Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorHembry, David H.
dc.contributor.authorRaimundo, Rafael L. G.
dc.contributor.authorNewman, Erica A.
dc.contributor.authorAtkinson, Lesje
dc.contributor.authorGuo, Chang
dc.contributor.authorGuimarães, Paulo R.
dc.contributor.authorGillespie, Rosemary G.
dc.date.accessioned2018-08-01T17:58:30Z
dc.date.available2018-08-01T17:58:30Z
dc.date.issued2018-07
dc.identifier.citationHembry DH, Raimundo RLG, Newman EA, et al. Does biological intimacy shape ecological network structure? A test using a brood pollination mutualism on continental and oceanic islands. J Anim Ecol. 2018;87:1160–1171. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2656.12841en_US
dc.identifier.issn00218790
dc.identifier.pmid29693244
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/1365-2656.12841
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10150/628311
dc.description.abstract1. Biological intimacy-the degree of physical proximity or integration of partner taxa during their life cycles-is thought to promote the evolution of reciprocal specialization and modularity in the networks formed by co-occurring mutualistic species, but this hypothesis has rarely been tested. 2. Here, we test this "biological intimacy hypothesis" by comparing the network architecture of brood pollination mutualisms, in which specialized insects are simultaneously parasites (as larvae) and pollinators (as adults) of their host plants to that of other mutualisms which vary in their biological intimacy (including ant-myrmecophyte, ant-extrafloral nectary, plant-pollinator and plant-seed disperser assemblages). 3. We use a novel dataset sampled from leafflower trees (Phyllanthaceae: Phyllanthus s. l. [Glochidion]) and their pollinating leafflower moths (Lepidoptera: Epicephala) on three oceanic islands (French Polynesia) and compare it to equivalent published data from congeners on continental islands (Japan). We infer taxonomic diversity of leafflower moths using multilocus molecular phylogenetic analysis and examine several network structural properties: modularity (compartmentalization), reciprocality (symmetry) of specialization and algebraic connectivity. 4. We find that most leafflower-moth networks are reciprocally specialized and modular, as hypothesized. However, we also find that two oceanic island networks differ in their modularity and reciprocal specialization from the others, as a result of a supergeneralist moth taxon which interacts with nine of 10 available hosts. 5. Our results generally support the biological intimacy hypothesis, finding that leaf-flower-moth networks (usually) share a reciprocally specialized and modular structure with other intimate mutualisms such as ant-myrmecophyte symbioses, but unlike nonintimate mutualisms such as seed dispersal and nonintimate pollination. Additionally, we show that generalists-common in nonintimate mutualisms-can also evolve in intimate mutualisms, and that their effect is similar in both types of assemblages: once generalists emerge they reshape the network organization by connecting otherwise isolated modules.en_US
dc.description.sponsorshipDivision of Environmental Biology [0451971]; Coordenacao de Aperfeicoamento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior; Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado de Sao Paulo [2009/54422-8, 2011/13054-6, 2014/21106-4]; Department of Integrative Biology, University of California Berkeley; Division of Graduate Education; Woodworth Loan in Entomology; Margaret C. Walker Fund; Moorea Biocode (Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation)en_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherWILEYen_US
dc.relation.urlhttp://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/jane.2018.87.issue-4en_US
dc.relation.urlhttp://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/1365-2656.12841en_US
dc.rights© 2018 The Authors. Journal of Animal Ecology. © 2018 British Ecological Society.en_US
dc.rights.urihttp://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/
dc.subjectbiological intimacy hypothesisen_US
dc.subjectco-evolutionen_US
dc.subjectEpicephalaen_US
dc.subjectGlochidionen_US
dc.subjectmodularityen_US
dc.subjectnetwork evolutionen_US
dc.subjectPhyllanthusen_US
dc.subjectreciprocal specializationen_US
dc.titleDoes biological intimacy shape ecological network structure? A test using a brood pollination mutualism on continental and oceanic islandsen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.contributor.departmentUniv Arizona, Sch Nat Resources & Environmen_US
dc.contributor.departmentUniv Arizona, Dept Ecol & Evolutionary Biolen_US
dc.identifier.journalJOURNAL OF ANIMAL ECOLOGYen_US
dc.description.note12 month embargo; published online: 25 April 2018en_US
dc.description.collectioninformationThis item from the UA Faculty Publications collection is made available by the University of Arizona with support from the University of Arizona Libraries. If you have questions, please contact us at repository@u.library.arizona.edu.en_US
dc.eprint.versionFinal accepted manuscripten_US
dc.source.journaltitleJournal of Animal Ecology
dc.source.volume87
dc.source.issue4
dc.source.beginpage1160
dc.source.endpage1171


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Name:
Hembry_et_al_2018_J_Anim_Ecol.pdf
Size:
936.7Kb
Format:
PDF
Description:
Final Accepted Manuscript

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record