Sergio A. Estay
Marie-Josée Fortin
Daniela N. López- 1Instituto de Ciencias Ambientales y Evolutivas, Universidad Austral de Chile, Valdivia, Chile
- 2Center of Applied Ecology and Sustainability (CAPES), Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile
- 3Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
Editorial on the Research Topic
Patterns and processes in ecological networks over space
Network theory has become a fundamental conceptual framework and analytical tool in ecological research by facilitating our understanding of the interactions between individuals or species in nature (Proulx et al., 2005; Bascompte, 2007). Nowadays, applying network theory to single communities or ecosystems is a common approach for ecologists studying in different environments, allowing them to disentangle the complex processes involved in antagonistic or mutualistic interactions (Dormann et al., 2017; Delmas et al., 2019). Several recent studies analyzed ecological networks’ topological and statistical properties (Dale and Fortin, 2021), linking these network properties to functional diversity or other ecological processes. However, the presence and strength of the ecological interactions vary over time and space (Pellissier et al., 2018), influencing the structure and organization of the communities and, in some cases generating complex dynamics (Holme and Saramäki, 2012; Tylianakis and Morris, 2017; Fortin et al., 2021). The ecological mechanisms that promote this variability can encompass different scales and ecological hierarchies from animal behavior to population dynamics and predator–prey cycles (Dormann et al., 2017; Lopez et al., 2017; Gelmi Candusso et al., 2023). The exact way these mechanisms interactively influence the spatiotemporal fluctuations of ecological communities is still a matter of discussion. In particular, space can be an intrinsic component of an ecological network (e.g., landscape use, metapopulations, transport networks), whereas spatial heterogeneity can account for a large proportion of the differences between local networks (Fortin et al., 2012; Anderson and Dragićević, 2020; Galiana et al., 2022). Nevertheless, in many cases, an explicit representation of the spatial dimension of the biological phenomenon is absent.
Several network theory approaches can help us deal with this spatiotemporal variability. Traditionally, minimum spanning tree or minimum cost arborescence (Boruvka, 1926; Kruskal, 1956; Prim, 1957) are methods that allow the incorporation of space or temporal heterogeneity. These approaches explicitly project the network into space/time, including link weights defining dimensional relationships between nodes. Contemporary approaches include multilayer networks (Pilosof et al., 2017; Aleta and Moreno, 2019). Multilayer networks are objects with two or more layers, and each layer is a network representing, for example, community configuration at different points in time (Pilosof et al., 2017). Classical spatiotemporal phenomena like diffusion and percolation can be efficiently represented using multilayer networks (Aleta and Moreno, 2019).
In this vein, the explicit incorporation of space in ecological network analysis becomes a necessary next step in ecological research. This Research Topic, Patterns and Processes in Ecological Networks over Space, aims to collect experiences and perspectives from different research areas where the application of spatial networks represents a step forward in our understanding of the natural world.
An excellent example of the strength of combining empirical data and novel ways to use network theory to study the variability of food webs is presented by Moisan et al.. The authors used 30 years of ecological monitoring at Bylot Island (Canada) to build community migration networks based on multipartite networks connecting different biogeographic regions with the summer High-Arctic terrestrial community. Their study provided an excellent example stressing that migrants modify the dynamics of the food web seasonally.
Similarly, Borthagaray et al. analyzed the landscape’s effect on biodiversity by considering species’ dispersal capacity in pond metacommunities from Europe and South America. They found that peripheral communities present a lower richness and higher beta diversity at intermediate dispersal abilities than central communities. Their study provides an exciting view of the importance of metacommunity structure on diversity using a combined approach of empirical data and theoretical simulations.
Then, Julien and Melles investigated how landscape characteristics influence species accumulation curves along the Canadian side of the Great Lakes Basin. Their findings stressed that the potential maximum species richness varies due to watershed position and land cover. Their study is an interesting example of the importance of analyzing land–water interactions in a landscape as a mosaic of watersheds.
In a different application, Estay et al. used spatial networks, particularly a Minimum Cost Arborescence (MCA), to model the spread of an invasive species, Drosophila suzukii. MCAs are graphs that allow the incorporation and minimization of spatial distance among nodes following a temporal sequence (temporal direction). This approach facilitates the estimation of dispersal speed and its variability through the time window of the study. The approach has several advantages over other classical techniques to estimate key invasion dispersal statistics, for example, facilitating the estimation of dispersal rate and its variability over time.
