The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Nestedness versus modularity in ecological networks: two sides of the same coin?
Open accessAbstract
Summary: 1. Understanding the structure of ecological networks is a crucial task for interpreting community and ecosystem responses to global change. 2. Despite the recent interest in this subject, almost all studies have focused exclusively on one specific network property. The question remains as to what extent different network properties are related and how understanding this relationship can advance our comprehension of the mechanisms behind these patterns. 3. Here, we analysed the relationship between nestedness and modularity, two frequently studied network properties, for a large data set of 95 ecological communities including both plant–animal mutualistic and host–parasite networks. 4. We found that the correlation between nestedness and modularity for a population of random matrices generated from the real communities decreases significantly in magnitude and sign with increasing connectance independent of the network type. At low connectivities, networks that are highly nested also tend to be highly modular; the reverse happens at high connectivities. 5. The above result is qualitatively robust when different null models are used to infer network structure, but, at a finer scale, quantitative differences exist. We observed an important interaction between the network structure pattern and the null model used to detect it. 6. A better understanding of the relationship between nestedness and modularity is important given their potential implications on the dynamics and stability of ecological communities.
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
Finding and evaluating community structure in networks
Newman, M. E. J., & Girvan, M. (2004) · Physical Review E · doi:10.1103/physreve.69.026113 · Cited by 13,931
Functional cartography of complex metabolic networks
Guimerà, R., & Nunes Amaral, L. A. (2005) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature03288 · Cited by 3,983
Resolution limit in community detection
Fortunato, S., & Barthélemy, M. (2007) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0605965104 · Cited by 3,024
Will a Large Complex System be Stable?
MAY, R. M. (1972) · Nature · doi:10.1038/238413a0 · Cited by 2,869
Cited by
Regime shifts in the anthropocene: drivers, risks, and resilience
Rocha, J. C., Peterson, G. D., & Biggs, R. (2015) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0134639 · Cited by 181
Pires, M. M., Galetti, M., Donatti, C. I., Pizo, M. A., Dirzo, R., & Guimarães, P. R. (2014) · Oecologia · doi:10.1007/s00442-014-2971-1 · Cited by 87
Sebastián‐González, E., Morales‐Reyes, Z., Botella, F., Naves‐Alegre, L., Pérez‐García, J. M., Mateo‐Tomás, P., Olea, P. P., Moleón, M., Barbosa, J. M., Hiraldo, F., et al. (2020) · Ecography · doi:10.1111/ecog.05083 · Cited by 63
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
- Fortuna, M. A., Stouffer, D. B., Olesen, J. M., Jordano, P., Mouillot, D., Krasnov, B. R., Poulin, R., & Bascompte, J.
- Venue
- Journal of Animal Ecology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2010-06-07
- Volume
- 79
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 811-817
- ISSN
- 0021-8790 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2656
- OpenAlex
- W2099326369
- Cited by
- 507
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 25.84
- 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.