pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.17220 · v1 · pith:O5QEHMOVnew · submitted 2026-05-17 · 🧬 q-bio.PE · nlin.AO· physics.bio-ph

Skewed weak and Pareto-tailed strong interactions accompany community diversity and complexity

Takuya Hojo , Taiko Arakaki , Koichi Fujimoto This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-19 23:14 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🧬 q-bio.PE nlin.AOphysics.bio-ph
keywords ecological communitiesinteraction strengthsSWAPS distributioncommunity diversitycommunity complexitytaxonomic conservatismcommunity assemblyLotka-Volterra model
0
0 comments X p. Extension
pith:O5QEHMOV Add to your LaTeX paper What is a Pith Number? 
\usepackage{pith}
\pithnumber{O5QEHMOV}

Prints a linked pith:O5QEHMOV badge after your title and writes the identifier into PDF metadata. Compiles on arXiv with no extra files. Learn more

The pith

Ecological communities display a skewed weak and Pareto-tailed strong pattern in interaction strengths that accompanies higher diversity and complexity.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper examines how strengths of interspecific interactions are distributed in ecological communities. It finds that these strengths show many weak values with positive skewness and few strong values with heavy Pareto tails, a pattern termed SWAPS, in empirical plant-animal networks. Generalized Lotka-Volterra simulations show that taxonomic conservatism of interaction strengths and the presence of multiple interaction types are needed to produce SWAPS. The distribution emerges at both species and lineage levels and appears together with rises in community diversity and complexity.

Core claim

Using two empirical datasets of plant-animal networks, the authors demonstrate that interaction strengths follow a SWAPS distribution, quantified by positive skewness and extreme value theory. Community assembly simulations based on a generalized Lotka-Volterra model establish that taxonomic conservatism of interaction strengths together with multiple interaction types beyond trophic and mutualistic ones is required for the SWAPS distribution to emerge. This distribution appears across lineages as well as species, and its emergence accompanies increases in community diversity and complexity.

What carries the argument

The SWAPS distribution of interaction strengths, identified by positive skewness in the weak tail and Pareto tails in the strong tail through extreme value theory.

Load-bearing premise

Taxonomic conservatism of interaction strengths together with multiple interaction types beyond trophic and mutualistic ones are necessary conditions for SWAPS emergence in the generalized Lotka-Volterra community assembly simulations.

What would settle it

An empirical collection of interaction strengths that exhibits the SWAPS distribution but lacks taxonomic conservatism in those strengths would challenge the necessity of that condition for the pattern.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.17220 by Koichi Fujimoto, Taiko Arakaki, Takuya Hojo.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: SWAPS interspecies interactions in empirical data. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Taxonomic specificity and conservatism on interaction strength. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: SWAPS distribution emerges in GLV assembly simulations. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Community complexity co-emerges with SWAPS distribution. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (A) Shannon diversity (left panel), interaction strength variability σ (center panel), and May’s complexity σ √ NC (right panel) plotted under six conditions of community assembly simulations (inset). Datasets of assembly simulations, colors and arrangement are the same as those in Fig. 4A. Permutation test on the difference in the means (original scale), with Holm correction for three comparisons (two-sid… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Ecological communities are often characterized by many weak and few strong interspecific interactions, yet their quantitative structure, generative basis, and links to community-level properties remain poorly understood. Using two empirical datasets of plant--animal networks, we show that both trophic and mutualistic interaction strengths distribute skewed weak and Pareto-strong tails (SWAPS), as quantified by positive skewness and extreme value theory, respectively. We further find that interaction strengths are taxon-specific and largely constrained within taxa. In community assembly simulations based on a generalized Lotka--Volterra model, this taxonomic conservatism, together with multiple interaction types beyond trophic and mutualistic ones, is required for the emergence of SWAPS distribution. Notably, SWAPS distribution emerges not only at the species level but also across lineages, and its emergence accompanies increases in community diversity and complexity. Together, these results identify SWAPS distribution as a previously unrecognized interaction signature of ecological communities and provide a new perspective on the organization of community-level properties.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript claims that interspecific interaction strengths in two empirical plant-animal networks exhibit a skewed-weak and Pareto-tailed strong (SWAPS) distribution, quantified via skewness and extreme value theory. Interaction strengths are shown to be taxon-specific and constrained within taxa. In generalized Lotka-Volterra community assembly simulations, taxonomic conservatism combined with multiple interaction types beyond trophic and mutualistic is required for SWAPS to emerge; the distribution appears at both species and lineage levels and accompanies increases in community diversity and complexity, positioning SWAPS as a new signature of ecological community organization.

