Quantifying positional importance in food webs:: A comparison of centrality indices
Quantifying positional importance in food webs:: A comparison of centrality indices
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2007.02.032
复制
发表时间：
2007-07-10
影响因子：
3.1
通讯作者：
Podani, Janos
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Jordan, Ferenc;Benedek, Zsofia;Podani, Janos
保护生物学应该更多地关注物种的重要性，而不是稀有性，尽管重要性的定义和量化并不容易。一种方法涉及测量物种在生态相互作用网络中的位置重要性（例如中心性），为物种排名提供依据。然而，有许多中心性指数，每一个都反映了位置重要性的一个特定方面，因此给出了与其他公式不同的物种等级顺序。因此，迫切需要对现有指数进行比较，并审查它们在网络分析中的相对优点。在本文中，我们应用13个中心性指标的“种”（营养成分）的方法学上可比的营养流网络，以回答以下问题：（1）什么是不同的指数之间的分歧？(2)网络的选择对性能的这种分歧有何影响？(3)这些指标之间的总体关系是什么，特别是哪些指标与度最相似（最简单的指标，等于与给定节点相关的链接数）？我们比较了13个指数的基础上的数据，9个网络使用度量和秩统计和多元分析程序。我们的结论是：（1）不同的中心性等级在每个网络中是不同的;（2）不同的网络可以通过等级之间的不同关系来表征，但是指数之间的关系有一个强大的模式，一些指数对在所有网络中表现得非常相似;（3）接近中心性指数提供了与基于度的排名最相似的排名。(c)2007 Elsevier B. V.保留所有权利。
Conservation biology should focus more on the importance rather than the rarity of species, although the definition and quantification of importance are not easy One approach involves measuring the positional importance (e.g. centrality) of species in ecological interaction networks to provide a basis for species ranking. However, there are many centrality indices, each reflecting a particular aspect of positional importance and therefore giving a rank order of species different from those provided by alternative formulations. Thus, there is a strong need for comparing the available indices and for examining their relative merits in network analysis. In this paper, we apply 13 centrality indices to the "species" (trophic components) of methodologically comparable trophic flow networks, in order to answer the following questions: (1) What is the disagreement between different indices regarding the rank of a given species in a given network? (2) How is this disagreement in performance influenced by the choice of the network? (3) What is the overall relationship among these indices and, in particular, which are the most similar to degree (the simplest index of all, being equal to the number of links pertaining to a given node)? We compare the 13 indices based on the data of nine networks using metric and rank statistics and multivariate analysis procedures. We conclude that (1) different centrality ranks differ in each network; (2) different webs can be characterized by different relationships between ranks but there is a robust pattern of relationships among the indices, some index pairs behaving very similarly in all networks; and (3) it is the index of closeness centrality which provides a rank most similar to that based on degree. (c) 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.