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.

Coexistence of nestedness and modularity in host–pathogen infection networks

Nature Ecology & Evolution volume 4, pages 568–577 (2020)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

The long-term coevolution of hosts and pathogens in their environment forms a complex web of multi-scale interactions. Understanding how environmental heterogeneity affects the structure of host–pathogen networks is a prerequisite for predicting disease dynamics and emergence. Although nestedness is common in ecological networks, and theory suggests that nested ecosystems are less prone to dynamic instability, why nestedness varies in time and space is not fully understood. Many studies have been limited by a focus on single habitats and the absence of a link between spatial variation and structural heterogeneity such as nestedness and modularity. Here we propose a neutral model for the evolution of host–pathogen networks in multiple habitats. In contrast to previous studies, our study proposes that local modularity can coexist with global nestedness, and shows that real ecosystems are found in a continuum between nested-modular and nested networks driven by intraspecific competition. Nestedness depends on neutral mechanisms of community assembly, whereas modularity is contingent on local adaptation and competition. The structural pattern may change spatially and temporally but remains stable over evolutionary timescales. We validate our theoretical predictions with a longitudinal study of plant–virus interactions in a heterogeneous agricultural landscape.

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

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

from$1.95

to$39.95

Learn more

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

Fig. 1: Hypergraph representation of environmentally mediated host–pathogen infections.
Fig. 2: Neutral evolution of infection networks.
Fig. 3: Emergence of host ecotypes depends on habitat diversity.
Fig. 4: Theoretical predictions for the coexistence of nestedness and modularity.
Fig. 5: Modularity of plant–virus infections from 2000 to 2002 in an agricultural landscape in central Spain.
Fig. 6: Seasonal variation of bridgeness and modularity in empirical EPNs.

Data availability

The network data are available via Dryad at https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.253hr.

Code availability

For the analysis of nestedness and modularity we used the open-source software packages FALCON (https://github.com/sjbeckett/FALCON) and BiMat (http://bimat.github.io). Network simulation codes will be provided by the authors upon reasonable request.

References

  1. Handel, A., Lebarbenchon, C., Stallknecht, D. & Rohani, P. Trade-offs between and within scales: environmental persistence and within-host fitness of avian influenza viruses. Proc. R. Soc. B 281, 20133051 (2014).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Laine, A.-L. Evolution of host resistance: looking for coevolutionary hotspots at small spatial scales. Proc. R. Soc. B 273, 267–273 (2006).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Hamer, G. L. et al. Fine-scale variation in vector host use and force of infection drive localized patterns of West Nile virus transmission. PLoS ONE 6, e23767 (2011).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Viana, M. et al. Dynamics of a morbillivirus at the domestic-wildlife interface: canine distemper virus in domestic dogs and lions. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, 1464–1469 (2015).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Blumenthal, D., Mitchell, C. E., Pysek, P. & Jarosík, V. Synergy between pathogen release and resource availability in plant invasion. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106, 7899–7904 (2009).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. McLeish, M., Sacristán, S., Fraile, A. & García-Arenal, F. Scale dependencies and generalism in host use shape virus prevalence. Proc. R. Soc. B 284, 20172066 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Carlsson-Granér, U. & Thrall, P. H. Host resistance and pathogen infectivity in host populations with varying connectivity. Ecol. Lett. 69, 926–938 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  8. Martinez, M. E. The calendar of epidemics: seasonal cycles of infectious diseases. PLoS Pathog. 14, e1007327 (2018).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. McLeish, M., Fraile, A. & García-Arenal, F. Ecological complexity in plant virus host range evolution. Adv. Virus Res. 101, 293–339 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Ostfeld, R. S. & Keesing, F. The function of biodiversity in the ecology of vector-borne zoonotic diseases. Can. J. Zool. 78, 2061–2078 (2000).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Gurarie, D. & Seto, E. Y. W. Connectivity sustains disease transmission in environments with low potential for endemicity: modelling schistosomiasis with hydrologic and social connectivities. J. R. Soc. Interface 6, 495–508 (2009).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Yang, H., Tang, M. & Gross, T. Large epidemic thresholds emerge in heterogeneous networks of heterogeneous nodes. Sci. Rep. 5, 13122 (2015).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Webster, J. P., Borlase, A. & Rudge, J. W. Who acquires infection from whom and how? Disentangling multi-host and multi-mode transmission dynamics in the ‘elimination’ era. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B. 372, 20160091 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Lewinsohn, T. M., Prado, P. I., Jordano, P., Bascompte, J. & Olesen, J. M. Structure in plant–animal interaction assemblages. Oikos 113, 174–184 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Ings, T. C. et al. Ecological networks—beyond food webs. J. Animal Ecol. 78, 253–269 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Blüthgen, N., Fründ, J., Vázquez, D. P. & Menzel, F. What do interaction network metrics tell us about specialization and biological traits? Ecology 89, 3387–3399 (2008).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Blüthgen, N. Why network analysis is often disconnected from community ecology: a critique and an ecologist’s guide. Basic Appl. Ecol. 11, 185–195 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Dormann, C. F., Fründ, J. & Schaefer, H. M. Identifying causes of patterns in ecological networks: opportunities and limitations. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 48, 559–584 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Pawar, S. Why are plant–pollinator networks nested? Science 345, 383 (2014).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Krause, A. E., Frank, K. A., Mason, D. M., Ulanowicz, R. E. & Taylor, W. W. Compartments revealed in food-web structure. Nature 426, 282–285 (2003).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. 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 

