Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40536438›Full record

ArticleEcology letters2025

Facilitation Thinking for Coexistence Theory.

Aubrie R M James, Margaret M Mayfield, Malyon D Bimler

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ecology letters, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Aubrie R M JamesDepartment of Architecture, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6597-3087
Margaret M MayfieldSchool of Biology, University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5101-6542
Malyon D BimlerSchool of BioSciences, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0059-2360

Funding

Australian Research Council DP210100913Botany Foundation, Faculty of Science, University of Melbourne
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Species interactions are foundational to biodiversity maintenance. Facilitation, a common outcome of species interactions, occurs among and between a wide variety of organisms yet its treatment in the theory and models used to predict species coexistence is underdeveloped. We ask why this is and speculate about how to address this apparent discrepancy. We first evaluate a persistent ambivalence to facilitation in the context of population and community ecology, particularly in contemporary coexistence theory. We then propose 'facilitation thinking' to remedy the gap between empirical evidence of facilitation and mathematical theory of coexistence. We briefly discuss how a holistic treatment of facilitation in theory has the potential to reconfigure our basic understanding and definition of coexistence. Ultimately, we argue for an expanded theory of coexistence that accounts for a diversity of species interaction outcomes, allowing for the study of interactions and diversity maintenance beyond the war of all against all.

Indexed as

BiodiversityEcosystemModels, BiologicalAnimalsPopulation Dynamicscoexistencecompetitiondiversityecological theoryfacilitationspecies interactions

Identifiers

PMID40536438
PMCPMC12178234

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.