↓ Skip to main content

Wiley Online Library

Top‐down network analysis characterizes hidden termite–termite interactions

Overview of attention for article published in Ecology and Evolution, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
77 Mendeley
Title
Top‐down network analysis characterizes hidden termite–termite interactions
Published in
Ecology and Evolution, August 2016
DOI 10.1002/ece3.2313
Pubmed ID
Authors

Colin Campbell, Laura Russo, Alessandra Marins, Og DeSouza, Karsten Schönrogge, David Mortensen, John Tooker, Réka Albert, Katriona Shea

Abstract

The analysis of ecological networks is generally bottom-up, where networks are established by observing interactions between individuals. Emergent network properties have been indicated to reflect the dominant mode of interactions in communities that might be mutualistic (e.g., pollination) or antagonistic (e.g., host-parasitoid communities). Many ecological communities, however, comprise species interactions that are difficult to observe directly. Here, we propose that a comparison of the emergent properties from detail-rich reference communities with known modes of interaction can inform our understanding of detail-sparse focal communities. With this top-down approach, we consider patterns of coexistence between termite species that live as guests in mounds built by other host termite species as a case in point. Termite societies are extremely sensitive to perturbations, which precludes determining the nature of their interactions through direct observations. We perform a literature review to construct two networks representing termite mound cohabitation in a Brazilian savanna and in the tropical forest of Cameroon. We contrast the properties of these cohabitation networks with a total of 197 geographically diverse mutualistic plant-pollinator and antagonistic host-parasitoid networks. We analyze network properties for the networks, perform a principal components analysis (PCA), and compute the Mahalanobis distance of the termite networks to the cloud of mutualistic and antagonistic networks to assess the extent to which the termite networks overlap with the properties of the reference networks. Both termite networks overlap more closely with the mutualistic plant-pollinator communities than the antagonistic host-parasitoid communities, although the Brazilian community overlap with mutualistic communities is stronger. The analysis raises the hypothesis that termite-termite cohabitation networks may be overall mutualistic. More broadly, this work provides support for the argument that cryptic communities may be analyzed via comparison to well-characterized communities.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 77 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 2 3%
Argentina 1 1%
Colombia 1 1%
Unknown 73 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 17 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 17%
Professor 10 13%
Student > Master 9 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 6%
Other 9 12%
Unknown 14 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 43 56%
Physics and Astronomy 4 5%
Environmental Science 3 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 3%
Other 4 5%
Unknown 19 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 September 2016.
All research outputs
#16,048,009
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Ecology and Evolution
#5,738
of 8,477 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#231,158
of 381,832 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ecology and Evolution
#93
of 149 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,477 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.0. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 381,832 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 149 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.