Local adaptation shall occur whenever selective pressures vary across space and overwhelm the effects of gene flow and local extinctions (Kawecki and Ebert 2004). Because the intimate interaction that characterizes their relationship exerts a strong selective pressure on both partners, host-parasite systems represent a classical example in which local adaptation is expected from rapidly evolving parasites adapting to more evolutionary constrained hosts (Kaltz and Shykoff 1998). Such systems indeed represent a large proportion of the study-cases in local adaptation research (Runquist et al. 2020). Biotic interactions intervene in many environment-related societal challenges, so that understanding when and how local adaptation arises is important not only for understanding evolutionary dynamics but also for more applied questions such as the control of agricultural pests, biological invasions, or pathogens (Parker and Gilbert 2004).

The exact conditions under which local adaptation does occur and can be detected is however still the focus of many theoretical, methodological and empirical studies (Blanquart et al. 2013, Hargreaves et al. 2020, Hoeksema and Forde 2008, Nuismer and Gandon 2008, Richardson et al. 2014). A recent review that evaluates investigations that examined the combined influence of biotic and abiotic factors on local adaptation reaches partial conclusions about their relative importance in different contexts and underlines the many traps that one has to avoid in such studies (Runquist et al. 2020). The authors of this review emphasize that one should evaluate local adaptation using wild-collected strains or populations and over multiple generations, on environmental gradients that span natural ranges of variation for both biotic and abiotic factors, in a theory-based hypothetico-deductive framework that helps interpret the outcome of experiments. These multiple targets are not easy to reach in each local adaptation experiment given the diversity of systems in which local adaptation may occur. Improving research practices may also help better understand when and where local adaptation does occur by adding controls over p-hacking, HARKing or publication bias, which is best achieved when hypotheses, date collection and analytical procedures are known before the research begins (Chambers et al. 2014). In this regard, the route taken by Olvera-Vazquez et al. (2021) is interesting. They propose to investigate whether the rosy aphid (Dysaphis plantaginea) recently adapted to its cultivated host, the apple tree (Malus domestica), and chose to pre-register their hypotheses and planned experiments on PCI Ecology (Peer Community In 2020). Though not fulfilling all criteria mentioned by Runquist et al. (2020), they clearly state five hypotheses that all relate to the local adaptation of this agricultural pest to an economically important fruit tree, and describe in details a powerful, randomized experiment, including how data will be collected and analyzed. The experimental set-up includes comparisons between three sites located along a temperature transect that also differ in local edaphic and biotic factors, and contrasts wild and domesticated apple trees that originate from the three sites and were both planted in the local, sympatric site, and transplanted to allopatric sites. Beyond enhancing our knowledge on local adaptation, this experiment will also test the general hypothesis that the rosy aphid recently adapted to Malus sp. after its domestication, a question that population genetic analyses was not able to answer (Olvera-Vazquez et al. 2020).

References

Blanquart F, Kaltz O, Nuismer SL, Gandon S (2013) A practical guide to measuring local adaptation. Ecology Letters, 16, 1195–1205. https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.12150

Briscoe Runquist RD, Gorton AJ, Yoder JB, Deacon NJ, Grossman JJ, Kothari S, Lyons MP, Sheth SN, Tiffin P, Moeller DA (2019) Context Dependence of Local Adaptation to Abiotic and Biotic Environments: A Quantitative and Qualitative Synthesis. The American Naturalist, 195, 412–431. https://doi.org/10.1086/707322

Chambers CD, Feredoes E, Muthukumaraswamy SD, Etchells PJ, Chambers CD, Feredoes E, Muthukumaraswamy SD, Etchells PJ (2014) Instead of “playing the game” it is time to change the rules: Registered Reports at <em>AIMS Neuroscience</em> and beyond. AIMS Neuroscience, 1, 4–17. https://doi.org/10.3934/Neuroscience.2014.1.4

Hargreaves AL, Germain RM, Bontrager M, Persi J, Angert AL (2019) Local Adaptation to Biotic Interactions: A Meta-analysis across Latitudes. The American Naturalist, 195, 395–411. https://doi.org/10.1086/707323

Hoeksema JD, Forde SE (2008) A Meta‐Analysis of Factors Affecting Local Adaptation between Interacting Species. The American Naturalist, 171, 275–290. https://doi.org/10.1086/527496

