Ecology Is Not a Snapshot
Population Change, Network Response, and the Case for Whole-System Environmental Reporting
A methodological paper on ecological completeness, independent interpretation, and stewardship
John Swygert
October 7, 2026
Abstract
Ecological systems are continuously changing. Populations rise and fall, species move, food webs rewire, predators and prey alter one another, competitors are released or constrained, new habitats open, old habitats contract, diseases spread or recede, and community composition changes even when aggregate measures such as total biomass or species richness appear comparatively stable. Public environmental communication, however, often reduces this networked reality to a single directional observation: one population declined, one range contracted, or one environmental variable changed. This paper argues that such a snapshot can be factually correct while still being ecologically incomplete.
The paper proposes an Ecological Completeness Principle: whenever a population change is presented as evidence of broader ecological change, analysis should, where data permit, examine associated increases as well as decreases, range expansion as well as contraction, dependent-species responses, competitor and predator-prey effects, functional replacement, temporal variability, spatial redistribution, and plausible interacting drivers. The objective is not to force every ecological event into a positive or negative narrative, nor to assign blame to a preferred cause. It is to distinguish observation from interpretation and to represent enough of the network that readers can evaluate the system independently. Worked empirical vignettes and a proportional application standard show how the principle can be used without requiring impossible completeness.
Climate variables are included here only as examples of environmental forcing. This paper takes no position on the relative anthropogenic or natural contribution to climate change because that attribution question is outside its scope. The central issue is methodological: ecological change should be communicated as interacting change. A changing population is an ecological event; a changing network is the ecological story.
Keywords: ecology; ecological networks; population dynamics; compensatory dynamics; community turnover; range shifts; trophic cascades; science communication; environmental stewardship; ecological completeness
Scope Note
This paper does not attempt to determine what causes climate change, apportion responsibility for environmental change, or select a culprit for ecological outcomes. Those questions may be important elsewhere. They are not the question here. The question here is whether an ecological account shows enough of the interacting system to justify the story it tells.
1. Introduction: Ecology Before Narrative
Ecology begins with relationships. A species is never merely a number on a chart. Its abundance is related to food, predators, competitors, parasites, disease, reproduction, habitat, migration, weather, resource pulses, disturbance, behavior, and the abundance and behavior of other species. Modern ecological network theory formalizes this basic fact: interactions connect individuals and species into networks whose structure and function can change across space and time (Guimaraes, 2020; Tylianakis & Morris, 2017).
For that reason, a statement such as 'Species A declined by 30 percent' is an observation, not yet an ecosystem diagnosis. The decline may matter greatly. It may signal loss of ecological function, a trophic cascade, habitat deterioration, or increased extinction risk. But it may also coincide with expansion of another species, release of a competitor, movement to a newly suitable region, altered predation pressure, or compensatory changes that stabilize some ecosystem properties. Ecology does not permit a universal rule that decline is always equivalent to ecosystem decline, or that increase is always equivalent to ecosystem improvement.
This distinction is easy to lose in public communication because a headline, press release, or short article must compress a multidimensional system into a small amount of language. Compression is unavoidable. Distortion is not. A scientifically responsible summary should make clear what was measured, where, over what period, at what level of organization, and what the measurement does and does not establish.
The argument of this paper is therefore not anti-conservation, anti-climate, anti-human, pro-human, pessimistic, or optimistic. It is pro-completeness. The purpose is to strengthen environmental stewardship by making ecological reasoning more difficult to manipulate, whether intentionally or unintentionally, through selective presentation.
2. Ecological Systems Are Dynamic by Default
Ecological communities do not begin in equilibrium and remain there until an outside disturbance knocks them away. Populations fluctuate even under natural environmental variation. Seasonal cycles, succession, droughts, floods, fires, resource pulses, reproductive cycles, disease, migration, and predator-prey oscillations can all reorganize communities. Some of these changes are directional, some cyclical, some episodic, and some difficult to classify until long time series are available.
Compensatory dynamics provide a useful example. Theory and empirical work show that declines in some species can coincide with growth in others, sometimes buffering aggregate properties of communities even while species composition changes substantially (Gonzalez & Loreau, 2009). In long-term desert rodent and plant data, Ernest and Brown (2001) found that species composition could vary more strongly than several ecosystem-level properties. This does not mean compensation always occurs or that losses are harmless. Gonzalez and Loreau explicitly note that compensatory dynamics are not dominant in every field dataset. The point is more disciplined: asynchronous responses exist, and the response of the whole community cannot be read directly from the trajectory of a single member.
