DOI: 10.5061/dryad.1224pr2
title: Data from: Does biological intimacy shape ecological network structure? A test using a brood pollination mutualism on continental and oceanic islands

description: Biological intimacy—the degree of physical proximity or integration of
 partner taxa during their life cycles—is thought to promote the evolution
 of reciprocal specialization and modularity in the networks formed by
 co‐occurring mutualistic species, but this hypothesis has rarely been
 tested. Here, we test this “biological intimacy hypothesis” by comparing
 the network architecture of brood pollination mutualisms, in which
 specialized insects are simultaneously parasites (as larvae) and
 pollinators (as adults) of their host plants to that of other mutualisms
 which vary in their biological intimacy (including ant‐myrmecophyte,
 ant‐extrafloral nectary, plant‐pollinator and plant‐seed disperser
 assemblages). We use a novel dataset sampled from leafflower trees
 (Phyllanthaceae: Phyllanthus s. l. [Glochidion]) and their pollinating
 leafflower moths (Lepidoptera: Epicephala) on three oceanic islands
 (French Polynesia) and compare it to equivalent published data from
 congeners on continental islands (Japan). We infer taxonomic diversity of
 leafflower moths using multilocus molecular phylogenetic analysis and
 examine several network structural properties: modularity
 (compartmentalization), reciprocality (symmetry) of specialization and
 algebraic connectivity. We find that most leafflower‐moth networks are
 reciprocally specialized and modular, as hypothesized. However, we also
 find that two oceanic island networks differ in their modularity and
 reciprocal specialization from the others, as a result of a
 supergeneralist moth taxon which interacts with nine of 10 available
 hosts. Our results generally support the biological intimacy hypothesis,
 finding that leafflower‐moth networks (usually) share a reciprocally
 specialized and modular structure with other intimate mutualisms such as
 ant‐myrmecophyte symbioses, but unlike nonintimate mutualisms such as seed
 dispersal and nonintimate pollination. Additionally, we show that
 generalists—common in nonintimate mutualisms—can also evolve in intimate
 mutualisms, and that their effect is similar in both types of assemblages:
 once generalists emerge they reshape the network organization by
 connecting otherwise isolated modules.
description: Hembry_et_al_specimen_locality_dataSpecimen locality and host plant data for moths in the genus Epicephala (Lepidoptera: Gracillariidae; leafflower moths) collected for this study in the Society Islands, French Polynesia during the period 2007-2011. Specific locality data withheld to protect rare native plant species. Identical to Table S2 for Supplementary Information for the journal article.DNA sequence data from Society Islands Epicephala spp.Novel DNA sequence data generated for this study from undescribed species in the genus Epicephala (Insecta: Lepidoptera: Gracillariidae). These data represent three loci: mitochondrial COI, and nuclear EF1-α and ArgK. Sequences have also been uploaded to GenBank, but are being processed at time of submission, so GenBank numbers are not included in this file; for GenBank numbers, please see main text of published manuscript. Sequences may also be matched using collection numbers (nine-character alphanumeric codes beginning with dhh; these codes also are used in the specimen locality data file in this Dryad package, David Hembry's original field notes, and corresponding GenBank submissions).SocietyIslandsEpicephala_sequencedata.txtHembry_et_al_Epicephala_tree.txtPhylogenetic hypothesis for Society Islands Epicephala, recovered using Bayesian inference implemented in MrBayes. Tip labels represent specimen numbers and host species (in the clade Glochidion in the genus Phyllanthus s. l.) from which specimens were reared, and are from the present study as well as Hembry et al. (2013) Proc. Roy. Soc. B. Many tip labels follow the Supplementary Appendix in Hembry et al. (2013) Proc. R. Soc. B. This tree corresponds to Figure 1 in the present manuscript.Hembry_networks_metadataMetadata for the seven networks files (Hembry_et_al_Amami_quantitative.xlsx, Hembry_et_al_Huahine_quantitative.xlsx, Hembry_et_al_Iriomote_quantitative.xlsx, Hembry_et_al_Ishigaki_quantitative.xlsx, Hembry_et_al_Moorea_quantitative.xlsx, Hembry_et_al_Okinawa_quantitative.xlsx, Hembry_et_al_Tahiti_quantitative.xlsx) included in the present submission. Identical to metadata which will be uploaded to the Interaction Web DataBase (https://www.nceas.ucsb.edu/interactionweb/) and mangal (mangal.io).Glochidion-Epicephala_network_AmamiSee Hembry_networks_metadata for description. Data originally from Kawakita and Kato (2006) Mol. Ecol.Hembry_et_al_Amami_quantitative.xlsxGlochidion-Epicephala_network_HuahineSee Hembry_networks_metadata for description. Data novel to this study.Hembry_et_al_Huahine_quantitative.xlsxGlochidion-Epicephala_network_IriomoteSee Hembry_networks_metadata for description. Data originally from Kawakita and Kato (2006) Mol. Ecol.Hembry_et_al_Iriomote_quantitative.xlsxGlochidion-Epicephala_network_IshigakiSee Hembry_networks_metadata for description. Data originally from Kawakita and Kato (2006) Mol. Ecol.Hembry_et_al_Ishigaki_quantitative.xlsxGlochidion-Epicephala_network_MooreaSee Hembry_networks_metadata for description. Data novel to this study.Hembry_et_al_Moorea_quantitative.xlsxGlochidion-Epicephala_network_OkinawaSee Hembry_networks_metadata for description. Data originally from Kawakita and Kato (2006) Mol. Ecol.Hembry_et_al_Okinawa_quantitative.xlsxGlochidion-Epicephala_network_TahitiSee Hembry_networks_metadata for description. Data novel to this study.Hembry_et_al_Tahiti_quantitative.xlsx