Kaltz O, Shykoff JA (1998) Local adaptation in host–parasite systems. Heredity, 81, 361–370. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2540.1998.00435.x

Kawecki TJ, Ebert D (2004) Conceptual issues in local adaptation. Ecology Letters, 7, 1225–1241. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2004.00684.x

Nuismer SL, Gandon S (2008) Moving beyond Common‐Garden and Transplant Designs: Insight into the Causes of Local Adaptation in Species Interactions. The American Naturalist, 171, 658–668. https://doi.org/10.1086/587077

Olvera-Vazquez SG, Remoué C, Venon A, Rousselet A, Grandcolas O, Azrine M, Momont L, Galan M, Benoit L, David G, Alhmedi A, Beliën T, Alins G, Franck P, Haddioui A, Jacobsen SK, Andreev R, Simon S, Sigsgaard L, Guibert E, Tournant L, Gazel F, Mody K, Khachtib Y, Roman A, Ursu TM, Zakharov IA, Belcram H, Harry M, Roth M, Simon JC, Oram S, Ricard JM, Agnello A, Beers EH, Engelman J, Balti I, Salhi-Hannachi A, Zhang H, Tu H, Mottet C, Barrès B, Degrave A, Razmjou J, Giraud T, Falque M, Dapena E, Miñarro M, Jardillier L, Deschamps P, Jousselin E, Cornille A (2020) Large-scale geographic survey provides insights into the colonization history of a major aphid pest on its cultivated apple host in Europe, North America and North Africa. bioRxiv, 2020.12.11.421644. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.12.11.421644

Olvera-Vazquez S.G., Alhmedi A., Miñarro M., Shykoff J. A., Marchadier E., Rousselet A., Remoué C., Gardet R., Degrave A. , Robert P. , Chen X., Porcher J., Giraud T., Vander-Mijnsbrugge K., Raffoux X., Falque M., Alins, G., Didelot F., Beliën T., Dapena E., Lemarquand A. and Cornille A. (2021) Experimental test for local adaptation of the rosy apple aphid (Dysaphis plantaginea) to its host (Malus domestica) and to its climate in Europe. In principle recommendation by Peer Community In Ecology. https://forgemia.inra.fr/amandine.cornille/local_adaptation_dp, ver. 4.

Parker IM, Gilbert GS (2004) The Evolutionary Ecology of Novel Plant-Pathogen Interactions. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 35, 675–700. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.34.011802.132339

Peer Community In. (2020, January 15). Submit your preregistration to Peer Community In for peer review. https://peercommunityin.org/2020/01/15/submit-your-preregistration-to-peer-community-in-for-peer-review/

Richardson JL, Urban MC, Bolnick DI, Skelly DK (2014) Microgeographic adaptation and the spatial scale of evolution. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 29, 165–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2014.01.002

Islands may represent just a small fraction (6.67%) of the planet’s land but they host a disproportionate 20% of the world’s biodiversity. Yet islands are highly vulnerable to human-induced change. Out of all IUCN Red list species, almost half of them are found on islands (Russell and Kueffer, 2019) while from the approximately 800 known extinctions that have occurred since the European expansion around the world, 75% have occurred on islands (IUCN, 2017).
 
Vulnerability is defined as “the degree to which a system is likely to experience harm due to exposure to a hazard” (Fuessel, 2007). It is meaningful to express vulnerability let s say of a population or species to a specific threat, pressure, or stress (like for instance the highly studied species vulnerability to climate change (Pacifici et al., 2015). Vulnerability is typically made up of three components: exposure (the extent of stress or threat that the species encounters and is projected to encounter), sensitivity (the ability of a species to persist under a given stress or threat), adaptation (the ability of the species to adapt to changes in a given stress or threat). 
 
When thinking of these three components, it becomes quickly evident that island biodiversity should be “naturally” vulnerable to global change stress (Frankham et al., 2002). First, it is hard to escape for insular species compared to mainland ones meaning that they cannot avoid exposure. Second, insular species are highly sensitive to any stress and stochastic events given their high specialisation due to their endemism. Third, insular species are less likely to adapt to new threats due to their small population sizes and naturally fragmented distribution ranges that both decrease their genetic diversity (aka adaptation potential). Thus, estimating the vulnerability of insular species is an important step towards better management and mitigation of their risk to extinction to ongoing global change. But an assessment framework designed for insular species is currently lacking.
 
