Ivimey Cook et al. (2023) provide a concise and useful “How to” review code for researchers in the fields of ecology and evolutionary biology, where the systematic review of code is not yet standard practice during the peer review of articles. Consequently, this article is full of tips for authors on how to make their code easier to review. This handy article applies not only to ecology and evolutionary biology, but to many fields that are learning how to make code more reproducible and shareable. Taking this step toward transparency is key to improving research rigor (Brito et al. 2020) and is a necessary step in helping make research trustable by the public (Rosman et al. 2022).

References

Brito, J. J., Li, J., Moore, J. H., Greene, C. S., Nogoy, N. A., Garmire, L. X., & Mangul, S. (2020). Recommendations to enhance rigor and reproducibility in biomedical research. GigaScience, 9(6), giaa056. https://doi.org/10.1093/gigascience/giaa056

Ivimey-Cook, E. R., Pick, J. L., Bairos-Novak, K., Culina, A., Gould, E., Grainger, M., Marshall, B., Moreau, D., Paquet, M., Royauté, R., Sanchez-Tojar, A., Silva, I., Windecker, S. (2023). Implementing Code Review in the Scientific Workflow: Insights from Ecology and Evolutionary Biology. EcoEvoRxiv, ver 5 peer-reviewed and recommended by Peer Community In Ecology. https://doi.org/10.32942/X2CG64

Rosman, T., Bosnjak, M., Silber, H., Koßmann, J., & Heycke, T. (2022). Open science and public trust in science: Results from two studies. Public Understanding of Science, 31(8), 1046-1062. https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625221100686

Behavioral flexibility, i.e. the “ability to adapt behavior to new circumstances through packaging information and making it available to other cognitive processes” (Logan et al. 2023), appears as one of the crucial elements of responses of animal species to changing environments. Behavioral flexibility can change within the life of individuals, depending on their experience on the degree of variability and predictability of their surrounding environment. But little is known on the cognitive processes involved in these temporal changes in behavioral flexibility within individuals.

This is what Lukas et al. (2024) investigated very thoroughly, using the framework of serial reversal learning experiments on great-tailed grackles to study different aspects of the question. Behavioral flexibility as involved in serial reversal learning experiments was previously modeled as being made of two primary parameters: the rate of updating associations, phi (i.e. how fast individuals learn the associations between a cue and its associated reward or danger); and the sensitivity to the learned associations, lambda (i.e. how strong do individuals make their choices based on the associations they learned). 

Lukas et al. (2024)* used a Bayesian reinforcement model to infer phi and lambda in individuals going through serial reversal learning experiments, to understand which of these two parameters explains most of the variation in grackle performance in serial reversal learning, how correlated they are, how they can change along time depending on an individual’s experience, how variable they can be among individuals, and whether they can predict performance in other contexts. But beforehand, the authors used an individual-based model to assess the ability of the Bayesian reinforcement model to correctly assess phi and lambda in their experimental design. They also used the Bayesian model to infer the range of values of phi and lambda an individual needs to exhibit to reduce errors in the serial reversal learning experiment.

Among other results, this study shows that in a context of rapidly changing but strongly reliable cues, the variation in the success of grackles is more associated with the rate of updating associations (phi) than the sensitivity to learned associations (lambda). Besides, phi increased within individuals along the serial reversal learning experiment, while lambda only slightly decreased. However, it is very interesting to note that different approaches could be adopted by different individuals through the training, leading them eventually to the same final performance: slightly different combinations of changes in lambda and phi lead to different behaviours but compensate each other in the end in the final success rate. 
This study provides exciting insights into the cognitive processes involved in how changes in behavioral flexibility of individuals can happen in this type of serial learning experiments. But it also offers interesting openings to understand the mechanisms by which behavioral flexibility can change in the wild, helping individuals to cope with rapidly changing environments.
 