Significance. If substantiated, the work supplies a quantitative interaction signature that links microscopic patterns (taxon-constrained strengths across interaction types) to macroscopic community properties (diversity and complexity). The empirical use of extreme value theory for strong tails and the simulation-based test of generative conditions provide a mechanistic hypothesis that could unify observations across network types.

major comments (1)
  1. [Community assembly simulations] Community assembly simulations section: the claim that taxonomic conservatism of interaction strengths together with multiple interaction types is required for SWAPS emergence rests on comparisons within the specific matrix construction used. No ablation experiments are reported that relax the within-taxon constraint while preserving sign patterns, magnitude scaling, or other matrix features; without these controls it is unclear whether SWAPS arises specifically from the conservatism or from other embedded correlations in the interaction matrix.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract introduces SWAPS without an immediate parenthetical definition; a brief inline gloss would aid readers.
  2. [Methods] Methods description of data exclusion rules and error propagation for interaction strength estimates is incomplete, limiting independent verification of the empirical SWAPS observation.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the detailed and constructive report. The single major comment raises a valid methodological point regarding controls in our community assembly simulations. We address it directly below and have incorporated additional analyses into the revised manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Community assembly simulations section: the claim that taxonomic conservatism of interaction strengths together with multiple interaction types is required for SWAPS emergence rests on comparisons within the specific matrix construction used. No ablation experiments are reported that relax the within-taxon constraint while preserving sign patterns, magnitude scaling, or other matrix features; without these controls it is unclear whether SWAPS arises specifically from the conservatism or from other embedded correlations in the interaction matrix.

    Authors: We agree that isolating the precise contribution of within-taxon conservatism requires controls that hold other matrix properties fixed. In the original simulations we compared fully randomized interaction matrices against taxon-constrained ones while preserving the overall sign pattern and the empirical magnitude distribution; however, these comparisons did not explicitly shuffle strengths across taxa while exactly retaining per-taxon sign and scaling structure. To address this, we have added a new set of ablation experiments in which interaction strengths are reassigned across taxa while strictly preserving (i) the sign pattern of each interaction type and (ii) the within-taxon magnitude scaling (i.e., the relative ordering and ratios of strengths inside each taxon). These new controls show that SWAPS fails to emerge when the within-taxon constraint is removed, even though all other matrix features are retained. The revised manuscript now includes a dedicated paragraph and supplementary figure documenting these ablation results, thereby strengthening the mechanistic claim. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in derivation chain

full rationale

The paper reports empirical detection of SWAPS distributions in two plant-animal network datasets, notes taxon-specific constraints on interaction strengths, and then deploys generalized Lotka-Volterra community-assembly simulations to show that imposing taxonomic conservatism plus multiple interaction types produces SWAPS while its emergence co-occurs with rising diversity and complexity. These steps constitute an observational claim followed by a generative demonstration under stated modeling assumptions; the simulation outputs are not forced by re-labeling fitted parameters as predictions, nor does any central result reduce by definition to its own inputs. No load-bearing self-citation chains, uniqueness theorems imported from prior author work, or ansatz smuggling are required for the reported findings. The derivation therefore remains self-contained against external benchmarks and falsifiable outside the fitted simulation framework.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the assumption that the two plant-animal datasets are representative and that the generalized Lotka-Volterra model with added taxonomic rules captures the generative process; extreme value theory is invoked for the Pareto tail without stated parameter-free derivation.

free parameters (1)
  • taxonomic interaction constraint strength
    Introduced in simulations to enforce within-taxon similarity; value chosen to produce SWAPS emergence.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Interaction strengths are largely constrained within taxa
    Stated as an empirical finding required for SWAPS in simulations.
  • domain assumption Multiple interaction types beyond trophic and mutualistic are present
    Required for SWAPS emergence per simulation results.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5707 in / 1326 out tokens · 38867 ms · 2026-05-19T23:14:25.339737+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

