<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
     xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
     xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
     xmlns:prism="http://prismstandard.org/namespaces/basic/2.0/"
     version="2.0">
   <channel>
      <title>Wiley: Ecology Letters: Table of Contents</title>
      <link>https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/14610248?af=R</link>
      <description>Table of Contents for Ecology Letters. List of articles from both the latest and EarlyView issues.</description>
      <language>en-US</language>
      <copyright>© John Wiley &amp; Sons Ltd/ CNRS</copyright>
      <managingEditor>wileyonlinelibrary@wiley.com (Wiley Online Library)</managingEditor>
      <pubDate>Wed, 10 Jun 2026 07:28:57 +0000</pubDate>
      <lastBuildDate>Wed, 10 Jun 2026 07:28:57 +0000</lastBuildDate>
      <generator>Atypon® Literatum™</generator>
      <docs>https://validator.w3.org/feed/docs/rss2.html</docs>
      <ttl>10080</ttl>
      <dc:title>Wiley: Ecology Letters: Table of Contents</dc:title>
      <dc:publisher>Wiley</dc:publisher>
      <prism:publicationName>Ecology Letters</prism:publicationName>
      <atom:link href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/14610248?af=R"
                 rel="self"
                 type="application/atom+xml"/>
      
      <item>
         <link>https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ele.70423?af=R</link>
         <pubDate>Sun, 07 Jun 2026 21:31:22 -0700</pubDate>
         <dc:date>2026-06-07T09:31:22-07:00</dc:date>
         <source url="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/14610248?af=R">Wiley: Ecology Letters: Table of Contents</source>
         <prism:coverDate>Mon, 01 Jun 2026 00:00:00 -0700</prism:coverDate>
         <prism:coverDisplayDate>Mon, 01 Jun 2026 00:00:00 -0700</prism:coverDisplayDate>
         <guid isPermaLink="false">10.1111/ele.70423</guid>
         <title>Comparative Analysis of Diversification Rates in Clonal and Non‐Clonal Flowering Plants</title>
         <description>Ecology Letters, Volume 29, Issue 6, June 2026. </description>
         <dc:description>
Using data from 16,465 angiosperm species across 2,997 genera, we classified genera as clonal, mixed, or non‐clonal and estimated diversification using genus‐level phylogeny with DR, MoM, and BAMM. Clonal genera consistently showed lower diversification rates than mixed and non‐clonal genera across all methods. This pattern remained after phylogenetic correction, although the effect was weaker.

ABSTRACT
Clonality, the process of vegetative reproduction through belowground organs (rhizomes, stolons), occurs in about half of all plant species. It influences key ecological and evolutionary phenomena, including effective population size, meiosis frequency and genet longevity, which may affect diversification rates. This study investigates how clonality impacts diversification in angiosperms by comparing clonal, mixed and non‐clonal genera. Using genus‐level phylogeny and data on clonal status of 16,465 species across 2997 genera, we estimated speciation and net diversification rates for each genus with MoM, DR and BAMM. Our results reveal lower diversification rates in clonal genera in non‐phylogenetic models, consistent with the hypothesis that clonality constrains diversification. This effect weakens when accounting for phylogenetic non‐independence but remains significant overall. We show that monocots show a slightly stronger effect of clonality on diversification than eudicots. Our findings suggest that clonality may limit long‐term diversification in angiosperms, influencing evolutionary dynamics where clonal reproduction predominates.
