如果不考虑优先效应,就无法推断不对称的生物相互作用。

IF 7.6 1区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 ECOLOGY Ecology Letters Pub Date : 2024-10-02 DOI:10.1111/ele.14509
Francisca Powell-Romero, Konstans Wells, Nicholas J. Clark
{"title":"如果不考虑优先效应,就无法推断不对称的生物相互作用。","authors":"Francisca Powell-Romero,&nbsp;Konstans Wells,&nbsp;Nicholas J. Clark","doi":"10.1111/ele.14509","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Understanding biotic interactions is a crucial goal in community ecology and species distribution modelling, and large strides have been made towards improving multivariate computational methods with the aim of quantifying biotic interactions and improving predictions of species occurrence. Yet, while considerable attention has been given to computational approaches and the interpretation of these quantitative tools, the importance of sampling design to reveal these biotic interactions has received little consideration. This study explores the influential role of priority effects, that is, the order of habitat colonisation, in shaping our ability to detect biotic interactions. Using a simple set of simulations, we demonstrate that commonly used cross-sectional co-occurrence data alone cannot be used to make reliable inferences on asymmetric biotic interactions, even if they perform well in predicting the occurrence of species. We then show how sampling designs that consider priority effects can recover the asymmetric effects that are lost when priority effects are ignored. Based on these findings, we urge for caution when drawing inferences on biotic interactions from cross-sectional binary co-occurrence data, and provide guidance on sampling designs that may provide the necessary data to tackle this longstanding challenge.</p>","PeriodicalId":161,"journal":{"name":"Ecology Letters","volume":"27 9","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/ele.14509","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Asymmetric Biotic Interactions Cannot Be Inferred Without Accounting for Priority Effects\",\"authors\":\"Francisca Powell-Romero,&nbsp;Konstans Wells,&nbsp;Nicholas J. Clark\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/ele.14509\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Understanding biotic interactions is a crucial goal in community ecology and species distribution modelling, and large strides have been made towards improving multivariate computational methods with the aim of quantifying biotic interactions and improving predictions of species occurrence. Yet, while considerable attention has been given to computational approaches and the interpretation of these quantitative tools, the importance of sampling design to reveal these biotic interactions has received little consideration. This study explores the influential role of priority effects, that is, the order of habitat colonisation, in shaping our ability to detect biotic interactions. Using a simple set of simulations, we demonstrate that commonly used cross-sectional co-occurrence data alone cannot be used to make reliable inferences on asymmetric biotic interactions, even if they perform well in predicting the occurrence of species. We then show how sampling designs that consider priority effects can recover the asymmetric effects that are lost when priority effects are ignored. Based on these findings, we urge for caution when drawing inferences on biotic interactions from cross-sectional binary co-occurrence data, and provide guidance on sampling designs that may provide the necessary data to tackle this longstanding challenge.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":161,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ecology Letters\",\"volume\":\"27 9\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":7.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/ele.14509\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ecology Letters\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ele.14509\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"环境科学与生态学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ecology Letters","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ele.14509","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

了解生物相互作用是群落生态学和物种分布建模的一个重要目标,在改进多元计算方法方面取得了长足进步,目的是量化生物相互作用并改进物种出现的预测。然而,尽管人们对计算方法和这些定量工具的解释给予了极大关注,但却很少考虑取样设计对揭示这些生物相互作用的重要性。本研究探讨了优先效应(即栖息地定居的顺序)在影响我们检测生物相互作用能力方面的影响作用。通过一组简单的模拟,我们证明了仅凭常用的横断面共同出现数据无法对非对称生物相互作用做出可靠的推断,即使这些数据在预测物种出现方面表现良好。随后,我们展示了考虑优先效应的取样设计如何能够恢复因忽略优先效应而丧失的非对称效应。基于这些发现,我们呼吁在从横断面二元共现数据中推断生物相互作用时要谨慎,并就可提供必要数据的取样设计提供指导,以解决这一长期难题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Asymmetric Biotic Interactions Cannot Be Inferred Without Accounting for Priority Effects

Understanding biotic interactions is a crucial goal in community ecology and species distribution modelling, and large strides have been made towards improving multivariate computational methods with the aim of quantifying biotic interactions and improving predictions of species occurrence. Yet, while considerable attention has been given to computational approaches and the interpretation of these quantitative tools, the importance of sampling design to reveal these biotic interactions has received little consideration. This study explores the influential role of priority effects, that is, the order of habitat colonisation, in shaping our ability to detect biotic interactions. Using a simple set of simulations, we demonstrate that commonly used cross-sectional co-occurrence data alone cannot be used to make reliable inferences on asymmetric biotic interactions, even if they perform well in predicting the occurrence of species. We then show how sampling designs that consider priority effects can recover the asymmetric effects that are lost when priority effects are ignored. Based on these findings, we urge for caution when drawing inferences on biotic interactions from cross-sectional binary co-occurrence data, and provide guidance on sampling designs that may provide the necessary data to tackle this longstanding challenge.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Ecology Letters
Ecology Letters 环境科学-生态学
CiteScore
17.60
自引率
3.40%
发文量
201
审稿时长
1.8 months
期刊介绍: Ecology Letters serves as a platform for the rapid publication of innovative research in ecology. It considers manuscripts across all taxa, biomes, and geographic regions, prioritizing papers that investigate clearly stated hypotheses. The journal publishes concise papers of high originality and general interest, contributing to new developments in ecology. Purely descriptive papers and those that only confirm or extend previous results are discouraged.
期刊最新文献
The Impact of Microbial Interactions on Ecosystem Function Intensifies Under Stress Mycorrhizal Types Regulate Tree Spatial Associations in Temperate Forests: Ectomycorrhizal Trees Might Favour Species Coexistence Acclimation Unifies the Scaling of Carbon Assimilation Across Climate Gradients and Levels of Organisation Seasonally Changing Interactions of Species Traits of Termites and Trees Promote Complementarity in Coarse Wood Decomposition Seasonality Structures Avian Functional Diversity and Niche Packing Across North America
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1