Scale-dependent effects of habitat area on species interaction networks: invasive species alter relationships

Annals of Occupational and Environmental Medicine

Shinji Sugiura¹  Hisatomo Taki¹ 

[1] Department of Forest Entomology, Forestry and Forest Products Research Institute (FFPRI), 1 Matsunosato, Tsukuba, Ibaraki, 305-8687, Japan

关键词: Species–area relationships;    Plant–pollinator interactions;    Mutualistic networks;    Forest area;    Biological invasion;    Alliaria petiolata;   

Others  :  1085967
DOI  :  10.1186/1472-6785-12-11

 received in 2012-02-10, accepted in 2012-07-03,  发布年份 2012

【 摘 要 】

Background

The positive relationship between habitat area and species number is considered a fundamental rule in ecology. This relationship predicts that the link number of species interactions increases with habitat area, and structure is related to habitat area. Biological invasions can affect species interactions and area relationships. However, how these relationships change at different spatial scales has remained unexplored. We analysed understory plant–pollinator networks in seven temperate forest sites at 20 spatial scales (radius 120–2020 m) to clarify scale-associated relationships between forest area and plant–pollinator networks.

Results

The pooled data described interactions between 18 plant (including an exotic) and 89 pollinator (including an exotic) species. The total number of species and the number of interaction links between plant and pollinator species were negatively correlated with forest area, with the highest correlation coefficient at radii of 1520 and 1620 m, respectively. These results are not concordant with the pattern predicted by species–area relationships. However, when associations with exotic species were excluded, the total number of species and the number of interaction links were positively correlated with forest area (the highest correlation coefficient at a radius of 820 m). The network structure, i.e., connectance and nestedness, was also related to forest area (the highest correlation coefficients at radii of 720–820 m), when associations with exotics were excluded. In the study area, the exotic plant species Alliaria petiolata, which has invaded relatively small forest patches surrounded by agricultural fields, may have supported more native pollinator species than initially expected. Therefore, this invasive plant may have altered the original relationships between forest area and plant–pollinator networks.

Conclusions

Our results demonstrate scale-dependent effects of forest area on the size and structure of plant–pollinator networks. We also suggest that a single exotic plant species can impact plant–pollinator networks, even in temperate continental habitats.

【 授权许可】

   
2012 Sugiura and Taki; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

Figure 5.

Figure 6.

