No abstract

The difficulty of experimentally quantifying non-trophic species interactions has long troubled ecologists. Increasingly, a new application of the classic "checkerboard distribution" approach is used to infer interactions by examining the pairwise frequency at which species are found to spatially co-occur. However, the link between spatial associations, as estimated from observational co-occurrence, and species interactions has not been tested. Here we used nine common statistical methods to estimate associations from surveys of rocky intertidal communities in the Northeast Pacific Ocean. We compared those inferred associations with a new data set of experimentally determined net and direct species interactions. Although association methods generated networks with aggregate structure similar to previously published interaction networks, each method detected a different set of species associations from the same data set. Moreover, although association methods generally performed better than a random model, associations rarely matched empirical net or direct species interactions, with high rates of false positives and true positives, and many false negatives. Our findings cast doubt on studies that equate species co-occurrences to species interactions and highlight a persistent, unanswered question: how do we interpret spatial patterns in communities? We suggest future research directions to unify the observational and experimental study of species interactions, and discuss the need for community standards and best practices in association analysis.

CW contributed to method development, KC and IS performed the caging experi-7 ment, and MN conceived of the study, carried out the fieldwork and analyses, and 8 wrote the manuscript. (which was not peer-reviewed) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.The copyright holder for this preprint . http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/082115 doi: bioRxiv preprint first posted online Oct. 20, 2016

A long-standing debate concerns how functional responses are best described. Theory suggests that ratio dependence is consistent with many food web patterns left unexplained by the simplest prey-dependent models. However, for logistical reasons, ratio dependence and predator dependence more generally have seen infrequent empirical evaluation and then only so in specialist predators, which are rare in nature. Here we develop an approach to simultaneously estimate the prey-specific attack rates and predator-specific interference (facilitation) rates of predators interacting with arbitrary numbers of prey and predator species in the field. We apply the approach to surveys and experiments involving two intertidal whelks and their full suite of potential prey. Our study provides strong evidence for predator dependence that is poorly described by the ratio dependent model over manipulated and natural ranges of species abundances. It also indicates how, for generalist predators, even the qualitative nature of predator dependence can be prey-specific.

A scientific understanding of the biological world arises when ideas about how nature works are formalized, tested, refined, and then tested again. Although the benefits of feedback between theoretical and empirical research are widely acknowledged by ecologists, this link is still not as strong as it could be in ecological research. This is in part because theory, particularly when expressed mathematically, can feel inaccessible to empiricists who may have little formal training in advanced math. To address this persistent barrier, we provide a general and accessible guide that covers the basic, step-by-step process of how to approach, understand, and use ecological theory in empirical work. We first give an overview of how and why mathematical theory is created, then outline four specific ways to use both mathematical and verbal theory to motivate empirical work, and finally present a practical tool kit for reading and understanding the mathematical aspects of ecological theory. We hope that empowering empiricists to embrace theory in their work will help move the field closer to a full integration of theoretical and empirical research.