The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Sampling networks of ecological interactions
Open accessAbstract
Summary: Sampling ecological interactions presents similar challenges, problems, potential biases and constraints as sampling individuals and species in biodiversity inventories. Robust estimates of the actual number of interactions (links) within diversified ecological networks require adequate sampling effort that needs to be explicitly gauged. Yet we still lack a sampling theory explicitly focusing on ecological interactions. While the complete inventory of interactions is likely impossible, a robust characterization of its main patterns and metrics is probably realistic. We must acknowledge that a sizeable fraction of the maximum number of interactions among, say, A animal species and P plant species (i.e. ) is impossible to record due to forbidden links, that is life‐history restrictions. Thus, the number of observed interactions I in robustly sampled networks is typically , resulting in sparse interaction matrices with low connectance. Here I provide a review and outline a conceptual framework for interaction sampling by building an explicit analogue to individuals and species sampling, thus extending diversity‐monitoring approaches to the characterization of complex networks of ecological interactions. Contrary to species inventories, a sizable fraction of non‐observed pairwise interactions cannot be sampled, due to biological constraints that forbid their occurrence. Reasons for forbidden links are multiple but mainly stem from spatial and temporal uncoupling, size mismatches and intrinsically low probabilities of interspecific encounter for most potential interactions of partner species. Adequately assessing the completeness of a network of ecological interactions thus needs knowledge of the natural history details embedded, so that forbidden links can be accounted for as a portion of the unobserved links when addressing sampling effort. Recent implementations of inference methods for unobserved species or for individual‐based data can be combined with the assessment of forbidden links. This can help in estimating their relative importance, simply by the difference between the asymptotic estimate of interaction richness in a robustly sampled assemblage and the maximum richness of interactions. This is crucial to assess the rapid and devastating effects of defaunation‐driven loss of key ecological interactions and the services they provide and the analogous losses related to interaction gains due to invasive species and biotic homogenization. A lay summary is available for this article.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Interaction frequency as a surrogate for the total effect of animal mutualists on plants
Vázquez, D. P., Morris, W. F., & Jordano, P. (2005) · Ecology Letters · doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2005.00810.x · Cited by 599
Self-citationIII.1 Biodiversity: Concepts, Patterns, and Measurement
Colwell, R. K. (2009) · The Princeton Guide to Ecology · doi:10.1515/9781400833023.257 · Cited by 225
Cited by
EcologicalNetworks.jl: analysing ecological networks of species interactions
Poisot, T., Bélisle, Z., Hoebeke, L., Stock, M., & Szefer, P. (2019) · Ecography · doi:10.1111/ecog.04310 · Cited by 16
Metadata
- Authors
- Jordano, P.
- Venue
- Functional Ecology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2016-10-05
- Volume
- 30
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 1883-1893
- ISSN
- 0269-8463 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2435
- OpenAlex
- W2949866378
- Cited by
- 358
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 19.51
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.