* Lukas et al. (2024) presents a post-study of the preregistered study Logan et al. (2019) that was peer-reviewed and received an In Principle Recommendation for PCI Ecology (Coulon 2019; the initial preregistration was split into 3 post-studies). A pre-registered study is a study in which context, aims, hypotheses and methodologies have been written down as an empirical paper, peer-reviewed and pre-accepted before research is undertaken. Pre-registrations are intended to reduce publication bias and reporting bias.

References

Coulon, A. (2019) Can context changes improve behavioral flexibility? Towards a better understanding of species adaptability to environmental changes. Peer Community in Ecology, 100019. https://doi.org/10.24072/pci.ecology.100019

Logan, CJ, Lukas D, Bergeron L, Folsom M, McCune, K. (2019).  Is behavioral flexibility related to foraging and social behavior in a rapidly expanding species? In Principle Acceptance by PCI Ecology of the Version on 6 Aug 2019. http://corinalogan.com/Preregistrations/g_flexmanip.html  

Dieter Lukas, Kelsey B. McCune, Aaron P. Blaisdell, Zoe Johnson-Ulrich, Maggie MacPherson, Benjamin M. Seitz, Augustus Sevchik, Corina J. Logan (2024) Bayesian reinforcement learning models reveal how great-tailed grackles improve their behavioral flexibility in serial reversal learning experiments. ecoevoRxiv, ver.4 peer-reviewed and recommended by Peer Community in Ecology https://doi.org/10.32942/osf.io/4ycps

Eyespots—round or oval spots, usually accompanied by one or more concentric rings, that together imitate vertebrate eyes—are found in insects of at least three orders and in some tropical fishes (Stevens 2005). They are particularly frequent in Lepidoptera, where they occur on wings of adults in many species (Monteiro et al. 2006), and in caterpillars of many others (Janzen et al. 2010). The resemblance of eyespots to vertebrate eyes often extends to details, such as fake « pupils » (round or slit-like) and « eye sparkle » (Blut et al. 2012). Larvae of one hawkmoth species even have fake eyes that appear to blink (Hossie et al. 2013). Eyespots have interested evolutionary biologists for well over a century. While they appear to play a role in mate choice in some adult Lepidoptera, their adaptive significance in adult Lepidoptera, as in caterpillars, is mainly as an anti-predator defense (Monteiro 2015). However, there are two competing hypotheses about the mechanism by which eyespots confer defense against predators. The « intimidation » hypothesis postulates that eyespots intimidate potential predators, startling them and reducing the probability of attack. The « deflection » hypothesis holds that eyespots deflect attacks to parts of the body where attack has relatively little effect on the animal’s functioning and survival. In caterpillars, there is little scope for the deflection hypothesis, because attack on any part of a caterpillar’s body is likely to be lethal. Much observational and some experimental evidence supports the intimidation hypothesis in caterpillars (Hossie & Sherratt 2012). In adult Lepidoptera, however, both mechanisms are plausible, and both have found support (Stevens 2005). The most spectacular examples of intimidation are in butterflies in which eyespots located centrally in hindwings and hidden in the natural resting position are suddenly exposed, startling the potential predator (e.g., Vallin et al. 2005). The most spectacular examples of deflection are seen in butterflies in which eyespots near the hindwing margin combined with other traits give the appearance of a false head (e.g., Chotard et al. 2022; Kodandaramaiah 2011). 

Most studies have attempted to test for only one or the other of these mechanisms—usually the one that seems a priori more likely for the butterfly species being studied. But for many species, particularly those that have neither spectacular startle displays nor spectacular false heads, evidence for or against the two hypotheses is contradictory.  

