When cheating turns into a stabilizing mechanism of mutualistic networks
François Duchenne, Stéphane Aubert, Elisa Barreto, Emanuel Brenes, María A. Maglianesi, Tatiana Santander, Esteban A. Guevara, Catherine H. Graham
Abstract
Open-access reader
François Duchenne, Stéphane Aubert, Elisa Barreto, Emanuel Brenes, María A. Maglianesi, Tatiana Santander, Esteban A. Guevara, Catherine H. Graham
Abstract
Open-access reader
Abstract Mutualistic interactions, such as plant-mycorrhizal or plant-pollinator interactions, are widespread in ecological communities and frequently exploited by cheaters, species that profit from interactions without providing benefits in return. Cheating usually negatively affects the fitness of the individuals that are cheated on, but the effects of cheating at the community level remains poorly understood. Here we describe two different kinds of cheating in mutualistic networks and use a generalized Lotka-Volterra model to show that they have very different consequences for the persistence of the community. Conservative cheating, where a species cheats on its mutualistic partners to escape the cost of mutualistic interactions, negatively affects community persistence. In contrast, innovative cheating occurs with species with whom legitimate interactions are not possible, because of a physiological or morphological barrier. Innovative cheating can enhance community persistence under some conditions: when cheaters have few mutualistic partners, cheat at low or intermediate frequency and the cost associated with mutualism is not too high. In this case, the negative effects of cheating on partner persistence are over-compensated at the community level by the positive feedback loops that arise in mutualistic networks. Using an empirical dataset of plant-bird interactions, we found that observed cheating patterns are highly consistent with theoretical cheating patterns found to increase community persistence. This result suggests that the cheating patterns observed in nature could contribute to promote species coexistence in mutualistic communities, instead of necessarily destabilizing them.
OpenAlex reports 6 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.
A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.
Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Abstract Mutualistic interactions, such as plant-mycorrhizal or plant-pollinator interactions, are widespread in ecological communities and frequently exploited by cheaters, species that profit from interactions without providing benefits in return. Cheating usually negatively affects the fitness of the individuals that are cheated on, but the effects of cheating at the community level remains poorly understood. Here we describe two different kinds of cheating in mutualistic networks and use a generalized Lotka-Volterra model to show that they have very different consequences for the persistence of the community. Conservative cheating, where a species cheats on its mutualistic partners to escape the cost of mutualistic interactions, negatively affects community persistence. In contrast, innovative cheating occurs with species with whom legitimate interactions are not possible, because of a physiological or morphological barrier. Innovative cheating can enhance community persistence under some conditions: when cheaters have few mutualistic partners, cheat at low or intermediate frequency and the cost associated with mutualism is not too high. In this case, the negative effects of cheating on partner persistence are over-compensated at the community level by the positive feedback loops that arise in mutualistic networks. Using an empirical dataset of plant-bird interactions, we found that observed cheating patterns are highly consistent with theoretical cheating patterns found to increase community persistence. This result suggests that the cheating patterns observed in nature could contribute to promote species coexistence in mutualistic communities, instead of necessarily destabilizing them.
Key concepts: Cheating, Mutualism (biology), Biology, Ecology, Persistence (discontinuity), Engineering, Geotechnical engineering