Delta N_A < 0 does not, by itself, determine Delta Ecosystem.
A single population trajectory is therefore one coordinate of a larger state. If an ecosystem contains n populations, a minimal description of community state includes their abundances, but even that is insufficient because the interactions among those populations also matter.
E(t) = {N_1 ... N_n, I_ij, H, x, t}
Here N represents population abundance, I represents interaction structure and strength, H represents habitat and other environmental conditions, x represents location, and t represents time. This is not offered as a complete ecological model. It is a reminder that 'what happened to one species' and 'what happened to the ecosystem' are different questions.
3. One Change Can Produce Opposite Responses
Ecological relationships differ in sign and mechanism. If Species B depends on Species A as a food source, a decline in A may contribute to a decline in B. If A is a predator of B, however, a decline in A can release B from predation and permit B to increase. If A competes with B for a limiting resource, a decline in A can also create ecological opportunity for B. If A pollinates B, the same decline can reduce B. If A suppresses a pathogen that affects B, the indirect pathway may be different again.
A down -> B down OR A down -> B up OR A down -> little measurable change in B
All three are ecologically plausible depending on the relationship. Secondary responses can then reverse direction again. If B increases after A declines, B may consume more of C, compete more strongly with D, provide more food for E, or alter habitat in ways that affect F. A population change is therefore capable of propagating through a network as a mixture of positive, negative, delayed, spatially displaced, and nonlinear effects.
Trophic cascades demonstrate the point vividly, but even well-known cascade systems resist simple stories. Peterson, Vucetich, Bump, and Smith (2014), reviewing wolves and trophic cascades at Isle Royale and Yellowstone, emphasized multicausality, temporal variation, spatial heterogeneity, contingency, and nonequilibrium dynamics. Piovia-Scott, Yang, and Wright (2017) likewise showed that cascade strength can vary through time and can be transient. The lesson is not that trophic cascades are unreal. It is that even one of ecology's most recognizable causal architectures must be interpreted in time, space, and network context.
4. Increases Deserve the Same Attention as Decreases
Environmental reporting naturally gravitates toward decline because decline can indicate risk. Conservation also has a legitimate reason to focus on rare or shrinking populations. Yet an ecology that records only declines is incomplete. Every changing environment can create both constraints and opportunities. A species that loses suitable habitat in one region may gain access to another. A declining competitor may release another population. A retreating predator may permit a prey species to expand. A newly arriving species may create resources for some organisms while imposing new pressures on others.
The important question is not whether there are 'winners' and 'losers' in a moral sense. The important question is what the redistribution does to the network. A population increase can be ecologically beneficial, damaging, neutral, or mixed depending on what the growing population does. Likewise, a decline can remove an important function or reduce a harmful pressure. Direction alone is not interpretation.
Large-scale biodiversity studies increasingly emphasize turnover rather than simple loss. Pinsky and colleagues (2025), using 42,255 time series across marine, terrestrial, and freshwater systems, found that faster temperature change - both warming and cooling - was associated with faster temporal turnover in species composition. Their result is useful here because it highlights transformation: communities can change substantially through replacement and redistribution even when the public discussion is tempted to reduce biodiversity change to a one-directional count.
Similarly, Lawlor and colleagues (2024) reviewed species redistributions and found that observed range shifts vary widely in direction and rate; many species do not shift in the expected direction, and habitat characteristics, non-temperature climatic variables, and species interactions can all matter. Pinsky, Selden, and Kitchel (2020) describe how marine range shifts can involve expansion at a leading edge and contraction at a trailing edge at the same time. A local decline can therefore coexist with geographic expansion elsewhere.
5. Redistribution Is Not the Same Thing as Replacement
A major danger in correcting one-sided decline narratives is replacing them with an equally simplistic reassurance story. If Species A declines and Species B increases, it does not follow that the ecosystem has 'balanced itself' in any meaningful functional sense. Species are not interchangeable units.
