Carsten F. Dormann writes a provoking book chapter entitled “The rise, and possible fall, of network ecology” openly criticizing the concept of network ecology. Read it, I enjoyed it.

In fact, despite using network theory in some of my papers, I never liked the term network ecologist, and I never presented myself as such (but I’ve been presented as a network ecologist). For me, being a network ecologist would be like being a GLMM ecologist, or a differential equation ecologist. Networks are tools, not ends.

I believe that things interact with things. While simple systems do not require complex network theory, complex systems can benefit from it, but in agreement with Carsten, only if well applied. Unfortunately, some tools are over-(and miss-)used, such as topological indexes, while others are under-used, such as exploring network dynamics. It is paradoxical that the creator of the bipartite package, which popularized the blind use of multiple topological indexes not necessarily related to processes, is now warning about it.

One of my major concerns about “network ecology” is that many “network” papers are question free. If you don’t have a question, do not use networks. I don’t think answering how index X changes along Y is a valid question as change is the only constant in ecology. I also agree many tools from networks have analogous community ecology metrics, but this is fine with me as it reflects different ways of thinking. So let’s see a few examples of instances where I think network tools can bring exciting complementary veiws:

• To measure indirect and higher-order interactions. The neighbour of my neighbour can still influence me even if I never meet him/her. How important are indirect interactions in ecology? How do we account for their effects on fitness? Many open questions where a network perspective can help.
• To assess community stability. There is a lot of work using population dynamic models linked through species interaction networks that can help elucidate which interaction structures are compatible with stable communities and why.
• To describe entire multi-species communities with different interaction types. We can’t even describe how entire communities look like. Networks are good tools for describing patterns, which is the first step to asking questions about processes.
• To model the flow of “information”. Diffusion networks are under-used as a tool to model how things move through a network. Like pollen grains*

So I agree with Carsten on the fact that “Network ecology” should fall, but i think network analysis applied to ecological problems should prevail!

* we barely scratch the surface on this topic here: Allen-Perkins et al. (2024), Multilayer diffusion networks as a tool to assess the structure and functioning of fine grain sub-specific plant–pollinator networks. Oikos e10168. https://nsojournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/oik.10168