How context dependent are species interactions?

Ecology Letters

Volumn 17, Issue 7, 2014, Pages 881-890

  Chamberlain, Scott A ^a,c   Bronstein, Judith L ^b   Rudgers, Jennifer A ^a,d  

^a RICE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b University of Arizona   (United States)

^c SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^d UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO   (United States)

Author keywords

Coefficient of variation; Community context; Conditionality; Distributed outcomes; Interaction strength; Meta analysis

Indexed keywords

COMMUNITY COMPOSITION; COMPETITION (ECOLOGY); ENVIRONMENTAL GRADIENT; INTERSPECIFIC INTERACTION; META-ANALYSIS; MUTUALISM; PREDATION;

ANIMAL; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION; COMMUNITY CONTEXT; CONDITIONALITY; DISTRIBUTED OUTCOMES; ECOSYSTEM; INTERACTION STRENGTH; META ANALYSIS; PREDATION; REVIEW; SYMBIOSIS;

COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION; COMMUNITY CONTEXT; CONDITIONALITY; DISTRIBUTED OUTCOMES; INTERACTION STRENGTH; META-ANALYSIS;

ANIMALS; ECOSYSTEM; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; PREDATORY BEHAVIOR; SYMBIOSIS;

EID: 84901691210     PISSN: 1461023X     EISSN: 14610248     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/ele.12279     Document Type: Review

References (56)

