Core-periphery structure in mutualistic networks: an epitaph for nestedness?
Martin Gonzalez, A. M.; Vazquez, D. P.; Ramos-Jiliberto, R.; Lee, S. H.; Miele, V.
Show abstract
The calculation of nestedness has become a routine analysis in the study of ecological networks, as it is commonly associated with community resilience, robustness and species persistence. While meaningful in species distributional patterns, for an interaction matrix to be nested, specialist species must interact with ordered subsets of subsequently more generalized species -- not just with a lower number of species. However, after reviewing 419 papers on mutualistic networks published since nestedness was introduced for the study of species interactions in 2003, we have found that only two theoretical studies considered explicitly ordered subsets. Instead, most studies interpret nestedness as a core of densely connected generalist species, surrounded by a periphery of specialist species attached to this core -- a so-called core-periphery structure. Such a topological feature is generally perceived as a core-periphery structure in network science. Here, we argue that the concept of core-periphery may be more relevant for studies on mutualistic networks than the concept of nestedness, as ecologists are usually not interested in exploring in detail the ordered subsets that characterize nestedness but instead use nestedness to describe a topology with a core of densely linked generalist species surrounded by a sparsely linked periphery of specialists. To illustrate our arguments and the quantification of core-periphery structures, we calculate core-periphery and nestedness in a large publicly available dataset of mutualistic networks. We also describe the calculation of core-periphery structures, its relationship with nestedness, and provide the code inside the R package econetwork for its calculation in mutualistic networks. We hope that our review will help ecologists to move beyond nestedness towards a more explicit representation of the structure of ecological networks.
Matching journals
The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Non-random interactions within and across guilds shape the potential to coexist in multi-trophic ecological communities 96%
- Time is of the essence: A general framework for uncovering temporal structures of communities 96%
- Structural asymmetry in biotic interactions as a tool to understand and predict ecological persistence 96%
Similar papers in this journal
- Rethinking the nature of intraspecific variability and its consequences on species coexistence 94%
- The Hidden Side Of Diversity: Effects Of Imperfect Detection On Multiple Dimensions Of Biodiversity 93%
- Should regional species loss be faster, or slower, than local loss? It depends on density-dependent rate of death 92%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.