Fundamental contradictions among observational and experimental estimates of non‐trophic species interactions

Abstract

The difficulty of experimentally quantifying non-trophic species interactions has long troubled ecologists. Increasingly, a new application of the classic "checkerboard distribution" approach is used to infer interactions by examining the pairwise frequency at which species are found to spatially co-occur. However, the link between spatial associations, as estimated from observational co-occurrence, and species interactions has not been tested. Here we used nine common statistical methods to estimate associations from surveys of rocky intertidal communities in the Northeast Pacific Ocean. We compared those inferred associations with a new data set of experimentally determined net and direct species interactions. Although association methods generated networks with aggregate structure similar to previously published interaction networks, each method detected a different set of species associations from the same data set. Moreover, although association methods generally performed better than a random model, associations rarely matched empirical net or direct species interactions, with high rates of false positives and true positives, and many false negatives. Our findings cast doubt on studies that equate species co-occurrences to species interactions and highlight a persistent, unanswered question: how do we interpret spatial patterns in communities? We suggest future research directions to unify the observational and experimental study of species interactions, and discuss the need for community standards and best practices in association analysis.

Incorporating phylogenetic metrics to microbial co‐occurrence networks based on amplicon sequences to discern community assembly processes

“…Microbial co‐occurrence networks, mainly reconstructed from amplicon sequencing data, are being increasingly used to infer significant associations between pairs of co‐occurring taxa and often ascribed to biological interactions (Faust & Raes, ; Fuhrman, Cram, & Needham, ; Ho et al, ; Pérez‐Valera et al, ). Critical voices, however, call for caution when analysing and interpreting co‐occurrence networks in order to avoid the description of ecologically meaningless interactions (Barner et al, ; Connor, Barberán, & Clauset, ; Freilich et al, ). Here, we use co‐occurrence networks to identify associations between pairs of bacterial taxa across multiple assemblages and test their significance against a null model.…”

Context‐dependent biotic interactions control plant abundance across altitudinal environmental gradients

“…Recent work suggests models of competition via spatial co-occurrence do a poor job of recapitulating experimental results (Barner et al 2018). Indeed, simulation work questions whether the consequences of biotic interactions can be inferred from distribution models at all (Godsoe et al 2017a).…”

A reality check for climate change experiments: Do they reflect the real world?

“…, Barner et al. ). Not surprisingly, inconsistencies have been attributed both to experiments strongly underestimating observed climate effects (Wolkovich et al.…”