A replacement species may occupy a different trophic level, consume different resources, reproduce at a different rate, move nutrients differently, alter habitat differently, interact with different pathogens, or provide different value to other organisms. Ecological networks can therefore change even if total richness or total biomass changes little. Guimaraes (2020) emphasizes that ecological structure emerges from patterns of interaction, and Tylianakis and Morris (2017) show that environmental gradients can change both network composition and the frequency of interactions.
Bartley and colleagues (2019) use the term food-web 'rewiring' to describe changes in interactions that arise when organisms alter behavior and resource use under changing conditions. Rewiring is a useful concept because it prevents the analyst from treating the species list as the whole ecosystem. The same species can remain present while who eats whom, who competes with whom, or where those interactions occur changes materially.
For stewardship, then, the relevant comparison is not simply species count before versus species count after. It is also function before versus function after, interaction before versus interaction after, and spatial pattern before versus spatial pattern after.
6. Climate Variables Without a Climate Blame Frame
Temperature, precipitation, drought, snow cover, ocean conditions, seasonal timing, and extreme events can strongly affect ecological systems. This paper treats those variables as environmental conditions, not as a courtroom exhibit about who or what caused them.
That distinction is deliberate. An ecology-first analysis can examine how a warmer decade, a cooler interval, altered rainfall, or a marine heat event changes populations without first deciding the ultimate cause of the environmental change. The ecological response question and the climate attribution question are separable. Combining them by default risks converting every population paper into an argument about climate politics rather than an analysis of the network actually measured.
Natural climatic variability also demonstrates why environmental forcing should be treated carefully. The El Nino-Southern Oscillation changes rainfall, winds, upwelling, river discharge, nutrient availability, productivity, fish recruitment, biomass, and catch in regionally and species-specific ways. A 2026 review of ENSO impacts in the tropical and South Atlantic stresses regional variability, species dependence, and non-stationarity (Rodriguez-Fonseca et al., 2026). The point here is not to use ENSO as an argument against any other driver. It is to show that large environmental forcings can produce heterogeneous responses that resist a single-direction narrative.
Whether an environmental forcing is natural, anthropogenic, mixed, cyclical, or uncertain does not change the requirement to describe the ecological response as completely as the available evidence allows.
7. Correlation Is Not a Mandate to Assign Blame
The search for a culprit can itself become a methodological distraction. Imagine three long-term curves: human population rises, wolf population rises, and an ecological variable X rises. If the only argument offered for causation is that the human curve and X move together, then the same bare logic could 'blame' wolves when their curve also moves with X. The absurdity is the lesson. The purpose of correlation is to identify relationships worth investigating, not to supply a culprit in advance.
This paper therefore recommends separating four statements that are often compressed into one: an observation occurred; two variables covary; a mechanism is hypothesized; a causal effect is established. Each step requires additional evidence. In ecological networks, the number of plausible direct and indirect pathways makes that distinction particularly important. Bluthgen and Staab (2024) warn that network patterns can be misinterpreted when abundance, sampling, and other structural effects are not adequately accounted for.
Correlation is not causation.
Observation != Correlation != Mechanism != Demonstrated causation
The objective is not skepticism for its own sake. It is to keep the analysis open long enough for the system to speak before the author decides what story the system must tell.
8. A Whole-System Response Vector
Instead of forcing ecological change into one scalar judgment such as 'better' or 'worse,' this paper proposes describing a whole-system response as a multidimensional vector. A practical reporting framework can track at least six dimensions:
R = {Delta N, Delta D, Delta I, Delta F, Delta C, Delta T}
Delta N represents changes in abundance; Delta D changes in geographic distribution; Delta I changes in species interactions; Delta F changes in ecological function; Delta C changes in community composition; and Delta T changes in temporal persistence or stability. A complete study may add genetic diversity, age structure, phenology, disease, nutrient cycling, or other dimensions.
This formulation has an important advantage: different dimensions may point in different directions. Abundance can decline locally while distribution expands elsewhere. Richness can remain stable while composition changes. Biomass can remain stable while trophic structure changes. A system can become more diverse but less functionally redundant. None of those outcomes can be faithfully reduced to a single population line.
9. The Ecological Completeness Principle
The Ecological Completeness Principle (ECP) is a proposed standard for environmental analysis and communication:
Whenever a population change is presented as environmentally significant, the analysis should seek, where data permit, the associated losses, gains, migrations, replacements, dependent-species responses, competitor responses, predator-prey effects, functional consequences, temporal context, spatial context, and plausible interacting drivers before characterizing the direction of the ecosystem as a whole.
