Functional traits are “morpho-physio-phenological traits which impact fitness indirectly via their effects on growth, reproduction and survival” [1]. Most functional traits are defined at organ level, e.g. for leaves, roots and stems, and reflect key aspects of resource acquisition and resource use by organisms for their development and reproduction [2]. More rarely, some functional traits can be related to spatial development, such as vegetative height and lateral spread in plants.
Organ-level traits are especially popular because they can be measured in a standard way and easily compared over many plants. But these traits can broadly vary during the life of an organism. For instance, Roggy et al. [3] found that Leaf Mass Area can vary from 30 to 140 g.m^(-2) between seedling and adult stages for the canopy tree Dicorynia guianensis in French Guiana. Fortunel et al. [4] have also showed that developmental stages much contribute to functional trait variation within several Micropholis tree species in lowland Amazonia.
The way plants grow and invest resources into organs is variable during life and allows defining specific developmental sequences and architectural models [5,6]. There is clear ontogenic variation in leaf number, leaf properties and ramification patterns. Ontogenic variations reflect changing adaptation of an individual over its life, depending on the changing environmental conditions.
In this regard, measuring a single functional trait at organ level in adult trees should miss the variation of resource acquisition and use strategies over time. Thus we should built a more integrative approach of ecological development, also called “eco-devo” approach [7].
Although the ecological significance of ontogeny and developmental strategies is now well known, the extent to which it contributes to explain species survival and coexistence in communities is still broadly ignored in functional ecology. Levionnois et al. [8] investigated intraspecific variation of functional traits and growth trajectories in a typical, early-successional tree species in French Guiana, Amazonia. This species, Cecropia obtusa, is generalist regarding soil type and can be found on both white sand and ferralitic soil. The study examines whether there in intraspecific variation in functional traits and growth trajectories of C. obtusa in response to the contrasted soil types.
The tree communities observed on the two types of soils include species with distinctive functional trait values, that is, there are changes in species composition related to different species strategies along the classical wood and leaf economic spectra. The populations of C. obtusa found on the two soils showed some difference in functional traits, but it did not concern traits related to the main economic spectra. Conversely, the populations showed different growth strategies, in terms of spatial and temporal development.
The major lessons we can learn from the study are:
(i) Functional traits measured at organ level cannot reflect well how long-lived plants collect and invest resources during their life. The results show the potential of considering architectural and developmental traits together with organ-level functional traits, to better acknowledge the variation in ecological strategies over plant life, and thus to better understand community assembly processes.
(ii) What makes functional changes between communities differs when considering interspecific and intraspecific variation. Species turnover should encompass different corteges of soil specialists. These specialists are sorted along economic spectra, as shown in tropical rainforests and globally [2]. Conversely, a generalist species such as C. obtusa does occur on contrasted soil, which entails that it can accommodate the contrasted ecological conditions. However, the phenotypic adjustment is not related to how leaves and wood ensure photosynthesis, water and nutrient acquisition, but regards the way the resources are allocated to growth and reproduction over time.
The results of the study stress the need to better integrate growth strategies and ontogeny in the research agenda of functional ecology. We can anticipate that organ-level functional traits and growth trajectories will be more often considered together in ecological studies. The integration should help better understand the temporal niche of organisms, and how organisms can coexist in space and time with other organisms during their life. Recently, Klimešová et al. [9] have proposed standardized protocols for collecting plant modularity traits. Such effort to propose easy-to-measure traits representing plant development and ontogeny, with clear functional roles, should foster the awaited development of an “eco-devo” approach.

