4.7 Article

Modeling species co-occurrence by multivariate logistic regression generates new hypotheses on fungal interactions

期刊

ECOLOGY
卷 91, 期 9, 页码 2514-2521

出版社

ECOLOGICAL SOC AMER
DOI: 10.1890/10-0173.1

关键词

Bayesian inference; dead wood; logistic regression; multivariate model; polypore; species community; species interaction; wood-decaying fungi

类别

资金

  1. Finnish Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry
  2. Finnish Ministry of the Environment
  3. EU
  4. Academy of Finland [124242]
  5. European Research Council (ERC) [205905]
  6. Ella and Georg Ehrnrooth Foundation
  7. Finnish Society of Forest Science
  8. Academy of Finland (AKA) [124242, 124242] Funding Source: Academy of Finland (AKA)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Signals of species interactions can be inferred from survey data by asking if some species occur more or less often together than what would be expected by random, or more generally, if any structural aspect of the community deviates from that expected from a set of independent species. However, a positive (or negative) association between two species does not necessarily signify a direct or indirect interaction, as it can result simply from the species having similar (or dissimilar) habitat requirements. We show how these two factors can be separated by multivariate logistic regression, with the regression part accounting for species-specific habitat requirements, and a correlation matrix for the positive or negative residual associations. We parameterize the model using Bayesian inference with data on 22 species of wood-decaying fungi acquired in 14 dissimilar forest sites. Our analyses reveal that some of the species commonly found to occur together in the same logs are likely to do so merely by similar habitat requirements, whereas other species combinations are systematically either over-or underrepresented also or only after accounting for the habitat requirements. We use our results to derive hypotheses on species interactions that can be tested in future experimental work.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据