Figure 1.
Nestedness of (epiphyte-tree) comensalistic, mutualistic and antagonistic networks.
Nestedness is estimated using two different parameters: Atmar & Paterson's N [38] and Almeida-Neto's NODF [40]. Insets shows the differences in nestedness between antagonistic, comensalistic and mutualistic networks (after correction for the effect of network size: therefore “residual N” and “residual NOFD”).
Table 1.
Network properties of 16 epiphyte-tree networks measured in old-growth and disturbed forest fragments (four forest fragments, four sites per fragment).
Figure 2.
Effect of network size on several descriptors of comensalistic network topology.
a) Connectance, C. b) Almeida-Neto's nestedness, NODF.[40] C) Epiphyte specialization/generalization index, Gkepi. Filled symbols and solid lines indicate old-growth forest (▴ Caulin, • Senda Darwin). Empty symbols and dashed lines indicate disturbed forests (○ Quilar, Δ Llanquihue).
Table 2.
Results of Generalized Linear Mixed Modelling evaluating the effect of network size and type of forest (old-growth vs. disturbed) on different descriptors of network topology (“dependent variable”).
Figure 3.
Effect of network topology on comensalistic network robustness.
a) Almeida-Neto's nestedness, NODF [40], and b) connectivity, C, effect over robustness. Filled (•) and empty (○) symbols respectively indicate the results of “random” and “rarest-species” extinction simulation models.