IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pcbi00/1007076.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Telling ecological networks apart by their structure: A computational challenge

Author

Listed:
  • Matthew J Michalska-Smith
  • Stefano Allesina

Abstract

Ecologists have been compiling ecological networks for over a century, detailing the interactions between species in a variety of ecosystems. To this end, they have built networks for mutualistic (e.g., pollination, seed dispersal) as well as antagonistic (e.g., herbivory, parasitism) interactions. The type of interaction being represented is believed to be reflected in the structure of the network, which would differ substantially between mutualistic and antagonistic networks. Here, we put this notion to the test by attempting to determine the type of interaction represented in a network based solely on its structure. We find that, although it is easy to separate different kinds of nonecological networks, ecological networks display much structural variation, making it difficult to distinguish between mutualistic and antagonistic interactions. We therefore frame the problem as a challenge for the community of scientists interested in computational biology and machine learning. We discuss the features a good solution to this problem should possess and the obstacles that need to be overcome to achieve this goal.Author summary: In the late 1960s, Mark Kac asked, "Can one hear the shape of a drum?" challenging readers to reconstruct the geometry of the drum from a provided list of overtones. Physicists and mathematicians found that, although in general, one cannot hear the shape of a drum, many of its properties, such as its area and perimeter, can be "heard". Here, we ask whether the type of interaction being represented in a network can be "seen" when inspecting its shape—for example, whether we can distinguish networks reporting interactions between plants and their pollinators (mutually beneficial) from those representing interactions between plants and their herbivores (beneficial only to the herbivores). We show that many types of nonbiological networks can be easily separated based on structural properties, whereas determining the type of interaction represented by an ecological networks is harder. We therefore turn this problem into a challenge for the scientific community. We argue that solving this problem would greatly benefit the field, and we discuss what the consequences of a failure might be.

Suggested Citation

  • Matthew J Michalska-Smith & Stefano Allesina, 2019. "Telling ecological networks apart by their structure: A computational challenge," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(6), pages 1-13, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pcbi00:1007076
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1007076
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1007076
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1007076&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1007076?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Phillip P. A. Staniczenko & Jason C. Kopp & Stefano Allesina, 2013. "The ghost of nestedness in ecological networks," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 4(1), pages 1-6, June.
    2. Giovanni Strona & Domenico Nappo & Francesco Boccacci & Simone Fattorini & Jesus San-Miguel-Ayanz, 2014. "A fast and unbiased procedure to randomize ecological binary matrices with fixed row and column totals," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 5(1), pages 1-9, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Geut Galai & Xie He & Barak Rotblat & Shai Pilosof, 2023. "Ecological network analysis reveals cancer-dependent chaperone-client interaction structure and robustness," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-11, December.
    2. Michel Alexandre & Felipe Jordão Xavier & Thiago Christiano Silva & Francisco A. Rodrigues, 2022. "Nestedness in the Brazilian Financial System," Working Papers Series 566, Central Bank of Brazil, Research Department.
    3. Fabio Saracco & Riccardo Di Clemente & Andrea Gabrielli & Tiziano Squartini, 2015. "Detecting early signs of the 2007-2008 crisis in the world trade," Papers 1508.03533, arXiv.org, revised Jul 2016.
    4. Rivest, Louis-Paul & Ebouele, Sergio Ewane, 2020. "Sampling a two dimensional matrix," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 149(C).
    5. Mika J. Straka & Guido Caldarelli & Tiziano Squartini & Fabio Saracco, 2017. "From Ecology to Finance (and Back?): Recent Advancements in the Analysis of Bipartite Networks," Papers 1710.10143, arXiv.org.
    6. Jeroen van Lidth de Jeude & Riccardo Di Clemente & Guido Caldarelli & Fabio Saracco & Tiziano Squartini, 2019. "Reconstructing Mesoscale Network Structures," Complexity, Hindawi, vol. 2019, pages 1-13, January.
    7. Marco Bardoscia & Paolo Barucca & Stefano Battiston & Fabio Caccioli & Giulio Cimini & Diego Garlaschelli & Fabio Saracco & Tiziano Squartini & Guido Caldarelli, 2021. "The Physics of Financial Networks," Papers 2103.05623, arXiv.org.
    8. Marjan Cugmas & Aleš Žiberna & Anuška Ferligoj, 2021. "The Relative Fit measure for evaluating a blockmodel," Statistical Methods & Applications, Springer;Società Italiana di Statistica, vol. 30(5), pages 1315-1335, December.
    9. Luiz G. A. Alves & Giuseppe Mangioni & Isabella Cingolani & Francisco A. Rodrigues & Pietro Panzarasa & Yamir Moreno, 2018. "The nested structural organization of the worldwide trade multi-layer network," Papers 1803.02872, arXiv.org, revised Sep 2019.
    10. Vincent Miele & Catherine Matias & Stéphane Robin & Stéphane Dray, 2019. "Nine quick tips for analyzing network data," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(12), pages 1-10, December.
    11. Tad Dallas & Andrew W Park & John M Drake, 2017. "Predicting cryptic links in host-parasite networks," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(5), pages 1-15, May.
    12. Stock, Michiel & Piot, Niels & Vanbesien, Sarah & Meys, Joris & Smagghe, Guy & De Baets, Bernard, 2021. "Pairwise learning for predicting pollination interactions based on traits and phylogeny," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 451(C).
    13. Isaac Trindade-Santos & Faye Moyes & Anne E. Magurran, 2022. "Global patterns in functional rarity of marine fish," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-9, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pcbi00:1007076. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ploscompbiol (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.