72 extracted references · 72 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Ricklefs, R. E. (2004). A comprehensive framework for global patterns in biodiversity.Ecology Letters, 7(1), 1–15. doi:https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1461-0248.2003.00554.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1461-0248.2003.00554.x 2004

  2. [2]

    Levin, S. A. (1998). Ecosystems and the biosphere as complex adaptive systems.Ecosystems, 1, 431–436. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s100219900037

    work page doi:10.1007/s100219900037 1998

  3. [3]

    A., Williams, R

    Dunne, J. A., Williams, R. J., & Martinez, N. D. (2002). Food-web structure and network theory: The role of connectance and size.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 99(20), 12917–12922. doi:https://doi.org/10.1073/pn as.192407699

    work page doi:10.1073/pn 2002

  4. [4]

    M., & Jordano, P

    Olesen, J. M., & Jordano, P. (2002). Geographic patterns in plant–pollinator mutualistic networks.Ecology, 83(9), 2416–2424. doi:https://doi.org/10.2307/3071803

    work page doi:10.2307/3071803 2002

  5. [5]

    L., Jordano, P., & Bascompte, J

    Rezende, E. L., Jordano, P., & Bascompte, J. (2007). Effects of phenotypic complementarity and phylogeny on the nested structure of mutualistic networks.Oikos, 116(11), 1919–1929. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0030-1299.2007.16029.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.0030-1299.2007.16029.x 2007

  6. [6]

    N., & DeAngelis, D

    Holland, J. N., & DeAngelis, D. L. (2009). Consumer-resource theory predicts dynamic transitions between outcomes of interspecific interactions.Ecology Letters, 12(12), 1357–

    work page 2009

  7. [7]

    doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2009.01390.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2009.01390.x 2009

  8. [8]

    Bascompte, J. (2010). Structure and dynamics of ecological networks.Science, 329(5993), 765–766. doi:https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1194255

    work page doi:10.1126/science.1194255 2010

  9. [9]

    Hutchinson, G. E. (1959). Homage to Santa Rosalia, or why are there so many kinds of animals?The American Naturalist, 93(870), 145–159. doi:https://doi.org/10.1086/28 2070

    work page doi:10.1086/28 1959

  10. [10]

    Calcagno, V., Jarne, P., Loreau, M., Mouquet, N., & David, P. (2017). Diversity spurs diversification in ecological communities.Nature Communications, 8, 15810. doi:https: //doi.org/10.1038/ncomms15810

    work page doi:10.1038/ncomms15810 2017

  11. [11]

    O., Br¨ annstr¨ om,˚A., Hui, C., & Dieckmann, U

    Landi, P., Minoarivelo, H. O., Br¨ annstr¨ om,˚A., Hui, C., & Dieckmann, U. (2018). Complexity and stability of ecological networks: A review of the theory.Population Ecology, 60(4), 319–

    work page 2018

  12. [12]

    doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10144-018-0628-3

    work page doi:10.1007/s10144-018-0628-3

  13. [13]

    M., Bascompte, J., Dupont, Y

    Olesen, J. M., Bascompte, J., Dupont, Y. L., & Jordano, P. (2007). The modularity of pollination networks.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 104(50), 19891–19896. doi:https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0706375104

    work page doi:10.1073/pnas.0706375104 2007

  14. [14]

    Xu, Y., Jord´ an, F., Zhou, M., Huo, X., Cai, Y., Ur Rehman, S., & Sun, J. (2024). Global variability of degree distribution in marine food webs.Diversity and Distributions, 30, e13927. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/ddi.13927 13

    work page doi:10.1111/ddi.13927 2024

  15. [15]

    S., & Wootton, J

    Laska, M. S., & Wootton, J. T. (1998). Theoretical concepts and empirical approaches to measuring interaction strength.Ecology, 79(2), 461–476. doi:https://doi.org/10.1890/ 0012-9658(1998)079[0461:TCAEAT]2.0.CO;2

    work page 1998

  16. [16]

