Sampling networks of ecological interactions

Summary Sampling ecological interactions presents similar challenges, problems, potential biases, and constraints as sampling individuals and species in biodiversity inventories. Robust estimates of the actual number of interactions (links) within diversified ecological networks require adequate sampling effort that needs to be explicitly gauged. Yet we still lack a sampling theory explicitly focusing on ecological interactions. While the complete inventory of interactions is likely impossible, a robust characterization of its main patterns and metrics is probably realistic. We must acknowledge that a sizeable fraction of the maximum number of interactions Imax among, say, A animal species and P plant species (i.e., Imax = AP) is impossible to record due to forbidden links, i.e., life-history restrictions. Thus, the number of observed interactions I in robustly sampled networks is typically I << Imax, resulting in sparse interaction matrices with low connectance. Here I provide a review and outline a conceptual framework for interaction sampling by building an explicit analogue to individuals and species sampling, thus extending diversity-monitoring approaches to the characterization of complex networks of ecological interactions. Contrary to species inventories, a sizable fraction of non-observed pairwise interactions cannot be sampled, due to biological constraints that forbid their occurrence. Reasons for forbidden links are multiple but mainly stem from spatial and temporal uncoupling, size mismatches, and intrinsically low probabilities of interspecific encounter for most potential interactions of partner species. Adequately assessing the completeness of a network of ecological interactions thus needs knowledge of the natural history details embedded, so that forbidden links can be accounted for as a portion of the unobserved links when addressing sampling effort. Recent implementations of inference methods for unobserved species or for individual-based data can be combined with the assessment of forbidden links. This can help in estimating their relative importance, simply by the difference between the asymptotic estimate of interaction richness in a robustly-sampled assemblage and the maximum richness Imax of interactions. This is crucial to assess the rapid and devastating effects of defaunationdriven loss of key ecological interactions and the services they provide and the analogous losses related to interaction gains due to invasive species and biotic homogenization. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

[1]  Marlies Sazima,et al.  Influences of sampling effort on detected patterns and structuring processes of a Neotropical plant-hummingbird network. , 2016, The Journal of animal ecology.

[2]  Jeferson Vizentin-Bugoni,et al.  Morphological and Spatio‐Temporal Mismatches Shape a Neotropical Savanna Plant‐Hummingbird Network , 2014 .

[3]  F. W. Preston The Commonness, And Rarity, of Species , 1948 .

[4]  Robert K. Colwell,et al.  Estimating terrestrial biodiversity through extrapolation. , 1994, Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences.

[5]  Pedro Jordano,et al.  Beyond species loss: The extinction of ecological interactions in a changing world , 2015 .

[6]  SPECIES RICHNESS ESTIMATION , 2022 .

[7]  D. Vázquez,et al.  Rareness and specialization in plant-pollinator networks. , 2011, Ecology.

[8]  Robert K. Colwell,et al.  ESTIMATION OF SPECIES RICHNESS: MIXTURE MODELS, THE ROLE OF RARE SPECIES, AND INFERENTIAL CHALLENGES , 2005 .

[9]  Robert K. Colwell,et al.  INTERPOLATING, EXTRAPOLATING, AND COMPARING INCIDENCE-BASED SPECIES ACCUMULATION CURVES , 2004 .

[10]  A Rivera-Hutinel,et al.  Effects of sampling completeness on the structure of plant-pollinator networks. , 2012, Ecology.

[11]  A. Chao Species Estimation and Applications , 2006 .

[12]  Nyeema C. Harris,et al.  Coextinction and persistence of dependent species in a changing world , 2012 .

[13]  J. Bosch,et al.  Plant-pollinator networks: adding the pollinator's perspective. , 2009, Ecology letters.

[14]  M. Hahn,et al.  Differences in structure and dynamics of Polynucleobacter communities in a temperate and a subtropical lake, revealed at three phylogenetic levels. , 2006, FEMS microbiology ecology.

[15]  Carsten F. Dormann,et al.  Specialization of Mutualistic Interaction Networks Decreases toward Tropical Latitudes , 2012, Current Biology.

[16]  Carsten F. Dormann,et al.  Indices, Graphs and Null Models: Analyzing Bipartite Ecological Networks , 2009 .

[17]  A. Dobson,et al.  Biodiversity Loss and Ecological Network Structure , 2005 .

[18]  S. Strogatz Exploring complex networks , 2001, Nature.

[19]  S. Ibanez,et al.  Optimizing size thresholds in a plant–pollinator interaction web: towards a mechanistic understanding of ecological networks , 2012, Oecologia.

[20]  P. Hebert,et al.  Complementary molecular information changes our perception of food web structure , 2014, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[21]  Dominique Gravel,et al.  Emergence of Structural Patterns in Neutral Trophic Networks , 2012, PloS one.

[22]  Dominique Gravel,et al.  A common framework for identifying linkage rules across different types of interactions , 2015, bioRxiv.

[23]  Elizabeth L. Sander,et al.  Rarefaction and extrapolation with Hill numbers: a framework for sampling and estimation in species diversity studies , 2014 .

[24]  I. Good THE POPULATION FREQUENCIES OF SPECIES AND THE ESTIMATION OF POPULATION PARAMETERS , 1953 .

[25]  Neo D. Martinez Artifacts or Attributes? Effects of Resolution on the Little Rock Lake Food Web , 1991 .

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

[27]  Jens M. Olesen,et al.  The structure of a high latitude plant‐flower visitor system: the dominance of flies , 1999 .

[28]  Jens M. Olesen,et al.  Scaling down from species to individuals: a flower–visitation network between individual honeybees and thistle plants , 2011 .

[29]  Malual Jackdit Garang The dispersed seeds , 2013 .

