Species interaction networks, which govern the maintenance of biodiversity and ecosystem processes within ecological communities, are being rapidly altered by anthropogenic activities worldwide. Studies on the response of species interaction networks to anthropogenic disturbance have almost exclusively focused on one interaction type at a time, such as mutualistic or antagonistic interactions, making it challenging to decipher how networks of different interaction types respond to the same anthropogenic disturbance. Moreover, few studies have simultaneously focused on the two main components of network structure: network topology (i.e. architecture) and network ecology (i.e. species identities and interaction turnover), thereby limiting our understanding of the ecological drivers underlying changes in network topology in response to anthropogenic disturbance. Here, we used 16,400 plant-pollinator and plant-herbivore interaction observations from 16 sites along an agricultural intensification gradient to compare changes in network topology and ecology between mutualistic and antagonistic networks. We measured two aspects of network topology - nestedness and modularity - and found that while the mutualistic networks were consistently more nested than antagonistic networks and antagonistic networks were consistently more modular, the rate of change in nestedness and modularity along the gradient was comparable between the two network types. Change in network ecology, however, was distinct between mutualistic and antagonistic networks, with partner switching making a significantly larger contribution to interaction turnover in the mutualistic networks than in the antagonistic networks, while species turnover was a strong contributor to interaction turnover in the antagonistic networks. The ecological and topological changes we observed in the antagonistic and mutualistic networks have different implications for pollinator and herbivore communities in agricultural landscapes, and support the idea that pollinators are more labile in their interaction partner choice whereas herbivores form more reciprocally specialized, and therefore more vulnerable, interactions. Our results also demonstrate that studying both topological and ecological network structure can help to elucidate the effects of anthropogenic disturbance on ecological communities, with applications for conservation and restoration of species interactions and the ecosystem processes they maintain.

中文翻译：

---

对抗和互利网络对农业集约化的不同反应

物种相互作用网络管理着生态群落内生物多样性和生态系统过程的维护，正因世界范围的人为活动而迅速改变。关于物种相互作用网络对人为干扰的响应的研究几乎一次只关注一种相互作用类型，例如互惠或对抗性相互作用，这使得破译不同相互作用类型的网络如何响应相同的人为干扰具有挑战性。此外，很少有研究同时关注网络结构的两个主要组成部分：网络拓扑（即架构）和网络生态（即物种身份和交互转换），从而限制了我们对响应人为干扰的网络拓扑变化的潜在生态驱动因素的理解。在这里，我们使用了沿农业集约化梯度的 16 个地点的 16,400 个植物-传粉媒介和植物-食草动物相互作用观察，以比较互利网络和对抗网络之间网络拓扑和生态学的变化。我们测量了网络拓扑的两个方面 - 嵌套性和模块化 - 并发现虽然互惠网络始终比对抗网络嵌套更多，并且对抗网络始终更加模块化，但嵌套性和模块化沿梯度的变化率在两者之间是可比的网络类型。然而，网络生态的变化在互利网络和对抗网络之间是截然不同的，合作伙伴转换对互惠网络中交互周转的贡献明显大于对抗网络中的交互周转，而物种周转是对抗网络中交互周转的重要贡献者。我们在对抗和互惠网络中观察到的生态和拓扑变化对农业景观中的传粉媒介和食草动物群落有不同的影响，并支持这样一种观点，即传粉媒介在他们的互动伙伴选择上更不稳定，而食草动物则形成更互惠的专业化，因此更脆弱，互动。我们的结果还表明，研究拓扑和生态网络结构有助于阐明人为干扰对生态群落的影响，