IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0017645.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Biology, Methodology or Chance? The Degree Distributions of Bipartite Ecological Networks

Author

Listed:
  • Richard J Williams

Abstract

The distribution of the number of links per species, or degree distribution, is widely used as a summary of the topology of complex networks. Degree distributions have been studied in a range of ecological networks, including both mutualistic bipartite networks of plants and pollinators or seed dispersers and antagonistic bipartite networks of plants and their consumers. The shape of a degree distribution, for example whether it follows an exponential or power-law form, is typically taken to be indicative of the processes structuring the network. The skewed degree distributions of bipartite mutualistic and antagonistic networks are usually assumed to show that ecological or co-evolutionary processes constrain the relative numbers of specialists and generalists in the network. I show that a simple null model based on the principle of maximum entropy cannot be rejected as a model for the degree distributions in most of the 115 bipartite ecological networks tested here. The model requires knowledge of the number of nodes and links in the network, but needs no other ecological information. The model cannot be rejected for 159 (69%) of the 230 degree distributions of the 115 networks tested. It performed equally well on the plant and animal degree distributions, and cannot be rejected for 81 (70%) of the 115 plant distributions and 78 (68%) of the animal distributions. There are consistent differences between the degree distributions of mutualistic and antagonistic networks, suggesting that different processes are constraining these two classes of networks. Fit to the MaxEnt null model is consistently poor among the largest mutualistic networks. Potential ecological and methodological explanations for deviations from the model suggest that spatial and temporal heterogeneity are important drivers of the structure of these large networks.

Suggested Citation

  • Richard J Williams, 2011. "Biology, Methodology or Chance? The Degree Distributions of Bipartite Ecological Networks," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(3), pages 1-7, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0017645
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0017645
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0017645
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0017645&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0017645?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
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. 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.
    2. Timothée Poisot & Sonia Kéfi & Serge Morand & Michal Stanko & Pablo A Marquet & Michael E Hochberg, 2015. "A Continuum of Specialists and Generalists in Empirical Communities," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(5), pages 1-12, May.
    3. Pramesh Singh & Jayaram Uparna & Panagiotis Karampourniotis & Emoke-Agnes Horvat & Boleslaw Szymanski & Gyorgy Korniss & Jonathan Z Bakdash & Brian Uzzi, 2018. "Peer-to-peer lending and bias in crowd decision-making," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(3), pages 1-18, March.

    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:pone00:0017645. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.