</dc:description>
         <content:encoded>&lt;img src="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/cms/asset/8ce8e092-9ac9-4ff0-bcb1-c114ab6bb88f/ele70423-toc-0001-m.png"
     alt="Comparative Analysis of Diversification Rates in Clonal and Non-Clonal Flowering Plants"/&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Using data from 16,465 angiosperm species across 2,997 genera, we classified genera as clonal, mixed, or non-clonal and estimated diversification using genus-level phylogeny with DR, MoM, and BAMM. Clonal genera consistently showed lower diversification rates than mixed and non-clonal genera across all methods. This pattern remained after phylogenetic correction, although the effect was weaker.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;br/&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;ABSTRACT&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Clonality, the process of vegetative reproduction through belowground organs (rhizomes, stolons), occurs in about half of all plant species. It influences key ecological and evolutionary phenomena, including effective population size, meiosis frequency and genet longevity, which may affect diversification rates. This study investigates how clonality impacts diversification in angiosperms by comparing clonal, mixed and non-clonal genera. Using genus-level phylogeny and data on clonal status of 16,465 species across 2997 genera, we estimated speciation and net diversification rates for each genus with MoM, DR and BAMM. Our results reveal lower diversification rates in clonal genera in non-phylogenetic models, consistent with the hypothesis that clonality constrains diversification. This effect weakens when accounting for phylogenetic non-independence but remains significant overall. We show that monocots show a slightly stronger effect of clonality on diversification than eudicots. Our findings suggest that clonality may limit long-term diversification in angiosperms, influencing evolutionary dynamics where clonal reproduction predominates.&lt;/p&gt;</content:encoded>
         <dc:creator>
Sonia Kadyan, 
Jitka Klimešová, 
Dimitar Dimitrov, 
Zhiheng Wang, 
Jan Smyčka, 
Tomáš Herben
</dc:creator>
         <category>LETTER</category>
         <dc:title>Comparative Analysis of Diversification Rates in Clonal and Non‐Clonal Flowering Plants</dc:title>
         <dc:identifier>10.1111/ele.70423</dc:identifier>
         <prism:publicationName>Ecology Letters</prism:publicationName>
         <prism:doi>10.1111/ele.70423</prism:doi>
         <prism:url>https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ele.70423?af=R</prism:url>
         <prism:section>LETTER</prism:section>
         <prism:volume>29</prism:volume>
         <prism:number>6</prism:number>
      </item>
      <item>
         <link>https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ele.70418?af=R</link>
         <pubDate>Sun, 07 Jun 2026 21:25:47 -0700</pubDate>
         <dc:date>2026-06-07T09:25:47-07:00</dc:date>
         <source url="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/14610248?af=R">Wiley: Ecology Letters: Table of Contents</source>
         <prism:coverDate>Mon, 01 Jun 2026 00:00:00 -0700</prism:coverDate>
         <prism:coverDisplayDate>Mon, 01 Jun 2026 00:00:00 -0700</prism:coverDisplayDate>
         <guid isPermaLink="false">10.1111/ele.70418</guid>
         <title>Macrogenetic Alignment in Ecological Strategies Better Interprets Assembly Processes Than Pre‐Determined Functional Groupings</title>
         <description>Ecology Letters, Volume 29, Issue 6, June 2026. </description>
         <dc:description>
A comparative macrogenetic framework reveals that standardised landscape‐genomics can identify shared patterns reflecting common histories and assembly processes. We detected convergence in distributional dynamics and delineate three broad patterns and five species groups defined by gene flow and isolation‐by‐distance, highlighting the limitations of trait‐based generalisations and supporting more robust, evidence‐based management strategies.

ABSTRACT
Understanding how species assemble across landscapes requires integration of data representing evolutionary, ecological, and biogeographic processes. We developed a comparative macrogenetic framework, applying it across 22 co‐distributed rainforest trees, to identify replicated landscape‐level genetic signatures. Diversity‐migration analyses and genogeographic clustering identified shared spatial dynamics in relation to refugial areas and genetic turnover, but with no direct relation to simple functional trait combinations. Three broad patterns emerged: Higher Northern Diversity with southward migration, Higher Southern Diversity with northward migration, and Homogeneous Diversity with no directional migration. We identified five (post hoc) species groups sharing gene flow and isolation‐by‐distance dynamics in relation to recognised biogeographic barriers. Replicated genetic signatures highlight how assembly processes emerge from interacting ecological and historical filters rather than single traits or biogeographic histories alone. We present a statistically replicable interpretational framework to identify shared evolutionary and ecological dynamics, offering scalable, management relevant tools to support restoration planning and biodiversity conservation under environmental change across all types of vegetation.
