Cargando…

Shortcomings of reusing species interaction networks created by different sets of researchers

Given the requisite cost associated with observing species interactions, ecologists often reuse species interaction networks created by different sets of researchers to test their hypotheses regarding how ecological processes drive network topology. Yet, topological properties identified across thes...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Brimacombe, Chris, Bodner, Korryn, Michalska-Smith, Matthew, Poisot, Timothée, Fortin, Marie-Josée
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10101633/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37011096
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3002068
_version_ 1785025550238089216
author Brimacombe, Chris
Bodner, Korryn
Michalska-Smith, Matthew
Poisot, Timothée
Fortin, Marie-Josée
author_facet Brimacombe, Chris
Bodner, Korryn
Michalska-Smith, Matthew
Poisot, Timothée
Fortin, Marie-Josée
author_sort Brimacombe, Chris
collection PubMed
description Given the requisite cost associated with observing species interactions, ecologists often reuse species interaction networks created by different sets of researchers to test their hypotheses regarding how ecological processes drive network topology. Yet, topological properties identified across these networks may not be sufficiently attributable to ecological processes alone as often assumed. Instead, much of the totality of topological differences between networks—topological heterogeneity—could be due to variations in research designs and approaches that different researchers use to create each species interaction network. To evaluate the degree to which this topological heterogeneity is present in available ecological networks, we first compared the amount of topological heterogeneity across 723 species interaction networks created by different sets of researchers with the amount quantified from non-ecological networks known to be constructed following more consistent approaches. Then, to further test whether the topological heterogeneity was due to differences in study designs, and not only to inherent variation within ecological networks, we compared the amount of topological heterogeneity between species interaction networks created by the same sets of researchers (i.e., networks from the same publication) with the amount quantified between networks that were each from a unique publication source. We found that species interaction networks are highly topologically heterogeneous: while species interaction networks from the same publication are much more topologically similar to each other than interaction networks that are from a unique publication, they still show at least twice as much heterogeneity as any category of non-ecological networks that we tested. Altogether, our findings suggest that extra care is necessary to effectively analyze species interaction networks created by different researchers, perhaps by controlling for the publication source of each network.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10101633
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-101016332023-04-14 Shortcomings of reusing species interaction networks created by different sets of researchers Brimacombe, Chris Bodner, Korryn Michalska-Smith, Matthew Poisot, Timothée Fortin, Marie-Josée PLoS Biol Meta-Research Article Given the requisite cost associated with observing species interactions, ecologists often reuse species interaction networks created by different sets of researchers to test their hypotheses regarding how ecological processes drive network topology. Yet, topological properties identified across these networks may not be sufficiently attributable to ecological processes alone as often assumed. Instead, much of the totality of topological differences between networks—topological heterogeneity—could be due to variations in research designs and approaches that different researchers use to create each species interaction network. To evaluate the degree to which this topological heterogeneity is present in available ecological networks, we first compared the amount of topological heterogeneity across 723 species interaction networks created by different sets of researchers with the amount quantified from non-ecological networks known to be constructed following more consistent approaches. Then, to further test whether the topological heterogeneity was due to differences in study designs, and not only to inherent variation within ecological networks, we compared the amount of topological heterogeneity between species interaction networks created by the same sets of researchers (i.e., networks from the same publication) with the amount quantified between networks that were each from a unique publication source. We found that species interaction networks are highly topologically heterogeneous: while species interaction networks from the same publication are much more topologically similar to each other than interaction networks that are from a unique publication, they still show at least twice as much heterogeneity as any category of non-ecological networks that we tested. Altogether, our findings suggest that extra care is necessary to effectively analyze species interaction networks created by different researchers, perhaps by controlling for the publication source of each network. Public Library of Science 2023-04-03 /pmc/articles/PMC10101633/ /pubmed/37011096 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3002068 Text en © 2023 Brimacombe et al https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Meta-Research Article
Brimacombe, Chris
Bodner, Korryn
Michalska-Smith, Matthew
Poisot, Timothée
Fortin, Marie-Josée
Shortcomings of reusing species interaction networks created by different sets of researchers
title Shortcomings of reusing species interaction networks created by different sets of researchers
title_full Shortcomings of reusing species interaction networks created by different sets of researchers
title_fullStr Shortcomings of reusing species interaction networks created by different sets of researchers
title_full_unstemmed Shortcomings of reusing species interaction networks created by different sets of researchers
title_short Shortcomings of reusing species interaction networks created by different sets of researchers
title_sort shortcomings of reusing species interaction networks created by different sets of researchers
topic Meta-Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10101633/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37011096
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3002068
work_keys_str_mv AT brimacombechris shortcomingsofreusingspeciesinteractionnetworkscreatedbydifferentsetsofresearchers
AT bodnerkorryn shortcomingsofreusingspeciesinteractionnetworkscreatedbydifferentsetsofresearchers
AT michalskasmithmatthew shortcomingsofreusingspeciesinteractionnetworkscreatedbydifferentsetsofresearchers
AT poisottimothee shortcomingsofreusingspeciesinteractionnetworkscreatedbydifferentsetsofresearchers
AT fortinmariejosee shortcomingsofreusingspeciesinteractionnetworkscreatedbydifferentsetsofresearchers