Search bioRxiv⌕ Search

Biology subjects

Maglianesi, M. A.

Publications and source records attributed to Maglianesi, M. A..

3 recordsLinked to original sources

A probabilistic view of forbidden links: their prevalence and their consequences for the robustness of mutualistic networks

The presence in ecological communities of unfeasible species interactions, termed forbidden links, due to physiological or morphological exploitation barriers has been long debated, but little direct evidence has been found. Forbidden links are likely to make ecological communities less robust to species extinctions, stressing the need to assess their prevalence. Here, we used a dataset of plant-hummingbird interactions, coupled with a Bayesian hierarchical model, to assess the importance of exploitation barriers in determining species interactions. We found evidence for exploitation barriers between flowers and hummingbirds across the 32 studied communities, however, the proportion of forbidden links changed drastically among communities, because of changes in trait distributions. The higher the proportion of forbidden links, the more they decreased network robustness, because of constraints on interaction rewiring. Our results suggest that exploitation barriers are not rare in plant-hummingbird communities and have the potential to limit the rescue of species experiencing partner extinction.

ecology↗

When cheating turns into a stabilizing mechanism of mutualistic networks

Mutualistic interactions, such as plant-mycorrhizal or plant-pollinator interactions, are widespread in ecological communities and frequently exploited by cheaters, species that profit from interactions without providing benefits in return. Cheating usually negatively affects the fitness of the individuals that are cheated on, but the effects of cheating at the community level remains poorly understood. Here we describe two different kinds of cheating in mutualistic networks and use a generalized Lotka-Volterra model to show that they have very different consequences for the persistence of the community. Conservative cheating, where a species cheats on its mutualistic partners to escape the cost of mutualistic interactions, negatively affects community persistence. In contrast, innovative cheating occurs with species with whom legitimate interactions are not possible, because of a physiological or morphological barrier. Innovative cheating can enhance community persistence under some conditions: when cheaters have few mutualistic partners, cheat at low or intermediate frequency and the cost associated with mutualism is not too high. In this case, the negative effects of cheating on partner persistence are over-compensated at the community level by the positive feedback loops that arise in mutualistic networks. Using an empirical dataset of plant-bird interactions, we found that observed cheating patterns are highly consistent with theoretical cheating patterns found to increase community persistence. This result suggests that the cheating patterns observed in nature could contribute to promote species coexistence in mutualistic communities, instead of necessarily destabilizing them.

ecology↗

Abundance drives generalisation in hummingbird-plant pollination networks

Abundant pollinators are often more generalised than rare pollinators. This could be because abundance drives generalisation: neutral effects suggest that more abundant species will be more generalised simply because they have more chance encounters with potential interaction partners. On the other hand, generalisation could drive abundance, as generalised species could have a competitive advantage over specialists, being able to exploit a wider range of resources and gain a more balanced nutrient intake. Determining the direction of the abundance-generalisation relationship is therefore a chicken-and-egg dilemma. Here we determine the direction of the relationship between abundance and generalisation in plant-hummingbird pollination networks sampled from a variety of locations across the Americas. For the first time we resolve the direction of the abundance-generalisation relationship using independent data on animal abundance. We find evidence that hummingbird pollinators are generalised because they are abundant, and little evidence that hummingbirds are abundant because they are generalised. Additionally, a null model analysis suggests this pattern is due to neutral processes: most patterns of species-level abundance and generalisation were well explained by a null model that assumed interaction neutrality. These results suggest that neutral processes play a key role in driving broad patterns of generalisation in animal pollinators across large spatial scales.\n\nDeclarationsFunding - BIS is supported by the Natural Environment Research Council as part of the Cambridge Earth System Science NERC DTP [NE/L002507/1]. JVB was funded by CERL - Engineer Research and Development Center. PKM was funded by the Sao Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP grant #2015/21457-4). PAC was funded by the David Lack studentship from the British Ornithologists Union and Wolfson College, University of Oxford. CL was funded by the ESDEPED-UAT grant. MAM acknowledges the Consejo Nacional para Investigaciones Cientificas y Tecnologicas (Costa Rica), German Academic Exchange Service and the research funding program LOEWE-Landes-Offensive zur Entwicklung Wissenschaftlicho konomischer Exzellenz of Hesses Ministry of Higher Education, Research, and the Arts (Germany). ROP was funded by CONACyT (project 258364). MAR was supported by the State of Sao Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP) within the BIOTA/FAPESP, The Biodiversity Institute Program (www.biota.org.br) and the Parcelas Permanentes project, as well as by Coordenacao de Pessoal de Nivel Superior (CAPES), Fundo de Apoio ao Ensino e a Pesquisa (FAEP)/Funcamp/Unicamp and The Nature Conservancy (TNC) of Brazil. LCR was supported by CNPq and Capes. MS was funded by CNPq (grant #302781/2016-1). AMMG is supported through a Marie Skodowska-Curie Individual Fellowship (H2020-MSCA-IF-2016-704409). LVD was supported by the Natural Environment Research Council (grants NE/K015419/1 and NE/N014472/1). AMMG, JS, CR and BD thank the Danish National Research Foundation for its support of the Center for Macroecology, Evolution and Climate (grant no. DNRF96). WJS is funded by Arcadia.

ecology↗