Bellard and colleagues (Bellard et al., 2025) contribution is exactly addressing this objective. The authors present an adapted framework aimed to quantify the vulnerability of terrestrial insular biota by incorporating the idiosyncrasies of island biota: the island syndrome (ie the idiosyncratic evolutionary outcomes that arise in insular environments), the isolated nature of islands, and their high levels of endemism. It is the consequences of these three features that the authors highlight on expanding their insular vulnerability assessment. More in detail, Bellard et al (2025) build on existing vulnerability frameworks that are not specific to island ecosystems by focusing on the inclusion of multiple threats and enlarging the dimensions of diversity (taxonomic, functional and phylogenetic diversity). In that sense, this work stands out as it delivers a missing framework specific for island biodiversity, without minimising its potential as an extension on existing mainland (not island) vulnerability assessments.
 
The framework consists of 5 steps: 1) define the scope of the vulnerability assessment in terms of spatial and temporal extent, relevant threats, and studied biota; 2) determine the markers of exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity; 3) compute measures of vulnerability and its components; and 4) conduct an uncertainty analysis to improve the vulnerability assessment. Step 5 is basically the use of the actual vulnerability assessment for practical conservation action and policy, and the authors are showing (Box 2 in Bellard et al (2025)) how their proposed vulnerability assessment could make the link to what is actually developed for (ie identifying which species are most vulnerable and what drives their vulnerability).
 
No doubt there is a growing number of literature on the design and application of biodiversity vulnerability assessments. Yet, this contribution is making the case for a special treatment of island biodiversity vulnerability assessments, while also providing a rather complete reading to a newcomer into vulnerability assessment frameworks.
 

References

Bellard Céline, Marino Clara, Butt Nathalie, Fernández-Palacios José María, Rigal François, Robuchon Marine, Lenoir Jonathan, Irl Severin, Benítez-López Ana, Capdevila Pol, Zhu G, Caetano Gabriel, Denelle Pierre, Philippe-Lesaffre Martin, Schipper Aafke, M Foden Wendy, Kissling W. Daniel, Leclerc Camille (2025) A framework to quantify the vulnerability of insular biota to global change. HAL, ver.3 peer-reviewed and recommended by PCI Ecology https://hal.science/hal-04550966

Frankham, R., Briscoe, D. A., and Ballou, J. D. (2002). Introduction to Conservation Genetics. Cambridge University Press.Fuessel, H.-M. (2007). Vulnerability: A generally applicable conceptual framework for climate change research. Glob. Environ. Change 17, 155–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.05.002

IUCN (2017). IUCN 2017 : International Union for Conservation of Nature annual report 2017. Available at: https://iucn.org/resources/annual-reports/iucn-2017-international-union-conservation-nature-annual-report-2017 (Accessed March 10, 2025).

Pacifici, M., Foden, W. B., Visconti, P., Watson, J. E. M., Butchart, S. H. M., Kovacs, K. M., et al. (2015). Assessing species vulnerability to climate change. Nat. Clim. Change 5, 215–224. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2448

Russell, J. C., and Kueffer, C. (2019). Island Biodiversity in the Anthropocene. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 44, 31–60. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-101718-033245

Understanding the distribution of species on earth is one of the fundamental challenges in ecology and evolution. For a long time, this challenge has mainly been addressed from a correlative point of view with a focus on abiotic factors determining a species abiotic niche (classical bioenvelope models; [1]). It is only recently that researchers have realized that behaviour and especially plasticity in behaviour may play a central role in determining species ranges and their dynamics [e.g., 2-5]. Blaisdell et al. propose to take this even one step further and to analyse how behavioural flexibility and possibly associated causal cognition impacts range dynamics.
The current preregistration is integrated in an ambitious long-term research plan that aims at addressing the above outlined question and focuses specifically on investigating whether more behaviourally flexible individuals are better at deriving causal inferences. The model system the authors plan on using are Great-tailed Grackles which have expanded their range into North America during the last century. The preregistration by Blaisdell et al. is a great example of the future of scientific research: it includes conceptual models, alternative hypotheses and testable predictions along with a sound sampling and analysis plan and embraces the principles of Open Science. Overall, the research the authors propose is fascinating and of highest relevance, as it aims at bridging scales from the microscopic mechanisms that underlie animal behaviour to macroscopic, macroecological consequences (see also [3]). I am very much looking forward to the results the authors will report.

