When do we have the power to detect biological interactions in spatial point patterns?

Abstract

Uncovering the roles of biotic interactions in assembling and maintaining species‐rich communities remains a major challenge in ecology. In plant communities, interactions between individuals of different species are expected to generate positive or negative spatial interspecific associations over short distances. Recent studies using individual‐based point pattern datasets have concluded that (a) detectable interspecific interactions are generally rare, but (b) are most common in communities with fewer species; and (c) the most abundant species tend to have the highest frequency of interactions. However, it is unclear how the detection of spatial interactions may change with the abundances of each species, or the scale and intensity of interactions. We ask if statistical power is sufficient to explain all three key results. We use a simple two‐species model, assuming no habitat associations, and where the abundances, scale and intensity of interactions are controlled to simulate point pattern data. In combination with an approximation to the variance of the spatial summary statistics that we sample, we investigate the power of current spatial point pattern methods to correctly reject the null model of pairwise species independence. We show the power to detect interactions is positively related to both the abundances of the species tested, and the intensity and scale of interactions, but negatively related to imbalance in abundances. Differences in detection power in combination with the abundance distributions found in natural communities are sufficient to explain all the three key empirical results, even if all pairwise interactions are identical. Critically, many hundreds of individuals of both species may be required to detect even intense interactions, implying current abundance thresholds for including species in the analyses are too low. Sy n thesis. The widespread failure to reject the null model of spatial interspecific independence could be due to low power of the tests rather than any key biological process. Since we do not model habitat associations, our results represent a first step in quantifying sample sizes required to make strong statements about the role of biotic interactions in diverse plant communities. However, power should be factored into analyses and considered when designing empirical studies.

Wildfire and drought moderate the spatial elements of tree mortality

“…As spatially explicit mortality processes may differ among species and size classes (Das et al 2008, Wang et al 2012), we analyzed each species independently and grouped trees into three size classes chosen to reflect the distinct ecological roles of small (1–10 cm DBH)‐, medium (10–60 cm DBH)‐, and large (≥60 cm DBH)‐diameter trees (sensu Lutz et al 2018) while maintaining a robust sample of trees in each diameter class. We restricted all point pattern analyses to species‐size classes that contained >100 individuals to minimize exposure to type II error (failure to reject the null when it is false; Rajala et al 2018).…”

Threat webs: Reframing the co‐occurrence and interactions of threats to biodiversity

“…Without the inclusion of the spatial arrangement of threats or community data, analysis of threat co‐occurrence may fail to elucidate the nature of interactions (Freilich et al, ; Rajala, Olhede, & Murrell, ). We therefore support previous calls to close gaps in knowledge of the spatial and temporal occurrence of threats (Joppa et al, ).…”

Good neighbors aplenty: fungal endophytes rarely exhibit competitive exclusion patterns across a span of woody habitats

“…, Rajala et al. ) and (2) negative interactions lead to competitive exclusion and positive interactions lead to species’ coexistence over the long term (Gause ).…”