Biological interaction

In ecology, a biological interaction is the effect that a pair of organisms living together in a community have on each other. They can be either of the same species (intraspecific interactions), or of different species (interspecific interactions). These effects may be short-term, or long-term, both often strongly influence the adaptation and evolution of the species involved. Biological interactions range from mutualism, beneficial to both partners, to competition, harmful to both partners. Interactions can be direct when physical contact is established or indirect, through intermediaries such as shared resources, territories, ecological services, metabolic waste, toxins or growth inhibitors. This type of relationship can be shown by net effect based on individual effects on both organisms arising out of relationship.

The black walnut secretes a chemical from its roots that harms neighboring plants, an example of competitive antagonism.

Several recent studies have suggested non-trophic species interactions such as habitat modification and mutualisms can be important determinants of food web structures. However, it remains unclear whether these findings generalize across ecosystems, and whether non-trophic interactions affect food webs randomly, or affect specific trophic levels or functional groups.

History

Although biological interactions, more or less individually, were studied earlier, Edward Haskell (1949) gave an integrative approach to the thematic, proposing a classification of "co-actions", later adopted by biologists as "interactions". Close and long-term interactions are described as symbiosis; symbioses that are mutually beneficial are called mutualistic.

The term symbiosis was subject to a century-long debate about whether it should specifically denote mutualism, as in lichens or in parasites that benefit themselves. This debate created two different classifications for biotic interactions, one based on the time (long-term and short-term interactions), and other based on the magnitude of interaction force (competition/mutualism) or effect of individual fitness, according the stress gradient hypothesis and Mutualism Parasitism Continuum. Evolutionary game theory such as Red Queen Hypothesis, Red King Hypothesis or Black Queen Hypothesis, have demonstrated a classification based on the force of interaction is important.^{[citation needed]}

Classification based on time of interaction

Short-term interactions

Predation is a short-term interaction, in which the predator, here an osprey, kills and eats its prey.

Short-term interactions, including predation and pollination, are extremely important in ecology and evolution. These are short-lived in terms of the duration of a single interaction: a predator kills and eats a prey; a pollinator transfers pollen from one flower to another; but they are extremely durable in terms of their influence on the evolution of both partners. As a result, the partners coevolve.

Predation

In predation, one organism, the predator, kills and eats another organism, its prey. Predators are adapted and often highly specialized for hunting, with acute senses such as vision, hearing, or smell. Many predatory animals, both vertebrate and invertebrate, have sharp claws or jaws to grip, kill, and cut up their prey. Other adaptations include stealth and aggressive mimicry that improve hunting efficiency. Predation has a powerful selective effect on prey, causing them to develop antipredator adaptations such as warning coloration, alarm calls and other signals, camouflage and defensive spines and chemicals. Predation has been a major driver of evolution since at least the Cambrian period.

Pollination

Pollination has driven the coevolution of flowering plants and their animal pollinators for over 100 million years.

In pollination, pollinators including insects (entomophily), some birds (ornithophily), and some bats, transfer pollen from a male flower part to a female flower part, enabling fertilisation, in return for a reward of pollen or nectar. The partners have coevolved through geological time; in the case of insects and flowering plants, the coevolution has continued for over 100 million years. Insect-pollinated flowers are adapted with shaped structures, bright colours, patterns, scent, nectar, and sticky pollen to attract insects, guide them to pick up and deposit pollen, and reward them for the service. Pollinator insects like bees are adapted to detect flowers by colour, pattern, and scent, to collect and transport pollen (such as with bristles shaped to form pollen baskets on their hind legs), and to collect and process nectar (in the case of honey bees, making and storing honey). The adaptations on each side of the interaction match the adaptations on the other side, and have been shaped by natural selection on their effectiveness of pollination.

Seed dispersal

Seed dispersal is the movement, spread or transport of seeds away from the parent plant. Plants have limited mobility and rely upon a variety of dispersal vectors to transport their propagules, including both abiotic vectors such as the wind and living (biotic) vectors like birds. Seeds can be dispersed away from the parent plant individually or collectively, as well as dispersed in both space and time. The patterns of seed dispersal are determined in large part by the dispersal mechanism and this has important implications for the demographic and genetic structure of plant populations, as well as migration patterns and species interactions. There are five main modes of seed dispersal: gravity, wind, ballistic, water, and by animals. Some plants are serotinous and only disperse their seeds in response to an environmental stimulus. Dispersal involves the letting go or detachment of a diaspore from the main parent plant.