References

[1] Violle, C., Navas, M. L., Vile, D., Kazakou, E., Fortunel, C., Hummel, I., & Garnier, E. (2007). Let the concept of trait be functional!. Oikos, 116(5), 882-892. doi: 10.1111/j.0030-1299.2007.15559.x
[2] Díaz, S. et al. (2016). The global spectrum of plant form and function. Nature, 529(7585), 167-171. doi: 10.1038/nature16489
[3] Roggy, J. C., Nicolini, E., Imbert, P., Caraglio, Y., Bosc, A., & Heuret, P. (2005). Links between tree structure and functional leaf traits in the tropical forest tree Dicorynia guianensis Amshoff (Caesalpiniaceae). Annals of forest science, 62(6), 553-564. doi: 10.1051/forest:2005048
[4] Fortunel, C., Stahl, C., Heuret, P., Nicolini, E. & Baraloto, C. (2020). Disentangling the effects of environment and ontogeny on tree functional dimensions for congeneric species in tropical forests. New Phytologist. doi: 10.1111/nph.16393
[5] Barthélémy, D., & Caraglio, Y. (2007). Plant architecture: a dynamic, multilevel and comprehensive approach to plant form, structure and ontogeny. Annals of botany, 99(3), 375-407. doi: 10.1093/aob/mcl260
[6] Hallé, F., & Oldeman, R. A. (1975). An essay on the architecture and dynamics of growth of tropical trees. Kuala Lumpur: Penerbit Universiti Malaya.
[7] Sultan, S. E. (2007). Development in context: the timely emergence of eco-devo. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 22(11), 575-582. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2007.06.014
[8] Levionnois, S., Tysklind, N., Nicolini, E., Ferry, B., Troispoux, V., Le Moguedec, G., Morel, H., Stahl, C., Coste, S., Caron, H. & Heuret, P. (2020). Soil variation response is mediated by growth trajectories rather than functional traits in a widespread pioneer Neotropical tree. bioRxiv, 351197, ver. 4 peer-reviewed and recommended by PCI Ecology. doi: 10.1101/351197
[9] Klimešová, J. et al. (2019). Handbook of standardized protocols for collecting plant modularity traits. Perspectives in Plant Ecology, Evolution and Systematics, 40, 125485. doi: 10.1016/j.ppees.2019.125485

A network includes a set of vertices or nodes (e.g., species in an interaction network), and a set of edges or links (e.g., interactions between species). Whether and how networks vary in space and/or time are questions often addressed in ecological research. 

Two ecological networks can differ in several extents: in that species are different in the two networks and establish new interactions (species turnover), or in that species that are present in both networks establish different interactions in the two networks (rewiring). The ecological meaning of changes in network structure is quite different according to whether species turnover or interaction rewiring plays a greater role. Therefore, much attention has been devoted in recent years on quantifying and interpreting the relative changes in network structure due to species turnover and/or rewiring.

Poisot et al. (2012) proposed to partition the global variation in structure between networks, \( \beta_{WN} \) (WN = Whole Network) into two terms: \( \beta_{OS} \) (OS = Only Shared species) and \( \beta_{ST} \) (ST = Species Turnover), such as \( \beta_{WN} = \beta_{OS} + \beta_{ST} \).

The calculation lays on enumerating the interactions between species that are common or not to two networks, as illustrated on Figure 1 for a simple case. Specifically, Poisot et al. (2012) proposed to use a Sorensen type measure of network dissimilarity, i.e., \( \beta_{WN} = \frac{a+b+c}{(2a+b+c)/2} -1=\frac{b+c}{2a+b+c} \) , where \( a \) is the number of interactions shared between the networks, while \( b \) and \( c \) are interaction numbers unique to one and the other network, respectively. \( \beta_{OS} \) is calculated based on the same formula, but only for the subnetworks including the species common to the two networks, in the form \( \beta_{OS} = \frac{b_{OS}+c_{OS}}{2a_{OS}+b_{OS}+c_{OS}} \) (e.g., Fig. 1). \( \beta_{ST} \) is deduced by subtracting \( \beta_{OS} \) from \( \beta_{WN} \) and represents in essence a "dissimilarity in interaction structure introduced by dissimilarity in species composition" (Poisot et al. 2012).

Figure 1. Ecological networks exemplified in Fründ (2021) and discussed in Poisot (2022). a is the number of shared links (continuous lines in right figures), while b+c is the number of edges unique to one or the other network (dashed lines in right figures).

