Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 177

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Influences of sampling effort on detected patterns and structuring processes of a Neotropical plant–hummingbird network

Vizentin‐Bugoni, Jeferson, Maruyama, Pietro K., Debastiani, Vanderlei J., Duarte, L. da S., Dalsgaard, Bo, Sazima, Marlies·2016·Journal of Animal Ecology

Abstract

Summary: Virtually all empirical ecological interaction networks to some extent suffer from undersampling. However, how limitations imposed by sampling incompleteness affect our understanding of ecological networks is still poorly explored, which may hinder further advances in the field. Here, we use a plant–hummingbird network with unprecedented sampling effort (2716 h of focal observations) from the Atlantic Rainforest in Brazil, to investigate how sampling effort affects the description of network structure (i.e. widely used network metrics) and the relative importance of distinct processes (i.e. species abundances vs. traits) in determining the frequency of pairwise interactions. By dividing the network into time slices representing a gradient of sampling effort, we show that quantitative metrics, such as interaction evenness, specialization (H2′), weighted nestedness (wNODF) and modularity (Q; QuanBiMo algorithm) were less biased by sampling incompleteness than binary metrics. Furthermore, the significance of some network metrics changed along the sampling effort gradient. Nevertheless, the higher importance of traits in structuring the network was apparent even with small sampling effort. Our results (i) warn against using very poorly sampled networks as this may bias our understanding of networks, both their patterns and structuring processes, (ii) encourage the use of quantitative metrics little influenced by sampling when performing spatio‐temporal comparisons and (iii) indicate that in networks strongly constrained by species traits, such as plant–hummingbird networks, even small sampling is sufficient to detect their relative importance for the frequencies of interactions. Finally, we argue that similar effects of sampling are expected for other highly specialized subnetworks.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/1365-2656.12459

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 1 references

Metadata

Authors
Vizentin‐Bugoni, J., Maruyama, P. K., Debastiani, V. J., Duarte, L. D. S., Dalsgaard, B., & Sazima, M.
Venue
Journal of Animal Ecology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2015-11-30
Volume
85
Issue
1
Pages
262-272
ISSN
  • 0021-8790 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2656
OpenAlex
W2108955404
Cited by
177
References
1
FWCI
13.01
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Influences of sampling effort on detected patterns and structuring processes of a Neotropical plant–hummingbird network. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/1365-2656.12459
The paper
Vizentin‐Bugoni, J., Maruyama, P. K., Debastiani, V. J., Duarte, L. D. S., Dalsgaard, B., & Sazima, M. (2016). Influences of sampling effort on detected patterns and structuring processes of a Neotropical plant–hummingbird network. Journal of Animal Ecology. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2656.12459

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.