1. The use of stable isotope data to infer characteristics of community structure and niche width of community members has become increasingly common. Although these developments have provided ecologists with new perspectives, their full impact has been hampered by an inability to statistically compare individual communities using descriptive metrics. 2. We solve these issues by reformulating the metrics in a Bayesian framework. This reformulation takes account of uncertainty in the sampled data and naturally incorporates error arising from the sampling process, propagating it through to the derived metrics. 3. Furthermore, we develop novel multivariate ellipse-based metrics as an alternative to the currently employed Convex Hull methods when applied to single community members. We show that unlike Convex Hulls, the ellipses are unbiased with respect to sample size, and their estimation via Bayesian inference allows robust comparison to be made among data sets comprising different sample sizes. 4. These new metrics, which we call SIBER (Stable Isotope Bayesian Ellipses in R), open up more avenues for direct comparison of isotopic niches across communities. The computational code to calculate the new metrics is implemented in the free-to-download package Stable Isotope Analysis for the R statistical environment.

Stable isotope analysis is increasingly being utilised across broad areas of ecology and biology. Key to much of this work is the use of mixing models to estimate the proportion of sources contributing to a mixture such as in diet estimation. By accurately reflecting natural variation and uncertainty to generate robust probability estimates of source proportions, the application of Bayesian methods to stable isotope mixing models promises to enable researchers to address an array of new questions, and approach current questions with greater insight and honesty. We outline a framework that builds on recently published Bayesian isotopic mixing models and present a new open source R package, SIAR. The formulation in R will allow for continued and rapid development of this core model into an all-encompassing single analysis suite for stable isotope research.

The ongoing evolution of tracer mixing models has resulted in a confusing array of software tools that differ in terms of data inputs, model assumptions, and associated analytic products. Here we introduce MixSIAR, an inclusive, rich, and flexible Bayesian tracer (e.g., stable isotope) mixing model framework implemented as an open-source R package. Using MixSIAR as a foundation, we provide guidance for the implementation of mixing model analyses. We begin by outlining the practical differences between mixture data error structure formulations and relate these error structures to common mixing model study designs in ecology. Because Bayesian mixing models afford the option to specify informative priors on source proportion contributions, we outline methods for establishing prior distributions and discuss the influence of prior specification on model outputs. We also discuss the options available for source data inputs (raw data versus summary statistics) and provide guidance for combining sources. We then describe a key advantage of MixSIAR over previous mixing model software—the ability to include fixed and random effects as covariates explaining variability in mixture proportions and calculate relative support for multiple models via information criteria. We present a case study of Alligator mississippiensis diet partitioning to demonstrate the power of this approach. Finally, we conclude with a discussion of limitations to mixing model applications. Through MixSIAR, we have consolidated the disparate array of mixing model tools into a single platform, diversified the set of available parameterizations, and provided developers a platform upon which to continue improving mixing model analyses in the future.

Stable isotope mixing models are increasingly used to quantify consumer diets, but may be misused and misinterpreted. We address major challenges to their effective application. Mixing models have increased rapidly in sophistication. Current models estimate probability distributions of source contributions, have user-friendly interfaces, and incorporate complexities such as variability in isotope signatures, discrimination factors, hierarchical variance structure, covariates, and concentration dependence. For proper implementation of mixing models, we offer the following suggestions. First, mixing models can only be as good as the study and data. Studies should have clear questions, be informed by knowledge of the system, and have strong sampling designs to effectively characterize isotope variability of consumers and resources on proper spatio-temporal scales. Second, studies should use models appropriate for the question and recognize their assumptions and limitations. Decisions about source grouping or incorporation of concentration dependence can influence results. Third, studies should be careful about interpretation of model outputs. Mixing models generally estimate proportions of assimilated resources with substantial uncertainty distributions. Last, common sense, such as graphing data before analyzing, is essential to maximize usefulness of these tools. We hope these suggestions for effective implementation of stable isotope mixing models will aid continued development and application of this field.

Human actions challenge nature in many ways. Ecological responses are ineluctably complex, demanding measures that describe them succinctly. Collectively, these measures encapsulate the overall ‘stability’ of the system. Many international bodies, including the Intergovernmental Science‐Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, broadly aspire to maintain or enhance ecological stability. Such bodies frequently use terms pertaining to stability that lack clear definition. Consequently, we cannot measure them and so they disconnect from a large body of theoretical and empirical understanding. We assess the scientific and policy literature and show that this disconnect is one consequence of an inconsistent and one‐dimensional approach that ecologists have taken to both disturbances and stability. This has led to confused communication of the nature of stability and the level of our insight into it. Disturbances and stability are multidimensional. Our understanding of them is not. We have a remarkably poor understanding of the impacts on stability of the characteristics that define many, perhaps all, of the most important elements of global change. We provide recommendations for theoreticians, empiricists and policymakers on how to better integrate the multidimensional nature of ecological stability into their research, policies and actions.