Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 78 references

Uncovering symmetric and asymmetric species associations from community and environmental data

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Pith's one-line read A model recovers directed species links from abundance data

desk verdict A novel directed-association framework whose abstract overclaims: identifiability of edge direction is not established and the paper's own simulations show the failure mode. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.09317 v1 pith:Z3THT7CR submitted 2025-07-12 stat.ML cs.LGq-bio.PE

classification stat.MLcs.LGq-bio.PE
keywords networkinferencerepresentationlearningprobabilisticgraphicalmodelsspeciesembeddingslatentvariableassociationnetworksasymmetricassociationscommunitydata
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Most tools for inferring species associations from co-occurrence or co-abundance data assume that any link between two species is symmetric: species A's effect on B equals B's effect on A. This paper proposes a framework in which each directed association $a_{ij}$ (the influence of a source species $j$ on a target species $i$) is instead parameterized as the dot product of two low-dimensional latent vectors, an effect embedding $\alpha_j$ and a response embedding $\rho_i$, and is fitted jointly with species-environment responses inside a conditional generative model for abundances. The authors claim that this recovers both symmetric and asymmetric associations from community data plus environmental covariates, and that it outperforms joint species distribution models and probabilistic graphical models on simulated data while producing ecologically interpretable association networks for Alpine plants.

What carries the argument

The central object is the factored association matrix $A = P Q^\top$, built from two species-specific latent embeddings: an effect embedding $\alpha_j \in \mathbb{R}^d$ and a response embedding $\rho_i \in \mathbb{R}^d$. The biotic context at a site is the abundance-weighted average of the effect embeddings of co-occurring species, $z_{ki} = \frac{1}{|C_{ki}|}\sum_{j \in C_{ki}} y_{kj}\alpha_j$, so the biotic contribution to species $i$'s linear predictor is $\rho_i \cdot z_{ki} = \sum_j y_{kj} a_{ij}$. This factorization is what makes the network directed and low-rank; fitting it jointly with habitat suitability $h_i(x_k)$ and a chosen aggregation function (additive, multiplicative, or hierarchical zero-inflated) defines the conditional generative model that is trained by stochastic gradient descent with elastic-net regularization. The same embeddings also provide the structure for co-clustering species into response groups and effect groups.

What would settle it

Simulate a community with a known directed predator–prey link between two species whose abiotic niches overlap strongly, fit the model under the multiplicative filter, and count how often the true directed edge is recovered as a symmetric pair; the paper's own Experiment 2 already reports this confusion, and a quantitative curve of direction-recovery error versus niche overlap would settle whether the directed parameterization is identifiable in the regimes ecologists actually sample.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the response–effect duality long used in functional ecology can be turned into an identifiable statistical parameterization of directed species associations. Writing the association matrix as $A = P Q^\top$, with rows $\rho_i$ (how species $i$ responds to the community) and columns $\alpha_j$ (how species $j$ affects the community), every pairwise influence is directional by construction: $a_{ij} = \langle \rho_i, \alpha_j \rangle$ is generally not equal to $a_{ji}$. These associations enter a conditional model $y_{ki} \sim F(o_i + h_i(x_k) + \sum_{j \in C_{ki}} y_{kj} a_{ij}, \phi_i)$, with additive, multiplicative, or hierarchical ways of combining the abiotic response $h_i(x_k)$ with the biotic context. The paper reports that the fitted model recovers known positive and negative associations in process-based simulations, detects predator–prey links under a multiplicative filter when pairs co-occur, and yields modules and structural roles in an Alpine plant dataset that align with snow-melt gradients and facilitation–competition ecology. The authors' bottom line is that asymmetric associations are retrievable from spatial community data without imposing a symmetry assumption, provided the aggregation of abiotic and biotic filters is chosen appropriately.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the direction of a species-to-species association can be separated from symmetric residual correlation using only a cross-sectional abundance matrix together with environmental covariates; the paper's own predator–prey simulation shows that when abiotic niches overlap strongly, directed links are frequently inferred as symmetric reciprocal ones, so if that identifiability fails in a given data regime the central claim about recovering asymmetric associations collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Each species pair receives two directed association values, so asymmetric interactions such as amensalism, parasitism, or predator–prey dependence are represented without assuming $a_{ij} = a_{ji}$.
  • Because associations are low-rank factorized, the number of parameters grows with the embedding dimension rather than with the square of the species pool, making large communities tractable and allowing species to share embeddings within functional groups.
  • The three aggregation modes extend association inference beyond additive environmental-plus-biotic structure; the multiplicative mode is necessary for obligate dependencies such as a predator requiring prey presence.
  • On the Alpine plant data, the inferred network separates modules tied to snow-melt timing and highlights asymmetric facilitation of forbs and grasses by dominant graminoids in stressful early-melting sites.
  • Compared with HMSC, EcoCopula, EMTree, MRFcov, and PLN on simulated communities, the paper reports superior recovery of both symmetric and asymmetric associations, with a particular edge on negative associations.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The identification step is the part most worth probing: the paper's own Experiment 2 shows that strongly overlapping abiotic niches make directed predator–prey links come out as symmetric reciprocal associations, which suggests that cross-sectional co-occurrence data alone may not guarantee edge-direction identifiability; the temporal and spatial biotic-context extensions sketched in the supplemen
  • Edges recovered by this conditional regression are best read as net spatial associations conditional on measured environment, not as established causal ecological interactions; linking them to independently known interaction data would quantify how much of the inferred network is true interaction signal versus shared missing-environment response.
  • If the low-rank factorization is the bottleneck for representing arbitrary directed acyclic graphs, as the discussion suggests, constraining a few known edges or trophic levels as semi-supervised information could improve direction recovery more than increasing data alone.
  • A practical extension offered by the framework is to use learned effect embeddings as community ordination axes and response embeddings as species loadings, yielding a direct ordination of communities in interaction space.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces the Ecological Association Network (EA) framework, which models pairwise species associations as directed influences with a low-rank factorization A = P Q^T, using species-specific response embeddings rho_i and effect embeddings alpha_i. These associations enter a conditional exponential-family abundance model together with environmental covariates, under three aggregation modes (additive, multiplicative, hierarchical). The model is fitted by stochastic gradient descent with elastic-net regularization, and model selection is performed by cross-validation or information criteria. The framework is evaluated on two simulation experiments — a Virtualcom-based community assembly experiment compared against HMSC, EcoCopula, EMtree, MRFcov, and PLN, and a predator-prey food web simulation with a multiplicative interaction mode — followed by an empirical case study on an Alpine plant community. The abstract claims that the framework recovers known symmetric and asymmetric associations and is superior to existing JSDMs and probabilistic graphical models.

