A core challenge facing ecologists is to work through an ever-increasing amount of data. The accelerating decline in biodiversity worldwide, mounting pressure of anthropogenic impacts, and increasing demand for actionable indicators to guide effective policy means that monitoring will only intensify, and rely on tools that can generate even more information (Gonzalez et al., 2023). How, then, do we handle this new volume and diversity of data?

This is the question Royaux et al. (2024) are tackling with their contribution. By introducing both a conceptual ("How should we think about our work?") and an operational ("Here is a tool to do our work with") framework, they establish a series of best practices for the analysis of ecological data.

It is easy to think about best practices in ecological data analysis in its most proximal form: is it good statistical practice? Is the experimental design correct? These have formed the basis of many recommendations over the years (see e.g. Popovic et al., 2024, for a recent example). But the contribution of Royaux et al. focuses on a different part of the analysis pipeline: the computer science (and software engineering) aspect of it.

As data grows in volume and complexity, the code needed to handle it follows the same trend. It is not a surprise, therefore, to see that the demand for programming skills in ecologists has doubled recently (Feng et al., 2020), prompting calls to make computational literacy a core component of undergraduate education (Farrell & Carrey, 2018). But beyond training, an obvious way to make computational analysis ecological data more reliable and effective is to build better tools. This is precisely what Royaux et al. have achieved.

They illustrate their approach through their experience building Galaxy-Ecology, a computing environment for ecological analysis: by introducing a clear taxonomy of computing concepts (data exploration, pre-processing, analysis, representation), with a hierarchy between them (formatting, data correction, anonymization), they show that we can think about the pipeline going from data to results in a way that is more systematized, and therefore more prone to generalization.

We may buckle at the idea of yet another ontology, or yet another framework, for our work, but I am convinced that the work of Royaux et al. is precisely what our field needs. Because their levels of atomization (their term for the splitting of complex pipelines into small, single-purpose tasks) are easy to understand, and map naturally onto tasks that we already perform, it is likely to see wide adoption. Solving the big, existential challenges of monitoring and managing biodiversity at the global scale requires the adoption of good practices, and a tool like Galaxy-Ecology goes a long way towards this goal.

References

Farrell, K.J., and Carey, C.C. (2018). Power, pitfalls, and potential for integrating computational literacy into undergraduate ecology courses. Ecol. Evol. 8, 7744-7751.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.4363

Feng, X., Qiao, H., and Enquist, B. (2020). Doubling demands in programming skills call for ecoinformatics education. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 18, 123-124.
https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.2179
 
Gonzalez, A., Vihervaara, P., Balvanera, P., Bates, A.E., Bayraktarov, E., Bellingham, P.J., Bruder, A., Campbell, J., Catchen, M.D., Cavender-Bares, J., et al. (2023). A global biodiversity observing system to unite monitoring and guide action. Nat. Ecol. Evol., 1-5. 
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-023-02171-0
 
Popovic, G., Mason, T.J., Drobniak, S.M., Marques, T.A., Potts, J., Joo, R., Altwegg, R., Burns, C.C.I., McCarthy, M.A., Johnston, A., et al. (2024). Four principles for improved statistical ecology. Methods Ecol. Evol. 15, 266-281.
https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.14270
 
Coline Royaux, Jean-Baptiste Mihoub, Marie Jossé, Dominique Pelletier, Olivier Norvez, Yves Reecht, Anne Fouilloux, Helena Rasche, Saskia Hiltemann, Bérénice Batut, Marc Eléaume, Pauline Seguineau, Guillaume Massé, Alan Amossé, Claire Bissery, Romain Lorrilliere, Alexis Martin, Yves Bas, Thimothée Virgoulay, Valentin Chambon, Elie Arnaud, Elisa Michon, Clara Urfer, Eloïse Trigodet, Marie Delannoy, Gregoire Loïs, Romain Julliard, Björn Grüning, Yvan Le Bras (2024) Guidance framework to apply best practices in ecological data analysis: Lessons learned from building Galaxy-Ecology. EcoEvoRxiv, ver.3 peer-reviewed and recommended by PCI Ecology. 
https://doi.org/10.32942/X2G033

Morand et al. (2024) designed convolutional neural networks to predict the occurrences of 38 marine animals worldwide. The environmental predictors were sea surface temperature, chlorophyll concentration, salinity and fifteen others. The time of some of the predictors was chosen to be as close as possible to the time of the observed occurrence.

