James et al. reply

Alex James; Jonathan W. Pitchford; Michael J. Plank

doi:10.1038/nature12381

James et al. reply

Alex James, Jonathan W. Pitchford, Michael J. Plank

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

Abstract

Saavedra and Stouffer claim that the results of James et al. are a consequence of the method used to randomize interaction matrices. We recognize the importance of examining alternative randomization schemes and have repeated our analysis using their methods. However, we find no evidence that ‘reconfirms the importance of nestedness in mutualistic communities’

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	E2-E3
Number of pages	2
Journal	Nature
Volume	500
Issue number	7463
Early online date	21 Aug 2013
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1038/nature12381
Publication status	Published - 22 Aug 2013

Access to Document

10.1038/nature12381

Cite this

@article{36a387d6532c44d3a87a61528a41a80d,

title = "James et al. reply",

abstract = "Saavedra and Stouffer claim that the results of James et al. are a consequence of the method used to randomize interaction matrices. We recognize the importance of examining alternative randomization schemes and have repeated our analysis using their methods. However, we find no evidence that {\textquoteleft}reconfirms the importance of nestedness in mutualistic communities{\textquoteright}",

author = "Alex James and Pitchford, {Jonathan W.} and Plank, {Michael J.}",

year = "2013",

month = aug,

day = "22",

doi = "10.1038/nature12381",

language = "English",

volume = "500",

pages = "E2--E3",

journal = "Nature",

issn = "0028-0836",

publisher = "Nature Publishing Group",

number = "7463",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - James et al. reply

AU - James, Alex

AU - Pitchford, Jonathan W.

AU - Plank, Michael J.

PY - 2013/8/22

Y1 - 2013/8/22

N2 - Saavedra and Stouffer claim that the results of James et al. are a consequence of the method used to randomize interaction matrices. We recognize the importance of examining alternative randomization schemes and have repeated our analysis using their methods. However, we find no evidence that ‘reconfirms the importance of nestedness in mutualistic communities’

AB - Saavedra and Stouffer claim that the results of James et al. are a consequence of the method used to randomize interaction matrices. We recognize the importance of examining alternative randomization schemes and have repeated our analysis using their methods. However, we find no evidence that ‘reconfirms the importance of nestedness in mutualistic communities’

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84883038517&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1038/nature12381

DO - 10.1038/nature12381

M3 - Article

C2 - 23969465

AN - SCOPUS:84883038517

SN - 0028-0836

VL - 500

SP - E2-E3

JO - Nature

JF - Nature

IS - 7463

ER -

James et al. reply

Abstract

Access to Document

Other files and links

Cite this