Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting 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.

  • Letter
  • Published:

Strong contributors to network persistence are the most vulnerable to extinction


The architecture of mutualistic networks facilitates coexistence of individual participants by minimizing competition relative to facilitation1,2. However, it is not known whether this benefit is received by each participant node in proportion to its overall contribution to network persistence. This issue is critical to understanding the trade-offs faced by individual nodes in a network3,4,5. We address this question by applying a suite of structural and dynamic methods to an ensemble of flowering plant/insect pollinator networks. Here we report two main results. First, nodes contribute heterogeneously to the overall nested architecture of the network. From simulations, we confirm that the removal of a strong contributor tends to decrease overall network persistence more than the removal of a weak contributor. Second, strong contributors to collective persistence do not gain individual survival benefits but are in fact the nodes most vulnerable to extinction. We explore the generality of these results to other cooperative networks by analysing a 15-year time series of the interactions between designer and contractor firms in the New York City garment industry. As with the ecological networks, a firm's survival probability decreases as its individual nestedness contribution increases. Our results, therefore, introduce a new paradox into the study of the persistence of cooperative networks, and potentially address questions about the impact of invasive species in ecological systems and new competitors in economic systems.

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: Nodes contribute to the nested architecture of the network in distinct proportions.
Figure 2: The extinction of stronger contributors leads to a decrease in network persistence.
Figure 3: Strong contributors to nestedness are the most vulnerable to extinction.

Similar content being viewed by others


  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. Sugihara, G. & Ye, H. Cooperative network dynamics. Nature 458, 979–980 (2009)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Rankin, D. J., Bargum, K. & Kokko, H. The tragedy of the commons in evolutionary biology. Trends Ecol. Evol. 22, 643–651 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Leigh, E. G. How does selection reconcile individual advantage with the good of the group? Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 74, 4542–4546 (1977)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Falster, D. S. & Westoby, M. Plant height and evolutionary games. Trends Ecol. Evol. 18, 337–343 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Axelrod, R. & Hamilton, W. D. The evolution of cooperation. Science 211, 1390–1396 (1981)

    Article  ADS  MathSciNet  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Gintis, H., Bowles, S., Boyd, R. T., Fehr, E., eds. Moral Sentiments and Material Interests: The Foundations of Cooperation in Economic Life (MIT Press, 2005)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  8. Bascompte, J. Disentangling the web of life. Science 325, 416–419 (2009)

    Article  ADS  MathSciNet  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. May, R. M., Levin, S. A. & Sugihara, G. Complex systems: ecology for bankers. Nature 451, 893–895 (2009)

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  10. Haldane, A. G. & May, R. M. Systemic risk in banking ecosystems. Nature 469, 351–355 (2011)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Saavedra, S., Reed-Tsochas, F. & Uzzi, B. A simple model of bipartite cooperation for ecological and organisational networks. Nature 457, 463–466 (2009)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Saavedra, S., Powers, S., McCotter, T., Porter, M. A. & Mucha, P. J. Mutually-antagonistic interactions in baseball networks. Physica A 389, 1131–1141 (2010)

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  13. Fowler, J. H. & Christakis, N. Cooperative behavior cascades in human social networks. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107, 5334–5338 (2010)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Weyl, E. G., Frederickson, M. E., Yu, D. W. & Pierce, N. E. Economic contract theory tests models of mutualism. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107, 15712–15716 (2010)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. 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 

  16. Bascompte, J., Jordano, P., Melián, C. J. & Olesen, J. M. The nested assembly of plant-animal mutualistic networks. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 100, 9383–9387 (2003)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. 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 

  18. Saavedra, S., Reed-Tsochas, F. & Uzzi, B. Asymmetric disassembly and robustness in declining networks. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 10, 16466–16471 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  19. De Toni, A. & Nassimbeni, G. Supply networks: genesis, stability and logistics implications. A comparative analysis of two districts. Omega 23, 403–418 (1995)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Uzzi, B. The sources and consequences of embeddedness for the economic performance of organizations: the network effect. Am. Sociol. Rev. 61, 674–698 (1996)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Doeringer, J. & Crean, S. Can fast fashion save the US apparel industry? Socioecon. Rev. 4, 353–377 (1996)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 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 

Download references


Funding was provided by the Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University, the Northwestern University Institute on Complex Systems (NICO; to S.S. and B.U.), NUCATS grant UL1RR025741 (to S.S.), a CSIC-JAE postdoctoral fellowship (to D.B.S.), the Army Research Laboratory (under cooperative agreement W911NF-09-2-0053 to B.U.), and the European Research Council under the European Community's Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) through an Advanced Grant (grant agreement 268543 to J.B.). Figures were generated with PyGrace (

Author information

Authors and Affiliations



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

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jordi Bascompte.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

This file contains Supplementary Methods, Supplementary References and Supplementary Figures 1-7 with legends. (PDF 290 kb)

PowerPoint slides

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

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

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:


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.


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