Significance. If the recovery claim were established, the framework would fill a genuine gap: most JSDM and MRF approaches produce symmetric association matrices, while many ecological interactions are directed. The manuscript has several strengths: the model is modular (three aggregation functions, flexible biotic-context definitions including temporal and spatial extensions), it handles count and presence/absence data, the source code is made available, and the simulation benchmarks use external generative models (Virtualcom and a trophic simulation) rather than the inference model itself. The empirical case study is ecologically interpretable and connects inferred structure to known Alpine plant facilitation and competition patterns. However, the central claim of recovering asymmetric (directed) associations is not currently supported by the reported analyses, for reasons detailed in the major comments. The paper would still be valuable as a flexible dependency-network model for exploratory analysis, but the abstract and conclusions overstate the evidence for direction recovery and for superiority over existing methods.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2.2.1, Eq. (1c)] Eq. (1c) specifies eta^B_ki = o_i + sum_{j in C_ki} y_kj <rho_i, alpha_j>, i.e., each species' mean is regressed on the abundances of all other species at the same site. These predictors are themselves outcomes of the same community process, making the model a simultaneous-equation dependency network rather than a generative DAG. The paper gives no compatibility or identifiability condition under which directed edge weights are uniquely determined from the joint distribution of Y_k. In particular, data generated from a symmetric joint model (e.g., an MRF or a residual-covariance JSDM) still yield well-defined conditional regressions with nonzero coefficients, so an asymmetric matrix A = P Q^T can be fitted to symmetric ground truth; the low-rank factorization does not remove this ambiguity because any symmetric matrix can be written as P Q^T with P != Q. The manuscript's own results illustrate the failure mode: Supp. §3.3.1 states that the main source of error is the confusion of directed associations with symmetric reciprocal associations, and §5.1.2 reports that symmetric dependencies are detected when abiotic niches overlap strongly, especially in trophic chains and when the predator has no alternative prey. Since the central claim is recovery of asymmetric associations, this identifiability gap is load-bearing and needs to be addressed, for instance by proving identifiability under stated assumptions, by using temporal or spatial structure that breaks symmetry, or by substantially reframing the claims as conditional dependency summaries rather than causal directed interactions.
  2. [§3.1.3, Supp. §2.4.2] Experiment 1's evaluation does not measure direction recovery. The inferred association matrices are discretized and compared by sign class (positive, negative, neutral) using precision, recall, and F1 per type, and the supplementary results report 'association type inference' rather than edge orientation. Thus an inferred edge with the correct sign but the wrong direction is scored as correct, and the comparison cannot establish that EA retrieves asymmetric (directed) associations better than symmetric baselines. The abstract's claim of 'superior capacity at retrieving symmetric and asymmetric interactions' is therefore not supported by the reported metrics. I request direction-aware evaluation metrics (e.g., orientation accuracy, directed precision/recall, or Hamming distance on the directed adjacency matrix) in addition to sign-based metrics.
  3. [§3.2, §3.2.4] Experiment 2 is a feasibility study rather than a comparative test: the multiplicative aggregation setting is not supported by the alternative methods, so EA is evaluated only against itself (with and without embedding sharing) and against potential vs. realized food webs. Consequently, it cannot support the comparative 'superior capacity' claim for asymmetric interactions. Moreover, the dominant error in this experiment is the confusion of directed with symmetric reciprocal associations (Supp. §3.3.1), so the experiment does not demonstrate reliable recovery of edge direction even within EA. At minimum, the paper should report direction-oriented accuracy separately from undirected edge detection and should temper the abstract accordingly.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§2.2.2, Eqs. (5)–(6)] The text says that when ski = 0 the abundance is deterministically set to zero, but the displayed equation places the Dirac mass at zero in the 'otherwise' branch and the count distribution F in the ski = 0 branch. The two branches appear to be reversed and should be corrected.
  2. [§3.1.1] The factorial design described in the text appears to imply more than 33 simulation datasets; the manuscript should clarify how the 33 datasets were obtained and which combinations were excluded or merged.
  3. [Fig. 6 caption] The caption refers to 'snow duration' while the main text and §4.3 refer to 'snowmelt date' or 'snow melting date'; these should be made consistent.
  4. [Supp. §2.1] The supplementary text cites 'Gallien and Münkemüller 2015' while the main text cites 'Münkemüller and Gallien [2015]'; the reference should be unified.
  5. [Table 1] Several entries in Table 1 are cryptic, notably 'Support: 2/pool_size' and 'Covariance mode: full'; these should be defined in the table caption or in the methods section.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the framework is validated on externally simulated data and author self-citations are contextual, not load-bearing.

