You are in the accessibility menu

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://acervodigital.unesp.br/handle/11449/20369
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorGenini, Julieta-
dc.contributor.authorMorellato, Leonor Patricia Cerdeira-
dc.contributor.authorGuimaraes, Paulo R.-
dc.contributor.authorOlesen, Jens M.-
dc.date.accessioned2013-09-30T18:47:58Z-
dc.date.accessioned2014-05-20T13:57:06Z-
dc.date.accessioned2016-10-25T17:06:09Z-
dc.date.available2013-09-30T18:47:58Z-
dc.date.available2014-05-20T13:57:06Z-
dc.date.available2016-10-25T17:06:09Z-
dc.date.issued2010-08-23-
dc.identifierhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2009.1021-
dc.identifier.citationBiology Letters. London: Royal Soc, v. 6, n. 4, p. 494-497, 2010.-
dc.identifier.issn1744-9561-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11449/20369-
dc.identifier.urihttp://acervodigital.unesp.br/handle/11449/20369-
dc.description.abstractMutualism-network studies assume that all interacting species are mutualistic partners and consider that all links are of one kind. However, the influence of different types of links, such as cheating links, on network organization remains unexplored. We studied two flower-visitation networks (Malpighiaceae and Bignoniaceae and their flower visitors), and divide the types of link into cheaters (i.e. robbers and thieves of flower rewards) and effective pollinators. We investigated if there were topological differences among networks with and without cheaters, especially with respect to nestedness and modularity. The Malpighiaceae network was nested, but not modular, and it was dominated by pollinators and had much fewer cheater species than Bignoniaceae network (28% versus 75%). The Bignoniaceae network was mainly a plant-cheater network, being modular because of the presence of pollen robbers and showing no nestedness. In the Malpighiaceae network, removal of cheaters had no major consequences for topology. In contrast, removal of cheaters broke down the modularity of the Bignoniaceae network. As cheaters are ubiquitous in all mutualisms, the results presented here show that they have a strong impact upon network topology.en
dc.description.sponsorshipFundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP)-
dc.description.sponsorshipConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq)-
dc.description.sponsorshipFNU-
dc.format.extent494-497-
dc.language.isoeng-
dc.publisherRoyal Soc-
dc.sourceWeb of Science-
dc.subjectcheatersen
dc.subjectmodularityen
dc.subjectnestednessen
dc.subjectnetwork topologyen
dc.subjectpollinationen
dc.titleCheaters in mutualism networksen
dc.typeoutro-
dc.contributor.institutionUniversidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)-
dc.contributor.institutionUniversidade de São Paulo (USP)-
dc.contributor.institutionAarhus University (AU)-
dc.description.affiliationUNESP Univ Estadual Paulista, Inst Biociencias, Lab Fenol, Dept Bot, BR-13506900 Rio Claro, SP, Brazil-
dc.description.affiliationUniv São Paulo, Inst Biociencias, Dept Ecol, BR-05508900 São Paulo, Brazil-
dc.description.affiliationAarhus Univ, Dept Biol Sci, DK-8000 Aarhus, Denmark-
dc.description.affiliationUnespUNESP Univ Estadual Paulista, Inst Biociencias, Lab Fenol, Dept Bot, BR-13506900 Rio Claro, SP, Brazil-
dc.identifier.doi10.1098/rsbl.2009.1021-
dc.identifier.wosWOS:000279725700015-
dc.rights.accessRightsAcesso restrito-
dc.relation.ispartofBiology Letters-
Appears in Collections:Artigos, TCCs, Teses e Dissertações da Unesp

There are no files associated with this item.
 

Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.