Alternatively, Fründ (2021) proposed to define \( \beta_{OS} = \frac{b_{OS}+c_{OS}}{2a+b+c} \) and \( \beta_{ST} = \frac{b_{ST}+c_{ST}}{2a+b+c} \), where \( b_{ST}=b-b_{OS} \)  and \( c_{ST}=c-c_{OS} \) , so that the components \( \beta_{OS} \) and \( \beta_{ST} \) have the same denominator. In this way, Fründ (2021) partitioned the count of unique \( b+c=b_{OS}+b_{ST}+c_{ST} \) interactions, so that \( \beta_{OS} \) and \( \beta_{ST} \) sums to \( \frac{b_{OS}+c_{OS}+b_{ST}+c_{ST}}{2a+b+c} = \frac{b+c}{2a+b+c} = \beta_{WN} \). Fründ (2021) advocated that this partition allows a more sensible comparison of \( \beta_{OS} \) and \( \beta_{ST} \), in terms of the number of links that contribute to each component.

For instance, let us consider the networks 1 and 2 in Figure 1 (left panel) such as \( a_{OS}=2 \) (continuous lines in right panel), \( b_{ST} + c_{ST} = 1 \) and \( b_{OS} + c_{OS} = 1 \) (dashed lines in right panel), and thereby \( a = 2 \), \( b+c=2 \), \( \beta_{WN} = 1/3 \). Fründ (2021) measured \( \beta_{OS}=\beta_{ST}=1/6 \) and argued that it is appropriate insofar as it reflects that the number of unique links in the OS and ST components contributing to network dissimilarity (dashed lines) are actually equal. Conversely, the formula of Poisot et al. (2012) yields \( \beta_{OS}=1/5 \), hence \( \beta_{ST} = \frac{1}{3}-\frac{1}{5}=\frac{2}{15}<\beta_{OS} \). Fründ (2021) thus argued that the method of Poisot tends to underestimate the contribution of species turnover.

To clarify and avoid misinterpretation of the calculation of \( \beta_{OS} \) and \( \beta_{ST} \) in Poisot et al. (2012), Poisot (2022) provides a new, in-depth mathematical analysis of the decomposition of \( \beta_{WN} \). Poisot et al. (2012) quantify in \( \beta_{OS} \) the actual contribution of rewiring in network structure for the subweb of common species. Poisot (2022) thus argues that \( \beta_{OS} \) relates only to the probability of rewiring in the subweb, while the definition of \( \beta_{OS} \) by Fründ (2021) is relative to the count of interactions in the global network (considered in denominator), and is thereby dependent on both rewiring probability and species turnover. Poisot (2022) further clarifies the interpretation of \( \beta_{ST} \). \( \beta_{ST} \) is obtained by subtracting \( \beta_{OS} \) from \( \beta_{WN} \) and thus represents the influence of species turnover in terms of the relative architectures of the global networks and of the subwebs of shared species. Coming back to the example of Fig.1., the Poisot et al. (2012) formula posits that \( \frac{\beta_{ST}}{\beta_{WN}}=\frac{2/15}{1/3}=2/5 \), meaning that species turnover contributes two-fifths of change in network structure, while rewiring in the subweb of common species contributed three fifths.  Conversely, the approach of Fründ (2021) does not compare the architectures of global networks and of the subwebs of shared species, but considers the relative contribution of unique links to network dissimilarity in terms of species turnover and rewiring. 

Poisot (2022) concludes that the partition proposed in Fründ (2021) does not allow unambiguous ecological interpretation of rewiring. He provides guidelines for proper interpretation of the decomposition proposed in Poisot et al. (2012).

