Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40569829›Full record

ReviewEcology letters2025

Deciphering Probabilistic Species Interaction Networks.

Francis Banville, Tanya Strydom, Penelope S A Blyth, Chris Brimacombe, Michael D Catchen, Gabriel Dansereau, Gracielle Higino, Thomas Malpas, Hana Mayall, Kari Norman and 2 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Ecology letters, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
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

12 authors.

Francis BanvilleDépartement de Sciences Biologiques, Université de Montréal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9051-0597
Tanya StrydomSchool of Biosciences, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6067-1349
Penelope S A BlythSchool of Biosciences, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3071-9668
Chris BrimacombeDepartment of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9368-6106
Michael D CatchenDépartement de Sciences Biologiques, Université de Montréal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6506-6487
Gabriel DansereauDépartement de Sciences Biologiques, Université de Montréal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2212-3584
Gracielle HiginoDépartement de Biologie, Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2791-8383
Thomas MalpasSchool of Biosciences, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5575-609X
Hana MayallSchool of Biosciences, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0001-5722-8925
Kari NormanDépartement de Sciences Biologiques, Université de Montréal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2029-2325
Dominique GravelDépartement de Biologie, Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4498-7076
Timothée PoisotDépartement de Sciences Biologiques, Université de Montréal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0735-5184

Funding

Institut de Valorisation des Données PhD-2019a-5993304626Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Representing species interactions probabilistically as opposed to deterministically conveys uncertainties in our knowledge of interactions. The sources of uncertainty captured by interaction probabilities depend on the method used to evaluate them: uncertainty of predictive models, subjective assessment of experts, or empirical measurement of interaction spatiotemporal variability. However, guidelines for the estimation and documentation of probabilistic interaction data are lacking. This is concerning because our understanding of interaction probabilities depend on their sometimes elusive definition and uncertainty sources. We review how probabilistic interactions are defined at different spatial scales. These definitions are based on the distinction between the realisation of an interaction at a specific time and space (local networks) and its biological or ecological feasibility (metaweb). Using host-parasite interactions in Europe, we illustrate how these two network representations differ in their statistical properties, specifically: how local networks and metawebs differ in their spatial and temporal scaling of interactions. We present two approaches to inferring binary interactions from probabilistic ones that account for these differences and show that systematic biases arise when directly inferring local networks from metawebs. Our results underscore the importance of more rigorous descriptions of probabilistic species interactions that specify their conditional variables and uncertainty sources.

Indexed as

Host-Parasite InteractionsModels, BiologicalAnimalsEuropeProbabilityUncertaintyecological modellingecological networksfood webshost–parasite interactionsmetawebsamplingspatial scalespecies interactionstemporal scaleuncertainty

Identifiers

PMID40569829
PMCPMC12200232

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.