1. Agrawal, A.A., Ackerly, D.D., Adler, F., Arnold, A.E., Cáceres, C., Doak, D.F. et al. (2007). Filling key gaps in population and community ecology. Front. Ecol. Environ., 5, 145-152.
2. Armas, C., Ordiales, R. & Pugnaire, F.I. (2004). Measuring plant interactions: a new comparative index. Ecology, 85, 2682-2686.
3. Barnes, P.W. & Archer, S. (1999). Tree-shrub interactions in a subtropical savanna parkland: competition or facilitation? J. Veg. Sci., 10, 525-536.
4. Benedetti-Cecchi, L. (2000). Variance in ecological consumer-resource interactions. Nature, 407, 370-374.
5. Berlow, E.L. (1999). Strong effects of weak interactions in ecological communities. Nature, 398, 330-334.
6. Bishop, M.J., Cole, M.R., Taylor, S.L., Wilkie, E.M. & Kelaher, B.P. (2008). Size-specific predation by dominant consumers maintains a "trophic cul-de-sac". Mar. Ecol.-Prog. Ser., 354, 75-83.
7. Bonsdorff, E., Norkko, A. & Sandberg, E. (1995). Structuring zoobenthos - the importance of predation, siphon cropping and physical disturbance. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol., 192, 125-144.
8. Bronstein, J.L. (1994). Conditional outcomes in mutualistic interactions. Trends Ecol. Evol., 9, 214-217.
9. Bronstein, J.L. (2001). The costs of mutualism. Am. Zool., 41, 127-141.
10. Bronstein, J.L. & Barbosa, P. (2002). Multitrophic/multispecies mutualistic interactions: the role of non-mutualists in shaping and mediating mutualisms. In: Multitrophic Level Interactions (eds, Scharntke T., Hawkins, B.A.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 44-65.
11. Callaway, R.M., Brooker, R., Choler, P., Kikvidze, Z., Lortie, C.J., Michalet, R. et al. (2002). Positive interactions among alpine plants increase with stress. Nature, 417, 844-848.
12. Chamberlain, S.A. & Holland, J.N. (2009). Quantitative synthesis of context dependency in ant-plant protection mutualisms. Ecology, 90, 2384-2392.
13. Chase, J.M., Abrams, P.A., Grover, J.P., Diehl, S., Chesson, P., Holt, R.D. et al. (2002). The interaction between predation and competition: a review and synthesis. Ecol. Lett., 5, 302-315.
14. Clay, K., Marks, S. & Cheplick, G.P. (1993). Effects of insect herbivory and fungal endophyte infection on competitive interactions among grasses. Ecology, 74, 1767-1777.
15. Daskin, J.H. & Alford, R.A. (2012). Context-dependent symbioses and their potential roles in wildlife diseases. Proc. Biol. Sci., 279, 1457-1465.
16. Dietz, H., Köhler, A. & Ullmann, I. (2002). Regeneration growth of the invasive clonal forb Rorippa austriaca (Brassicaceae) in relation to fertilization and interspecific competition, Plant Ecology, 158, 171-182.
17. Fedriani, J.M., Rey, P.J., Garrido, J.L., Guitian, J., Herrera, C.M., Medrano, M. et al. (2004). Geographical variation in the potential of mice to constrain an ant-seed dispersal mutualism. Oikos, 105, 181-191.
18. Fraterrigo, J.M. & Rusak, J.A. (2008). Disturbance-driven changes in the variability of ecological patterns and processes. Ecol. Lett., 11, 756-770.
19. Gurevitch, J., Morrow, L.L., Wallace, A. & Walsh, J.S. (1992). A meta-analysis of competition in field experiments. Am. Nat., 140, 539-572.
20. Haldane, J.B.S. (1955). The measurement of variation. Evolution, 9, 484-484.
21. Hedges, L.V. & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical Methods for Meta-Analysis. Academic Press, New York, USA.
22. Heil, M. & McKey, D. (2003). Protective ant-plant interactions as model systems in ecological and evolutionary research. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst., 34, 425-453.
23. Helgason, T., Merryweather, J.W., Denison, J., Wilson, P., Young, J.P.W. & Fitter, A.H. (2002). Selectivity and functional diversity in arbuscular mycorrhizas of co-occurring fungi and plants from a temperate deciduous woodland. J. Ecol., 90, 371-384.
24. Hillebrand, H. (2009). Meta-analysis of grazer control of periphyton biomass across aquatic ecosystems. J. Phycol., 45, 798-806.
25. HilleRisLambers, J., Adler, P.B., Harpole, W.S., Levine, J.M. & Mayfield, M.M. (2012). Rethinking community assembly through the lens of coexistence theory. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst., 43, 227-248.
26. Holt, A.R., Davies, Z.G., Tyler, C., Staddon, S. & McClain, C.R. (2008). Meta-analysis of the effects of predation on animal prey abundance: evidence from UK vertebrates. PLoS ONE, 3, e2400.
27. Hu, S.X.S. & Tessier, A.J. (1995). Seasonal succession and the strength of intraspecific and interspecific competition in a Daphnia assemblage. Ecology, 76, 2278-2294.
28. Inouye, B.D. (2005). The importance of the variance around the mean effect size of ecological processes: comment. Ecology, 86, 262-265.
