Some thoughts about the challenge of inferring ecological interactions from spatial data.
Dr. Luis Escobar asked me to provide a joint review of the submissions by Stephens et al. (2019, this issue) and Peterson et al. (2019, this issue). I pulled thoughts together, but by the time I sent them along, he had received other reviews and made an editorial decision. He felt my perspective might nevertheless warrant publishing as a commentary alongside these two pieces. My review was of the original submissions, which are now appearing with minor, mainly cosmetic changes. I have only lightly edited the text of my review, and added a few additional thoughts and pertinent references. Neither group of authors has seen my commentary, and so I am responsible for any omissions or lapses in interpretation. The protocol developed by Stephens seems to me a potentially valuable exploratory tool in describing patterns of co-occurrence, but I note several potential problems in identifying interactions usingsolely this protocol. I also gently disagree with Peterson et al., who state flatly that co-occurrence data can shed no light at all on interspecific interactions. I suggest there are a number of counter-examples to this claim in the literature. I argue that spatiotemporal data, when available, iprovide a much more powerful tool for discerning interactions, than do staticspatial data. Finally, I use a simple thought experiment to point out that biotic drivers could be playing a key causal role in limitnig distributions, even in equisitlvely accurate SDMs that use only abiotic (scenopoetic) data as input data.
How to Cite
Copyright for articles published in this journal is retained by the authors, with first publication rights granted to the journal. All articles are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial license.
Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.