Higher-order interactions capture unexplained complexity in diverse communities

Natural communities are well known to be maintained by many complex processes. Despite this, the practical aspects of studying them often require some simplification, such as the widespread assumption that direct, additive competition captures the important details about how interactions between species impact community diversity. More complex non-additive ‘higher-order’ interactions are assumed to be negligible or absent. Notably, these assumptions are poorly supported and have major consequences for the accuracy with which patterns of natural diversity are modelled and explained. We present a mathematically simple framework for incorporating biologically meaningful complexity into models of diversity by including non-additive higher-order interactions. We further provide empirical evidence that such higher-order interactions strongly influence species’ performance in natural plant communities, with variation in seed production (as a proxy for per capita fitness) explained dramatically better when at least some higher-order interactions are considered. Our study lays the groundwork for a long-overdue shift in how species interactions are used to study the diversity of natural communities.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals

Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription

cancel any time

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 12 digital issues and online access to articles

133,45 € per year

only 11,12 € per issue

Buy this article

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Similar content being viewed by others

Integrative models explain the relationships between species richness and productivity in plant communities

Article Open access 24 September 2019

The evolution of trait variance creates a tension between species diversity and functional diversity

Article Open access 09 May 2022

The balance of interaction types determines the assembly and stability of ecological communities

Article 24 February 2020

References

  1. Chesson, P. in Encyclopedia of Sustainability Science and Technology (ed. Meyers, R. A. ) Ch. 13, 223–256 (Springer, 2012). Google Scholar
  2. Allesina, S. & Levine, J. M. A competitive network theory for species diversity. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA108, 5638–5642 (2011). ArticleCASGoogle Scholar
  3. Volterra, V. Fluctuations in the abundance of a species considered mathematically. Nature118, 558–560 (1926). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  4. May, R. Will a large complex system be stable? Nature238, 413–414 (1972). ArticleCASGoogle Scholar
  5. Thuiller, W. et al. A road map for integrating eco-evolutionary processes into biodiversity models. Ecol. Lett.16, 94–105 (2013). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  6. Sih, A., Englund, G. & Wooster, D. Emergent impacts of multiple predators on prey. Trends Ecol. Evol.13, 350–355 (1998). ArticleCASGoogle Scholar
  7. HilleRisLambers, J., Adler, P. B., Harpole, W. S., Levine, J. M. & Mayfield, M. M. Rethinking community assembly through the lens of coexistence theory. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. S.43, 227–248 (2012). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. Chesson, P. Mechanisms of maintenance of species diversity. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst.31, 343–366 (2000). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  9. Kunstler, G. et al. Plant functional traits have globally consistent effects on competition. Nature529, 204–207 (2016). ArticleCASGoogle Scholar
  10. Levine, J. M. & HilleRisLambers, J. The importance of niches for the maintenance of species diversity. Nature461, 254–257 (2009). ArticleCASGoogle Scholar
  11. Falster, D. S., FitzJohn, R. G., Brännstrom, Å., Diekmann, U. & Westoby, M. Plant: a package for modelling forest trait ecology and evolution. Methods Ecol. Evol.7, 136–146 (2016). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  12. Madin, J. S., Hoogenboom, M. O. & Connolly, S. R. Integrating physiological and biomechanical drivers of population growth over environmental gradients on coral reefs. J. Exp. Biol.215, 968–976 (2012). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  13. Connolly, S. R. & Roughgarden, J. Theory of marine communities: competition, predation, and recruitment-dependent interaction strength. Ecol. Monogr.69, 277–296 (1999). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  14. Smith-Gill, S. J. & Gill, D. E. Curvilinearities in the competition equations: an experiment with ranid tadpoles. Am. Nat.112, 557–570 (1978). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  15. Wootton, T. J. The nature and consequences of indirect effects in ecological communities. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst.25, 443–466 (1994). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  16. White, E. M., Wilson, J. C. & Clarke, A. R. Biotic indirect effects: a neglected concept in invasion biology. Divers. Distrib.12, 443–455 (2006). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  17. Roughgarden, J. & Diamond, J. in Community Ecology (eds Diamond, J. & Case, T. J. ) 333–343 (Harper and Row, 1986). Google Scholar
