mangal - making ecological network analysis simple

The study of ecological networks is severely limited by 1) the difficulty to access data, 2) the lack of a standardized way to link meta-data with interactions, and 3) the disparity of formats in which ecological networks themselves are stored and represented. To overcome these limitations, we have designed a data specification for ecological networks. We implemented a database respecting this standard, and released an R package (rmangal) allowing users to programmatically access, curate, and deposit data on ecological interactions. In this article, we show how these tools, in conjunction with other frameworks for the programmatic manipulation of open ecological data, streamlines the analysis process and improves replicability and reproducibility of ecological network studies.

[1]  Eduard Szöcs,et al.  taxize: taxonomic search and retrieval in R , 2013, F1000Research.

[2]  Jeff Ollerton,et al.  Assemblage and interaction structure of the anemonefish-anemone mutualism across the Manado region of Sulawesi, Indonesia , 2010, Environmental Biology of Fishes.

[3]  Elizabeth Elle,et al.  Traits and phylogenetic history contribute to network structure across Canadian plant–pollinator communities , 2014, Oecologia.

[4]  Stefano Allesina,et al.  The dimensionality of ecological networks. , 2013, Ecology letters.

[5]  Matthew B. Jones,et al.  Challenges and Opportunities of Open Data in Ecology , 2011, Science.

[6]  Neo D. Martinez.  Constant Connectance in Community Food Webs , 1992, The American Naturalist.

[7]  Dominique Gravel,et al.  The dissimilarity of species interaction networks. , 2012, Ecology letters.

[8]  Neo D. Martinez,et al.  Network structure and biodiversity loss in food webs: robustness increases with connectance , 2002, Ecology Letters.

[9]  Eduard Szöcs,et al.  taxize: taxonomic search and retrieval in R , 2013, F1000Research.

[10]  S. Morand,et al.  Facultative and obligate parasite communities exhibit different network properties , 2013, Parasitology.

[11]  Dominique Gravel,et al.  Inferring food web structure from predator–prey body size relationships , 2013 .

[12]  Dominique Gravel,et al.  Beyond species: why ecological interaction networks vary through space and time , 2014, bioRxiv.

[13]  P. Yodzis,et al.  The stability of real ecosystems , 1981, Nature.

[14]  Joel E. Cohen,et al.  Food web patterns and their consequences , 1991, Nature.

[15]  Chris Mungall,et al.  Global biotic interactions: An open infrastructure to share and analyze species-interaction datasets , 2014, Ecol. Informatics.

[16]  Brody Sandel,et al.  Historical climate‐change influences modularity and nestedness of pollination networks , 2013 .

[17]  N. Blüthgen,et al.  Specialization and interaction strength in a tropical plant-frugivore network differ among forest strata. , 2011, Ecology.

[18]  Heather A. Piwowar,et al.  Data reuse and the open data citation advantage , 2013, PeerJ.

[19]  Christian Mazza,et al.  Modeling Food Webs: Exploring Unexplained Structure Using Latent Traits , 2010, The American Naturalist.

[20]  Jeremy W. Fox,et al.  Species traits and abundances predict metrics of plant–pollinator network structure, but not pairwise interactions , 2015 .

[21]  Florence Debarre,et al.  The Availability of Research Data Declines Rapidly with Article Age , 2013, Current Biology.

[22]  Jordi Bascompte,et al.  The architecture of mutualistic networks minimizes competition and increases biodiversity , 2009, Nature.

[23]  Teja Tscharntke,et al.  Habitat modification alters the structure of tropical host–parasitoid food webs , 2007, Nature.

[24]  Jordi Bascompte,et al.  Disentangling the Web of Life , 2009, Science.

[25]  Dominique Gravel,et al.  Sharing in Ecology and Evolution Moving toward a sustainable ecological science : don ’ t let data go to waste ! , 2013 .