,b). It is becoming clear though that interaction characteristics (type and intimacy, Fig. 1A) could also affect the architecture of ecological networks. It has been proposed that antagonistic interactions should be more specific than mutualistic ones because the arms race between hosts and antagonists often leads to adaptation at the expense of the ability to attack alternative hosts (Thompson 1982; Nuismer & Thompson 2006), whereas species in mutualistic interactions are often specialised in traits shared by several species within a community resulting in enhanced generalism (Thompson 2005;...

Citation Context

...ifically designed to find a phylogenetic signal in bipartite networks based on a generalized least-square model. These studies generally focus on local interaction networks and they show that, indeed, phylogenetically similar species tend to interact with the same set of species and/or tend to occupy similar structural positions in the network (i.e. species having similar specialization or belonging to the same compartment). This has been shown in food webs (Cattin et al., 2004; Bersier & Kehrli, 2008), in host-parasitoid networks (Ives & Godfray, 2006), in frugivory and pollination networks (Rezende et al., 2007b) and plant-plant facilitation networks (Verdu & Valiente-Banuet, 2011). A BMatrix of similarity in interaction between species vs Species traits vs related to network structure Fig. 3. Interaction networks and phylogenetic signal. There are two main methods to assess phylogenetic signal in networks. (A) By relating phylogenetic similarity with the similarity the identity of interacting partners. Simple Mantel tests can be used to relate phylogenetic similarity with the similarity in interactions for species in the network. Similarity in interaction between two species is generally measured b...

Citation Context

...oyalsocietypublishing.org/Downloaded from signal. Additionally, if traits important for species associations are phylogenetically conserved, then phylogeny will indirectly influence network structure =-=[62,63]-=-. Abundance does not show a phylogenetic signal in the epiphyte or phorophyte assemblage (see the electronic supplementary material, table S2 and figure S4). Wood density is highly conserved across th...

Citation Context

...Sukhdeo, 2008; Lafferty et al., 2006). Indeed, a number of sources highlight the importance of a variety of simultaneous mechanism leading to nestedness (Bastolla et al., 2009; Fontaine et al., 2009; =-=Rezende et al., 2007-=-; Vázquez et al., 2009a). Krishna et al. (2008) even demonstrate that, although abundance and trait matching separately can be seen to influence nestedness, considering the two together provides a fa...

Citation Context

...text (e.g., geographic and temporal variation). The structure of interactions between plants and animals may be affected by not only species traits and external factors but also evolutionary history (=-=Rezende et al., 2007-=-a). Thus far, few efforts have been made to theoretically explain the development of interactions between plants and animals. For example, Rezende et al. (2007b) showed that plant-animal mutualistic n...

Citation Context

...nfects (Lewinsohn et al., 2006; Poulin, 2007). This does not, for example, explain the frequent occurrence of anti-nestedness. Further explanations for nestedness in networks include complementarity (=-=Rezende et al., 2007-=-), based on phenotypic matching between species, and competitive load (Bastolla et al., 2009), based on a new species entering a network targeting a host with less competition provided by resident par...