References

Fründ J (2021) Dissimilarity of species interaction networks: how to partition rewiring and species turnover components. Ecosphere, 12, e03653. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.3653

Poisot T, Canard E, Mouillot D, Mouquet N, Gravel D (2012) The dissimilarity of species interaction networks. Ecology Letters, 15, 1353–1361. https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.12002

Poisot T (2022) Dissimilarity of species interaction networks: quantifying the effect of turnover and rewiring. EcoEvoRxiv Preprints, ver. 4 peer-reviewed and recommended by Peer Community in Ecology. https://doi.org/10.32942/osf.io/gxhu2

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

Marginal value theorem (MVT) is an archetypal model discussed in every behavioural ecology textbook. Its popularity is largely explained but the fact that it is possible to solve it graphically (at least in its simplest form) with the minimal amount of equations, which is a sensible strategy for an introductory course in behavioural ecology [1]. Apart from this heuristic value, one may be tempted to disregard it as a naive toy model. After a burst of interest in the 70's and the 80's, the once vivid literature about optimal foraging theory (OFT) has lost its momentum [2]. Yet, OFT and MVT have remained an active field of research in the parasitoidologists community, mostly because the sampling strategy of a parasitoid in patches of hosts and its resulting fitness gain are straightforward to evaluate, which eases both experimental and theoretical investigations [3].
This preprint [4] is in line with the long-established literature on OFT. It follows two theoretical articles [5,6] in which Vincent Calcagno and co-authors assessed the effect of changes in the environmental conditions on optimal foraging strategy. This time, they did not modify the shape of the gain function (describing the diminishing return of the cumulative intake as a function of the residency time in a patch) but the relative frequencies of good and bad patches. At first sight, that sounds like a minor modification of their earlier models. Actually, even the authors initially were fooled by the similarities before spotting the pitfalls. Here, they genuinely point out the erroneous verbal prediction in their previous paper in which some non-trivial effects of the change in patch frequencies have been overlooked. The present study indeed provides a striking example of ecological fallacy, and more specifically of Simpson's paradox which occurs when the aggregation of subgroups modifies the apparent pattern at the scale of the entire population [7,8]. In the case of MVT under constraints of habitat conversion, the increase of the residency times in both bad and good patches can result in a decrease of the average residency time at the level of the population. This apparently counter-intuitive property can be observed, for instance, when the proportion of bad quality patches strongly increases, which increases the probability that the individual forages on theses quickly exploited patches, and thus decreases its average residency time on the long run.
The authors thus put the model on the drawing board again. Proper assessment of the effect of change in the frequency of patch quality is more mathematically challenging than when one considers only changes in the shape of the gain function. The expected gain must be evaluated at the scale of the entire habitat instead of single patch. Overall, this study, which is based on a rigorous formalism, stands out as a warning against too rapid interpretations of theoretical outputs. It is not straightforward to generalize the predictions of previous models without careful evaluating their underlying hypotheses. The devil is in the details: some slight, seemingly minor, adjustments of the assumptions may have some major consequences.
The authors discussed the general conditions leading to changes in residency times or movement rates. Yet, it is worth pointing out again that it would be a mistake to blindly consider these theoretical results as forecasts for the foragers' behaviour in natura. OFT models has for a long time been criticized for sweeping under the carpet the key questions of the evolutionary dynamics and the maintenance of the optimal strategy in a population [9,10]. The distribution of available options is susceptible to change rapidly due to modifications of the environmental conditions or, even more simply, the presence of competitors which continuously remove the best options from the pool of available options [11]. The key point here is that the constant monitoring of available options implies cognitive (neural tissue is one of the most metabolically expensive tissues) and ecological costs: assessment and adjustment to the environmental conditions requires time, energy, and occasional mistakes (cost of naiveté, [12]). While rarely considered in optimal analyses, these costs should severely constraint the evolution of the subtle decision rules. Under rapidly fluctuating conditions, it could be more profitable to maintain a sub-optimal strategy (but performing reasonably well on the long run) than paying the far from negligible costs implied by the pursuit of optimal strategies [13,14]. For instance, in the analysis presented in this preprint, it is striking how close the fitness gains of the plastic and the non-plastic forager are, particularly if one remembers that the last-mentioned cognitive and ecological costs have been neglected in these calculations.
Yet, even if one can arguably question its descriptive value, such models are worth more than a cursory glance. They still have normative value insofar that they provide upper bounds for the response to modifications of the environmental conditions. Such insights are precious to design future experiments on the question. Being able to compare experimentally measured behaviours with the extremes of the null model (stubborn non-plastic forager) and the optimal strategy (only achievable by an omniscient daemon) informs about the cognitive bias or ecological costs experienced by real life foragers. I thus consider that this model, and more generally most OFT models, are still a valuable framework which deserves further examination.

