Literature DB >> 28941124

Comparing species interaction networks along environmental gradients.

Loïc Pellissier1,2, Camille Albouy1,2,3, Jordi Bascompte4, Nina Farwig5, Catherine Graham2, Michel Loreau6, Maria Alejandra Maglianesi7,8, Carlos J Melián9, Camille Pitteloud1,2, Tomas Roslin10, Rudolf Rohr11, Serguei Saavedra12, Wilfried Thuiller13, Guy Woodward14, Niklaus E Zimmermann1,2, Dominique Gravel15.   

Abstract

Knowledge of species composition and their interactions, in the form of interaction networks, is required to understand processes shaping their distribution over time and space. As such, comparing ecological networks along environmental gradients represents a promising new research avenue to understand the organization of life. Variation in the position and intensity of links within networks along environmental gradients may be driven by turnover in species composition, by variation in species abundances and by abiotic influences on species interactions. While investigating changes in species composition has a long tradition, so far only a limited number of studies have examined changes in species interactions between networks, often with differing approaches. Here, we review studies investigating variation in network structures along environmental gradients, highlighting how methodological decisions about standardization can influence their conclusions. Due to their complexity, variation among ecological networks is frequently studied using properties that summarize the distribution or topology of interactions such as number of links, connectance, or modularity. These properties can either be compared directly or using a procedure of standardization. While measures of network structure can be directly related to changes along environmental gradients, standardization is frequently used to facilitate interpretation of variation in network properties by controlling for some co-variables, or via null models. Null models allow comparing the deviation of empirical networks from random expectations and are expected to provide a more mechanistic understanding of the factors shaping ecological networks when they are coupled with functional traits. As an illustration, we compare approaches to quantify the role of trait matching in driving the structure of plant-hummingbird mutualistic networks, i.e. a direct comparison, standardized by null models and hypothesis-based metaweb. Overall, our analysis warns against a comparison of studies that rely on distinct forms of standardization, as they are likely to highlight different signals. Fostering a better understanding of the analytical tools available and the signal they detect will help produce deeper insights into how and why ecological networks vary along environmental gradients.
© 2017 Cambridge Philosophical Society.

Keywords:  environmental gradient; metaweb; motif; network; network comparison; network properties; null model; rarefaction analysis

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28941124     DOI: 10.1111/brv.12366

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc        ISSN: 0006-3231


  19 in total

1.  Precipitation and predation risk alter the diversity and behavior of pollinators and reduce plant fitness.

Authors:  Pablo A P Antiqueira; Paula M de Omena; Thiago Gonçalves-Souza; Camila Vieira; Gustavo H Migliorini; Mônica F Kersch-Becker; Tiago N Bernabé; Fátima C Recalde; Sandra Benavides- Gordillo; Gustavo Q Romero
Journal:  Oecologia       Date:  2020-02-03       Impact factor: 3.225

Review 2.  The long-term restoration of ecosystem complexity.

Authors:  David Moreno-Mateos; Antton Alberdi; Elly Morriën; Wim H van der Putten; Asun Rodríguez-Uña; Daniel Montoya
Journal:  Nat Ecol Evol       Date:  2020-04-13       Impact factor: 15.460

3.  Vertical stratification of a temperate forest caterpillar community in eastern North America.

Authors:  Carlo L Seifert; Greg P A Lamarre; Martin Volf; Leonardo R Jorge; Scott E Miller; David L Wagner; Kristina J Anderson-Teixeira; Vojtěch Novotný
Journal:  Oecologia       Date:  2019-12-23       Impact factor: 3.225

Review 4.  Refocusing multiple stressor research around the targets and scales of ecological impacts.

Authors:  Benno I Simmons; Penelope S A Blyth; Julia L Blanchard; Tom Clegg; Eva Delmas; Aurélie Garnier; Christopher A Griffiths; Ute Jacob; Frank Pennekamp; Owen L Petchey; Timothée Poisot; Thomas J Webb; Andrew P Beckerman
Journal:  Nat Ecol Evol       Date:  2021-09-23       Impact factor: 15.460

5.  The geographical variation of network structure is scale dependent: understanding the biotic specialization of host-parasitoid networks.

Authors:  Núria Galiana; Bradford A Hawkins; José M Montoya
Journal:  Ecography       Date:  2019-02-28       Impact factor: 5.992

6.  Species-area and network-area relationships in host-helminth interactions.

Authors:  Tad A Dallas; Pedro Jordano
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2021-03-24       Impact factor: 5.349

7.  Network ecology in dynamic landscapes.

Authors:  Marie-Josée Fortin; Mark R T Dale; Chris Brimacombe
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2021-04-28       Impact factor: 5.349

8.  Inoculation with Native Actinobacteria May Improve Desert Plant Growth and Survival with Potential Use for Restoration Practices.

Authors:  M Solans; Y I Pelliza; M Tadey
Journal:  Microb Ecol       Date:  2021-04-29       Impact factor: 4.552

9.  Changes in plant-herbivore network structure and robustness along land-use intensity gradients in grasslands and forests.

Authors:  Felix Neff; Martin Brändle; Didem Ambarlı; Christian Ammer; Jürgen Bauhus; Steffen Boch; Norbert Hölzel; Valentin H Klaus; Till Kleinebecker; Daniel Prati; Peter Schall; Deborah Schäfer; Ernst-Detlef Schulze; Sebastian Seibold; Nadja K Simons; Wolfgang W Weisser; Loïc Pellissier; Martin M Gossner
Journal:  Sci Adv       Date:  2021-05-14       Impact factor: 14.136

10.  The structure of plant spatial association networks is linked to plant diversity in global drylands.

Authors:  Hugo Saiz; Jesús Gómez-Gardeñes; Juan Pablo Borda; Fernando T Maestre
Journal:  J Ecol       Date:  2018-01-20       Impact factor: 6.256

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.