The ECP is not a demand that every news article become a monograph or that every study measure every variable. Ecological completeness is proportional to the claim. A paper can legitimately study one species. A news article can legitimately summarize that paper. The problem appears when a narrow measurement is expanded into a broad ecosystem conclusion without acknowledging what has not been measured.
9.1 Proportional Application: What Counts as 'Good Enough'?
The ECP is strongest when completeness is treated as proportional rather than absolute. Different forms of communication have different space, data, and evidentiary obligations. The minimum standard should therefore rise with the breadth and consequence of the claim.
Peer-reviewed research. Measure the relationships necessary to support the stated inference, identify materially relevant variables that were not measured, distinguish direct observations from modeled or inferred mechanisms, and keep conclusions within the spatial and temporal limits of the study.
Agency and management reports. Include the network consequences most relevant to the proposed action: affected populations, dependencies, competing pressures, functional changes, plausible secondary effects, and major uncertainties that could change the management choice.
News and public communication. At minimum, distinguish local change from regional or global change, decline from redistribution, and a measured association from an established mechanism. When the underlying study reports materially important increases, replacements, range shifts, or contrary responses, those findings should not disappear merely because they complicate the headline.
AI summaries. Represent the principal finding, the most important qualifications, materially different system responses, and what the evidence does not establish. An AI summary need not reproduce every variable, but it should not compress a network result into a one-direction story when the source itself contains consequential countervailing information.
A useful test is simple: if a reasonable reader would make a materially different ecological inference after learning an omitted fact that was available in the source evidence, the summary was not complete enough for the claim it made.
10. From Scientific Result to Public Story
Science communication necessarily selects. No article can reproduce an entire dataset, and no journalist can describe every ecological relationship. The ethical question is what selection does to meaning.
Research on ecology in mass media shows that the public often receives only a small fraction of ecological research and that news stories tend to emphasize results and discussion more than methods (Baker et al., 2012). A 2025 content analysis of Dutch biodiversity coverage found that political and societal events frequently triggered coverage and that stories focused strongly on causes while giving less attention to effects (Heerdink et al., 2025). These studies do not establish that environmental journalism is generally deceptive. They do establish that framing and selection are measurable features of ecological communication.
A story can therefore be composed entirely of accurate statements and still produce an incomplete mental model. If an article reports a declining cold-adapted species, omits expanding warm-adapted species, omits movement into other regions, omits changes in prey and competitors, and then uses the single decline as shorthand for the entire ecosystem, the problem is not necessarily that the decline is false. The problem is that the reader has not been shown the system.
Conversely, an article that highlights only expanding populations could minimize genuine losses and ecological disruption. Whole-system reporting must resist both directions of cherry-picking.
The reader should not be trained to inherit the author's preferred conclusion. The reader should be given enough of the evidence architecture to understand how conclusions are made.
11. Advocacy, Analysis, and the Boundary Between Them
Environmental stewardship often requires advocacy. A conservation organization may openly argue for protecting habitat. A government agency may promote a management action. A journalist may write an editorial. There is nothing inherently illegitimate about advocacy when it is identified as advocacy.
The difficulty arises when advocacy is presented as if it were a complete ecological analysis. Scientific language can give a narrative the appearance of inevitability even when materially relevant countervailing evidence has been omitted. The remedy is not to outlaw perspective; it is to separate observation, interpretation, uncertainty, and recommendation.
A useful discipline is to ask whether the strongest available evidence that complicates the preferred narrative has been presented. If a decline is central to the story, were corresponding increases or redistributions investigated? If an increase is celebrated, were the organisms harmed by that increase considered? If a causal mechanism is asserted, were alternative pathways evaluated? If the data are local, is the conclusion also local? These questions do not weaken science. They prevent scientific language from being used as a decorative wrapper around a predetermined view.