Long-term interactions (symbioses)

The six possible types of symbiotic relationship, from mutual benefit to mutual harm

The six possible types of symbiosis are mutualism, commensalism, parasitism, neutralism, amensalism, and competition. These are distinguished by the degree of benefit or harm they cause to each partner.

Mutualism

Mutualism is an interaction between two or more species, where species derive a mutual benefit, for example an increased carrying capacity. Similar interactions within a species are known as co-operation. Mutualism may be classified in terms of the closeness of association, the closest being symbiosis, which is often confused with mutualism. One or both species involved in the interaction may be obligate, meaning they cannot survive in the short or long term without the other species. Though mutualism has historically received less attention than other interactions such as predation, it is an important subject in ecology. Examples include cleaning symbiosis, gut flora, Müllerian mimicry, and nitrogen fixation by bacteria in the root nodules of legumes.^{[citation needed]}

Commensalism

Commensalism benefits one organism and the other organism is neither benefited nor harmed. It occurs when one organism takes benefits by interacting with another organism by which the host organism is not affected. A good example is a remora living with a manatee. Remoras feed on the manatee's faeces. The manatee is not affected by this interaction, as the remora does not deplete the manatee's resources.

Parasitism

Parasitism is a relationship between species, where one organism, the parasite, lives on or in another organism, the host, causing it some harm, and is adapted structurally to this way of life. The parasite either feeds on the host, or, in the case of intestinal parasites, consumes some of its food.

Neutralism

Neutralism (a term introduced by Eugene Odum) describes the relationship between two species that interact but do not affect each other. Examples of true neutralism are virtually impossible to prove; the term is in practice used to describe situations where interactions are negligible or insignificant.

Amensalism

Amensalism (a term introduced by Edward Haskell) is an interaction where an organism inflicts harm to another organism without any costs or benefits received by itself. Amensalism describes the adverse effect that one organism has on another organism (figure 32.1). This is a unidirectional process based on the release of a specific compound by one organism that has a negative effect on another. A classic example of amensalism is the microbial production of antibiotics that can inhibit or kill other, susceptible microorganisms.

A clear case of amensalism is where sheep or cattle trample grass. Whilst the presence of the grass causes negligible detrimental effects to the animal's hoof, the grass suffers from being crushed. Amensalism is often used to describe strongly asymmetrical competitive interactions, such as has been observed between the Spanish ibex and weevils of the genus Timarcha which feed upon the same type of shrub. Whilst the presence of the weevil has almost no influence on food availability, the presence of ibex has an enormous detrimental effect on weevil numbers, as they consume significant quantities of plant matter and incidentally ingest the weevils upon it.

Competition

Male-male interference competition in red deer

Competition can be defined as an interaction between organisms or species, in which the fitness of one is lowered by the presence of another. Competition is often for a resource such as food, water, or territory in limited supply, or for access to females for reproduction. Competition among members of the same species is known as intraspecific competition, while competition between individuals of different species is known as interspecific competition. According to the competitive exclusion principle, species less suited to compete for resources should either adapt or die out. This competition within and between species for resources plays a critical role in natural selection.

Classification based on effect on fitness

Biotic interactions can vary in intensity (strength of interaction), and frequency (number of interactions in a given time). There are direct interactions when there is a physical contact between individuals or indirect interactions when there is no physical contact, that is, the interaction occurs with a resource, ecological service, toxine or growth inhibitor. The interactions can be directly determined by individuals (incidentally) or by stochastic processes (accidentally), for instance side effects that one individual have on other. They are divided into six major types: Competition, Antagonism, Amensalism, Neutralism, Commensalism and Mutualism.

Non-trophic interactions

Some examples of non-trophic interactions are habitat modification, mutualism and competition for space. It has been suggested recently that non-trophic interactions can indirectly affect food web topology and trophic dynamics by affecting the species in the network and the strength of trophic links. It is necessary to integrate trophic and non-trophic interactions in ecological network analyses. The few empirical studies that address this suggest food web structures (network topologies) can be strongly influenced by species interactions outside the trophic network. However these studies include only a limited number of coastal systems, and it remains unclear to what extent these findings can be generalized. Whether non-trophic interactions typically affect specific species, trophic levels, or functional groups within the food web, or, alternatively, indiscriminately mediate species and their trophic interactions throughout the network has yet to be resolved. sessile species with generally low trophic levels seem to benefit more than others from non-trophic facilitation, though facilitation benefits higher trophic and more mobile species as well.

