A general framework for effectiveness concepts in mutualisms

A core interest in studies of mutualistic interactions is the ‘effectiveness’ of mutualists in providing benefits to their partners. In plant‐animal mutualisms it is widely accepted that the total effect of a mutualist on its partner is estimated as (1) a ‘quantity’ component multiplied by (2) a ‘qu...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Ecology letters Vol. 20; no. 5; pp. 577 - 590
Main Authors: Schupp, Eugene W., Jordano, Pedro, Gómez, José María, Hille Ris Lambers, Janneke
Format: Journal Article
Language:English
Published: England Blackwell Publishing Ltd 01-05-2017
Subjects:
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:A core interest in studies of mutualistic interactions is the ‘effectiveness’ of mutualists in providing benefits to their partners. In plant‐animal mutualisms it is widely accepted that the total effect of a mutualist on its partner is estimated as (1) a ‘quantity’ component multiplied by (2) a ‘quality’ component, although the meanings of ‘effectiveness,’ ‘quantity,’ and ‘quality’ and which terms are applied to these metrics vary greatly across studies. In addition, a similar quantity × quality = total effect approach has not been applied to other types of mutualisms, although it could be informative. Lastly, when a total effect approach has been applied, it has invariably been from a phytocentric perspective, focussing on the effects of animal mutualists on their plant partner. This lack of a common framework of ‘effectiveness’ of mutualistic interactions limits generalisation and the development of a broader understanding of the ecology and evolution of mutualisms. In this paper, we propose a general framework and demonstrate its utility by applying it to both partners in five different types of mutualisms: pollination, seed dispersal, plant protection, rhizobial, and mycorrhizal mutualisms. We then briefly discuss the flexibility of the framework, potential limitations, and relationship to other approaches.
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 23
ISSN:1461-023X
1461-0248
DOI:10.1111/ele.12764