Using ecological networks to answer questions in global biogeography and ecology

Windsor, Fredric M.; Hoogen, Johan van den; Crowther, Thomas W.; Evans, Darren M.

doi:10.1111/jbi.14447

Cited by 36 publications

(44 citation statements)

References 125 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Nevertheless, it is imperative that more geographically explicit data about ecological networks and interactions become available. This would help clarify when cooccurrences can be translated into interactions ( Windsor et al, 2022 ) and help the development of more advanced validation methods for occurrence data.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…With this article, we hope to add to the collective effort to decode the encrypted message that is the occurrence of a species in space and time. A promising avenue that adds to our method is the prediction of networks and interactions at large scales ( Strydom et al, 2021 ; Windsor et al, 2022 ), for they can add valuable information about ecological interactions where they are missing. Additionally, in order to achieve a robust modelling framework towards actual species distribution models we should invest in efforts to collect and combine open data on species occurrence and interactions ( Windsor et al, 2022 ), especially because we may be losing ecological interactions at least as fast as we are losing species ( Valiente-Banuet et al, 2015 ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Mismatch between IUCN range maps and species interactions data illustrated using the Serengeti food web

Higino

Banville

Dansereau

et al. 2023

PeerJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Range maps are a useful tool to describe the spatial distribution of species. However, they need to be used with caution, as they essentially represent a rough approximation of a species’ suitable habitats. When stacked together, the resulting communities in each grid cell may not always be realistic, especially when species interactions are taken into account. Here we show the extent of the mismatch between range maps, provided by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), and species interactions data. More precisely, we show that local networks built from those stacked range maps often yield unrealistic communities, where species of higher trophic levels are completely disconnected from primary producers. Methodology We used the well-described Serengeti food web of mammals and plants as our case study, and identify areas of data mismatch within predators’ range maps by taking into account food web structure. We then used occurrence data from the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) to investigate where data is most lacking. Results We found that most predator ranges comprised large areas without any overlapping distribution of their prey. However, many of these areas contained GBIF occurrences of the predator. Conclusions Our results suggest that the mismatch between both data sources could be due either to the lack of information about ecological interactions or the geographical occurrence of prey. We finally discuss general guidelines to help identify defective data among distributions and interactions data, and we recommend this method as a valuable way to assess whether the occurrence data that are being used, even if incomplete, are ecologically accurate.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mismatch between IUCN range maps and species interactions data illustrated using the Serengeti food web

Higino

Banville

Dansereau

et al. 2023

PeerJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We will book‐end the year with a reflection on Alfred Russel Wallace, who would celebrate his 200th birthday on 08th January 2023, by Ali and Heaney (2022) and a celebration of the 60th anniversary of MacArthur and Wilson (1963) in December via a special issue on functional island biogeography. Also in January we celebrate the contributions of early career biogeographers (Carvalho et al, 2022; Vasconcelos et al, 2021; Windsor et al, 2022; see Dawson et al, 2023), and then throughout the year we will publish Perspectives by senior biogeographers who we asked to look for inspiration in the aforementioned historical ‘top 50’ collections to set the scene for future years. We also solicited contributions on New Techniques and the Future of Biogeography , which will be published throughout the year and provide a small sampling of ongoing developments.…”

Section: The 50th Anniversary Yearmentioning

confidence: 99%

Five decades of biogeography: A view from the Journal of Biogeography

Dawson

Correia

Ladle

2022

Journal of Biogeography

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The first issue of Journal of Biogeography (JBI) was published by Blackwell Scientific in March 1974. Volume 1 summed to 279 pages over four issues, and its remit was broad-biology, geography, palaeontology, genetics, human modification of the environment, effects on biotic distributions, their medical relevance, and more (Watts, 1974). Although other journals carried some biogeographical papers (e.g. see Cowell & Parker, 2004), JBI remained the sole journal dedicated to publishing biogeography until the early 1990s when two sister titles-Biodiversity Letters and Global Ecology and Biogeography Letters-were created to accommodate growth in the field (Figure 1), the rise of global environmental concerns (Stott, 1991) and momentum captured in newly coined concepts such as 'biodiversity' (Stott, 1993). These sister journals metamorphosed into the now more familiar titles Diversity and Distributions (DDI) and Global Ecology and Biogeography (GEB) in the late 1990s to publish the burgeoning studies of, respectively, biological invasions (Richardson, 1998) and macroecology (Whittaker, 1999). Throughout, JBI continued to act as the most inclusive venue for biogeography, its content shifting through the years as the interests of authors and readers waxed and waned.The commitment to represent the full breadth of biogeography has remained a constant since (Linder, 2016;Whittaker, 2005), as has the commitment that JBI should be a journal about biogeography, by biogeographers, and for biogeographers both as authors and as readers (Linder, 2016).Changes in biogeographical journals also have reflected changes in publishing. JBI, for example, transitioned from its initial sub-A4sized format to A4 in 1989A4 in (Whittaker, 2014. The editorial introducing GEB also noted the adoption of email for handling reviews, encouraged authors to submit electronic versions of revised manuscripts 'by disk', and referred to the journal website as a key source of information; papers could be downloaded as PDF files, and HTML versions were on the immediate horizon (Whittaker, 1999). A halfdecade later, 'Online-Early' was imminent, allowing digital publication online before print issues and citation using the Digital Object Identifier (DOI); referral pathways, to transfer articles among sister journals, were starting to take shape (Whittaker, 2005). Around the same time, Online Supporting Information was enabled, which accompanied >80% of articles in JBI a decade later (Whittaker, 2014); the proportion for research articles is now >95%. Linder (2016) remarked on the emergence of data repositories, the surge of papers relying on 'recycled' data, and the need for recognition of data authors, deposition of new data, and policies for data access.

show abstract

“…Indeed, by relating observed (or known) interactions to differences in traits (i.e., trait-matching, Pichler et al 2020) or phylogenies, we can infer missing interactions, or even predict entire meta-networks from existing ones (e.g., Caron et al 2021;Strydom et al 2021Strydom et al , 2022. As the Eltonian shortfall is being addressed (Hortal et al 2015), we now have the opportunity to directly leverage known trophic interactions (rather than trying to infer them from co-occurrence data) to build more realistic and ecological sound predictive models (Windsor et al 2022).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Integrating food webs in species distribution models improves ecological niche estimation and predictions

Poggiato

Andréoletti

Shirley

et al. 2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Biotic interactions drive multitrophic species community assembly. Yet, explicitly incorporating this process in species distribution models (SDMs) is particularly challenging, even when biotic interactions are known. Here, we propose a framework that combines knowledge of trophic interactions with Bayesian structural equation models that model each species as a function of its prey or predators and environmental conditions. We tested and validated our framework on realistic simulated communities from different theoretical models. We showed that our framework improves the inference of both species’ fundamental and realized niches compared to classical SDMs (mean performances increased by 11% and 4% respectively), especially for species with strong biotic control, thus increasing model predictive performance (up to 99% and 70% improvement, respectively). Our framework can easily integrate various SDM extensions (e.g., occupancy models) and algorithms, and stands out as a novel solution for modeling multitrophic community distributions when trophic interactions are known or assumed.

show abstract

Using ecological networks to answer questions in global biogeography and ecology

Cited by 36 publications

References 125 publications

Mismatch between IUCN range maps and species interactions data illustrated using the Serengeti food web

Mismatch between IUCN range maps and species interactions data illustrated using the Serengeti food web

Five decades of biogeography: A view from the Journal of Biogeography

Integrating food webs in species distribution models improves ecological niche estimation and predictions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About