  18. Schoener, T. W. Some methods for calculating competition coefficients for resource-utilization spectra. Am. Nat.108, 332–340 (1974). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  19. Freckleton, R. P. & Watkinson, A. R. Predicting competition coefficients for plant mixtures: reciprocity, transitivity and correlations with life-history traits. Ecol. Lett.4, 348–357 (2001). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  20. Billick, I. & Case, T. J. Higher order interactions in ecological communities: what are they and how can they be detected? Ecology75, 1529–1543 (1994). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  21. Werner, E. E. & Peacor, S. D. A review of trait-mediated indirect interactions in ecological communities. Ecology84, 1083–1100 (2003). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  22. Abrams, P. A., Menge, B. A., Mittlebach, G. G., Spiller, D. & Yodzis, P. in Food Webs: Integration of Patterns and Dynamics (eds Polis, G. & Winemiller, K. ) 371–395 (Chapman and Hall, 1996). BookGoogle Scholar
  23. Peacor, S. D. & Werner, E. E. The contribution of trait-mediated indirect effects to the net effects of a predator. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA98, 3904–3908 (2001). ArticleCASGoogle Scholar
  24. Trussell, G. C., Ewanchuk, P. J. & Matassa, C. M. Habitat effects on the relative importance of trait- and density-mediated indirect interactions. Ecol. Lett.9, 1245–1252 (2006). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  25. Wootton, J. T. Indirect effects and habitat use in an intertidal community: interaction chains and interaction modifications. Am. Nat.75, 1544–1551 (1993). Google Scholar
  26. Vandermeer, J. H. The competitive structure of communities: an experimental approach with protozoa. Ecology50, 362–371 (1969). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  27. Bairey, E., Kelsic, E. D. & Kishony, R. High-order species interactions shape ecosystem diversity. Nat. Commun.7, 12285 (2016). ArticleCASGoogle Scholar
  28. Godoy, O. & Levine, J. M. Phenology effects on invasion success: insights from coupling field experiments to coexistence theory. Ecology95, 726–736 (2014). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  29. Goldberg, D. E. & Werner, P. A. Equivalence of competitors in plant communities: a null hypothesis and a field experiment. Am. J. Bot.170, 1098–1104 (1983). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  30. Case, T. J. & Bender, E. A. Testing for higher order interactions. Am. Nat.118, 920–929 (1981). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  31. Anderson, T. L. & Whiteman, H. H. Non-additive effects of intra- and interspecific competition between two larval salamanders. J. Anim. Ecol.84, 765–772 (2015). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  32. Wilbur, H. M. Competition, predation, and the structure of the Ambystoma–Rana sylvatica community. Ecology53, 3–21 (1972). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  33. Shmueli, G. To explain or to predict? Stat. Sci.25, 289–310 (2010). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  34. Burnham, K. P. & Anderson, D. R. Model Selection and Multimodel Inference: A Practical Information-Theoretic Approach (Springer, 2002). Google Scholar
  35. Adler, P. B., HilleRisLambers, J. & Levine, J. A niche for neutrality. Ecol. Lett.10, 95–104 (2007). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  36. Okuyama, T. & Holland, J. N. Network structural properties mediate the stability of mutualistic communities. Ecol. Lett.11, 208–216 (2008). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  37. Novak, M. & Wootton, J. T. Estimating nonlinear interaction strengths: an observation-based method for species-rich food webs. Ecology89, 2083–2089 (2008). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  38. Abrams, P. A. Implications of dynamically variable traits for identifying, classifying, and measuring direct and indirect effects in ecological communities. Am. Nat.146, 112–134 (1995). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  39. Dwyer, J. M., Hobbs, R. J., Wainwright, C. E. & Mayfield, M. M. Climate moderates release from nutrient limitation in natural annual plant communities. Global Ecol. Biogeogr.24, 549–561 (2015). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  40. Law, R. & Watkinson, A. R. Response-surface analysis of two-species competition: an experiment of Phleum arenarium and Vulpia fasciculata . J. Ecol.75, 871–886 (1987). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  41. Angert, A. L., Huxman, T. E., Chesson, P. & Venable, D. L. Functional tradeoffs determine species coexistence via the storage effect. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA106, 11641–11645 (2009). ArticleCASGoogle Scholar
  42. Quinn, G. P. & Keough, M. J. Experimental Design and Data Analysis for Biologists (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2002). BookGoogle Scholar
  43. Rao, C. R., Toutenburg, H. & Shalabh, H. C. Linear Models and Generalizations (Springer, 2008). Google Scholar
  44. Venables, W. N. & Ripley, B. D. Modern Applied Statistics with S 4th edn (Springer, 2002). BookGoogle Scholar
  45. Larsen, W. A. & McCleary, S. J. The use of partial residual plots in regression analysis. Technometrics14, 781–790 (1972). ArticleGoogle Scholar

Acknowledgements

This project was made possible by funding awarded to M.M.M. by the Australian Research Council (DP140100574 and FT140100498) and to D.B.S. from the Royal Society of New Zealand (UOC-1101 and a Rutherford Discovery Fellowship). We thank H. R. Lai, X. Loy, C. Wainwright and J. HilleRisLambers for help with data collection and J. HilleRisLambers, J. Dwyer, J. Tylianakis and the Mayfield and Stouffer labs for constructive comments. We also thank X. Loy for the art used to create Supplementary Fig. 1.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The University of Queensland, School of Biological Sciences, Brisbane, 4072, Queensland, Australia Margaret M. Mayfield
  2. Centre for Integrative Ecology, University of Canterbury, School of Biological Sciences, Christchurch, Canterbury 8041, New Zealand Daniel B. Stouffer
  1. Margaret M. Mayfield