References
[1] Elith, J. & Leathwick, J. R. 2009. Species distribution models: ecological explanation and prediction across space and time. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 40: 677-697. doi: 10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.110308.120159
[2] Kubisch, A.; Degen, T.; Hovestadt, T. & Poethke, H. J. (2013) Predicting range shifts under global change: the balance between local adaptation and dispersal. Ecography 36: 873-882. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0587.2012.00062.x
[3] Keith, S. A. & Bull, J. W. (2017) Animal culture impacts species' capacity to realise climate-driven range shifts. Ecography, 40: 296-304. doi: 10.1111/ecog.02481
[4] Sullivan, L. L.; Li, B.; Miller, T. E.; Neubert, M. G. & Shaw, A. K. (2017) Density dependence in demography and dispersal generates fluctuating invasion speeds. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 114: 5053-5058. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1618744114
[5] Fronhofer, E. A.; Nitsche, N. & Altermatt, F. (2017) Information use shapes the dynamics of range expansions into environmental gradients. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 26: 400-411. doi: 10.1111/geb.12547

    This article highlights a novel non-invasive method based on the "apparent sex ratios" that exploits delayed sexual importance in waterfowl populations. Unlike traditional capture-mark-recapture (CMR) technique, which is costly, invasive, and may disturb the target species, this method infers key population dynamics, such as adult survival rate and recruitment rate, by monitoring sex ratios in counts conducted during winter. Juvenile males that resemble adult females before molting provide a unique opportunity to estimate these vital rates. This method is cost-effective, minimizes disturbance to the species, and is particularly suitable for studying protected or invasive species.

References

Adrien Tableau, Iain Henderson, Sébastien Reeber, Matthieu Guillemain, Jean-François Maillard, Alain Caizergues (2024) Delayed dichromatism in waterfowl as a convenient tool for assessing vital rates. bioRxiv, ver.3 peer-reviewed and recommended by PCI Ecology https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.06.04.597326

Tick-borne diseases are an important burden on public health all over the globe, making accurate forecasts of tick population a key ingredient in a successful public health strategy. Over long time scales, tick populations can undergo complex dynamics, as they are sensitive to many non-linear effects due to the complex relationships between ticks and the relevant (numerical) features of their environment.

But luckily, capturing complex non-linear responses is a task that machine learning thrives on. In this contribution, Manley et al. (2023) explore the use of Gradient Boosted Trees to predict the distribution (presence/absence) and abundance of ticks across New York state.

This is an interesting modelling challenge in and of itself, as it looks at the same ecological question as an instance of a classification problem (presence/absence) or of a regression problem (abundance). In using the same family of algorithm for both, Manley et al. (2023) provide an interesting showcase of the versatility of these techniques. But their article goes one step further, by setting up a multi-class categorical model that estimates jointly the presence and abundance of a population. I found this part of the article particularly elegant, as it provides an intermediate modelling strategy, in between having two disconnected models for distribution and abundance, and having nested models where abundance is only predicted for the present class (see e.g. Boulangeat et al., 2012, for a great description of the later).

One thing that Manley et al. (2023) should be commended for is their focus on opening up the black box of machine learning techniques. I have never believed that ML models are more inherently opaque than other families of models, but the focus in this article on explainable machine learning shows how these models might, in fact, bring us closer to a phenomenological understanding of the mechanisms underpinning our observations.

There is also an interesting discussion in this article, on the rate of false negatives in the different models that are being benchmarked. Although model selection often comes down to optimizing the overall quality of the confusion matrix (for distribution models, anyway), depending on the type of information we seek to extract from the model, not all types of errors are created equal. If the purpose of the model is to guide actions to control vectors of human pathogens, a false negative (predicting that the vector is absent at a site where it is actually present) is a potentially more damaging outcome, as it can lead to the vector population (and therefore, potentially, transmission) increasing unchecked.

Boulangeat I, Gravel D, Thuiller W. Accounting for dispersal and biotic interactions to disentangle the drivers of species distributions and their abundances: The role of dispersal and biotic interactions in explaining species distributions and abundances. Ecol Lett. 2012;15: 584-593.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2012.01772.x

Manley W, Tran T, Prusinski M, Brisson D. (2023) Modeling tick populations: An ecological test case for gradient boosted trees. bioRxiv, 2023.03.13.532443, ver. 3 peer-reviewed and recommended by Peer Community in Ecology. https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.03.13.532443