</dc:description>
         <content:encoded>&lt;img src="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/cms/asset/000149fc-086d-406c-82e0-cfa53e00c989/ele70418-toc-0001-m.png"
     alt="Macrogenetic Alignment in Ecological Strategies Better Interprets Assembly Processes Than Pre-Determined Functional Groupings"/&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A comparative macrogenetic framework reveals that standardised landscape-genomics can identify shared patterns reflecting common histories and assembly processes. We detected convergence in distributional dynamics and delineate three broad patterns and five species groups defined by gene flow and isolation-by-distance, highlighting the limitations of trait-based generalisations and supporting more robust, evidence-based management strategies.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;br/&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;ABSTRACT&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Understanding how species assemble across landscapes requires integration of data representing evolutionary, ecological, and biogeographic processes. We developed a comparative macrogenetic framework, applying it across 22 co-distributed rainforest trees, to identify replicated landscape-level genetic signatures. Diversity-migration analyses and genogeographic clustering identified shared spatial dynamics in relation to refugial areas and genetic turnover, but with no direct relation to simple functional trait combinations. Three broad patterns emerged: &lt;i&gt;Higher Northern Diversity&lt;/i&gt; with southward migration, &lt;i&gt;Higher Southern Diversity&lt;/i&gt; with northward migration, and &lt;i&gt;Homogeneous Diversity&lt;/i&gt; with no directional migration. We identified five (post hoc) species groups sharing gene flow and isolation-by-distance dynamics in relation to recognised biogeographic barriers. Replicated genetic signatures highlight how assembly processes emerge from interacting ecological and historical filters rather than single traits or biogeographic histories alone. We present a statistically replicable interpretational framework to identify shared evolutionary and ecological dynamics, offering scalable, management relevant tools to support restoration planning and biodiversity conservation under environmental change across all types of vegetation.&lt;/p&gt;</content:encoded>
         <dc:creator>
Maurizio Rossetto, 
Richard Dimon, 
Robert M. Kooyman, 
Peter D. Wilson, 
Jia‐Yee S. Yap
</dc:creator>
         <category>LETTER</category>
         <dc:title>Macrogenetic Alignment in Ecological Strategies Better Interprets Assembly Processes Than Pre‐Determined Functional Groupings</dc:title>
         <dc:identifier>10.1111/ele.70418</dc:identifier>
         <prism:publicationName>Ecology Letters</prism:publicationName>
         <prism:doi>10.1111/ele.70418</prism:doi>
         <prism:url>https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ele.70418?af=R</prism:url>
         <prism:section>LETTER</prism:section>
         <prism:volume>29</prism:volume>
         <prism:number>6</prism:number>
      </item>
      <item>
         <link>https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ele.70404?af=R</link>
         <pubDate>Thu, 28 May 2026 12:43:52 -0700</pubDate>
         <dc:date>2026-05-28T12:43:52-07:00</dc:date>
         <source url="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/14610248?af=R">Wiley: Ecology Letters: Table of Contents</source>
         <prism:coverDate>Mon, 01 Jun 2026 00:00:00 -0700</prism:coverDate>
         <prism:coverDisplayDate>Mon, 01 Jun 2026 00:00:00 -0700</prism:coverDisplayDate>
         <guid isPermaLink="false">10.1111/ele.70404</guid>
         <title>What Have We Learned From Empirical Applications of Modern Coexistence Theory?</title>
         <description>Ecology Letters, Volume 29, Issue 6, June 2026. </description>
         <dc:description>
For 25 years, modern coexistence theory has guided empirical investigations of coexistence. Our systematic review of this literature shows that applications of the original theory, featuring partitions of specific coexistence mechanisms, have led to limited advances due to their narrow focus on the temporal storage effect and grassland communities. In contrast, applications focused on understanding the mediators of niche and fitness differences, while not the original intent of the theory, have increased our understanding of the impact of phylogenetic relatedness, plant–soil feedbacks, and functional traits on coexistence.

ABSTRACT
Since the early 2000's, Modern Coexistence Theory (MCT) has guided empirical investigations of coexistence. We reviewed empirical applications of MCT to answer two questions: (1) What have we learned about the strength of temporal, spatial and variation‐independent mechanisms of coexistence in nature? (2) How have studies of niche and fitness differences advanced our understanding of coexistence? With respect to the first question, we now have evidence that the temporal storage effect and variation‐independent mechanisms help stabilize coexistence in many systems. We have not learned more due to the low number of tests of these mechanisms (24 out of 84 MCT studies), the narrow focus on mechanisms involving temporal variation and grassland communities, and lack of rigorous model validation. With respect to our second question, studies of niche and fitness differences (61 of 84 studies) have answered fundamental questions about the role of phylogenetic relatedness, plant–soil feedbacks, and functional traits in coexistence. We recommend that future empirical MCT studies (1) match hypotheses to MCT quantities, (2) address gaps in empirical studies, (3) avoid known biases in estimating competition coefficients, and (4) validate models with independent data.