See also

• Altruism (biology)
• Animal sexual behaviour
• Biological pump – interaction between marine animals and carbon forms
• Cheating (biology)
• Collective animal behavior
• Detritivory
• Epibiont
• Evolving digital ecological network
• Food chain
• Kin selection
• Microbial cooperation
• Microbial loop
• Quorum sensing
• Spite (game theory)
• Swarm behaviour

Notes

1. Symbiosis was formerly used to mean a mutualism.

References

1. Haskell, E. F. (1949). A clarification of social science. Main Currents in Modern Thought 7: 45–51.
2. Burkholder, Paul R. (1952). "Cooperation and Conflict Among Primitive Organisms". American Scientist. 40 (4): 600–631. ISSN 0003-0996. JSTOR 27826458.
3. Bronstein, Judith L. (2015). Mutualism. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-967565-4.
4. Pringle, Elizabeth G. (2016-10-12). "Orienting the Interaction Compass: Resource Availability as a Major Driver of Context Dependence". PLOS Biology. 14 (10): e2000891. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.2000891. ISSN 1545-7885. PMC 5061325. PMID 27732591.
5. Douglas, A. E. (2010). The symbiotic habit. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-691-11341-8. OCLC 437054000.
6. Bengtson, S. (2002). "Origins and early evolution of predation". In Kowalewski, M.; Kelley, P. H. (eds.). The fossil record of predation. The Paleontological Society Papers 8 (PDF). The Paleontological Society. pp. 289–317.
7. Lunau, Klaus (2004). "Adaptive radiation and coevolution — pollination biology case studies". Organisms Diversity & Evolution. 4 (3): 207–224. Bibcode:2004ODivE...4..207L. doi:10.1016/j.ode.2004.02.002.
8. Bar-Yam. "Predator-Prey Relationships". New England Complex Systems Institute. Retrieved 7 September 2018.
9. "Predator & Prey: Adaptations" (PDF). Royal Saskatchewan Museum. 2012. Archived from the original (PDF) on 3 April 2018. Retrieved 19 April 2018.
10. Vermeij, Geerat J. (1993). Evolution and Escalation: An Ecological History of Life. Princeton University Press. pp. 11 and passim. ISBN 978-0-691-00080-0.
11. "Types of Pollination, Pollinators and Terminology". CropsReview.Com. Retrieved 2015-10-20.
12. Pollan, Michael (2001). The Botany of Desire: A Plant's-eye View of the World. Bloomsbury. ISBN 978-0-7475-6300-6.
13. Ehrlich, Paul R.; Raven, Peter H. (1964). "Butterflies and Plants: A Study in Coevolution". Evolution. 18 (4): 586–608. doi:10.2307/2406212. JSTOR 2406212.
14. Lim, Ganges; Burns, Kevin C. (2021-11-24). "Do fruit reflectance properties affect avian frugivory in New Zealand?". New Zealand Journal of Botany. 60 (3): 319–329. doi:10.1080/0028825X.2021.2001664. ISSN 0028-825X. S2CID 244683146.
15. Academic Search Premier (1970). "Annual review of ecology and systematics". Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics. OCLC 1091085133.
16. *Douglas, Angela (2010), The Symbiotic Habit, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, pp. 5–12, ISBN 978-0-691-11341-8
17. Wootton, J.T.; Emmerson, M. (2005). "Measurement of Interaction Strength in Nature". Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics. 36: 419–444. doi:10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.36.091704.175535. JSTOR 30033811.
18. Begon, M., J.L. Harper and C.R. Townsend. 1996. Ecology: individuals, populations, and communities, Third Edition. Blackwell Science, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
19. Williams E, Mignucci, Williams L & Bonde (November 2003). "Echeneid-sirenian associations, with information on sharksucker diet". Journal of Fish Biology. 5 (63): 1176–1183. Bibcode:2003JFBio..63.1176W. doi:10.1046/j.1095-8649.2003.00236.x. Retrieved 17 June 2020.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
