As biodiversity has become a major global concern for a variety of stakeholders, and society in general, assessments of biodiversity trends at all spatial scales have flourished in the past decades. To assess trends, one needs data, and the more precise the data, the more precise the trend. Or, if precision is not perfect, uncertainty in the data must be acknowledged and accounted for. Such considerations have already been raised in ecology, most notably regarding the value of species distribution data to model the current and future distribution of species (Rocchini et al., 2011, Duputié et al., 2014, Tessarolo et al., 2021), leading to serious doubts regarding the value of public databases (Maldonado et al., 2015). And more recently similar issues have been raised regarding databases of species traits (Augustine et al., 2024), emphasizing the importance of good data practice and traceability.

Science is by nature a self-correcting human process, with many steps of the scientific activity prone to errors and misinterpretations. Collation of ecological data, sadly, is proof of this. Spurred by the astonishing results of Hallmann et al. (2017) regarding the decline of insect biomass, and to more precisely answer the question of biodiversity trends in insects and settle an ongoing debate (Cardinale et al., 2018), van Klink et al. (2020, 2021) established the InsectChange database. Several perceptive comments have already been made regarding the possible issues in the methods and interpretations of this study (Desquilbet et al., 2020, Jähnig et al., 2021, Duchenne et al., 2022). However, the biggest issue might have been finally unearthed by Gaume & Desquilbet (2024): with poorly curated data, the InsectChange database is unlikely to support most of the initial claims regarding insect biodiversity trends.

The compilation of errors and inconsistencies present in InsectChange and evinced by Gaume & Desquilbet (2024) is stunning to say the least, with a mix of field and experimental data combined without regard for experimental manipulation of environmental factors, non-standardised transformations of abundances, the use of non-insect taxa to compute insect trends, and inadequate geographical localizations of samplings. I strongly advise all colleagues interested in the study of biodiversity from global databases to consider the points raised by the authors, as it is quite likely that other databases might suffer from the same ailments as well. Reading this paper is also educating and humbling in its own way, since the publication of the original papers based on InsectChange seems to have proceeded without red flags from reviewers or editors. The need for publishing fast results that will make the next buzz, thus obeying the natural selection of bad science (Smaldino and McElreath, 2016), might be the systemic culprit. However, this might also be the opportunity ecology needs to consider the reviewing and curation of data as a crucial step of science quality assessment. To make final assessments, let us proceed with less haste.

References

Augustine, S. P., Bailey-Marren, I., Charton, K. T., Kiel, N. G. & Peyton, M. S. (2024) Improper data practices erode the quality of global ecological databases and impede the progress of ecological research. Global Change Biology, 30, e17116. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.17116

Cardinale, B. J., Gonzalez, A., Allington, G. R. H. & Loreau, M. (2018) Is local biodiversity declining or not? A summary of the debate over analysis of species richness time trends. Biological Conservation, 219, 175-183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2017.12.021

Desquilbet, M., Gaume, L., Grippa, M., Céréghino, R., Humbert, J.-F., Bonmatin, J.-M., Cornillon, P.-A., Maes, D., Van Dyck, H. & Goulson, D. (2020) Comment on “Meta-analysis reveals declines in terrestrial but increases in freshwater insect abundances”. Science, 370, eabd8947. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abd8947

Duchenne, F., Porcher, E., Mihoub, J.-B., Loïs, G. & Fontaine, C. (2022) Controversy over the decline of arthropods: a matter of temporal baseline? Peer Community Journal, 2. https://doi.org/10.24072/pcjournal.131

Duputié, A., Zimmermann, N. E. & Chuine, I. (2014) Where are the wild things? Why we need better data on species distribution. Global Ecology and Biogeography, 23, 457-467. https://doi.org/10.1111/geb.12118

Gaume, L. & Desquilbet, M. (2024) InsectChange: Comment. biorXiv, ver.4 peer-reviewed and recommended by PCI Ecology https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.06.17.545310

Hallmann, C. A., Sorg, M., Jongejans, E., Siepel, H., Hofland, N., Schwan, H., Stenmans, W., Müller, A., Sumser, H., Hörren, T., Goulson, D. & de Kroon, H. (2017) More than 75 percent decline over 27 years in total flying insect biomass in protected areas. PLOS ONE, 12, e0185809. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0185809

