ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2025
Downscaling mutualistic networks from species to individuals reveals consistent interaction niches and roles within plant populations.
Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- From individuals to networks: The role of variation in plant-pollinator communities' responses to global change.The Journal of animal ecology · 2026Review
- A comprehensive, multi-method dataset of plant-frugivore interactions in a Mediterranean hotspot.Scientific data · 2026Article
- Downscaling mutualistic networks from species to individuals reveals consistent interaction niches and roles within plant populations.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Species-level networks emerge as the combination of interactions spanning multiple individuals, and their study has received considerable attention over the past 30 y. However, less is known about the structure of interaction configurations within species, even though individuals are the actual interacting units in nature. We compiled 46 empirical, individual-based, interaction networks on plant-animal seed dispersal mutualisms, comprising 1,037 plant individuals across 29 species from various regions. We compared the structure of individual-based networks to that of species-based networks and, by extending the niche concept to interaction assemblages, we explored individual plant specialization. Using a Bayesian framework to account for uncertainty derived from sampling, we examined how plant individuals "explore" the interaction niche of their populations. Both individual-based and species-based networks exhibited high variability in network properties, lacking remarkable structural and topological differences between them. Within populations, frugivores' interaction allocation among plant individuals was highly heterogeneous, with one to three frugivore species dominating interactions. Regardless of species or bioregion, plant individuals displayed a variety of interaction profiles across populations, with a consistently-small percentage of individuals playing a central role and exhibiting high diversity in their interaction assemblage. Plant populations showed variable mid to low levels of niche specialization; and individuals' interaction niche "breadth" accounted for 70% of the population interaction diversity, on average. Our results highlight how downscaling from species to individual-based networks helps understanding the structuring of interactions within ecological communities and provide an empirical basis for the extension of niche theory to complex mutualistic networks.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.