full rationale

The claimed derivation chain is self-contained. The model is defined by Eqs. (1a)-(6) as a conditional dependency network with response/effect embeddings, and no parameter is fitted to the benchmark targets; validation uses independent simulators (Virtualcom for Experiment 1, the trophic R package for Experiment 2) that generate community data from known association structures not equal to the inference model's own fitted values. The empirical Alpine case study is an interpretation of inferred associations rather than a prediction from fitted parameters, so it does not create a circular loop. Author self-citations are contextual or methodological references; none is invoked as a uniqueness theorem or as the sole justification of the identification strategy. The paper's own stated limitations (Sec. 5.1.2, Supp. 3.3.1) admit that directed associations are sometimes confused with symmetric reciprocal associations, especially under niche overlap or trophic chains; this is an identifiability and correctness risk, not a circularity, because the simulation benchmarks are external to the fitted model. Accordingly, no claim in the paper reduces by construction to its inputs, and no circular step can be exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claims rest on a small set of fitted hyperparameters (embedding dimension, regularization, thresholds) and on modeling assumptions about the exponential-family likelihood, the low-rank factorization, the linear aggregation of effects, the conditioning on concurrent abundances, and the form of the aggregation functions. The latent response and effect embeddings are invented entities with no independent evidence beyond model fit and internal consistency.

free parameters (6)
  • embedding dimension d = chosen by cross-validation (e.g., 4 or 8 in Alpine case; search grid 2..32)
    The dimension of the response and effect embeddings controls the rank of the association matrix and is selected via predictive performance.
  • lasso regularization lambda = grid {0.01, 0.015, 0.02, 0.025} in Alpine case
    Sparsity penalty on embeddings; selected by AIC/deviance and affects which associations are nonzero.
  • association thresholds epsilon+ and epsilon- = 5E-2 in supplementary metrics
    Used to discretize inferred association strengths into positive, negative, and neutral classes for F1 and recall; no sensitivity analysis is reported.
  • SGD hyperparameters (learning rate, momentum, batch size, epochs, early stopping) = learning rate 0.01, momentum 0.8, batch size 16, max 200 epochs, patience 5
    Training configuration; affects convergence and final estimates.
  • species offsets o_i = average count on occurrence points
    Per-species baseline in the linear predictor; estimated from data.
  • dispersion parameters phi_i = estimated during fitting
    Dispersion of the negative binomial distribution per species.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Abundances or occurrences y_ki follow an exponential-family distribution with a canonical link.
    Standard for GLM and JSDM; invoked in Eq. (1d).
  • ad hoc to paper The pairwise association matrix is low-rank and factorizes as A = P Q^T.
    This is the core modeling choice in Section 2.1.1; it limits the expressiveness of association networks to rank d.
  • ad hoc to paper The aggregated biotic effect on a species is the abundance-weighted mean of the effect embeddings of co-occurring species.
    Defines z_ki in Section 2.1.2; this linear aggregation ignores nonlinear and higher-order interactions.
  • domain assumption Species abundances at the same site can be conditioned on each other in a dependency-network regression.
    The pseudo-likelihood in Section 2.2 treats concurrent y_kj as fixed predictors; this is a dependency network, not a joint generative model.
  • domain assumption Environmental and biotic filters combine additively, multiplicatively, or hierarchically as specified.
    Three aggregation modes are defined in Section 2.2.2; the choice is user-specified and changes inference.
  • domain assumption In simulations, the Virtualcom process and the trophic simulation generate communities whose residual co-variation is attributable to the prescribed association matrix.
    The ground-truth recovery evaluation in Section 3 assumes the simulation model produces the signal the inference model is designed to detect.
invented entities (1)
  • Response embeddings rho_i and effect embeddings alpha_i
    purpose: Latent trait vectors parameterizing each species' response to and effect on the community; associations are their dot products.
    These are fitted parameters; the paper provides internal validation (trophic group clustering, trait mutual information) but no external, falsifiable prediction confirming their biological reality.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Uncovering symmetric and asymmetric species associations from community and environmental data." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Z3THT7CR