Jähnig, S. C., Baranov, V., Altermatt, F., Cranston, P., Friedrichs-Manthey, M., Geist, J., He, F., Heino, J., Hering, D., Hölker, F., Jourdan, J., Kalinkat, G., Kiesel, J., Leese, F., Maasri, A., Monaghan, M. T., Schäfer, R. B., Tockner, K., Tonkin, J. D. & Domisch, S. (2021) Revisiting global trends in freshwater insect biodiversity. WIREs Water, 8, e1506. https://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1506

Maldonado, C., Molina, C. I., Zizka, A., Persson, C., Taylor, C. M., Albán, J., Chilquillo, E., Rønsted, N. & Antonelli, A. (2015) Estimating species diversity and distribution in the era of Big Data: to what extent can we trust public databases? Global Ecology and Biogeography, 24, 973-984. https://doi.org/10.1111/geb.12326

Rocchini, D., Hortal, J., Lengyel, S., Lobo, J. M., Jiménez-Valverde, A., Ricotta, C., Bacaro, G. & Chiarucci, A. (2011) Accounting for uncertainty when mapping species distributions: The need for maps of ignorance. Progress in Physical Geography, 35, 211-226. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309133311399491

Smaldino, P. E. & McElreath, R. (2016) The natural selection of bad science. Royal Society Open Science, 3. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.160384

Tessarolo, G., Ladle, R. J., Lobo, J. M., Rangel, T. F. & Hortal, J. (2021) Using maps of biogeographical ignorance to reveal the uncertainty in distributional data hidden in species distribution models. Ecography, 44, 1743-1755. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecog.05793

van Klink, R., Bowler, D. E., Comay, O., Driessen, M. M., Ernest, S. K. M., Gentile, A., Gilbert, F., Gongalsky, K. B., Owen, J., Pe'er, G., Pe'er, I., Resh, V. H., Rochlin, I., Schuch, S., Swengel, A. B., Swengel, S. R., Valone, T. J., Vermeulen, R., Wepprich, T., Wiedmann, J. L. & Chase, J. M. (2021) InsectChange: a global database of temporal changes in insect and arachnid assemblages. Ecology, 102, e03354. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecy.3354

van Klink, R., Bowler, D. E., Gongalsky, K. B., Swengel, A. B., Gentile, A. & Chase, J. M. (2020) Meta-analysis reveals declines in terrestrial but increases in freshwater insect abundances. Science, 368, 417-420. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aax9931

