Department of Ecology & Evolution, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, United States of America.
Northwestern Institute on Complex Systems, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois, United States of America.
PLoS Comput Biol. 2019 Jun 27;15(6):e1007076. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1007076. eCollection 2019 Jun.
Ecologists have been compiling ecological networks for over a century, detailing the interactions between species in a variety of ecosystems. To this end, they have built networks for mutualistic (e.g., pollination, seed dispersal) as well as antagonistic (e.g., herbivory, parasitism) interactions. The type of interaction being represented is believed to be reflected in the structure of the network, which would differ substantially between mutualistic and antagonistic networks. Here, we put this notion to the test by attempting to determine the type of interaction represented in a network based solely on its structure. We find that, although it is easy to separate different kinds of nonecological networks, ecological networks display much structural variation, making it difficult to distinguish between mutualistic and antagonistic interactions. We therefore frame the problem as a challenge for the community of scientists interested in computational biology and machine learning. We discuss the features a good solution to this problem should possess and the obstacles that need to be overcome to achieve this goal.
生态学家一个多世纪以来一直在编制生态网络,详细描述各种生态系统中物种之间的相互作用。为此,他们构建了互利(例如,授粉、种子传播)和拮抗(例如,捕食、寄生)相互作用的网络。所代表的相互作用类型被认为反映在网络的结构中,互利和拮抗网络的结构会有很大的不同。在这里,我们通过仅根据网络的结构来尝试确定所代表的相互作用类型来检验这一概念。我们发现,虽然很容易将不同类型的非生态网络区分开来,但生态网络显示出很大的结构变化,使得区分互利和拮抗相互作用变得困难。因此,我们将这个问题视为对计算生物学和机器学习领域感兴趣的科学家社区的一个挑战。我们讨论了一个好的解决方案应该具备的特征,以及为实现这一目标需要克服的障碍。