ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2023
Rapid monitoring of ecological persistence.
Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- A practical guide to characterising ecological coexistence.Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society · 2026Review
- Landscape homogenization strengthens the fitness benefits of plant species' centrality in pollination networks.Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America · 2025Article
- Mixed effects of honey bees on pollination function in the Tibetan alpine grasslands.Nature communications · 2024Article
- Limited function of road verges as habitat for species connecting plant-bee networks in remnant semi-natural grasslands.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2024Article
- Network-based restoration strategies maximize ecosystem recovery.Communications biology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Effective conservation of ecological communities requires accurate and up-to-date information about whether species are persisting or declining to extinction. The persistence of an ecological community is supported by its underlying network of species interactions. While the persistence of the network supporting the whole community is the most relevant scale for conservation, in practice, only small subsets of these networks can be monitored. There is therefore an urgent need to establish links between the small snapshots of data conservationists can collect, and the "big picture" conclusions about ecosystem health demanded by policymakers, scientists, and societies. Here, we show that the persistence of small subnetworks (motifs) in isolation-that is, their persistence when considered separately from the larger network of which they are a part-is a reliable probabilistic indicator of the persistence of the network as a whole. Our methods show that it is easier to detect if an ecological community is not persistent than if it is persistent, allowing for rapid detection of extinction risk in endangered systems. Our results also justify the common practice of predicting ecological persistence from incomplete surveys by simulating the population dynamics of sampled subnetworks. Empirically, we show that our theoretical predictions are supported by data on invaded networks in restored and unrestored areas, even in the presence of environmental variability. Our work suggests that coordinated action to aggregate information from incomplete sampling can provide a means to rapidly assess the persistence of entire ecological networks and the expected success of restoration strategies.
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.