A predator can strongly influence the demography of its prey, which can have profound carryover effects on the trophic network; so-called density-mediated indirect interactions (DMII; Werner and Peacor 2003; Schmitz et al. 2004; Trussell et al. 2006). Furthermore, a novel predator can alter the phenotypes of its prey for traits that will change prey foraging efficiency. These trait-mediated indirect interactions may in turn have cascading effects on the demography and features of the basal resources consumed by the intermediate consumer (TMIII; Werner and Peacor 2003; Schmitz et al. 2004; Trussell et al. 2006), but very few studies have looked for these effects (Trusell et al. 2006). The study “Trophic cascade driven by behavioural fine-tuning as naïve prey rapidly adjust to a novel predator”, by Jolly et al. (2020) is therefore a much-needed addition to knowledge in this field. The authors have profited from a rare introduction of Northern quolls (Dasyurus hallucatus) on an Australian island, to examine both the density-mediated and trait-mediated indirect interactions with grassland melomys (Melomys burtoni) and the vegetation of their woodland habitat.
Jolly et al. (2020) compared melomys populations in four quoll-invaded and three quoll-free sites on the same island. Using capture-mark-recapture methods, they found a lower survival and decreased population size in quoll-invaded sites compared to quoll-free sites. Although they acknowledge that this decline could be attributable to either the direct effects of the predator or to a wildfire that occurred early in the experiment in the quoll-invaded sites, the authors argue that the wildfire alone cannot explain all of their results.
Beyond demographic effects, Jolly et al. (2020) also examined risk taking, foraging behaviour, and predator avoidance in melomys. Quoll presence was first associated with a strong decrease in risk taking in melomys, but the difference disappeared over the three years of study, indicating a possible adjustment by the prey. In quoll-invaded sites, though, melomys continued to be more neophobic than in the quoll-free sites throughout the study. Furthermore, in a seed (i.e. wheat) removal experiment, Jolly et al. (2020) measured how melomys harvested seeds in the presence or absence of predator scents. In both quoll-invaded and quoll-free sites, melomys density increased seed harvest efficiency. Melomys also removed less seeds in quoll-invaded sites than in quoll-free sites, supporting both the DMII and TMII hypotheses. However, in the quoll-invaded sites only, melomys foraged less on predator-scented seed patches than on unscented ones, trading foraging efficiency for an increased safety against predators, and this effect increased across the years. This last result indicates that predators can indirectly influence seed consumption through the trade-off between foraging and predator avoidance, strongly supporting the TMII hypothesis.
Ideally, the authors would have run a nice before-after, impact-control design, but nature does not always allow for ideal experimental designs. Regardless, the results of such an “experiment in the wild” predation study are still valuable, as they are very rare (Trussell et al. 2006), and they provide crucial information on the direct and indirect interactions along a trophic cascade. Furthermore, the authors have effectively addressed any concerns about potential confounding factors, and thus have a convincing argument that their results represent predator-driven demographic and behavioural changes.
One important question remains from an evolutionary ecology standpoint: do the responses of melomys to the presence of quolls represent phenotypically plastic changes or rapid evolutionary changes caused by novel selection pressures? Classically, TMII are assumed to be mostly caused by phenotypic plasticity (Werner and Peacor 2003), and this might be the case when the presence of the predator is historical. Phenotypic plasticity allows quick and reversible adjustments of the prey population to changes in the predator density. When the predator population declines, such rapid phenotypic changes can be reversed, reducing the cost associated with anti-predator behaviour (e.g., lower foraging efficiency) in the absence of predators. In the case of a novel predator, however, short-term evolutionary responses by the prey may play role in the TMII, as they would allow a phenotypic shift in prey’s traits along the trade-off between foraging efficiency and anti-predator response that will probably more advantageous over the longer term, if the predator does not disappear. The authors state that they could not rule out one or the other of these hypotheses. However, future work estimating the relative importance of phenotypic plasticity and evolutionary changes in the quoll-melomys system would be valuable. Phenotypic selection analysis, for example, by estimating the link between survival and the traits measured, might help test for a fitness advantage to altered behaviour in the presence of a predator. Common garden experiments, comparing the quoll-invaded and the quoll-free melomys populations, might also provide information on any potential evolutionary changes caused by predation. More work could also analyse the potential effects on the seed populations. Not only might the reduction in seed predation have consequences on the landscape in the future, as the authors mention, but it may also mean that the seeds themselves could be subject to novel selection pressures, which may affect their phenology, physiology or life history. Off course, the authors will have to switch from wheat to a more natural situation, and evaluate the effects of changes in the melomys population on the feature of the local vegetation and the ecosystem.
Finally, the authors have not yet found that the observed changes in the traits have translated into a demographic rebound for melomys. Here again, I can see an interesting potential for further studies. Should we really expect an evolutionary rescue (Bell and Gonzalez 2009) in this system? Alternatively, should the changes in behaviour be accompanied by permanent changes in life history, such as a slower pace-of-life (Réale et al. 2010) that could possibly lead to lower melomys density?
This paper provides nice in natura evidence for density- and trait-mediated indirect interactions hypotheses. I hope it will be the first of a long series of work on this interesting quoll-melomys system, and that the authors will be able to provide more information on the eco-evolutionary consequences of a novel predator on a trophic network.

References

-Bell G, Gonzalez A (2009) Evolutionary rescue can prevent extinction following environmental change. Ecology letters, 12(9), 942-948. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2009.01350.x
-Jolly CJ, Smart AS, Moreen J, Webb JK, Gillespie GR, Phillips BL (2020) Trophic cascade driven by behavioural fine-tuning as naïve prey rapidly adjust to a novel predator. bioRxiv, 856997, ver. 6 peer-reviewed and recommended by PCI Ecology. https://doi.org/ 10.1101/856997
-Matassa C, Ewanchuk P, Trussell G (2018) Cascading effects of a top predator on intraspecific competition at intermediate and basal trophic levels. Functional Ecology, 32(9), 2241-2252. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2435.13131
-Réale D, Garant D, Humphries MM, Bergeron P, Careau V, Montiglio PO (2010) Personality and the emergence of the pace-of-life syndrome concept at the population level. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 365(1560), 4051-4063. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2010.0208
-Schmitz O, Krivan V, Ovadia O (2004) Trophic cascades: the primacy of trait‐mediated indirect interactions. Ecology Letters 7(2), 153-163. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2003.00560.x
-Trussell G, Ewanchuk P, Matassa C (2006). Habitat effects on the relative importance of trait‐ and density‐mediated indirect interactions. Ecology Letters, 9(11), 1245-1252. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2006.00981.x
-Werner EE, Peacor SD (2003) A review of trait‐mediated indirect interactions in ecological communities. Ecology, 84(5), 1083-1100. https://doi.org/10.1890/0012-9658(2003)084[1083:AROTII]2.0.CO;2

