When the window is a mirror: how do dominant theories limit our understanding of nature? (<scp>ESA</scp> 2023 <scp>INS23</scp>)

In our zealous desire for familiar models of explanation, we risk not noticing the discrepancies between our own predispositions and the range of possibilities inherent in natural phenomena. In short, we risk imposing on nature the very stories we like to hear. Evelyn Fox Keller, 1985 Reflections on Gender and Science The narratives and metaphors that ecologists use to describe natural phenomena influence what we study and how we do it (Larson 2011, Craver and Darden 2013, Otto and Rosales 2020). Stories about ecological processes and patterns are told through particular frames and are laden with assumptions arising from their framing. For example, the tubercle bacillus became the cause of tuberculosis, rather than unregulated industrial capitalism, through storytelling: the framing of the story was biomedical, and as a result the assumption for how to treat tuberculosis was through individual medical intervention, rather than (for example) a social revolution (Levins and Lewontin 1985). More recently, a commonly cited solution to rising CO2 emissions is to plant trees, which conveniently elides the social and economic roots of global warming. The responsible use of particular frames, narratives, and analogies for understanding nature requires that we reflect on our choices: Which stories do we tell? How do we tell them? And how do they structure the way we study the natural world? To make room for this kind of reflection, we organized and participated in an Inspire session entitled “When the window is a mirror: how do dominant theories limit our understanding of nature?” at the ESA 2023 meeting. This session was an attempt to explore the limitations of current theory and their consequences for understanding what we observe in the natural world. In a set of case studies, we examined existing “mirrors”: examples in which ecological models are built on assumptions that constrain the research process, and in doing so reveal something about ourselves and the narratives we privilege. Our speakers described the limits of theory on topics ranging from sexual behavior to plant–microbe interactions to genetic polymorphism. This allowed us to look for uniting themes across subdisciplines of ecology. In bringing these subdisciplines together, we attempted to highlight such limitations not as isolated exceptions, but rather as recurring consequences of singular, dominant ways of approaching ecological questions. Our session emphasized the importance of creativity and wonderment in scientific research and the power of pluralistic approaches for confronting theoretical limitations brought on by societal assumptions. Same-sex sexual behavior (SSB) is widespread throughout the animal kingdom. For years, Western scientists ignored, downplayed, or discounted this behavior as a costly aberration. More recent work, including our own, has recognized that SSB is not only common but may have a long evolutionary history and need not incur fitness costs (Monk et al. 2019, Lerch and Servedio 2021, Richardson and Zuk 2023). As recognition of the scope of SSB among animals has grown in both scientific understanding and popular culture, many have questioned what these insights mean for our understanding of human sexuality; does the fact that animals engage in SSB make it “natural”? Demonstrating the diversity of sexual systems and sexual behaviors found in nature is undoubtedly vital for increasing feelings of belonging among queer students and researchers in the sciences (Casper et al. 2022). However, our reframing of the study of SSB in animals shows us how what we understand to be “natural” in the first place is inevitably shaped by the cultures, norms, and values that scientists ourselves hold. We argue that there is great danger in positioning what is deemed “objectively natural” as the arbiter of what is culturally normative, moral, or appropriate. Instead, as scientists we should aim to interrogate and articulate our values and politics, and think critically about how they inform our decisions; what questions we ask, hypotheses we make, methods we use, results and voices we uplift, and interpretations we favor. It is important to study and share the extraordinary sexual diversity found among nonhuman species, and indeed to combat narratives that aim to simplify the public's understanding of biological sex and sexual behavior. However, we should be clear that queer and trans identities are valid no matter the science on animal behavior and sexual evolution, and that acceptance of human diversity should not be predicated on our constantly shifting understanding of the “natural” world. The temporal order and interval of community assembly can often affect how species interact. Generally defined as “priority effect,” this phenomenon interested both empiricists and theoreticians (Fukami 2015). However, our theories are often limited in their ability to characterize priority effects in nature because they do not incorporate two principles about time. First, ecological communities operate