MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4385411392 · doi:10.3389/fevo.2023.1246853

Editorial: Patterns and processes in ecological networks over space

2023· editorial· en· W4385411392 sur OpenAlexaffabout
Sergio A. Estay, Marie‐Josée Fortin, Daniela N. López

Notice bibliographique

RevueFrontiers in Ecology and Evolution · 2023
Typeeditorial
Langueen
DomaineAgricultural and Biological Sciences
ThématiquePlant and animal studies
Établissements canadiensUniversity of Toronto
Organismes subventionnairesAgencia Nacional de Investigación y Desarrollo
Mots-clésEcologyEcosystemGeographyPopulationEnvironmental resource managementFront (military)Environmental scienceSociologyBiologyDemographyMeteorology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Network theory has become a fundamental conceptual framework and analytical tool in ecological research by facilitating our understanding of the interactions between individuals or species in nature (Proulx et al. 2005;Bascompte 2007). Nowadays, applying network theory to single communities or ecosystems is a common approach for ecologists studying in different environments, allowing them to disentangle the complex processes involved in antagonistic or mutualistic interactions (Dorman et al. 2017;Delmas et al. 2019). Several recent studies analyzed ecological networks' topological and statistical properties (Dale & Fortin 2021), linking these network properties to functional diversity or other ecological processes. However, the presence and strength of the ecological interactions vary over time and space (Pellissier et al. 2018), influencing the structure and organization of the communities and, in some cases generating complex dynamics (Holme & Saramäki 2012;Tylianakis & Morris 2017, Fortin et al. 2021). The ecological mechanisms that promote this variability can encompass different scales and ecological hierarchies from animal behavior to population dynamics and predator-prey cycles (Dorman et al. 2017;López et al. 2017;Gelmi Candusso et al. in press). The exact way these mechanisms interactively influence the spatiotemporal fluctuations of ecological communities is still a matter of discussion. In particular, space can be an intrinsic component of an ecological network (e.g., landscape use, metapopulations, transport networks), whereas spatial heterogeneity can account for a large proportion of the differences between local networks (Fortin et al. 2012;Andreson & Dragićević 2020;Galiana et al. 2022). Nevertheless, in many cases, an explicit representation of the spatial dimension of the biological phenomenon is absent.Several network theory approaches can help us deal with this spatiotemporal variability. Traditionally, minimum spanning tree or minimum cost arborescence (Borbvka, 1926;Kruskal, 1956;Prim, 1957) are methods that allow the incorporation of space o temporal heterogeneity. These approaches explicitly project the network into space/time, including link weights defining dimensional relationships between nodes. Contemporary approaches include multilayer networks (Pilosof et al. 2017;Aleta & Moreno 2018). Multilayer networks are objects with two o more layers, and each layer is a network representing, for example, community configuration at different points in time (Pilosof et al. 2017). Classical spatiotemporal phenomena like diffusion and percolation can be efficiently represented using multilayer networks (Aleta & Moreno 2018). In this vein, the explicit incorporation of space in ecological network analysis becomes a necessary next step in ecological research. This Research Topic, "Patterns and Processes in Ecological Networks over Space " aims to collect experiences and perspectives from different research areas where the application of spatial networks represents a step forward in our understanding of the natural world.An excellent example of the strength of combining empirical data and novel ways to use network theory to study the variability of food webs is presented by Moisan et al. (2023). The authors used 30 years of ecological monitoring at Bylot Island (Canada) to build community migration networks based on multipartite networks connecting different biogeographic regions with the summer High-Arctic terrestrial community. Their study provided an excellent example stressing that migrants modify the dynamics of the food web seasonally.Similarly, Borthagaray et al. (2023) analyzed the landscape's effect on biodiversity by considering species' dispersal capacity in pond metacommunities from Europe and South America. They found that peripheral communities present a lower richness and higher beta diversity at intermediate dispersal abilities than central communities. Their study provides an exciting view of the importance of metacommunity structure on diversity using a combined approach of empirical data and theoretical simulations.Then, Julien & Melles (2023) investigated how landscape characteristics influence species accumulation curves along the Canadian side of the Great Lakes Basin. Their findings stressed that the potential maximum species richness varies due to watershed position and land cover. Their study is an interesting example of the importance of analyzing land-water interactions in a landscape as a mosaic of watersheds.In a different application, Estay et al. (2023) used spatial networks, particularly a Minimum Cost Arborescence (MCA), to model the spread of an invasive species, Drosophila suzukii. MCAs are graphs that allow the incorporation and minimization of spatial distance among nodes following a temporal sequence (temporal direction). This approach facilitates the estimation of dispersal speed and its variability through the time window of the study. The approach has several advantages over other classical techniques to estimate key invasion dispersal statistics, for example, facilitating the estimation of dispersal rate and its variability over time.These examples represent an essential contribution to the theory and applications of spatial networks. Studies presented here show us how to deal with many still complex ecological problems through their use. This growing research area offers new perspectives to scientists and strategies for decision-makers facing the enormous challenge of environmental problems. We hope this Research topic provides some background and motivates more people to apply this approach.

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 enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,005
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,037
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Éditorial · Signal consensuel: Éditorial
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,033
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,110

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0050,037
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0050,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0050,004
Bibliométrie0,0050,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0030,004
Communication savante0,0090,007
Science ouverte0,0060,002
Intégrité de la recherche0,0170,020
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0330,021

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,009
Tête enseignante GPT0,200
Écart entre enseignants0,192 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreÉditorial

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2023
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueFrontiers in Ecology and EvolutionMême sujetPlant and animal studiesTravaux en français237 207