    L., Neutel, A.-M., Cohen, J

    Berlow, E. L., Neutel, A.-M., Cohen, J. E., de Ruiter, P. C., Ebenman, B., Emmerson, M., Fox, J. W., Jansen, V. A. A., Jones, J. I., Kokkoris, G. D., Logofet, D. O., McKane, A. J., Montoya, J. M., & Petchey, O. (2004). Interaction strengths in food webs: Issues and opportunities.Journal of Animal Ecology, 73(3), 585–598. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/ j.002...

    work page arXiv 2004

  17. [17]

    L., Navarrete, S

    Berlow, E. L., Navarrete, S. A., Briggs, C. J., Power, M. E., & Menge, B. A. (1999). Quan- tifying variation in the strengths of species interactions.Ecology, 80(7), 2206–2224. doi: https://doi.org/10.1890/0012-9658(1999)080[2206:QVITSO]2.0.CO;2

    work page doi:10.1890/0012-9658(1999)080 1999

  18. [18]

    J., & Sala, E

    Bascompte, J., Meli´ an, C. J., & Sala, E. (2005). Interaction strength combinations and the overfishing of a marine food web.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102(15), 5443–5447. doi:https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.050 1562102

    work page doi:10.1073/pnas.050 2005

  19. [19]

    T., & Emmerson, M

    Wootton, J. T., & Emmerson, M. (2005). Measurement of interaction strength in nature. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 36, 419–444. doi:https://doi.or g/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.36.091704.175535

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.36.091704.175535 2005

  20. [20]

    Sala, E., & Graham, M. H. (2002). Community-wide distribution of predator–prey interaction strength in kelp forests.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 99(6), 3678–3683. doi:https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.052028499

    work page doi:10.1073/pnas.052028499 2002

  21. [21]

    L., Neutel, A.-M., Cohen, J

    Emmerson, M. C., & Raffaelli, D. (2004). Predator–prey body size, interaction strength and the stability of a real food web.Journal of Animal Ecology, 73(3), 399–409. doi:https: //doi.org/10.1111/j.0021-8790.2004.00818.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.0021-8790.2004.00818.x 2004

  22. [22]

    Allesina, S., & Tang, S. (2012). Stability criteria for complex ecosystems.Nature, 483(7388), 205–208. doi:https://doi.org/10.1038/nature10832

    work page doi:10.1038/nature10832 2012

  23. [23]

    van Altena, C., Hemerik, L., & de Ruiter, P. C. (2016). Food web stability and weighted connectance: The complexity–stability debate revisited.Theoretical Ecology, 9(1), 49–58. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s12080-015-0291-7

    work page doi:10.1007/s12080-015-0291-7 2016

  24. [24]

    Mittelbach, G. G. (2023).Community Ecology(2nd ed.; H. Kadowaki, M. Yamamichi, & S. Utsumi, Trans.). Maruzen Publishing

    work page 2023

  25. [25]

    Rooney, N., & McCann, K. S. (2012). Integrating food web diversity, structure and stability. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 27(1), 40–46. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.201 1.09.001

    work page doi:10.1016/j.tree.201 2012

  26. [26]

    Emmerson, M., & Yearsley, J. M. (2004). Weak interactions, omnivory and emergent food- web properties.Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 271(1537), 397–405. doi:https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2003.2592

    work page doi:10.1098/rspb.2003.2592 2004

  27. [27]

    Bascompte, J., Jordano, P., & Olesen, J. M. (2006). Asymmetric coevolutionary networks facilitate biodiversity maintenance.Science, 312(5772), 431–433. doi:https://doi.org/10 .1126/science.1123412 14

    work page 2006

  28. [28]

    P., Lom´ ascolo, S

    V´ azquez, D. P., Lom´ ascolo, S. B., Maldonado, M. B., Chacoff, N. P., Dorado, J., Stevani, E. L., & Vitale, N. L. (2012). The strength of plant–pollinator interactions.Ecology, 93(4), 719–725. doi:https://doi.org/10.1890/11-1356.1

    work page doi:10.1890/11-1356.1 2012

  29. [29]

    R., Ye, H., Chang, C.-W., Sugihara, G., & Kondoh, M

    Ushio, M., Hsieh, C.-H., Masuda, R., Deyle, E. R., Ye, H., Chang, C.-W., Sugihara, G., & Kondoh, M. (2018). Fluctuating interaction network and time-varying stability of a natural fish community.Nature, 554, 360–363. doi:https://doi.org/10.1038/nature25504

    work page doi:10.1038/nature25504 2018

  30. [30]

