Weighting, scale dependence and indirect effects in ecological networks: A comparative study

78 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Towards novel approaches to modelling biotic interactions in multispecies assemblages at large spatial extents (2012, background): “In mutualistic interactions such as plant–frugivore and plant–pollinator networks, interaction frequencies are often considered to be surrogates for interaction strengths (Vázquez et al., 2005; Scotti et al., 2007).”
Generalist Species Have a Central Role In a Highly Diverse Plant–Frugivore Network (2016, background): “In mutualistic interactions, weighting does not produce a large difference in node centrality ranks, probably because these interactions are more evolutionarily stable (Scotti et al. 2007).”
Keystone species: toward an operational concept for marine biodiversity conservation (2015, methodology): “Such methods were first applied to binary networks only (e.g., Jordán et al. 2003), and then adapted to weighted networks (e.g., Scotti et al. 2007, Jordán et al. 2008), since weighted structural indices were demonstrated to best correlate with functional indices from EwE-based methods (Jordán…”
A method for detecting modules in quantitative bipartite networks (2013, background): “Furthermore, from a statistical point of view, weighted networks offer much more information and are less likely to lead to erroneous conclusions about the system (Barber, 2007; Scotti et al. , 2007; Blüthgen, 2010).”