Spectral radius is a better metric than weighted NODF to detect network nestedness: Linking species coexistence to network structure using a plant – larval sawfly bipartite

IF 1.8 4区 环境科学与生态学 Q2 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION
Bin Lan , Xingyu Zhou , Nan Yang , Shucun Sun
{"title":"Spectral radius is a better metric than weighted NODF to detect network nestedness: Linking species coexistence to network structure using a plant – larval sawfly bipartite","authors":"Bin Lan ,&nbsp;Xingyu Zhou ,&nbsp;Nan Yang ,&nbsp;Shucun Sun","doi":"10.1016/j.fooweb.2023.e00303","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p></p><ul><li><span>1.</span><span><p>Network nestedness<span> describes an interaction pattern, wherein specialist species interact with a subset of partner species. Antagonistic networks are predicted to not be nested, because nestedness indicates a high intensity of interspecific competition, which compromises species coexistence. However, network nestedness is commonly observed in antagonistic networks, and the discrepancy between prediction and observation has not been fully resolved.</span></p></span></li><li><span>2.</span><span><p>One of underlying factors explaining this discrepancy is the imperfection of metrics to detect network nestedness. However, studies comparing network metrics often fail to resolve which metric works best, presumably because they lack specific criteria.</p></span></li><li><span>3.</span><span><p>We compared the results of the most commonly used metrics (weighted NODF) and a later proposed metric (spectral radius) to measure the nestedness of a quantitative plant - larval sawfly bipartite (including 8 sawfly species and 66 plant species, identified by gut DNA metabacoding of larvae). We also determined whether the sawfly species can coexist in terms of their dietary differences. Because nested structure is not likely to be compatible with species coexistence, we assumed that the metric identifying a non-nested structure is superior to the other.</p></span></li><li><span>4.</span><span><p>The two metrics led to contrasting nestedness levels. Both observational and preference networks were found to be nested using weighted NODF, but was not nested using the spectral radius approach.</p></span></li><li><span>5.</span><span><p>The dietary differences were significant among each sawfly species pair for both observational and preference networks, indicating low interspecific competitiveness and a high potential for species coexistence.</p></span></li><li><span>6.</span><span><p>These results indicate that the spectral radius metric is superior to weighted NODF to detecting network nestedness and should be used in future network studies.</p></span></li></ul></div>","PeriodicalId":38084,"journal":{"name":"Food Webs","volume":"36 ","pages":"Article e00303"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Food Webs","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352249623000320","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

  • 1.

    Network nestedness describes an interaction pattern, wherein specialist species interact with a subset of partner species. Antagonistic networks are predicted to not be nested, because nestedness indicates a high intensity of interspecific competition, which compromises species coexistence. However, network nestedness is commonly observed in antagonistic networks, and the discrepancy between prediction and observation has not been fully resolved.

  • 2.

    One of underlying factors explaining this discrepancy is the imperfection of metrics to detect network nestedness. However, studies comparing network metrics often fail to resolve which metric works best, presumably because they lack specific criteria.

  • 3.

    We compared the results of the most commonly used metrics (weighted NODF) and a later proposed metric (spectral radius) to measure the nestedness of a quantitative plant - larval sawfly bipartite (including 8 sawfly species and 66 plant species, identified by gut DNA metabacoding of larvae). We also determined whether the sawfly species can coexist in terms of their dietary differences. Because nested structure is not likely to be compatible with species coexistence, we assumed that the metric identifying a non-nested structure is superior to the other.

  • 4.

    The two metrics led to contrasting nestedness levels. Both observational and preference networks were found to be nested using weighted NODF, but was not nested using the spectral radius approach.

  • 5.

    The dietary differences were significant among each sawfly species pair for both observational and preference networks, indicating low interspecific competitiveness and a high potential for species coexistence.

  • 6.

    These results indicate that the spectral radius metric is superior to weighted NODF to detecting network nestedness and should be used in future network studies.

光谱半径是一个比加权NODF更好的度量来检测网络的筑巢性:利用植物-幼虫锯蝇二部将物种共存与网络结构联系起来
1.网络嵌套描述了一种相互作用模式,其中专业物种与伙伴物种的子集相互作用。对抗性网络被预测为不嵌套,因为嵌套表示种间竞争的高强度,这会影响物种共存。然而,在对抗性网络中,网络嵌套是常见的,预测和观测之间的差异尚未完全解决。2.解释这种差异的根本因素之一是检测网络嵌套的指标不完善。然而,比较网络度量的研究往往无法解决哪种度量最有效,可能是因为它们缺乏特定的标准。3我们比较了最常用的指标(加权NODF)和后来提出的指标(光谱半径)的结果,以测量定量植物幼虫锯蝇二分体(包括8种锯蝇和66种植物物种,通过幼虫的肠道DNA代谢鉴定)的嵌套性。我们还根据它们的饮食差异确定了锯蝇物种是否可以共存。由于嵌套结构不太可能与物种共存兼容,我们假设识别非嵌套结构的指标优于其他指标。4这两个指标导致嵌套程度的对比。观察网络和偏好网络都被发现是使用加权NODF嵌套的,但不是使用光谱半径方法嵌套的。5对于观察网络和喜好网络,每个锯蝇物种对之间的饮食差异是显著的,6这些结果表明,在检测网络嵌套性方面,谱半径度量优于加权NODF,应用于未来的网络研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Food Webs
Food Webs Environmental Science-Ecology
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
5.90%
发文量
42
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信