    Ushio, M., Sado, T., Fukuchi, T., Sasano, S., Masuda, R., Osada, Y., & Miya, M. (2023). Temperature sensitivity of the interspecific interaction strength of coastal marine fish com- munities.eLife, 12, RP85795. doi:https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.85795.3

    work page doi:10.7554/elife.85795.3 2023

  31. [31]

    M., Verd´ u, M., & Perfectti, F

    G´ omez, J. M., Verd´ u, M., & Perfectti, F. (2010). Ecological interactions are evolutionarily conserved across the entire tree of life.Nature, 465(7300), 918–921. doi:https://doi.org/ 10.1038/nature09113

    work page doi:10.1038/nature09113 2010

  32. [32]

    A., Gleiser, G., Sabatino, M., Gilarranz, L

    Aizen, M. A., Gleiser, G., Sabatino, M., Gilarranz, L. J., Bascompte, J., & Verd´ u, M. (2016). The phylogenetic structure of plant–pollinator networks increases with habitat size and iso- lation.Ecology Letters, 19(1), 29–36. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.12539

    work page doi:10.1111/ele.12539 2016

  33. [33]

    E., & Ives, A

    Rafferty, N. E., & Ives, A. R. (2013). Phylogenetic trait-based analyses of ecological networks. Ecology, 94(10), 2321–2333. doi:https://doi.org/10.1890/12-1948.1

    work page doi:10.1890/12-1948.1 2013

  34. [34]

    J., Cardinale, B

    Fritschie, K. J., Cardinale, B. J., Alexandrou, M. A., & Oakley, T. H. (2014). Evolutionary history and the strength of species interactions: Testing the phylogenetic limiting similarity hypothesis.Ecology, 95(5), 1407–1417. doi:https://doi.org/10.1890/13-0986.1

    work page doi:10.1890/13-0986.1 2014

  35. [35]

    C., Neutel, A.-M., & Moore, J

    de Ruiter, P. C., Neutel, A.-M., & Moore, J. C. (1995). Energetics, patterns of interaction strengths, and stability in real ecosystems.Science, 269(5228), 1257–1260. doi:https: //doi.org/10.1126/science.269.5228.1257

    work page doi:10.1126/science.269.5228.1257 1995

  36. [36]

    Pimm, S. L. (1980). Food web design and the effect of species deletion.Oikos, 35(2), 139–149. doi:https://doi.org/10.2307/3544422

    work page doi:10.2307/3544422 1980

  37. [37]

    P., Morris, W

    V´ azquez, D. P., Morris, W. F., & Jordano, P. (2005). Interaction frequency as a surrogate for the total effect of animal mutualists on plants.Ecology Letters, 8(10), 1088–1094. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2005.00810.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2005.00810.x 2005

  38. [38]

    D., Mayfield, M

    Bimler, M. D., Mayfield, M. M., Martyn, T. E., & Stouffer, D. B. (2023). Estimating inter- action strengths for diverse horizontal systems using performance data.Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 14(4), 1075–1089. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.14068

    work page doi:10.1111/2041-210x.14068 2023

  39. [39]

    T., Doak, D

    Novak, M., Wootton, J. T., Doak, D. F., Emmerson, M., Estes, J. A., & Tinker, M. T. (2016). Characterizing species interactions to understand press perturbations: What is the community matrix?Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 47, 409–432. doi: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-032416-010215

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-032416-010215 2016

  40. [40]

    V., & Valentine, W

    Robinson, J. V., & Valentine, W. D. (1979). The concepts of elasticity and resilience in ecological systems.Ecology, 60(6), 1312–1314

    work page 1979

  41. [41]

    Yodzis, P. (1988). The indeterminacy of ecological interactions as perceived through pertur- bation experiments.Ecology, 69(2), 508–515. doi:https://doi.org/10.2307/1940449 15

    work page doi:10.2307/1940449 1988

  42. [42]

    Drake, J. A. (1990). The mechanics of community assembly and succession.Journal of Theoretical Biology, 147(2), 213–233. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5193(05)800 53-0

    work page doi:10.1016/s0022-5193(05)800 1990

  43. [43]

