CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 149Plant and animal studiesEcology and Vegetation Dynamics StudiesInsect and Arachnid Ecology and Behavior

Machine learning algorithms to infer trait‐matching and predict species interactions in ecological networks

Open access
Pichler, Maximilian, Boreux, Virginie, Klein, Alexandra‐Maria, Schleuning, Matthias, Hartig, Florian·2020·Methods in Ecology and Evolution
DOI 10.1111/2041-210x.13329
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Ecologists have long suspected that species are more likely to interact if their traits match in a particular way. For example, a pollination interaction may be more likely if the proportions of a bee's tongue fit a plant's flower shape. Empirical estimates of the importance of trait‐matching for determining species interactions, however, vary significantly among different types of ecological networks. Here, we show that ambiguity among empirical trait‐matching studies may have arisen at least in parts from using overly simple statistical models. Using simulated and real data, we contrast conventional generalized linear models (GLM) with more flexible Machine Learning (ML) models (Random Forest, Boosted Regression Trees, Deep Neural Networks, Convolutional Neural Networks, Support Vector Machines, naïve Bayes, and k‐Nearest‐Neighbor), testing their ability to predict species interactions based on traits, and infer trait combinations causally responsible for species interactions. We found that the best ML models can successfully predict species interactions in plant–pollinator networks, outperforming GLMs by a substantial margin. Our results also demonstrate that ML models can better identify the causally responsible trait‐matching combinations than GLMs. In two case studies, the best ML models successfully predicted species interactions in a global plant–pollinator database and inferred ecologically plausible trait‐matching rules for a plant–hummingbird network from Costa Rica, without any prior assumptions about the system. We conclude that flexible ML models offer many advantages over traditional regression models for understanding interaction networks. We anticipate that these results extrapolate to other ecological network types. More generally, our results highlight the potential of machine learning and artificial intelligence for inference in ecology, beyond standard tasks such as image or pattern recognition.

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 · 10.1111/2041-210x.13329

Cites

78 of 78 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Significant error reduction of machine learning and deep learning with respect to traditional generalized regression models has been reported routinely for species richness and diversity estimation.

    “Significant error reduction of ML and DL with respect to traditional generalized regression models has been reported routinely for species richness and diversity estimation33,34.”

    From Perspectives in machine learning for wildlife conservation (2022) · cites this paper as [33]

  • Tree-based techniques have been used to predict species interactions: regression trees significantly outperformed classical generalized linear models in predicting plant-pollinator interactions.

    “Tree-based techniques have also been used to predict species interactions: for example, regression trees significantly outperformed classical generalized linear models in predicting plant-pollinator interactions33.”

    From Perspectives in machine learning for wildlife conservation (2022) · cites this paper as [33]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Cristianini, N., & Shawe-Taylor, J. (2000). An introduction to support vector machines. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  2. Faegri, K., & van der Pijl, L. (1979). The principles of pollination ecology. ID -19790561579. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Pichler, M., Boreux, V., Klein, A., Schleuning, M., & Hartig, F.
Affiliations
  • University of Regensburg (DE)
  • University of Freiburg (DE)
  • Senckenberg Biodiversity and Climate Research Centre (DE)
Corresponding author
Pichler, Maximilian
ORCID
Venue
Methods in Ecology and Evolution
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2019-11-19
Volume
11
Issue
2
Pages
281-293
ISSN
2041-210X (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1111/2041-210x.13329
OpenAlex
W2970584612
Cited by
149
References
78
Citations by year
2026: 20 · 2025: 29 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 23 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 13
FWCI
10.77
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Methods in Ecology and Evolution (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Plant and animal studies
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Ecology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Insect and Arachnid Ecology and Behavior
Keywords
trait matching, species interactions, ecological networks, plant-pollinator networks, machine learning, generalized linear models, random forest, boosted regression trees, deep neural network, convolutional neural networks, support vector machine, naive Bayes, k-nearest neighbors, trait combinations, plant-hummingbird interactions, interaction prediction

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