Navigating the integration of biotic interactions in biogeography

Biotic interactions are widely recognized as the backbone of ecological communities, but how best to study them is a subject of intense debate, especially at macro-ecological scales. While some researchers claim that biotic interactions need to be observed directly, others use proxies and statistical approaches to infer them. Despite this ambiguity, studying and predicting the influence of biotic interactions on biogeographic patterns is a thriving area of research with crucial implications for conservation. Three distinct approaches are currently being explored. The first approach involves empirical observation and measurement of biotic interactions' effects on species demography in laboratory or field settings. While these findings contribute to theory and to understanding species’ demographies, they can be challenging to generalize on a larger scale. The second approach centers on inferring biotic associations from observed co-occurrences in space and time. The goal is to distinguish the environmental and biotic effects on species distributions. The third approach constructs extensive potential interaction networks, known as metanetworks, by leveraging existing knowledge about species ecology and interactions. This approach analyses local realizations of these networks using occurrence data and allows understanding large distributions of multi-taxa assemblages. In this piece, we appraise these three approaches, highlighting their respective strengths and limitations. Instead of seeing them as conflicting, we advocate for their integration to enhance our understanding and expand applications in the emerging field of interaction biogeography. This integration shows promise for ecosystem understanding and management in the Anthropocene era.

[1]  Nyeema C. Harris,et al.  What's going to be on the menu with global environmental changes? , 2023, Global change biology.

[2]  A. Neutel,et al.  Competitive hierarchies in bryozoan assemblages mitigate network instability by keeping short and long feedback loops weak , 2023, Communications biology.

[3]  Aaron C. Greenville,et al.  Predicting predator-prey interactions in terrestrial endotherms using random forest , 2023, bioRxiv.

[4]  W. Thuiller,et al.  A Practical Approach to Constructing a Knowledge Graph for Soil Ecological Research , 2023, bioRxiv.

[5]  J. Thorson,et al.  Do large‐scale associations in birds imply biotic interactions or environmental filtering? , 2022, Journal of Biogeography.

[6]  Richard Field,et al.  Biodiversity: The role of interaction diversity , 2022, Current Biology.

[7]  Laura J. Pollock,et al.  The diversity of biotic interactions complements functional and phylogenetic facets of biodiversity , 2022, Current Biology.

[8]  Laura J. Pollock,et al.  Addressing the Eltonian shortfall with trait-based interaction models. , 2022, Ecology letters.

[9]  Giulio V. Dalla Riva,et al.  Food web reconstruction through phylogenetic transfer of low‐rank network representation , 2021, Methods in Ecology and Evolution.

[10]  Daniel B. Stouffer,et al.  Predictions of biodiversity are improved by integrating trait-based competition with abiotic filtering , 2021, bioRxiv.

[11]  Eric Rostand Onguene,et al.  PICT: A low‐cost, modular, open‐source camera trap system to study plant–insect interactions , 2021, Methods in Ecology and Evolution.

[12]  Daniel B. Stouffer,et al.  Linking functional traits and demography to model species-rich communities , 2021, Nature Communications.

[13]  C. Klausmeier,et al.  From competition to facilitation and mutualism: a general theory of the niche , 2021 .

[14]  Douglas W. Yu,et al.  Accounting for species interactions is necessary for predicting how arctic arthropod communities respond to climate change , 2021, Ecography.

[15]  S. Dray,et al.  Quantifying the overall effect of biotic interactions on species distributions along environmental gradients , 2021, Ecological Modelling.

[16]  L. Maiorano,et al.  The spatial scaling of food web structure across European biogeographical regions , 2021, Ecography.

[17]  N. Yoccoz,et al.  Cascading effects of moth outbreaks on subarctic soil food webs , 2021, Scientific Reports.

[18]  J. Arbel,et al.  On the Interpretations of Joint Modeling in Community Ecology. , 2021, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[19]  M. Mouchet,et al.  Species richness and food-web structure jointly drive community biomass and its temporal stability in fish communities. , 2021, Ecology letters.

[20]  Phillip P. A. Staniczenko,et al.  Network motifs involving both competition and facilitation predict biodiversity in alpine plant communities , 2021, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[21]  Matthew V. Talluto,et al.  Protecting Biodiversity (in All Its Complexity): New Models and Methods. , 2020, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[22]  James S. Clark,et al.  The emergent interactions that govern biodiversity change , 2020, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[23]  Dominique Gravel,et al.  The Internal Structure of Metacommunities , 2020, bioRxiv.

