Tracking community change via network coherence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Understanding how ecological communities respond to environmental change remains a key challenge for biodiversity monitoring. To characterize such responses, we need tools that capture how coherently species respond across a community, and to predict their consequences, we must account for ecological interactions. We first introduce the Ecological Coherence (EC) framework, which describes how species’ co-responses are structured within a community. Building on this foundation, we extend it to Ecological Network Coherence (ENC), which embeds co-responses within the network of interactions by restricting them to interacting species. Both are expressed through two complementary representations: a response correlation matrix and the distribution of its values. The first can reveal aspects such as coherent or incoherent modules and the roles species play in shaping coherence, whereas the second provides a profile whose shape may serve as an early-warning indicator of instability. These can be applied to both intrinsic responses (environmental performance) and realized responses (abundance dynamics), derived from currently available monitoring data. We illustrate this approach in two empirical systems: a tropical pollination network, where interacting mutualists were more coherent in their temperature responses than the broader community, and a marine food web, where coherence in abundance trends shifted during collapse. Using a Lotka–Volterra model, we further show that ENC distributions with higher variance—reflecting stronger positive and negative co-responses—increase the risk of instability or amplification in dynamics. We also find that species influential in both the correlation matrix and the interaction matrix are key drivers of major dynamic shifts. These results point to the importance of further exploring ENC distributions as potential early-warning indicators of ecological disruption.
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 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".