Adam T. Clark, Lauren G. Shoemaker, Jean-François Arnoldi, György Barabás, Rachel Germain, Oscar Godoy, Lauren Hallett, Canan Karakoç, Serguei Saavedra, Sebastian J. Schreiber
Coexistence is simultaneously one of the most fundamental concepts of ecology, and one of the most difficult to define. A particular challenge is that, despite a well-developed body of research, several different schools of thought have developed over the past century, leading to multiple independent, and largely isolated, branches of literature with distinct methodologies. Here, we provide a broad overview of the most common concepts and metrics currently used to detect and characterise ecological coexistence. We first introduce four classes of behaviour, which jointly describe the ways in which community dynamics can unfold: (i) the existence of a feasible steady state (or invariant set), i.e. where all coexisting species retain positive abundances in the long-term in the absence of interference by external forces; (ii) the existence of a local attractor that draws the community towards a feasible steady state from within a restricted set of starting conditions; (iii) the existence of a global attractor that draws the community towards feasible steady states from any non-zero starting condition; and (o) a null transient state, where species abundances vary over time irrespective of steady states and attractors. Next, we explain how these classes of behaviour relate to commonly used metrics for identifying and characterising coexistence, including analyses of parameter sensitivity, asymptotic return rates, invasion growth rates, and time to extinction. We then discuss the scope and limitations of each of these behavioural classes and corresponding metrics, with a particular focus on applications in empirical systems. Finally, we provide a potential workflow for matching empirical questions to theoretical tools, and present a brief prospectus looking forward to opportunities for advancing and integrating research on coexistence.
{"title":"A practical guide to characterising ecological coexistence","authors":"Adam T. Clark, Lauren G. Shoemaker, Jean-François Arnoldi, György Barabás, Rachel Germain, Oscar Godoy, Lauren Hallett, Canan Karakoç, Serguei Saavedra, Sebastian J. Schreiber","doi":"10.1111/brv.70079","DOIUrl":"10.1111/brv.70079","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Coexistence is simultaneously one of the most fundamental concepts of ecology, and one of the most difficult to define. A particular challenge is that, despite a well-developed body of research, several different schools of thought have developed over the past century, leading to multiple independent, and largely isolated, branches of literature with distinct methodologies. Here, we provide a broad overview of the most common concepts and metrics currently used to detect and characterise ecological coexistence. We first introduce four classes of behaviour, which jointly describe the ways in which community dynamics can unfold: (<i>i</i>) the existence of a feasible steady state (or invariant set), i.e. where all coexisting species retain positive abundances in the long-term in the absence of interference by external forces; (<i>ii</i>) the existence of a local attractor that draws the community towards a feasible steady state from within a restricted set of starting conditions; (<i>iii</i>) the existence of a global attractor that draws the community towards feasible steady states from any non-zero starting condition; and (<i>o</i>) a null transient state, where species abundances vary over time irrespective of steady states and attractors. Next, we explain how these classes of behaviour relate to commonly used metrics for identifying and characterising coexistence, including analyses of parameter sensitivity, asymptotic return rates, invasion growth rates, and time to extinction. We then discuss the scope and limitations of each of these behavioural classes and corresponding metrics, with a particular focus on applications in empirical systems. Finally, we provide a potential workflow for matching empirical questions to theoretical tools, and present a brief prospectus looking forward to opportunities for advancing and integrating research on coexistence.</p>","PeriodicalId":133,"journal":{"name":"Biological Reviews","volume":"101 1","pages":"195-220"},"PeriodicalIF":11.7,"publicationDate":"2025-10-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/brv.70079","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145273228","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Kit S. Prendergast, Joshua W. Campbell, Philip W. Bateman
Fire is a major form of environmental disturbance, and in recent years, due to anthropogenic climate change and anthropogenic land management, we are seeing increases in the frequency and intensity of fires. With bees being an important, diverse group of pollinators that is facing declines globally, understanding how they respond to fires is critical. Here, we conduct a literature review to understand what is known from the literature on how bees respond to fire, and how such responses to fire can vary depending on species life-history traits and aspects of fire regimes. Our literature review yielded 148 studies from 140 publications. Bee responses to fire were extremely variable, with no consistent pattern in abundance or species richness increasing, decreasing, or showing no significant change under fire. Different families and taxa responded differently and to different aspects of fire regimes. Generally, regarding taxonomic vulnerability, andrenids and colletids were vulnerable to fire, whereas halictids responded favourably to fire. In terms of guild, ground-nesting generalists responded favourably to fire, whereas cavity-nesting specialists were most vulnerable to fire. We revealed major gaps in research in the Southern Hemisphere and in tropical landscapes dominated by flowering trees, with most studies conducted in pine-forested, fire-prone landscapes in the Northern Hemisphere. Additionally, only a few studies used manipulative experiments, or have considered how to maximise bee recovery after fires. Overall, fire is an important disturbance affecting bee communities, and while some species may benefit from certain fire regimes, other species are vulnerable, and management to preserve such species under predictions of increasingly frequent and severe fires is required.
{"title":"Bees feeling the burn","authors":"Kit S. Prendergast, Joshua W. Campbell, Philip W. Bateman","doi":"10.1111/brv.70082","DOIUrl":"10.1111/brv.70082","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Fire is a major form of environmental disturbance, and in recent years, due to anthropogenic climate change and anthropogenic land management, we are seeing increases in the frequency and intensity of fires. With bees being an important, diverse group of pollinators that is facing declines globally, understanding how they respond to fires is critical. Here, we conduct a literature review to understand what is known from the literature on how bees respond to fire, and how such responses to fire can vary depending on species life-history traits and aspects of fire regimes. Our literature review yielded 148 studies from 140 publications. Bee responses to fire were extremely variable, with no consistent pattern in abundance or species richness increasing, decreasing, or showing no significant change under fire. Different families and taxa responded differently and to different aspects of fire regimes. Generally, regarding taxonomic vulnerability, andrenids and colletids were vulnerable to fire, whereas halictids responded favourably to fire. In terms of guild, ground-nesting generalists responded favourably to fire, whereas cavity-nesting specialists were most vulnerable to fire. We revealed major gaps in research in the Southern Hemisphere and in tropical landscapes dominated by flowering trees, with most studies conducted in pine-forested, fire-prone landscapes in the Northern Hemisphere. Additionally, only a few studies used manipulative experiments, or have considered how to maximise bee recovery after fires. Overall, fire is an important disturbance affecting bee communities, and while some species may benefit from certain fire regimes, other species are vulnerable, and management to preserve such species under predictions of increasingly frequent and severe fires is required.</p>","PeriodicalId":133,"journal":{"name":"Biological Reviews","volume":"101 1","pages":"279-296"},"PeriodicalIF":11.7,"publicationDate":"2025-10-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/brv.70082","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145249032","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}