[24]  L. Maiorano,et al.  TETRA‐EU 1.0: A species‐level trophic metaweb of European tetrapods , 2020, Global Ecology and Biogeography.

[25]  Rubén Torre Cerro,et al.  A review of the methods for studying biotic interactions in phenological analyses , 2020, Methods in Ecology and Evolution.

[26]  David W. Armitage,et al.  Coexistence barriers confine the poleward range of a globally distributed plant. , 2020, Ecology letters.

[27]  F. Jiguet,et al.  Unravelling species co‐occurrence in a steppe bird community of Inner Mongolia: Insights for the conservation of the endangered Jankowski’s Bunting , 2020, Diversity and Distributions.

[28]  D. Gravel,et al.  Co-occurrence is not evidence of ecological interactions. , 2020, Ecology letters.

[29]  Philipp H. Boersch-Supan,et al.  Data Integration for Large-Scale Models of Species Distributions. , 2020, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[30]  Laura J. Pollock,et al.  Unveiling the food webs of tetrapods across Europe through the prism of the Eltonian niche , 2019, Journal of Biogeography.

[31]  Laura J. Pollock,et al.  Spatial analyses of multi‐trophic terrestrial vertebrate assemblages in Europe , 2019, Global Ecology and Biogeography.

[32]  David B. Dunson,et al.  A comprehensive evaluation of predictive performance of 33 species distribution models at species and community levels , 2019, Ecological Monographs.

[33]  S. Brandl,et al.  Reconstructing hyperdiverse food webs: Gut content metabarcoding as a tool to disentangle trophic interactions on coral reefs , 2019, Methods in Ecology and Evolution.

[34]  S. Robin,et al.  Tree‐based inference of species interaction networks from abundance data , 2019, Methods in Ecology and Evolution.

[35]  P. Taberlet,et al.  Mapping the imprint of biotic interactions on β-diversity. , 2018, Ecology letters.

[36]  Daniel B. Stouffer,et al.  Accurate predictions of coexistence in natural systems require the inclusion of facilitative interactions and environmental dependency , 2018, Journal of Ecology.

[37]  Carsten F. Dormann,et al.  Biotic interactions in species distribution modelling: 10 questions to guide interpretation and avoid false conclusions , 2018, Global Ecology and Biogeography.

[38]  L. Saravia,et al.  Ecological network assembly: how the regional metaweb influences local food webs , 2018, bioRxiv.

[39]  Oscar Lindberg,et al.  Unravelling changing interspecific interactions across environmental gradients using Markov random fields. , 2018, Ecology.

[40]  Erin M. Schliep,et al.  Asymmetric biotic interactions and abiotic niche differences revealed by a dynamic joint species distribution model. , 2018, Ecology.

[41]  P. Marquet,et al.  Species co-occurrence networks: Can they reveal trophic and non-trophic interactions in ecological communities? , 2018, Ecology.

[42]  Elizabeth L. Sander,et al.  Ecological Network Inference From Long-Term Presence-Absence Data , 2017, Scientific Reports.

[43]  Anna Norberg,et al.  How to make more out of community data? A conceptual framework and its implementation as models and software. , 2017, Ecology letters.

[44]  Phillip P. A. Staniczenko,et al.  Linking macroecology and community ecology: refining predictions of species distributions using biotic interaction networks , 2017, Ecology letters.

[45]  B. Enquist,et al.  Predictability in community dynamics. , 2017, Ecology letters.

[46]  David J. Harris,et al.  Inferring species interactions from co-occurrence data with Markov networks. , 2016, Ecology.

[47]  Patrick A. Zollner,et al.  Improving the forecast for biodiversity under climate change , 2016, Science.

[48]  Leslie Ries,et al.  Joint dynamic species distribution models: a tool for community ordination and spatio‐temporal monitoring , 2016 .

[49]  Michael G Schöner,et al.  Acoustic communication in plant-animal interactions. , 2016, Current opinion in plant biology.

[50]  Wilfried Thuiller,et al.  Cross-scale integration of knowledge for predicting species ranges: a metamodeling framework. , 2016, Global ecology and biogeography : a journal of macroecology.

