Paper detail

Revealing biases in the sampling of ecological interaction networks

The structure of ecological interactions is commonly understood through analyses of interaction networks. However, these analyses may be sensitive to sampling biases in both the interactors (the nodes of the network) and interactions (the links between nodes). These issues may affect the accuracy of empirically constructed ecological networks. We explore the properties of sampled ecological networks by simulating large-scale ecological networks with predetermined topologies, and sampling them with different mathematical procedures. Several types of modular networks were generated, intended to represent a wide variety of communities that vary in size and types of ecological interactions. We sampled these networks with different sampling designs that may be encountered in field experiments. The observed networks generated by each sampling process were analyzed with respect to number and size of components. We show that the sampling effort needed to estimate underlying network properties depends both on the sampling design and on network topology. Networks with random or scale-free modules require more complete sampling compared to networks whose modules are nested or bipartite. Overall, the structure of nested modules was the easiest to detect, regardless of sampling design. Sampling according to species degree was consistently found to be the most accurate strategy to estimate network structure. Conversely, sampling according to module results in an accurate view of certain modules, but fails to provide a global picture of the underlying network. We recommend that these findings are incorporated into the design of projects aiming to characterize large networks of species interactions in the field, to reduce sampling biases. The software scripts developed to construct and sample networks are provided for further explorations of network structure and comparisons to real interaction data.

preprint2017arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access11 authors1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.