Spider-fed bromeliads: seasonal and interspecific variation in plant performance

Background and Aims Several animals that live on bromeliads can contribute to plant nutrition through nitrogen provisioning (digestive mutualism). The bromeliad-living spider Psecas chapoda (Salticidae) inhabits and breeds on Bromelia balansae in regions of South America, but in specific regions can also appear on Ananas comosus (pineapple) plantations and Aechmea distichantha. Methods Using isotopic and physiological methods in greenhouse experiments, the role of labelled ((15)N) spider faeces and Drosophila melanogaster flies in the nutrition and growth of each host plant was evaluated, as well as seasonal variation in the importance of this digestive mutualism. Key Results Spiders contributed 0.6 +/- 0.2% (mean +/- s.e.; dry season) to 2.7 +/- 1% (wet season) to the total nitrogen in B. balansae, 2.4 +/- 0.4% (dry) to 4.1 +/- 0.3% (wet) in An. comosus and 3.8 +/- 0.4% (dry) to 5 +/- 1% (wet) in Ae. distichantha. In contrast, flies did not contribute to the nutrition of these bromeliads. Chlorophylls and carotenoid concentrations did not differ among treatments. Plants that received faeces had higher soluble protein concentrations and leaf growth (RGR) only during the wet season. Conclusions These results indicate that the mutualism between spiders and bromeliads is seasonally restricted, generating a conditional outcome. There was interspecific variation in nutrient uptake, probably related to each species` performance and photosynthetic pathways. Whereas B. balansae seems to use nitrogen for growth, Ae. distichantha apparently stores nitrogen for stressful nutritional conditions. Bromeliads absorbed more nitrogen coming from spider faeces than from flies, reinforcing the beneficial role played by predators in these digestive mutualisms.

The modularity of seed dispersal: differences in structure and robustness between bat- and bird-fruit networks

In networks of plant-animal mutualisms, different animal groups interact preferentially with different plants, thus forming distinct modules responsible for different parts of the service. However, what we currently know about seed dispersal networks is based only on birds. Therefore, we wished to fill this gap by studying bat-fruit networks and testing how they differ from bird-fruit networks. As dietary overlap of Neotropical bats and birds is low, they should form distinct mutualistic modules within local networks. Furthermore, since frugivory evolved only once among Neotropical bats, but several times independently among Neotropical birds, greater dietary overlap is expected among bats, and thus connectance and nestedness should be higher in bat-fruit networks. If bat-fruit networks have higher nestedness and connectance, they should be more robust to extinctions. We analyzed 1 mixed network of both bats and birds and 20 networks that consisted exclusively of either bats (11) or birds (9). As expected, the structure of the mixed network was both modular (M = 0.45) and nested (NODF = 0.31); one module contained only birds and two only bats. In 20 datasets with only one disperser group, bat-fruit networks (NODF = 0.53 +/- A 0.09, C = 0.30 +/- A 0.11) were more nested and had a higher connectance than bird-fruit networks (NODF = 0.42 +/- A 0.07, C = 0.22 +/- A 0.09). Unexpectedly, robustness to extinction of animal species was higher in bird-fruit networks (R = 0.60 +/- A 0.13) than in bat-fruit networks (R = 0.54 +/- A 0.09), and differences were explained mainly by species richness. These findings suggest that a modular structure also occurs in seed dispersal networks, similar to pollination networks. The higher nestedness and connectance observed in bat-fruit networks compared with bird-fruit networks may be explained by the monophyletic evolution of frugivory in Neotropical bats, among which the diets of specialists seem to have evolved from the pool of fruits consumed by generalists.