Figure 7.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]MacArthur RH, Wilson EO: The theory of island biogeography. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 1967.
• [2]Connor EF, McCoy ED: The statistics and biology of the species–area relationship. American Naturalist 1979, 5:397-411.
• [3]Rosenzweig ML: Species diversity in space and time. Cambridge: The University of Cambridge; 1995.
• [4]Lomolino MV: Ecology’s most general, yet protean pattern: the species–area relationship. Journal of Biogeography 2000, 27:17-26.
• [5]Diamond JM: The island dilemma: lessons of modern biogeographic studies for the design of natural reserves. Biological Conservation 1975, 7:129-146.
• [6]Quammen D: The song of the dodo: Island biogeography in an age of extinctions. New York, London, Toront, Sydney: Scribner; 1996.
• [7]Laurance WF: Beyond island biogeography theory: understanding habitat fragmentation in the real world. Princeton University Press: In The theory of island biogeography revisited. Edited by Losos JB, Ricklefs RE. Princeton, NJ; 2010:214-236.
• [8]He F, Hubbell SP: Species–area relationships always overestimate extinction rates from habitat loss. Nature 2011, 478:368-371.
• [9]Sugiura S: Species interactions–area relationships: biological invasions and network structure in relation to island area. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 2010, 277:1807-1815.
• [10]Burkle LA, Alarcón R: The future of plant–pollinator diversity: understanding interaction networks across time, space, and global change. American Journal of Botany 2011, 98:528-538.
• [11]Sabatino M, Maceira N, Aizen MA: Direct effects of habitat area on interaction diversity in pollination webs. Ecological Applications 2010, 20:1491-1497.
• [12]Jordano P: Patterns of mutualistic interactions in pollination and seed dispersal: connectance, dependence asymmetrics, and coevolution. American Naturalist 1987, 129:657-677.
• [13]Guimarães PRJ, Rico-Gray V, dos Reis SF, Thompson JN: Asymmetries in specialization in ant–plant mutualistic networks. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 2006, 273:2041-2047.
• [14]Aizen MA, Morales CL, Morales JM: Invasive mutualists erode native pollination webs. PLoS Biology 2008, 6:e31.
• [15]Valladares G, Cagnolo L, Salvo A: Forest fragmentation leads to food web contraction. Oikos 2012, 121:299-305.
• [16]Losos JB, Schluter D: Analysis of an evolutionary species–area relationship. Nature 2000, 408:847-850.
• [17]Crawley MJ, Harral JE: Scale dependence in plant biodiversity. Science 2001, 291:864-868.
• [18]Hubbell SP: The unified neutral theory of biodiversity and biogeography. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 2001.
• [19]Steffan-Dewenter I, Tscharntke T: Insect communities and biotic interactions on fragmented calcareous grasslands—a mini review. Biological Conservation 2002, 104:275-284.
• [20]Montoya JM, Pimm SL, Sole RV: Ecological networks and their fragility. Nature 2006, 442:259-264.
• [21]Ings TC, Montoya JM, Bascompte J, Blüthgen N, Brown L, Dormann CF, Edwards F, Figueroa D, Jacob U, Jones JI, Lauridsen RB, Ledger ME, Lewis HM, Olesen JM, van Veen FJ, Warren PH, Woodward G: Ecological networks – beyond food webs. Journal of Animal Ecology 2008, 78:253-69.
• [22]Memmott J, Waser NM: Integration of alien plants into a native flower-pollinator visitation web. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 2002, 269:2395-2399.
• [23]Vilà M, Bartomeus I, Dietzsch AC, Petanidou T, Steffan-Dewenter I, Stout JC, Tscheulinm T: Invasive plant integration into native plant-pollinator networks across Europe. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 2009, 276:3887-3893.
• [24]Elton CS: The ecology of invasions by animals and plants. London: Methuen; 1958.
• [25]Simberloff D: Why do introduced species appear to devastate islands more than mainland areas? Pacific Science 1995, 49:87-97.
• [26]Corlett RT: Invasive aliens on tropical East Asian islands. Biodiversity and Conservation 2010, 19:411-423.
• [27]Lewinsohn TM, Prado PI, Jordano P, Bascompte J, Olesen JM: Structure in plant–animal interaction assemblages. Oikos 2006, 113:174-184.
• [28]Bascompte J, Jordano P: Plant–animal mutualistic networks: the architecture of biodiversity. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 2007, 38:567-593.
• [29]Vázquez DP, Blüthgen N, Cagnolo L, Chacoff NP: Uniting pattern and process in plant–animal mutualistic networks: a review. Annals of Botany 2009, 103:1445-1457.
