FrancisBanville / ms_interpreting_probabilities

Manuscript on the ecological interpretation of probabilities in food webs.
https://francisbanville.github.io/ms_interpreting_probabilities/
MIT License
0 stars 1 forks source link

Comments - Thomas #26

Closed FrancisBanville closed 4 months ago

FrancisBanville commented 7 months ago

Is the point that:

  1. the chance of encountering is rare,
  2. species that encounter are not guaranteed to interact, for species to interact thier traits must be compatible
  3. on a local scale species may not be compatible, even if elsewhere in their range they are

I feel it would help to emphasise that species need to be compatible to go from encountering to interacting?

The start of the second paragraph mentions variability in interactions and probabilistic networks, Do probabilistic networks work for indirect interactions but this work just isn’t applicable? Or do they not and this distinction needs to be made at the start

Though it is mentioned briefly in the previous one on line 66?

I’ve written an example below to see what you think:

In contrast, time is defined as the specific time period within which interactions were either observed or predicted. Even though space and time are continuous variables, where edge values represent probability densities (i.e., relative likelihoods of interactions occurring at infinitesimal locations and instants in time), these definitions enable them to be conceptualised as distinct patches or time segments. Treating space and time as discrete dimensions aligns with the common sampling methods of ecological networks and provides actual probabilities of interactions, which can be obtained by integrating probability densities. Furthermore, we can quantify both an area 𝐴 and a duration 𝑡, which can be readily used in spatiotemporal analyses of ecological networks. For example, when studying network-area relationships…

It just feels a bit lopsided; here’s all this information about what how different local interaction probabilities may be interpreted, but they could represent something completely different which we won’t talk about but reference twice in the introduction and once in the conclusion.

I think it might be worth a sentence to say we won’t focus on probability of observation in this paper, same as has been said regarding interaction strengths as opposed to presence absence.

Does this mean that P(i -> j) can be any phylogenetic scale you want, it just depends how you define it?

as repeated on line 401: “probability of interaction given co-occurrence and their probability of co-occurrence”. Whereas this seems to say if we watch two species in the same place for long enough they’ll interact.