Network architecture and vulnerability of macroalgal epiphyte-host interactions in Caribbean coastal ecosystems: implications for marine conservation
Clicks: 2
ID: 325110
2026
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
0.0
/100
2 views
0 readers
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Ranked #92 of 189 articles by views in Annals of botany
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 189 in total.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
Abstract Background and Aims Tropical coastal marine ecosystems depend on macroalgal epiphyte–host networks, yet their architecture and vulnerability remain poorly characterised in the Caribbean. This study characterised the topological structure of Cuba’s epiphyte–host network, identified determinants of epiphytic richness, and developed an integrated vulnerability index for conservation prioritisation. Methods A bipartite network was constructed from 130 host taxa and 266 epiphytic macroalgae. Network topology was analysed via degree distribution, community detection, and centrality. Host habitat distributions were inferred with a hierarchical Bayesian model. Epiphytic richness was modelled using Bayesian negative binomial regression with habitat breadth and betweenness centrality as predictors. Niche overlap was assessed with Jaccard similarity and Monte Carlo tests. Structural robustness was evaluated through sequential host removal, and an Integrated Vulnerability Index combined habitat environmental vulnerability with network irreplaceability. Key Results The network exhibits scale-free architecture, where few hosts support most interactions. Betweenness centrality outperformed habitat breadth as a predictor of epiphytic richness. Epiphyte assemblages were highly distinct among hosts (mean similarity < 3%). Simulated loss showed network collapse after removing just 14.6% of central hosts, versus 64.6% under random loss. Rhizophora mangle, Thalassia testudinum, and Digenea simplex emerged as irreplaceable hubs whose loss would trigger secondary extinctions. Conclusions The network is efficient yet fragile, depending disproportionately on few engineering hosts. The Integrated Vulnerability Index offers a transferable framework for conservation prioritisation. Prioritising these engineering hosts will safeguard cryptic biodiversity sustained by the interaction network.
| Reference Key |
openalex_W7203600419
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | Abdiel Jover Capote, Asiel Cabrera, Ana M Suárez, John Machell, José Lucas Pérez‐Lloréns |
| Journal | Annals of botany |
| Year | 2026 |
| DOI |
10.1093/aob/mcag227
|
| URL | |
| Keywords | Keywords not found |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.