Most of earth's biodiversity is comprised of interactions among species, yet it is unclear what causes variation in interaction diversity across space and time. We define interaction diversity as the richness and relative abundance of interactions linking species together at scales from localized, measurable webs to entire ecosystems. Large-scale patterns suggest that two basic components of interaction diversity differ substantially and predictably between different ecosystems: overall taxonomic diversity and host specificity of consumers. Understanding how these factors influence interaction diversity, and quantifying the causes and effects of variation in interaction diversity are important goals for community ecology. While previous studies have examined the effects of sampling bias and consumer specialization on determining patterns of ecological networks, these studies were restricted to two trophic levels and did not incorporate realistic variation in species diversity and consumer diet breadth. Here, we developed a food web model to generate tri-trophic ecological networks, and evaluated specific hypotheses about how the diversity of trophic interactions and species diversity are related under different scenarios of species richness, taxonomic abundance, and consumer diet breadth. We investigated the accumulation of species and interactions and found that interactions accumulate more quickly; thus, the accumulation of novel interactions may require less sampling effort than sampling species in order to get reliable estimates of either type of diversity. Mean consumer diet breadth influenced the correlation between species and interaction diversity significantly more than variation in both species richness and taxonomic abundance. However, this effect of diet breadth on interaction diversity is conditional on the number of observed interactions included in the models. The results presented here will help develop realistic predictions of the relationships between consumer diet breadth, interaction diversity, and species diversity within multi-trophic communities, which is critical for the conservation of biodiversity in this period of accelerated global change.

Czech Academy of Sciences Institute of Entomology Ceske Budejovice Czech Republic

Department of Biology Program in Ecology Evolution and Conservation Biology University of Nevada Reno Nevada United States of America

Department of Mathematics and Statistics University of Nevada Reno Nevada United States of America

Zobrazit více v PubMed

Tewksbury JJ, Anderson JG, Bakker JD, Billo TJ, Dunwiddie PW, Groom MJ, et al. Natural history’s place in science and society. BioScience. 2014;64: 300–310.

Ohgushi T, Craig TP, Price PW. Ecological communities: plant mediation in indirect interaction webs. Cambridge University Press; 2007.

Dyer LA, Walla TR, Greeney HF, Stireman JO III, Hazen RF. Diversity of Interactions: A Metric for Studies of Biodiversity. Biotropica. 2010;42: 281–289. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-7429.2009.00624.x DOI

Mougi A, Kondoh M. Diversity of interaction types and ecological community stability. Science. 2012;337: 349–351. doi: 10.1126/science.1220529 PubMed DOI

Novotny V, Basset Y, Miller SE, Weiblen GD, Bremer B, Cizek L, et al. Low host specificity of herbivorous insects in a tropical forest. Nature. 2002;416: 841–844. doi: 10.1038/416841a PubMed DOI

Janzen DH, Hajibabaei M, Burns JM, Hallwachs W, Remigio E, Hebert PDN. Wedding biodiversity inventory of a large and complex Lepidoptera fauna with DNA barcoding. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 2005;360: 1835–1845. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2005.1715 PubMed DOI PMC

Ballantyne G, Baldock KC, Willmer PG. Constructing more informative plant–pollinator networks: visitation and pollen deposition networks in a heathland plant community. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 2015;282: 20151130. PubMed PMC

Poisot T, Canard E, Mouillot D, Mouquet N, Gravel D, Jordan F. The dissimilarity of species interaction networks. Ecology Letters. 2012;15: 1353–61. doi: 10.1111/ele.12002 PubMed DOI

Fründ J, McCann KS, Williams NM. Sampling bias is a challenge for quantifying specialization and network structure: lessons from a quantitative niche model. Oikos. 2016;125: 502–513. doi: 10.1111/oik.02256 DOI

Janzen DH. The deflowering of Central America. La deforestación de Centroamérica. Natural History. 1974;83.

Thompson JN. Evolutionary ecology and the conservation of biodiversity. Trends in Ecology and Evolution. 1996;11: 300–303. PubMed

Thompson JN. Conserving interaction biodiversity The Ecological Basis of Conservation. Springer; 1997. pp. 285–293.

Dáttilo W, Dyer L. Canopy openness enhances diversity of ant–plant interactions in the Brazilian Amazon rain forest. Biotropica. 2014;46: 712–719.

