4.8 Article

A general framework for effectiveness concepts in mutualisms

期刊

ECOLOGY LETTERS
卷 20, 期 5, 页码 577-590

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/ele.12764

关键词

Mutualism effectiveness; mycorrhizal mutualisms; plant protection mutualisms; pollination mutualisms; rhizobial mutualisms; seed dispersal mutualisms

类别

资金

  1. Utah Agricultural Experiment Station (UAES) [1222]
  2. Ecology Center
  3. Department of Wildland Resources at Utah State University
  4. Spanish MINECO [CGL2013-47429P]
  5. Severo Ochoa Excellence Award [SEV-2012-0262]
  6. Junta de Andalucia Excellence Grant [RNM-5731]
  7. Spanish MCyT [CGL2012-34736]
  8. Junta de Andalucia [P11-RNM-7676]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A core interest in studies of mutualistic interactions is the 'effectiveness' of mutualists in providing benefits to their partners. In plant-animal mutualisms it is widely accepted that the total effect of a mutualist on its partner is estimated as (1) a 'quantity' component multiplied by (2) a 'quality' component, although the meanings of 'effectiveness,' 'quantity,' and 'quality' and which terms are applied to these metrics vary greatly across studies. In addition, a similar quantity x quality = total effect approach has not been applied to other types of mutualisms, although it could be informative. Lastly, when a total effect approach has been applied, it has invariably been from a phytocentric perspective, focussing on the effects of animal mutualists on their plant partner. This lack of a common framework of 'effectiveness' of mutualistic interactions limits generalisation and the development of a broader understanding of the ecology and evolution of mutualisms. In this paper, we propose a general framework and demonstrate its utility by applying it to both partners in five different types of mutualisms: pollination, seed dispersal, plant protection, rhizobial, and mycorrhizal mutualisms. We then briefly discuss the flexibility of the framework, potential limitations, and relationship to other approaches.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据