Kelp forests (Order Laminariales) form key biogenic habitats in coastal regions of temperate and Arctic seas worldwide, providing ecosystem services valued in the range of billions of dollars annually. Although local evidence suggests that kelp forests are increasingly threatened by a variety of stressors, no comprehensive global analysis of change in kelp abundances currently exists. Here, we build and analyze a global database of kelp time series spanning the past half-century to assess regional and global trends in kelp abundances. We detected a high degree of geographic variation in trends, with regional variability in the direction and magnitude of change far exceeding a small global average decline (instantaneous rate of change = −0.018 y⁻¹). Our analysis identified declines in 38% of ecoregions for which there are data (−0.015 to −0.18 y⁻¹), increases in 27% of ecoregions (0.015 to 0.11 y⁻¹), and no detectable change in 35% of ecoregions. These spatially variable trajectories reflected regional differences in the drivers of change, uncertainty in some regions owing to poor spatial and temporal data coverage, and the dynamic nature of kelp populations. We conclude that although global drivers could be affecting kelp forests at multiple scales, local stressors and regional variation in the effects of these drivers dominate kelp dynamics, in contrast to many other marine and terrestrial foundation species. Significance Kelp forests support diverse and productive ecological communities throughout temperate and arctic regions worldwide, providing numerous ecosystem services to humans. Literature suggests that kelp forests are increasingly threatened by a variety of human impacts, including climate change, overfishing, and direct harvest. We provide the first globally comprehensive analysis of kelp forest change over the past 50 y, identifying a high degree of variation in the magnitude and direction of change across the geographic range of kelps. These results suggest region-specific responses to global change, with local drivers playing an important role in driving patterns of kelp abundance. Increased monitoring aimed at understanding regional kelp forest dynamics is likely to prove most effective for the adaptive management of these important ecosystems.

As the contribution for long-term ecological and environmental studies (LTEES) to our understanding of how species and ecosystems respond to a changing global climate becomes more urgent, the relative number and investment in LTEES are declining. To assess the value of LTEES to advancing the field of ecology, we evaluated relationships between citation rates and study duration, as well as the representation of LTEES with the impact factors of 15 ecological journals. We found that the proportionate representation of LTEES increases with journal impact factor and that the positive relationship between citation rate and study duration is stronger as journal impact factor increases. We also found that the representation of LTEES in reports written to inform policy was greater than their representation in the ecological literature and that their authors particularly valued LTEES. We conclude that the relative investment in LTEES by ecologists and funders should be seriously reconsidered for advancing ecology and its contribution to informing environmental policy.

Ecological surprises, substantial and unanticipated changes in the abundance of one or more species that result from previously unsuspected processes, are a common outcome of both experiments and observations in community and population ecology. Here, we give examples of such surprises along with the results of a survey of well‐established field ecologists, most of whom have encountered one or more surprises over the course of their careers. Truly surprising results are common enough to require their consideration in any reasonable effort to characterize nature and manage natural resources. We classify surprises as dynamic‐, pattern‐, or intervention‐based, and we speculate on the common processes that cause ecological systems to so often surprise us. A long‐standing and still growing concern in the ecological literature is how best to make predictions of future population and community dynamics. Although most work on this subject involves statistical aspects of data analysis and modeling, the frequency and nature of ecological surprises imply that uncertainty cannot be easily tamed through improved analytical procedures, and that prudent management of both exploited and conserved communities will require precautionary and adaptive management approaches.

The community matrix is among ecology's most important mathematical abstractions, formally encapsulating the interconnected network of effects that species have on one another's populations. Despite its importance, the term “community matrix” has been applied to multiple types of matrices that have differing interpretations. This has hindered the application of theory for understanding community structure and perturbation responses. Here, we clarify the correspondence and distinctions among the Interaction matrix, the Alpha matrix, and the Jacobian matrix, terms that are frequently used interchangeably as well as synonymously with the term “community matrix.” We illustrate how these matrices correspond to different ways of characterizing interaction strengths, how they permit insights regarding different types of press perturbations, and how these are related by a simple scaling relationship. Connections to additional interaction strength characterizations encapsulated by the Beta matrix, the Gamma matrix, and the Removal matrix are also discussed. Our synthesis highlights the empirical challenges that remain in using these tools to understand actual communities.