Resilience and stability of ecological networks. Elisa Thébault

Transcription

1 Resilience and stability of ecological networks Elisa Thébault

2 Why study ecological interaction webs?

3 Why study ecological interaction webs? Network structural patterns Factors which determine interactions between species Naisbit et al Rezende et al. 2007

4 Why study ecological interaction webs? Network structural patterns Consequences on ecosystem functioning and stability Dunne et al. (2004)

5 Why study ecological interaction webs? Effects of global change on networks and consequences Cavalheiro et al. (2008)

6 Before 1970s, the view is that complexity begets stability

7 Before 1970s, the view is that complexity begets stability Elton 1958 Several arguments: - Theoretical and experimental evidence that simple model ecosystems are inherently unstable - species-poor islands and artificial agricultural ecosystems are more prone to invasions by new species and pests than are their continental and natural counterparts.

8 Before 1970s, the view is that complexity begets stability Elton 1958 Several arguments: MacArthur Theoretical and experimental evidence that simple model ecosystems are inherently unstable - species-poor islands and artificial agricultural ecosystems are more prone to invasions by new species and pests than are their continental and natural counterparts.

9 This traditional view is challenged in the early 1970s A mathematical formulation May 1972 Consider a community of k species with population density N i Population dynamics can be described by: dn dt i F i N,..., 1 N k

10 n 2 1 This traditional view is challenged in the early 1970s Near equilibrium, the behaviour of the community is related to the eigenvalues of the Jacobian of the system at this point n a ij F N i j eq A = community matrix a ij = interaction strength

11 n 2 1 This traditional view is challenged in the early 1970s Near equilibrium, the behaviour of the community is related to the eigenvalues of the Jacobian of the system at this point n a ij F N i j eq A = community matrix a ij = interaction strength For a random network with a proportion C of nonzero interaction strengths (connectance), and s the mean interaction strength, the condition for local stability is: s kc 1

12 These contrasting views are at the origin of the complexity stability debate

13 These contrasting views are at the origin of the complexity stability debate Tackling this debate is fundamental to understand how the structure of ecological networks affect ecosystem resilience

14 Going beyond May s work: ecological networks are not random and new model assumptions These contrasting views are at the origin of the complexity stability debate Today we will focus on two questions from recent works in this field: New perspectives on this debate with different definitions of stability

15 Going beyond May s work: ecological networks are not random and new model assumptions These contrasting views are at the origin of the complexity stability debate Today we will focus on two questions from recent works in this field: New perspectives on this debate with different definitions of stability

16 Stability: a multifaceted concept Dynamic stability Local stability: definition often used in theoretical studies See May Cycles and Chaos: Associated measures of stability: Variability, amplitude of fluctuations, etc.

17 Stability: a multifaceted concept Dynamic stability Response to disturbances Resilience and resistance of the community, species persistance,.

18 in relation with many diversitystability relationships Model of randomly structured competitive communities: Investigate 13 relationships between diversity and stability Ives and Carpenter (2007)

19 in relation with many diversitystability relationships Ives and Carpenter (2007)

20 in relation with many diversitystability relationships

21 in relation with many diversitystability relationships

22 Temporal variability of ecosystem functioning: a new perspective on the diversity-stability debate Tilman et al. (2006)

23 Insurance hypothesis Diversity decreases variability of ecosystem properties through asynchronous responses of species to environmental perturbation Low diversity Higher diversity levels Yachi & Loreau (1999)

24 Temperature T ( C) Plants and herbivores mortality rates m Insurance hypothesis and interactions between species H 1 H n - 1 H n Niche differentiation P 1 P n - 1 P n 30 Environmental fluctuations Degree of niche differentiation Time T(t) Thébault & Loreau (2005)

25 CV of plant and herbivore biomass CV of total herbivore biomass CV of total plant biomass Insurance hypothesis and interactions between species 0,3 Specialist herbivores H 1 H n - 1 H n 0,2 0,1 Higher degree of niche differentiation P 1 P n - 1 P n 1 0 0, ,8 0,6 0,2 0,4 0,1 0, Plant diversity Plant diversity synchronous responses asynchronous responses highly asynchronous responses Thébault & Loreau (2005)

26 CV of plant and herbivore biomass CV of total herbivore biomass CV of total plant biomass Insurance hypothesis and interactions between species 0,3 0,2 H 1 H n - 1 H n H 0,1 P 1 P n - 1 P n P , ,8 0,6 0,2 0,4 0,1 0, Plant diversity Plant diversity synchronous responses asynchronous responses highly asynchronous responses Thébault & Loreau (2005)

27 CV of plant and herbivore biomass CV of total herbivore biomass CV of total plant biomass Insurance hypothesis and interactions between species 0,3 0,2 H 1 H n - 1 H n H 1 H n - 1 0,1 P 1 P n - 1 P n P 1 P n , ,8 0,6 0,2 0,4 0,1 0, Plant diversity Plant diversity synchronous responses asynchronous responses highly asynchronous responses Thébault & Loreau (2005)

28 CV of plant and herbivore biomass CV of total herbivore biomass CV of total plant biomass Insurance hypothesis and interactions between species 0,3 0,2 H 1 H n - 1 H n H 1 H n - 1 H n 0,1 P 1 P n - 1 P n 1 P 1 P n - 1 P n 0 0, ,8 0,6 0,2 0,4 0,1 0, Plant diversity Plant diversity synchronous responses asynchronous responses highly asynchronous responses Thébault & Loreau (2005)