    W., & Galla, T

    Poley, L., Baron, J. W., & Galla, T. (2023). Generalized Lotka–Volterra model with hierar- chical interactions.Physical Review E, 107, 024313. doi:https://doi.org/10.1103/Phys RevE.107.024313

    work page doi:10.1103/phys 2023

  44. [44]

    Ogushi, T., Kondo, M., & Namba, T. (Eds.). (2009).Community Ecology 3: Deciphering Biological Interaction Networks. Kyoto University Press

    work page 2009

  45. [45]

    Chesson, P., & Huntly, N. (1997). The roles of harsh and fluctuating conditions in the dynamics of ecological communities.The American Naturalist, 150(5), 519–553. doi:https: //doi.org/10.1086/286080

    work page doi:10.1086/286080 1997

  46. [46]

    B., HilleRisLambers, J., & Levine, J

    Adler, P. B., HilleRisLambers, J., & Levine, J. M. (2007). A niche for neutrality.Ecology Letters, 10(2), 95–104. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2006.00996.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2006.00996.x 2007

  47. [47]

    Yoshida, K., Hata, K., Kawakami, K., et al. (2023). Predicting ecosystem changes by a new model of ecosystem evolution.Scientific Reports, 13, 15353. doi:https://doi.org/10.103 8/s41598-023-42529-9

    work page 2023

  48. [48]

    G., & McKane, A

    Drossel, B., Higgs, P. G., & McKane, A. J. (2001). The influence of predator–prey population dynamics on the long-term evolution of food web structure.Journal of Theoretical Biology, 208(1), 91–107. doi:https://doi.org/10.1006/jtbi.2000.2203

    work page doi:10.1006/jtbi.2000.2203 2001

  49. [49]

    Tokita, K., & Yasutomi, A. (2003). Emergence of a complex and stable network in a model ecosystem with extinction and mutation.Theoretical Population Biology, 63(2), 131–146. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0040-5809(02)00038-2

    work page doi:10.1016/s0040-5809(02)00038-2 2003

  50. [50]

    May, R. M. (1972). Will a large complex system be stable?Nature, 238(5364), 413–414. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/238413a0

    work page doi:10.1038/238413a0 1972

  51. [51]

    Novella-Fernandez, R., Rodrigo, A., Arnan, X., & Bosch, J. (2019). Interaction strength in plant–pollinator networks: Are we using the right measure?PLOS ONE, 14(12), e0225930. doi:https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225930

    work page doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0225930 2019

  52. [52]

    Pocock, M. J. O., Evans, D. M., & Memmott, J. (2012). The robustness and restoration of a network of ecological networks.Science, 335(6071), 973–977. doi:https://doi.org/10.1 126/science.1214915

    work page 2012

  53. [53]

    (1998).Evolutionary Games and Population Dynamics

    Hofbauer, J., & Sigmund, K. (1998).Evolutionary Games and Population Dynamics. Cam- bridge University Press

    work page 1998

  54. [54]

    (2007).Mathematical Biology: Introduction to Mathematical Modeling of Population Dynamics

    Seno, H. (2007).Mathematical Biology: Introduction to Mathematical Modeling of Population Dynamics. Kyoritsu Shuppan

    work page 2007

  55. [55]

    doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j

    Cahill, J. F., Jr., Kembel, S. W., Lamb, E. G., & Keddy, P. A. (2008). Does phylogenetic relatedness influence the strength of competition among vascular plants?Perspectives in Plant Ecology, Evolution and Systematics, 10(1), 41–50. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ppees.2007.10.001 16

    work page doi:10.1016/j 2008

  56. [56]

    Barab´ asi, A.-L., & Albert, R. (1999). Emergence of scaling in random networks.Science, 286(5439), 509–512. doi:https://doi.org/10.1126/science.286.5439.509

    work page doi:10.1126/science.286.5439.509 1999

  57. [57]

    B., Ellner, S

    Adler, P. B., Ellner, S. P., & Levine, J. M. (2010). Coexistence of perennial plants: An embarrassment of niches.Ecology Letters, 13(8), 1019–1029. doi:https://doi.org/10.111 1/j.1461-0248.2010.01496.x

    work page arXiv 2010

  58. [58]