This approach has previously only been applied to the analysis of the distribution of terrestrial plant species (Botella et al. 2018, Deneu et al. 2021), so the application here to very different marine ecosystems and organisms is a novelty worth highlighting and discussing.

A very interesting feature of PCI Ecology is that reviews are provided with the final manuscript and the present recommendation text.

In the case of the Morand et al. article, the reviewers provided very detailed and insightful comments that deserve to be published and read alongside the article.

The reviewers' comments question the ecological significance and implications of choosing fine temporal and spatial scales in CNN distribution modelling in order to obtain species distribution modelling (SDM).

The main question debated during the review process was whether the CNN modeling approach used here can be defined as a kind of niche modeling.

The fact is that most of the organisms studied here are mobile, and the authors have taken into account precise environmental information at dates close to those of species appearance (for example, "Temperature and chlorophyll values were also included 15 and 5 days before the occurrences"). In doing so, they took into account the fine spatial and temporal scales of species occurrences and environmental conditions, which can be influenced by both environmental preferences and the movement behaviors of individuals. The question then arises: does this approach really represent the ecological niches of the marine organisms selected? Given that most selected organisms may have specific seasonal movement dynamics, the CNN model also learns the individual movement behaviors of organisms over seasons and years. The ecological niche is a broader concept that takes into account all the environmental conditions that enable species to persist over the course of their lives and over generations. This differs from the case of sessile land plants, which must respond to the environmental context only at the points of appearance.

This is not a shortcoming of the methodology proposed here but rather an interesting conceptual issue to be considered and discussed. Modelling the occurrence of individuals at a given time and position can characterize not only the species' niche but also the dynamics of organisms' temporal movements. As a result, the model predicts the position of individuals at a given time, while the niche should also represent the role of environmental conditions faced by individuals at other times in their lives.
A relevant perspective would then be to analyze whether and how the neural network can help disentangle the ranges of environmental conditions defining the niche from those influencing the movement dynamics of individuals.

Another interesting point is that the CNN model is used here as a multi-species classifier, meaning that it provides the ranked probability that a given observation corresponds to one of the 38 species considered in the study, depending on the environmental conditions at the location and time of the observation. In other words, the model provides the relative chance of choosing each of the 38 species at a given time and place. Imagine that you are only studying two species that have exactly the same niche, a standard SDM approach should provide a high probability of occurrence close to 1 in localities where environmental conditions are very and equally suited to both species, while the CNN classifier would provide a value close to 0.5 for both species, meaning that we have an equal chance of choosing one or the other. Consequently, the fact that the probability given by the classifier is higher for a species at a given point than at another point does not (necessarily) mean that the first point presents better environmental conditions for that species but rather that we are more likely to choose it over one of the other species at this point than at another. In fact, the classification task also reflects whether the other 37 species are more or less likely to be found at each point. The classifier, therefore, does not provide the relative probability of occurrence of a species in space but rather a relative chance of finding it instead of one of the other 37 species at each point of space and time.

