Spatial resolution and location impact group structure in a marine food web.

Ecological processes in food webs depend on species interactions. By identifying broad-scaled interaction patterns, important information on species' ecological roles may be revealed. Here, we use the group model to examine how spatial resolution and proximity influence group structure. We examine a data set from the Barents Sea, with food webs described for both the whole region and 25 subregions. We test how the group structure in the networks differ comparing (1) the regional metaweb to subregions and (2) subregion to subregion. We find that more than half the species in the metaweb change groups when compared to subregions. Between subregions, networks with similar group structure are spatially related. Interestingly, although species overlap is important for similarity in group structure, there are notable exceptions. Our results highlight that species ecological roles vary depending on fine-scaled differences in the patterns of interactions, and that local network characteristics are important to consider.

Related plants tend to share pollinators and herbivores, but strength of phylogenetic signal varies among plant families.

Related plants are often hypothesized to interact with similar sets of pollinators and herbivores, but this idea has only mixed empirical support. This may be because plant families vary in their tendency to share interaction partners. We quantify overlap of interaction partners for all pairs of plants in 59 pollination and 11 herbivory networks based on the numbers of shared and unshared interaction partners (thereby capturing both proportional and absolute overlap). We test for relationships between phylogenetic distance and partner overlap within each network; whether these relationships varied with the composition of the plant community; and whether well-represented plant families showed different relationships. Across all networks, more closely related plants tended to have greater overlap. The strength of this relationship within a network was unrelated to the composition of the network's plant component, but, when considered separately, different plant families showed different relationships between phylogenetic distance and overlap of interaction partners. The variety of relationships between phylogenetic distance and partner overlap in different plant families probably reflects a comparable variety of ecological and evolutionary processes. Considering factors affecting particular species-rich groups within a community could be the key to understanding the distribution of interactions at the network level.