Habitat complexity is an important mediator of processes spanning levels of biological organization from organisms to ecosystems (Shumway et al. 2007, Soukup et al. 2022). This complexity, which can be biogenic (e.g., foundation species; Bracken et al. 2007, Ellison 2019) or abiotic (e.g., substrate rugosity; Kovalenko et al. 2012), shapes processes ranging from individual foraging behavior (Michel and Adams 2009) to species’ interactions to food-web structure and biogeochemical rates (Langellotto and Denno 2006, Larsen et al. 2021, Soukup et al. 2022). For example, in the presence of simulated aquatic vegetation, predatory diving beetle larvae shift from active foraging to sit-and-wait predation, reducing activity and prey encounter rates (Michel and Adams 2009).

In this contribution, Edeline et al. (2023) present a detailed perspective on the role of habitat complexity in shaping populations of a freshwater fish (medaka, Oryzias latipes, Adrianichthyidae), including survival, age-class diversity, population growth rate, and density-dependence in the stock-recruitment relationship associated with changes in carrying capacity. Importantly, changes in these population demographic attributes and rates were associated with the role of habitat complexity in mitigating cannibalism – consumption of juvenile O. latipes by conspecific adults. Whereas this is not unexpected – Langelotto and Denno (2006) showed that habitat complexity reduces cannibalism in wolf spiders – the careful work of Edeline et al. (2023) to link changes in habitat complexity to multiple population-level attributes provides a uniquely detailed description of the role of submerged aquatic vegetation in mediating population diversity (e.g., higher age-class diversity) and productivity (e.g., population growth rate).

In many ways, this work by Edeline et al. (2023) provides population-level parallels to perspectives on the role of habitat complexity in determining community-level diversity and productivity. Structurally complex habitats, such as those provided by foundation species (Bracken et al. 2007, Ellison 2019) and substrate heterogeneity (Fairchild et al. 2024), are associated with higher species diversity and abundance at the community level. Edeline et al. (2023) extend these perspectives to the population level, highlighting the importance of habitat complexity across levels of biological organization. Their work highlights within-population diversity and interactions, including cannibalism and competition, illustrating often-neglected aspects of food-web complexity (Polis and Strong 1996).

References

Matthew E. S. Bracken, Barry E. Bracken, Laura Rogers-Bennett (2007) Species diversity and foundation species: potential indicators of fisheries yields and marine ecosystem functioning. California Cooperative Oceanic Fisheries Investigations Reports 48: 82-91. https://calcofi.org/downloads/publications/calcofireports/v48/Vol_48_Bracken.pdf

Eric Edeline, Yoann Bennevault, David Rozen-Rechels (2023) Habitat structural complexity increases age-class coexistence and population growth rate through relaxed cannibalism in a freshwater fish. bioRxiv, ver.4 peer-reviewed and recommended by PCI Ecology https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.07.18.549540v4

Aaron M. Ellison (2019) Foundation species, non-trophic interactions, and the value of being common. iScience 13: 254-68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isci.2019.02.020

Tom P. Fairchild, Bettina Walter, Joshua J. Mutter, John N. Griffin. (2024) Topographic heterogeneity triggers complementary cascades that enhance ecosystem multifunctionality. Ecology 105: e4434. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecy.4434

Katya E. Kovalenko, Sidinei M. Thomaz, Danielle M. Warfe (2012) Habitat complexity: approaches and future directions. Hydrobiologia 685: 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-011-0974-z

Gail A. Langellotto, Robert F. Denno. (2006) Refuge from cannibalism in complex-structured habitats: implications for the accumulation of invertebrate predators. Ecological Entomology 31: 575-81. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2311.2006.00816.x

Annegret Larsen, Joshua R. Larsen, Stuart N. Lane (2021) Dam builders and their works: beaver influences on the structure and Function of river corridor hydrology, geomorphology, biogeochemistry and ecosystems. Earth-Science Reviews 218: 103623. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2021.103623

Matt J. Michel, Melinda M. Adams. (2009) Differential effects of structural complexity on predator foraging behavior. Behavioral Ecology: 313-17. https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/arp005

Gary A. Polis, Donald R. Strong (1996) Food web complexity and community dynamics. American Naturalist 147: 813-46. https://doi.org/10.1086/285880

Caroly A. Shumway, Hans A. Hofmann, Adam P. Dobberfuhl (2007) Quantifying habitat complexity in aquatic ecosystems. Freshwater Biology 52: 1065-76. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2427.2007.01754.x.