These examples represent an essential contribution to the theory and applications of spatial networks. Studies presented here show us how to deal with many still complex ecological problems through their use. This growing research area offers new perspectives to scientists and strategies for decision-makers facing the enormous challenge of environmental problems. We hope this Research Topic provides some background and motivates more people to apply this approach.
Author contributions
All authors listed have made a substantial, direct, and intellectual contribution to the work and approved it for publication.
Funding
SE and DL were supported by ANID PIA/BASAL FB0002 and Fondecyt 1211114.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
Aleta A., Moreno Y. (2019). Multilayer networks in a nutshell. Annu. Rev. Condensed. Matter. Phys. 10, 45–62. doi: 10.1146/annurev-conmatphys-031218-013259
Anderson T., Dragićević S. (2020). Complex spatial networks: Theory and geospatial applications. Geogr. Compass. 14 (9), e12502. doi: 10.1111/gec3.12502
Bascompte J. (2007). Networks in ecology. Basic. Appl. Ecol. 8 (6), 485–490. doi: 10.1016/j.baae.2007.06.003
Boruvka O. (1926). Prıspevek k rešenı otázky ekonomické stavby elektrovodnıch sıtı (contribution to the solution of a problem of economical construction of electrical networks). Elektronický. Obzor. 15, 153–154.
Dale M. R. T., Fortin M.-J. (2021). Quantitative analysis of ecological networks (New York: Cambridge University Press).
Delmas E., Brice M., Burkle L., Dalla Riva G., Fortin M. J., Gravel D., et al. (2019). Analysing ecological networks of species interactions. Biol. Rev. 94 (1), 16–36. doi: 10.1111/brv.12433
Dormann C. F., Fründ J., Schaefer H. M. (2017). Identifying causes of patterns in ecological networks: opportunities and limitations. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 48, 559–584. doi: 10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-110316-022928
Fortin M.-J., Dale M. R. T., Brimacombe C. (2021). Network ecology in dynamic landscapes. Proc. R. Soc. B.: Biol. Sci. 288 (1949), 20201889. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2020.1889
Fortin M.-J., James P. M., MacKenzie A., Melles S. J., Rayfield B. (2012). Spatial statistics, spatial regression, and graph theory in ecology. Spatial. Stat 1, 100–109. doi: 10.1016/j.spasta.2012.02.004
Galiana N., Lurgi M., Bastazini V., Bosch J., Cagnolo L., Cazelles K., et al. (2022). Ecological network complexity scales with area. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 6 (3), 307–314. doi: 10.1038/s41559-021-01644-4
Gelmi Candusso T. A., Brimacombe C., Collinge Ménard G., Fortin M.-J. (2023). Building urban predator-prey networks using camera traps (Food Webs).
Holme P., Saramäki J. (2012). Temporal networks. Phys. Rep. 519 (3), 97–125. doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2012.03.001
Kruskal J. B. (1956). On the shortest spanning subtree of a graph and the traveling salesman problem. Proc. Am. Math. Soc. 7 (1), 48–50. doi: 10.1090/S0002-9939-1956-0078686-7
Lopez D. N., Camus P. A., Valdivia N., Estay S. A. (2017). High temporal variability in the occurrence of consumer-resource interactions in ecological networks. Oikos 126 (12), 1699–1707. doi: 10.1111/oik.04285
Pellissier L., Albouy C., Bascompte J., Farwig J., Graham C., Loreau M., et al. (2018). Comparing species interaction networks along environmental gradients. Biol. Rev. 93, 785–800. doi: 10.1111/brv.12366
Pilosof S., Porter M. A., Pascual M., Kéfi S. (2017). The multilayer nature of ecological networks. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 1 (4), 0101. doi: 10.1038/s41559-017-0101
Prim R. C. (1957). Shortest connection networks and some generalizations. Bell. Syst. Tech. J. 36 (6), 1389–1401. doi: 10.1002/j.1538-7305.1957.tb01515.x
Proulx S. R., Promislow D. E., Phillips P. C. (2005). Network thinking in ecology and evolution. Trends Ecol. Evol. 20 (6), 345–353. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2005.04.004
Keywords: networks, graphs, spatial variability, ecological communities, dispersal
Citation: Estay SA, Fortin M-J and López DN (2023) Editorial: Patterns and processes in ecological networks over space. Front. Ecol. Evol. 11:1246853. doi: 10.3389/fevo.2023.1246853
Received: 24 June 2023; Accepted: 14 July 2023;
Published: 31 July 2023.
Edited and Reviewed by:
Mike S Fowler, Swansea University, United KingdomCopyright © 2023 Estay, Fortin and López. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Sergio A. Estay, sergio.estay@uach.cl