pp 1–5 | Cite as

Size and mobility do matter: a modified scheme of interspecific interactions

  • Viner F. KhabibullinEmail author
Short Communications


Interactions among species play a major role in shaping ecological and evolutionary patterns. In natural communities we see myriads of interactions and the great challenge is how to classify them into a finite number of discrete categories. Interspecific interactions are traditionally displayed in a grid according to their outcome (positive, negative or neutral) for each partner. However, this outcome-based framework ignores functional inequality between interacting organisms. The distinction between partners of different “strength” – relative size and/or motility – can be used for modification of traditional outcome framework. Here I have enlarged classic 3 × 3 scheme (designed for classifying interactions between equal partners) by adding strong/weak and host/inhabitant interacting pairs. By using this approach we can formulate explicit verbal definitions for 27 interaction types. Terminology for specific, generic and “umbrella” concepts is discussed. In result we have more detailed and adequate framework that allows, for example, discrimination of interactions that are mingled together in other schemes.


Interspecific interactions Classification Strong/weak partners 



  1. Abrams PA (1987) On classifying interactions between populations. Oecologia 73:272–281. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Boaventura D, Da Fonseca LC, Hawkins SJ (2003) Size matters: competition within populations of the limpet Patella depressa. J Anim Ecol 72:435–446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bronstein JL (1994) Conditional outcomes in mutualistic interactions. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 9:214–217. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bruno JF, Stachowicz JJ, Bertness MD (2003) Inclusion of facilitation into ecological theory. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 18(3):119–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Burkholder PR (1952) Cooperation and conflict among primitive organisms. Am Sc 40:600–631Google Scholar
  6. Fontaine C, Guimarães PR Jr, Kéfi S, Loeuille N, Memmott J, van der Putten WH, van Veen FJF, Thébault E (2011) The ecological and evolutionary implications of merging different types of networks. Ecol Lett 14:1170–1181. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hatcher MJ, Dick JTA, Dunn AM (2014) Parasites that change predator or prey behaviour can have keystone effects on community composition. Biol Lett 10:20130879. .1098/rsbl.2013.0879Google Scholar
  8. Hughes LM, Bao J, Hu Z-L, Honavar V, Reecy JM (2008) Animal trait ontology: the importance and usefulness of a unified trait vocabulary for animal species. J Anim Sc 86:1485–1491. .2527/jas.2008-0930CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hulburt EM (1996) The symmetry of adaptation in predominantly asymmetrical contexts. Ecol Model 85:173–185. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Khabibullin VF (2016) Location and foraging as basis for classification of biotic interactions. Theory Biosci 135(1–2):37–44. Google Scholar
  11. Lafferty KD, Kuris AM (2002) Trophic strategies, animal diversity and body size. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 17(11):507–513.1016/S0169-5347(02)02615-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Leonelli S (2012) Classificatory theory in data-intensive science: the case of open biomedical ontologies. Int Studies Phil Sc 26:47–65. .1080/02698595.2012.653119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Leung TLF (2014) Fish as parasites: an insight into evolutionary convergence in adaptations for parasitism. J Zool 294:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Odum E (1953) Fundamentals of ecology. W.B.Saunders press, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  15. Pianka ER (2000) Evolutionary ecology, sixth edn. Addison-Wesley-Longman, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  16. Rudolf VHW, Rasmussen NL, Dibble CJ, Allen BGV (2014) Resolving the roles of body size and species identity in driving functional diversity. Proc R Soc Lon B 281:201–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Wang RW, He JZ, Wang YQ, Shi L, Li YT (2010) Asymmetric interaction will facilitate the evolution of cooperation. Sc China Life Sc 53:1041–1046.1007/s11427-010-4016-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Zhuk AV (2005) Forms and place of mutualism in the system of symbiotic relationships of high plants with other organisms. Vestnik of S-Ptsb Univ 1:3–19Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Physiology and general biologyBashkir State UniversityUfaRussia

Personalised recommendations