Cheaters in mutualism networks

Mutualism-network studies assume that all interacting species are mutualistic partners and consider that all links are of one kind. However, the influence of different types of links, such as cheating links, on network organization remains unexplored. We studied two flower-visitation networks (Malpighiaceae and Bignoniaceae and their flower visitors), and divide the types of link into cheaters (i.e. robbers and thieves of flower rewards) and effective pollinators. We investigated if there were topological differences among networks with and without cheaters, especially with respect to nestedness and modularity. The Malpighiaceae network was nested, but not modular, and it was dominated by pollinators and had much fewer cheater species than Bignoniaceae network (28% versus 75%). The Bignoniaceae network was mainly a plant-cheater network, being modular because of the presence of pollen robbers and showing no nestedness. In the Malpighiaceae network, removal of cheaters had no major consequences for topology. In contrast, removal of cheaters broke down the modularity of the Bignoniaceae network. As cheaters are ubiquitous in all mutualisms, the results presented here show that they have a strong impact upon network topology.

What makes a species central in a cleaning mutualism network?

Mutualisms often form networks of interacting species, characterized by the existence of a central core of species that potentially drive the ecology and the evolution of the whole community. Centrality measures allow quantification of how central or peripheral a species is within a network, thus informing about the role of each species in network organization, dynamics, and stability. In the present study we addressed the question whether the structural position of species in the network (i.e. their topological importance) relates to their ecological traits. We studied interactions between cleaner and client reef fishes to identify central and peripheral species within a mutualistic network, and investigated five ecological correlates. We used three measures to estimate the level of centrality of a species for distinct structural patterns, such as the number of interactions and the structural proximity to other species. Through the use of a principal component analysis (PCA) we observed that the centrality measures were highly correlated (92.5%) in the studied network, which indicates that the same species plays a similar role for the different structural patterns. Three cleaner and ten client species had positive values of centrality, which suggests that these species are modulating ecological and evolutionary dynamics within the network. Higher centralities were related to higher abundances and feeding habits for client fishes, but not for cleaners. The high correlation between centrality measures in the present study is likely related to the nested structure of the cleaning network. The cleaner species` set, by having central species that are not necessarily the most abundant ones, bears potentially more vulnerable points for network cohesiveness. Additionally, the present study generalizes previous findings for plant-animal mutualisms, as it shows that the structure of marine mutualisms is also related to a complex interplay between abundance and niche-related features.

Evolution and coevolution in mutualistic networks

A major current challenge in evolutionary biology is to understand how networks of interacting species shape the coevolutionary process. We combined a model for trait evolution with data for twenty plant-animal assemblages to explore coevolution in mutualistic networks. The results revealed three fundamental aspects of coevolution in species-rich mutualisms. First, coevolution shapes species traits throughout mutualistic networks by speeding up the overall rate of evolution. Second, coevolution results in higher trait complementarity in interacting partners and trait convergence in species in the same trophic level. Third, convergence is higher in the presence of super-generalists, which are species that interact with multiple groups of species. We predict that worldwide shifts in the occurrence of super-generalists will alter how coevolution shapes webs of interacting species. Introduced species such as honeybees will favour trait convergence in invaded communities, whereas the loss of large frugivores will lead to increased trait dissimilarity in tropical ecosystems.

A Plant Needs Ants like a Dog Needs Fleas: Myrmelachista schumanni Ants Gall Many Tree Species to Create Housing

Hundreds of tropical plant species house ant colonies in specialized chambers called domatia. When, in 1873, Richard Spruce likened plant-ants to fleas and asserted that domatia are ant-created galls, he incited a debate that lasted almost a century. Although we now know that domatia are not galls and that most ant-plant interactions are mutualisms and not parasitisms, we revisit Spruce`s suggestion that ants can gall in light of our observations of the plant-ant Myrmelachista schumanni, which creates clearings in the Amazonian rain forest called ""supay-chakras,"" or ""devil`s gardens."" We observed swollen scars on the trunks of nonmyrmecophytic canopy trees surrounding supay-chakras, and within these swellings, we found networks of cavities inhabited by M. schumanni. Here, we summarize the evidence supporting the hypothesis that M. schumanni ants make these galls, and we hypothesize that the adaptive benefit of galling is to increase the amount of nesting space available to M. schumanni colonies.