12. Illustrative Ecological Patterns and Worked Vignettes
12.1 Predator Change and Multicausal Cascades
Wolf systems illustrate why whole-system interpretation matters. A change in wolf abundance can affect prey behavior and abundance, vegetation, scavengers, competing predators, and other processes. But the strength and even detectability of those effects depends on weather, habitat, prey demography, human harvest, spatial structure, and time. Peterson et al. (2014) explicitly describe Isle Royale and Yellowstone as multicausal, heterogeneous, and nonequilibrium systems. The lesson is not 'wolves cause everything' or 'wolves cause nothing.' The lesson is that network effects must be evaluated alongside other changing conditions.
12.2 Community Turnover Under Temperature Change
Pinsky et al. (2025) found that faster temperature change, whether warming or cooling, was associated with faster compositional turnover. This matters because it focuses attention on replacement and reorganization rather than only directional loss. Turnover can still threaten ecosystem integrity, especially if replacement removes function or creates novel interactions. Yet the ecologically meaningful object is the changing community, not only the species leaving it.
12.3 Range Contraction and Range Expansion at the Same Time
Species redistributions can produce simultaneous decline and increase at different parts of a range. Pinsky et al. (2020) describe marine species expanding at leading edges while trailing edges contract. Lawlor et al. (2024) show that observed shifts often depart from simple expectations because species interactions, habitat, and other environmental variables matter. Reporting only one edge can therefore create a false impression of the full geographic response.
12.4 Compensatory Dynamics Without Assuming Compensation
Compensatory dynamics offer a caution in both directions. They demonstrate that some species can increase while others decline, sometimes stabilizing aggregate ecosystem properties (Ernest & Brown, 2001; Gonzalez & Loreau, 2009). But they are not a universal law. An analyst should look for compensation rather than presume it. This is exactly the kind of disciplined symmetry the ECP requires: search for increases when declines are observed, but do not invent increases merely because the framework says they are possible.
12.5 Worked Vignette: Sea Otter Decline, Urchin Increase, and Kelp Loss
In western Alaska, sea otter populations declined abruptly across large areas. Estes et al. (1998) identified increased killer whale predation as the likely cause of the otter decline and documented the nearshore response: sea urchin density increased and kelp forests were heavily reduced as the otter's keystone predatory role weakened. The ecologically important event was therefore not one downward line. It was a linked sequence involving predator pressure, otter decline, herbivore release, and loss of kelp structure.
The vignette demonstrates the ECP in both directions. Reporting only the sea otter decline would omit the organisms that increased and the habitat function that changed. Reporting only the increase in sea urchins could be equally misleading because numerical increase was associated with intensified grazing and kelp loss. A whole-system account changes the object of interpretation from "otters declined" or "urchins increased" to "the nearshore interaction network reorganized."
12.6 Worked Vignette: Four Fish, Four Different Range Stories
Roday et al. (2026) compared recreational-fishery and survey data from 1981 through 2024 for black sea bass, summer flounder, winter flounder, and scup along the U.S. coast. Black sea bass and summer flounder showed strong poleward shifts in their centers of distribution, yet black sea bass also showed moderate range expansion while summer flounder showed range contraction. Scup showed moderate range expansion with weak or non-significant center-of-distribution shifts, while winter flounder showed consistent range contraction with little movement in its center of distribution.
For present purposes, the important result is methodological. The same broad environmental period and the same analytical setting produced different combinations of movement, expansion, contraction, and relative stability depending on species and metric. A headline such as "fish move north" would capture part of the evidence but erase much of the ecological structure. The fuller story requires both distribution and abundance-related dimensions, multiple species, and explicit attention to the metric being reported.
13. Stewardship Requires a Wide-Angle View
The practical purpose of ecological understanding is not simply to describe change but to support wise stewardship. A narrow diagnosis can produce a narrow intervention. If management focuses on increasing one species without considering food supply, competitors, predators, disease, habitat capacity, and secondary effects, the intervention can fail or create new problems.
Whole-system stewardship asks a different sequence of questions: What changed? What else changed with it? Which relationships were strengthened or weakened? Which functions were lost, gained, or moved? Is the effect local or widespread? Is it transient or persistent? What interventions would alter the network, and what secondary consequences are plausible?
This does not make conservation indecisive. It makes conservation better targeted. In some cases the fuller analysis will strengthen the case for rapid intervention because it reveals cascading loss. In other cases it may reveal that a dramatic local decline is part of redistribution rather than system collapse. In still others it may identify an increase that initially looks beneficial but creates new ecological pressure.