20. Poulin, Robert (2007). Evolutionary Ecology of Parasites. Princeton University Press. pp. 4–5. ISBN 978-0-691-12085-0.
21. Martin, Bradford D.; Schwab, Ernest (2013). "Current usage of symbiosis and associated terminology". International Journal of Biology. 5 (1): 32–45. doi:10.5539/ijb.v5n1p32.
22. Toepfer, G. "Neutralism". In: BioConcepts. link.
23. (Morris et al., 2013)
24. Lidicker, William Z. (1979). "A Clarification of Interactions in Ecological Systems". BioScience. 29 (8): 475–477. doi:10.2307/1307540. ISSN 0006-3568. JSTOR 1307540.
25. Toepfer, G. "Amensalism". In: BioConcepts. link.
26. Willey, Joanne M.; Sherwood, Linda M.; Woolverton, Cristopher J. (2013). Prescott's Microbiology (9th ed.). pp. 713–38. ISBN 978-0-07-751066-4.
27. Gómez, José M.; González-Megías, Adela (2002). "Asymmetrical interactions between ungulates and phytophagous insects: Being different matters". Ecology. 83 (1): 203–11. doi:10.1890/0012-9658(2002)083[0203:AIBUAP]2.0.CO;2.
28. Hardin, Garrett (1960). "The competitive exclusion principle" (PDF). Science. 131 (3409): 1292–1297. Bibcode:1960Sci...131.1292H. doi:10.1126/science.131.3409.1292. PMID 14399717. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2017-11-17. Retrieved 2018-10-04.
29. Pocheville, Arnaud (2015). "The Ecological Niche: History and Recent Controversies". In Heams, Thomas; Huneman, Philippe; Lecointre, Guillaume; et al. (eds.). Handbook of Evolutionary Thinking in the Sciences. Dordrecht: Springer. pp. 547–586. ISBN 978-94-017-9014-7.
30. Sahney, Sarda; Benton, Michael J.; Ferry, Paul A. (23 August 2010). "Links between global taxonomic diversity, ecological diversity and the expansion of vertebrates on land". Biology Letters. 6 (4): 544–547. doi:10.1098/rsbl.2009.1024. PMC 2936204. PMID 20106856.
31. Caruso, Tancredi; Trokhymets, Vladlen; Bargagli, Roberto; Convey, Peter (2012-10-20). "Biotic interactions as a structuring force in soil communities: evidence from the micro-arthropods of an Antarctic moss model system". Oecologia. 172 (2): 495–503. doi:10.1007/s00442-012-2503-9. ISSN 0029-8549. PMID 23086506. S2CID 253978982.
32. Morales-Castilla, Ignacio; Matias, Miguel G.; Gravel, Dominique; Araújo, Miguel B. (June 2015). "Inferring biotic interactions from proxies". Trends in Ecology & Evolution. 30 (6): 347–356. Bibcode:2015TEcoE..30..347M. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2015.03.014. hdl:10261/344523. PMID 25922148.
33. Wurst, Susanne; Ohgushi, Takayuki (2015-05-18). "Do plant- and soil-mediated legacy effects impact future biotic interactions?". Functional Ecology. 29 (11): 1373–1382. Bibcode:2015FuEco..29.1373W. doi:10.1111/1365-2435.12456. ISSN 0269-8463.
34. Bowman, William D.; Swatling-Holcomb, Samantha (2017-10-25). "The roles of stochasticity and biotic interactions in the spatial patterning of plant species in alpine communities". Journal of Vegetation Science. 29 (1): 25–33. doi:10.1111/jvs.12583. S2CID 91054849.
35. Paquette, Alexandra; Hargreaves, Anna L. (2021-08-27). "Biotic interactions are more often important at species' warm versus cool range edges". Ecology Letters. 24 (11): 2427–2438. Bibcode:2021EcolL..24.2427P. doi:10.1111/ele.13864. PMID 34453406. S2CID 237340810.
36. Kéfi, Sonia; Berlow, Eric L.; Wieters, Evie A.; Joppa, Lucas N.; Wood, Spencer A.; Brose, Ulrich; Navarrete, Sergio A. (January 2015). "Network structure beyond food webs: mapping non-trophic and trophic interactions on Chilean rocky shores". Ecology. 96 (1): 291–303. Bibcode:2015Ecol...96..291K. doi:10.1890/13-1424.1. PMID 26236914.