• [30]Bascompte J, Jordano P, Melián CJ, Olesen JM: The nested assembly of plant–animal mutualistic networks. Proceeding of the National Academy of Sciences USA 2003, 100:9383-9387.
• [31]Blüthgen N, Fründ J, Vázquez DP, Menzel F: What do interaction network metrics tell us about specialization and biological traits? Ecology 2008, 89:3387-3399.
• [32]Olesen JM, Jordano P: Geographic patterns in plant–pollinator mutualistic networks. Ecology 2002, 83:2416-2424.
• [33]Blüthgen N, Menzel F, Hovestadt T, Fiala B, Blüthgen N: Specialization, constraints, and conflicting interests in mutualistic networks. Current Biology 2007, 17:341-346.
• [34]Kenny D, Loehle C: Are food webs randomly connected? Ecology 1991, 72:1794-1799.
• [35]Taki H, Kevan PG: Does habitat loss affect the communities of plants and insects equally in plant-pollinator interactions? Preliminary findings. Biodiversity and Conservation 2007, 16:3147-3161.
• [36]Waldron G: Trees of the Carolinian forest: a guide to species, their ecology and uses. Toronto: Boston Mills Press; 2003.
• [37]Traveset A, Richardson DM: Biological invasions as disruptors of plant reproductive mutualisms. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 2006, 21:208-216.
• [38]Stinson K, Kaufman S, Durbin L, Lowenstein F: Impacts of Garlic Mustard invasion on a forest understory community. Northeastern Naturalist 2007, 14:73-88.
• [39]Memmott J: The structure of a plant-pollinator food web. Ecology Letters 1999, 2:276-280.
• [40]Macior LW: Pollination ecology of vernal angiosperms. Oikos 1978, 30:452-460.
• [41]Schemske DW, Wilson MF, Melampy MN, Miller LJ, Verner L, Schemske KM, Best LB: Flowering ecology of some spring woodland herbs. Ecology 1978, 59:351-366.
• [42]Helenurm K: Barrett SCH: The reproductive biology of boreal forest herbs. II. Phenology of flowering and fruiting. Canadian Journal of Botany 1987, 65:2047-2056.
• [43]Osborne JL, Clark SJ, Morris JR, Williams IH, Riley JR, Smith AD, Reynolds DR, Edwards AS: A landscape-scale study of bumble bee foraging range and constancy, using harmonic radar. Journal of Applied Ecology 1999, 36:519-533.
• [44]Steffan-Dewenter I, Münzenberg U, Bürger C, Thies C, Tscharntke T: Scale-dependent effects of landscape context on three pollinator guilds. Ecology 2002, 83:1421-1432.
• [45]Gathmann A, Tscharntke T: Foraging ranges of solitary bees. Journal of Animal Ecology 2002, 71:757-764.
• [46]Taki H, Kevan PG, Ascher JS: Landscape effects of forest loss in a pollination system. Landscape Ecology 2007, 22:1575-1587.
• [47]Fahrig L: Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution and Systematics 2003, 34:487-515.
• [48]May RM: Stability and complexity in model ecosystems. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 1973.
• [49]Ulrich W, Almeida-Neto M, Gotelli NJ: A consumer’s guide to nestedness analysis. Oikos 2009, 118:3-17.
• [50]Atmar W, Patterson BD: The measure of order and disorder in the distribution of species in fragmented habitat. Oecologia 1993, 96:373-382.
• [51]Guimarães PRJ, Guimarães P: Improving the analyses of nestedness for large sets of matrices. Environmental Modeling and Software 2006, 21:1512-1513.
• [52]Almeida-Neto M, Guimarães PR, Guimarães PRJ, Loyola RD, Ulrich W: A consistent metric for nestedness analysis in ecological systems: reconciling concept and measurement. Oikos 2008, 117:1227-1239.
• [53]Connor EF, Courtney AC, Yoder JM: Individual–area relationships: the relationship between animal population density and area. Ecology 2000, 81:734-748.
• [54]Von Holle B, Delcourt HR, Simberloff D: The importance of biological inertia in plant community resistance to invasion. Journal of Vegetation Science 2003, 14:425-432.
• [55]Cruden RW, McClain AM, Shrivastava GP: Pollination biology and breeding system of Alliaria petiolata (Brassicaceae). Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club 1996, 123:273-280.
• [56]Lopezaraiza-Mikel ME, Hayes RB, Whalley MR, Memmott J: The impact of an alien plant on a native plant–pollinator network: an experimental approach. Ecology Letters 2007, 10:539-550.
• [57]Olesen JM, Eskildsen LI, Venkatasamy S: Invasion of pollination networks on oceanic islands: importance of invader complexes and endemic super generalists. Diversity and Distributions 2002, 8:181-192.
• [58]Sugiura S, Yamaura Y, Makihara H: Biological invasion into the nested assemblage of tree–beetle associations on the oceanic Ogasawara Islands. Biological Invasions 2008, 10:1061-1071.
• [59]Padrón B, Traveset A, Biedenweg T, Díaz D, Nogales M, Olesen JM: Impact of alien plant invaders on pollination networks in two archipelagos. PLoS ONE 2009, 4:e6275.