29 CV of plant and herbivore biomass CV of total herbivore biomass CV of total plant biomass Insurance hypothesis and interactions between species 0,3 0,2 H 1 H n - 1 H n H 1 H n - 1 H n 0,1 P 1 P n - 1 P n P 1 P n - 1 P n 1 0 0, ,8 0,6 0,2 0,4 0,1 0, Plant diversity Plant diversity synchronous responses asynchronous responses highly asynchronous responses Thébault & Loreau (2005)

30 Jiang et al Diversity promotes ecosystem stability Haddad et al. 2010

31 These contrasting views are at the origin of the complexity stability debate Today we will focus on two questions from recent works in this field: Going beyond May s work: ecological networks are not random and new model assumptions - effects of interaction type and network structure - importance of foraging adaptation

32 A diversity of interaction networks Host-parasitoid network Food web Plant-pollinator network

33 A focus on food webs 1% mutualistic webs 4% parasitic webs 94% food webs Food web Proportions of papers on ecological networks published in the last 50 years that were related to food webs, mutualistic webs and parasitic webs

34 A focus on food webs Schmid-Araya et al. 2002

35 A focus on food webs Trophic groups Modules Gauzens et al. 2015

36 Food web structure and stability Gross et al. (2009) Stouffer et al. (2011)

37 A growing number of studies on mutualistic webs Seed dispersal pollination Nested structure Continuum between specialist and generalist species Presence of a core of highly connected species Asymmetrical specialization Bascompte et al. 2003

38 A growing number of studies on mutualistic webs

39 Nestedness of mutualistic webs and stability Okuyama & Holland (2008) Rohr et al. (2014)

40 The links between network structure and stability Gross et al. (2009) Okuyama & Holland (2008)

41 The model: dynamics of mutualistic and trophic webs Mutualistic Antagonistic dai dt dpi dt r r Ai Pi A I i i P I Pi Ai A P 2 i 2 i Np j1 Na j1 1 ji 1 ij c c ij ji A P k Pkmut ( Ai ) A j i P i j P A k Akmut ( Pi ) dai dt dpi dt r r Ai Pi A I i i P I Pi Ai A P 2 i 2 i Np j1 Na j1 1 ji 1 ij c c ij ji k Pkprey( Ai ) A A P j i P i k Pkprey( Aj ) j P P -intrinsic growth rates r P and r A < 0 obligate mutualism -density dependence term -interaction term saturates with mutualistic partner densities -intrinsic growth rates r P > 0 and r A < 0 -density dependence term -interaction term saturates with prey densities

42 The model: network structure and stability connectance C = 0.05 C = 0.2 Species densities n = 80 n = 24 diversity modularity nestedness time

43 The model: network structure and stability connectance C = 0.05 C = 0.2 Species densities n = 80 n = 24 diversity modularity nestedness Persistence: proportion of species persisting at the equilibrium Resilience: measure of the speed at which a system returns to its original state after a perturbation time

44 Results: impact of network structure on species persistence Modularity Connectance Mutualistic networks Antagonistic networks Diversity Diversity Nestedness Nestedness Thébault & Fontaine 2010

45 Results: impact of network structure on species persistence Mutualistic Antagonistic Persistence Persistence Modularity Nestedness Modularity Nestedness Connectance Diversity Connectance Diversity opposite effect of network structure on the persistence of mutualistic and trophic networks Thébault & Fontaine 2010

46 Results: impact of network structure on species persistence Mutualistic Antagonistic Persistence Persistence Modularity Nestedness Modularity Nestedness Connectance Diversity Connectance Diversity indirect effect: 0.40 indirect effect: 0.18 indirect effect: indirect effect: Importance of nestedness and modularity for network stability Thébault & Fontaine 2010

47 Results: impact of network structure on resilience Mutualistic Antagonistic Resilience Resilience Modularity Nestedness Modularity Nestedness Connectance Diversity Connectance Diversity indirect effect: indirect effect: 0.13 indirect effect: indirect effect: opposite effect of network structure on the resilience of mutualistic and trophic networks Thébault & Fontaine 2010

48 Results: network structure at equilibrium Thébault & Fontaine 2010

49 Summary: comparing networks with mutualistic and antagonistic interactions The relation between structure and stability strongly differ between mutualistic and antagonistic webs Observed differences between herbivory and pollination networks suggest that network structure might differ between mutualistic and antagonistic interactions Importance of the particular architecture of interaction networks in determining their stability

50 Importance of foraging adaptation Consumers can t consume different resource species simultaneously because of the prey s patchy distribution, the capturing strategy for different preys, consumer s sensory and cognitive constraints for discriminating between preys. Bernays and Funk 1999

51 Importance of foraging adaptation Kondoh 2003

52 Importance of foraging adaptation Kondoh 2003

53 Take home message Resilience, stability and the structure of ecological networks The relationship between network structure and stability depends on the definition of stability and on the mechanisms that determine species interactions Need to be very careful about stability measures and model assumptions when you consider a study

54 Take home message Resilience, stability and the structure of ecological networks Is resilience the most appropriate measure to assess the stability of ecological networks and their response to perturbations?

55 Thank you for your attention