Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2015 Feb 20;10(2):e0117964.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0117964. eCollection 2015.

Dynamical transitions in a pollination-herbivory interaction: a conflict between mutualism and antagonism

Affiliations

Dynamical transitions in a pollination-herbivory interaction: a conflict between mutualism and antagonism

Tomás A Revilla et al. PLoS One. .

Abstract

Plant-pollinator associations are often seen as purely mutualistic, while in reality they can be more complex. Indeed they may also display a diverse array of antagonistic interactions, such as competition and victim-exploiter interactions. In some cases mutualistic and antagonistic interactions are carried-out by the same species but at different life-stages. As a consequence, population structure affects the balance of inter-specific associations, a topic that is receiving increased attention. In this paper, we developed a model that captures the basic features of the interaction between a flowering plant and an insect with a larval stage that feeds on the plant's vegetative tissues (e.g. leaves) and an adult pollinator stage. Our model is able to display a rich set of dynamics, the most remarkable of which involves victim-exploiter oscillations that allow plants to attain abundances above their carrying capacities and the periodic alternation between states dominated by mutualism or antagonism. Our study indicates that changes in the insect's life cycle can modify the balance between mutualism and antagonism, causing important qualitative changes in the interaction dynamics. These changes in the life cycle could be caused by a variety of external drivers, such as temperature, plant nutrients, pesticides and changes in the diet of adult pollinators.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Fig 1
Fig 1. Interaction mechanism between plants (P), flowers (F), larva (L), adult insects (A) and associated biomass flows.
Clipart sources: http://etc.usf.edu/clipart/
Fig 2
Fig 2. Outcomes of the PLA model as a function of the larval maturation and herbivory rates for specialist pollinators (ϕ = 0).
The rectangular region in the bottom left is analyzed with more detail in S1 File.
Fig 3
Fig 3. Limit cycles in the PLA model (3).
Plant biomass alternates above and below the carrying capacity (dotted line). Parameters as in Table 1, with γ = 0.01, β = 10. Blue:plant, green:larva, red:adult.
Fig 4
Fig 4. Outcomes of the PLA model as a function of the larval maturation and herbivory rates for generalist pollinators (ϕ = 1).
AeLc: intersection of the Allee effect and Limit cycle zones.
Fig 5
Fig 5. Dynamics of the simplified version of the PLA model.
Plant isoclines in green and larva isoclines in blue. Several trajectories are shown (starting with *). The dotted line at x = 1 is the plant’s carrying capacity. When γσα/ην < 1 the plant’s isocline always decreases, when γσα/ην > 1, it bulges above the carrying capacity and displays a hump. (A) Damped oscillations leading to globally stable coexistence dominated by antagonism (victim–exploiter). (B) The isoclines intersect as a locally stable mutualistic equilibrium and as a saddle point. Insects can coexist with the plant or go extinct depending on the initial conditions. (C) This is similar to case (B), however, a stable mutualism occurs only after damped oscillations or the insect go extinct, depending on the initial conditions. (D) Here the system develops oscillations approaching a limit cycle (thick loop), which creates a periodic alternation between mutualism and antagonism. Common parameters in all panels are β = 10, η = 0.1, μ = 1, ϕ = 0. For the other parameters; in (A): σ = 3, ε = 0.7, α = 3, γ = 0.02, ν = 2; in (B): σ = 2.1, ε = 0.21, α = 2, γ = 0.05, ν = 1.5; in (C): σ = 3.7, ε = 0.2, α = 3, γ = 0.02, ν = 1.5; in (D): σ = 5, ε = 0.3, α = 5, γ = 0.02, ν = 2.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Bronstein J, Alarcón R, Geber M (2006) Tansley review: evolution of plant-insect mutualisms. New Phytologist 172: 412–428. 10.1111/j.1469-8137.2006.01864.x - DOI - PubMed
    1. Jones E, Bronstein J, Ferriere R (2012) The fundamental role of competition in the ecology and evolution of mutualisms. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1256: 66–88. 10.1111/j.1749-6632.2012.06552.x - DOI - PubMed
    1. Bronstein JL (1994) Conditional outcomes in mutualistic interactions. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 9: 214–217. 10.1016/0169-5347(94)90246-1 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Adler LS, Bronstein JL (2004) Attracting antagonists: Does floral nectar increase leaf herbivory? Ecology 85: 1519–1526. 10.1890/03-0409 - DOI
    1. Wäckers FL, Romeis J, van Rijn P (2007) Nectar and pollen feeding by insect herbivores and implications for multitrophic interactions. Annual Review of Entomology 52: 301–323. 10.1146/annurev.ento.52.110405.091352 - DOI - PubMed

Publication types