Species and interactions are being lost at alarming rates and it is imperative to understand how communities assemble if we have to prevent their collapse and restore lost interactions. Using an 8-year dataset comprising nearly 20 000 pollinator visitation records, we explore the assembly of plant-pollinator communities at native plant restoration sites in an agricultural landscape. We find that species occupy highly dynamic network positions through time, causing the assembly process to be punctuated by major network reorganisations. The most persistent pollinator species are also the most variable in their network positions, contrary to what preferential attachment - the most widely studied theory of ecological network assembly - predicts. Instead, we suggest assembly occurs via an opportunistic attachment process. Our results contribute to our understanding of how communities assembly and how species interactions change through time while helping to inform efforts to reassemble robust communities.

The complexity of an ecological community can be distilled into a network, where diverse interactions connect species in a web of dependencies. Species interact directly with each other and indirectly through environmental effects, however to our knowledge the role of these ecosystem engineers has not been considered in ecological network models. Here we explore the dynamics of ecosystem assembly, where species colonization and extinction depends on the constraints imposed by trophic, service, and engineering dependencies. We show that our assembly model reproduces many key features of ecological systems, such as the role of generalists during assembly, realistic maximum trophic levels, and increased nestedness with mutualistic interactions. We find that ecosystem engineering has large and nonlinear effects on extinction rates. While small numbers of engineers reduce stability by increasing primary extinctions, larger numbers of engineers increase stability by reducing primary extinctions and extinction cascade magnitude. Our results suggest that ecological engineers may enhance community diversity while increasing persistence by facilitating colonization and limiting competitive exclusion.

Network approaches to ecological questions have been increasingly used, particularly in recent decades. The abstraction of ecological systems - such as communities - through networks of interactions between their components indeed provides a way to summarize this information with single objects. The methodological framework derived from graph theory also provides numerous approaches and measures to analyze these objects and can offer new perspectives on established ecological theories as well as tools to address new challenges. However, prior to using these methods to test ecological hypotheses, it is necessary that we understand, adapt, and use them in ways that both allow us to deliver their full potential and account for their limitations. Here, we attempt to increase the accessibility of network approaches by providing a review of the tools that have been developed so far, with - what we believe to be - their appropriate uses and potential limitations. This is not an exhaustive review of all methods and metrics, but rather, an overview of tools that are robust, informative, and ecologically sound. After providing a brief presentation of species interaction networks and how to build them in order to summarize ecological information of different types, we then classify methods and metrics by the types of ecological questions that they can be used to answer from global to local scales, including methods for hypothesis testing and future perspectives. Specifically, we show how the organization of species interactions in a community yields different network structures (e.g., more or less dense, modular or nested), how different measures can be used to describe and quantify these emerging structures, and how to compare communities based on these differences in structures. Within networks, we illustrate metrics that can be used to describe and compare the functional and dynamic roles of species based on their position in the network and the organization of their interactions as well as associated new methods to test the significance of these results. Lastly, we describe potential fruitful avenues for new methodological developments to address novel ecological questions.

The structure of ecological interactions is commonly understood through analyses of interaction networks. However, these analyses may be sensitive to sampling biases with respect to both the interactors (the nodes of the network) and interactions (the links between nodes), because the detectability of species and their interactions is highly heterogeneous. These ecological and statistical issues directly affect ecologists’ abilities to accurately construct ecological networks. However, statistical biases introduced by sampling are difficult to quantify in the absence of full knowledge of the underlying ecological network’s structure. To explore properties of large-scale ecological networks, we developed the software EcoNetGen, which constructs and samples networks with predetermined topologies. These networks may represent a wide variety of communities that vary in size and types of ecological interactions. We sampled these networks with different mathematical sampling designs that correspond to methods used in field observations. The observed networks generated by each sampling process were then analyzed with respect to the number of components, size of components and other network metrics. We show that the sampling effort needed to estimate underlying network properties depends strongly both on the sampling design and on the underlying network topology. In particular, networks with random or scale-free modules require more complete sampling to reveal their structure, compared to networks whose modules are nested or bipartite. Overall, modules with nested structure were the easiest to detect, regardless of the sampling design used. Sampling a network starting with any species that had a high degree (e.g., abundant generalist species) was consistently found to be the most accurate strategy to estimate network structure. Because high-degree species tend to be generalists, abundant in natural communities relative to specialists, and connected to each other, sampling by degree may therefore be common but unintentional in empirical sampling of networks. Conversely, sampling according to module (representing different interaction types or taxa) results in a rather complete view of certain modules, but fails to provide a complete picture of the underlying network. To reduce biases introduced by sampling methods, we recommend that these findings be incorporated into field design considerations for projects aiming to characterize large species interaction networks.

Aim: How do factors such as space, time, climate and other ecological drivers influence food web structure and dynamics? Collections of well-studied food webs and replicate food webs from the same system that span biogeographical and ecological gradients now enable detailed, quantitative investigation of such questions and help integrate food web ecology and macroecology. Here, we integrate macroecology and food web ecology by focusing on how ecogeographical rules [the latitudinal diversity gradient (LDG), Bergmann's rule, the island rule and Rapoport's rule] are associated with the architecture of food webs. Location: Global. Time period: Current. Major taxa studied: All taxa. Methods: We discuss the implications of each ecogeographical rule for food webs, present predictions for how food web structure will vary with each rule, assess empirical support where available, and discuss how food webs may influence ecogeographical rules. Finally, we recommend systems and approaches for further advancing this research agenda. Results: We derived testable predictions for some ecogeographical rules (e.g. LDG, Rapoport's rule), while for others (e.g., Bergmann's and island rules) it is less clear how we would expect food webs to change over macroecological scales. Based on the LDG, we found weak support for both positive and negative relationships between food chain length and latitude and for increased generality and linkage density at higher latitudes. Based on Rapoport's rule, we found support for the prediction that species turnover in food webs is inversely related to latitude. Main conclusions: The macroecology of food webs goes beyond traditional approaches to biodiversity at macroecological scales by focusing on trophic interactions among species. The collection of food web data for different types of ecosystems across biogeographical gradients is key to advance this research agenda. Further, considering food web interactions as a selection pressure that drives or disrupts ecogeographical rules has the potential to address both mechanisms of and deviations from these macroecological relationships. For these reasons, further integration of macroecology and food webs will help ecologists better understand the assembly, maintenance and change of ecosystems across space and time.