</dc:description>
         <content:encoded>&lt;img src="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/cms/asset/847c2246-5944-423d-a195-1092a099f752/ele70404-toc-0001-m.png"
     alt="What Have We Learned From Empirical Applications of Modern Coexistence Theory?"/&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For 25 years, modern coexistence theory has guided empirical investigations of coexistence. Our systematic review of this literature shows that applications of the original theory, featuring partitions of specific coexistence mechanisms, have led to limited advances due to their narrow focus on the temporal storage effect and grassland communities. In contrast, applications focused on understanding the mediators of niche and fitness differences, while not the original intent of the theory, have increased our understanding of the impact of phylogenetic relatedness, plant–soil feedbacks, and functional traits on coexistence.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;br/&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;ABSTRACT&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Since the early 2000's, Modern Coexistence Theory (MCT) has guided empirical investigations of coexistence. We reviewed empirical applications of MCT to answer two questions: (1) What have we learned about the strength of temporal, spatial and variation-independent mechanisms of coexistence in nature? (2) How have studies of niche and fitness differences advanced our understanding of coexistence? With respect to the first question, we now have evidence that the temporal storage effect and variation-independent mechanisms help stabilize coexistence in many systems. We have not learned more due to the low number of tests of these mechanisms (24 out of 84 MCT studies), the narrow focus on mechanisms involving temporal variation and grassland communities, and lack of rigorous model validation. With respect to our second question, studies of niche and fitness differences (61 of 84 studies) have answered fundamental questions about the role of phylogenetic relatedness, plant–soil feedbacks, and functional traits in coexistence. We recommend that future empirical MCT studies (1) match hypotheses to MCT quantities, (2) address gaps in empirical studies, (3) avoid known biases in estimating competition coefficients, and (4) validate models with independent data.&lt;/p&gt;</content:encoded>
         <dc:creator>
Peter B. Adler, 
Matteo Detto, 
Stephen P. Ellner, 
Theo L. Gibbs, 
Zachary J. Gold, 
Samuel J. Leonard, 
Jacob I. Levine, 
Annie E. Schiffer, 
Chuliang Song, 
Michael Stemkovski, 
Megan L. Vahsen, 
Jonathan M. Levine
</dc:creator>
         <category>SYNTHESIS</category>
         <dc:title>What Have We Learned From Empirical Applications of Modern Coexistence Theory?</dc:title>
         <dc:identifier>10.1111/ele.70404</dc:identifier>
         <prism:publicationName>Ecology Letters</prism:publicationName>
         <prism:doi>10.1111/ele.70404</prism:doi>
         <prism:url>https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ele.70404?af=R</prism:url>
         <prism:section>SYNTHESIS</prism:section>
         <prism:volume>29</prism:volume>
         <prism:number>6</prism:number>
      </item>
      <item>
         <link>https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ele.70406?af=R</link>
         <pubDate>Tue, 26 May 2026 23:17:07 -0700</pubDate>
         <dc:date>2026-05-26T11:17:07-07:00</dc:date>
         <source url="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/14610248?af=R">Wiley: Ecology Letters: Table of Contents</source>
         <prism:coverDate>Mon, 01 Jun 2026 00:00:00 -0700</prism:coverDate>
         <prism:coverDisplayDate>Mon, 01 Jun 2026 00:00:00 -0700</prism:coverDisplayDate>
         <guid isPermaLink="false">10.1111/ele.70406</guid>
         <title>Issue Information</title>
         <description>Ecology Letters, Volume 29, Issue 6, June 2026. </description>
         <dc:description/>
         <content:encoded/>
         <dc:creator/>
         <category>ISSUE INFORMATION</category>
         <dc:title>Issue Information</dc:title>
         <dc:identifier>10.1111/ele.70406</dc:identifier>
         <prism:publicationName>Ecology Letters</prism:publicationName>
         <prism:doi>10.1111/ele.70406</prism:doi>
         <prism:url>https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ele.70406?af=R</prism:url>
         <prism:section>ISSUE INFORMATION</prism:section>
         <prism:volume>29</prism:volume>
         <prism:number>6</prism:number>
      </item>
      <item>
         <link>https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ele.70413?af=R</link>
         <pubDate>Tue, 26 May 2026 23:15:28 -0700</pubDate>
         <dc:date>2026-05-26T11:15:28-07:00</dc:date>
         <source url="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/14610248?af=R">Wiley: Ecology Letters: Table of Contents</source>
         <prism:coverDate>Mon, 01 Jun 2026 00:00:00 -0700</prism:coverDate>
         <prism:coverDisplayDate>Mon, 01 Jun 2026 00:00:00 -0700</prism:coverDisplayDate>
         <guid isPermaLink="false">10.1111/ele.70413</guid>
         <title>Correction to ‘Birds That Don't Exist: Niche Pre‐Emption as a Constraint on Morphological Evolution in the Passeroidea’</title>
         <description>Ecology Letters, Volume 29, Issue 6, June 2026. </description>
         <dc:description/>
         <content:encoded/>
         <dc:creator/>
         <category>CORRECTION</category>
