Back

Varying richness need not imply non-random species co-occurrence: implications for specifying null models

Fayle, T. M.

2020-11-05 ecology
10.1101/2020.11.04.367839 bioRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundNon-random species co-occurrence is of fundamental interest to ecologists. One approach to analysing non-random patterns is null modelling. This involves calculation of a metric for the observed dataset, and comparison to a distribution obtained by repeatedly randomising the data. Choice of randomisation algorithm, specifically whether null model species richness is fixed at that of the observed dataset, is likely to affect model results. This is particularly important in cases when there is high variation in species richness between sampling units in the observed data. MethodsHere I demonstrate the effects of accounting for variation in species richness. I use the C-score, a metric measuring species segregation as "checkerboard units", applied to 289 datasets. First, I run null models in which sites are equally likely to be occupied (fixed-equiprobable algorithm). I do this both for the original datasets, and for the same datasets where occurrences are randomised with the species richness distribution fixed (pre-randomised datasets). Second, I run null models that fix site species richness to that observed (fixed-fixed algorithm). ResultsFor real datasets, using the fixed-equiprobable algorithm (sites are equally likely to be colonised), C-score standardised effect size (SES) was positively related to variability in species richness between sites within a dataset. This effect was also found for pre-randomised datasets, indicating that variability in species richness can be exclusively responsible for detection of non-random species co-occurrence. When using the fixed-fixed algorithm (richness is constrained to that of real sites), there was no relationship between SES and variability in species richness. There was also a reverse in the effect direction, with 94% of significant tests indicating a lower C-score than expected for the fixed-equiprobable algorithm, but 98% of significant tests indicating a higher C-score than expected for the fixed-fixed algorithm. DiscussionI speculate that when variation in species richness is high, fewer checkerboard units are possible, regardless of segregation between species. Therefore, use of fixed-equiprobable algorithms in situations where real species richness is highly variable between sites within a dataset will yield significant results, even if species co-occur randomly within the constraints of the species richness distribution. Consequently, use of such tests makes the a priori assumption that high within-dataset variation in species richness indicates non-random species co-occurrence. I recommend using algorithms that explicitly take into account species richness distributions when one wants to eliminate the effect of richness variation in terms of producing significant but spurious positive co-occurrence results. Alternatively, non-null mechanistic models can be created, in which hypothesised species assembly processes must be explicitly stated and tested.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Ecography
50 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
16.7%
2
Methods in Ecology and Evolution
160 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
12.1%
3
Ecosphere
53 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
9.6%
4
Ecology and Evolution
232 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
6.9%
5
Peer Community Journal
254 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
6.1%
50% of probability mass above
6
Oikos
74 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.1%
7
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 33%
4.6%
8
Ecology
70 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.6%
9
PeerJ
261 papers in training set
Top 3%
3.4%
10
Journal of Animal Ecology
63 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
2.0%
11
Journal of Ecology
47 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.0%
12
Ecology Letters
121 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.8%
13
Diversity and Distributions
26 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.8%
14
Ecological Applications
28 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.4%
15
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B
51 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.4%
16
Ecological Informatics
29 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.4%
17
Global Ecology and Biogeography
41 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.4%
18
The American Naturalist
114 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.3%
19
Journal of Applied Ecology
35 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.9%
20
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 23%
0.9%
21
Biological Conservation
43 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.9%
22
Global Change Biology
69 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
23
Ecological Modelling
24 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.8%
24
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 77%
0.7%
25
Oecologia
23 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.7%
26
Journal of Biogeography
37 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.6%