The constraints associated with the mass balance of chemical elements (i.e. stoichiometric constraints) are critical to our understanding of ecological interactions, as outlined by the ecological stoichiometry theory [1]. Species in ecosystems differ in their elemental composition as well as in their level of elemental homeostasis [2], which can determine the outcome of interactions such as herbivory or decomposition on species coexistence and ecosystem functioning [3, 4].
Despite their importance, stoichiometric constraints are still often ignored in theoretical studies exploring the consequences of environmental perturbations on food web stability. Meanwhile, drivers of global change strongly alter biochemical cycles and the balance of chemical elements in ecosystems [5]. An important challenge is thus to understand how stoichiometric constraints affect food web responses to global changes.
The study of Sentis et al. [6] makes a step in that direction. This article investigates how stoichiometric constraints affect the response of consumer-resource dynamics to increasing temperature and nutrient inputs. It shows that the stoichiometric flexibility of the resource, coupled with lower consumer assimilation efficiency when stoichiometric unbalance between the resource and the consumer is higher, dampens the destabilizing effects of nutrient enrichment on species dynamics but reduces consumer persistence at extreme temperatures. Interestingly, these effects of stoichiometric constraints arise not only from changes in species assimilation efficiencies and carrying capacities but also from stoichiometric negative feedback loops on resource and consumer populations.
The results of this study are a call to further include stoichiometric constraints into food web models to better understand and predict the consequences of global changes on ecological communities. Many perspectives exist on that issue. For instance, it would be interesting to assess the effects of other stoichiometric mechanisms (e.g. changes in the element limiting growth [3]) on food web stability and its response to nutrient enrichment, as well as the effects of other global change drivers associated with altered biochemical cycles (e.g. carbon dioxide increase).

References

[1] Sterner, R. W. and Elser, J. J. (2017). Ecological Stoichiometry, The Biology of Elements from Molecules to the Biosphere. doi: 10.1515/9781400885695
[2] Elser, J. J., Sterner, R. W., Gorokhova, E., Fagan, W. F., Markow, T. A., Cotner, J. B., Harrison, J.F., Hobbie, S.E., Odell, G.M., Weider, L. W. (2000). Biological stoichiometry from genes to ecosystems. Ecology Letters, 3(6), 540–550. doi: 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2000.00185.x
[3] Daufresne, T., and Loreau, M. (2001). Plant–herbivore interactions and ecological stoichiometry: when do herbivores determine plant nutrient limitation? Ecology Letters, 4(3), 196–206. doi: 10.1046/j.1461-0248.2001.00210.x
[4] Zou, K., Thébault, E., Lacroix, G., and Barot, S. (2016). Interactions between the green and brown food web determine ecosystem functioning. Functional Ecology, 30(8), 1454–1465. doi: 10.1111/1365-2435.12626
[5] Peñuelas, J., Poulter, B., Sardans, J., Ciais, P., van der Velde, M., Bopp, L., Boucher, O., Godderis, Y., Hinsinger, P., Llusia, J., Nardin, E., Vicca, S., Obersteiner, M., Janssens, I. A. (2013). Human-induced nitrogen–phosphorus imbalances alter natural and managed ecosystems across the globe. Nature Communications, 4(1), 1–10. doi: 10.1038/ncomms3934
[6] Sentis, A., Haegeman, B. & Montoya, J.M. (2020). Stoichiometric constraints modulate the effects of temperature and nutrients on biomass distribution and community stability. bioRxiv, 589895, ver. 7 peer-reviewed and recommended by PCI Ecology. doi: 10.1101/589895

Accurately estimating survival rate and identifying the drivers of its variation is essential for our understanding of population dynamics and life history strategies (Sæther and Bakke 2000), as well as for population management and conservation (Francis et al. 1998, Doherty et al. 2014). Many studies estimate survival from capture–recapture data using the Cormack–Jolly–Seber (CJS) model (Lebreton et al. 1992). However, survival estimates are confounded with permanent emigration from the study area, which can be particularly problematic for mobile species. This is problematic, not only because CJS models under estimate true survival in populations where permanent emigration occurs (i.e. they estimate “apparent” survival), but also because some factors of interest may affect both survival and emigration (e.g., habitat quality, Paquet et al. 2020), leaving the interpretation of results challenging, for example in terms of management decisions.