Pavel R. Soukup, Joacim Näslund, Johan Höjesjö, David S. Boukal (2022) From individuals to communities: habitat complexity affects all levels of organization in aquatic environments. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Water 9: e1575.  https://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1575

Capture-Mark-Recapture (CMR) data are commonly used to estimate ecological variables such as abundance, survival probability, or transition rates from one state to another (e.g. from juvenile to adult, or migration from one site to another). Many studies have shown how estimations can be affected by neglecting one aspect of the population under study (e.g. the heterogeneity in survival between individuals) or one limit of the methodology itself (e.g. the fact that observers might not detect an individual although it is still alive). Strikingly, very few studies have yet assessed the robustness of one fundamental assumption of all CMR-based inferences: marks are supposed definitive and immutable. If they are not, how are estimations affected? Addressing this issue is the main goal of the paper by Touzalin et al. (2023), and they did a very nice work. But, because the answer is not that simple, it also calls for further investigations.

When and why would mark loss bias estimation? In at least two situations. First, when estimating survival rates: if an individual loses its mark, it will be considered as dead, hence death rates will be overestimated. Second, more subtly, when estimating transition rates: if one individual loses its mark at the specific moment where its state changes, then a transition will be missed in data. The history of the marked individual would then be split into two independent CMR sequences as if there were two different individuals, including one which died.

Touzalin et al. (2023) thoroughly studied these two situations by estimating ecological parameters on 1) well-thought simulated datasets, that cover a large range of possible situations inspired from a nice compilation of hundreds of estimations from fish and bats studies, and 2) on their own bats dataset, for which they had various sources of information about mark losses, i.e. different mark types on the same individuals, including mark based on genotypes, and marks found on the soil in the place where bats lived. Their main findings from the simulated datasets are that there is a general trend for underestimation of survival and transition rates if mark loss is not accounting for in the model, as it would be intuitively expected. However, they also showed from the bats dataset that biases do not show any obvious general trend, suggesting complex interactions between different ecological processes and/or with the estimation procedure itself.

The results by Touzalin et al. (2023) strongly suggest that mark loss should systematically be included in models estimating parameters from CMR data. In addition to adapt the inferential models, the authors also recommend considering either a double marking, or even a single but ‘permanent’ mark such as one based on the genotypes. However, the potential gain of a double marking or of the use of genotypes is still to be evaluated both in theory and practice, and it seems to be not that obvious at first sight. First because double marking can be costly for experimenters but also for the marked animals, especially as several studies showed that marks can significantly affect survival or recapture rates. Second because multiple sources of errors can affect genotyping, which would result in wrong individual assignations especially in populations with low genetic diversity or high inbreeding, or no individual assignation at all, which would increase the occurrence of missing data in CMR datasets. Touzalin et al. (2023) supposed in their paper that there were no genotyping errors, but one can doubt it to be true in most situations. They have now important and interesting other issues to address.

References

Frédéric Touzalin, Eric J. Petit, Emmanuelle Cam, Claire Stagier, Emma C. Teeling, Sébastien J. Puechmaille (2023) Mark loss can strongly bias demographic rates in multi-state models: a case study with simulated and empirical datasets. BioRxiv, ver. 3 peer-reviewed and recommended by Peer Community in Ecology. https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.03.25.485763

Estimating population parameters is critical for analysis and management of wildlife populations. Drawing inference at the population level requires a robust sampling scheme and information about the representativeness of the studied population (Williams et al. 2002). In their textbook, Williams et al. (see chapter 5, 2002) listed several sampling issues, including both temporal and spatial heterogeneity and especially imperfect detection. Several methods, either sampling-based or model-based can be used to circumvent these issues.

In their paper, Kissling et al. (2024) addressed the case of the Kittlitz’s murrelet (Brachyramphus brevirostris), a cryptic ice-associated seabird, combining spatial variation in its distribution, temporal variation in breeding propensity, imperfect detection and logistical challenges to access the breeding area. The Kittlitz’s murrelet is thus the perfect species to illustrate common issues and logistical difficulties to implement a standard sampling scheme. 

The authors proposed a modelling framework unifying several datasets from different surveys to extract information on each step of the detection process: the spatial match between the targeted population and the sampled population, the probability of presence in the sample area, the probability of availability given presence in the sample area and finally, the probability of detection given presence and availability. All these components were part of the framework to estimate abundance and trend for this species. 