         <dc:title>Correction to ‘Birds That Don't Exist: Niche Pre‐Emption as a Constraint on Morphological Evolution in the Passeroidea’</dc:title>
         <dc:identifier>10.1111/ele.70413</dc:identifier>
         <prism:publicationName>Ecology Letters</prism:publicationName>
         <prism:doi>10.1111/ele.70413</prism:doi>
         <prism:url>https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ele.70413?af=R</prism:url>
         <prism:section>CORRECTION</prism:section>
         <prism:volume>29</prism:volume>
         <prism:number>6</prism:number>
      </item>
      <item>
         <link>https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ele.70391?af=R</link>
         <pubDate>Tue, 26 May 2026 00:00:00 -0700</pubDate>
         <dc:date>2026-05-26T12:00:00-07:00</dc:date>
         <source url="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/14610248?af=R">Wiley: Ecology Letters: Table of Contents</source>
         <prism:coverDate>Mon, 01 Jun 2026 00:00:00 -0700</prism:coverDate>
         <prism:coverDisplayDate>Mon, 01 Jun 2026 00:00:00 -0700</prism:coverDisplayDate>
         <guid isPermaLink="false">10.1111/ele.70391</guid>
         <title>Host‐Pathogen Network and Eco‐Evolutionary Drivers of Avian Influenza Transmission in Wild Birds</title>
         <description>Ecology Letters, Volume 29, Issue 6, June 2026. </description>
         <dc:description>
Hub species in avian influenza transmission networks are defined by a distinct set of ecological and evolutionary traits—including strong flight, aquatic foraging, longevity, and high diversification rates. These traits collectively explain their central role in the network, identifying them as priority targets for focused surveillance.

ABSTRACT
Multi‐host pathogens vary in how they utilise different hosts, yet the traits determining which species occupy central positions in transmission networks remain poorly understood. We tested whether the wild bird–avian influenza virus (AIV) network exhibits a scale‐free structure, implying that hub hosts disproportionately contribute to transmission and whether ecological and evolutionary traits jointly predict hub status. Using global infection records, we constructed a bipartite network linking 247 bird species to 105 AIV subtypes. Degree distributions followed a power‐law pattern, confirming substantial heterogeneity in host importance. We identified 23 hub species, exclusively from Anseriformes and Charadriiformes. Interpretable machine learning revealed that hub species share strong flightability, prolonged water‐surface foraging, greater longevity and higher diversification rates, indicating that both ecological exposure and evolutionary history influence hub status. These findings provide insight into host–pathogen network dynamics and highlight priority species for targeted AIV surveillance and control.
</dc:description>
         <content:encoded>&lt;img src="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/cms/asset/9a0bc9cd-c617-449f-9329-a44b610819da/ele70391-toc-0001-m.png"
     alt="Host-Pathogen Network and Eco-Evolutionary Drivers of Avian Influenza Transmission in Wild Birds"/&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Hub species in avian influenza transmission networks are defined by a distinct set of ecological and evolutionary traits—including strong flight, aquatic foraging, longevity, and high diversification rates. These traits collectively explain their central role in the network, identifying them as priority targets for focused surveillance.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;br/&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;ABSTRACT&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Multi-host pathogens vary in how they utilise different hosts, yet the traits determining which species occupy central positions in transmission networks remain poorly understood. We tested whether the wild bird–avian influenza virus (AIV) network exhibits a scale-free structure, implying that hub hosts disproportionately contribute to transmission and whether ecological and evolutionary traits jointly predict hub status. Using global infection records, we constructed a bipartite network linking 247 bird species to 105 AIV subtypes. Degree distributions followed a power-law pattern, confirming substantial heterogeneity in host importance. We identified 23 hub species, exclusively from Anseriformes and Charadriiformes. Interpretable machine learning revealed that hub species share strong flightability, prolonged water-surface foraging, greater longevity and higher diversification rates, indicating that both ecological exposure and evolutionary history influence hub status. These findings provide insight into host–pathogen network dynamics and highlight priority species for targeted AIV surveillance and control.&lt;/p&gt;</content:encoded>
         <dc:creator>
Xinyi Wang, 
Zhi Ling, 
Xiaocan Chen, 
Swapnil Mishra, 
Lu Dong
</dc:creator>
         <category>LETTER</category>
         <dc:title>Host‐Pathogen Network and Eco‐Evolutionary Drivers of Avian Influenza Transmission in Wild Birds</dc:title>
         <dc:identifier>10.1111/ele.70391</dc:identifier>
         <prism:publicationName>Ecology Letters</prism:publicationName>
         <prism:doi>10.1111/ele.70391</prism:doi>
         <prism:url>https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ele.70391?af=R</prism:url>
         <prism:section>LETTER</prism:section>
         <prism:volume>29</prism:volume>
         <prism:number>6</prism:number>
      </item>
   </channel>
</rss>