Several methods have been developed to account for permanent emigration when estimating survival, for example by jointly analyzing CMR data with data on individuals’ locations at each capture/resighting site (to estimate their dispersal distances; Schaub and Royle 2013, Badia Boher et al. 2023), with telemetry data (Powel et al. 2000), mark recovery data (Burnham 1993, Fay et al. 2019), or with live-resight data (Barker 1997).

The Barker joint live-recapture/live-resight (JLRLR) model can estimate survival when resight data are continuous over a long interval and from a larger area than the capture recapture data. This model becomes particularly promising with the growing collection of data from citizen science, or remote detection tools (Dzul et al. 2023). However, as pointed out by Dzul et al., this model assumes that resight probability is homogeneous across the area where individuals can move, and this assumption is likely violated for example because of non-random movements or because of non-random location of resighting sites.

In their manuscript, Dzul et al. performed a thorough simulation study to evaluate the accuracy of survival estimates from JLRLR models under various study designs regarding the location of resight sites (global, random, fixed including the capture site, and fixed excluding the capture site). They simulated data with varying survival and movement values, varying recapture and resight probabilities, and varying sample sizes. Finally, they also developed and fitted a multi state version of the JLRLR model. They show that JLRLR models performed better than CJS models. Survival estimates were still often biased (either positively or negatively) but they were less biased when sesight sites were randomly located (rather than at fixed locations), when recapture sites were included in the resighting design, and when using the multi state JLRLR model they developed.

This study highlights (multistate) JLRLR models as an alternative to CJS models one should consider when auxiliary resight data can be collected. Moreover, it shows the importance of evaluating not only model performance, but also the efficiency of alternative sampling designs before choosing one for our studies. Hopefully, this study will help the authors and other researchers making a more informed and efficient choice of model and design to estimate survival in their study populations.

References

Jaume A. Badia-Boher, Joan Real, Joan Lluís Riera, Frederic Bartumeus, Francesc Parés, Josep Maria Bas, and Antonio Hernández-Matías. Joint estimation of survival and dispersal effectively corrects the permanent emigration bias in mark-recapture analyses. (2023) Scientific reports 13, no. 1: 6970. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-32866-0 

Richard J Barker (1997) Joint modeling of live-recapture, tag-resight, and tag-recovery data. Biometrics: 666-677. https://doi.org/10.2307/2533966 

Kenneth P. Burnham (1993) Marked Individuals in the Study of Bird Populations (ed. J.D. Lebreton), pp. 199–213. Birkhäuser, Basel

Kevin E. Doherty, David E. Naugle, Jason D. Tack, Brett L. Walker, Jon M. Graham, Jeffrey L. Beck (2014) Linking conservation actions to demography: grass height explains variation in greater sage‐grouse nest survival. Wildlife biology 20, no. 6 : 320-325. https://doi.org/10.2981/wlb.00004

Maria C. Dzul, Charles B. Yackulic, William L. Kendall (2023) The importance of sampling design for unbiased estimation of survival using joint live-recapture and live resight models. arXiv, ver.3 peer-reviewed and recommended by PCI Ecology https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2312.13414

Rémi Fay, Stephanie Michler, Jacques Laesser, and Michael Schaub (2019) Integrated population model reveals that kestrels breeding in nest boxes operate as a source population. Ecography 42, no. 12: 2122-2131. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecog.04559

Charles M. Francis, John R. Sauer, Jerome R. Serie (1998) Effect of restrictive harvest regulations on survival and recovery rates of American black ducks. The Journal of Wildlife Management : 1544-1557. https://doi.org/10.2307/3802021

Jean-Dominique Lebreton, Kenneth P. Burnham, Jean Clobert, David R. Anderson (1992) Modeling survival and testing biological hypotheses using marked animals: a unified approach with case studies. Ecological monographs 62.1: 67-118. https://doi.org/10.2307/2937171

Matthieu Paquet, Debora Arlt, Jonas Knape, Matthew Low, Pär Forslund, and Tomas Pärt (2020) Why we should care about movements: Using spatially explicit integrated population models to assess habitat source–sink dynamics. Journal of Animal Ecology 89, no. 12: 2922-2933. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2656.13357

