#esa2013 What ESA tells us about where ecology is going

The annual ESA meeting functions in a lot of different ways. There are the obvious: the sharing of ideas and work, the discovery of new ideas, methods or sources of inspiration, networking and job finding, social reunions. But it also functions as a kind of report on the state of the field (and that's not even considering sessions meant to explicitly do this, like the panel “Conversations on the Future of Ecology”). The topics and methods presented say a lot about what ideas and methods are timeless, what is trendy, and over many meetings, where ecology appears to be going. If you go to enough ESAs, you are participating in a longitudinal study of ecology (or at least your subfield).

I went to my first ESA five years ago in Albuquerque, NM. One of the things that struck me was that there were two Community Assembly and Neutral Theory sessions and many talks in those focused on tests of neutral theory, particularly looking at species abundance distributions (SADs) and various iterations of neutral models. There are usually still one to two sessions called Community Assembly and Neutral Theory, but five years later, I don't think I saw a single talk that looked at SADs for evidence of neutral theory (and only one or two talks that were named to explicitly include neutral theory). Instead, the concept first introduced by Hubbell has morphed from "neutral theory" in to something slightly more general, designated "neutral dynamics". This gets used in a lot of ways – most precisely, neutral dynamics are in the spirit of neutral theory, suggesting that population demographic rates are similar, allowing long-term co-occurrence. Sometimes this is cited with reference to equalizing fitness effects in a Chessonian framework, where similarity in fitnesses prevents exclusion despite overlap in species niches. But it also seemed to get used in a default sort of way, as the explanation for why niche differences between species weren't discovered by a study, or else "neutral" was used interchangeably with "stochastic". In any case, the pattern appeared to be a move from highly specialized and precisely defined usage of the term, to broader incorporation of the concept that had suddenly acquired several, often less precisely defined meanings. Instead of being the central focus of a few specialized talks, neutrality was commonly invoked as a minor theme or explanation in many more talks. It is not what I expected, but its continuing usage suggests that neutrality has developed a life of its own.

Other topics similarly seem to have taken on separate lives from their initial application; even over the short time I've been attending ESA. For example, sessions focused on simple applications of ecophylogenetics methods (overdispersion, clustering, using different systems) were relatively common 3-4 years ago, while there wasn't a single contributed session specifically named for phylogenetics this year. There was however many sessions in which phylogenetic work formed the backbone of talks that were about broader questions, including in the "Evolution, Biodiversity, and Ecosystem Function" session and the “Coexistence of Closest Relatives: Synthesis of Ecological and Evolutionary Perspectives”. In the best case scenarios, it seems like even over-hyped approaches may be used with more nuance in time, as people recognize what information these methods can and cannot provide.

Sometimes it did seem that there is a lag between when critiques of certain methods or ideas are expressed and when they actually get incorporated into research. I could be wrong, but it seems this is most common where the research is focused on particular study systems or species, and methodology may be driven more by precedent in the literature and criticisms may take longer to infiltrate (since they aren’t the main focus of the work anyways). And unfortunately, the topics and sessions which appear to be timeless are those on human-related applications (restoration, climate change, invasion). Those pressures are sadly unchanging.

*The great thing to do would be map out changes in keyword frequency over the ESAs that have archived programs. Unfortunately, I don’t have the time/motivation.

#esa2013 Day 5: Survival mode

The final day crowd is usually a little worse for wear. 

(Adapted from phdcomics.com)

#esa2013 Day4: Sisters getting along, and our variable world

The talks I saw today were uniformly good and a number were excellent. At least half of them focused on the many implications for ecology of nature's innate variability. It appears that community ecologists have decided that now is the time to start considering the fact that the environment is not stationary, which was long a default assumption in most theoretical and empirical work. Many of the talks I saw reflected this changing approach. The other half were part of a symposium organized by Sharon Strauss that looked at coexistence among sister species. This topic, combining as it did large-scale evolutionary and biogeographic processes with local competitive interactions made for a broad range of talks and some interesting attempts to reconcile different methodologies and scales.

