Urbanisation modifies species’ habitats affecting their density, distribution, fitness, and behaviour with knock-on effects for their parasites’ abundance and transmission (Bradley & Altizer 2007). A meta-analysis found that changes in resource provisioning due to anthropogenic change can have both positive and negative effects on parasite infection in wildlife populations, but that feeding on urban waste had an effect of reducing infection, especially for helminths and protozoa (Becker, Streicker & Altizer 2015). Another study found that urbanisation reduced ectoparasite load in birds, but had no effect on endoparasites or avian flu (Reid et al. 2024). These changes may be due to novel diets reducing transmission via predation upon trophic hosts (Becker, Streicker & Altizer 2015) or behavioural, leading to more time available to preen (Reid et al. 2024). Less is known about how urbanisation affects invertebrates (but see Lewthwaite et al., 2024) and their parasites. This is important considering that invertebrates are often intermediate hosts of, and/or vector other parasites.

Recent work has found that snails and slugs can trap nematodes in their shells to prevent infection (Rae 2017). This newly discovered resistance mechanism reveals that the shell serves an immune defence function. It also provides a record of nematode exposure and documents incidences of resistance to infection as the trapped nematode becomes fixed onto the shell surface (Rae 2017). Dahirel and co-authors exploit this to investigate whether snail-nematode interactions change in response to increasing levels of urbanisation (Dahirel et al. 2024).

They explore whether the proportion of Cepaea nemoralis snails with trapped nematodes in their shell changes across an urbanisation gradient. They also explore whether different phenotypic snail traits, notably shell size, colour, band number and fusion explain the likelihood of having trapped nematodes in their shells. An increase in urbanisation was associated with a decrease in the proportion of snails with trapped nematodes in their shells. At the same time larger shells were more likely to have trapped nematodes, but this effect did not change across the urbanisation gradient. 

The authors discuss that reduced nematode encapsulation in urban environments may be due to lower encounter rate due to either fewer nematodes in urban environments, changes in snail behaviour reducing exposure, or alternatively that urban snails were less resistant to nematode infection. 

It will be interesting to investigate how this resistance mechanism is related to other forms of snail immunity and whether high rates of nematode encapsulation are an indicator of high resistance or high exposure. This will enable nematode trapping to be used as a marker to indicate environments and/or snail populations harbouring high levels of parasitism and further exploitation of museum collections to understand host-parasite interactions in the past (Rae 2017).

References

Becker, D.J., Streicker, D.G. & Altizer, S. (2015) Linking anthropogenic resources to wildlife-pathogen dynamics: a review and meta-analysis. Ecol Lett, 18, 483-495. https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.12428

Bradley, C.A. & Altizer, S. (2007) Urbanization and the ecology of wildlife diseases. Trends Ecol Evol, 22, 95-102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2006.11.001

Maxime Dahirel, Hannah Reyné, Katrien De Wolf, Dries Bonte (2024) Urban Cepaea nemoralis snails are less likely to have nematodes trapped within their shells. bioRxiv, ver.4 peer-reviewed and recommended by PCI Ecology https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.03.07.583959

Lewthwaite, J.M.M., Baiotto, T.M., Brown, B.V., Cheung, Y.Y., Baker, A.J., Lehnen, C., McGlynn, T.P., Shirey, V., Gonzalez, L., Hartop, E., Kerr, P.H., Wood, E. & Guzman, L.M. (2024) Drivers of arthropod biodiversity in an urban ecosystem. Sci Rep, 14, 390. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-50675-3

Rae, R. (2017) The gastropod shell has been co-opted to kill parasitic nematodes. Sci Rep, 7, 4745. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-04695-5

Reid, R., Capilla-Lasheras, P., Haddou, Y., Boonekamp, J. & Dominoni, D.M. (2024) The impact of urbanization on health depends on the health metric, life stage and level of urbanization: a global meta-analysis on avian species. Proc Biol Sci, 291, 20240617. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2024.0617

Estimating populations size of widespread, common species in a relatively large and heterogeneous country like France is difficult for several reasons, from having a sample covering well the diverse ecological gradients to accounting for detectability, the fact that absence of a species may represent a false negative, the species being present but not detected. Bird communities have been the focus of a very large number of studies, with some countries like the UK having long traditions of monitoring both common and rare species. Nabias et al. use a large, structured citizen science project to provide new estimates of common bird species, accounting for detectability and using different habitat and climate covariates to extrapolate abundance to non-sampled areas. About 2/3 of the species had estimates higher than what would have been expected using a previous attempt at estimating population size based in part on expert knowledge and projected using estimates of trends to the period covered by the citizen science sampling. Some species showed large differences between the two estimates, which could be in part explained by accounting for detectability.