They took advantage of a radiotracking survey during several years to inform spatial match and probability of presence. They performed a behavioural experiment to assess the probability of availability of murrelets given it was present in sampling area, and they used a conventional distance-sampling boat survey to estimate detection of individuals. This is worth noting that the most variable components were the probability of presence in the sample area, with a global mean of 0.50, and the probability of detection given presence and availability ranging from 0.49 to 0.77. The estimated trend for Kittlitz’s murrelet was negative and all the information gathered in this study will be useful for future conservation plan. 

Coupling a decomposition of the detection process with different data sources was the key to solve problems raised by such “difficult” species, and the paper of Kissling et al. (2024) is a good way to follow for other species, allowing to inform the detection components for the targeted species - and also for our global understanding of detection process, and to infer about the temporal trend of species of conservation concern. 

References

Williams, B. K., Nichols, J. D., and Conroy, M. J. (2002). Analysis and management of animal populations. Academic Press.

Michelle L. Kissling, Paul M. Lukacs, Kelly Nesvacil, Scott M. Gende, Grey W. Pendleton (2024) Using multiple datasets to account for misalignment between statistical and biological populations for abundance estimation. EcoEvoRxiv, ver.3 peer-reviewed and recommended by PCI Ecology https://doi.org/10.32942/X2W03T

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

In the article, "Are the more flexible great-tailed grackles also better at behavioral inhibition?", Logan and colleagues (2021) are setting an excellent standard for cognitive research on wild-caught animals. Using a decent sample (N=18) of wild-caught birds, they set out to test the ambiguous link between behavioral flexibility and behavioral inhibition, which is supported by some studies but rejected by others. Where this study is more thorough and therefore also more revealing than most extant research, the authors ran a battery of tests, examining both flexibility (reversal learning and solution switching) and inhibition (go/no go task; detour task; delay of gratification) through multiple different test series. They also -- somewhat accidentally -- performed their experiments and analyses with and without different criteria for correctness (85%, 100%). Their mistakes, assumptions and amendments of plans made during preregistration are clearly stated and this demonstrates the thought-process of the researchers very clearly.

Logan et al. (2021) show that inhibition in great-tailed grackles is a multi-faceted construct, and demonstrate that the traditional go/no go task likely tests a very different aspect of inhibition than the detour task, which was never linked to any of their flexibility measures. Their comprehensive Bayesian analyses held up the results of some of the frequentist statistics, indicating a consistent relationship between flexibility and inhibition, with more flexible individuals also showing better inhibition (in the go/no go task). This same model, combined with inconsistencies in the GLM analyses (depending on the inclusion or exclusion of an outlier), led them to recommend caution in the creation of arbitrary thresholds for "success" in any cognitive tasks. Their accidental longer-term data collection also hinted at patterns of behaviour that shorter-term data collection did not. Of course, researchers have to decide on success criteria in order to conduct experiments, but in the same way that frequentist statistics are acknowledged to have flaws, the setting of success criteria must be acknowledged as inherently arbitrary. Where possible, researchers could reveal novel, biologically salient patterns by continuing beyond the point where a convenient success criterion has been reached. This research also underscores that tests may not be examining the features we expected them to measure, and are highly sensitive to biological and ecological variation between species as well as individual variation within populations.

To me, this study is an excellent argument for pre-registration of research (registered as Logan et al. 2019 and accepted by Vogel 2019), as the authors did not end up cherry-picking only those results or methods that worked. The fact that some of the tests did not "work", but was still examined, added much value to the study. The current paper is a bit densely written because of the comprehensiveness of the research. Some editorial polishing would likely make for more elegant writing. However, the arguments are clear, the results novel, and the questions thoroughly examined. The results are important not only for cognitive research on birds, but are potentially valuable to any cognitive scientist. I recommend this article as excellent food for thought.

References

Logan CJ, McCune K, Johnson-Ulrich Z, Bergeron L, Seitz B, Blaisdell AP, Wascher CAF. (2019) Are the more flexible individuals also better at inhibition? http://corinalogan.com/Preregistrations/g_inhibition.html  In principle acceptance by PCI Ecology of the version on 6 Mar 2019

Logan CJ, McCune KB, MacPherson M, Johnson-Ulrich Z, Rowney C, Seitz B, Blaisdell AP, Deffner D, Wascher CAF (2021) Are the more flexible great-tailed grackles also better at behavioral inhibition? PsyArXiv, ver. 7 peer-reviewed and recommended by Peer community in Ecology. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/vpc39

Vogel E (2019) Adapting to a changing environment: advancing our understanding of the mechanisms that lead to behavioral flexibility. Peer Community in Ecology, 100016. https://doi.org/10.24072/pci.ecology.100016