    S., Muller-Landau, H

    Comita, L. S., Muller-Landau, H. C., Aguilar, S., & Hubbell, S. P. (2010). Asymmetric density dependence shapes species abundances in a tropical tree community.Science, 329(5989), 330–

    work page 2010

  59. [59]

    doi:https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1190772

    work page doi:10.1126/science.1190772

  60. [60]

    M., & Bera, A

    Jarque, C. M., & Bera, A. K. (1987). A test for normality of observations and regression residuals.International Statistical Review, 55(2), 163–172. doi:https://doi.org/10.230 7/1403192

    work page 1987

  61. [61]

    C., & Smith, R

    Davison, A. C., & Smith, R. L. (1990). Models for exceedances over high thresholds.Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological), 52(3), 393–442. doi:https: //doi.org/10.1111/j.2517-6161.1990.tb01796.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.2517-6161.1990.tb01796.x 1990

  62. [62]

    Pickands, J., III. (1975). Statistical inference using extreme order statistics.The Annals of Statistics, 3(1), 119–131. doi:https://doi.org/10.1214/aos/1176343003

    work page doi:10.1214/aos/1176343003 1975

  63. [63]

    doi:10.1214/aop/1176996454 , journal =

    Balkema, A. A., & de Haan, L. (1974). Residual life time at great age.The Annals of Probability, 2(5), 792–804. doi:https://doi.org/10.1214/aop/1176996548

    work page doi:10.1214/aop/1176996548 1974

  64. [64]

    Dupuis, D. J. (1999). Exceedances over high thresholds: A guide to threshold selection. Extremes, 1(3), 251–261. doi:https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009914915709

    work page doi:10.1023/a:1009914915709 1999

  65. [65]

    Keitt, T. H. (1997). Stability and complexity on a lattice: Coexistence of species in an individual-based food web model.Ecological Modelling, 102(2–3), 243–258. doi:https: //doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3800(97)00059-8

    work page doi:10.1016/s0304-3800(97)00059-8 1997

  66. [66]

    Jacquet, C., Moritz, C., Morissette, L., et al. (2016). No complexity–stability relationship in empirical ecosystems.Nature Communications, 7, 12573. doi:https://doi.org/10.1038/ ncomms12573

    work page 2016

  67. [67]

    B., Yahya, M

    Rostami, M., Adam, M. B., Yahya, M. H., & Ibrahim, N. A. (2018). Slice sampler algorithm for generalized Pareto distribution.Hacettepe Journal of Mathematics and Statistics, 47(4), 1–32. doi:https://doi.org/10.15672/HJMS.2017.441

    work page doi:10.15672/hjms.2017.441 2018

  68. [68]

    Margalef, R. (1957). La teor´ ıa de la informaci´ on en ecolog´ ıa.Memorias de la Real Academia de Ciencias y Artes de Barcelona, 32(13), 373–449

    work page 1957

  69. [69]

    Peralta, G. (2016). Merging evolutionary history into species interaction networks.Functional Ecology, 30(12), 1917–1925. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2435.12669

    work page doi:10.1111/1365-2435.12669 2016

  70. [70]

    Hashimoto, K., Hayasaka, D., Eguchi, Y., et al. (2024). Multifaceted effects of variable biotic interactions on population stability in complex interaction webs.Communications Biology, 7, 1309. doi:https://doi.org/10.1038/s42003-024-06948-2

    work page doi:10.1038/s42003-024-06948-2 2024

  71. [71]

    R., Solomon, S., & Yaari, G

    Zelnik, Y. R., Solomon, S., & Yaari, G. (2015). Species survival emerges from rare events of individual migration.Scientific Reports, 5, 7877. doi:https://doi.org/10.1038/srep07 877 17

    work page doi:10.1038/srep07 2015

  72. [72]

    Dobramysl, U., Mobilia, M., Pleimling, M., & T¨ auber, U. C. (2018). Stochastic population dynamics in spatially extended predator–prey systems.Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical, 51(6), 063001. doi:https://doi.org/10.1088/1751-8121/aa95c7 18 Figure 1: SWAPS interspecies interactions in empirical data.Plant–pollinator mutualistic interac- ...

    work page doi:10.1088/1751-8121/aa95c7 2018