Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T14:49:42.424Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Importance of interaction frequency in analysis of ant-plant networks in tropical environments

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 December 2013

Wesley Dáttilo ,
Ingrid Sánchez-Galván ,
Denise Lange ,
Kleber Del-Claro  and
Víctor Rico-Gray
Wesley Dáttilo*
Affiliation:
Instituto de Neuroetología, Universidad Veracruzana, Xalapa, Veracruz, 91190, Mexico
Ingrid Sánchez-Galván
Affiliation:
CIBIO, Universidad de Alicante, San Vicente del Raspeig (Alicante), 03080, Spain
Denise Lange
Affiliation:
Laboratório de Ecologia Comportamental e Interações, Instituto de Biologia, Universidade Federal de Uberlândia, Uberlândia, Minas Gerais, 38400–058, Brazil
Kleber Del-Claro
Affiliation:
Laboratório de Ecologia Comportamental e Interações, Instituto de Biologia, Universidade Federal de Uberlândia, Uberlândia, Minas Gerais, 38400–058, Brazil
Víctor Rico-Gray
Affiliation:
Instituto de Neuroetología, Universidad Veracruzana, Xalapa, Veracruz, 91190, Mexico
*
1Corresponding author. Email: wdattilo@hotmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

Several studies have shown that qualitative (binary) ant-plant networks are highly nested in tropical environments, in which specialist species (with fewer interactions) are connected with generalists (with the most interactions) in cohesive subgroups. Interactions occur in both qualitative and quantitative networks, however, how their frequency may structure the nestedness in ecological networks involving these organisms is, we believe, unknown. Based on this perspective, we used nestedness analysis to address the effect of interaction frequency on ant-plant networks (n = 14 networks). Unlike binary networks, quantitative networks are often significantly non-nested. In addition, species with a higher interaction frequency have a higher number of links, indicating that these species are possibly more abundant and/or competitive. Moreover, different biological parameters can change the nature of ant-plant interactions, as a plant can be a good resource for one ant and a ‘bad’ resource for another. Thus, this suggests a new perspective for the study of interaction networks in the tropics, since species with lower interaction frequency are not necessarily subsets of species with higher frequency, and consequently generate the non-nested pattern in quantitative networks.

Keywords

Ant-plant interactionsecological networksnestednessqualitative networksquantitative networks
Type
Short Communication
Information
Journal of Tropical Ecology , Volume 30 , Issue 2 , March 2014 , pp. 165 - 168
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

LITERATURE CITED

ALMEIDA–NETO, M. & ULRICH, W. 2011. A straightforward computational approach for measuring nestedness using quantitative matrices. Environmental Modelling & Software 26:173–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ALMEIDA–NETO, M., GUIMARÃES, P. R., GUIMARÃES, P., LOYOLA, R. D. & URLICH, W. 2008. A consistent metric for nestedness analysis in ecological systems: reconciling concept and measurement. Oikos 117:1227–1239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
BASCOMPTE, J., JORDANO, P., MELIÁN, C. J. & OLESEN, J. M. 2003. The nested assembly of plant–animal mutualistic networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 100:9383–9387.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
BLÜTHGEN, N. 2010. Why network analysis is often disconnected from community ecology: a critique and an ecologist's guide. Basic and Applied Ecology 11:185–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
BLÜTHGEN, N. & FIEDLER, K. 2004. Competition for composition: lessons from nectar-feeding ant communities. Ecology 85:1479–1485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
BLÜTHGEN, N., VERHAAGH, M., GOITÍA, W., JAFFÉ, K., MORAWETZ, W. & BARTHLOTT, W. 2000. How plants shape the ant community in the Amazonian rainforest canopy: the key role of extrafloral nectaries and homopteran honeydew. Oecologia 125:229–240.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
BLÜTHGEN, N., STORK, N. E. & FIEDLER, K. 2004. Bottom-up control and co-occurrence in complex communities: honeydew and nectar determine a rainforest ant mosaic. Oikos 106:344–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
CHAMBERLAIN, S. A., KILPATRICK, J. R. & HOLLAND, J. N. 2010. Do extrafloral nectar resources, species abundances, and body sizes contribute to the structure of ant–plant mutualistic networks? Oecologia 164:741–750.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DÁTTILO, W., GUIMARÃES, P. R. & IZZO, T. J. 2013a. Spatial structure of ant-plant mutualistic networks. Oikos 122:1643–1648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DÁTTILO, W., MARQUITTI, F. M. D., GUIMARÃES, P. R. & IZZO, T. J. 2013b. The structure of ant–plant ecological networks: is abundance enough? Ecology (in press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
GUIMARÃES, P. R., JORDANO, P. & THOMPSON, J. N. 2011. Evolution and coevolution in mutualistic networks. Ecology Letters 14:877–888.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
KRISHNA, A., GUIMARÃES, P. R., JORDANO, P. & BASCOMPTE, J. 2008. A neutral–niche theory of nestedness in mutualistic networks. Oikos 117:1609–1618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
RICO–GRAY, V. & OLIVEIRA, P. S. 2007. The ecology and evolution of ant–plant interactions. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. 331 pp.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ULRICH, W., ALMEITA-NETO, M. & GOTELLI, N. J. 2009. A consumer's guide to nestedness analysis. Oikos 118:3–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
WHALEN, M. A. & MACKAY, D. A. 1988. Patterns of ant and herbivore activity on five understorey euphorbiaceous saplings in submontane Papua New Guinea. Biotropica 20:294–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
YAMAMOTO, M. & DEL-CLARO, K. 2008. Natural history and foraging behavior of the carpenter ant Camponotus sericeiventris Guérin, 1838 (Formicinae, Campotonini) in the Brazilian tropical savanna. Acta Ethologica 11:55–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar