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.

Higher-order interactions stabilize dynamics in competitive network models

Abstract

Ecologists have long sought a way to explain how the remarkable biodiversity observed in nature is maintained. On the one hand, simple models of interacting competitors cannot produce the stable persistence of very large ecological communities1,2,3,4,5. On the other hand, neutral models6,7,8,9, in which species do not interact and diversity is maintained by immigration and speciation, yield unrealistically small fluctuations in population abundance10, and a strong positive correlation between a species’ abundance and its age11, contrary to empirical evidence. Models allowing for the robust persistence of large communities of interacting competitors are lacking. Here we show that very diverse communities could persist thanks to the stabilizing role of higher-order interactions12,13, in which the presence of a species influences the interaction between other species. Although higher-order interactions have been studied for decades14,15,16, their role in shaping ecological communities is still unclear5. The inclusion of higher-order interactions in competitive network models stabilizes dynamics, making species coexistence robust to the perturbation of both population abundance and parameter values. We show that higher-order interactions have strong effects in models of closed ecological communities, as well as of open communities in which new species are constantly introduced. In our framework, higher-order interactions are completely defined by pairwise interactions, facilitating empirical parameterization and validation of our models.

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

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

$32.00

All prices are NET prices.

Figure 1: Sampling two seedlings leads to neutral cycles.
Figure 2: Sampling three seedlings produces stability.

References

  1. May, R. M. Will a large complex system be stable? Nature 238, 413–414 (1972)

    Article  CAS  ADS  Google Scholar 

  2. Clark, J. S. et al. High-dimensional coexistence based on individual variation: a synthesis of evidence. Ecol. Monogr. 80, 569–608 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Barabás, G. J., Michalska-Smith, M. & Allesina, S. The effect of intra- and interspecific competition on coexistence in multispecies communities. Am. Nat. 188, E1–E12 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. D’Andrea, R. & Ostling, A. Challenges in linking trait patterns to niche differentiation. Oikos 125, 1369–1385 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Levine, J., Bascompte, J., Adler, P. & Allesina, S. Beyond pairwise coexistence: biodiversity maintenance in complex ecological communities. Nature 546, 56–64 (2017)

    Article  CAS  ADS  Google Scholar 

  6. Hubbell, S. P. The Unified Neutral Theory of Biodiversity and Biogeography Vol. 32 (Princeton Univ. Press, 2001)

  7. Volkov, I., Banavar, J. R., Hubbell, S. P. & Maritan, A. Neutral theory and relative species abundance in ecology. Nature 424, 1035–1037 (2003)

    Article  CAS  ADS  Google Scholar 

  8. Alonso, D., Etienne, R. S. & McKane, A. J. The merits of neutral theory. Trends Ecol. Evol. 21, 451–457 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Azaele, S. et al. Statistical mechanics of ecological systems: neutral theory and beyond. Rev. Mod. Phys. 88, 035003 (2016)

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  10. Chisholm, R. A. et al. Temporal variability of forest communities: empirical estimates of population change in 4000 tree species. Ecol. Lett. 17, 855–865 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Chisholm, R. A. & O’Dwyer, J. P. Species ages in neutral biodiversity models. Theor. Popul. Biol. 93, 85–94 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Billick, I. & Case, T. J. Higher order interactions in ecological communities: what are they and how can they be detected? Ecology 75, 1529–1543 (1994)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Werner, E. E. & Peacor, S. D. A review of trait-mediated indirect interactions in ecological communities. Ecology 84, 1083–1100 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Case, T. J. & Bender, E. A. Testing for higher order interactions. Am. Nat. 118, 920–929 (1981)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  15. Abrams, P. A. Arguments in favor of higher order interactions. Am. Nat. 121, 887–891 (1983)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Kareiva, P. Higher order interactions as a foil to reductionist ecology. Ecology 75, 1527–1528 (1994)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Friedman, J., Higgins, L. M. & Gore, J. Community structure follows simple assembly rules in microbial microcosms. Nature Ecol. Evol. 1, 0109 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Fisher, D. C. & Ryan, J. Optimal strategies for a generalized “scissors, paper, and stone” game. Am. Math. Mon. 99, 935–942 (1992)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  19. Allesina, S. & Levine, J. M. A competitive network theory of species diversity. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 5638–5642 (2011)

    Article  CAS  ADS  Google Scholar 

  20. Kerr, B., Riley, M. A., Feldman, M. W. & Bohannan, B. J. Local dispersal promotes biodiversity in a real-life game of rock–paper–scissors. Nature 418, 171–174 (2002)

    Article  CAS  ADS  Google Scholar 

  21. Taylor, P. D. & Jonker, L. B. Evolutionary stable strategies and game dynamics. Math. Biosci. 40, 145–156 (1978)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  22. Hofbauer, J., Schuster, P. & Sigmund, K. A note on evolutionary stable strategies and game dynamics. J. Theor. Biol. 81, 609–612 (1979)

    Article  CAS  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  23. Hofbauer, J. & Sigmund, K. Evolutionary game dynamics. Bull. Am. Math. Soc. 40, 479–520 (2003)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  24. Nowak, M. A. & Sigmund, K. Evolutionary dynamics of biological games. Science 303, 793–799 (2004)

    Article  CAS  ADS  Google Scholar 

  25. Brandl, F. The distribution of optimal strategies in symmetric zero-sum games. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/1611.06845 (2016)

  26. Fisher, D. C. & Reeves, R. B. Optimal strategies for random tournament games. Linear Algebra Appl. 217, 83–85 (1995)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  27. Laslier, B. & Laslier, J.-F. Reinforcement learning from comparisons: Three alternatives is enough, two is not. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/1301.5734 (2013)

  28. Wootton, J. T. Indirect effects and habitat use in an intertidal community: interaction chains and interaction modifications. Am. Nat. 141, 71–89 (1993)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Bairey, E., Kelsic, E. D. & Kishony, R. High-order species interactions shape ecosystem diversity. Nat. Commun. 7, 12285 (2016)

    Article  CAS  ADS  Google Scholar 

  30. Reichenbach, T., Mobilia, M. & Frey, E. Coexistence versus extinction in the stochastic cyclic Lotka-Volterra model. Phys. Rev. E 74, 051907 (2006)

    Article  ADS  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank J. Aljadeff, F. Brandl, J. A. Capitán, J.-F. Laslier, J. M. Levine, C. A. Marcelo Serván and E. Sander for comments and discussions. E. Leigh provided constructive feedback. J.G. was supported by the Human Frontier Science Program. S.A. and G.B. were supported by NSF grant DEB-1148867. M.J.M-S. was supported by US Department of Education grant P200A150101.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

S.A. conceived the study, and drafted the manuscript and the code. J.G. performed the analysis of the models. All authors edited the manuscript and code.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stefano Allesina.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Additional information

Reviewer Information Nature thanks D. Alonso, R. Chisholm, R. Laird, J. O’Dwyer and the other anonymous reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Publisher's note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

This file contains Supplementary Text and Data, Supplementary Figures 1-10 and Supplementary References. (PDF 3848 kb)

PowerPoint slides

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Grilli, J., Barabás, G., Michalska-Smith, M. et al. Higher-order interactions stabilize dynamics in competitive network models. Nature 548, 210–213 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/nature23273

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nature23273

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