Our variable world

Many of the past studies on environmental variability and coexistence involve desert winter annuals. Desert winter annuals are limited by available water, and the yearly rains vary greatly in the amount and timing of onset. The hypothesis is that variable germination (via prolonged dormancy in seedbanks) may allow desert winter annuals to reduce the variance in their fitness between years. Alejandra Martinez-Berdeja presented some tidy hypothesis testing using biogeographical gradients: if variable germination is an adaptive response to variable precipitation, she hypothesized that differences in germination variability might be expected where precipitation is more or less predictable. Looking at the three North American deserts, she predicted that variable germination would be greater where rainfall was more variable (bi-seasonal) compared to winter rainfall deserts. She measured the involucres (dispersal structures determining seed release) on collected seeds and found that indeed they were larger in more variable rainfall deserts, producing greater variability in seed release. Further, in winter rainfall deserts, variability in the size of involucres was correlated with variability in rainfall at a site, again suggesting a link between germination variability and rainfall variability. Her next step will hopefully be to expand the tests look at the effect of autocorrelation in rainfall likelihood on bet-hedging, since this should increase selection for bet-hedging type adaptations.

David Vasseur gave a great talk showing how extreme environmental conditions--which we are seeing as part of the changes in mean and variance of the climate--could have particularly detrimental effects on population growth rates. Species have temperature performance curves that reflect the relationship between their fitness and the temperatures they experience. Vasseur showed that in the tropics, species tend to have much narrower temperature ranges over which they can grow and survive than species in the temperature regions, and experts agree that these narrower curves give tropical species less ability to deal with increasing temperatures. But variability is rarely considered in this equation. When variability is present, long-term species fitnesses will be subject to Jensen's inequality (nonlinear averaging) mean that shape of these performance curves is additionally important: that in some situations (concave curves) variability is particularly detrimental, and in some situations (convex curves) it may have a beneficial effect. Vasseur then used models to show that as temperature variation increases, it is increasingly likely that its effect will be negative, and high variation will produce high extinction rates. In fact, on average Vasseur predicted that temperature variation would have negative effects, a concerning conclusion.

Sisters getting along

This organized symposium was advertised as: “Whether closest relatives coexist reflects the often opposing effects of limiting similarity, mode of speciation, reproductive isolation, niche conservatism, competition and facilitation, which may be strongest in sister taxa; using new phylogenies, niche models, and experimental approaches, we explore coexistence in closest relatives in both plants and animals.” It was an interesting and useful idea – sister species (species who are each other’s most recent relative) are an important tool to understand how evolution, biogeography, and ecological interactions determine coexistence. The content of the symposium provided a number of example systems, methods, and approaches that suggested this was an important but still far from cohesive area of work. Mark McPeek spoke about the damselfly work he has done over the last many years, which shows that sister species are sympatric and ecologically identical, co-occurring happily through neutral dynamics. In contrast, Richard Glor talked about his work with Hispaniola anoles, where biogeography is an explanation for radiations, close relatives use different microhabitats and rarely compete locally and traits are divergent among close relatives. Looking at California plant species, Brian Anacker’s talk suggested something in between these extremes. A broad survey showed that 80% of sister pairs were sympatric, range overlap was modest but not uncommon, but asymmetry in range size was high. Ecological differences between sister species were not particularly clear in the handful of traits he examined, not even for reproductive traits. Sister species can and do co-occur, although not in large portions of their ranges. Having established the current state of knowledge, hopefully the symposium will stimulate greater focus on the construct of sister species as a way of understanding coexistence at multiple scales.

Finally, not being willing to miss another talk with the word “derby” in the title, I attended Daniel Atwater’s talk, “Is competition among plants like a boxing match or a demolition derby? Why competitor suppression may not matter in plant communities”. Atwater argued that there were two ways to win at plant competition – be good at suppressing your competitors, or be good at tolerating them. When in competition with a single individual, being a strong suppressor should be favoured, but in competition with multiple species, tolerance may be a better strategy. That’s because resources spent on suppressing one competitor may also benefit any other species involved in the competition. In such cases, tolerance of your competitors may provide the greatest benefit. (Apparently this scenario is like a successful (but frowned upon) strategy (sandbagging) in a demolition derby). Atwater used experimental data from blue bunch grass grown in competition with spotted knapweed to parameterize a model in which he found the optimum strategy in single versus multi-species competitions. The model agreed with his hypothesis that tolerating competitors is favoured when multiple species are competing. Although I am not clear on whether competitive strategies are easily classified as tolerant vs suppressing it was an interesting talk, and left me thinking about new questions.

ESA 2013 Day 3: Bolkerisms

All the best quotes that I caught today were undeniably from Ben Bolker, who also gave an interesting talk.

"The hallmark of great theoretical ecology is that it is obvious in hindsight. When you explain it to someone, they say well, of course."

In relation to a philosophical issue: "That's a beer question, not a coffee question".

To explain the reason he and his coauthors chose to build a model to explore the question, Bolker showed a Dilbert cartoon illustrating the truism "When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail".

Only one full day left to go, and it looks like it will be a good one!