Back

Nonlinear thinking in ecology and evolution: The case for ecological scaling of the Threshold Elemental Ratio

Tumolo, B.; Olson, C.; Larson, E.; Halvorson, H.; Wagner, C. E.; Krist, A.; Osburn, F.; Moody, E.; Rock, L.; Ogbenna, U.; Wess, E.; Najev, B. L.; Pignatelli, A.; Corman, J.

2024-08-21 ecology
10.1101/2024.08.20.608290 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Nonlinear dynamics govern ecological processes, thus understanding thresholds is important for measuring and forecasting effects of climate change and management of natural resources. However, identifying whether and how such thresholds scale across biological levels of organization remains challenging. Ecological stoichiometry, the study of the balance of multiple elements and energy in ecological systems, provides a framework for scaling thresholds. We broaden a key organismal concept from ecological stoichiometry theory, the Threshold Elemental Ratio (TER), to study how nonlinear dynamics operate in evolutionary and ecological processes across the organizational hierarchy. Traditionally, TERs are used to describe the elemental ratio at which the limitation of organismal growth shifts from one element to another. Following this definition, we make a case for broadening the ecological scale of the TER beyond organisms to include populations, clades, communities, and ecosystems. We show how TERs can be detected and translated across different scales of biological and evolutionary organization through simulation modeling, literature review, and synthesis of empirical examples from diverse systems and ecological scales including: cyanotoxin production in lakes, alder-salmon dynamics, and the Cambrian explosion. Collectively, we demonstrate that TERs are widespread and consequential across levels of biological organization and that such thresholds manifest from a diversity of mechanisms. Thus, scaling of the TER concept holds promise for advancing our understanding of nonlinear dynamics from the micro-evolutionary to macro-ecological.

Matching journals

The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.