[30]  J. E. Cohen,et al.  Food webs and niche space. , 1979, Monographs in population biology.

[31]  Alfried P Vogler,et al.  DNA barcoding insect–host plant associations , 2009, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[32]  Rodrigo Ramos-Jiliberto,et al.  A conceptual framework for studying the strength of plant-animal mutualistic interactions. , 2015, Ecology letters.

[33]  Nico Blüthgen,et al.  Why network analysis is often disconnected from community ecology: A critique and an ecologist's guide , 2010 .

[34]  Michael J. O. Pocock,et al.  Merging DNA metabarcoding and ecological network analysis to understand and build resilient terrestrial ecosystems , 2016 .

[35]  Jane Memmott,et al.  Sampling method influences the structure of plant–pollinator networks , 2011 .

[36]  Luciano Cagnolo,et al.  Evaluating multiple determinants of the structure of plant-animal mutualistic networks. , 2009, Ecology.

[37]  Jordi Bascompte,et al.  Temporal dynamics in a pollination network. , 2008, Ecology.

[38]  Marlies Sazima,et al.  Processes entangling interactions in communities: forbidden links are more important than abundance in a hummingbird–plant network , 2014, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[39]  Jeff Ollerton,et al.  Latitudinal trends in plant‐pollinator interactions: are tropical plants more specialised? , 2002 .

[40]  Jordi Bascompte,et al.  Ecological networks, nestedness and sampling effort , 2007 .

[41]  Kevin M. Clarke,et al.  Estimating Species Richness , 2005 .

[42]  Colin Fontaine,et al.  Stability of Ecological Communities and the Architecture of Mutualistic and Trophic Networks , 2010, Science.

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

[44]  N. Waser,et al.  Size-specific interaction patterns and size matching in a plant-pollinator interaction web. , 2009, Annals of botany.

[45]  Robert K. Colwell,et al.  Quantifying biodiversity: procedures and pitfalls in the measurement and comparison of species richness , 2001 .

[46]  B. Snow,et al.  Birds and Berries , 1990 .

[47]  J. Hortal,et al.  Evaluating the performance of species richness estimators: sensitivity to sample grain size. , 2006, The Journal of animal ecology.

[48]  Neo D. Martinez,et al.  Improving Food Webs , 1993 .

[49]  Carsten Wiuf,et al.  Subnets of scale-free networks are not scale-free: sampling properties of networks. , 2005, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[50]  J. Bascompte,et al.  Invariant properties in coevolutionary networks of plant-animal interactions , 2002 .

[51]  Jordi Bascompte,et al.  Missing and forbidden links in mutualistic networks , 2011, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[52]  Robert K. Colwell III.1 Biodiversity: Concepts, Patterns, and Measurement , 2009 .

[53]  D. Snow,et al.  Feeding niches of hummingbirds in a Trinidad valley , 1972 .

[54]  Jens M. Olesen,et al.  Spatial structure of an individual-based plant-pollinator network , 2014 .

[55]  D. Schemske,et al.  Geographic patterns in plant-pollinator mutualistic networks: Comment , 2004 .

[56]  Robert K. Colwell,et al.  Unveiling the species-rank abundance distribution by generalizing the Good-Turing sample coverage theory. , 2015, Ecology.

[57]  D. Vázquez,et al.  Evaluating sampling completeness in a desert plant-pollinator network. , 2012, The Journal of animal ecology.

[58]  Michael J. O. Pocock,et al.  The Robustness and Restoration of a Network of Ecological Networks , 2012, Science.

[59]  R. O’Hara,et al.  Species interactions: estimating per‐individual interaction strength and covariates before simplifying data into per‐species ecological networks , 2013 .

[60]  A. Chao,et al.  Coverage-based rarefaction and extrapolation: standardizing samples by completeness rather than size. , 2012, Ecology.

[61]  A. Cocucci,et al.  Armament Imbalances: Match and Mismatch in Plant-Pollinator Traits of Highly Specialized Long-Spurred Orchids , 2012, PloS one.

[62]  Owen T Lewis,et al.  Antagonistic interaction networks are structured independently of latitude and host guild , 2013, Ecology letters.

[63]  William A. Gale,et al.  Good-Turing Frequency Estimation Without Tears , 1995, J. Quant. Linguistics.

[64]  N. Pettorelli,et al.  Essential Biodiversity Variables , 2013, Science.

[65]  Jochen Fründ,et al.  Sampling bias is a challenge for quantifying specialization and network structure: lessons from a quantitative niche model , 2016 .

[66]  J. Bunge,et al.  Estimating the Number of Species: A Review , 1993 .

[67]  Neo D. Martinez,et al.  ESTIMATING SPECIES RICHNESS: SENSITIVITY TO SAMPLE COVERAGE AND INSENSITIVITY TO SPATIAL PATTERNS , 2003 .

[68]  Pedro Jordano,et al.  GEOGRAPHIC PATTERNS IN PLANT–POLLINATOR MUTUALISTIC NETWORKS , 2002 .

[69]  Pedro Jordano,et al.  Interaction frequency as a surrogate for the total effect of animal mutualists on plants , 2005 .

[70]  Neo D. Martinez Effects of resolution on food web structure , 1993 .

[71]  Pedro Jordano,et al.  Patterns of Mutualistic Interactions in Pollination and Seed Dispersal: Connectance, Dependence Asymmetries, and Coevolution , 1987, The American Naturalist.

[72]  P. Jordano,et al.  Who dispersed the seeds? The use of DNA barcoding in frugivory and seed dispersal studies , 2014 .

[73]  A. Magurran Ecological Diversity and Its Measurement , 1988, Springer Netherlands.