The DOI matches its Crossref record; 78 of the 78 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Machine learning algorithms to infer trait‐matching and predict species interactions in ecological networks
Open accessAbstract
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.
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.
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?
In the citing paper
“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]
In the citing paper
“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.
Citations
Cites
Breiman, L. (2001) · Machine Learning · doi:10.1023/a:1010933404324 · Cited by 133,538
LeCun, Y., Bengio, Y., & Hinton, G. (2015) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature14539 · Cited by 84,126
Greedy function approximation: A gradient boosting machine
Friedman, J. H. (2001) · The Annals of Statistics · doi:10.1214/aos/1013203451 · Cited by 30,731
"Why Should I Trust You?": Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifier
Ribeiro, M. T., Singh, S., & Guestrin, C. (2016) · Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining · doi:10.1145/2939672.2939778 · Cited by 17,555
(2012) · Cited by 8,009
MissForest—Non-parametric missing value imputation for mixed-type data
Stekhoven, D. J., & Bühlmann, P. (2012) · Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btr597 · Cited by 6,156
ALLOUCHE, O., TSOAR, A., & KADMON, R. (2006) · Journal of Applied Ecology · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2664.2006.01214.x · Cited by 5,172
Statistical Modeling: The Two Cultures (with comments and a rejoinder by the author)
Breiman, L. (2001) · Statistical Science · doi:10.1214/ss/1009213726 · Cited by 4,340
Cross‐validation strategies for data with temporal, spatial, hierarchical, or phylogenetic structure
Roberts, D. R., Bahn, V., Ciuti, S., Boyce, M. S., Elith, J., Guillera‐Arroita, G., Hauenstein, S., Lahoz‐Monfort, J. J., Schröder, B., Thuiller, W., et al. (2017) · Ecography · doi:10.1111/ecog.02881 · Cited by 3,689
Self-citationLearning from imbalanced data: open challenges and future directions
Krawczyk, B. (2016) · Progress in Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1007/s13748-016-0094-0 · Cited by 2,459
Research works printed but not linked: 4
- Cristianini N., 2000, An introduction to support vector machines
- Faegri K., 1979, The principles of pollination ecology
- Pichler M., 2019, Zenodo
- R Core Team, 2019, R: A language and environment for statistical computing
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Perspectives in machine learning for wildlife conservation
Tuia, D., Kellenberger, B., Beery, S., Costelloe, B. R., Zuffi, S., Risse, B., Mathis, A., Mathis, M. W., van Langevelde, F., Burghardt, T., et al. (2022) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-022-27980-y · Cited by 740
The effects of defaunation on plants’ capacity to track climate change
Fricke, E. C., Ordóñez, A., Rogers, H. S., & Svenning, J. (2022) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.abk3510 · Cited by 260
Pollination syndromes in the 21 st century: where do we stand and where may we go?
Dellinger, A. S. (2020) · New Phytologist · doi:10.1111/nph.16793 · Cited by 239
Cautionary notes on the use of co-occurrence networks in soil ecology
Goberna, M., & Verdú, M. (2021) · Soil Biology and Biochemistry · doi:10.1016/j.soilbio.2021.108534 · Cited by 255
Trait-Based Assessments of Climate-Change Impacts on Interacting Species
Schleuning, M., Neuschulz, E. L., Albrecht, J., Bender, I. M. A., Bowler, D. E., Dehling, D. M., Fritz, S. A., Hof, C., Mueller, T., Nowak, L., et al. (2020) · Trends in Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1016/j.tree.2019.12.010 · Cited by 206
Self-citation
Metadata
- 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
- Venue
- Methods in Ecology and Evolution
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2019-11-19
- Volume
- 11
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 281-293
- ISSN
- 2041-210X (ISSN-L)
- 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
- hybrid
- doi.org
- 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 › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Insect Science › 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
