Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38150463›Full record

ArticlePLoS biology2023

When cheating turns into a stabilizing mechanism of plant-pollinator communities.

François Duchenne, Stéphane Aubert, Elisa Barreto, Emanuel Brenes, María A Maglianesi, Tatiana Santander, Esteban A Guevara, Catherine H Graham

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS biology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
4.8field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

François DuchenneSwiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research (WSL), Birmensdorf, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-6917-8013
Stéphane AubertSwiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research (WSL), Birmensdorf, Switzerland.
Elisa BarretoSwiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research (WSL), Birmensdorf, Switzerland.
Emanuel BrenesEscuela de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales, Universidad Estatal a Distancia (UNED), San Pedro de Montes de Oca, San José, Costa Rica.
María A MaglianesiEscuela de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales, Universidad Estatal a Distancia (UNED), San Pedro de Montes de Oca, San José, Costa Rica.
Tatiana SantanderAves y Conservación (BirdLife Ecuador), Quito, Ecuador.
Esteban A GuevaraSwiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research (WSL), Birmensdorf, Switzerland.
Catherine H GrahamSwiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research (WSL), Birmensdorf, Switzerland.
Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research · CHDistance State University · CR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Mutualistic interactions, such as plant-mycorrhizal or plant-pollinator interactions, are widespread in ecological communities and frequently exploited by cheaters, species that profit from interactions without providing benefits in return. Cheating usually negatively affects the fitness of the individuals that are cheated on, but the effects of cheating at the community level remains poorly understood. Here, we describe 2 different kinds of cheating in mutualistic networks and use a generalized Lotka-Volterra model to show that they have very different consequences for the persistence of the community. Conservative cheating, where a species cheats on its mutualistic partners to escape the cost of mutualistic interactions, negatively affects community persistence. In contrast, innovative cheating occurs with species with whom legitimate interactions are not possible, because of a physiological or morphological barrier. Innovative cheating can enhance community persistence under some conditions: when cheaters have few mutualistic partners, cheat at low or intermediate frequency and the cost associated with mutualism is not too high. Under these conditions, the negative effects of cheating on partner persistence are overcompensated at the community level by the positive feedback loops that arise in diverse mutualistic communities. Using an empirical dataset of plant-bird interactions (hummingbirds and flowerpiercers), we found that observed cheating patterns are highly consistent with theoretical cheating patterns found to increase community persistence. This result suggests that the cheating patterns observed in nature could contribute to promote species coexistence in mutualistic communities, instead of necessarily destabilizing them.

Indexed as

MycorrhizaeBiotaHumansPlantsSymbiosis

Identifiers

PMID38150463
PMCPMC10752559
OpenAlexW4390264904

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.