🥗 insatiable

index.qmd

@@ -91,7 +91,7 @@ There is compelling evidence that an interaction occurring between two species i
 
 **(Co)occurrence**
 
-Although the outright assumption that because two species are co-occurring it must mean that they are interacting is flawed [@blanchetCooccurrenceNotEvidence2020], it is of course impossible for two species to interact (at least in terms of feeding links) if they are not co-occurring in time and space. Thus, although co-occurrence data alone is insufficient to build an accurate and ecologically meaningful representation of *feeding links* it is still a critical process that determines the realisation of feeding links and allows us to constrain a global metaweb to only consider 'realised' communities [@dansereauSpatiallyExplicitPredictions2024] and an understanding of the intersection of species interactions and their co-occurrence is meaningful when one is operating in the space of trying to determine the distribution of a species [@higinoMismatchIUCNRange2023; @pollockUnderstandingCooccurrenceModelling2014], representing a fusion of the the Grinnellian and Eltonian niches [@gravelBringingEltonGrinnell2019].
+Although the outright assumption that because two species are co-occurring it must mean that they are interacting is flawed [@blanchetCooccurrenceNotEvidence2020], it is of course impossible for two species to interact (at least in terms of feeding links) if they are not co-occurring in time and space. Thus, although co-occurrence data alone is insufficient to build an accurate and ecologically meaningful representation of *feeding links* it is still a critical process that determines the realisation of feeding links and allows us to constrain a global metaweb to only consider 'realised' communities [@dansereauSpatiallyExplicitPredictions2024] and an understanding of the intersection of species interactions and their co-occurrence is meaningful when one is operating in the space of trying to determine the distribution of a species [@higinoMismatchIUCNRange2023; @pollockUnderstandingCooccurrenceModelling2014], representing something of a fusion of the the Grinnellian and Eltonian niches [@gravelBringingEltonGrinnell2019].
 
 **Abundance**
 
@@ -107,7 +107,7 @@ Perhaps not as intuitive when thinking about the processes that determine feedin
 
 ## Contextualising the processes that determine species interactions
 
-It should be self evident that the different processes discussed above are all ultimately going to influence the realisation of interactions as well as the structure of a network, however they are acting at different scales of organisation. Both the **co-occurrence** and the **evolutionary compatibility** are valid at the scale of the species pair of interest, that is the *possibility* of an interaction being present/absent is assessed at the pairwise level and one is left with a 'list' of interactions that are present/absent. Although it is possible to build a network (*i.e.,* metaweb) from this information it is important to be aware that the structure of this network is not constrained by real-world dynamics or conditions, and so just because species are able to interact does not mean that they will [@poisotSpeciesWhyEcological2015]. In order to construct a network who's structure is a closer approximation of reality (localised interactions) one needs to take into consideration the properties of the community as a whole and not just the two species of interest, which requires more data at the community scale, such as the abundance of species.
+It should be self evident that the different processes discussed above are all ultimately going to influence the realisation of interactions as well as the structure of a network, however they are acting at different scales of organisation. Both the **co-occurrence** and the **evolutionary compatibility** are valid at the scale of the species pair of interest, that is the *possibility* of an interaction being present/absent is assessed at the pairwise level and one is left with a 'list' of interactions that are present/absent. Although it is possible to build a network (*i.e.,* metaweb) from this information it is important to be aware that the structure of this network is not constrained by real-world dynamics or conditions, and so just because species are able to interact does not mean that they will [@poisotSpeciesWhyEcological2015]. In order to construct a network who's structure is a closer approximation of reality (localised interactions) one needs to take into consideration the properties of the community as a whole and information about the individuals it is comprised of [@quinteroDownscalingMutualisticNetworks2024], which requires more data at the community scale, such as the abundance of species.
 