References

[1] Fawcett, T. W. & Higginson, A. D. 2012 Heavy use of equations impedes communication among biologists. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 109, 11735–11739. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1205259109
[2] Owens, I. P. F. 2006 Where is behavioural ecology going? Trends Ecol. Evol. 21, 356–361. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2006.03.014
[3] Louâpre, P., Fauvergue, X., van Baaren, J. & Martel, V. 2015 The male mate search: an optimal foraging issue? Curr. Opin. Insect Sci. 9, 91–95. doi: 10.1016/j.cois.2015.02.012
[4] Calcagno, V., Hamelin, F., Mailleret, L., & Grognard, F. (2018). How optimal foragers should respond to habitat changes? On the consequences of habitat conversion. bioRxiv, 273557, ver. 4 peer-reviewed and recommended by PCI Ecol. doi: 10.1101/273557
[5] Calcagno, V., Grognard, F., Hamelin, F. M., Wajnberg, É. & Mailleret, L. 2014 The functional response predicts the effect of resource distribution on the optimal movement rate of consumers. Ecol. Lett. 17, 1570–1579. doi: 10.1111/ele.12379
[6] Calcagno, V., Mailleret, L., Wajnberg, É. & Grognard, F. 2013 How optimal foragers should respond to habitat changes: a reanalysis of the Marginal Value Theorem. J. Math. Biol. 69, 1237–1265. doi: 10.1007/s00285-013-0734-y
[7] Galipaud, M., Bollache, L., Wattier, R., Dechaume-Moncharmont, F.-X. & Lagrue, C. 2015 Overestimation of the strength of size-assortative pairing in taxa with cryptic diversity: a case of Simpson's paradox. Anim. Behav. 102, 217–221. doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2015.01.032
[8] Kievit, R. A., Frankenhuis, W. E., Waldorp, L. J. & Borsboom, D. 2013 Simpson's paradox in psychological science: a practical guide. Front. Psychol. 4, 513. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00513
[9] Bolduc, J.-S. & Cézilly, F. 2012 Optimality modelling in the real world. Biol. Philos. 27, 851–869. doi: 10.1007/s10539-012-9333-3
[10] Pierce, G. J. & Ollason, J. G. 1987 Eight reasons why optimal foraging theory is a complete waste of time. Oikos 49, 111–118. doi: 10.2307/3565560
[11] Dechaume-Moncharmont, F.-X., Brom, T. & Cézilly, F. 2016 Opportunity costs resulting from scramble competition within the choosy sex severely impair mate choosiness. Anim. Behav. 114, 249–260. doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2016.02.019
[12] Snell-Rood, E. C. 2013 An overview of the evolutionary causes and consequences of behavioural plasticity. Anim. Behav. 85, 1004–1011. doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2012.12.031
[13] Fawcett, T. W., Fallenstein, B., Higginson, A. D., Houston, A. I., Mallpress, D. E. W., Trimmer, P. C. & McNamara, J. M. 2014 The evolution of decision rules in complex environments. Trends Cogn. Sci. 18, 153–161. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2013.12.012
[14] Marshall, J. A. R., Trimmer, P. C., Houston, A. I. & McNamara, J. M. 2013 On evolutionary explanations of cognitive biases. Trends Ecol. Evol. 28, 469-473. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2013.05.013