  23. Weitz, J. S. et al. Phage–bacteria infection networks. Trends Microbiol. 21, 82–91 (2013).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Guimarães, P. R. et al. Interaction intimacy affects structure and coevolutionary dynamics in mutualistic networks. Curr. Biol. 17, 1797–1803 (2007).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Pires, M. M. & Guimarães, P. R. Interaction intimacy organizes networks of antagonistic interactions in different ways. J. R. Soc. Interface 10, 20120649 (2013).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Poulin, R. Network analysis shining light on parasite ecology and diversity. Trends Parasitol. 26, 492–498 (2010).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Bellay, S. et al. The patterns of organisation and structure of interactions in a fish–parasite network of a neoropical river. Int. J. Parasitol. 45, 549–557 (2015).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Vazquez, D. P., Poulin, R., Krasnov, B. R. & Shenbrot, G. I. Species abundance and the distribution of specialization in host–parasite interaction networks. J. Anim. Ecol. 74, 946–955 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Krasnov, B., Mouillot, D., Khokhlova, I., Shenbrot, G. I. & Poulin, R. Compositional and phylogenetic dissimilarity of host communities drives dissimilarity of ectoparasite assemblages: geographical variation and scale-dependence. Parasitology 139, 338–347 (2012).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Morris, R. J., Gripenberg, S., Lweis, O. T. & Roslin, T. Antagonistic interaction networks are structured independently of latitude and host guild. Ecol. Lett. 17, 340–349 (2014).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Maunsell, S. C., Kitching, R. L., Burwell, C. J. & Morris, R. J. Changes in host–parasitoid food web structure with elevation. J. Animal Ecol. 84, 353–363 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Fortuna, M. A. et al. Coevolutionary dynamics shape the structure of bacteria–phage infection networks. Evolution 73, 1001–1011 (2019).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Janzen, D. H. On ecological fitting. Oikos 45, 308–310 (1985).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Agosta, S. J. & Klemens, J. A. Ecological fitting by phenotypically flexible genotypes: implications for species associations, community assembly and evolution. Ecol. Lett. 11, 1123–1134 (2008).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Agosta, S. J. & Klemens, J. A. Resource specialization in a phytophagous insect: no evidence for genetically based performance trade-offs across hosts in the field or laboratory. J. Evol. Biol. 22, 907–912 (2009).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Wells, K. & Clark, N. J. Host specificity in variable environments. Trends Parsitol. 35, 452–465 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Golubski, A. J., Westlund, E. E., Vandermeer, J. & Pascual, M. Ecological networks over the edge: hypergraph trait-mediated indirect interaction (TMII) structure. Trends Ecol. Evol. 31, 344–354 (2016).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Gould, S. J. & Lewontin, R. C. The spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian paradigm: a critique of the adaptionist programme. Proc. R. Soc. B 205, 581–598 (1979).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Barrett, R. D. & Hoekstra, H. E. Molecular spandrels: tests of adaptation at the genetic level. Nat. Rev. Genet. 12, 767–780 (2011).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Valverde, S. et al. The architecture of mutualistic networks as an evolutionary spandrel. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2, 94–99 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Maynard, D. S., Serván, C. A. & Allesina, S. Network spandrels reflect ecological assembly. Ecol. Lett. 21, 324–334 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Acevedo, M. A., Dillemuth, F. P., Flick, A., Faldyn, M. J. & Elderd, B. D. Virulence-driven trade-offs in disease transmission: a meta-analysis. Evolution 73, 636–647 (2019).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Ashby, B., Gupta, S. & Buckling, A. Spatial structure mitigates fitness costs in host–parasite coevolution. Am. Nat. 183, E64–E74 (2014).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Woolhouse, M. E. J. & Gowtage-Sequeria, S. Host range and emerging and reemerging pathogens. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 11, 1842–1847 (2005).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Weiher, E. & Keddy, P. A. Assembly rules, null models, and trait dispersion: new questions from old patterns. Oikos 74, 159–164 (1995).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Ulrich, W. & Gotelli, N. J. Null model analysis of species nestedness patterns. Ecology 88, 1824–1831 (2007).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Bello, Fde The quest for trait convergence and divergence in community assembly: are null-models the magic wand? Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 21, 312–317 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Feng, W. & Takemoto, K. Heterogeneity in ecological mutualistic networks dominantly determines community stability. Sci. Rep. 4, 5912 (2014).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. Jonhson, S., Domínguez-García, V. & Muñoz, M. A. Factors determining nestedness in complex networks. PLoS ONE 8, e74025 (2013).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Pellissier, L. Stability and the competition-dispersal trade-off as drivers of speciation and biodiversity gradients. Front. Ecol. 3, 00052 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  52. Levins, R. & Culver, D. Regional coexistence of species and competition between rare species. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 68, 1246–1248 (1971).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. Fitzpatrick, B. M., Fordyce, J. A. & Gavrilets, S. What, if anything, is sympatric speciation? J. Evol. Biol. 21, 1452–1459 (2008).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Flores, C. O., Valverde, S. & Weitz, J. S. Multi-scale structure and geographic drivers of cross-infection within marine bacteria and phages. ISME J. 7, 520–532 (2013).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Beckett, S. J. & Williams, H. T. P. Coevolutionary diversification creates nested-modular structure in phage-bacteria interaction networks. Interface Focus 3, 20130033 (2013).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Keyser, C. A., De Fine Licht, H. H., Steinwender, B. M. & Meyling, N. V. Diversity within the entomopathogenic fungal species Metarhizium flavoviride associated with agricultural crops in Denmark. BMC Microbiol. 15, 249 (2015).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  58. Büchi, L. & Vuilleumier, S. Ecological strategies in stable and disturbed environments depend on species specialization. Oikos 125, 1408–1420 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Poisot, T. & Gravel, D. When is an ecological network complex? Connectance drives degree distribution and emerging network properties. PeerJ 2, e251 (2014).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  60. Nebreda, M. et al. Activity of aphids associated with lettuce and broccoli in Spain and their efficiency as vectors of lettuce mosaic virus. Virus Res. 100, 83–88 (2004).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Nebreda, M., Michelena, J. M. & Fereres, A. Seasonal abundance of aphid species on lettuce crops in central Spain and identification of their main parasitoids. J. Plant Dis. Prot. 112, 405–415 (2005).