 # Network construction is nuanced
 

references.bib

@@ -2339,6 +2339,24 @@ @article{pykeOptimalForagingTheory1984
   abstract = {Assumptions behind optimal foraging theory are: 1) an individual's contribution to the next generation (its fitness) depends on behaviour during foraging; 2) there should be a heritable component of foraging behaviour (the actual innate foraging responses or the rules by which such responses are learned), and the proportion of individuals in a population foraging in ways that enhance fitness will tend to increase over time; 3) the relationship between foraging behaviour and fitness is known; 4) evolution of foraging behaviour is not prevented by genetic contraints; 5) such evolution is subject to 'functional' constraints (eg related to the animal's morphology); and 6) foraging behaviour evolves more rapidly than the rate at which relevant environmental conditions change. The review considers recent theoretical and empirical developments, dealing with behaviour of animals while they are foraging (but ignoring the timing of and the amount of time allocated to such behaviour). Ideas considered include risk aversion and risk proneness; optimal diet; optimal patch choice; optimal patch departure rules; optimal movements; and optimal central place foraging. Means of evaluating optimal foraging theory are discussed. -P.J.Jarvis}
 }
 
+@misc{quinteroDownscalingMutualisticNetworks2024,
+  title = {Downscaling Mutualistic Networks from Species to Individuals Reveals Consistent Interaction Niches and Roles within Plant Populations},
+  author = {Quintero, Elena and {Arroyo-Correa}, Blanca and Isla, Jorge and {Rodr{\'i}guez-S{\'a}nchez}, Francisco and Jordano, Pedro},
+  year = {2024},
+  month = jul,
+  primaryclass = {New Results},
+  pages = {2024.02.02.578595},
+  publisher = {bioRxiv},
+  doi = {10.1101/2024.02.02.578595},
+  urldate = {2024-10-10},
+  abstract = {Species-level networks emerge as the combination of interactions spanning multiple individuals, and their study has received considerable attention over the past 30 years. However, less is known about the structure of individual interaction configurations within species, being the fundamental scale at which ecological interactions occur in nature. We compiled 46 empirical, individual-based, interaction networks on plant-animal seed dispersal mutualisms, comprising 1037 plant individuals across 29 species from various regions. We compare the structure of individual-based networks to that of species-based networks and, by extending the niche concept to interaction assemblages, we explore individual plant specialization. Using a Bayesian framework to account for uncertainty derived from sampling, we examine how plant individuals ``explore'' the interaction niche of their population. Both individual-based and species-based networks exhibited high variability in network properties, lacking remarkable structural and topological differences between them. Within populations, frugivores' interaction allocation among plant individuals was highly heterogeneous, with one to three frugivore species dominating interactions. Regardless of species or bioregion, plant individuals displayed a variety of interaction profiles across populations, with a consistently small percentage of individuals playing a central role and exhibiting high diversity in their interaction assemblage. Plant populations showed varying mid to low levels of niche specialization; on average individuals' interaction niche ``breadth'' accounted for 70\% of the interaction diversity. Our results emphasize the importance of downscaling from species to individual-based networks to understand the structuring of interactions within ecological communities and provide an empirical basis for the extension of niche theory to complex mutualistic networks. Significance Statement Ecological interactions in nature occur between individual partners rather than species, and their outcomes determine fitness variation. By examining among-individual variation in interaction niches, we can bridge evolutionary and ecological perspectives to understand interaction biodiversity. This study investigates individual plant variation in frugivore assemblages worldwide, exploring how plant individuals ``build'' their interaction profiles with animal frugivores. The structure of networks composed of individuals was surprisingly similar to networks composed of species. Within populations, only a few plants played a key role in attracting a high diversity of frugivores, making them central to the overall network structure. Individuals actually explored a substantial diversity of partners, with individual interaction ``breadth'' accounting for up to 70\% of total interaction diversity on average.},
+  archiveprefix = {bioRxiv},
+  chapter = {New Results},
+  copyright = {{\copyright} 2024, Posted by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory. This pre-print is available under a Creative Commons License (Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International), CC BY-NC-ND 4.0, as described at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/},
+  langid = {english},
+  file = {/Users/tanyastrydom/Zotero/storage/MY7AMRV4/Quintero et al. - 2024 - Downscaling mutualistic networks from species to i.pdf}
+}
+
 @article{robertsTestingCascadeModel2003,
   title = {Testing the {{Cascade Model}} for {{Food Webs}}},
   author = {Roberts, John M.},