Larkin A. Powell, Michael J. Conroy, James E. Hines, James D. Nichols, and David G. Krementz. Simultaneous use of mark-recapture and radiotelemetry to estimate survival, movement, and capture rates. (2000) The Journal of Wildlife Management : 302-313. https://doi.org/10.2307/3803003

Bernt-Erik Sæther, Øyvind Bakke (2000) Avian life history variation and contribution of demographic traits to the population growth rate. Ecology 81.3 : 642-653. https://doi.org/10.1890/0012-9658(2000)081[0642:ALHVAC]2.0.CO;2

Michael Schaub, J. Andrew Royle. Estimating true instead of apparent survival using spatial Cormack–Jolly–Seber models (2014) Methods in Ecology and Evolution 5, no. 12: 1316-1326. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12134

Mutualistic interactions are the weird uncles of population and community ecology. They are everywhere, from the microbes aiding digestion in animals’ guts to animal-pollination services in ecosystems; They increase productivity through facilitation; They fascinate us when small birds pick the teeth of a big-mouthed crocodile. Yet, mutualistic interactions are far less studied and understood than competition or predation. Possibly because we are naively convinced that there is no mystery here: isn’t it obvious that mutualistic interactions necessarily facilitate species coexistence? Since mutualistic species benefit from one another, if one species evolves, the other should just follow, isn’t that so?

It is not as simple as that, for several reasons. First, because simple mutualistic Lotka-Volterra models showed that most of the time mutualistic systems should drift to infinity and be unstable (e.g. Goh 1979). This is not what happens in natural populations, so something is missing in simple models. At a larger scale, that of communities, this is even worse, since we are still far from understanding the link between the topology of mutualistic networks and the stability of a community. Second, interactions are context-dependent: mutualistic species exchange resources, and thus from the point of view of one species the interaction is either beneficial or not, depending on the net gain of energy (e.g. Holland and DeAngelis 2010). In other words, considering interactions as mutualistic per se is too caricatural. Third, since evolution is blind, the evolutionary response of a species to an environmental change can have any effect on its mutualistic partner, and not necessarily a neutral or positive effect. This latter reason is particularly highlighted by the paper by A. Weinbach et al. (2021).

Weinbach et al. considered a simple two-species mutualistic Lotka-Volterra model and analyzed the evolutionary dynamics of a trait controlling for the rate of interaction between the two species by using the classical Adaptive Dynamics framework. They showed that, depending on the form of the trade-off between this interaction trait and its effect on the intrinsic growth rate, several situations can occur at evolutionary equilibrium: species can stably coexist and maintain their interaction, or the interaction traits can evolve to zero where species can coexist without any interactions.

Weinbach et al. then investigated the fate of the two-species system if a partner species is strongly affected by environmental change, for instance, a large decrease of its growth rate. Because of the supposed trade-off between the interaction trait and the growth rate, the interaction trait in the focal species tends to decrease as an evolutionary response to the decline of the partner species. If environmental change is too large, the interaction trait can evolve to zero and can lead the partner species to extinction. An “evolutionary murder”.

Even though Weinbach et al. interpreted the results of their model through the lens of plant-pollinators systems, their model is not specific to this case. On the contrary, it is very general, which has advantages and caveats. By its generality, the model is informative because it is a proof of concept that the evolution of mutualistic interactions can have unexpected effects on any category of mutualistic systems. Yet, since the model lacks many specificities of plant-pollinator interactions, it is hard to evaluate how their result would apply to plant-pollinators communities.

I wanted to recommend this paper as a reminder that it is certainly worth studying the evolution of mutualistic interactions, because i) some unexpected phenomenons can occur, ii) we are certainly too naive about the evolution and ecology of mutualistic interactions, and iii) one can wonder to what extent we will be able to explain the stability of mutualistic communities without accounting for the co-evolutionary dynamics of mutualistic species.

References

Goh BS (1979) Stability in Models of Mutualism. The American Naturalist, 113, 261–275. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2460204.

Holland JN, DeAngelis DL (2010) A consumer–resource approach to the density-dependent population dynamics of mutualism. Ecology, 91, 1286–1295. https://doi.org/10.1890/09-1163.1

Weinbach A, Loeuille N, Rohr RP (2021) Eco-evolutionary dynamics further weakens mutualistic interaction and coexistence under population decline. bioRxiv, 570580, ver. 5 peer-reviewed and recommended by Peer Community in Ecology. https://doi.org/10.1101/570580