@misc{BoetzlSponslerAlbrechtetal., author = {Boetzl, Fabian and Sponsler, Douglas and Albrecht, Matthias and Bat{\´a}ry, P{\´e}ter and Birkhofer, Klaus and Knapp, Michal and Krauss, Jochen and Maas, Bea and Martin, Emily A. and Sirami, Cl{\´e}lia and Sutter, Louis and Bertrand, Colette and Baillod, Aliette and Bota, Gerard and Bretagnolle, Vincent and Brotons, Llu{\´i}s and Frank, Thomas and Fusser, Moritz and Giralt, David and Gonz{\´a}lez, Ezequiel and Hof, Anouschka and Luka, Henryk and Marrec, Ronan and Nash, Michael and Ng, Katherina and Plantegenest, Manuel and Poulin, Brigitte and Siriwardena, Gavin and Zubair-Anjum, Muhammad and Entling, Martin and Steffan-Dewenter, Ingolf and Schirmel, Jens}, title = {Distance functions of carabids in crop fields depend on functional traits, crop type and adjacent habitat: a synthesis}, series = {Proceedings Royal Society. Series B, Biological sciences}, volume = {Vol. 291}, journal = {Proceedings Royal Society. Series B, Biological sciences}, issn = {1471-2954}, doi = {10.1098/rspb.2023.2383}, pages = {1 -- 10}, language = {en} } @misc{MenaresSaizSchenketal., author = {Menares, Esteban and Sa{\´i}z, Hugo and Schenk, No{\"e}lle V. and Garcia de la Riva, Enrique and Krauss, Jochen and Birkhofer, Klaus}, title = {Co-occurrence patterns do not predict mutualistic interactions between plant and butterfly species}, series = {Ecology and Evolution}, volume = {14}, journal = {Ecology and Evolution}, number = {11}, issn = {2045-7758}, doi = {10.1002/ece3.70498}, pages = {13}, abstract = {Biotic interactions are crucial for determining the structure and dynamics of communities; however, direct measurement of these interactions can be challenging in terms of time and resources, especially when numerous species are involved. Inferring species interactions from species co-occurrence patterns is increasingly being used; however, recent studies have highlighted some limitations. To our knowledge, no attempt has been made to test the accuracy of the existing methods for detecting mutualistic interactions in terrestrial ecosystems. In this study, we compiled two literature-based, long-term datasets of interactions between butterflies and herbaceous plant species in two regions of Germany and compared them with observational abundance and presence/absence data collected within a year in the same regions. We tested how well the species associations generated by three different co-occurrence analysis methods matched those of empirically measured mutualistic associations using sensitivity and specificity analyses and compared the strength of associations. We also checked whether flower abundance data (instead of plant abundance data) increased the accuracy of the co-occurrence models and validated our results using empirical flower visitation data. The results revealed that, although all methods exhibited low sensitivity, our implementation of the Relative Interaction Intensity index with pairwise null models performed the best, followed by the probabilistic method and Spearman's rank correlation method. However, empirical data showed a significant number of interactions that were not detected using co-occurrence methods. Incorporating flower abundance data did not improve sensitivity but enhanced specificity in one region. Further analysis demonstrated incongruence between the predicted co-occurrence associations and actual interaction strengths, with many pairs exhibiting high interaction strength but low co-occurrence or vice versa. These findings underscore the complexity of ecological dynamics and highlight the limitations of current co-occurrence methods for accurately capturing species interactions.}, language = {en} }