Abstract
1. Bipartite network analyses are increasingly being used to better understand mutualistic and antagonistic plant–insect interactions at the community level. As a result of taxonomic limitations, it is usually very difficult to identify all nodes of a network down to the species level and many studies leave some specimens identified as lower resolution taxa. Accordingly, we do not know how much a lower resolution taxonomic representation changes the network structure compared with a representation with all nodes at species level. 2. The present study aimed to test whether insect–plant networks built using different combinations of taxonomic levels can still preserve the same basic structure of networks built only with species. 3. In total, 73 bipartite published interaction networks (mutualistic and antagonistic) were selected, which were turned into binary networks and reconstructed using the nodes classified as species, genus, family or order (representing different levels of classification difficulty). The network structures were compared using their binary representations mainly using connectance, NODF (Nestedness metric based on Overlap and Decreasing Fill) and modularity. 4. The mutualistic network structure was strongly linearly related to the original network structures if all nodes were grouped up to genus level. In antagonistic networks, the structure was related to the original network only if nodes were only grouped at the species level. 5. The findings of the present study are especially helpful for comparative network studies, such as those assessing the effects of environmental gradients. For mutualistic networks, Citizen Science programmes can provide useful ecological indicators, even with its taxonomic limitations.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 3
Claim · model-written summary
Mutualistic plant–insect network structure remained strongly related to original networks when nodes were grouped to genus.
Verbatim
e0“The mutualistic network structure was strongly linearly related to the original network structures if all nodes were grouped up to genus level.”
t0“antagonistic plant–insect interactions”
Claim · model-written summary
Antagonistic network structure was related to original networks only at species level.
Verbatim
e0“In antagonistic networks, the structure was related to the original network only if nodes were only grouped at the species level.”
t0“antagonistic plant–insect interactions”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors suggest citizen science mutualistic networks can provide ecological indicators despite taxonomic limitations.
Verbatim
e0“For mutualistic networks, Citizen Science programmes can provide useful ecological indicators, even with its taxonomic limitations.”
t0“antagonistic plant–insect interactions”