It is important that an ecologist designing a multi-species classifier for species distribution modelling is well aware of this point and does not interpret the variation of probabilities for a species in space as an indication of more or less suitable habitat for that specific species. On the other hand, predicting the relative probabilities of finding species to a given point at a given time gives an indication of the dynamics of their local co-occurrence. In this respect, the CNN approach is closer to a joint species distribution model (jSDM). As Ovaskainen et al. (2017) mention, "By simultaneously drawing on the information from multiple species, these (jSDM) models allow one to seek community-level patterns in how species respond to their environment". Let's return to the two species example we used above. The fact that the probabilities are 0.5 for both species actually suggests that both species can coexist at the same abundance at this location. In this respect, the CNN multi-species classifier offers promising prospects for the prediction of assemblages and habitats thanks to the relative importance of the most characteristic/dominant species from a species pool. The species pool comprises all classified species and must be sufficiently representative of the ecological diversity of species niches in the area.

Finally, CNN-based species distribution modelling is a powerful and promising tool for studying the distributions of multi-species assemblages as a function of local environmental features but also of the spatial heterogeneity of each feature around the observation point in space and time (Deneu et al. 2021). It allows acknowledging the complex effects of environmental predictors and the roles of their spatial and temporal heterogeneity through the convolution operations performed in the neural network. As more and more computationally intensive tools become available, and as more and more environmental data becomes available at finer and finer temporal and spatial scales, the CNN approach is likely to be increasingly used to study biodiversity patterns across spatial and temporal scales.

References

Botella, C., Joly, A., Bonnet, P., Monestiez, P., and Munoz, F. (2018). Species distribution modeling based on the automated identification of citizen observations. Applications in Plant Sciences, 6(2), e1029. https://doi.org/10.1002/aps3.1029

Deneu, B., Servajean, M., Bonnet, P., Botella, C., Munoz, F., and Joly, A. (2021). Convolutional neural networks improve species distribution modelling by capturing the spatial structure of the environment. PLoS Computational Biology, 17(4), e1008856. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1008856

Morand, G., Joly, A., Rouyer, T., Lorieul, T., and Barde, J. (2024) Predicting species distributions in the open ocean with convolutional neural networks. bioRxiv, ver.3 peer-reviewed and recommended by PCI Ecology https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.08.11.551418

Ovaskainen, O., Tikhonov, G., Norberg, A., Guillaume Blanchet, F., Duan, L., Dunson, D., ... and Abrego, N. (2017). How to make more out of community data? A conceptual framework and its implementation as models and software. Ecology letters, 20(5), 561-576. https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.12757

As seasonal cycles become increasingly disrupted, our understanding of the ecology and evolution of reproductive seasonality in tropical vertebrates remains limited (Bronson 2009). To predict how changes in seasonality might impact these animals, it is crucial to identify which elements of their varied reproductive patterns are connected to the equally varied patterns of rainfall seasonality (within-year fluctuations) or the significant climatic unpredictability (year-to-year variations) characteristic of the intertropical region. 

Dezeure et al. (2024) provide a comprehensive examination of reproductive seasonality in papionin monkeys across diverse African environments. By investigating the ecological and evolutionary determinants of reproductive timing, the authors offer novel insights into how climatic factors, particularly environmental unpredictability, shape reproductive strategies in these primates. This study stands out not only for its methodological rigour but also for its contribution to our understanding of how primates adapt their reproductive behaviours to varying environmental pressures. The findings have broad implications, particularly in the context of ongoing climate change, which is expected to increase environmental unpredictability globally. The innovative approach of this paper lies in its multifaceted examination of reproductive seasonality, which integrates data from 21 wild populations of 11 papionin species. The study employs a robust statistical framework, incorporating Bayesian phylogenetic generalised linear mixed models to control for phylogenetic relatedness among species. This methodological choice is crucial because it allows the authors to disentangle the effects of environmental variables from evolutionary history, providing a more accurate picture of how current ecological factors influence reproductive strategies.

The study’s focus on environmental unpredictability as a determinant of reproductive seasonality is particularly noteworthy. While previous research has established the importance of environmental seasonality (Janson and Verdolin 2005), this paper breaks new ground by showing that the magnitude of year-to-year variation in rainfall – rather than just the seasonal distribution of rainfall – plays a critical role in determining the intensity of reproductive seasonality. This finding is supported by the significant negative correlation between reproductive seasonality and environmental unpredictability, which the authors demonstrate across multiple populations and species. The results of this study are important for several reasons. First, they challenge the traditional view that reproductive seasonality is primarily driven by within-year environmental fluctuations. By showing that inter-annual variability in rainfall is a stronger predictor of reproductive timing than intra-annual variability, the authors suggest that primates, like papionins, have evolved flexible reproductive strategies to cope with the unpredictable availability of resources. This flexibility is likely an adaptive response to the highly variable environments that many African primates inhabit, where food availability can vary dramatically not just within a year but from year to year. Second, the study highlights the role of reproductive flexibility in the evolutionary success of papionins. The authors provide compelling evidence that species within the Papio genus, for example, exhibit significant variability in reproductive timing both within and between populations. This variability suggests that these species possess a remarkable ability to adjust their reproductive strategies in response to local environmental conditions, which may have contributed to their widespread distribution across diverse habitats in Africa. This finding aligns with the work of Brockman and Schaik (2005), who argued that reproductive flexibility is a key factor in the success of primates in unpredictable environments.

The study also contributes to our understanding of the evolutionary transition from seasonal to non-seasonal breeding in primates. The authors propose that the loss of strict reproductive seasonality in some papionin species may represent an adaptive shift toward greater reproductive flexibility. This shift could be driven by the need to maximise reproductive success in environments where the timing of resource peaks is difficult to predict. The authors’ findings support this hypothesis, as they show that populations living in more unpredictable environments tend to have lower reproductive seasonality. The broader implications of this study (Dezeure et al. 2024) extend beyond the specific case of papionin monkeys. The findings have relevance for the study of reproductive strategies in other long-lived, tropical mammals that face similar environmental challenges. As climate change is expected to increase the frequency and intensity of environmental unpredictability, understanding how species have historically adapted to such conditions can provide valuable insights into their potential resilience or vulnerability to future changes.

Many primate species are already facing significant threats from habitat loss, hunting, and climate change. By identifying the environmental factors that influence reproductive success, Dezeure et al. (2024) study can help inform conservation strategies aimed at protecting the most vulnerable populations. For example, conservation efforts could focus on maintaining or restoring habitat features that promote reproductive flexibility, such as access to a variety of food resources that peak at different times of the year (Chapman et al.).

References

Brockman D, Schaik C (2005) Seasonality in Primates: Studies of Living and Extinct Human and Non-Human Primates. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511542343

Bronson FH (2009) Climate change and seasonal reproduction in mammals. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci 364:3331–3340. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2009.0140

Chapman CA, Gogarten JF, Golooba M, et al Fifty+ years of primate research illustrates complex drivers of abundance and increasing primate numbers. Am J Primatol n/a:e23577. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajp.23577

Jules Dezeure, Julie Dagorrette, Lugdiwine Burtschell, Shahrina Chowdhury, Dieter Lukas, Larissa Swedell, Elise Huchard (2024) Flexible reproductive seasonality in Africa-dwelling papionins is associated with low environmental productivity and high climatic unpredictability. bioRxiv, ver.2 peer-reviewed and recommended by PCI Ecology https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.05.01.591991

Janson C, Verdolin J (2005) Seasonality of primate births in relation to climate. In: Schaik CP van, Brockman DK (eds) Seasonality in Primates: Studies of Living and Extinct Human and Non-Human Primates. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 307–350 https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511542343.012

Urbanisation modifies species’ habitats affecting their density, distribution, fitness, and behaviour with knock-on effects for their parasites’ abundance and transmission (Bradley & Altizer 2007). A meta-analysis found that changes in resource provisioning due to anthropogenic change can have both positive and negative effects on parasite infection in wildlife populations, but that feeding on urban waste had an effect of reducing infection, especially for helminths and protozoa (Becker, Streicker & Altizer 2015). Another study found that urbanisation reduced ectoparasite load in birds, but had no effect on endoparasites or avian flu (Reid et al. 2024). These changes may be due to novel diets reducing transmission via predation upon trophic hosts (Becker, Streicker & Altizer 2015) or behavioural, leading to more time available to preen (Reid et al. 2024). Less is known about how urbanisation affects invertebrates (but see Lewthwaite et al., 2024) and their parasites. This is important considering that invertebrates are often intermediate hosts of, and/or vector other parasites.

