Inferring predator–prey interactions in food webs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Food webs are a powerful way to represent the diversity, structure, and function of ecological systems. However, the accurate description of food webs requires significant effort in time and resources, limiting their widespread use in ecological studies. Newly published methods allow for the inference of feeding interactions using proxy variables. Here, we compare the accuracy of two recently described methods, as well as describe a composite model of the two, for the inference of feeding interactions using a large, well‐described dataset. Both niche and neutral processes are involved in determining whether or not two species will form a feeding link in communities. Three different models for determining niche constraints of feeding interactions are compared, and all three models are extended by incorporating neutral processes, based on relative abundances. The three models compared here infer niche processes through (a) phylogenetic relationships, (b) local species trait distributions (e.g., body size), and (c) a composite of phylogeny and local traits. We show that all three methods perform well at predicting individual species interactions, and that these individual predictions scale up to the network level, resulting in food web structure of inferred networks being similar to their empirical counterparts. Our results indicate that inferring food web structure using phylogenies can be an efficient way of getting summary webs with minimal data, and offers a conservative test of changes in food web structure, particularly when there is low species turnover between sites. Inferences made using traits require more data, but allows for greater understanding of the mechanisms underlying trophic interactions. A composite model of the two methods provides a framework for investigating the importance of how phylogeny, trait distributions, and relative abundances, affect species interactions, and network structure.
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 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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".