Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Brief Communications Arising
  • Published:

“Disentangling nestedness” disentangled

Abstract

Arising from A. James, J. W. Pitchford & M. J. Plank Nature 487, 227–230 (2012)10.1038/nature11214

Analytical research indicates that the ‘nestedness’ of mutualistic networks facilitates the coexistence of species by minimizing the costs of competition relative to the benefits of facilitation1. In contrast, James et al.2 recently argued that a more parsimonious explanation exists: the persistence of a community and its constituent species depends more on their having many interactions (high connectance and high degree, respectively) than for these interactions to be organized in any particular manner. Here we demonstrate that these conclusions are an unintended consequence of the fact that the methodology of ref. 2 directly changed the number of interactions of each species—and hence their expected persistence. When these changes are taken into account, we find a significant, positive relationship between nestedness and network persistence that reconfirms the importance of nestedness in mutualistic communities1,3. There is a Reply to this Brief Communication Arising by James, A., Pitchford, J. W. & Plank, M. J. Nature 500, http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature12381 (2013).

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1: Within our regression analysis, the relationship between nestedness and persistence in mutualistic networks depends integrally on changes in the degree distributions of the networks.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bastolla, U. et al. The architecture of mutualistic networks minimizes competition and increases biodiversity. Nature 458, 1018–1020 (2009)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. James, A., Pitchford, J. W. & Plank, M. J. Disentangling nestedness from models of ecological complexity. Nature 487, 227–230 (2012)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Thébault, E. & Fontaine, C. Stability of ecological communities and the architecture of mutualistic and trophic networks. Science 329, 853–856 (2010)

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  4. Jordano, P., Bascompte, J. & Olesen, J. M. Invariant properties in coevolutionary networks of plant-animal interactions. Ecol. Lett. 6, 69–81 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Fortuna, M. A. et al. Nestedness versus modularity in ecological networks: two sides of the same coin? J. Anim. Ecol. 79, 811–817 (2010)

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Saavedra, S., Stouffer, D. B., Uzzi, B. & Bascompte, J. Strong contributors to network persistence are the most vulnerable to extinction. Nature 478, 233–235 (2011)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Stouffer, D. B., Camacho, J., Guimerà, R., Ng, C. A. & Amaral, L. A. N. Quantitative patterns in the structure of model and empirical food webs. Ecology 86, 1301–1311 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Rezende, E. L., Lavabre, J. E., Guimarães, P. R., Jordano, P. & Bascompte, J. Non-random coextinctions in phylogenetically structured mutualistic networks. Nature 448, 925–928 (2007)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Almeida-Neto, M., Guimarães, P., Guimarães, P. R., Jr, Loyola, R. D. & Urlich, W. A consistent metric for nestedness analysis in ecological systems: reconciling concept and measurement. Oikos 117, 1227–1239 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Ulrich, W., Almeida-Neto, M. & Gotelli, N. J. A consumer’s guide to nestedness analysis. Oikos 118, 3–17 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Gotelli, N. J. & Ulrich, W. Statistical challenges in null model analysis. Oikos 121, 171–180 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Williams, R. J. Biology, methodology or chance? the degree distributions of bipartite ecological networks. PLoS ONE 6, e17645 (2011)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Allesina, S. Ecology: the more the merrier. Nature 487, 175–176 (2012)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Bascompte, J. & Jordano, P. The structure of plant-animal mutualistic networks: the architecture of biodiversity. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 38, 567–593 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Zuur, A., Ieno, E. N., Walker, N., Saveiliev, A. A. & Smith, G. M. Mixed Effects Models and Extensions in Ecology with R (Springer, 2009)

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

S.S. and D.B.S. designed the study, performed the simulations, analysed the data and wrote the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Daniel B. Stouffer.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

Declared none.

PowerPoint slides

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Saavedra, S., Stouffer, D. “Disentangling nestedness” disentangled. Nature 500, E1–E2 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1038/nature12380

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nature12380

This article is cited by

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing