Talk:Michael Plank

Great to see this up!

Hi there, I have been working on this subject for a few weeks and in a good position to add significant information about his research. So, if you folks are ok with this, I will go ahead and edit over the next day or so. Realitylink (talk) 01:12, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Realitylink, sure. Go for it. Just a couple of citation errors to tidy up. Schwede66 08:46, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I do have another section I am considering but will have a discussion about it here before posting. You made a great start with the page. Much appreciated. Another editor did some nice rearranging of the bit about his contribution to the COVID management and it looks a lot tidier. I will keep you posted. And we need a picture!! I will fix up those citation issues tomorrow - comes from the reflisting I did in the draft. Realitylink (talk) 09:47, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Possible new section in the article

Kia ora ano! One of the things I have noticed when researching this article, is that Plank often contributes to important discussions on key modelling theories such as random walk, Lévy walk and nestedness. I think this is an important aspect of his work and have put together a draft section for the article. Not sure about the title...and this would be a good place for people to give feedback before I add it to the article.

Possible title: Commentary on modelling theories

Movement models

Plank has contributed to the debate about the limitations and possibilities for two different movement models: the composite correlated random walk; and the Lévy walk. In 2008, Plank co-authored a review paper that explored the mathematics behind the random walks model used to understand the biological processes of the movement of animals, micro-organisms and cells. The paper noted that some of these basic models have limitations due to confusion in the literature between patterns that are observed and the underlying processes that may have generated them. The paper concluded random walk models allow the systemically identification of these underlying mechanisms. A further study in the same year presented a composite search model for non-destructive foraging behaviour based on Brownian motion compared to the Lévy walk. While it was shown that distinguishing between the two models might be difficult in based on data in practice, the paper concluded that a "mathematical expression" had shown the "composite search model provides higher foraging efficiency than the Lévy model." The conclusion from the paper was that the composite search model provided higher foraging efficiency than the Lévy model, a finding also confirmed in a 2011 paper co-authored by Plank. By 2015, a research project in which Plank participated, presented a method that could differentiate between the two models using a simulation study and possible likelihood functions including for a possible hidden Markov chain. In the Summary, the study concluded [that] "by providing the means to differentiate between the two most prominent search models in the literature, and a framework that could be extended to include other models, we facilitate further research into the strategies animals use to find resource."

Nestedness

Plank was part of a team that challenged the view that nestedness increases the accuracy of a model to predict the survival of a specific species and proposed that a "simpler metric — the number of mutualistic partners a species has —is a much better predictor of individual species survival and hence, community persistence." The research team examined previous data and applied "computational and statistical methods to 59 empirical datasets representing mutualistic plant-pollinator networks..[which they said could]...disprove the accepted theory of nestedness." Plank stated:

"Real-life networks, whether they are from ecology, economics, or Facebook, can be large and complex. This makes it difficult to tease apart causal relationships from confounding factors. This is where mathematical models come into their own. They allow us to systematically change one network attribute, such as nestedness, whilst controlling for other variables."

Two biological scientists disputed this conclusion publishing data that showed a positive relationship between nestedness and persistance, and James et al cited data in a response that concluded "[while] ... nestedness is an interesting abstract network property that undoubtedly influences the statistical behaviour of large systems of differential equations...general conclusions allowing nestedness to be used as a predictor of empirical biodiversity cannot currently be justified".

That's good. I'd say just add it. If others think that a different heading is more appropriate, they can always edit that. BTW, avoid MOS:REPEATLINK. I've edited the above accordingly. Schwede66 06:42, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for that, and good to be reminded about not repeating wikilinks. The title is a bit tricky. There is another editor interested and they might have some input. CheersRealitylink (talk) 07:23, 13 December 2021 (UTC)