Iserhard et al. (2024) attempted to simultaneously test both hypotheses, using the neotropical nymphalid butterfly Caligo martia. This species has a large ventral hindwing eyespot, exposed in the insect’s natural resting position, while the rest of the ventral hindwing surface is cryptically coloured. In a previous study of this species, De Bona et al. (2015) presented models with intact and disfigured eyespots on a computer monitor to a European bird species, the great tit (Parus major). The results favoured the intimidation hypothesis. Iserhard et al. (2024) devised experiments presenting more natural conditions, using fairly realistic dummy butterflies, with eyespots manipulated or unmanipulated, exposed to a diverse assemblage of insectivorous birds in nature, in a tropical forest. Using color-printed paper facsimiles of wings, with eyespots present, UV-enhanced, or absent, they compared the frequency of beakmarks on modeling clay applied to wing margins (frequent attacks would support the deflection hypothesis) and (in one of two experiments) on dummies with a modeling-clay body (eyespots should lead to reduced frequency of attack, to wings and body, if birds are intimidated). Their experiments also included dummies without eyespots whose wings were either cryptically coloured (as in unmanipulated butterflies) or not. Their results, although complex, indicate support for the deflection hypothesis: dummies with eyespots were mostly attacked on these less vital parts. Dummies lacking eyespots were less frequently attacked, especially when they were camouflaged. Camouflaged dummies without eyespots were in fact the least frequently attacked of all the models. However, when dummies lacking eyespots were attacked, attacks were usually directed to vital body parts. These results show some of the complexity of estimating costs and benefits of protective conspicuous signals vs. camouflage (Stevens et al. 2008).

Two complementary experiments were conducted. The first used facsimiles with « wings » in a natural resting position (folded, ventral surfaces exposed), but without a modeling-clay « body ». In the second experiment, facsimiles had a modeling-clay « body », placed between the two unfolded wings to make it as accessible to birds as the wings. However, these dummies displayed the ventral surfaces of unfolded wings, an unnatural resting position. The study was thus not able to compare bird attacks to the body vs. wings in a natural resting position. One can understand the reason for this methodological choice, but it is a limitation of the study.

The naturalness of the conditions under which these field experiments were conducted is a strong argument for the biological significance of their results. However, the uncontrolled conditions naturally result in many questions being left open. The butterfly dummies were exposed to at least nine insectivorous bird species. Do bird species differ in their behavioral response to eyespots? Do responses depend on the distance at which a bird first detects the butterfly? Do eyespots and camouflage markings present on the same animal both function, but at different distances (Tullberg et al. 2005)? Do bird responses vary depending on the particular light environment in the places and at the times when they encounter the butterfly (Kodandaramaiah 2011)? Answering these questions under natural, uncontrolled conditions will be challenging, requiring onerous methods, (e.g., video recording in multiple locations over time). The study indicates the interest of pursuing these questions.

References

Blut, C., Wilbrandt, J., Fels, D., Girgel, E.I., & Lunau, K. (2012). The ‘sparkle’ in fake eyes–the protective effect of mimic eyespots in Lepidoptera. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata, 143, 231-244. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1570-7458.2012.01260.x

Chotard, A., Ledamoisel, J., Decamps, T., Herrel, A., Chaine, A.S., Llaurens, V., & Debat, V. (2022). Evidence of attack deflection suggests adaptive evolution of wing tails in butterflies. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 289, 20220562. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2022.0562

De Bona, S., Valkonen, J.K., López-Sepulcre, A., & Mappes, J. (2015). Predator mimicry, not conspicuousness, explains the efficacy of butterfly eyespots. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 282, 1806. https://doi.org/10.1098/RSPB.2015.0202

Hossie, T.J., & Sherratt, T.N. (2012). Eyespots interact with body colour to protect caterpillar-like prey from avian predators. Animal Behaviour, 84, 167-173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2012.04.027

Hossie, T.J., Sherratt, T.N., Janzen, D.H., & Hallwachs, W. (2013). An eyespot that “blinks”: an open and shut case of eye mimicry in Eumorpha caterpillars (Lepidoptera: Sphingidae). Journal of Natural History, 47, 2915-2926. https://doi.org/10.1080/00222933.2013.791935

