Abstract:Direct measurement of biotic interactions is time‐ and resource‐intensive, especially in species‐rich communities. As a result, inferring species interactions from co‐occurrence patterns has become more common; however, recent studies have highlighted significant limitations in this approach. In particular, evidence of mutualistic interactions in terrestrial ecosystems remains sparse. To address this gap, we compared three co‐occurrence analysis methods to predict species interactions between plants and butterflies in permanent grasslands. Our results show that all methods performed poorly, with high incongruence between predicted co‐occurrence and actual interaction strengths. Biotic interactions are crucial for determining the structure and dynamics of communities; however, direct measurement of these interactions can be challenging in terms of time and resources, especially when numerous species are involved. Inferring species interactions from species co‐occurrence patterns is increasingly being used; however, recent studies have highlighted some limitations. To our knowledge, no attempt has been made to test the accuracy of the existing methods for detecting mutualistic interactions in terrestrial ecosystems. In this study, we compiled two literature‐based, long‐term datasets of interactions between butterflies and herbaceous plant species in two regions of Germany and compared them with observational abundance and presence/absence data collected within a year in the same regions. We tested how well the species associations generated by three different co‐occurrence analysis methods matched those of empirically measured mutualistic associations using sensitivity and specificity analyses and compared the strength of associations. We also checked whether flower abundance data (instead of plant abundance data) increased the accuracy of the co‐occurrence models and validated our results using empirical flower visitation data. The results revealed that, although all methods exhibited low sensitivity, our implementation of the Relative Interaction Intensity index with pairwise null models performed the best, followed by the probabilistic method and Spearman's rank correlation method. However, empirical data showed a significant number of interactions that were not detected using co‐occurrence methods. Incorporating flower abundance data did not improve sensitivity but enhanced specificity in one region. Further analysis demonstrated incongruence between the predicted co‐occurrence associations and actual interaction strengths, with many pairs exhibiting high interaction strength but low co‐occurrence or vice versa. These findings underscore the complexity of ecological dynamics and highlight the limitations of current co‐occurrence methods for accurately capturing species interactions.

Asymmetric Biotic Interactions Cannot Be Inferred Without Accounting for Priority Effects

Bridging theory and experiments of priority effects

Priority effects transcend scales and disciplines in biology

Getting More by Asking for Less: Linking Species Interactions to Species Co-Distributions in Metacommunities

Incorporating dominant species as proxies for biotic interactions strengthens plant community models

Inverse priority effects: A role for historical contingency during species losses

Do priority effects outweigh environmental filtering in a guild of dominant freshwater macroinvertebrates?

Sparse species interactions reproduce abundance correlation patterns in microbial communities

Individual‐level biotic interactions and species distribution models

Co‐Occurrence Patterns Do Not Predict Mutualistic Interactions Between Plant and Butterfly Species

Integrating Biotic Interactions In Niche Analyses Unravels Patterns Of Community Composition in Clownfishes

Bitrophic interactions shape biodiversity in space

Within-Host Priority Effects Systematically Alter Pathogen Coexistence

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

Modeling Community Dynamics Through Environmental Effects, Species Interactions and Movement

Quantifying relative contributions of biotic interactions to bacterial diversity and community assembly by using community characteristics of microbial eukaryotes

Priority effects among amphibian microbes lead to varying levels of Bd infection

How sample heterogeneity can obscure the signal of microbial interactions

A strong priority effect in the assembly of a specialized insect-microbe symbiosis

Simple study designs in ecology produce inaccurate estimates of biodiversity responses

How reliably can species co-occurrence be inferred from occupancy models?