Spatial networks of habitats, populations, and communities: connecting approaches to keep cutting edges

preprint OA: closed
Full text JSON View at publisher

Abstract

Purpose: of review: Spatial networks are extensively used in ecology to represent exchanges among landscape features (e.g., habitat patches, river segments) or biological entities (e.g., individuals, populations, communities). I reviewed the literature produced in the past 25 years using these networks. Distinct types of spatial networks have emerged in several subfields of ecology. I aimed to assess whether this gave rise to disconnected research silos or, in contrast, whether methodological similarities generated bridges to connect theoretical frameworks. Recent findings: I reviewed 679 papers using eight types of spatial networks. Habitat networks were the most used, usually for connectivity assessments with conservation-oriented purposes. In contrast, studies using metapopulation, metacommunity, or river networks were the most embedded in theoretical ecology. Population genetic networks were essentially used in landscape genetics, whereas dispersal networks and spatial networks found more diverse uses. Finally, meta-networks combining several of the above have more recently favored the integration of these typically disconnected approaches. Summary: The lack of connection among research branches mobilizing spatial networks mainly stems from an opposition between applied and theoretical objectives, further reinforced by the differentiation of journal scopes. This divergence can create a mismatch between recent theoretical advances and current methodological designs, possibly affecting the tested predictions and result interpretations. Yet, the diversity of spatial networks is also beneficial. Provided it is acknowledged properly, future works could advantageously build upon existing frameworks for cutting-edge research, as exemplified by recent works on meta-networks.
Full text 2,575 characters · extracted from oa-doi-fallback · 2 sections · click to expand

Abstract

Purpose of review: Spatial networks are extensively used in ecology to represent exchanges among landscape features (e.g., habitat patches, river segments) or biological entities (e.g., individuals, populations, communities). I reviewed the literature produced in the past 25 years using these networks. Distinct types of spatial networks have emerged in several subfields of ecology. I aimed to assess whether this gave rise to disconnected research silos or, in contrast, whether methodological similarities generated bridges to connect theoretical frameworks. Recent findings: I reviewed 679 papers and identified six main types of spatial networks. Habitat networks were the most used, usually for connectivity assessments with conservation-oriented purposes. In contrast, studies using metapopulation, metacommunity, or river networks were the most embedded in theoretical ecology. Population genetic networks were essentially used in landscape genetics. Finally, meta-networks combining several of the above have more recently favored the integration of these typically disconnected approaches. Summary: The lack of connection among research branches mobilizing spatial networks mainly stems from an opposition between applied and theoretical objectives, further reinforced by the differentiation of journal scopes. This divergence can create a mismatch between recent theoretical advances and current methodological designs, possibly affecting the tested predictions and result interpretations. Yet, the diversity of spatial networks is also beneficial. Provided it is acknowledged properly, future works could advantageously build upon existing frameworks for cutting-edge research, as exemplified by recent works on meta-networks. DOI https://doi.org/10.32942/X2WP90 Subjects Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Other Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Population Biology, Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology

Keywords

spatial networks, graph theory, dispersal, connectivity, gene flow, Rivers Dates Published: 2025-09-23 02:07 Last Updated: 2025-10-14 23:28 Older Versions License CC-By Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Additional Metadata Conflict of interest statement: I declare no conflict of interest. Data and Code Availability Statement: The data and codes used for the literature review are available at: https://gitlab.com/psavary3/SpatialHabNetworksReview. The supplementary information is available at: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17176950 Language: English

Text is read by the "Ask this paper" AI Q&A widget below. Extraction quality varies by source — PMC NXML preserves structure cleanly, OA-HTML may include some navigation residue, and OA-PDF can have broken hyphenation. The publisher copy (via DOI) is the canonical version.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

Ask this paper AI returns verbatim quotes from the full text · source: oa-doi-fallback

Answers must be backed by verbatim quotes from this paper's full text. Hallucinated quotes are dropped automatically; if no verbatim passage answers the question, we say so. How this works

Citation neighborhood (no data yet)

We don't have any in-corpus citations linked to this paper yet. This is a recent paper (2025) — citers typically take a year or two to land, and the OpenAlex reference graph may still be filling in.

Source provenance

europepmc
last seen: 2026-05-20T01:45:00.602351+00:00