    Google Scholar 

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

  63. Fournier-Level, A. et al. A map of local adaptation in Arabidopsis thaliana. Science 334, 86–89 (2011).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Hendrick, M. F. et al. The genetics of extreme microgeographic adaptation: an integrated approach identifies a major gene underlying leaf trichome divergence in Yellowstone Mimulus guttatus. Mol. Ecol. 25, 5647–5662 (2016).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Kawecki, T. J. & Ebert, D. Conceptual issues in local adaptation. Ecol. Lett. 7, 1225–1241 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Sacristán, S., Fraile, A. & García-Arenal, F. Population dynamics of cucumber mosaic virus in melon crops and in weeds in central Spain. Phytopathology 94, 992–998 (2004).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. MacArthur, R. H., & Wilson, E. O. The Theory of Island Biogeography (Princeton Univ. Press, 1967).

  68. Newman, M. E. J. Networks: An Introduction (Oxford Univ. Press, 2010).

  69. Susi, H., Vale, P. F. & Laine, A.-L. Host genotype and coinfection modify the relationship of within and between host transmission. Am. Nat. 186, 252–263 (2015).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Atmar, W. & Patterson, B. D. The measure of order and disorder in the distribution of species in fragmented habitat. Oecologia 96, 373–382 (1993).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Staniczenko, P. P. A., Kopp, J. C. & Allesina, S. The ghost of nestedness in ecological networks. Nat. Commun. 4, 1391 (2013).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Wigner, E. P. Characteristic vectors of bordered matrices with infinite dimensions. Ann. Math. 62, 548–564 (1955).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Nepusz, T., Petróczi, A., Négyessy, L. & Bazsó, F. Fuzzy communities and the concept of bridgeness in complex networks. Phys. Rev. E 77, 016107 (2008).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  74. Newman, M. E. J. & Girvan, M. Finding and evaluating community structure in networks. Phys. Rev. E 69, 026113 (2004).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  75. Trajanovski, H., Wang, H. & Van Mieghem, P. Maximum modular graphs. Eur. Phys. J. B 85, 244 (2012).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank L. Alsedà, J. Sardanyés, T. Lázaro, S. Duran-Nebreda, N. Conde and R. Solé for useful comments and discussions. This work was supported by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness, grant FIS2016-77447-R MINEICO/AEI/ FEDER and the European Union (to S.V.), and by grant RTI2018-094302-B-I00, Plan Estatal de I+D+i, Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness (to F.G.-A.). B.V. and R.M. were funded by the PR01018-EC-H2020-FET-Open MADONNA project.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Evolution of Technology Laboratory, Institute of Evolutionary Biology, CSIC–Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, Spain

    Sergi Valverde

  2. European Centre for Living Technology, Venice, Italy

    Sergi Valverde

  3. ICREA–Complex Systems Laboratory, Health and Experimental Science Department, Institute of Evolutionary Biology, CSIC–Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, Spain

    Blai Vidiella & Raúl Montañez

  4. Centro de Biotecnología y Genómica de Plantas (CBGP), Universidad Politécnica de Madrid (UPM) and Instituto nacional de Investigación y Tecnología Agraria y Alimentaria (INIA) and E.T.S.I. Agronómica, Alimentaria y de Biosistemas, Campus de Montegancedo, UPM, Madrid, Spain

    Aurora Fraile, Soledad Sacristán & Fernando García-Arenal

Authors
  1. Sergi Valverde
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Blai Vidiella
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Raúl Montañez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Aurora Fraile
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Soledad Sacristán
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Fernando García-Arenal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

S.V. and F.G.-A. designed and coordinated the study, S.V. conceived the theoretical framework and led its development. B.V. and S.V. contributed to the mean-field model. S.V., R.M. and B.V. developed the network analysis, S.S., A.F. and F.G.-A. collected field samples and the plant–virus network data. S.V. generated all the final illustrations and plots. S.V. and F.G.-A. wrote the manuscript. All authors made revisions and approved the final draft.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Sergi Valverde or Fernando García-Arenal.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

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

Extended data

Extended Data Fig. 1 Summary of statistics for full and seasonal subnetworks.

From left to right: pathogen richness Np, host richness Nh, ecotype richness Nt, number of habitats C, host habitat specificity Nt/Nh, average species degree k, habitat modularity Qc, average bridgeness B, spectral radius ρ(A) (a quantitative measure of nestedness), and statistical significance of nestedness.

Extended Data Fig. 2 Summary of statistics for habitat subnetworks.

From left to right, relative fraction of species richness Nk/N, local ecotype richness \(N_p^k\), local pathogen species richness \(N_t^k\), and local habitat modularity \(Q_c^k\). For reference, the first row gives the corresponding values in the full network (N0 = N, \(N_p^0 = N_p\), \(N_t^0 = N_t\) and \(Q_c^0 = Q_c = Q_c^1 + Q_c^2 + Q_c^3 + Q_c^4\)).

Extended Data Fig. 3 Exploration of the theoretical morphospace of ecotype-pathogen networks.

Nestedness is an invariant feature of this morphospace, while modularity is not and depends on speciation rates. This can be appreciated in the structure of networks generated for different combinations of pathogen and host speciation rates. The model predicts habitat modularity increases with habitat specificity. For example, (D) is a highly modular network, while (A) is not because only a few host species (blue nodes) in the former network share multiple habitats (green balls). The black line depicts the intersection of average bridgeness and habitat modularity, which separates low and intermediate modular networks (dark green region) from highly modular networks (light green) (see Supplementary Section 5 for details).

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Figs. 1–20, discussion and Table 1.

Reporting Summary

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Valverde, S., Vidiella, B., Montañez, R. et al. Coexistence of nestedness and modularity in host–pathogen infection networks. Nat Ecol Evol 4, 568–577 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-020-1130-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-020-1130-9

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced 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