on a range of time scales. Priority effects influence communities of organisms ranging from bacteria and yeast to plant and amphibian communities. The vast differences in life history among these communities may imply distinctive underlying biological mechanisms for priority effects in each community. Second, all ecological processes take time; therefore, changes in species interactions should depend on the length of the difference in arrival times, which can determine their relative sizes or the degree of habitat modification (Rudolf 2019). These features are not well incorporated into theoretical explanations of priority effects, which are often based on positive frequency dependence: if both species limit the other more than themselves, the more abundant species wins (Ke and Letten 2018). This conception is detached from the two principles about time because the early species is not necessarily more abundant in communities with slow-reproducing species, and this theory does not allow for temporal changes in species interactions. To bridge theory and experiments of priority effects, we define those arising from positive frequency dependence as “frequency-dependent” priority effects, and those arising from temporal changes in species interactions as “trait-dependent” priority effects, because they are usually caused by changes in traits over arrival times, such as size, age, or behavior (Zou and Rudolf 2023). This categorization accommodates diverse biological mechanisms in nature, including interactions beyond competition that change with time. Models of priority effects should be designed with the two principles about time in mind to capture different ecosystems more accurately. Plant communities are shaped by their bidirectional interactions with beneficial and detrimental soil microbes (van der Putten et al. 2013). To predict the long-term consequences of plant–soil microbe interactions, ecologists often employ a two-phased experiment inspired by the theory of plant–soil feedback (Bever et al. 1997). The classic experimental design consists of a conditioning phase, during which plants modify the soil community, and a subsequent response phase, during which plants respond to the modification. However, like theoretical models, experiments are also an abstraction of nature. Specifically, by immediately transplanting the responding seedling after soil conditioning, experiments implicitly assume that new plants immediately arrive or that the conditioned microbial legacies are long-lasting after the death of the host plant. Nevertheless, recent research has shown that this assumption may not hold in various systems, such as those characterized by distinct seasonality or frequent disturbance (Nagendra and Peterson 2016, Esch and Kobe 2021). Neglecting the temporal decay of microbial legacies in these systems can lead to incorrect predictions of plant competitive outcomes or an overestimation of microbial impact (Ke et al. 2021). Therefore, while the common two-phased design aims for generality, it is crucial to consider the natural history of different systems when extrapolating experimental results to a natural context (Travis 2020). Plants have the capacity to change the climate around them (Lembrechts 2023, Novick and Barnes 2023). In particular, plants open their stomata to photosynthesize and consequently move water out of the soil and into the air around their leaves. This cools and humidifies microclimates and macroclimates. Grasses can do this at small scales (Wright et al. 2021), while tropical forest trees can drive climatic changes at the scale of entire regions (Wright et al. 2017). Initial attempts to quantify the effect of vegetation on climate have focused on understory temperatures (e.g. Lembrechts 2023), which are locally correlated with relative humidity and vapor pressure deficit. These attempts have shown that every type of vegetation on earth can either cool or warm the microclimate (warming is most common in cold biomes where vegetation can insulate and create areas of warmer air). These changes in microclimate conditions affect performance of plants (Aguirre et al. 2021), plant trait expression (Watson et al. 2023), plant–plant interaction strengths (Wright et al. 2014), and productivity (Aguirre et al. 2021). Because vegetation-induced temperature, humidity, and vapor pressure deficit changes are ubiquitous and inevitable, I think it is important to reimagine a world where all other types of interactions (including competition) are nested within these constructed microclimates. Plants compete for resources, and in a purely competitive world diversity is maintained by intraspecific competition: a plant species must compete with itself more strongly than with other species to ensure coexistence. Intraspecific competition has become so central to our understanding of plant diversity that it is standard procedure to set all plant interactions as competitive when simulating plant communities or parameterizing population and species distribution models. While we know that plants are also capable of intraspecific facilitation, these beneficial interactions are rarely