Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41074258›Full record

ReviewBiological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society2026

A practical guide to characterising ecological coexistence.

Adam T Clark, Lauren G Shoemaker, Jean-François Arnoldi, György Barabás, Rachel Germain, Oscar Godoy, Lauren Hallett, Canan Karakoç, Serguei Saavedra, Sebastian J Schreiber

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 2026. 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

10 authors.

Adam T Clark *Department of Biology, University of Graz, Holteigasse 6, Graz, 8010, Austria.ORCID 0000-0002-8843-3278
Lauren G Shoemaker *Botany Department, University of Wyoming, 1000 E. University Ave, Laramie, WY, 82071, USA.
Jean-François ArnoldiCentre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Experimental and Theoretical Ecology Station, 2 route du CNRS, Moulis, 09200, France.
György BarabásDivision of Biology, Linköping University, Linköping, SE-58183, Sweden.
Rachel GermainDepartment of Zoology, The University of British Columbia, 6270 University Blvd #4200, Vancouver, BC, V6T1Z4, Canada.
Oscar GodoyEstación Biológica de Doñana (EBD-CSIC) Americo Vespucio 26, Sevilla, 41092, Spain.
Lauren HallettInstitute of Ecology and Evolution, University of Oregon, Onyx Bridge, 272, 1318 Franklin Blvd, Eugene, OR, 97403, USA.
Canan KarakoçSchool of Biological Sciences and Center for Microbial Dynamics and Infection, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, North Avenue, GA, 30332, USA.
Serguei SaavedraDepartment of Civil and Environmental Engineering, MIT, 77 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, MA, 02139, USA.
Sebastian J SchreiberDepartment of Evolution and Ecology and Center for Population Biology, University of California, Davis, CA, 95616, USA.

Funding

Austrian Science Fund I 6578European Social FundGrantová Agentura České Republiky 24-14299LNational Science Foundation 2019528Spanish Ministry of Science, Innovation, and Universities (MICIU) PID2021-127607OB-100
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Coexistence is simultaneously one of the most fundamental concepts of ecology, and one of the most difficult to define. A particular challenge is that, despite a well-developed body of research, several different schools of thought have developed over the past century, leading to multiple independent, and largely isolated, branches of literature with distinct methodologies. Here, we provide a broad overview of the most common concepts and metrics currently used to detect and characterise ecological coexistence. We first introduce four classes of behaviour, which jointly describe the ways in which community dynamics can unfold: (i) the existence of a feasible steady state (or invariant set), i.e. where all coexisting species retain positive abundances in the long-term in the absence of interference by external forces; (ii) the existence of a local attractor that draws the community towards a feasible steady state from within a restricted set of starting conditions; (iii) the existence of a global attractor that draws the community towards feasible steady states from any non-zero starting condition; and (o) a null transient state, where species abundances vary over time irrespective of steady states and attractors. Next, we explain how these classes of behaviour relate to commonly used metrics for identifying and characterising coexistence, including analyses of parameter sensitivity, asymptotic return rates, invasion growth rates, and time to extinction. We then discuss the scope and limitations of each of these behavioural classes and corresponding metrics, with a particular focus on applications in empirical systems. Finally, we provide a potential workflow for matching empirical questions to theoretical tools, and present a brief prospectus looking forward to opportunities for advancing and integrating research on coexistence.

Indexed as

EcologyEcosystemModels, BiologicalAnimalsPopulation Dynamicsasymptotic return rateecological coexistenceempirically tractableinvasion growth ratemutual invasibilityparameter sensitivitystructural stabilitytime to extinction

Identifiers

PMID41074258
PMCPMC12783456

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.