Estimating sampling completeness of interactions in quantitative bipartite ecological networks: incorporating variation in species’ specialisation

Macgregor, Callum J.; Evans, D. A.; Mj, Pocock

doi:10.1101/195917

Cited by 19 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our approach is applicable to any type of network and method for estimating sampling completeness (for alternative methods see, e.g., Traveset et al. () and Macgregor, Evans, and Pocock ()), provided that sampling completeness is reliably estimated and that some subwebs are sampled to near completeness, to enable the prediction of network structure of fully sampled subwebs.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There may therefore be no set of network metrics that are universally unbiased to under-sampling and studies should include evaluations of sampling adequacy such as the one illustrated here. Our approach is applicable to any type of network and method for estimating sampling completeness (for alternative methods see, e.g., Traveset et al (2015) and Macgregor, Evans, and Pocock (2017)), provided that sampling completeness is reliably estimated and that some subwebs are sampled to near completeness, to enable the prediction of network structure of fully sampled subwebs.…”

Section: Dealing With Under-sampling In Ecological Networkmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The effect of network size and sampling completeness in depauperate networks

Henriksen

Chapple

Chown

et al. 2018

Journal of Animal Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The accurate estimation of interaction network structure is essential for understanding network stability and function. A growing number of studies evaluate under‐sampling as the degree of sampling completeness (proportional richness observed). How the relationship between network structural metrics and sampling completeness varies across networks of different sizes remains unclear, but this relationship has implications for the within‐ and between‐system comparability of network structure. Here, we test the combined effects of network size and sampling completeness on the structure of spatially distinct networks (i.e., subwebs) in a host–parasitoid model system to better understand the within‐system variability in metric bias. Richness estimates were used to quantify a gradient of sampling completeness of species and interactions across randomly subsampled subwebs. The combined impacts of network size and sampling completeness on the estimated values of twelve unweighted and weighted network metrics were tested. The robustness of network metrics to under‐sampling was strongly related to network size, and sampling completeness of interactions were generally a better predictor of metric bias than sampling completeness of species. Weighted metrics often performed better than unweighted metrics at low sampling completeness; however, this was mainly evident at large rather than small subweb size. These outcomes highlight the significance of under‐sampling for the comparability of both unweighted and weighted network metrics when networks are small and vary in size. This has implications for within‐system comparability of species‐poor networks and, more generally, reveals problems with under‐sampling ecological networks that may otherwise be difficult to detect in species‐rich networks. To mitigate the impacts of under‐sampling, more careful considerations of system‐specific variation in metric bias are needed.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Dealing With Under-sampling In Ecological Networkmentioning

confidence: 99%

The effect of network size and sampling completeness in depauperate networks

Henriksen

Chapple

Chown

et al. 2018

Journal of Animal Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Sample coverage estimators offer promise for estimating the number of missed interactions (Chacoff et al 2012, Traveset et al 2015, Jordano 2016, MacGregor et al 2017). The distinction between sample-coverage and network completeness is worth emphasising.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Finding missing links in interaction networks

Terry

Lewis

2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

6Documenting which species interact within ecological communities is challenging and labour-7 intensive. As a result, many interactions remain unrecorded, potentially distorting our 8 understanding of network structure and dynamics. We test the utility of four structural models 9 and a new coverage-deficit model for predicting missing links in both simulated and empirical 1 0 bipartite networks. We find they can perform well, but that the predictive power of structural 1 1 models varies with the underlying network structure. Predictions can be improved by ensembling 1 2 multiple models. Sample-coverage estimators of the number of missed interactions are highly 1 3 correlated with the number of missed interactions, but strongly biased towards underestimating 1 4 the true number of missing links. Augmenting observed networks with most-likely missing links 1 5 improves estimates of qualitative network metrics. Tools to identify likely missing links can be 1 6 simple to implement, allowing the prioritisation of research effort and more robust assessment of 1 7 network properties.1 8

show abstract

“…Sampling completeness of moth and flower species was calculated for each network as (100 × observed richness) ÷ (estimated richness), where the estimated species richness was calculated using the Chao2 estimator (Chao, ). Sampling completeness of interactions was calculated following Macgregor, Evans, and Pocock (), using SCW2 and the Chao2 estimator. Interaction sampling completeness was estimated for each observed moth species as (100 × observed interactions) ÷ (estimated interactions), where the estimated interaction richness was calculated using Chao2, and the mean of all species' interaction sampling completeness was taken, weighted by each species' estimated interaction richness.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Wildfire alters the structure and seasonal dynamics of nocturnal pollen‐transport networks

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Wildfires drive global biodiversity patterns and affect plant–pollinator interactions, and are expected to become more frequent and severe under climate change. Post‐fire plant communities often have increased floral abundance and diversity, but the effects of wildfires on the ecological process of pollination are poorly understood. Nocturnal moths are globally important pollinators, but no previous study has examined the effects of wildfire on nocturnal pollination interactions. We investigated the effects of wildfire on nocturnal pollen‐transport networks. We analysed the abundance and species richness of moths and flowers, and the structure of these networks, at three burned and three unburned sites in Portugal for two years, starting eight months after a large fire. Nocturnal pollen‐transport networks had lower complexity and robustness following the fire than at nearby unburned sites. Overall, 70% of individual moths carried pollen, and moths were found to be transporting pollen from 83% of the flower species present. Burned sites had significantly more abundant flowers, but less abundant and species‐rich moths. Individual moths transported more pollen in summer at burned sites, but less in winter; however, total pollen transport by the moth assemblage at burned sites was just 20% of that at unburned sites. Interaction turnover between burned and unburned networks was high. Negative effects of fire upon moths will likely permeate to other taxa through loss of mutualisms. Therefore, if wildfires become more frequent under climate change, community resilience may be eroded. Understanding the responses of ecological networks to wildfire can inform management that promotes resilience and facilitates whole‐ecosystem conservation.

show abstract

Estimating sampling completeness of interactions in quantitative bipartite ecological networks: incorporating variation in species’ specialisation

Cited by 19 publications

References 28 publications

The effect of network size and sampling completeness in depauperate networks

The effect of network size and sampling completeness in depauperate networks

Finding missing links in interaction networks

Wildfire alters the structure and seasonal dynamics of nocturnal pollen‐transport networks

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About