Whatever happened to ecology?

The holistic ecology of the early days had much in common with the world-view of primal people and of the romantic poets. In the 1950s a revival of reductionist and mechanistic ideas took place. The living world, constantly changing in a total "chance direction", appeared by its very nature "totally indestructible". The view of ecological succession toward a "climax" (Odum) became unacceptable for its assumed metaphysical and teleological connotations. Ecological succession is indeed only one special instance of sequential development, that is a feature of all life processes at all levels of organisation. Even the principle of "balance" was rejected by reductionists, because it recalled divine-order. Finally, the principle that "the whole is more than the sum of its parts" was abandoned, thus denying the most basic feature of the living world: organisation. Mainstream scientific ecology no longer reflects the ecological movement of today and may serve to justify the destruction that the irresponsible activities of the multinationals are giving rise to.     

What is dental ecology?

Teeth have long been used as indicators of primate ecology. Early work focused on the links between dental morphology, diet, and behavior, with more recent years emphasizing dental wear, microstructure, development, and biogeochemistry, to understand primate ecology. Our study of Lemur catta at the Beza Mahafaly Special Reserve, Madagascar, has revealed an unusual pattern of severe tooth wear and frequent tooth loss, primarily the result of consuming a fallback food for which these primates are not dentally adapted. Interpreting these data was only possible by combining our areas of expertise (dental anatomy [FC] and primate ecology [MS]). By integrating theoretical, methodological, and applied aspects of both areas of research, we adopted the term "dental ecology"-defined as the broad study of how teeth respond to the environment. Specifically, we view dental ecology as an interpretive framework using teeth as a vehicle for understanding an organism's ecology, which builds upon earlier work, but creates a new synthesis of anatomy and ecology that is only possible with detailed knowledge of living primates. This framework includes (1) identifying patterns of dental pathology and tooth use-wear, within the context of feeding ecology, behavior, habitat variation, and anthropogenic change, (2) assessing ways in which dental development and biogeochemical signals can reflect habitat, environmental change and/or stress, and (3) how dental microstructure and macro-morphology are adapted to, and reflect feeding ecology. Here we define dental ecology, provide a short summary of the development of this perspective, and place our new work into this context.     

Where is behavioural ecology going?

Since the 1990s, behavioural ecologists have largely abandoned some traditional areas of interest, such as optimal foraging, but many long-standing challenges remain. Moreover, the core strengths of behavioural ecology, including the use of simple adaptive models to investigate complex biological phenomena, have now been applied to new puzzles outside behaviour. But this strategy comes at a cost. Replication across studies is rare and there have been few tests of the underlying genetic assumptions of adaptive models. Here, I attempt to identify the key outstanding questions in behavioural ecology and suggest that researchers must make greater use of model organisms and evolutionary genetics in order to make substantial progress on these topics.     

Does population ecology have general laws?

There is a widespread opinion among ecologists that ecology lacks general laws. In this paper the author argues that this opinion is mistaken. Taking the case of population dynamics, the author points out that there are several very general law-like propositions that provide the theoretical basis for most population dynamics models that were developed to address specific issues. Some of these foundational principles, like the law of exponential growth, are logically very similar to certain law of physics (Newton's law of intertia, for example, is almost a direct analogue of exponential growth). The author discusses two other principles (population self-limitation and resource-consumer oscillations), as well as the more elementary postulates that underlie them. None of the "laws" that the author proposes for population ecology are new. Collectively ecologists have been using these general principles in guiding development of their models and experiments since the days of Lotka, Volterra, and Gause.     

Lévy flights in evolutionary ecology

We are interested in modeling Darwinian evolution resulting from the interplay of phenotypic variation and natural selection through ecological interactions. The population is modeled as a stochastic point process whose generator captures the probabilistic dynamics over continuous time of birth, mutation, and death, as influenced by each individual's trait values, and interactions between individuals. An offspring usually inherits the trait values of her progenitor, except when a random mutation causes the offspring to take an instantaneous mutation step at birth to new trait values. In the case we are interested in, the probability distribution of mutations has a heavy tail and belongs to the domain of attraction of a stable law and the corresponding diffusion admits jumps. This could be seen as an alternative to Gould and Eldredge's model of evolutionary punctuated equilibria. We investigate the large-population limit with allometric demographies: larger populations made up of smaller individuals which reproduce and die faster, as is typical for micro-organisms. We show that depending on the allometry coefficient the limit behavior of the population process can be approximated by nonlinear Lévy flights of different nature: either deterministic, in the form of non-local fractional reaction-diffusion equations, or stochastic, as nonlinear super-processes with the underlying reaction and a fractional diffusion operator. These approximation results demonstrate the existence of such non-trivial fractional objects; their uniqueness is also proved.     

