Cheaters in mutualism networks

71Citations
Citations of this article
294Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

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. © 2010 The Royal Society.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Genini, J., Morellato, L. P. C., Guimarães, P. R., & Olesen, J. M. (2010). Cheaters in mutualism networks. Biology Letters, 6(4), 494–497. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2009.1021

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free