ArticleEcology and evolution2020
Measuring nestedness: A comparative study of the performance of different metrics.
Article in Ecology and evolution, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
- Body mass ratio modulates the effects of temperature on biodiversity and bipartite network structure.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- On the structure of species-function participation in multilayer ecological networks.Nature communications · 2024Article
- Temporal origin of nestedness in interaction networks.PNAS nexus · 2023Article
- Impacts of land use change on native plant-butterfly interaction networks from central Mexico.PeerJ · 2023Article
- The ambiguity of nestedness under soft and hard constraints.Scientific reports · 2020Article
- Measuring nestedness: A comparative study of the performance of different metrics.Ecology and evolution · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Nestedness is a property of interaction networks widely observed in natural mutualistic communities, among other systems. A perfectly nested network is characterized by the peculiarity that the interactions of any node form a subset of the interactions of all nodes with higher degree. Despite a widespread interest on this pattern, no general consensus exists on how to measure it. Instead, several nestedness metrics, based on different but not necessarily independent properties of the networks, coexist in the literature, blurring the comparison between ecosystems. In this work, we present a detailed critical study of the behavior of six nestedness metrics and the variants of two of them. In order to evaluate their performance, we compare the obtained values of the nestedness of a large set of real networks among them and against a maximum-entropy and maximum-likelihood null model. We also analyze the dependencies of each metrics on different network parameters, as size, fill, and eccentricity. Our results point out, first, that the metrics do not rank networks universally in terms of their degree of nestedness. Furthermore, several metrics show significant dependencies on the network properties considered. The study of these dependencies allows us to understand some of the observed systematic shifts against the null model. Altogether, this paper intends to provide readers with a critical guide on how to measure nestedness patterns, by explaining the functioning of several metrics and disclosing their qualities and flaws. Besides, we also aim to extend the application of null models based on maximum entropy to the scarcely explored area of ecological networks. Finally, we provide a fully documented repository that allows constructing the null model and calculating the studied nestedness indexes. In addition, it provides the probability matrices to build the null model for a large dataset of more than 200 bipartite networks.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.