Assembly of complex plant-fungus networks

Nature Communications

Volumn 5, Issue , 2014, Pages

  Toju, Hirokazu ^a   Guimarães, Paulo R ^b   Olesen, Jens M ^c   Thompson, John N ^d  

^a KYOTO UNIVERSITY   (Japan)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SÃO PAULO   (Brazil)

^c AARHUS UNIVERSITY   (Denmark)

^d UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BELOWGROUND BIOMASS; COMMUNITY STRUCTURE; FUNGUS; MOLECULAR ANALYSIS; PHYLOGENETICS; PLANT; SPECIALIZATION; SPECIES RICHNESS; SYMBIOSIS; TEMPERATE FOREST; TERRESTRIAL ECOSYSTEM;

FUNGUS; JAPAN; NEXT GENERATION SEQUENCING; PREDICTION; SPECIALIZATION; SPECIES; SYMBIOSIS; TEMPERATE DECIDUOUS FOREST; THEORETICAL MODEL; CHEMISTRY; CHLOROPLAST; ECOSYSTEM; EVOLUTION; FOREST; METABOLISM; MICROBIOLOGY; PHYLOGENY; PLANT;

JAPAN;

FUNGI;

DNA;

BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION; CHLOROPLASTS; DNA; ECOSYSTEM; FORESTS; FUNGI; JAPAN; PHYLOGENY; PLANTS; SYMBIOSIS;

EID: 84928946799     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20411723     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/ncomms6273     Document Type: Article

References (56)

