Are we really contesting that?

Repeated sentence

I think you mean: A neutral approach to probabilistic interactions would rely only on the effect of abundances and assume trait-matching would have no effect?

I think this might be confusing, as readers could think this is the actual framework of our paper. We could maybe precise that we could use our framework the other way around, by using our predictions of ecological networks and species interactions to make better predictions of species pools.

I think this definition of bipartite network is a little confusing. We could say something like:

"Bipartite networks are divided into two disjoint sets of species and interactions occur between members of different sets (e.g. plant-pollinator and host-parasite networks)"

you say twice there have been calls. Maybe simplify the sentence with something like: through probabilistic species pool, and more importantly ...

missing space

missing words

Semi- by curiosity, semi- because it might be better to explicitly say it, but how was accuracy calculated? It is not clear if correctly predicted absences are used? As stated before, there are no true negative.

The sentence is very hard to read. too many long noun strings.

Sathya, C. (2020, June 17). Pandemic-Related Gun Purchases Raise Suicide Risks. Scientific American. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/pandemic-related-gun-purchases-raise-suicide-risks/