This paper uses what is called model-based inference (as opposed to design-based inference, that uses the design to make inferences about the whole population; Buckland et al. 2000), both in terms of detectability and habitat suitability. The estimates obtained depend on how well the model components approximate the underlying processes, which in a complex dataset like this one is not easy to assess. But it clearly shows that detectability may have substantial implications for the population size estimates. This is of course not new but has rarely been done at this scale and using a large sample obtained on many species. Interesting further work could focus on testing the robustness of the model-based approach by for example sampling new plots and compare the expected values to the observed values. Such a sampling could be stratified to maximize the discrimination between expected low and high abundances, at least for species where the estimates might be considered as uncertain, or for which estimating population sizes is deemed important.

References

Buckland, S. T., Goudie, I. B. J., & Borchers, D. L. (2000). Wildlife Population Assessment: Past Developments and Future Directions. Biometrics, 56(1), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0006-341X.2000.00001.x

 Nabias, J., Barbaro, L., Fontaine, B., Dupuy, J., Couzi, L., et al. (2024) Reassessment of French breeding bird population sizes using citizen science and accounting for species detectability. HAL, ver. 2 peer-reviewed and recommended by Peer Community in Ecology. https://hal.science/hal-04478371

 Understanding the effects of environmental perturbations on coexistence is a key challenge in ecology, and models have played an important role in structuring our ideas and generating predictions, leading to quantitative hypotheses. In such models, environmental perturbations are often captured by changes in parameter values, such as the intrinsic growth rates of species (1–3). The question then becomes how much one can change these parameters without breaking coexistence and thus losing species (4). 
 
An intuitively appealing approach to address this question is to calculate a model’s feasibility domain (5–7). Loosely defined, it is the fraction of parameter settings leading to the coexistence of all species. Mathematically speaking, it is a high-dimensional triangle, of which one can calculate the size, just as for plain two-dimensional triangles. Parameter settings outside of this triangle break coexistence. Thus, it seems logical that greater feasibility domains would make for more robust ecosystems. However, careful interpretation is key: a greater feasibility domain merely implies that across many attempts at running a model with different random parameter settings, coexistence will be more frequent. It does not necessarily inform us how much one can perturb the parameters of a community with a predefined parameter setting. To get this information, we also need to know the shape of the triangle (7): perturbations more easily knock the parameter setting out of a flat triangle than out of an equilateral triangle. 
 
Desaillais et al. (8) develop a new theory that sheds light on what drives the shape of the feasibility domain. Specifically, they present the probability distribution that tells how close to the edge of the feasibility domain the parameter settings in that domain tend to be. For example, all points in a very flat triangle are close to its edge, while in an equilateral triangle, most points are safely stowed inside. The results show how, in a Lotka-Volterra model, the matrix of species interactions fully defines this distribution, which makes the technique empirically applicable in so far as one can estimate these interactions. The analysis then continues to explore the role of specific species in putative loss of coexistence. Desaillais et al. identify two species-level quantities: the first measures the total influence of the surrounding community on a focal species, while the second is a proxy for how close that focal species is to being lost, should a perturbation occur. While these two quantities are not mathematically independent, their correlation is not perfect, allowing one to categorize species into distinct ecological roles. A dataset of plant communities with different compositions illustrates how to apply this idea and gain some additional insight into the robustness of coexistence. These results pave the way for a number of potentially rewarding applications. How does the robustness of coexistence differ across network types? For which network types do we find back a more diverse set of ecological roles for species, i.e. for which networks are the two quantities least correlated? 

References

1. Baert, J.M., Janssen, C.R., Sabbe, K., and De Laender, F. (2016). Per capita interactions and stress tolerance drive stress-induced changes in biodiversity effects on ecosystem functions. Nat. Commun. 7, 12486. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms12486

2. Pásztor, L., Botta-Dukat, Z., Magyar, G., Czaran, T., and Meszéna, G. (2016). Theory-based ecology: A Darwinian approach 1st ed. (Oxford University Press).