37. van der Zee, Els M.; Angelini, Christine; Govers, Laura L.; Christianen, Marjolijn J. A.; Altieri, Andrew H.; van der Reijden, Karin J.; Silliman, Brian R.; van de Koppel, Johan; van der Geest, Matthijs; van Gils, Jan A.; van der Veer, Henk W. (2016-03-16). "How habitat-modifying organisms structure the food web of two coastal ecosystems". Proceedings. Biological Sciences. 283 (1826): 20152326. doi:10.1098/rspb.2015.2326. PMC 4810843. PMID 26962135.
38. Sanders, Dirk; Jones, Clive G.; Thébault, Elisa; Bouma, Tjeerd J.; van der Heide, Tjisse; van Belzen, Jim; Barot, Sébastien (May 2014). "Integrating ecosystem engineering and food webs". Oikos. 123 (5): 513–524. Bibcode:2014Oikos.123..513S. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0706.2013.01011.x.
39. Kéfi, Sonia; Berlow, Eric L.; Wieters, Evie A.; Navarrete, Sergio A.; Petchey, Owen L.; Wood, Spencer A.; Boit, Alice; Joppa, Lucas N.; Lafferty, Kevin D.; Williams, Richard J.; Martinez, Neo D. (April 2012). "More than a meal... integrating non-feeding interactions into food webs". Ecology Letters. 15 (4): 291–300. Bibcode:2012EcolL..15..291K. doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2011.01732.x. PMID 22313549.
40. Pilosof, Shai; Porter, Mason A.; Pascual, Mercedes; Kéfi, Sonia (2017-03-23). "The multilayer nature of ecological networks". Nature Ecology & Evolution. 1 (4): 101. arXiv:1511.04453. Bibcode:2017NatEE...1..101P. doi:10.1038/s41559-017-0101. PMID 28812678. S2CID 11387365.
41. Christianen, Mja; van der Heide, T; Holthuijsen, Sj; van der Reijden, Kj; Borst, Acw; Olff, H (September 2017). "Biodiversity and food web indicators of community recovery in intertidal shellfish reefs". Biological Conservation. 213: 317–324. Bibcode:2017BCons.213..317C. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2016.09.028.
42. Miller, Robert J.; Page, Henry M.; Reed, Daniel C. (December 2015). "Trophic versus structural effects of a marine foundation species, giant kelp (Macrocystis pyrifera)". Oecologia. 179 (4): 1199–1209. Bibcode:2015Oecol.179.1199M. doi:10.1007/s00442-015-3441-0. PMID 26358195. S2CID 18578916.
43. van der Zee, Els M.; Tielens, Elske; Holthuijsen, Sander; Donadi, Serena; Eriksson, Britas Klemens; van der Veer, Henk W.; Piersma, Theunis; Olff, Han; van der Heide, Tjisse (April 2015). "Habitat modification drives benthic trophic diversity in an intertidal soft-bottom ecosystem" (PDF). Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology. 465: 41–48. Bibcode:2015JEMBE.465...41V. doi:10.1016/j.jembe.2015.01.001.
44. Angelini, Christine; Silliman, Brian R. (January 2014). "Secondary foundation species as drivers of trophic and functional diversity: evidence from a tree-epiphyte system". Ecology. 95 (1): 185–196. Bibcode:2014Ecol...95..185A. doi:10.1890/13-0496.1. PMID 24649658.
45. Borst, Annieke C. W.; Verberk, Wilco C. E. P.; Angelini, Christine; Schotanus, Jildou; Wolters, Jan-Willem; Christianen, Marjolijn J. A.; Zee, Els M. van der; Derksen-Hooijberg, Marlous; Heide, Tjisse van der (2018-08-31). "Foundation species enhance food web complexity through non-trophic facilitation". PLOS ONE. 13 (8): e0199152. Bibcode:2018PLoSO..1399152B. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0199152. PMC 6118353. PMID 30169517.

Further reading

• Snow, B. K. & Snow, D. W. (1988). Birds and berries: a study of an ecological interaction. Poyser, London ISBN 0-85661-049-6

External links

Wikimedia Commons has media related to Ecological interactions.

• Global Biotic Interactions (GloBI) - Open access to finding species interaction data