Ethnobiology as a discipline has evolved increasingly to embrace theory-inspired and hypothesis-driven approaches to study why and how local people choose plants and animals they interact with and use for their livelihood. However, testing complex hypotheses or a network of ethnobiological hypotheses is challenging, particularly for data sets with nonindependent observations due to species phylogenetic relatedness or socio-relational links between participants. Further, to account fully for the dynamics of local ecological knowledge, it is important to include the spatially explicit distribution of knowledge, changes in knowledge, and knowledge transmission and use. To promote the use of advanced statistical modelling approaches that address these limitations, we synthesize methodological advances for hypothesis-driven research in ethnobiology while highlighting the need for more figures than tables and more tables than text in ethnobiological literature. We present the ethnobiological motivations for conducting generalized linear mixed-effect modelling, structural equation modelling, phylogenetic generalized least squares, social network analysis, species distribution modelling, and predictive modelling. For each element of the proposed ethnobiologists quantitative toolbox, we present practical applications along with scripts for a widespread implementation. Because these statistical modelling approaches are rarely taught in most ethnobiological programs but are essential for careers in academia or industry, it is critical to promote workshops and short courses focused on these advanced methods. By embracing these quantitative modelling techniques without sacrificing qualitative approaches which provide essential context, ethnobiology will progress further towards an expansive interaction with other disciplines.

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creat ive Commo ns Attri bution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

The center‐periphery hypothesis predicts that species are most abundant at the center of their distribution range. Differential herbivory rates between center and periphery populations can explain this variation in species abundance. However, if the geographic center of a species distribution coincides with its ecological optimum, the resource availability hypothesis predicts higher herbivory rates and tolerances at the center compared to the periphery. Biogeographical studies on herbivory have treated these two mechanisms separately, limiting our mechanistic understanding of the role of herbivory in shaping species range limits. We analyzed the role of resource availability on herbivory variation from center to periphery using data collected across the distribution of Thunberbia atacorensis, a range‐limited species of West Africa. We used two types of distances: geographic distance (the distance from each plot to the geographic center of all populations) and climatic distance (the distance from each plot to the preferendum of the species). We found no increase in herbivory toward the periphery of the climatic and geographic ranges. However, herbivory rates increased with soil nitrogen. Soil nitrogen decreased from the center to the periphery of the climatic range. Phylogenetic diversity and competition from surrounding plants did not affect herbivory rates. Our study provides insights into how nutrient limitation can shape species center‐periphery distribution by altering spatial variation in herbivory rates.

The center‐periphery hypothesis predicts a decline in population performance toward the periphery of a species' range, reflecting an alteration of environmental conditions at range periphery. However, the rare demographic tests of this hypothesis failed to disentangle the role of geography from that of ecological niche and are biased toward temperate regions. We hypothesized that, because species are expected to experience optimal abiotic conditions at their climatic niche center, (1) central populations will have better demographic growth, survival, and fertility than peripheral populations. As a result, (2) central populations are expected to have higher growth rates than peripheral populations. Peripheral populations are expected to decline, thus limiting species range expansion beyond these boundaries. Because peripheral populations are expected to be in harsh environmental conditions, (3) population growth rate will be more sensitive to perturbation of survival‐growth rather than fertility in peripheral populations. Finally, we hypothesized that (4) soils properties will drive the variations in population growth rates for narrowly distributed species for which small scale ecological factors could outweigh landscape level drivers. To test these hypotheses, we studied the demography of Thunbergia atacorensis (Acanthaceae), a range‐limited herb in West Africa. We collected three years of demographic data to parameterize an integral projection model (IPM) and estimated population level demographic statistics. Demographic vital rates and population growth rates did not change significantly with distance from geographic or climatic center, contrary to predictions. However, populations at the center of the geographic range were demographically more resilient to perturbation than those at the periphery. Soil nitrogen was the main driver of population growth rate variation. The relative influence of survival‐growth on population growth rates exceeded that of fertility at the geographic range center while we observed the opposite pattern for climatic niche. Our study highlights the importance of local scale processes in shaping the dynamics and distribution of range‐limited species. Our findings also suggest that the distinction between geographic distribution and climatic niche is important for a robust demographic test of the center‐periphery hypothesis.