Recent work has found that snails and slugs can trap nematodes in their shells to prevent infection (Rae 2017). This newly discovered resistance mechanism reveals that the shell serves an immune defence function. It also provides a record of nematode exposure and documents incidences of resistance to infection as the trapped nematode becomes fixed onto the shell surface (Rae 2017). Dahirel and co-authors exploit this to investigate whether snail-nematode interactions change in response to increasing levels of urbanisation (Dahirel et al. 2024).

They explore whether the proportion of Cepaea nemoralis snails with trapped nematodes in their shell changes across an urbanisation gradient. They also explore whether different phenotypic snail traits, notably shell size, colour, band number and fusion explain the likelihood of having trapped nematodes in their shells. An increase in urbanisation was associated with a decrease in the proportion of snails with trapped nematodes in their shells. At the same time larger shells were more likely to have trapped nematodes, but this effect did not change across the urbanisation gradient. 

The authors discuss that reduced nematode encapsulation in urban environments may be due to lower encounter rate due to either fewer nematodes in urban environments, changes in snail behaviour reducing exposure, or alternatively that urban snails were less resistant to nematode infection. 

It will be interesting to investigate how this resistance mechanism is related to other forms of snail immunity and whether high rates of nematode encapsulation are an indicator of high resistance or high exposure. This will enable nematode trapping to be used as a marker to indicate environments and/or snail populations harbouring high levels of parasitism and further exploitation of museum collections to understand host-parasite interactions in the past (Rae 2017).

References

Becker, D.J., Streicker, D.G. & Altizer, S. (2015) Linking anthropogenic resources to wildlife-pathogen dynamics: a review and meta-analysis. Ecol Lett, 18, 483-495. https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.12428

Bradley, C.A. & Altizer, S. (2007) Urbanization and the ecology of wildlife diseases. Trends Ecol Evol, 22, 95-102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2006.11.001

Maxime Dahirel, Hannah Reyné, Katrien De Wolf, Dries Bonte (2024) Urban Cepaea nemoralis snails are less likely to have nematodes trapped within their shells. bioRxiv, ver.4 peer-reviewed and recommended by PCI Ecology https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.03.07.583959

Lewthwaite, J.M.M., Baiotto, T.M., Brown, B.V., Cheung, Y.Y., Baker, A.J., Lehnen, C., McGlynn, T.P., Shirey, V., Gonzalez, L., Hartop, E., Kerr, P.H., Wood, E. & Guzman, L.M. (2024) Drivers of arthropod biodiversity in an urban ecosystem. Sci Rep, 14, 390. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-50675-3

Rae, R. (2017) The gastropod shell has been co-opted to kill parasitic nematodes. Sci Rep, 7, 4745. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-04695-5

Reid, R., Capilla-Lasheras, P., Haddou, Y., Boonekamp, J. & Dominoni, D.M. (2024) The impact of urbanization on health depends on the health metric, life stage and level of urbanization: a global meta-analysis on avian species. Proc Biol Sci, 291, 20240617. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2024.0617

 Understanding the effects of environmental perturbations on coexistence is a key challenge in ecology, and models have played an important role in structuring our ideas and generating predictions, leading to quantitative hypotheses. In such models, environmental perturbations are often captured by changes in parameter values, such as the intrinsic growth rates of species (1–3). The question then becomes how much one can change these parameters without breaking coexistence and thus losing species (4). 
 
