BARTOMEUS Ignasi's profile

## BARTOMEUS Ignasi

• Integrative ecology, Estación Biológica de Doñana (EBD-CSIC), Seville, Spain
• Agroecology, Biodiversity, Biological invasions, Climate change, Coexistence, Community ecology, Ecosystem functioning, Facilitation & Mutualism, Interaction networks, Landscape ecology, Pollination
• recommender

#### Reviews:  2

Educational and work
I am a researcher at EBD-CSIC (Doñana Biological Station), Seville. I am broadly interested in understanding how global change drivers impact community structure and composition, and how those impacts translate to the ecosystem functioning. I like to work with plant-pollinator communities because they show complex responses to land use change, climate warming or biological invasions, and encapsulate a critical ecosystem function, pollination. www.bartomeuslab.com

## Recommendation:  1

07 Oct 2019

### Which pitfall traps and sampling efforts should be used to evaluate the effects of cropping systems on the taxonomic and functional composition of arthropod communities?

#### On the importance of experimental design: pitfall traps and arthropod communities

Recommended by based on reviews by Cécile ALBERT and Matthias Foellmer

Despite the increasing refinement of statistical methods, a robust experimental design is still one of the most important cornerstones to answer ecological and evolutionary questions. However, there is a strong trade-off between a perfect design and its feasibility. A common mantra is that more data is always better, but how much is enough is complex to answer, specially when we want to capture the spatial and temporal variability of a given process. Gardarin and Valantin-Morison [1] make an effort to answer these questions for a practical case: How many pitfalls traps, of which type, and over which extent, do we need to detect shifts in arthropod community composition in agricultural landscapes. There is extense literature on how to approach these challenges using preliminary data in combination with simulation methods [e.g. 2], but practical cases are always welcomed to illustrate the complexity of the decisions to be made. A key challenge in this situation is the nature of simplified and patchy agricultural arthropod communities. In this context, small effect sizes are expected, but those small effects are relevant from an ecological point of view because small increases at low biodiversity may produce large gains in ecosystem functioning [3].
The paper shows that some variables are not important, such as the type of fluid used to fill the pitfall traps. This is good news for potential comparisons among studies using slightly different protocols. However, the bad news are that the sampling effort needed for detecting community changes is larger than the average effort currently implemented. A potential solution is to focus on Community Weighed Mean metrics (CWM; i.e. a functional descriptor of the community body size distribution) rather than on classic metrics such as species richness, as detecting changes on CWM requires a lower sampling effort and it has a clear ecological interpretation linked to ecosystem functioning.
Beyond the scope of the data presented, which is limited to a single region over two years, and hence it is hard to extrapolate to other regions and years, the big message of the paper is the need to incorporate statistical power simulations as a central piece of the ecologist's toolbox. This is challenging, especially when you face questions such as: Should I replicate over space, or over time? The recommended paper is accompanied by the statistical code used, which should facilitate this task to other researchers. Furthermore, we should be aware that some important questions in ecology are highly variable in space and time, and hence, larger sampling effort across space and time is needed to detect patterns. Larger and longer monitoring schemes require a large effort (and funding), but if we want to make relevant ecology, nobody said it would be easy.

References

[1] Gardarin, A. and Valantin-Morison, M. (2019). Which pitfall traps and sampling efforts should be used to evaluate the effects of cropping systems on the taxonomic and functional composition of arthropod communities? Zenodo, 3468920, ver. 3 peer-reviewed and recommended by PCI Ecology. doi: 10.5281/zenodo.3468920
[2] Johnson, P. C., Barry, S. J., Ferguson, H. M., and Müller, P. (2015). Power analysis for generalized linear mixed models in ecology and evolution. Methods in ecology and evolution, 6(2), 133-142. doi: 10.1111/2041-210X.12306
[3] Cardinale, B. J. et al. (2012). Biodiversity loss and its impact on humanity. Nature, 486(7401), 59-67. doi: 10.1038/nature11148

## Reviews:  2

01 Mar 2022

### Dissimilarity of species interaction networks: quantifying the effect of turnover and rewiring

#### How to evaluate and interpret the contribution of species turnover and interaction rewiring when comparing ecological networks?

Recommended by based on reviews by Ignasi Bartomeus and 1 anonymous reviewer

A network includes a set of vertices or nodes (e.g., species in an interaction network), and a set of edges or links (e.g., interactions between species). Whether and how networks vary in space and/or time are questions often addressed in ecological research.

Two ecological networks can differ in several extents: in that species are different in the two networks and establish new interactions (species turnover), or in that species that are present in both networks establish different interactions in the two networks (rewiring). The ecological meaning of changes in network structure is quite different according to whether species turnover or interaction rewiring plays a greater role. Therefore, much attention has been devoted in recent years on quantifying and interpreting the relative changes in network structure due to species turnover and/or rewiring.

Poisot et al. (2012) proposed to partition the global variation in structure between networks, $$\beta_{WN}$$ (WN = Whole Network) into two terms: $$\beta_{OS}$$ (OS = Only Shared species) and $$\beta_{ST}$$ (ST = Species Turnover), such as $$\beta_{WN} = \beta_{OS} + \beta_{ST}$$.