accounted for in frameworks of diversity maintenance, and certainly not in predictions of coexistence. In this talk, I present extensive evidence of intraspecific facilitation in a diverse, natural plant system when relaxing the above restrictions on models and parameterizations. We found that intraspecific facilitation varied idiosyncratically across species and environmental conditions, indicating it is not simply an isolated exception, but rather a pervasive force shaping community diversity. Current theoretical frameworks do not allow coexistence when intraspecific facilitation is operating, despite empirical evidence to the contrary. Competitive theories of diversity maintenance can therefore describe certain conditions under which coexistence should arise but clearly do not capture the full spectrum of conditions under which coexistence can arise. Current theory is thus neither exhaustive nor should it be limiting. Creating novel theory which better reflects what we observe in nature requires us to be inspired by the unexpected rather than blinded to it. Dominant theories of population ecology limit our understanding of the population ecology of mutualism. For nearly a half century we have seen marginalization of the theoretical study of mutualism through explicit dismissal (“… unlike trophic interactions, mutualisms do not seem to be of universal importance,” Turchin (2013)) and self-admonishing “laziness” (May 1981). But this systemic underrepresentation of mutualism relative to other interspecific interactions like competition and predation is most clearly observed through quantitative analysis of books Simha et al. (2022) and primary literature (Bronstein 1994, Raerinne 2020). Recently, however, mutualism has been viewed and modeled as a consumer–resource interaction (e.g., Holland et al. 2005), which has been incredibly important and useful theoretically (e.g., De Mazancourt and Schwartz 2010, Holland and DeAngelis 2010) and empirically (e.g., Lim et al. 2018). Although framing mutualism as a consumer–resource interaction helps it fit within the dominant theoretical framework, and provides some mathematical conveniences (i.e., to “put a curve on it” in order to prevent unbounded growth, and because a Type I functional response can be recovered by a Type II response by setting a parameter to 0), I wanted to draw attention to the idea that not all mutualisms can or should be described by this framework. Conceptually there are some issues for the most common and ecologically important mutualisms like pollination, seed dispersal, and defense where half of the entire interaction is not a consumer–resource interaction. For example, Revilla (2015) asked, “… what is the handling time of a plant that uses a pollinator or seed disperser? Or at which rate does a plant attack a service?” I also presented unpublished data showing that the Holling type II numerical and functional responses do not seem to be common across empirical studies of mutualism: most seem to be unimodal. Mutualistic interactions are wonderfully diverse and essential parts of communities and ecosystems. Although many mutualisms fit within the dominant consumer–resource theory, I ask that we continue to better understand mutualisms by not assuming they are fully explained as a consumer–resource interaction and embracing and marveling in their diversity and complexity. The distributions of parent materials, topography, and latitude, as well as disturbance history and the presence of nearby islands, are important drivers of island biodiversity dynamics (Brandeis et al. 2009, Carstensen et al. 2012, Whittaker et al. 2017). These conditions have also been influential in the process of European colonization of Caribbean islands due to their influence on island suitability for colonial extraction (Parsons 1975, Watts 1990, Mahony and Endfield 2018). Suitability for plantation colonialism may include potential landscape productivity (e.g. latitude, mean annual temperature, mean annual precipitation, and altitude), resources to support long-term intensive monocropping (e.g., groundwater availability), and sufficient resources to manage large enslaved populations (Ross 2017). The biogeographical determinants of European plantation colonization and consequences for island biogeography following sustained plantation disturbances remain largely unaddressed in terrestrial ecology. Through a field study on the former Danish colony of St. Croix (U.S. Virgin Islands), my colleagues and I aim to test whether the aforementioned state factors predict the intensity of colonial ecosystem disturbance (proxied by duration of colonization, cultivated area, primary crops, and cumulative enslaved populations from Danish archival records). Our work uses interdisciplinary methods to describe how the relationship between state factors and degree of colonization may be predictive of the reassembly of forest vegetation communities following the abandonment of sugarcane plantation fields. We hypothesize that post-plantation soil environments are physically disturbed and nutrient-limited due to long-term agricultural degradation. On post-plantation