A comparative study of ecological specialization estimators

By Timothée Poisot, E. Canard, N. Mouquet, Michael E. Hochberg. 2012

150 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Ecology, Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics, Nature and Landscape Conservation

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/91efdde4d4f66cf80cc19fd9f970c027329b7c4e

How researchers see this paper

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

In Ecology

1. Marc W. Cadotte
2. John J. Wiens
3. Stuart W. Livingstone
4. Carsten F. Dormann
5. Dominique Gravel
6. N. Emery
7. Rouven Strauss

In Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics

1. Marc W. Cadotte
2. Rouven Strauss
3. Kelly A. Carscadden
4. John J. Wiens
5. Stuart W. Livingstone
6. Carsten F. Dormann
7. Dominique Gravel
8. N. Emery

In Nature and Landscape Conservation

1. Marc W. Cadotte
2. Rouven Strauss
3. Kelly A. Carscadden
4. John J. Wiens
5. Stuart W. Livingstone
6. Carsten F. Dormann
7. Dominique Gravel
8. N. Emery

Citations in the corpus

• Niche Breadth: Causes and Consequences for Ecology, Evolution, and Conservation (2020, background): “Complementarity among species, and therefore ecosystem functioning, should be greatest in an assemblage of species that each specialize on different resources (Figure 3; Poisot et al. 2013; Turnbull et al. 2013).”
• A method for detecting modules in quantitative bipartite networks (2013, background): “While popular among ecologists (Blüthgen, 2010; Schleuning et al. , 2012; Poisot et al. , 2012; Pocock et al. , 2012), weighted bipartite graphs are not amenable to any of the existing module-49 detection algorithms for one-mode networks or for unweighted bipartite networks.”