Plant allelochemical interference or soil chemical ecology?

While allelopathy has been defined as plant-plant chemical interference, there has been much confusion about what the concept encompasses and how important it is in nature. We distinguish between (1) direct plant-plant interference mediated by allelochemicals, and (2) the effects of secondary compounds released by plants on abiotic and biotic soil processes that affect other plants.It very difficult to demonstrate direct effects of chemicals released by a plant on nearby plants. Although soil ecology-mediated effects of secondary plant compounds do not fit the classical concept of allelopathy, we find support in the literature for the hypothesis that the most important effects of compounds released into the soil environment by plants on other plants occur through such indirect effects. The emphasis on, and skepticism of, direct plant-plant allelopathic interference has led some researchers to demand unreasonably high standards of evidence for establishing even the existence of allelopathic interactions, standards that are not demanded for other plant-plant interactions such as resource competition. While the complete elucidation of the mechanisms by which allelochemicals function in the field is many years away, such elucidation is not necessary to establish the existence of allelopathic interactions.We propose that most of the phenomena broadly referred to as allelopathic interference are better conceptualized and investigated in terms of soil chemical ecology. Even when direct plant-plant allelochemical interference occur, the levels of allelochemicals in the environment and their effects on plants are heavily influenced by abiotic and biotic components of the soil ecosystem. Putting allelopathy in the context of soil ecology can further research and reduce some of the less fruitful controversy surrounding the phenomenon.     

Evolutionary ecology of inducible morphological plasticity in predator–prey interaction: toward the practical links with population ecology

The outcome of species interactions is often strongly influenced by variation in the functional traits of the individuals participating. A rather large body of work demonstrates that inducible morphological plasticity in predators and prey can both influence and be influenced by species interaction strength, with important consequences for individual fitness. Much of the past research in this area has focused on the ecological and evolutionary significance of trait plasticity by studying single predator–prey pairs and testing the performance of individuals having induced and noninduced phenotypes. This research has thus been critical in improving our understanding of the adaptive value of trait plasticity and its widespread occurrence across species and community types. More recently, researchers have expanded this foundation by examining how the complexity of organismal design and community-level properties can shape plasticity in functional traits. In addition, researchers have begun to merge evolutionary and ecological perspectives by linking trait plasticity to community dynamics, with particular attention on trait-mediated indirect interactions. Here, we review recent studies on inducible morphological plasticity in predators and their prey with an emphasis on internal and external constraints and how the nature of predator–prey interactions influences the expression of inducible phenotypes. In particular, we focus on multiple-trait plasticity, flexibility and modification of inducible plasticity, and reciprocal plasticity between predator and prey. Based on our arguments on these issues, we propose future research directions that should better integrate evolutionary and population studies and thus improve our understanding of the role of phenotypic plasticity in predator–prey population and community dynamics.     

Cognitive ecology: a field of substance?

In 1993, Les Real invented the label 'cognitive ecology'. This label was intended for work that brought cognitive science and behavioural ecology together. Real's article stressed the importance of such an approach to the understanding of behaviour. At the end of a decade in which more interdisciplinary work on behaviour has been seen than for many years, it is time to assess whether cognitive ecology is a label describing an active field.     

Behavioural ecology at the spatial–social interface

Spatial and social behaviour are fundamental aspects of an animal's biology, and their social and spatial environments are indelibly linked through mutual causes and shared consequences. We define the ‘spatial–social interface’ as intersection of social and spatial aspects of individuals' phenotypes and environments. Behavioural variation at the spatial–social interface has implications for ecological and evolutionary processes including pathogen transmission, population dynamics, and the evolution of social systems. We link spatial and social processes through a foundation of shared theory, vocabulary, and methods. We provide examples and future directions for the integration of spatial and social behaviour and environments. We introduce key concepts and approaches that either implicitly or explicitly integrate social and spatial processes, for example, graph theory, density-dependent habitat selection, and niche specialization. Finally, we discuss how movement ecology helps link the spatial–social interface. Our review integrates social and spatial behavioural ecology and identifies testable hypotheses at the spatial–social interface.     

How likely is speciation in neutral ecology?

Patterns of biodiversity predicted by the neutral theory rely on a simple phenomenological model of speciation. To further investigate the effect of speciation on neutral biodiversity, we analyze a spatially explicit neutral model based on population genetics. We define the metacommunity as a system of populations exchanging migrants, and we use this framework to introduce speciation with little or no gene flow (allopatric and parapatric speciation). We find that with realistic mutation rates, our metacommunity model driven by neutral processes cannot support more than a few species. Adding natural selection in the population genetics of speciation increases the number of species in the metacommunity, but the level of diversity found in the Barro Colorado Island is difficult to reach.