Iserhard, C.A., Malta, S.T., Penz, C.M., Brenda Barbon Fraga; Camila Abel da Costa; Taiane Schwantz; & Kauane Maiara Bordin (2024). The large and central Caligo martia eyespot may reduce fatal attacks by birds : a case study supports the deflection hypothesis in nature. Zenodo, ver. 1 peer-reviewed and recommended by Peer Community in Ecology. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10980357

Janzen, D.H., Hallwachs, W., & Burns, J.M. (2010). A tropical horde of counterfeit predator eyes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 107, 11659-11665. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0912122107

Kodandaramaiah, U. (2011). The evolutionary significance of butterfly eyespots. Behavioral Ecology, 22, 1264-1271. https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/arr123

Monteiro, A. (2015). Origin, development, and evolution of butterfly eyespots. Annual Review of Entomology, 60, 253-271. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-ento-010814-020942

Monteiro, A., Glaser, G., Stockslager, S., Glansdorp, N., & Ramos, D. (2006). Comparative insights into questions of lepidopteran wing pattern homology. BMC Developmental Biology, 6, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-213X-6-52

Stevens, M. (2005). The role of eyespots as anti-predator mechanisms, principally demonstrated in the Lepidoptera. Biological Reviews, 80, 573–588. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1464793105006810

Stevens, M., Stubbins, C.L., & Hardman C.J. (2008). The anti-predator function of ‘eyespots’ on camouflaged and conspicuous prey. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 62, 1787-1793. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-008-0607-3

Tullberg, B.S., Merilaita, S., & Wiklund, C. (2005). Aposematism and crypsis combined as a result of distance dependence: functional versatility of the colour pattern in the swallowtail butterfly larva. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 272, 1315-1321. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2005.3079

Vallin, A., Jakobsson, S., Lind, J., & Wiklund, C. (2005). Prey survival by predator intimidation: an experimental study of peacock butterfly defence against blue tits. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 272, 1203-1207. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2004.3034

Behavioral flexibility is essential for organisms to adapt to an ever-changing environment. However, the mechanisms that lead to behavioral flexibility and understanding what traits makes a species better able to adapt behavior to new environments has been understudied. Logan and colleagues have proposed to use a series of experiments, using great-tailed grackles as a study species, to test four main hypotheses. These hypotheses are centered around exploring the relationship between behavioral flexibility and inhibition in grackles. This current preregistration is a part of a larger integrative research plan examining behavioral flexibility when faced with environmental change. In this part of the project they will examine specifically if individuals that are more flexible are also better at inhibiting: in other words: they will test the assumption that inhibition is required for flexibility.
First, they will test the hypothesis that behavioral flexibility is manipulatable by using a serial reversal learning task. Second, they will test the hypothesis that manipulating behavioral flexibility (improving reversal learning speed through serial reversals using colored tubers) improves flexibility (rule switching) and problem solving in a new context (multi‑access box and serial reversals on a touch screen). Third, they will test the hypothesis that behavioral flexibility within a context is repeatable within individuals, which is important to test if performance is state dependent. Finally, they will test a fourth hypothesis that individuals should converge on an epsilon‑first learning strategy (learn the correct choice after one trial) as they progress through serial reversals. Their innovative approach using three main tasks (delay of gratification, go-no, detour) will allow them to assess different aspects of inhibitory control. They will analyze the results of all three experiments to also assess the utility of these experiments for studying the potential relationship between inhibition and behavioral flexibility.
In their preregistration, Logan and colleagues have proposed to test these hypotheses, each with a set of testable predictions that can be examined with detailed and justified methodologies. They have also provided a comprehensive plan for analyzing the data. All of the reviewers and I agree that this is a very interesting study that has the potential to answer important questions about a critical topic in behavioral ecology: the role of inhibition in the evolution of behavioral flexibility. Given the positive reviews, the comprehensive responses by the PI and her colleagues, and careful revisions, I highly recommend this preregistration.

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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