Gross T, Rudolf L, Levin SA, Dieckmann U. Generalized models reveal stabilizing factors in food webs. Science. 2009;325: 747–750. doi: 10.1126/science.1173536 PubMed DOI

Jiang L, Joshi H, Patel SN. Predation alters relationships between biodiversity and temporal stability. The American Naturalist. 2009;173: 389–399. doi: 10.1086/596540 PubMed DOI

Novotny V, Miller SE, Baje L, Balagawi S, Basset Y, Cizek L, et al. Guild-specific patterns of species richness and host specialization in plant-herbivore food webs from a tropical forest. Journal of Animal Ecology. 2010;79: 1193–1203. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2656.2010.01728.x PubMed DOI

Forister ML, Novotny V, Panorska AK, Baje L, Basset Y, Butterill PT, et al. The global distribution of diet breadth in insect herbivores. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2015;112: 442–447. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1423042112 PubMed DOI PMC

Dormann C, Fründ J, Blüthgen N, Gruber B. Indices, graphs and null models: analyzing bipartite ecological networks. The Open Ecology Journal. 2009;2: 7–24.

Thébault E, Fontaine C. Stability of ecological communities and the architecture of mutualistic and trophic networks. Science. 2010;329: 853–856. doi: 10.1126/science.1188321 PubMed DOI

Darwin C. On the origin of species by means of natural selection, or, the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life. 15th ed London: J. Murray; 1859. PubMed PMC

Wallace AR. Tropical nature, and other essays. Macmillan and Company; 1878.

Novotny V, Drozd P, Miller SE, Kulfan M, Janda M, Basset Y, et al. Why are there so many species of herbivorous insects in tropical rainforests? Science. 2006;313: 1115–1118. doi: 10.1126/science.1129237 PubMed DOI

Novotny V, Miller SE, Hulcr J, Drew RAI, Basset Y, Janda M, et al. Low beta diversity of herbivorous insects in tropical forests. Nature. 2007;448: 692 doi: 10.1038/nature06021 PubMed DOI

Dyer LA, Singer MS, Lill JT, Stireman JO, Gentry GL, Marquis RJ, et al. Host specificity of Lepidoptera in tropical and temperate forests. Nature. 2007;448: 696 doi: 10.1038/nature05884 PubMed DOI

Dyer L, Wagner D, Greeney H, Smilanich AM, Massad T, Robinson M, et al. Novel Insights into Tritrophic Interaction Diversity and Chemical Ecology Using 16 Years of Volunteer-Supported Research. American Entomologist. 2012;58: 15–19.

Jiménez-Alfaro B, Chytrỳ M, Mucina L, Grace JB, Rejmánek M. Disentangling vegetation diversity from climate–energy and habitat heterogeneity for explaining animal geographic patterns Ecology and evolution. 2016; PubMed PMC

Magurran AE. Measuring biological diversity. John Wiley & Sons; 2013.

Dormann CF, Gruber B, Fründ J. Introducing the bipartite package: analysing ecological networks. interaction. 2008;1: 0–2413793.

Chao A. Nonparametric estimation of the number of classes in a population. Scandinavian Journal of Statistics. 1984; 265–270.

Oksanen J, Blanchet FG, Kindt R, Legendre P, Minchin PR, O’Hara RB, et al. vegan: Community Ecology Package, R Package version 2.2–1. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=vegan; 2015.

Kruschke JK. Bayesian estimation supersedes the t test. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. 2013;142: 573. PubMed

Kruschke J, Meredith M. BEST: Bayesian Estimation Supersedes the t-Test. R Package version 0.5.0 [Internet]. 2015. http://cran.cnr.berkeley.edu/web/packages/BEST/vignettes/BEST.pdf

R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing, version 3.3.2 [Internet]. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2014. http://www.R-project.org

SAS Institute Inc. Base SAS® 9.3 Procedures Guide. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc.; 2011.

Schleuning M, Fründ J, Klein A-M, Abrahamczyk S, Alarcón R, Albrecht M, et al. Specialization of mutualistic interaction networks decreases toward tropical latitudes. Current biology. 2012;22: 1925–1931. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2012.08.015 PubMed DOI

Jordán F, Osváth G. The sensitivity of food web topology to temporal data aggregation. Ecological Modelling. 2009;220: 3141–3146.

Blüthgen N. Why network analysis is often disconnected from community ecology: a critique and an ecologist’s guide. Basic and Applied Ecology. 2010;11: 185–195.

Tylianakis JM, Laliberte E, Nielsen A, Bascompte J. Conservation of species interaction networks. Biological Conservation. 2010;143: 2270–2279. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2009.12.004 DOI

Keddy PA. Assembly and response rules: two goals for predictive community ecology. Journal of Vegetation Science. 1992;3: 157–164.

