MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385411392 · doi:10.3389/fevo.2023.1246853

Editorial: Patterns and processes in ecological networks over space

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

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Ecology and Evolution · 2023
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersAgencia Nacional de Investigación y Desarrollo
KeywordsEcologyEcosystemGeographyPopulationEnvironmental resource managementFront (military)Environmental scienceSociologyBiologyDemographyMeteorology

Abstract

fetched live from 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.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.037
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.110

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.037
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0050.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.004
Bibliometrics0.0050.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0090.007
Open science0.0060.002
Research integrity0.0170.020
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0330.021

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.200
Teacher spread0.192 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Ecology and EvolutionSame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207