1. Bascompte, J., Jordano, P., Melián, C. J. & Olesen, J. M. The nested assembly of plant-animal mutualistic networks. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 100, 9383-9387 (2003).
2. Olesen, J. M., Bascompte, J., Dupont, Y. L. & Jordano, P. The modularity of pollination networks. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 104, 19891-19896 (2007).
3. Thébault, E. & Fontaine, C. Stability of ecological communities and the architecture of mutualistic and trophic networks. Science 329, 853-856 (2010).
4. Bastolla, U. et al. The architecture of mutualistic networks minimizes competition and increases biodiversity. Nature 458, 1018-1020 (2009).
5. Guimarães, Jr P. R., Jordano, P. & Thompson, J. N. Evolution and coevolution in mutualistic networks. Ecol. Lett. 14, 877-885 (2011).
6. Allesina, S. & Tang, S. Stability criteria for complex ecosystems. Nature 483, 205-208 (2012).
7. Guimarães, Jr P. R. et al. Interaction intimacy affects structure and coevolutionary dynamics in mutualistic networks. Curr. Biol. 17, 1797-1803 (2007).
8. Pires, M. M. & Guimarães, P. R. Interaction intimacy organizes networks of antagonistic interactions in different ways. J. R. Soc. Interface 10, 20120649 (2013).
9. Thompson, J. N. The geographic mosaic of coevolution (University of Chicago Press, 2005).
10. Donatti, C. I. et al. Analysis of a hyper-diverse seed dispersal network: modularity and underlying mechanisms. Ecol. Lett. 14, 773-781 (2011).
11. Blüthgen, N., Menzel, F., Hovestadt, T., Fiala, B. & Blüthgen, N. Specialization, constraints, and conflicting interests in mutualistic networks. Curr. Biol. 17, 341-346 (2007).
12. Toju, H. et al. How are plant and fungal communities linked to each other in belowground ecosystems? A massively parallel pyrosequencing analysis of the association specificity of root-associated fungi and their host plants. Ecol. Evol. 3, 3112-3124 (2013).
13. Smith, S. E. & Read, D. J. Mycorrhizal symbiosis, 3rd edn (Elsevier, 2008).
14. Davison, J., Öpik, M., Daniell, T. J., Moora, M. & Zobel, M. Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungal communities in plant roots are not random assemblages. FEMS Microbial. Ecol. 78, 103-115 (2011).
15. Montesinos-Navarro, A., Segarra-Moragues, J. G., Valiente-Banuet, A. & Verdú, M. The network structure of plant-arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi. New. Phytol. 194, 536-547 (2012).
16. Toju, H. et al. Community composition of root-associated fungi in a Quercus-dominated temperate forest: "codominance" of mycorrhizal and root-endophytic fungi. Ecol. Evol. 3, 1281-1293 (2013).
17. Newsham, K. K. A meta-analysis of plant responses to dark septate root endophytes. New Phytol. 190, 783-793 (2011).
18. Rohr, R. P., Saavedra, S. & Bascompte, J. On the structural stability of mutualistic systems. Science 345, 1253497 (2014).
19. Bahram, M., Harend, H. & Tedersoo, L. Network perspectives of ectomycorrhizal associations. Fungal Ecol. 7, 70-77 (2013).
20. Fortuna, M. A. et al. Nestedness versus modularity in ecological networks: two sides of the same coin? J. Anim. Ecol. 79, 811-817 (2010).
21. Kiers, E. T. & Denison, R. F. Sanctions, cooperation, and the stability of plant-rhizosphere mutualisms. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 39, 215-236 (2008).
22. Nara, K. & Hogetsu, T. Ectomycorrhizal fungi on established shrubs facilitate subsequent seedling establishment of successional plant species. Ecology 85, 1700-1707 (2004).
23. Bever, J. D., Schultz, P. A., Pringle, A. & Morton, J. B. Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi: more diverse than meets the eye, and the ecological tale of why. Bioscience 51, 923-932 (2001).
24. Kiers, E. T. et al. Reciprocal rewards stabilize cooperation in the mycorrhizal symbiosis. Science 333, 880-882 (2011).
25. Thompson, J. N. & Cunningham, B. M. Geographic structure and dynamics of coevolutionary selection. Nature 417, 735-738 (2002).
26. Mougi, A. & Kondoh, M. Diversity of interaction types and ecological community stability. Science 337, 349-351 (2012).
27. Pocock, M. J. O., Evans, D. M. & Memmott, J. The robustness and restoration of a network of ecological networks. Science 335, 973-977 (2012).
28. Dickie, I. A., Koide, R. T. & Fayish, A. C. Vesicular-arbuscular mycorrhizal infection of Quercus rubra seedlings. New Phytol. 151, 257-264 (2001).
29. Tedersoo, L. et al. Ascomycetes associated with ectomycorrhizas: molecular diversity and ecology with particular reference to the Helotiales. Env. Microbiol. 11, 3166-3178 (2009).
30. Darwin, C. On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection (J. Murray, 1859).
31. Staniczenko, P. P., Kopp, J. C. & Allesina, S. The ghost of nestedness in ecological networks. Nat. Commun. 4, 1391 (2013).
32. Suweis, S., Simini, F., Banavar, J. R. & Maritan, A. Emergence of structural and dynamical properties of ecological mutualistic networks. Nature 500, 449-452 (2013).
33. Wirta, H. K. et al. Complementary molecular information changes our perception of food web structure. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 1885-1890 (2014).
34. Jurado-Rivera, J. A., Vogler, A. P., Reid, C. A., Petitpierre, E. & Gómez-Zurita, J. DNA barcoding insect-host plant associations. Proc. R. Soc. London Ser. B 276, 639-648 (2009).
35. Smith, M. A., Woodley, N. E., Janzen, D. H., Hallwachs, W. & Hebert, P. D. DNA barcodes reveal cryptic host-specificity within the presumed polyphagous members of a genus of parasitoid flies (Diptera: Tachinidae). Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 103, 3657-3662 (2006).
36. Deagle, B. E., Kirkwood, R. & Jarman, S. N. Analysis of Australian fur seal diet by pyrosequencing prey DNA in faeces. Mol. Ecol. 18, 2022-2038 (2009).
37. Caruso, T., Rillig, M. C. & Garlaschelli, D. On the application of network theory to arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi-plant interactions: the importance of basic assumptions. New Phytol. 194, 891-894 (2012).
38. Kato, M., Kakutani, T., Inoue, T. & Itino, T. Insect-flower relationship in the primary beech forest of Ashu, Kyoto: an overview of the flowering phenology and the seasonal pattern of insect visits. Contr. Biol. Lab. Kyoto Univ. 27, 309-376 (1990).
39. Maloof, J. E. & Inouye, D. W. Are nectar robbers cheaters or mutualists? Ecology 81, 2651-2661 (2000).
40. Bersier, L.-F., Banašek-Richter, C. & Cattin, M.-F. Quantitative descriptors of food-web matrices. Ecology 83, 2394-2407 (2002).
41. Dormann, C. F., Fründ, J., Blüthgen, N. & Gruber, B. Indices, graphs and null models: analyzing bipartite ecological networks. Open Ecol. J. 2, 7-24 (2009).
42. Almeida-Neto, M. & Ulrich, W. A straightforward computational approach for measuring nestedness using quantitative matrices. Env. Model Software 26, 173-178 (2011).
43. Almeida-Neto, M., Guimarães, P., Guimarães, Jr P. R., Loyola, R. D. & Ulrich, W. A consistent metric for nestedness analysis in ecological systems: reconciling concept and measurement. Oikos 117, 1227-1239 (2008).
44. Almeida-Neto, M., R Guimarães, Jr P. & M Lewinsohn, T. On nestedness analyses: rethinking matrix temperature and anti-nestedness. Oikos 116, 716-722 (2007).
45. James, A., Pitchford, J. W. & Plank, M. J. Disentangling nestedness from models of ecological complexity. Nature 487, 227-230 (2012).
46. Vázquez, D. P. et al. Species abundance and asymmetric interaction strength in ecological networks. Oikos 116, 1120-1127 (2007).
47. Guimerà, R. & Amaral, L. A. N. Cartography of complex networks: modules and universal roles. J. Stat. Mech. Theor. Exp. 2005, P02001 (2005).
48. Marquitti, F. M. D., Guimarães, Jr P. R., Pires, M. M. & Bittencourt, L. F. MODULAR: Software for the autonomous computation of modularity in large network sets. Ecography 37, 221-224 (2013).
49. Newman, M. E. & Girvan, M. Finding and evaluating community structure in networks. Phys. Rev. E 69, 026113 (2004).
50. Barber, M. J. Modularity and community detection in bipartite networks. Phys. Rev. E 76, 066102 (2007).
51. Stone, L. & Roberts, A. Competitive exclusion, or species aggregation? Oecologia 91, 419-424 (1992).
52. Rezende, E. L., Lavabre, J. E., Guimarães, Jr P. R., Jordano, P. & Bascompte, J. Non-random coextinctions in phylogenetically structured mutualistic networks. Nature 448, 925-928 (2007).
53. Guimarães, Jr P. R. et al. Interaction Web DataBase, available at http://www.nceas.ucsb.edu/interactionweb/index.html (2012).
54. Montesinos-Navarro, A., Segarra-Moragues, J. G., Valiente-Banuet, A. & Verdú, M. Plant facilitation occurs between species differing in their associated arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi. New Phytol. 196, 835-844 (2012).
55. Morris, R. J., Gripenberg, S., Lewis, O. T. & Roslin, T. Antagonistic interaction networks are structured independently of latitude and host guild. Ecol. Lett. 17, 340-349 (2014).
56. Nilsson, R. H., Kristiansson, E., Ryberg, M., Hallenberg, N. & Larsson, K. H. Intraspecific ITS variability in the kingdom Fungi as expressed in the international sequence databases and its implications for molecular species identification. Evol. Bioinfo. 4, 193-201 (2008).