4.7 Article

Seed-dispersal networks on the Canaries and the Galapagos archipelagos: interaction modules as biogeographical entities

期刊

GLOBAL ECOLOGY AND BIOGEOGRAPHY
卷 25, 期 7, 页码 912-922

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/geb.12315

关键词

Animal-plant interaction; fleshy fruit; food web; frugivory; insular network; modularity

资金

  1. FCT [IF/00441/2013, Marie-Curie CIG-321794]
  2. BBVA Foundation (Spain)
  3. Ministerio de Economia y Competitividad (Spain) [CGL2012-C02-01, CGL2013-44386-P]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aim Mutualistic network parameters, such as modularity and nestedness, show non-random linkage patterns. Both increase network stability in different ways. Modularity hampers extinction cascades, whereas nestedness resists network disassembly. We explore these parameters in seed-dispersal networks in two archipelagos and the significance of life history, habitat, geography and phylogeny as drivers of linkage patterns and the applicability of modules as biogeographical entities. Location Canaries (Atlantic Ocean) and Galapagos (Pacific Ocean). Methods We compiled data on plant-seed disperser interactions from own observations and the literature, estimated network parameters describing interaction patterns (connectance, nestedness and modularity) and constructed a backbone phylogeny for the analyses. Results The Canarian network was highly nested but weakly modular, whereas the Galapagos network showed the opposite characteristics. Most key network species are native and have a favourable conservation status. Modularity in the Canaries is correlated with habitats (indirectly affected by altitude and orientation), whereas in the Galapagos it mainly reflects the functional roles of species. Main conclusions The divergent link patterns for the archipelagos imply that the highly nested Canarian network is stable against disassembly, whereas the modular Galapagos network may show strong resistance against extinction cascades. This difference may be driven by the specific evolutionary dynamics on the archipelagos.

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

4.7
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