islands like St. Croix, the relative abundance taxa with functional traits that can alleviate resource limitations (e.g., leguminous, C4 photosynthetic, and arbuscular mycorrhizal taxa (Dovrat et al. 2020)) may vary along axes of former plantation intensity and state factors which are known to present the greatest utility for colonial exploitation (i.e., greatest contiguous area of alluvial soils, highest annual precipitation, dominant calcareous parent material, etc.). As we scale our field-based, island-specific work up to larger spatial scales, we ultimately aim to interrogate ahistorical notions of the biogeographic drivers of twentieth-century and present-day forest vegetation community structure and function within the footprint of European plantation colonialism. In Simha et al. (2022), we describe a “diversity paradox” in community ecology: multispecies communities are ubiquitous in nature, although many classical approaches to ecological modeling suggest that species “should” not coexist except under special conditions. I argue that a parallel framework exists in evolutionary biology and population genetics, framing the persistence of polymorphism despite the of natural as a that special While classical theory commonly of natural like and to genetic over time many biological processes can these For example, and can all the of genetic in drivers of natural and interactions between drivers can about responses to of can also rather than natural et al. Nevertheless, predictions of natural are commonly and when framing research about genetic polymorphism. Our work how phenomena influence the of genetic and across the on polymorphism in study species, we found that the in plant have effects on and We also found that there is in the of in that the and of by and vary across fitness and that the effects of these drivers are in ways at small spatial scales and unpublished that there is no or that is and 2021). This work that conditions and may and that explicit study of may often be for understanding intraspecific genetic and we think models capture or an of what is some of ourselves is an important of the of modeling in ecology. the was about the of mathematical modeling in theory as power limiting. As limitations that mathematical models are do models become The the was models which to understand the dynamics of as to modeling populations The of this was that an increasing ability to population changes at is the of but if this is the this by bringing up the story in which the limitations of and while the importance of in models for of the world around us On the other all of the speakers how theory has us in of the world around us by or important axes of The from our session be that we should in of and (Levins we more with for understanding nature through a of approaches also and marveling in diversity and we can modeling not as an to capture singular, about the natural nor to the of nature. Instead, we take of and that models are in that each both an of what is and some of all models are and we can become interested in what diversity about nature our to rather than the of the of generality, and that was a about how we can better incorporate the from this session into the way we ecology. we simply and models that have so shaped the but that seem to reflect assumptions by social more than if we are not to simply such in the how can we better the of and by the in this the that dominant in the and structure of the them more be to make for about the of their on the and their For example, to students better understand the history of shaping community of the speakers students to the terrestrial and theoretical ecology trees to highlight their This helps about the that determine the of and the that some in their to their More from the history and of and from like Science in ecologists to how and to our understanding and relationship nature. a range of than are emphasized in most ecology is also speakers the of positive interactions within and between species more students to the diversity and importance of these interactions may ultimately the field incorporate such interactions into our understanding of ecological communities. The for more in the to ecology in the the way they ecological throughout their and and with students the for doing be an important in of scientists and from our session was the importance of and assumptions and the narratives that along with For example, the assumption that sexual behavior in animals a fitness and should therefore be by may from values of early sexual values have plant biology and 2023). in the current narratives of in the when such ecological and 2013). We that assumptions into their (for by methods by can ecologists to potential of such as when social values are nature, deemed and to existing social et al. from and subdisciplines such as et al. queer ecology and and ecology and et al. 2021), in to work with and can new frames and through which to understand nature. assumptions are maintained by colonial or our assumptions limits our understanding of nature in We that ecological be by explicit of our and their roots and as ecological theory data for this