3. Cenci, S., Montero-Castaño, A., and Saavedra, S. (2018). Estimating the effect of the reorganization of interactions on the adaptability of species to changing environments. J. Theor. Biol. 437, 115–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtbi.2017.10.016

4. Spaak, J.W., Baert, J.M., Baird, D.J., Eisenhauer, N., Maltby, L., Pomati, F., Radchuk, V., Rohr, J.R., Van den Brink, P.J., and De Laender, F. (2017). Shifts of community composition and population density substantially affect ecosystem function despite invariant richness. Ecol. Lett. 20, 1315–1324. https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.12828

5. Meszéna, G., Gyllenberg, M., Pásztor, L., and Metz, J.A.J. (2006). Competitive exclusion and limiting similarity: A unified theory. Theor. Popul. Biol. 69, 68–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tpb.2005.07.001

6. Saavedra, S., Rohr, R.P., Bascompte, J., Godoy, O., Kraft, N.J.B., and Levine, J.M. (2017). A structural approach for understanding multispecies coexistence. Ecol. Monogr. 87, 470–486. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecm.1263

7. Grilli, J., Adorisio, M., Suweis, S., Barabás, G., Banavar, J.R., Allesina, S., and Maritan, A. (2017). Feasibility and coexistence of large ecological communities. Nat. Commun. 8. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms14389

8. Desallais M, Loreau M, Arnoldi J.F. (2024) The distribution of distances to the edge of species coexistence. bioRxiv, ver.4 peer-reviewed and recommended by PCI Ecology https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.01.21.575550

Population ecologists are in the business of decrypting the drivers of variation in the abundance of organisms across space and time (Begon et al. 1986). Comprehensive studies of wild vertebrate populations which provide the necessary information on variations in vital rates in relation to environmental conditions to construct informative models of large-scale population dynamics are rare, ostensibly because of the huge effort required to monitor individuals across ecological contexts and over generations. In this current aim, Nater et al. (2024) are leading the way forward by combining distance sampling data collected through a large-scale citizen science (Fraisl et al. 2022) programme in Norway with state-of-the-art modelling approaches to build a comprehensive overview of the population dynamics of willow ptarmigan. Their work enhances our fundamental understanding of this system and provides evidence-based tools to improve its management (Williams et al. 2002). Even better, they are working for the common good, by providing an open-source workflow that should enable ecologists and managers together to predict what will happen to their favourite model organism when the planet throws its next curve ball. In the case of the ptarmigan, for example, it seems that the impact of climate change on their population dynamics will differ across the species’ distributional range, with a slower pace of life (sensu Stearns 1983) at higher latitudes and altitudes. 

On a personal note, I have often mused whether citizen science, with its inherent limits and biases, was just another sticking plaster over the ever-deeper cuts in the research budgets to finance long-term ecological research. Here, Nater et al. are doing well to convince me that we would be foolish to ignore such opportunities, particularly when citizens are engaged, motivated, with an inherent capacity for the necessary discipline to employ common protocols in a standardised fashion. A key challenge for us professional ecologists is to inculcate the next generation of citizens with a sense of their opportunity to contribute to a better understanding of the natural world.

References

Begon, Michael, John L Harper, and Colin R Townsend. 1986. Ecology: individuals, populations and communities. Blackwell Science.

Fraisl, Dilek, Gerid Hager, Baptiste Bedessem, Margaret Gold, Pen-Yuan Hsing, Finn Danielsen, Colleen B Hitchcock, et al. 2022. Citizen Science in Environmental and Ecological Sciences. Nature Reviews Methods Primers 2 (1): 64. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43586-022-00144-4

Chloé R. Nater, Francesco Frassinelli, James A. Martin, Erlend B. Nilsen (2024) Large-scale spatio-temporal variation in vital rates and population dynamics of an alpine bird. EcoEvoRxiv, ver.4 peer-reviewed and recommended by PCI Ecology https://doi.org/10.32942/X2VP6J

Stearns, S.C. 1983. The influence of size and phylogeny of covariation among life-history traits in the mammals. Oikos, 41, 173–187. https://doi.org/10.2307/3544261

Williams, Byron K, James D Nichols, and Michael J Conroy. 2002. Analysis and Management of Animal Populations. Academic Press.

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