Data from: Temporal scale-dependence of plant-pollinator networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study of mutualistic interaction networks has led to valuable insights into ecological and evolutionary processes. However, our understanding of network structure may depend upon the temporal scale at which we sample and analyze network data. To date, we lack a comprehensive assessment of the temporal scale-dependence of network structure across a wide range of temporal scales and geographic locations. If network structure is temporally scale-dependent, networks constructed over different temporal scales may provide very different perspectives on the structure and composition of species interactions. Furthermore, it remains unclear how various factors—including species richness, species turnover, link rewiring, and sampling effort—act in concert to shape network structure across different temporal scales. To address these issues, we used a large database of temporally-resolved plant-pollinator networks to investigate how temporal aggregation from the scale of one day to multiple years influences network structure. In addition, we used structural equation modeling to explore the direct and indirect effects of temporal scale, species richness, species turnover, link rewiring, and sampling effort on network structural properties. We find that plant-pollinator network structure is strongly temporally-scale dependent. This general pattern arises because the temporal scale determines the degree to which temporal dynamics (i.e. phenological turnover of species and links) are included in the network, in addition to how much sampling effort is put into constructing the network. Ultimately, the temporal scale-dependence of our plant-pollinator networks appears to be mostly driven by species richness, which increases with sampling effort, and species turnover, which increases with temporal extent. In other words, after accounting for variation in species richness, network structure is increasingly shaped by its underlying temporal dynamics. Our results suggest that considering multiple temporal scales may be necessary to fully appreciate the causes and consequences of interaction 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 | 0.002 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".