@misc{pith2026250709317,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Uncovering symmetric and asymmetric species associations from community and environmental data},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Z3THT7CR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.09317}
}
read the original abstract

There is no much doubt that biotic interactions shape community assembly and ultimately the spatial co-variations between species. There is a hope that the signal of these biotic interactions can be observed and retrieved by investigating the spatial associations between species while accounting for the direct effects of the environment. By definition, biotic interactions can be both symmetric and asymmetric. Yet, most models that attempt to retrieve species associations from co-occurrence or co-abundance data internally assume symmetric relationships between species. Here, we propose and validate a machine-learning framework able to retrieve bidirectional associations by analyzing species community and environmental data. Our framework (1) models pairwise species associations as directed influences from a source to a target species, parameterized with two species-specific latent embeddings: the effect of the source species on the community, and the response of the target species to the community; and (2) jointly fits these associations within a multi-species conditional generative model with different modes of interactions between environmental drivers and biotic associations. Using both simulated and empirical data, we demonstrate the ability of our framework to recover known asymmetric and symmetric associations and highlight the properties of the learned association networks. By comparing our approach to other existing models such as joint species distribution models and probabilistic graphical models, we show its superior capacity at retrieving symmetric and asymmetric interactions. The framework is intuitive, modular and broadly applicable across various taxonomic groups.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.09317 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A graphical illustration of the interplay between the environmental and the biotic filters. (a) Species in a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Association strengths are computed from species response and effects (a). Pairwise association strengths [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Examples of scenarios for the aggregation of abiotic and biotic filters. (a) multiplicative filters represent a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (12 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Distribution of the association strengths inferred by the six methods run for each simulation experiment (in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Network structure inference quality with respect to the potential (metaweb) and the realized networks [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Plant associations on an Alpine mesotopographic gradient. We highlight the communities (node colors) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_6.png]
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Simulation procedure. 2.1.2 Assembly rules At each timestep (epoch), given an actual composition c, the probability that an individual from a given species i to replace any other individual of c is given by the following equation ; such that: • Benv: weights of the abi…
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Description of the simulation experiment 1 with different assembly rules [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p036_2.png]
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Simulation diagnosis. Distribution of relative abundance indices RAIij per simulation. Each data point represents a directed association (positive in red, negative in blue and neutral in gray) involving two species from the corresponding simulation. Labels on the x-axi…
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Sensitivity of the inferred association strength [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p038_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Inference of true association class per type of association for each model measured by the recall, f1-score [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p039_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Simulations of consumer-resource co-occurrences along an environmental gradient given food web topology [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p040_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Habitat Suitability Model variable importance and prediction performances per genus. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p043_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The summary association network. Structural roles (nodes) are mapped to position in the gradient [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p044_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Mutual information between plant traits and their latent representations. Each bar concerns a specific [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p045_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

78 extracted references · 77 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Fundamental contradictions among observational and experimental estimates of non-trophic species interactions

    Allison K Barner, Kyle E Coblentz, Sally D Hacker, and Bruce A Menge. Fundamental contradictions among observational and experimental estimates of non-trophic species interactions. Ecology, 99 0 (3): 0 557--566, 2018

  2. [2]

    Database for functional traits of soil invertebrates

    A BETSI. Database for functional traits of soil invertebrates. French Foundation for Biodiversity Research, 2: 0 4, 2012

  3. [3]

    Co-occurrence is not evidence of ecological interactions

    F Guillaume Blanchet, Kevin Cazelles, and Dominique Gravel. Co-occurrence is not evidence of ecological interactions. Ecology Letters, 2020

  4. [4]

    Large-scale machine learning with stochastic gradient descent

    L \'e on Bottou. Large-scale machine learning with stochastic gradient descent. In Proceedings of COMPSTAT'2010, pages 177--186. Springer, 2010

  5. [5]

    Boulangeat, D

    I. Boulangeat, D. Gravel, and W. Thuiller. Accounting for dispersal and biotic interactions to disentangle the drivers of species distributions and their abundances. Ecology Letters, 15 0 (6): 0 584--593, 2012 a

  6. [6]

    Accounting for dispersal and biotic interactions to disentangle the drivers of species distributions and their abundances

    Isabelle Boulangeat, Dominique Gravel, and Wilfried Thuiller. Accounting for dispersal and biotic interactions to disentangle the drivers of species distributions and their abundances. Ecology letters, 15 0 (6): 0 584--593, 2012 b

  7. [7]

    Positive interactions and interdependence in plant communities

    Ragan M Callaway. Positive interactions and interdependence in plant communities. Springer, 2007

  8. [8]

    A theory for species co-occurrence in interaction networks

    K \'e vin Cazelles, Miguel B Ara \'u jo, Nicolas Mouquet, and Dominique Gravel. A theory for species co-occurrence in interaction networks. Theoretical Ecology, 9 0 (1): 0 39--48, 2016 a