The sea otter-urchin-kelp example makes the practical point concrete. A response aimed only at kelp condition would miss the elevated grazing pressure; a response aimed only at urchin abundance would miss the predator-mediated release that helped produce it; and a response aimed only at otter counts would miss the downstream habitat consequence. The ECP does not dictate which intervention should be chosen. It identifies the relationships that must be considered before an intervention is treated as a system-level solution.
The desired outcome is not a particular political conclusion. It is a steward who understands enough of the ecological system to make a decision that is proportionate to the evidence.
14. Limits of the Ecological Completeness Principle
No ecological analysis can be literally complete. Ecosystems contain more organisms, interactions, scales, and unknowns than any study can measure. The ECP should therefore be understood as a discipline of disclosure and search, not as a demand for omniscience.
First, data availability differs across taxa and regions. A well-studied bird or mammal may have decades of abundance records while invertebrates, fungi, microbes, or parasites in the same system are poorly measured. Second, interaction strength is often harder to quantify than species presence. Third, ecological baselines can be uncertain or historically shifting. Fourth, even sophisticated network models can produce misleading interpretations if sampling and abundance effects are not handled correctly (Bluthgen & Staab, 2024).
For those reasons, an ecologically complete report should sometimes say plainly: 'We do not know what happened to the rest of the network.' That sentence is not a weakness. It is more informative than converting an unmeasured system into a confident narrative.
15. Teaching Independent Ecological Thinking
The deepest purpose of this paper is educational. Environmental communication should not merely supply conclusions. It should teach the reader how an ecosystem must be interrogated.
A reader trained in ecological completeness should automatically ask: What increased while this declined? What depends on this species? What does this species suppress? Did it disappear or move? What happened elsewhere? What happened before the chosen baseline? What is the time scale? What changed in the interaction network? Which claims are observations, which are inferences, and which are recommendations?
Those questions make the reader less vulnerable to selective alarm and equally less vulnerable to selective reassurance. That is precisely the point. Independent reasoning should survive changes in emphasis or fashion because it is anchored to method.
16. Discussion
The central proposal of this paper is modest but consequential: environmental stories should scale their conclusions to the ecological system actually examined. If the data concern one species in one place, the result should initially be described at that level. Broader interpretation should expand only as broader evidence is added.
This principle does not minimize genuine biodiversity loss. Nor does it transform every decline into a hidden success. It simply prevents ecological complexity from being collapsed into a predetermined moral direction. A decline can matter deeply. An increase can matter deeply. Redistribution can matter deeply. Stability in aggregate measures can coexist with profound compositional change. The network decides what the event means, not the sign of one trend line.
The proposal also places a burden on authors, editors, institutions, and AI systems that summarize science. The quality of an explanation depends not only on whether each sentence is factually defensible, but on whether the selection of facts builds a representative model of the underlying system. True statements can still be arranged into a misleading picture when material countervailing relationships are omitted.
For artificial intelligence this point is especially important. An AI system that reproduces the dominant framing of its source material without examining what the framing omits can amplify the incompleteness already present in source selection. The corrective is not to impose an opposite ideology. It is to make framing visible, distinguish evidence from inference, and search deliberately for omitted relationships that could materially change interpretation.
17. Conclusion
A changing population is an ecological event. A changing network is the ecological story.
Ecological systems are not snapshots. They are moving networks of populations, interactions, functions, places, and time. Species decline and species increase are both real ecological phenomena, but neither supplies a complete interpretation by itself. Declines can propagate further decline, release competitors, restructure food webs, or coincide with expansion elsewhere. Increases can support dependent species, intensify competition, alter predation, or create new pressures. There is no universal rule of thumb that converts population direction into system direction.
Climate variables, habitat, weather, disease, predation, competition, migration, human activity, and other influences can all participate in ecological change. This paper intentionally does not assign ultimate blame among them. Its concern is prior to blame: has the ecological system been represented well enough to know what is actually changing?
The Ecological Completeness Principle offers one answer. Look for losses and gains. Look across space and time. Follow dependencies and releases. Distinguish replacement from functional equivalence. Separate observation from attribution. State what remains unknown. Then make stewardship decisions from the widest defensible picture.
