Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32089120›Full record

ArticlePhilosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences2020

Shifting levels of ecological network's analysis reveals different system properties.

Nathalie Niquil, Matilda Haraldsson, Télesphore Sime-Ngando, Philippe Huneman, Stuart R Borrett

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
3.4field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 48 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Unifying the essential concepts of biological networks: biological insights and philosophical foundations.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2020
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.

Nathalie NiquilCNRS/Normandie Université, Research Unit BOREA (Biology of Aquatic Organisms and Ecosystems), MNHN, CNRS 7208, IRD 207, Sorbonne Université, Université de Caen Normandie, Université des Antilles, team EcoFunc, CS 14032, 14000 Caen, France.
Matilda HaraldssonCNRS/Normandie Université, Research Unit BOREA (Biology of Aquatic Organisms and Ecosystems), MNHN, CNRS 7208, IRD 207, Sorbonne Université, Université de Caen Normandie, Université des Antilles, team EcoFunc, CS 14032, 14000 Caen, France.
Télesphore Sime-NgandoLMGE, Laboratoire Microorganismes: Génome et Environnement, Université Clermont Auvergne, UMR CNRS 6023, Aubière, France.
Philippe HunemanInstitut d'Histoire et de Philosophie des Sciences et des Techniques, CNRS/Université Paris I Sorbonne, 13 rue du Four, 75 006 Paris, France.
Stuart R BorrettUniversity of North Carolina, Wilmington, Wilmington, NC 28403, USA.
Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique · FRUniversity of North Carolina Wilmington · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Network analyses applied to models of complex systems generally contain at least three levels of analyses. Whole-network metrics summarize general organizational features (properties or relationships) of the entire network, while node-level metrics summarize similar organization features but consider individual nodes. The network- and node-level metrics build upon the primary pairwise relationships in the model. As with many analyses, sometimes there are interesting differences at one level that disappear in the summary at another level of analysis. We illustrate this phenomenon with ecosystem network models, where nodes are trophic compartments and pairwise relationships are flows of organic carbon, such as when a predator eats a prey. For this demonstration, we analysed a time-series of 16 models of a lake planktonic food web that describes carbon exchanges within an autumn cyanobacteria bloom and compared the ecological conclusions drawn from the three levels of analysis based on inter-time-step comparisons. A general pattern in our analyses was that the closer the levels are in hierarchy (node versus network, or flow versus node level), the more they tend to align in their conclusions. Our analyses suggest that selecting the appropriate level of analysis, and above all regularly using multiple levels, may be a critical analytical decision. This article is part of the theme issue 'Unifying the essential concepts of biological networks: biological insights and philosophical foundations'.

Indexed as

Carbon CycleEutrophicationFood ChainLakesCyanobacteriaEcosystemModels, BiologicalPlanktonfood webhierarchyinterdisciplinarylevelsnetworks

Identifiers

PMID32089120
PMCPMC7061957
OpenAlexW3008258998

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.