Estimating the risk of species interaction loss in mutualistic communities

Benno I Simmons; Hannah S Wauchope; Tatsuya Amano; Lynn V Dicks; William J Sutherland; Vasilis Dakos

doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.3000843

Estimating the risk of species interaction loss in mutualistic communities

PLoS Biol. 2020 Aug 31;18(8):e3000843. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3000843. eCollection 2020 Aug.

Authors

Benno I Simmons^{1

2}, Hannah S Wauchope¹, Tatsuya Amano^{1

3

4}, Lynn V Dicks^{5

6}, William J Sutherland¹, Vasilis Dakos⁷

Affiliations

¹ Conservation Science Group, Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
² Centre for Ecology and Conservation, College of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Exeter, Penryn, United Kingdom.
³ Centre for the Study of Existential Risk, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
⁴ School of Biological Sciences, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.
⁵ School of Biological Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, United Kingdom.
⁶ Agroecology Group, Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
⁷ Institut des Sciences de l'Evolution (ISEM), CNRS, Univ Montpellier, EPHE, IRD, Montpellier, France.

Abstract

Interactions between species generate the functions on which ecosystems and humans depend. However, we lack an understanding of the risk that interaction loss poses to ecological communities. Here, we quantify the risk of interaction loss for 4,330 species interactions from 41 empirical pollination and seed dispersal networks across 6 continents. We estimate risk as a function of interaction vulnerability to extinction (likelihood of loss) and contribution to network feasibility, a measure of how much an interaction helps a community tolerate environmental perturbations. Remarkably, we find that more vulnerable interactions have higher contributions to network feasibility. Furthermore, interactions tend to have more similar vulnerability and contribution to feasibility across networks than expected by chance, suggesting that vulnerability and feasibility contribution may be intrinsic properties of interactions, rather than only a function of ecological context. These results may provide a starting point for prioritising interactions for conservation in species interaction networks in the future.

Publication types

Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

MeSH terms

Animals
Biota*
Feasibility Studies
Plants / anatomy & histology
Risk
Species Specificity
Symbiosis*

Associated data

Dryad/10.5061/dryad.76173
Dryad/10.5061/dryad.dncjsxkw2
Dryad/10.5061/dryad.cr3ft
figshare/10.6084/m9.figshare.12689258.v1

Grants and funding

BIS is supported by the Natural Environment Research Council (https://nerc.ukri.org) as part of the Cambridge Earth System Science NERC DTP [NE/L002507/1] and a Royal Commission for the Exhibition of 1851 Research Fellowship (https://www.royalcommission1851.org). HSW was supported by a Cambridge Trust Cambridge-Australia Scholarship and a Cambridge Department of Zoology JS Gardiner Fellowship. TA was supported by the Grantham Foundation for the Protection of the Environment, the Kenneth Miller Trust and the Australian Research Council Future Fellowship (FT180100354). LVD was supported by the Natural Environment Research Council (https://nerc.ukri.org) (grants NE/K015419/1 and NE/N014472/1). WJS is funded by Arcadia. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.