29. Johnson, N.C., Graham, J.H. & Smith, F.A. (1997). Functioning of mycorrhizal associations along the mutualism-parasitism continuum. New Phytol., 135, 575-586.
30. Jones, E.I., Bronstein, J.L. & Ferrière, R. (2012). The fundamental role of competition in the ecology and evolution of mutualisms. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci., 1256, 66-88.
31. Kaplan, I. & Denno, R.F. (2007). Interspecific interactions in phytophagous insects revisited: a quantitative assessment of competition theory. Ecol. Lett., 10, 977-994.
32. Karst, J., Marczak, L., Jones, M.D. & Turkington, R. (2008). The mutualism-parasitism continuum in ectomycorrhizas: a quantitative assessment using meta-analysis. Ecology, 89, 1032-1042.
33. Kiers, T.E., Palmer, T.M., Ives, A.R., Bruno, J.F. & Bronstein, J.L. (2010). Mutualisms in a changing world: an evolutionary perspective. Ecol. Lett., 13, 1459-1474.
34. Kokkoris, G.D., Jansen, V.A.A., Loreau, M. & Troumbis, A.Y. (2002). Variability in interaction strength and implications for biodiversity. J. Anim. Ecol., 71, 362-371.
35. Larimer, A.L., Bever, J.D. & Clay, K. (2010). The interactive effects of plant microbial symbionts: a review and meta-analysis. Symbiosis, 51, 139-148.
36. Lau, J.A. & Strauss, S.Y. (2005). Insect herbivores drive important indirect effects of exotic plants on native communities. Ecology, 86, 2990-2997.
37. MacNeil, C., Elwood, R. & Dick, J.T.A. (1999). Predator-prey interactions between brown trout Salmo trutta and native and introduced amphipods: their implications for fish diets. Ecography, 22, 686-696.
38. Menge, B.A., Berlow, E.L., Blanchette, C.A., Navarrete, S.A. & Yamada, S.B. (1994). The keystone species concept: variation in interaction strength in a rocky intertidal habitat. Ecol. Monogr., 64, 249-286.
39. Miller, T.E. & Travis, J. (1996). The evolutionary role of indirect effects in communities. Ecology, 77, 1329-1335.
40. Miller, T.E.X., Louda, S.M., Rose, K.A. & Eckberg, J.O. (2009). Impacts of insect herbivory on cactus population dynamics: experimental demography across an environmental gradient. Ecol. Monogr., 79, 155-172.
41. Morris, W.F., Hufbauer, R.A., Agrawal, A.A., Bever, J.D., Borowicz, V.A., Gilbert, G.S. et al. (2007). Direct and interactive effects of enemies and mutualists on plant performance: a meta-analysis. Ecology, 88, 1021-1029.
42. Odadi, W.O., Karachi, M.K., Abdulrazak, S.A. & Young, T.P. (2011). African wild ungulates compete with or facilitate cattle depending on season. Science, 333, 1753-1755.
43. Preisser, E.L., Bolnick, D.I. & Benard, M.F. (2005). Scared to death? The effects of intimidation and consumption in predator-prey interactions. Ecology, 86, 501-509.
44. Rudgers, J.A. & Strauss, S.Y. (2004). A selection mosaic in the facultative mutualism between ants and wild cotton. Proc. Biol. Sci., 271, 2481-2488.
45. Schadler, M., Brandl, R. & Haase, J. (2007). Antagonistic interactions between plant competition and insect herbivory. Ecology, 88, 1490-1498.
46. Sih, A., Crowley, P., McPeek, M., Petranka, J. & Strohmeier, K. (1985). Predation, competition, and prey communities: a review of field experiments. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst., 16, 269-311.
47. Sokal, R.R. & Rohlf, F. (1969). Biometry: The Principles and Practice of Statistics in Biological Research. W. H. Freeman, San Francisco, CA.
48. Stouffer, D.B. & Bascompte, J. (2011). Compartmentalization increases food-web persistence. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci., 108, 3648-3652.
49. Taylor, L.R. (1961). Aggregation, variance and the mean. Nature, 189, 732-735.
50. Thackeray, S.J., Sparks, T.H., Frederiksen, M., Burthe, S., Bacon, P.J., Bell, J.R. et al. (2010). Trophic level asynchrony in rates of phenological change for marine, freshwater and terrestrial environments. Glob. Change Biol., 16, 3304-3313.
51. Thompson, J.N. (1988). Variation in interspecific interactions. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst., 19, 65-87.
52. Thompson, J.N. (2005). The Geographic Mosaic of Coevolution. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, USA.
53. Thompson, J.N. & Cunningham, B.M. (2002). Geographic structure and dynamics of coevolutionary selection. Nature, 417, 735-738.
54. Travis, J. (1996). The significance of geographical variation in species interactions. Am. Nat., 148, S1-S8.
55. Van Houwelingen, H.C., Arends, L.R. & Stijnen, T. (2002). Advanced methods in meta-analysis: multivariate approach and meta-regression. Stat. Med., 21, 589-624.
56. Wootton, J.T. (1994). The nature and consequences of indirect effects in ecological communities. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst., 25, 443-466.