Show all 78 references
  1. [9]

    On the integration of biotic interaction and environmental constraints at the biogeographical scale

    K \'e vin Cazelles, Nicolas Mouquet, David Mouillot, and Dominique Gravel. On the integration of biotic interaction and environmental constraints at the biogeographical scale. Ecography, 39 0 (10): 0 921--931, 2016 b

  2. [10]

    Ecological niches: linking classical and contemporary approaches

    Jonathan M Chase and Mathew A Leibold. Ecological niches: linking classical and contemporary approaches. University of Chicago Press, 2003

  3. [11]

    Variational inference for sparse network reconstruction from count data

    Julien Chiquet, Mahendra Mariadassou, and St \'e phane Robin. Variational inference for sparse network reconstruction from count data. arXiv preprint arXiv:1806.03120, 2018

  4. [12]

    Consistent shifts in alpine plant traits along a mesotopographical gradient

    Philippe Choler. Consistent shifts in alpine plant traits along a mesotopographical gradient. Arctic, Antarctic, and Alpine Research, 37 0 (4): 0 444--453, 2005

  5. [13]

    Facilitation and competition on gradients in alpine plant communities

    Philippe Choler, Richard Michalet, and Ragan M Callaway. Facilitation and competition on gradients in alpine plant communities. Ecology, 82 0 (12): 0 3295--3308, 2001

  6. [14]

    Generalized joint attribute modeling for biodiversity analysis: Median-zero, multivariate, multifarious data

    James S Clark, Diana Nemergut, Bijan Seyednasrollah, Phillip J Turner, and Stacy Zhang. Generalized joint attribute modeling for biodiversity analysis: Median-zero, multivariate, multifarious data. Ecological Monographs, 87 0 (1): 0 34--56, 2017

  7. [15]

    Unravelling changing interspecific interactions across environmental gradients using markov random fields

    Nicholas J Clark, Konstans Wells, and Oscar Lindberg. Unravelling changing interspecific interactions across environmental gradients using markov random fields. Ecology, 99 0 (6): 0 1277--1283, 2018

  8. [16]

    Ecosystem engineers: plants to protists, volume 4

    Kim Cuddington, James E Byers, William G Wilson, and Alan Hastings. Ecosystem engineers: plants to protists, volume 4. Academic Press, 2011

  9. [17]

    Biomonitoring for the 21st century: integrating next-generation sequencing into ecological network analysis

    Stephane AP Derocles, David A Bohan, Alex J Dumbrell, James JN Kitson, Francois Massol, Charlie Pauvert, Manuel Plantegenest, Corinne Vacher, and Darren M Evans. Biomonitoring for the 21st century: integrating next-generation sequencing into ecological network analysis. In Adv...

  10. [18]

    Collinearity: a review of methods to deal with it and a simulation study evaluating their performance

    Carsten F Dormann, Jane Elith, Sven Bacher, Carsten Buchmann, Gudrun Carl, Gabriel Carr \'e , Jaime R Garc \' a Marqu \'e z, Bernd Gruber, Bruno Lafourcade, Pedro J Leitao, et al. Collinearity: a review of methods to deal with it and a simulation study evaluating their perform...

  11. [19]

    Biotic interactions in species distribution modelling: 10 questions to guide interpretation and avoid false conclusions

    Carsten F Dormann, Maria Bobrowski, D Matthias Dehling, David J Harris, Florian Hartig, Heike Lischke, Marco D Moretti, J \"o rn Pagel, Stefan Pinkert, Matthias Schleuning, et al. Biotic interactions in species distribution modelling: 10 questions to guide interpretation and a...

  12. [20]

    The nature and origin of soil-polygons in spitsbergen

    Charles S Elton. The nature and origin of soil-polygons in spitsbergen. Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society, 83 0 (1-5): 0 163--NP, 1927

  13. [21]

    Link prediction under imperfect detection: Collaborative filtering for ecological networks

    Xiao Fu, Eugene Seo, Justin Clarke, and Rebecca A Hutchinson. Link prediction under imperfect detection: Collaborative filtering for ecological networks. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 2019

  14. [22]

    Trophic groups and modules: two levels of group detection in food webs

    Benoit Gauzens, Elisa Th \'e bault, G \'e rard Lacroix, and St \'e phane Legendre. Trophic groups and modules: two levels of group detection in food webs. Journal of The Royal Society Interface, 12 0 (106): 0 20141176, 2015

  15. [23]

    Ecology: Biodiversity in the scales

    Nicholas J Gotelli. Ecology: Biodiversity in the scales. Nature, 419 0 (6907): 0 575, 2002

  16. [24]

    Co-clustering: models, algorithms and applications

    G \'e rard Govaert and Mohamed Nadif. Co-clustering: models, algorithms and applications. John Wiley & Sons, 2013

  17. [25]

    Gravel, C

    D. Gravel, C. Albouy, and W. Thuiller. The meaning of functional trait structure and diversity to food web dynamics. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 371: 0 20150268, 2016

