Table of Contents

1. Introduction
2. Indirect Interactions
3. Positive Interactions
4. Indirect Mutualisms
5. Examples Of Indirect Mutualisms
6. References
 Indirect Mutualisms

Introduction:

No species/population exists in isolation; its environment is defined by many coexisting species, as well
as physical parameters. Coexisting species are tied to one another via a complex web of trophic and non-
trophic interactions. The structure and function of communities (and ultimately the structure and function
of ecosystems) depends on a complex array of interactions tying all members of the community into an
intricate web. Many interactions are indirect. Thus, the influence of any single species extends to distant
parts of the community through other species (competitors, predators, and resources). However, such
influence dissipates as it passes through each link in the chain of interactions

Indirect Interactions: Individuals of one species affect the fitness of individuals in a second species only
through their direct interaction with a third species.
Positive Interactions: Interactions among two or more species where individuals from one species
enhance fitness of individuals from another species.
Indirect Mutualism - Two consumers on the same trophic level (which do not otherwise interact)
indirectly benefit one another by preying on and suppressing their respective resource populations which
are competitors. OR
An indirect mutualism arises when the beneficial effect of two species on each other depends upon the
presence of a third species

Examples Of Indirect Mutualisms

One type of indirect mutualism is a defensive association, whereby one species prevents predators
or parasitoids from attacking another species. For example, while obtaining food or shelter,
aggressive worker ants may deter herbivores or seed predators from feeding on host plants,
resulting in an indirect antplant mutualism .Alternatively, if ants decrease pollination or deter
predators or parasitoids of herbivores more than ants deter the herbivores themselves ant activity
could result in a net cost to plants.

Indirect mutualisms based on antplant defensive interactions may occur in some yucca yucca
moth systems.Yuccas, such as Yucca glauca are exclusively pollinated by yucca moths, Tegeticula
yuccasella which use specialized mouthparts to push pollen into the stigma. Adult T. yuccasella
pollinate yucca flowers in the early evening and spend most of the remaining time inactive inside
yucca flowers. Concurrent with pollination, however, is moth oviposition into yucca flowers. As
T.yuccasella eggs hatch in the developing fruit, larvae begin consuming yucca seeds. A trade-off
is thereby created; flowers require pollination for seed set, but plants may experience reduced
fitness through larval seed consumption and direct damage to ovules caused by oviposition. Loss
of many seeds often causes the developing fruit to be aborted. The closely related yucca moth
Tegeticula corruptrix does not pollinate but still oviposits in young fruit, leading to seed
consumption and reduced plant fitness. Wood ants (Formica obscuriventralis are commonly found
on Y. glauca both diurnally and nocturnally. Wood ants may impose direct costs on yuccas, as
they occasionally feed on buds or remove them from the inflorescence stalk. Wood ants may also
influence pollination and seed-predation rates, as ants encountering yucca moths react with
aggression, often causing moths to disperse from the plant and sometimes killing the moths. Thus,
wood ants may negatively affect T. yuccasella oviposition, which could negatively affect yuccas
through reduced pollination and seed set. If T. corruptrix oviposition is altered, however, there
may be positive effects on yuccas through reduced seed predation.
 Varying the abundance of one species can indirectly affect the abundance of another by changing
the abundance of an intermediary species that interacts with them both-an interaction chain. For
example, one species can reduce the abundance of its prey, thereby reducing the food base of other
consumers of the prey (exploitative competition).

Second, varying the abundance of one species can indirectly affect the abundance of a second
species by changing the interaction between the second species and a third species, an interaction
modification. Thus, these indirect effects arise because the interactions between pairs of species
are not independent of other species. For example increasing vegetation density may indirectly
increase the abundance of a prey species by allowing it to hide from its predator. Thereby reducing
the intensity of the predator-prey interaction.

Another indirect mechanism of facilitation is a reduced risk of being eaten. Herbivory can also
reduce predation of the herbivore, as in the case of the red-ridged clinging crab (Mithrax forceps).
This crab species takes refuge in the branches of the compact Ivory Bush Coral (Oculina
arbuscula) and feeds on seaweed in the vicinity of the coral. The reduced competition with
seaweed enhances coral growth, which in turn provides more refuge for the crab.

A similar case is that of the interaction between swollen-thorn acacia trees (Acacia spp.) and
certain ants (Pseudomyrmex spp.) in Central America. The acacia provides nourishment and
protection (inside hollow thorns) to the ant in return for defense against herbivores. In contrast, a
different type of facilitation between ants and sap-feeding insects may increase plant predation. By
consuming sap, plant pests such as aphids produce a sugar-rich waste product called honeydew,
which is consumed by ants in exchange for protection of the sap-feeders against predation

Similarly, herbivory by sea urchins on kelps can protect mussels from overgrowth by kelps
competing for space in the subtidal zone of the Gulf of Maine, USA.

References

Evans, F. C. 1956. Ecosystems as the basic unit in ecology. Science 123: 1127-1128.
Hacker, S. D., and S. D. Gaines. 1997. Some implications of direct positive interactions for
community species diversity. Ecology 78: 1990-2003.
Menge, B. A. 1995. Indirect effects in marine rocky intertidal interaction webs: patterns and
importance. Ecological Monographs 65: 21-74.
Mills, S. L., M. E. Soule, and D. F. Doak. 1993. The keystone-species concept in ecology and
conservation. Bioscience 43: 219-224.
Lindeman, R. 1942. The trophic-dynamic aspect of ecology. Ecology: 23: 399-418.
Polis, G. A., and D. R. Strong. 1996. Food web complexity and community dynamics. The
American Naturalist 147: 813-846.
Power, M. E., D. Tilman, J. A. Estes, B. A. Menge, W. J. Bond, S. L. Mills, G. Daily, J. C.
Castilla, J. Lubchenko, and R. T. Paine. 1996. Challenges in the quest for keystones. Bioscience
46: 609-620.
Ricklefs, R. E. 1990. Ecology. W. H. Freeman and Company, New York, NY.