Environmental science serves the public best when it does not train people what to think, but gives them enough of the system to think correctly and independently. That is not neutrality toward evidence. It is loyalty to the evidence before loyalty to the story.
References
Baker, M. J., Williams, L. F., Lybbert, A. H., & Johnson, J. B. (2012). How ecological science is portrayed in mass media. Ecosphere, 3(1), 9. https://doi.org/10.1890/ES11-00238.1
Bartley, T. J., McCann, K. S., Bieg, C., Cazelles, K., Granados, M., Guzzo, M. M., MacDougall, A. S., Tunney, T. D., & McMeans, B. C. (2019). Food web rewiring in a changing world. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 3, 345-354. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-018-0772-3
Bluthgen, N., & Staab, M. (2024). A critical evaluation of network approaches for studying species interactions. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 55, 65-88. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-102722-021904
Ernest, S. K. M., & Brown, J. H. (2001). Homeostasis and compensation: The role of species and resources in ecosystem stability. Ecology, 82(8), 2118-2132. https://doi.org/10.1890/0012-9658(2001)082[2118:HACTRO]2.0.CO;2
Estes, J. A., Tinker, M. T., Williams, T. M., & Doak, D. F. (1998). Killer whale predation on sea otters linking oceanic and nearshore ecosystems. Science, 282(5388), 473-476. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.282.5388.473
Gonzalez, A., & Loreau, M. (2009). The causes and consequences of compensatory dynamics in ecological communities. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 40, 393-414. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.39.110707.173349
Guimaraes, P. R. (2020). The structure of ecological networks across levels of organization. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 51, 433-460. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-012220-120819
Heerdink, A. W. M., Ruigrok, N., Aivelo, T. J. E., & Smeets, I. (2025). Media coverage of biodiversity research in the Netherlands: News triggers, sources, and frames. Journal for Nature Conservation, 88, 127018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2025.127018
Lawlor, J. A., Comte, L., Grenouillet, G., Lenoir, J., Baecher, J. A., Bandara, R. M. W. J., Bertrand, R., Chen, I.-C., Diamond, S. E., Lancaster, L. T., Moore, N., Murienne, J., Oliveira, B. F., Pecl, G. T., Pinsky, M. L., Rolland, J., Rubenstein, M., Scheffers, B. R., Thompson, L. M., van Amerom, B., Villalobos, F., Weiskopf, S. R., & Sunday, J. (2024). Mechanisms, detection and impacts of species redistributions under climate change. Nature Reviews Earth & Environment, 5, 351-368. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43017-024-00527-z
Peterson, R. O., Vucetich, J. A., Bump, J. M., & Smith, D. W. (2014). Trophic cascades in a multicausal world: Isle Royale and Yellowstone. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 45, 325-345. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-120213-091634
Pinsky, M. L., Hillebrand, H., Chase, J. M., Antao, L. H., Hirt, M. R., Brose, U., Burrows, M. T., Gauzens, B., Rosenbaum, B., & Blowes, S. A. (2025). Warming and cooling catalyse widespread temporal turnover in biodiversity. Nature, 638, 995-999. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-08456-z
Pinsky, M. L., Selden, R. L., & Kitchel, Z. J. (2020). Climate-driven shifts in marine species ranges: Scaling from organisms to communities. Annual Review of Marine Science, 12, 153-179. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-marine-010419-010916
Piovia-Scott, J., Yang, L. H., & Wright, A. N. (2017). Temporal variation in trophic cascades. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 48, 281-300. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-121415-032246
Roday, R. E., Hudock, R. E., Millea, D. R., Carlisle, A. B., & Hale, E. A. (2026). Recreational fisheries as indicators of change: species range shifts from MRIP (1981-2024). BMC Zoology, 11, 17. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40850-026-00266-2
Rodriguez-Fonseca, B., Calvo-Miguelez, E., Montoya-Carramolino, L., Rodrigues, R. R., Polo, I., Martin-Rey, M., Losada, T., Lopez Parages, J., Gomara, I., Rivas, D., & McPhaden, M. J. (2026). ENSO impacts on marine ecosystems and fisheries in the tropical and South Atlantic. Nature Reviews Earth & Environment, 7, 43-59. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43017-025-00742-2
Tylianakis, J. M., & Morris, R. J. (2017). Ecological networks across environmental gradients. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 48, 25-48. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-110316-022821