The calculation lays on enumerating the interactions between species that are common or not to two networks, as illustrated on Figure 1 for a simple case. Specifically, Poisot et al. (2012) proposed to use a Sorensen type measure of network dissimilarity, i.e., $$\beta_{WN} = \frac{a+b+c}{(2a+b+c)/2} -1=\frac{b+c}{2a+b+c}$$ , where $$a$$ is the number of interactions shared between the networks, while $$b$$ and $$c$$ are interaction numbers unique to one and the other network, respectively. $$\beta_{OS}$$ is calculated based on the same formula, but only for the subnetworks including the species common to the two networks, in the form $$\beta_{OS} = \frac{b_{OS}+c_{OS}}{2a_{OS}+b_{OS}+c_{OS}}$$ (e.g., Fig. 1). $$\beta_{ST}$$ is deduced by subtracting $$\beta_{OS}$$ from $$\beta_{WN}$$ and represents in essence a "dissimilarity in interaction structure introduced by dissimilarity in species composition" (Poisot et al. 2012).

Figure 1. Ecological networks exemplified in Fründ (2021) and discussed in Poisot (2022). a is the number of shared links (continuous lines in right figures), while b+c is the number of edges unique to one or the other network (dashed lines in right figures).

Alternatively, Fründ (2021) proposed to define $$\beta_{OS} = \frac{b_{OS}+c_{OS}}{2a+b+c}$$ and $$\beta_{ST} = \frac{b_{ST}+c_{ST}}{2a+b+c}$$, where $$b_{ST}=b-b_{OS}$$  and $$c_{ST}=c-c_{OS}$$ , so that the components $$\beta_{OS}$$ and $$\beta_{ST}$$ have the same denominator. In this way, Fründ (2021) partitioned the count of unique $$b+c=b_{OS}+b_{ST}+c_{ST}$$ interactions, so that $$\beta_{OS}$$ and $$\beta_{ST}$$ sums to $$\frac{b_{OS}+c_{OS}+b_{ST}+c_{ST}}{2a+b+c} = \frac{b+c}{2a+b+c} = \beta_{WN}$$. Fründ (2021) advocated that this partition allows a more sensible comparison of $$\beta_{OS}$$ and $$\beta_{ST}$$, in terms of the number of links that contribute to each component.

For instance, let us consider the networks 1 and 2 in Figure 1 (left panel) such as $$a_{OS}=2$$ (continuous lines in right panel), $$b_{ST} + c_{ST} = 1$$ and $$b_{OS} + c_{OS} = 1$$ (dashed lines in right panel), and thereby $$a = 2$$, $$b+c=2$$, $$\beta_{WN} = 1/3$$. Fründ (2021) measured $$\beta_{OS}=\beta_{ST}=1/6$$ and argued that it is appropriate insofar as it reflects that the number of unique links in the OS and ST components contributing to network dissimilarity (dashed lines) are actually equal. Conversely, the formula of Poisot et al. (2012) yields $$\beta_{OS}=1/5$$, hence $$\beta_{ST} = \frac{1}{3}-\frac{1}{5}=\frac{2}{15}<\beta_{OS}$$. Fründ (2021) thus argued that the method of Poisot tends to underestimate the contribution of species turnover.

To clarify and avoid misinterpretation of the calculation of $$\beta_{OS}$$ and $$\beta_{ST}$$ in Poisot et al. (2012), Poisot (2022) provides a new, in-depth mathematical analysis of the decomposition of $$\beta_{WN}$$. Poisot et al. (2012) quantify in $$\beta_{OS}$$ the actual contribution of rewiring in network structure for the subweb of common species. Poisot (2022) thus argues that $$\beta_{OS}$$ relates only to the probability of rewiring in the subweb, while the definition of $$\beta_{OS}$$ by Fründ (2021) is relative to the count of interactions in the global network (considered in denominator), and is thereby dependent on both rewiring probability and species turnover. Poisot (2022) further clarifies the interpretation of $$\beta_{ST}$$. $$\beta_{ST}$$ is obtained by subtracting $$\beta_{OS}$$ from $$\beta_{WN}$$ and thus represents the influence of species turnover in terms of the relative architectures of the global networks and of the subwebs of shared species. Coming back to the example of Fig.1., the Poisot et al. (2012) formula posits that $$\frac{\beta_{ST}}{\beta_{WN}}=\frac{2/15}{1/3}=2/5$$, meaning that species turnover contributes two-fifths of change in network structure, while rewiring in the subweb of common species contributed three fifths.  Conversely, the approach of Fründ (2021) does not compare the architectures of global networks and of the subwebs of shared species, but considers the relative contribution of unique links to network dissimilarity in terms of species turnover and rewiring.

Poisot (2022) concludes that the partition proposed in Fründ (2021) does not allow unambiguous ecological interpretation of rewiring. He provides guidelines for proper interpretation of the decomposition proposed in Poisot et al. (2012).

