Search

Although variation in effect sizes and predicted values among studies of similar phenomena is inevitable, such variation far exceeds what might be produced by sampling error alone. One possible explanation for variation among results is differences among researchers in the decisions they make regarding statistical analyses. A growing array of studies has explored this analytical variability in different fields and has found substantial variability among results despite analysts having the same data and research question. Many of these studies have been in the social sciences, but one small "many analyst" study found similar variability in ecology. We expanded the scope of this prior work by implementing a large-scale empirical exploration of the variation in effect sizes and model predictions generated by the analytical decisions of different researchers in ecology and evolutionary biology. We used two unpublished datasets, one from evolutionary ecology (blue tit, Cyanistes caeruleus, to compare sibling number and nestling growth) and one from conservation ecology (Eucalyptus, to compare grass cover and tree seedling recruitment). The project leaders recruited 174 analyst teams, comprising 246 analysts, to investigate the answers to prespecified research questions. Analyses conducted by these teams yielded 141 usable effects (compatible with our meta-analyses and with all necessary information provided) for the blue tit dataset, and 85 usable effects for the Eucalyptus dataset. We found substantial heterogeneity among results for both datasets, although the patterns of variation differed between them. For the blue tit analyses, the average effect was convincingly negative, with less growth for nestlings living with more siblings, but there was near continuous variation in effect size from large negative effects to effects near zero, and even effects crossing the traditional threshold of statistical significance in the opposite direction. In contrast, the average relationship between grass cover and Eucalyptus seedling number was only slightly negative and not convincingly different from zero, and most effects ranged from weakly negative to weakly positive, with about a third of effects crossing the traditional threshold of significance in one direction or the other. However, there were also several striking outliers in the Eucalyptus dataset, with effects far from zero. For both datasets, we found substantial variation in the variable selection and random effects structures among analyses, as well as in the ratings of the analytical methods by peer reviewers, but we found no strong relationship between any of these and deviation from the meta-analytic mean. In other words, analyses with results that were far from the mean were no more or less likely to have dissimilar variable sets, use random effects in their models, or receive poor peer reviews than those analyses that found results that were close to the mean. The existence of substantial variability among analysis outcomes raises important questions about how ecologists and evolutionary biologists should interpret published results, and how they should conduct analyses in the future., Competing Interests: Declarations. Ethics approval and consent to particpate: We obtained permission to conduct this research from the Whitman College Institutional Review Board (IRB). As part of this permission, the IRB approved the consent form ( https://osf.io/xyp68/ ) that all participants completed prior to joining the study. The authors declare that they have no competing interests. Competing interests: The authors declare that they have no competing interests., (© 2025. The Author(s).)

Foraging animals commonly choose whether to find new food (as 'producers') or scavenge from others (as 'scroungers'), and this decision has ecological and evolutionary consequences. Understanding these tactic decisions is particularly vital for naturally occurring producer-scrounger systems of economic importance, because they determine the system's productivity and resilience. Here, we investigate how individuals' traits predict tactic decisions, and the consistency and pay-offs of these decisions, in the remarkable mutualism between humans ( Homo sapiens ) and greater honeyguides ( Indicator indicator ). Honeyguides can either guide people to bees' nests and eat the resulting beeswax (producing), or scavenge beeswax (scrounging). Our results suggest that honeyguides flexibly switched tactics, and that guiding yielded greater access to the beeswax. Birds with longer tarsi scrounged more, perhaps because they are more competitive. The lightest females rarely guided, possibly to avoid aggression, or because genetic matrilines may affect female body mass and behaviour in this species. Overall, aspects of this producer-scrounger system probably increase the productivity and resilience of the associated human-honeyguide mutualism, because the pay-offs incentivize producing, and tactic-switching increases the pool of potential producers. Broadly, our findings suggest that even where tactic-switching is prevalent and producing yields greater pay-offs, certain phenotypes may be predisposed to one tactic.

