88 PLENARY KEYNOTE | HALL H IIIPARALLEL SESSION HALL H III | ECOLOGICAL NETWORKS & ECOSYSTEM FUNCTIONING 89Keynote speaker: Susanne RennerChair: Elisabeth KalkoWednesday, 23 February, 9:10 | Hall H IIIPROGRESS IN COLLECTING, IDENTIFYING, AND DESCRIBINGTROPICAL SPECIES - THE LATEST STATISTICSSusanne S. Renner, Department of Biology, University of Munich,Munich, GermanyWEDNESDAY 9:10 Hall H III2010 saw the publication of several new approaches to estimating the numberof living species. Examples, which I will discuss, are Hamilton et al. (AmericanNaturalist 176, July 2010: Quantifying Uncertainty in Estimation of <strong>Tropical</strong>Arthropod Species Richness), Joppa et al. (Proc. Royal Soc. B, July 2010: Howmany species of flowering plants are there?), and Bebber et al. (PNAS, Dec 2010:Herbaria are a major frontier <strong>for</strong> species discovery). In December 2010, the RoyalBotanic Garden Kew and the Missouri Botanical Garden placed online a list ofthe 298,900 currently accepted vascular plant names (plus 477,600 synonyms),and many institutions also publish the number of species described annually bytheir staff, providing local view of species increase. These data allow assessingour progress in collecting, identifying, and describing tropical species. Theestimate <strong>for</strong> tropical arthropod species now is 3.7 to 2.5 million species globally(with large 90% confidence intervals) of which 855,000 have been described.The estimate <strong>for</strong> all species on Earth is 11 million. For flowering plants, thecurrent best estimate is 352,000 species, with 10 to 20% still remaining tobe described. The most encouraging data in this talk concern the continuedincrease in numbers of species being described every year. How do the fewtaxonomists do it? And does the more rapid recognition of new species viabarcoding encourage their <strong>for</strong>mal naming?Parallel Session | Wednesday, 23 February, 10:00, Hall H IIIECOLOGICAL NETWORKS AND ECOSYSTEM FUNCTIONINGChairs: Marco Mello, Elisabeth KalkoContact: marmello@gmail.comNetwork theory is almost 300 years old, and it's a mature field in Mathematics.Biologists started using network theory to study food webs much later, only inthe 1940's. Since the 2000's there has been a new boom of interest in networks,and with this approach it has been possible to make new exciting findingsabout the structure and dynamics of antagonistic and mutualistic systems. Theknowledge accumulated so far is enough to start making predictions about theeffects of disturbances on ecological networks and, ultimately, on ecosystemfunctioning. In this session, we want to gather people who are investigatingthe complexity of ecological interactions in the framework of network theoryfrom different perspectives, focusing on different taxa and different kinds ofinteraction. We aim at sharing examples of how network theory can be usedas a tool to understand the complexity of food webs and conserve ecosystemservices.WEDNESDAY 10:00 Hall H IIIgtö<strong>Society</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Tropical</strong> <strong>Ecology</strong> | Gesellschaft für Tropenökologie e.V. Status and future of tropical biodiversity | Frankfurt, 21 - 24 February 2011gtö
90 PARALLEL SESSION HALL H III | ECOLOGICAL NETWORKSPARALLEL SESSION HALL H III | ECOLOGICAL NETWORKS 91SO CLOSE, NO MATTER HOW FAR: THE IMPORTANCE OF DIFFERENTSPECIES IN MUTUALISTIC NETWORKSSPECIALISATION IN TROPICAL AND TEMPERATE PLANT-HERBIVORENETWORKSNico Blüthgen 1Marco Mello 1 , Elisabeth Kalko 11University of Würzburg, Würzburg, DE, bluethgen@biozentrum.uni-wuerzburg.deWEDNESDAY 10:00 Hall H III1Universität Ulm, Ulm, DE, marmello@gmail.comEach species plays a functional role (Eltonian niche) and so contributesdifferently to the structure of ecological communities; some are considered askeystones. This is true <strong>for</strong> food webs, and probably also <strong>for</strong> mutualistic networks.As mutualisms generate vital ecosystem services, it is crucial to understandfunctional roles within those systems, and how they affect their maintenance.Traditionally, mutualisms have been studied in pairs of species, but ecosystemservices are better understood at the community level. We investigated from anetwork perspective the functional role of different species in seed dispersaland pollination systems, as well as its biological basis. Although seed dispersalis a less specialized mutualism than pollination, dietary specialization was agood predictor of a species’ functional role in bat-fruit and bird-fruit networks.Specialized frugivores made more interactions, occupied more central positions,and thus <strong>for</strong>med the backbone of those systems, whereas less specializedfrugivores were more peripheral and played complementary roles. Regardingpollination, well-adapted mutualists with a longer coevolutionary historyestablished more interactions and composed the backbone of those networks.However, in another pollination study, we observed that invasive species suchas the Africanized honeybee, despite being less specialized and renderinglow-quality services, can be also central and change profoundly the system’sstructure. In summary, our evidence point out that dietary specialization andcoevolutionary adaptations play an important role in structuring mutualisticnetworks; there<strong>for</strong>e, species that are more specialized in each kind ofmutualism tend to be network keystones. Nevertheless, each service dependsalso on less specialized mutualists, which represent complements or backups.We suggest more caution when defining and investigating specialization innetwork studies, as ecological and network concepts of specialization lead todiametrically different classifications of species in terms of functional role.Ecological networks are commonly used to describe the association betweenconsumers and their resources in a selected site. Such analyses are used totest evolutionary hypotheses or to predict consequences <strong>for</strong> communitystability. Most examples studied to date involve mutualistic plant-pollinator,plant-frugivore and plant-ant relationships, while studies on plant-herbivorenetworks are scant. What are the main differences between these mutualisticand antagonistic plant-animal networks? The few examples of quantitativeplant-herbivore networks show a particularly high degree of complementaryspecialisation (i.e., narrow niches and high niche partitioning). Even differentspecies of relatively generalised folivores (phasmids) prefer a significantlydifferent spectrum of host plants, as suggested by their distribution on hosts inthe field and confirmed by experimental choice tests in the lab. Chemical plantdefences are most likelythe main trait responsible<strong>for</strong> the pronouncedspecialisationofherbivorous consumers,compared to themutualistic interactionsmentioned above.Specialised consumersmay have some advantagesover generalists whenexploiting their specificresources to which theyare adapted. However,they are faced with anextinction risk when theirresources (host plants) disappear. We use a simple thought experiment onherbivore communities to illustrate such a co-extinction scenario. Limitationsof such approaches and the use of network metrics are briefly discussed.WEDNESDAY 10:15 Hall H III(Network drawn from Blüthgen et al. 2006 J Trop Ecol 22: 35-40)gtö<strong>Society</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Tropical</strong> <strong>Ecology</strong> | Gesellschaft für Tropenökologie e.V. Status and future of tropical biodiversity | Frankfurt, 21 - 24 February 2011gtö