  18. [26]

    Trophic theory of island biogeography

    Dominique Gravel, Fran c ois Massol, Elsa Canard, David Mouillot, and Nicolas Mouquet. Trophic theory of island biogeography. Ecology letters, 14 0 (10): 0 1010--1016, 2011

  19. [27]

    Bringing elton and grinnell together: a quantitative framework to represent the biogeography of ecological interaction networks

    Dominique Gravel, Benjamin Baiser, Jennifer A Dunne, Jens-Peter Kopelke, Neo D Martinez, Tommi Nyman, Timoth \'e e Poisot, Daniel B Stouffer, Jason M Tylianakis, Spencer A Wood, et al. Bringing elton and grinnell together: a quantitative framework to represent the biogeography...

  20. [28]

    The niche-relationships of the california thrasher

    Joseph Grinnell. The niche-relationships of the california thrasher. Auk, 34 0 (4): 0 427--433, 1917

  21. [29]

    Predicting species distributions for conservation decisions

    Antoine Guisan, Reid Tingley, John B Baumgartner, Ilona Naujokaitis-Lewis, Patricia R Sutcliffe, Ayesha IT Tulloch, Tracey J Regan, Lluis Brotons, Eve McDonald-Madden, Chrystal Mantyka-Pringle, et al. Predicting species distributions for conservation decisions. Ecology letters...

  22. [30]

    Habitat suitability and distribution models: with applications in R

    Antoine Guisan, Wilfried Thuiller, and Niklaus E Zimmermann. Habitat suitability and distribution models: with applications in R. Cambridge University Press, 2017

  23. [31]

    The competitive exclusion principle

    Garrett Hardin. The competitive exclusion principle. science, 131 0 (3409): 0 1292--1297, 1960

  24. [32]

    Inferring species interactions from co-occurrence data with markov networks

    David J Harris. Inferring species interactions from co-occurrence data with markov networks. Ecology, 97 0 (12): 0 3308--3314, 2016

  25. [33]

    Dependency networks for inference, collaborative filtering, and data visualization

    David Heckerman, David Maxwell Chickering, Christopher Meek, Robert Rounthwaite, and Carl Kadie. Dependency networks for inference, collaborative filtering, and data visualization. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 1 0 (Oct): 0 49--75, 2000

  26. [34]

    Plant colonization of actively sorted stone stripes in the subantarctic

    TD Heilbronn and David WH Walton. Plant colonization of actively sorted stone stripes in the subantarctic. Arctic and Alpine Research, 16 0 (2): 0 161--172, 1984

  27. [35]

    Non-negative matrix factorization with sparseness constraints

    Patrik O Hoyer. Non-negative matrix factorization with sparseness constraints. Journal of machine learning research, 5 0 (Nov): 0 1457--1469, 2004

  28. [36]

    Essai sur la g \'e ographie des plantes

    Alexander von Humboldt, Aim \'e Bonpland, et al. Essai sur la g \'e ographie des plantes . Chez Levrault, Schoell et compagnie, libraires, 1805

  29. [37]

    The multivariate niche

    GE Hutchinson. The multivariate niche. In Cold Spring Harbor Symposia on Quantitative Biology, volume 22, pages 415--421, 1957

  30. [38]

    Try plant trait database--enhanced coverage and open access

    Jens Kattge, Gerhard B \"o nisch, Sandra D \' az, Sandra Lavorel, Iain Colin Prentice, Paul Leadley, Susanne Tautenhahn, Gijsbert DA Werner, Tuomas Aakala, Mehdi Abedi, et al. Try plant trait database--enhanced coverage and open access. Global change biology, 26 0 (1): 0 119--...

  31. [39]

    u rgen Groeneveld, Thomas Hickler, Ingolf K \

    W Daniel Kissling, Carsten F Dormann, J \"u rgen Groeneveld, Thomas Hickler, Ingolf K \"u hn, Greg J McInerny, Jos \'e M Montoya, Christine R \"o mermann, Katja Schiffers, Frank M Schurr, et al. Towards novel approaches to modelling biotic interactions in multispecies assembla...

  32. [40]

    König, R.W

    C. König, R.W. Wüest, C.H. Graham, D.N. Karger, T. Sattler, N.E. Zimmermann, and D. Zurell. Scale dependency of joint species distribution models challenges interpretation of biotic interactions. Journal of Biogeography, 48: 0 1141--1151, 2021

  33. [41]

    Information criteria and statistical modeling

    Sadanori Konishi and Genshiro Kitagawa. Information criteria and statistical modeling. Springer Science & Business Media, 2008

  34. [42]

    Lavorel and E

    S. Lavorel and E. Garnier. Predicting changes in community composition and ecosystem functioning from plant traits: revisiting the holy grail. Functional Ecology, 16 0 (5): 0 545--556, 2002. URL <Go to ISI>://WOS:000178119300001

  35. [43]

    Bardgett, Francesco de Bello, Matty P

    Sandra Lavorel, Jonathan Storkey, Richard D. Bardgett, Francesco de Bello, Matty P. Berg, Xavier Le Roux, Marco Moretti, Christian Mulder, Robin J. Pakeman, Sandra Diaz, and Richard Harrington. A novel framework for linking functional diversity of plants with other trophic lev...