Many mutualisms are exploited by third-party species, which benefit without providing anything in return. Exploitation can either destabilize or promote mutualisms, via mechanisms that are highly dependent on the ecological context. Here we study a remarkable bird-human mutualism, in which wax-eating greater honeyguides ( Indicator indicator ) guide humans ( Homo sapiens ) to wild bees' nests, in an exchange of knowledge about the location of nests for access to the wax combs inside. We test whether the depletion of wax by mammalian and avian exploiter species either threatens or stabilizes the mutualism. Using camera traps, we monitored feeding visits to wax comb made available following honey harvests. We found that greater honeyguides face competition for wax from conspecifics and nine exploiter species, five of which were not previously known to consume wax. Our results support the hypothesis that heterospecific exploiters stabilize the mutualism, because wax depletion by these competitors probably limits feeding opportunities for conspecific exploiters, favouring the early-arriving individual that guided humans to the bees' nest. These findings highlight the importance of the ecological context of species interactions and provide further evidence for how mutualisms can persist because of, and not in spite of, exploitation by third-party species.

Whether prey species avoid predators and predator species track prey is a poorly understood aspect of predator-prey interactions, given measuring prey tracking by predators and predator avoidance by prey is challenging. A common approach to study these interactions among mammals in field situations is to monitor the spatial proximity of animals at fixed times, using GPS tags fitted to individuals. However, this method is invasive and only allows tracking of a subset of individuals. Here, we use an alternative, noninvasive camera-trapping approach to monitor temporal proximity of predator and prey animals. We deployed camera traps at fixed locations on Barro Colorado Island, Panama, where the ocelot ( Leopardus pardalis ) is the principal mammalian predator, and tested two hypotheses: (1) prey animals avoid ocelots; and (2) ocelots track prey. We quantified temporal proximity of predators and prey by fitting parametric survival models to the time intervals between subsequent prey and predator captures by camera traps, and then compared the observed intervals to random permutations that retained the spatiotemporal distribution of animal activity. We found that time until a prey animal appeared at a location was significantly longer than expected by chance if an ocelot had passed, and that the time until an ocelot appeared at a location was significantly shorter than expected by chance after prey passage. These findings are indirect evidence for both predator avoidance and prey tracking in this system. Our results show that predator avoidance and prey tracking influence predator and prey distribution over time in a field setting. Moreover, this study demonstrates that camera trapping is a viable and noninvasive alternative to GPS tracking for studying certain predator-prey interactions., Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Society of Mammalogists.)

Human-wildlife cooperation occurs when humans and free-living wild animals actively coordinate their behavior to achieve a mutually beneficial outcome. These interactions provide important benefits to both the human and wildlife communities involved, have wider impacts on the local ecosystem, and represent a unique intersection of human and animal cultures. The remaining active forms are human-honeyguide and human-dolphin cooperation, but these are at risk of joining several inactive forms (including human-wolf and human-orca cooperation). Human-wildlife cooperation faces a unique set of conservation challenges, as it requires multiple components-a motivated human and wildlife partner, a suitable environment, and compatible interspecies knowledge-which face threats from ecological and cultural changes. To safeguard human-wildlife cooperation, we recommend: (i) establishing ethically sound conservation strategies together with the participating human communities; (ii) conserving opportunities for human and wildlife participation; (iii) protecting suitable environments; (iv) facilitating cultural transmission of traditional knowledge; (v) accessibly archiving Indigenous and scientific knowledge; and (vi) conducting long-term empirical studies to better understand these interactions and identify threats. Tailored safeguarding plans are therefore necessary to protect these diverse and irreplaceable interactions. Broadly, our review highlights that efforts to conserve biological and cultural diversity should carefully consider interactions between human and animal cultures. Please see AfricanHoneyguides.com/abstract-translations for Kiswahili and Portuguese translations of the abstract., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflict of interest., (© 2022 The Authors. Conservation Letters published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Collaboration and diversity are increasingly promoted in science. Yet how collaborations influence academic career progression, and whether this differs by gender, remains largely unknown. Here, we use co-authorship ego networks to quantify collaboration behaviour and career progression of a cohort of contributors to biennial International Society of Behavioral Ecology meetings (1992, 1994, 1996). Among this cohort, women were slower and less likely to become a principal investigator (PI; approximated by having at least three last-author publications) and published fewer papers over fewer years (i.e. had shorter academic careers) than men. After adjusting for publication number, women also had fewer collaborators (lower adjusted network size) and published fewer times with each co-author (lower adjusted tie strength), albeit more often with the same group of collaborators (higher adjusted clustering coefficient). Authors with stronger networks were more likely to become a PI, and those with less clustered networks did so more quickly. Women, however, showed a stronger positive relationship with adjusted network size (increased career length) and adjusted tie strength (increased likelihood to become a PI). Finally, early-career network characteristics correlated with career length. Our results suggest that large and varied collaboration networks are positively correlated with career progression, especially for women.