IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecomod/v258y2013icp65-73.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Contrasting specialization–stability relationships in plant–animal mutualistic systems

Author

Listed:
  • Benadi, Gita
  • Blüthgen, Nico
  • Hovestadt, Thomas
  • Poethke, Hans-Joachim

Abstract

Specialization has often been suggested as one of the main factors influencing the stability of ecological systems at the population and community level. Generally, highly specialized systems are believed to be the most sensitive toward disturbances, as the dependence of specialized species on the availability of particular resources or partner species is greatest. The flip side of specialization is, however, that it reduces the intensity of interspecific competition and thus the risk of extinction through competitive exclusion. Moreover, since ecological stability is a highly ambiguous concept, general statements about the relationship between specialization and stability cannot be made based on a single stability criterion. In this study, we examine the relationship between specialization and stability in plant–animal mutualistic systems using a population dynamic model with two species in each group. We compare results for four different stability criteria, both for a general type of plant–animal mutualism and specifically for a plant–pollinator system. Contrary to previous studies which concluded that specialization increases system vulnerability to disturbances, we find that positive, negative and unimodal relationships are possible depending on the stability criterion applied and the characteristics of species interactions. Our results call for further investigations of the consequences of ecological specialization, and emphasize the special properties of pollination mutualisms.

Suggested Citation

  • Benadi, Gita & Blüthgen, Nico & Hovestadt, Thomas & Poethke, Hans-Joachim, 2013. "Contrasting specialization–stability relationships in plant–animal mutualistic systems," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 258(C), pages 65-73.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecomod:v:258:y:2013:i:c:p:65-73
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2013.03.002
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304380013001518
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2013.03.002?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ugo Bastolla & Miguel A. Fortuna & Alberto Pascual-García & Antonio Ferrera & Bartolo Luque & Jordi Bascompte, 2009. "The architecture of mutualistic networks minimizes competition and increases biodiversity," Nature, Nature, vol. 458(7241), pages 1018-1020, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Cristina Fiera & Jan Christian Habel & Werner Ulrich, 2018. "Neutral colonisations drive high beta-diversity in cavernicole springtails (Collembola)," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(1), pages 1-12, January.
    2. Colton Brehm & Astrid Layton, 2021. "Nestedness of eco‐industrial networks: Exploring linkage distribution to promote sustainable industrial growth," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 25(1), pages 205-218, February.
    3. Sebastián Bustos & Charles Gomez & Ricardo Hausmann & César A Hidalgo, 2012. "The Dynamics of Nestedness Predicts the Evolution of Industrial Ecosystems," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(11), pages 1-8, November.
    4. Leto Peel & Tiago P. Peixoto & Manlio De Domenico, 2022. "Statistical inference links data and theory in network science," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-15, December.
    5. Fabio Saracco & Riccardo Di Clemente & Andrea Gabrielli & Tiziano Squartini, 2015. "Detecting early signs of the 2007-2008 crisis in the world trade," Papers 1508.03533, arXiv.org, revised Jul 2016.
    6. Timothée Poisot & Sonia Kéfi & Serge Morand & Michal Stanko & Pablo A Marquet & Michael E Hochberg, 2015. "A Continuum of Specialists and Generalists in Empirical Communities," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(5), pages 1-12, May.
    7. Sabine Dritz & Rebecca A. Nelson & Fernanda S. Valdovinos, 2023. "The role of intra-guild indirect interactions in assembling plant-pollinator networks," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-13, December.
    8. Sandra Hervías-Parejo & Mar Cuevas-Blanco & Lucas Lacasa & Anna Traveset & Isabel Donoso & Ruben Heleno & Manuel Nogales & Susana Rodríguez-Echeverría & Carlos J. Melián & Victor M. Eguíluz, 2024. "On the structure of species-function participation in multilayer ecological networks," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 15(1), pages 1-16, December.
    9. Singer, Alexander & Johst, Karin & Banitz, Thomas & Fowler, Mike S. & Groeneveld, Jürgen & Gutiérrez, Alvaro G. & Hartig, Florian & Krug, Rainer M. & Liess, Matthias & Matlack, Glenn & Meyer, Katrin M, 2016. "Community dynamics under environmental change: How can next generation mechanistic models improve projections of species distributions?," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 326(C), pages 63-74.
    10. Mika J. Straka & Guido Caldarelli & Tiziano Squartini & Fabio Saracco, 2017. "From Ecology to Finance (and Back?): Recent Advancements in the Analysis of Bipartite Networks," Papers 1710.10143, arXiv.org.
    11. Roberto Cazzolla Gatti & Roger Koppl & Brian D. Fath & Stuart Kauffman & Wim Hordijk & Robert E. Ulanowicz, 2020. "On the emergence of ecological and economic niches," Journal of Bioeconomics, Springer, vol. 22(2), pages 99-127, July.
    12. Tuomo Mäki-Marttunen & Juha Kesseli & Matti Nykter, 2013. "Balance between Noise and Information Flow Maximizes Set Complexity of Network Dynamics," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(3), pages 1-10, March.
    13. , D. & Tessone, Claudio J. & ,, 2014. "Nestedness in networks: A theoretical model and some applications," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 9(3), September.
    14. Wanming Chen & Shengyuan Wang & Xiaolan Wu, 2022. "Growth Mechanism and Synchronization Effect of China’s New Energy Vehicle Enterprises: An Empirical Analysis Based on Moving Logistic and Kuramoto Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(24), pages 1-17, December.
    15. Laura Hernandez & Annick Vignes & Stéphanie Saba, 2018. "Trust or robustness? An ecological approach to the study of auction and bilateral markets," Post-Print hal-02005040, HAL.
    16. Chengyi Tu & Joel Carr & Samir Suweis, 2016. "A data driven network approach to rank countries production diversity and food specialization," Papers 1606.01270, arXiv.org.
    17. Ammar Alhmedi & Tim Belien & Dany Bylemans, 2023. "Habitat Modification Alters Food Web Interactions with Focus on Biological Control of Aphids in Apple Orchards," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(7), pages 1-13, March.
    18. Wang, Xiangrong & Peron, Thomas & Dubbeldam, Johan L.A. & Kéfi, Sonia & Moreno, Yamir, 2023. "Interspecific competition shapes the structural stability of mutualistic networks," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 172(C).
    19. Muhammad Awais Rasool & Muhammad Azher Hassan & Xiaobo Zhang & Qing Zeng & Yifei Jia & Li Wen & Guangchun Lei, 2021. "Habitat Quality and Social Behavioral Association Network in a Wintering Waterbirds Community," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-18, May.
    20. Merza, Ádám & London, András & Kiss, István Márton & Pelle, Anita & Dombi, József & Németh, Tamás, 2016. "A világkereskedelem hálózatelméleti vizsgálatának lehetőségeiről [The scope for analysis of world trade through network theory]," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(1), pages 79-98.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecomod:v:258:y:2013:i:c:p:65-73. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.journals.elsevier.com/ecological-modelling .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.