Continuous observation of animal behaviour could be quite a challenge in the field, and the situation becomes even more complicated with aquatic species mostly active at night. In such cases, biologging techniques are real game changers in ecology, behavioural ecology or eco-physiology. An accelerating number of methodological applications of these tools in natural condition are thus published each year [1]. Biologging is not limited to movement ecology. For instance, fine grain information about energy expenditure can be inferred from body acceleration [2], and accelerometers has already proven useful in monitoring reproductive costs in some fish species [3,4]. The first part of the study by Tentelier et al. [5] is in line with this growing literature. It describes measurements of energy expenditure during reproduction in a fish species, Allis shad (Alosa Alosa), based on tail beat frequency and occurrence of spawning acts. The study has been convincingly conducted, and the results are important for fish biologists. But this is not the whole story: the authors added to this otherwise classical study a very original and insightful analysis which deserves closer interest.
Tentelier et al. propose to use static accelerometer to monitor change in body roundness through the reproductive season. These semelparous fish first mature and built up reserves in the Atlantic Ocean and migrate into fresh water to reproduce. Contrary to iteroparous species, female shads do not have to strategically preserve energy for future reproduction. The females die few days after spawning having exhausted their energetic reserves: they typically lose almost half of their body mass during the spawning season. The beautiful idea in this study was to track down information about this dramatic slimming in the accelerometer data. Indeed, the accelerometer was attached on the side of the fish (close to the dorsal fin). A change in its angle with the vertical plane could be correlated with the change in roundness, the angle declining with the female thinning. Accelerometers have already been used to record body posture [6] but, in the present study, the novelty was to monitor the change in body shape.
Unfortunately, the data by Tentelier et al. are inconclusive so far. Broadly speaking, the accelerometer angle recorded declined through the spawning season, indicating an average slimming of the females, but there was no correlation between the change in angle and the mass loss at the individual level. This was partly due to the fact that the dorsal position of the accelerometer was not optimized to measures egg laying whose effects are mostly observable on ventral side.
Yet, this nice idea deserves more scrutiny. The method seems to be sensitive enough to detect inflation of swim bladder, the gas-filled organ helping the fish to control their position in the water column, as the accelerometer angle increased when the fish stayed close to the water surface. Additional works and proper calibration are certainly needed to validate the use of accelerometer angle as a proxy for body roundness. The actual data were not strong enough to justify a standalone publication on the subject, but it would have been shame to lose traces of such analysis and keep it in the file drawer. This is why I strongly support its report as a side question in a broader study. Science progresses not only with neat conclusive studies but also when unexpected (apparently anecdotal) observations stimulate new researches.

References

[1] Börger L, Bijleveld AI, Fayet AL, Machovsky‐Capuska GE, Patrick SC, Street GM and Vander Wal E. (2020) Biologging special feature. J. Anim. Ecol. 89, 6–15. 10.1111/1365-2656.13163
[2] Wilson RP et al. (2020) Estimates for energy expenditure in free‐living animals using acceleration proxies: A reappraisal. J. Anim. Ecol. 89, 161–172. 10.1111/1365-2656.13040
[3] Tsuda Y, Kawabe R, Tanaka H, Mitsunaga Y, Hiraishi T, Yamamoto K and Nashimoto K. (2006) Monitoring the spawning behaviour of chum salmon with an acceleration data logger. Ecol. Freshw. Fish 15, 264–274. 10.1111/j.1600-0633.2006.00147.x
[4] Sakaji H, Hamada K, Naito Y. 2018 Identifying spawning events of greater amberjack using accelerometers. Mar. Biol. Res. 14, 637–641. 10.1080/17451000.2018.1492140
[5] Tentelier C, Bouchard C, Bernardin A, Tauzin A, Aymes J-C, Lange F, Récapet C, Rives J (2020) The dynamics of spawning acts by a semelparous fish and its associated energetic costs. bioRxiv, 436295. doi: 10.1101/436295 ver. 7 peer-reviewed and recommended by PCI Ecology. 10.1101/436295
[6] Brown DD, Kays R, Wikelski M, Wilson R, Klimley AP. 2013 Observing the unwatchable through acceleration logging of animal behavior. Anim. Biotelemetry 1, 20. 10.1186/2050-3385-1-20