An intuitively appealing approach to address this question is to calculate a model’s feasibility domain (5–7). Loosely defined, it is the fraction of parameter settings leading to the coexistence of all species. Mathematically speaking, it is a high-dimensional triangle, of which one can calculate the size, just as for plain two-dimensional triangles. Parameter settings outside of this triangle break coexistence. Thus, it seems logical that greater feasibility domains would make for more robust ecosystems. However, careful interpretation is key: a greater feasibility domain merely implies that across many attempts at running a model with different random parameter settings, coexistence will be more frequent. It does not necessarily inform us how much one can perturb the parameters of a community with a predefined parameter setting. To get this information, we also need to know the shape of the triangle (7): perturbations more easily knock the parameter setting out of a flat triangle than out of an equilateral triangle. 
 
Desaillais et al. (8) develop a new theory that sheds light on what drives the shape of the feasibility domain. Specifically, they present the probability distribution that tells how close to the edge of the feasibility domain the parameter settings in that domain tend to be. For example, all points in a very flat triangle are close to its edge, while in an equilateral triangle, most points are safely stowed inside. The results show how, in a Lotka-Volterra model, the matrix of species interactions fully defines this distribution, which makes the technique empirically applicable in so far as one can estimate these interactions. The analysis then continues to explore the role of specific species in putative loss of coexistence. Desaillais et al. identify two species-level quantities: the first measures the total influence of the surrounding community on a focal species, while the second is a proxy for how close that focal species is to being lost, should a perturbation occur. While these two quantities are not mathematically independent, their correlation is not perfect, allowing one to categorize species into distinct ecological roles. A dataset of plant communities with different compositions illustrates how to apply this idea and gain some additional insight into the robustness of coexistence. These results pave the way for a number of potentially rewarding applications. How does the robustness of coexistence differ across network types? For which network types do we find back a more diverse set of ecological roles for species, i.e. for which networks are the two quantities least correlated? 

References

1. Baert, J.M., Janssen, C.R., Sabbe, K., and De Laender, F. (2016). Per capita interactions and stress tolerance drive stress-induced changes in biodiversity effects on ecosystem functions. Nat. Commun. 7, 12486. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms12486

2. Pásztor, L., Botta-Dukat, Z., Magyar, G., Czaran, T., and Meszéna, G. (2016). Theory-based ecology: A Darwinian approach 1st ed. (Oxford University Press).

3. Cenci, S., Montero-Castaño, A., and Saavedra, S. (2018). Estimating the effect of the reorganization of interactions on the adaptability of species to changing environments. J. Theor. Biol. 437, 115–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtbi.2017.10.016

4. Spaak, J.W., Baert, J.M., Baird, D.J., Eisenhauer, N., Maltby, L., Pomati, F., Radchuk, V., Rohr, J.R., Van den Brink, P.J., and De Laender, F. (2017). Shifts of community composition and population density substantially affect ecosystem function despite invariant richness. Ecol. Lett. 20, 1315–1324. https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.12828

5. Meszéna, G., Gyllenberg, M., Pásztor, L., and Metz, J.A.J. (2006). Competitive exclusion and limiting similarity: A unified theory. Theor. Popul. Biol. 69, 68–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tpb.2005.07.001

6. Saavedra, S., Rohr, R.P., Bascompte, J., Godoy, O., Kraft, N.J.B., and Levine, J.M. (2017). A structural approach for understanding multispecies coexistence. Ecol. Monogr. 87, 470–486. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecm.1263

7. Grilli, J., Adorisio, M., Suweis, S., Barabás, G., Banavar, J.R., Allesina, S., and Maritan, A. (2017). Feasibility and coexistence of large ecological communities. Nat. Commun. 8. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms14389

8. Desallais M, Loreau M, Arnoldi J.F. (2024) The distribution of distances to the edge of species coexistence. bioRxiv, ver.4 peer-reviewed and recommended by PCI Ecology https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.01.21.575550