Coherence in (meta)community networks

In a general sense, a metacommunity can be considered as a network of communities, the coherence of which is based on characteristics that are shared by members of different communities, whatever forces were responsible (dispersal, migration, local adaptation, etc.). The purpose is to show that by basing the assessment of coherence on the degree of nestedness of one community within another with respect to the shared characteristics, coherence components can be identified within the network. To assess coherence, a measure of nestedness is developed, and its application to complex (variable) object differences (including multiple traits or characters) is investigated. A community network is then viewed as a graph in which the nodes represent the communities and the edges connecting nodes are weighted by the reverse of the degrees of nestedness between the corresponding communities. Given this framework, it is argued that a minimum requirement for a set of communities to be coherent is the existence of a spanning tree known from graph theory, i.e. a subgraph that connects all nodes through a cycle-free sequence of edges with positive weights. Of all spanning trees, minimum spanning trees (MST, or spanning trees with the minimum sum of edge weights) are most indicative of coherence. By expressing the degree of coherence as one minus the average weight of the edges of an MST, it is uniquely determined which communities form a coherent set at any given level of community distinctness. By this method, community networks can be broken down into coherence components that are separated at a specified distinctness level. This is illustrated in a worked example showing how to apply graph theoretical methods to distinguish coherence components at various threshold levels of object difference (resolution) and community distinctness. These results provide a basis for discussion of coherence gradients and coherence at various levels of distinctness in terms of MST-characteristics. As intuitively expected and analytically confirmed, coherence is a non-decreasing function of the object difference threshold, and the number of coherence components is a non-increasing function of both the object difference and the community distinctness thresholds.

[1]  Timothy H. Keitt,et al.  LANDSCAPE CONNECTIVITY: A GRAPH‐THEORETIC PERSPECTIVE , 2001 .

[2]  A. Baselga.  Partitioning abundance‐based multiple‐site dissimilarity into components: balanced variation in abundance and abundance gradients , 2017 .

[3]  Werner Ulrich,et al.  A consistent metric for nestedness analysis in ecological systems: reconciling concept and measurement , 2008 .

[4]  M. Willig,et al.  Checkerboard metacommunity structure: an incoherent concept , 2019, Oecologia.

[5]  Bryan L. Brown,et al.  A simulation‐based approach to understand how metacommunity characteristics influence emergent biodiversity patterns , 2017 .

[6]  Mathew A. Leibold,et al.  Coherence, species turnover, and boundary clumping: Elements of meta-community structure , 2002 .

[7]  P. Jordano,et al.  Seed-dispersal interactions in fragmented landscapes - a metanetwork approach. , 2018, Ecology letters.

[8]  Bernd Degen,et al.  Impact of selective logging on genetic composition and demographic structure of four tropical tree species , 2006 .

[9]  H. Gregorius.  Revealing spatial genetic structure through cluster analyses , 2006 .

[10]  Helmut Hillebrand,et al.  Empirical approaches to metacommunities: a review and comparison with theory. , 2011, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[11]  H. Gregorius.  Differentiation between populations and its measurement , 1996 .

[12]  Jonathan M. Chase,et al.  The metacommunity concept: a framework for multi-scale community ecology , 2004 .

[13]  Patrick L. Thompson,et al.  Loss of habitat and connectivity erodes species diversity, ecosystem functioning, and stability in metacommunity networks , 2017 .

[14]  C. Violle,et al.  Let the concept of trait be functional , 2007 .

[15]  J. Gower.  A General Coefficient of Similarity and Some of Its Properties , 1971 .

[16]  M. Willig,et al.  Decomposing functional diversity , 2017 .

[17]  Steven J. Presley,et al.  A comprehensive framework for the evaluation of metacommunity structure , 2010 .

[18]  P. Legendre.  Interpreting the replacement and richness difference components of beta diversity , 2014 .

[19]  M. Holyoak,et al.  The functional roles of species in metacommunities, as revealed by metanetwork analyses of bird-plant frugivory networks. , 2020, Ecology letters.

[20]  P. White,et al.  On the existence of ecological communities , 1994 .

[21]  Ying Xu,et al.  Clustering gene expression data using a graph-theoretic approach: an application of minimum spanning trees , 2002, Bioinform..

[22]  Dénes Schmera,et al.  On the reliability of the Elements of Metacommunity Structure framework for separating idealized metacommunity patterns , 2018 .

[23]  B. C. Patten,et al.  Evaluating the role of biotic interactions in structuring communities using a gradient analysis of multiple interacting guilds , 2013 .

[24]  J. L. Gittleman,et al.  Size‐assortative choice and mate availability influences hybridization between red wolves (Canis rufus) and coyotes (Canis latrans) , 2018, Ecology and evolution.

[25]  Anne-Béatrice Dufour,et al.  On the challenge of treating various types of variables: application for improving the measurement of functional diversity , 2009 .

[26]  Assessing biological variation from the perspective of diversity , 2012 .