  36. [44]

    Mplasso: Inferring microbial association networks using prior microbial knowledge

    Chieh Lo and Radu Marculescu. Mplasso: Inferring microbial association networks using prior microbial knowledge. PLoS computational biology, 13 0 (12): 0 e1005915, 2017

  37. [45]

    The theory of island biogeography, volume 1

    Robert H MacArthur and Edward O Wilson. The theory of island biogeography, volume 1. Princeton university press, 2001

  38. [46]

    Tree-based inference of species interaction network from abundance data

    Rapha \"e lle Momal, St \'e phane Robin, and Christophe Ambroise. Tree-based inference of species interaction network from abundance data. arXiv preprint arXiv:1905.02452, 2019

  39. [47]

    Inferring biotic interactions from proxies

    Ignacio Morales-Castilla, Miguel G Matias, Dominique Gravel, and Miguel B Ara \'u jo. Inferring biotic interactions from proxies. Trends in ecology & evolution, 30 0 (6): 0 347--356, 2015

  40. [48]

    u nkem \

    Tamara M \"u nkem \"u ller and Laure Gallien. Virtualcom: a simulation model for eco-evolutionary community assembly and invasion. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 6 0 (6): 0 735--743, 2015

  41. [49]

    Modularity and community structure in networks

    Mark EJ Newman. Modularity and community structure in networks. Proceedings of the national academy of sciences, 103 0 (23): 0 8577--8582, 2006

  42. [50]

    Funguild: an open annotation tool for parsing fungal community datasets by ecological guild

    Nhu H Nguyen, Zewei Song, Scott T Bates, Sara Branco, Leho Tedersoo, Jon Menke, Jonathan S Schilling, and Peter G Kennedy. Funguild: an open annotation tool for parsing fungal community datasets by ecological guild. Fungal Ecology, 20: 0 241--248, 2016

  43. [51]

    gllvm: Fast analysis of multivariate abundance data with generalized linear latent variable models in r

    Jenni Niku, Francis KC Hui, Sara Taskinen, and David I Warton. gllvm: Fast analysis of multivariate abundance data with generalized linear latent variable models in r. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 10 0 (12): 0 2173--2182, 2019

  44. [52]

    Mapping the imprint of biotic interactions on -diversity

    Marc Ohlmann, Florent Mazel, Lo \" c Chalmandrier, St \'e phane Bec, Eric Coissac, Ludovic Gielly, Johan Pansu, Vincent Schilling, Pierre Taberlet, Lucie Zinger, et al. Mapping the imprint of biotic interactions on -diversity. Ecology letters, 21 0 (11): 0 1660--1669, 2018

  45. [53]

    Joint Species Distribution Modelling: With Applications in R

    Otso Ovaskainen and Nerea Abrego. Joint Species Distribution Modelling: With Applications in R. Cambridge University Press, 2020

  46. [54]

    How to make more out of community data? a conceptual framework and its implementation as models and software

    Otso Ovaskainen, Gleb Tikhonov, Anna Norberg, F Guillaume Blanchet, Leo Duan, David Dunson, Tomas Roslin, and Nerea Abrego. How to make more out of community data? a conceptual framework and its implementation as models and software. Ecology Letters, 20 0 (5): 0 561--576, 2017

  47. [55]

    Clark, and Wilfried Thuiller

    Giovanni Poggiato, Tamara Munkemuller, Daria Bystrova, Julyan Arbel, James S. Clark, and Wilfried Thuiller. On the interpretations of joint modeling in community ecology. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 36 0 (5): 0 391--401, 2021. ISSN 0169-5347. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2021.01.002

  48. [56]

    Understanding co-occurrence by modelling species simultaneously with a joint species distribution model (jsdm)

    Laura J Pollock, Reid Tingley, William K Morris, Nick Golding, Robert B O'Hara, Kirsten M Parris, Peter A Vesk, and Michael A McCarthy. Understanding co-occurrence by modelling species simultaneously with a joint species distribution model (jsdm). Methods in Ecology and Evolut...

