Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41176760›Full record

ReviewEcology letters2025

The Equilibrium Conundrum.

Tess N Grainger, Keila Stark, Chuliang Song, Matthew A Barbour, Rachel M Germain

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Ecology letters, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. The Equilibrium Conundrum.Ecology letters · 2025
    Review
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

5 authors.

Tess N GraingerUniversity of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6094-0526
Keila StarkUniversity of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9835-2407
Chuliang SongUniversity of California, Los Angeles, California, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7490-8626
Matthew A BarbourUniversité de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7686-0400
Rachel M GermainUniversity of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1270-6639

Funding

Fonds de recherche du Québec - Nature et technologiesNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The idea that natural systems tend to be at equilibrium dates back to the origin of the field of ecology and continues to underlie most ecological theory. However, empirical evidence for equilibrium dynamics in nature and in experiments is surprisingly elusive. Here, we address this conundrum by first exploring the history of equilibrium in ecological theory and the evidence for equilibrium dynamics in natural systems. We then search the literature to quantify how empiricists deal with equilibrium in their research and address barriers to integrating the concept of equilibrium into empirical work by providing step-by-step instructions for determining whether a population is at equilibrium. Next, we lay out three ways that equilibrium is embedded in theory, and for each, outline when meeting the equilibrium assumption in empirical tests is critical for scientific inference, and when it may be possible to relax this assumption. And finally, we present concrete steps that empiricists and theoreticians can each take in order to meet in the middle when it comes to equilibrium. We hope that this paper will stimulate new discussions from researchers from across the theory-empirical divide about this longstanding issue.

Indexed as

EcologyEcosystemModels, BiologicalPopulation Dynamicsbalance of natureempirical testsequilibriummathematical modelstheory

Identifiers

PMID41176760
PMCPMC12579923

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.