References

Fründ J (2021) Dissimilarity of species interaction networks: how to partition rewiring and species turnover components. Ecosphere, 12, e03653. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.3653

Poisot T, Canard E, Mouillot D, Mouquet N, Gravel D (2012) The dissimilarity of species interaction networks. Ecology Letters, 15, 1353–1361. https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.12002

Poisot T (2022) Dissimilarity of species interaction networks: quantifying the effect of turnover and rewiring. EcoEvoRxiv Preprints, ver. 4 peer-reviewed and recommended by Peer Community in Ecology. https://doi.org/10.32942/osf.io/gxhu2

06 Dec 2019

### Does phenology explain plant-pollinator interactions at different latitudes? An assessment of its explanatory power in plant-hoverfly networks in French calcareous grasslands

#### The role of phenology for determining plant-pollinator interactions along a latitudinal gradient

Recommended by based on reviews by Ignasi Bartomeus, Phillip P.A. Staniczenko and 1 anonymous reviewer

Increased knowledge of what factors are determining species interactions are of major importance for our understanding of dynamics and functionality of ecological communities [1]. Currently, when ongoing temperature modifications lead to changes in species temporal and spatial limits the subject gets increasingly topical. A species phenology determines whether it thrive or survive in its environment. However, as the phenologies of different species are not necessarily equally affected by environmental changes, temporal or spatial mismatches can occur and affect the species-species interactions in the network [2] and as such the full network structure.
In this preprint by Manincor et al. [3] the authors explore the effect of phenology overlap on a large network of species interactions in calcareous grasslands in France. They analyze if and how this effect varies along a latitudinal gradient using empirical data on six plant-hoverfly networks. When comparing ecological network along gradients a well-known problem is that the network metrics is dependent on network size [4]. Therefore, instead of focusing on complete network structure the authors here focus on the factors that determine the probability of interactions and interaction frequency (number of visits). The authors use Bayesian Structural Equation Models (SEM) to link the interaction probability and number of visits to phenology overlap and species abundance. SEM is a multivariate technique that can be used to test several hypotheses and evaluate multiple causal relationships using both observed and latent variables to explain some other observed variables. The authors provide a nice description of the approach for this type of study system. In addition, the study also tests whether phenology affects network compartmentalization, by analyzing species subgroups using a latent block model (LBM) which is a clustering method particularly well-suited for weighted networks.
The authors identify phenology overlap as an important determinant of plant-pollinator interactions, but also conclude this factor alone is not sufficient to explain the species interactions. Species abundances was important for number of visits. Plant phenology drives the duration of the phenology overlap between plant and hoverflies in the studied system. This in turn influences either the probability of interaction or the expected number of visits, as well as network compartmentalization. Longer phenologies correspond to lower modularity inferring less constrained interactions, and shorter phenologies correspond to higher modularity inferring more constrained interactions.
What make this study particularly interesting is the presentation of SEMs as an innovative approach to compare networks of different sizes along environmental gradients. The authors show that these methods can be a useful tool when the aim is to understand the structure of plant-pollinator networks and data is varying in complexities. During the review process the authors carefully addressed to the comments from the two reviewers and the manuscript improved during the process. Both reviewers have expertise highly relevant for the research performed and the development of the manuscript. In my opinion this is a highly interesting and valuable piece of work both when it comes to the scientific question and the methodology. I look forward to further follow this research.

References

[1] Pascual, M., and Dunne, J. A. (Eds.). (2006). Ecological networks: linking structure to dynamics in food webs. Oxford University Press.
[2] Parmesan, C. (2007). Influences of species, latitudes and methodologies on estimates of phenological response to global warming. Global Change Biology, 13(9), 1860-1872. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2486.2007.01404.x
[3] de Manincor, N., Hautekeete, N., Piquot, Y., Schatz, B., Vanappelghem, C. and Massol, F. (2019). Does phenology explain plant-pollinator interactions at different latitudes? An assessment of its explanatory power in plant-hoverfly networks in French calcareous grasslands. Zenodo, 2543768, ver. 4 peer-reviewed and recommended by PCI Ecology. doi: 10.5281/zenodo.2543768
[4] Staniczenko, P. P., Kopp, J. C., and Allesina, S. (2013). The ghost of nestedness in ecological networks. Nature communications, 4, 1391. doi: 10.1038/ncomms2422

## BARTOMEUS Ignasi

• Integrative ecology, Estación Biológica de Doñana (EBD-CSIC), Seville, Spain
• Agroecology, Biodiversity, Biological invasions, Climate change, Coexistence, Community ecology, Ecosystem functioning, Facilitation & Mutualism, Interaction networks, Landscape ecology, Pollination
• recommender

#### Reviews:  2

Educational and work
I am a researcher at EBD-CSIC (Doñana Biological Station), Seville. I am broadly interested in understanding how global change drivers impact community structure and composition, and how those impacts translate to the ecosystem functioning. I like to work with plant-pollinator communities because they show complex responses to land use change, climate warming or biological invasions, and encapsulate a critical ecosystem function, pollination. www.bartomeuslab.com