  49. [57]

    Pollock, L.M.J

    L.J. Pollock, L.M.J. O'Connor, K. Mokany, D.F. Rosauer, M.V. Talluto, and W. Thuiller. Protecting biodiversity (in all its complexity): new models and methods. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 2020

  50. [58]

    A general algorithm for covariance modeling of discrete data

    Gordana C Popovic, Francis KC Hui, and David I Warton. A general algorithm for covariance modeling of discrete data. Journal of Multivariate Analysis, 165: 0 86--100, 2018

  51. [59]

    Untangling direct species associations from indirect mediator species effects with graphical models

    Gordana C Popovic, David I Warton, Fiona J Thomson, Francis KC Hui, and Angela T Moles. Untangling direct species associations from indirect mediator species effects with graphical models. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 10 0 (9): 0 1571--1583, 2019

  52. [60]

    On the relationship between niche and distribution

    H Ronald Pulliam. On the relationship between niche and distribution. Ecology letters, 3 0 (4): 0 349--361, 2000

  53. [61]

    Ecological network inference from long-term presence-absence data

    Elizabeth L Sander, J Timothy Wootton, and Stefano Allesina. Ecological network inference from long-term presence-absence data. Scientific Reports, 7 0 (1): 0 1--12, 2017

  54. [62]

    Resource partitioning in ecological communities

    Thomas W Schoener. Resource partitioning in ecological communities. Science, 185 0 (4145): 0 27--39, 1974

  55. [63]

    Package ‘bnlearn’

    Marco Scutari, Maintainer Marco Scutari, and Hiton-PC MMPC. Package ‘bnlearn’. Bayesian network structure learning, parameter learning and inference, R package version 4.4, 1, 2019

  56. [64]

    u nkem \

    Wilfried Thuiller, Tamara M \"u nkem \"u ller, S \'e bastien Lavergne, David Mouillot, Nicolas Mouquet, Katja Schiffers, and Dominique Gravel. A road map for integrating eco-evolutionary processes into biodiversity models. Ecology letters, 16: 0 94--105, 2013

  57. [65]

    u nkem \

    Wilfried Thuiller, Laura J Pollock, Maya Gueguen, and Tamara M \"u nkem \"u ller. From species distributions to meta-communities. Ecology letters, 18 0 (12): 0 1321--1328, 2015

  58. [66]

    Karger, and Niklaus E

    Wilfried Thuiller, Maya Gueguen, Julien Renaud, Dirk N. Karger, and Niklaus E. Zimmermann. Uncertainty in ensembles of global biodiversity scenarios. Nature Communications, 10, 2019. ISSN 2041-1723. doi:10.1038/s41467-019-09519-w. URL <Go to ISI>://WOS:000462722200003

  59. [67]

    Biodiversity and ecological redundancy

    Brian H Walker. Biodiversity and ecological redundancy. Conservation biology, 6 0 (1): 0 18--23, 1992

  60. [68]

    DA Wardle, GM Barker, KI Bonner, and KS Nicholson. Can comparative approaches based on plant ecophysiological traits predict the nature of biotic interactions and individual plant species effects in ecosystems? Journal of ecology, 86 0 (3): 0 405--420, 1998

  61. [69]

    So many variables: joint modeling in community ecology

    David I Warton, F Guillaume Blanchet, Robert B O’Hara, Otso Ovaskainen, Sara Taskinen, Steven C Walker, and Francis KC Hui. So many variables: joint modeling in community ecology. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 30 0 (12): 0 766--779, 2015

  62. [70]

    Ecological assembly rules: perspectives, advances, retreats

    Evan Weiher and Paul Keddy. Ecological assembly rules: perspectives, advances, retreats. Cambridge University Press, 2001

  63. [71]

    The role of biotic interactions in shaping distributions and realised assemblages of species: implications for species distribution modelling

    Mary Susanne Wisz, Julien Pottier, W Daniel Kissling, Lo \" c Pellissier, Jonathan Lenoir, Christian F Damgaard, Carsten F Dormann, Mads C Forchhammer, John-Arvid Grytnes, Antoine Guisan, et al. The role of biotic interactions in shaping distributions and realised assemblages ...

  64. [72]

    Pollock, and Wilfried Thuiller

    Damaris Zurell, Laura J. Pollock, and Wilfried Thuiller. Do joint species distribution models reliably detect interspecific interactions from co-occurrence data in homogenous environments? Ecography, 41 0 (11): 0 1812--1819, 2018. ISSN 0906-7590. doi:10.1111/ecog.03315. URL <G...

  65. [73]

    Consistent shifts in alpine plant traits along a mesotopographical gradient

    Choler, P. Consistent shifts in alpine plant traits along a mesotopographical gradient. Arctic, Antarctic, and Alpine Research 37 , 4 (2005), 444--453

  66. [74]

    Choler, P., Michalet, R., and Callaway, R. M. Facilitation and competition on gradients in alpine plant communities. Ecology 82 , 12 (2001), 3295--3308

  67. [75]

    Trophic groups and modules: two levels of group detection in food webs

    Gauzens, B., Th \'e bault, E., Lacroix, G., and Legendre, S. Trophic groups and modules: two levels of group detection in food webs. Journal of The Royal Society Interface 12 , 106 (2015), 20141176

  68. [76]

    B., and Whitney, D

    Mann, H. B., and Whitney, D. R. On a test of whether one of two random variables is stochastically larger than the other. The annals of mathematical statistics\/ (1947), 50--60

  69. [77]

    Newman, M. E. Modularity and community structure in networks. Proceedings of the national academy of sciences 103 , 23 (2006), 8577--8582

  70. [78]

    E., and Weaver, W

    Shannon, C. E., and Weaver, W. A mathematical model of communication. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press 11\/ (1949)

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.