[51]  J. Lobo,et al.  Seven Shortfalls that Beset Large-Scale Knowledge of Biodiversity , 2015 .

[52]  Francis K. C. Hui,et al.  So Many Variables: Joint Modeling in Community Ecology. , 2015, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[53]  Wilfried Thuiller,et al.  From species distributions to meta-communities. , 2015, Ecology letters.

[54]  Jonathan M. Levine,et al.  Novel competitors shape species’ responses to climate change , 2015, Nature.

[55]  George Sugihara,et al.  Spatial convergent cross mapping to detect causal relationships from short time series. , 2015, Ecology.

[56]  Nathan J B Kraft,et al.  Plant functional traits and the multidimensional nature of species coexistence , 2015, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[57]  Neo D. Martinez,et al.  Effects of trophic similarity on community composition. , 2014, Ecology letters.

[58]  Noelle G. Beckman,et al.  Testing predictions of the Janzen–Connell hypothesis: a meta-analysis of experimental evidence for distance- and density-dependent seed and seedling survival , 2014, The Journal of ecology.

[59]  Laura J. Pollock,et al.  Understanding co‐occurrence by modelling species simultaneously with a Joint Species Distribution Model (JSDM) , 2014 .

[60]  Oscar Godoy,et al.  Phenology effects on invasion success: insights from coupling field experiments to coexistence theory. , 2014, Ecology.

[61]  Lawrence N. Hudson,et al.  A cure for the plague of parameters: constraining models of complex population dynamics with allometries , 2013, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[62]  Dominique Gravel,et al.  Inferring food web structure from predator–prey body size relationships , 2013 .

[63]  S. Lavorel,et al.  Herbivore species identity mediates interspecific competition between plants , 2013 .

[64]  Joseph A. Veech,et al.  A probabilistic model for analysing species co-occurrence , 2013 .

[65]  Carsten F. Dormann,et al.  Towards novel approaches to modelling biotic interactions in multispecies assemblages at large spatial extents , 2012 .

[66]  W. D. Kissling,et al.  The role of biotic interactions in shaping distributions and realised assemblages of species: implications for species distribution modelling , 2012, Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society.

[67]  Peter E. Larsen,et al.  Predicting bacterial community assemblages using an artificial neural network approach. , 2012, Methods in molecular biology.

[68]  Neo D. Martinez,et al.  Mechanistic theory and modelling of complex food-web dynamics in Lake Constance. , 2012, Ecology letters.

[69]  Dominique Gravel,et al.  Trophic theory of island biogeography. , 2011, Ecology letters.

[70]  P. Jordano,et al.  Seed dispersal effectiveness revisited: a conceptual review. , 2010, The New phytologist.

[71]  Gary R. Graves,et al.  Macroecological signals of species interactions in the Danish avifauna , 2010, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[72]  Christopher J. Lortie,et al.  Refining the stress‐gradient hypothesis for competition and facilitation in plant communities , 2009 .

[73]  C. Lortie,et al.  Do biotic interactions shape both sides of the humped-back model of species richness in plant communities? , 2006, Ecology letters.

[74]  Pedro Jordano,et al.  Interaction frequency as a surrogate for the total effect of animal mutualists on plants , 2005 .

[75]  Anje-Margriet Neutel,et al.  Stability in Real Food Webs: Weak Links in Long Loops , 2002, Science.

[76]  L. Stone,et al.  The checkerboard score and species distributions , 1990, Oecologia.

[77]  C. Elton,et al.  The Ten-Year Cycle in Numbers of the Lynx in Canada , 1942 .

[78]  G. F. Gause,et al.  EXPERIMENTAL ANALYSIS OF VITO VOLTERRA'S MATHEMATICAL THEORY OF THE STRUGGLE FOR EXISTENCE. , 1934, Science.

[79]  C. Darwin On the Various Contrivances by Which British and Foreign Orchids Are Fertilized by Insects; and on the Good Effects of Intercrossing , 1862, The British and foreign medico-chirurgical review.

[80]  Michael Wright,et al.  Linking DNA Metabarcoding and Text Mining to Create Network-Based Biomonitoring Tools: A Case Study on Boreal Wetland Macroinvertebrate Communities , 2018 .

[81]  Jennifer A. Dunne,et al.  The Network Structure of Food Webs , 2005 .

[82]  V. Volterra Fluctuations in the Abundance of a Species considered Mathematically , 1926, Nature.