Weiher E, Keddy P. Ecological assembly rules: perspectives, advances, retreats. Cambridge University Press; 2001.

Staniczenko PP, Kopp JC, Allesina S. The ghost of nestedness in ecological networks. Nature Communications. 2013;4: 1391 doi: 10.1038/ncomms2422 PubMed DOI

Peralta G, Frost CM, Rand TA, Didham RK, Tylianakis JM. Complementarity and redundancy of interactions enhance attack rates and spatial stability in host–parasitoid food webs. Ecology. 2014;95: 1888–1896. PubMed

Staniczenko PP, Lewis OT, Tylianakis JM, Albrecht M, Coudrain V, Klein A-M, et al. Predicting the effect of habitat modification on networks of interacting species. Nature Communications. 2017;8: 792 doi: 10.1038/s41467-017-00913-w PubMed DOI PMC

Vazquez DP, Chacoff NP, Cagnolo L. Evaluating multiple determinants of the structure of plant–animal mutualistic networks. Ecology. 2009;90: 2039–2046. PubMed

Burkle LA, Knight TM. Shifts in pollinator composition and behavior cause slow interaction accumulation with area in plant–pollinator networks. Ecology. 2012;93: 2329–2335. PubMed

López-Carretero A, Díaz-Castelazo C, Boege K, Rico-Gray V. Evaluating the spatio-temporal factors that structure network parameters of plant-herbivore interactions. PloS ONE. 2014;9: e110430 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0110430 PubMed DOI PMC

Gotelli NJ, Colwell RK. Quantifying biodiversity: Procedures and pitfalls in the measurement and comparison of species richness. Ecology Letters. 2001;4: 379–391.

González-Varo JP, Traveset A. The labile limits of forbidden interactions. Trends in Ecology & Evolution. 2016;31: 700–710. PubMed

Gibson RH, Knott B, Eberlein T, Memmott J. Sampling method influences the structure of plant–pollinator networks. Oikos. 2011;120: 822–831.

Chacoff NP, Vazquez DP, Lomascolo SB, Stevani EL, Dorado J, Padron B. Evaluating sampling completeness in a desert plant–pollinator network. Journal of Animal Ecology. 2012;81: 190–200. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2656.2011.01883.x PubMed DOI

Fang Q, Huang S-Q. Plant-pollinator interactions in a biodiverse meadow are rather stable and tight for three consecutive years. Integrative zoology. 2016;11: 199–206. doi: 10.1111/1749-4877.12190 PubMed DOI

Vázquez DP, Aizen MA. Asymmetric specialization: a pervasive feature of plant-pollinator interactions. Ecology. 2004;85: 1251–1257.

Petanidou T, Kallimanis AS, Tzanopoulos J, Sgardelis SP, Pantis JD. Long-term observation of a pollination network: fluctuation in species and interactions, relative invariance of network structure and implications for estimates of specialization. Ecology Letters. 2008;11: 564–575. doi: 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2008.01170.x PubMed DOI

King C, Ballantyne G, Willmer PG. Why flower visitation is a poor proxy for pollination: measuring single-visit pollen deposition, with implications for pollination networks and conservation. Methods in Ecology and Evolution. 2013;4: 811–818.

Valdovinos FS, Brosi BJ, Briggs HM, Moisset de Espanés P, Ramos-Jiliberto R, Martinez ND. Niche partitioning due to adaptive foraging reverses effects of nestedness and connectance on pollination network stability. Ecology Letters. 2016;19: 1277–1286. doi: 10.1111/ele.12664 PubMed DOI

Beaver RA. Geographical variation in food web structure in Nepenthes pitcher plants. Ecological Entomology. 1985;10: 241–248.

Beckerman AP, Petchey OL, Warren PH. Foraging biology predicts food web complexity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2006;103: 13745–13749. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0603039103 PubMed DOI PMC

Winemiller KO. Must connectance decrease with species richness? The American Naturalist. 1989;134: 960–968.

Nielsen A, Bascompte J. Ecological networks, nestedness and sampling effort. Journal of Ecology. 2007;95: 1134–1141.

Cornell HV, Lawton JH. Species interactions, local and regional processes, and limits to the richness of ecological communities: a theoretical perspective. Journal of Animal Ecology. 1992; 1–12.

Ricklefs R, Schluter D. Species diversity in ecological communities: historical and geographical perspectives. 1993.