Revealing biases in the sampling of ecological interaction networks
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract The structure of ecological interactions is commonly understood through analyses of interaction networks. However, these analyses may be sensitive to sampling biases in both the interactors (the nodes of the network) and interactions (the links between nodes), because the detectability of species and their interactions is highly heterogeneous. These issues may affect the accuracy of empirically constructed ecological networks. Yet statistical biases introduced by sampling error are difficult to quantify in the absence of full knowledge of the underlying ecological network’s structure. To explore properties of large-scale modular networks, we developed EcoNetGen , which constructs and samples networks with predetermined topologies. These networks may represent a wide variety of communities that vary in size and types of ecological interactions. We sampled these networks with different sampling designs that may be employed in field observations. The observed networks generated by each sampling process were then analyzed with respect to the number of components, size of components and other network metrics. We show that the sampling effort needed to estimate underlying network properties accurately depends both on the sampling design and on the underlying network topology. In particular, networks with random or scale-free modules require more complete sampling to reveal their structure, compared to networks whose modules are nested or bipartite. Overall, the modules with nested structure were the easiest to detect, regardless of sampling design. Sampling according to species degree (number of interactions) was consistently found to be the most accurate strategy to estimate network structure. Conversely, sampling according to module (representing different interaction types or taxa) results in a rather complete view of certain modules, but fails to provide a complete picture of the underlying network. We recommend that these findings be incorporated into field sampling design of projects aiming to characterize large species interactions networks to reduce sampling biases. Author Summary Ecological interactions are commonly modeled as interaction networks. Analyses of such networks may be sensitive to sampling biases and detection issues in both the interactors and interactions (nodes and links). Yet, statistical biases introduced by sampling error are difficult to quantify in the absence of full knowledge of the underlying network’s structure. For insight into ecological networks, we developed software EcoNetGen (available in R and Python). These allow the generation and sampling of several types of large-scale modular networks with predetermined topologies, representing a wide variety of communities and types of ecological interactions. Networks can be sampled according to designs employed in field observations. We demonstrate, through first uses of this software, that underlying network topology interacts strongly with empirical sampling design, and that constructing empirical networks by starting with highly connected species may be the give the best representation of the underlying network.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,015 | 0,086 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».