Beyond species: why ecological interaction networks vary through space and time
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Community ecology is tasked with the considerable challenge of predicting the structure, and properties, of emerging ecosystems. It requires the ability to understand how and why species interact, as this will allow the development of mechanism‐based predictive models, and as such to better characterize how ecological mechanisms act locally on the existence of inter‐specific interactions. Here we argue that the current conceptualization of species interaction networks is ill‐suited for this task. Instead, we propose that future research must start to account for the intrinsic variability of species interactions, then scale up from here onto complex networks. This can be accomplished simply by recognizing that there exists intra‐specific variability, in traits or properties related to the establishment of species interactions. By shifting the scale towards population‐based processes, we show that this new approach will improve our predictive ability and mechanistic understanding of how species interact over large spatial or temporal scales. Synthesis Although species interactions are the backbone of ecological communities, we have little insights on how (and why) they vary through space and time. In this article, we build on existing empirical literature to show that the same species may happen to interact in different ways when their local abundances vary, their trait distribution changes, or when the environment affects either of these factors. We discuss how these findings can be integrated in existing frameworks for the analysis and simulation of species interactions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".