title: Are nested networks more robust to disturbance? A test using epiphyte-tree, comensalistic networks.
abstract: Recent research on ecological networks suggests that mutualistic networks are more nested than antagonistic ones and, as a result, they are more robust against chains of extinctions caused by disturbances. We evaluate whether mutualistic networks are more nested than comensalistic and antagonistic networks, and whether highly nested, host-epiphyte comensalistic networks fit the prediction of high robustness against disturbance. A review of 59 networks including mutualistic, antagonistic and comensalistic relationships showed that comensalistic networks are significantly more nested than antagonistic and mutualistic networks, which did not differ between themselves. Epiphyte-host networks from old-growth forests differed from those from disturbed forest in several topological parameters based on both qualitative and quantitative matrices. Network robustness increased with network size, but the slope of this relationship varied with nestedness and connectance. Our results indicate that interaction networks show complex responses to disturbances, which influence their topology and indirectly affect their robustness against species extinctions.
authors: Mediterranean Institute for Advanced Studies (IMEDEA, CSIC-UIB), C/Miquel Marquès 21, Esporles, Mallorca, Balearic Islands, Spain. martinpiazzon@gmail.com
authors: Martín
authors: M
authors: Piazzon
authors: Asier R
authors: AR
authors: Larrinaga
authors: Luis
authors: L
authors: Santamaría
references: Ecology. 2008 Jun;89(6):1573-82
references: 18589522
references: Proc Biol Sci. 2001 Oct 7;268(1480):2039-45
references: 11571051
references: PLoS Biol. 2007 Feb;5(2):e31
references: 17253905
references: Science. 2005 Jul 22;309(5734):570-4
references: 16040698
references: Proc Biol Sci. 2006 Aug 22;273(1597):2041-7
references: 16846911
references: Ecol Lett. 2008 Jun;11(6):564-75
references: 18363716
references: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003 Aug 5;100(16):9383-7
references: 12881488
references: Proc Biol Sci. 2007 Feb 22;274(1609):591-8
references: 17476781
references: Am Nat. 2002 Jun;159(6):606-23
references: 18707385
references: Oecologia. 1993 Dec;96(3):373-382
references: 28313653
references: PLoS Biol. 2008 Feb;6(2):e31
references: 18271628
references: Ecol Lett. 2008 Mar;11(3):208-16
references: 18070101
references: J Exp Bot. 2001 Nov;52(364):2067-78
references: 11604445
references: Nature. 2010 Jun 17;465(7300):918-21
references: 20520609
references: Science. 2010 Aug 13;329(5993):765-6
references: 20705836
references: J Theor Biol. 2007 Nov 21;249(2):307-13
references: 17897679
references: Science. 2000 Mar 10;287(5459):1770-4
references: 10710299
references: Ecology. 2009 Aug;90(8):2039-46
references: 19739366
references: Oecologia. 2001 Oct;129(2):169-178
references: 28547594
references: Science. 2010 Aug 13;329(5993):853-6
references: 20705861
references: Ecol Lett. 2006 Mar;9(3):281-6
references: 16958893