Forest Fungi: Boreal forest is one of the world's major biomes, dominating the subarctic northern latitudes of Europe, Asia, and America. The soils of boreal forest function as a net sink in the global carbon cycle and, hitherto, it has been thought that organic matter in this sink primarily accumulates in the form of plant remains. Clemmensen et al. (p. 1615 ; see the Perspective by Treseder and Holden ) now show that most of the stored carbon in boreal forested islands in Sweden is in fact derived from mycorrhizal mycelium rather than from plant litter. Biochemical and sequencing studies show that carbon sequestration is regulated by functional and phylogenetic shifts in the mycorrhizal fungal community. The results will need to be explicitly considered in models of the role of the boreal forest in the global carbon cycle.

Community ecology aims to understand what factors determine the assembly and dynamics of species assemblages at different spatiotemporal scales. To facilitate the integration between conceptual and statistical approaches in community ecology, we propose Hierarchical Modelling of Species Communities (HMSC) as a general, flexible framework for modern analysis of community data. While non‐manipulative data allow for only correlative and not causal inference, this framework facilitates the formulation of data‐driven hypotheses regarding the processes that structure communities. We model environmental filtering by variation and covariation in the responses of individual species to the characteristics of their environment, with potential contingencies on species traits and phylogenetic relationships. We capture biotic assembly rules by species‐to‐species association matrices, which may be estimated at multiple spatial or temporal scales. We operationalise theHMSCframework as a hierarchical Bayesian joint species distribution model, and implement it as R‐ and Matlab‐packages which enable computationally efficient analyses of large data sets. Armed with this tool, community ecologists can make sense of many types of data, including spatially explicit data and time‐series data. We illustrate the use of this framework through a series of diverse ecological examples.

A large array of species distribution model (SDM) approaches has been developed for explaining and predicting the occurrences of individual species or species assemblages. Given the wealth of existing models, it is unclear which models perform best for interpolation or extrapolation of existing data sets, particularly when one is concerned with species assemblages. We compared the predictive performance of 33 variants of 15 widely applied and recently emerged SDMs in the context of multispecies data, including both joint SDMs that model multiple species together, and stacked SDMs that model each species individually combining the predictions afterward. We offer a comprehensive evaluation of these SDM approaches by examining their performance in predicting withheld empirical validation data of different sizes representing five different taxonomic groups, and for prediction tasks related to both interpolation and extrapolation. We measure predictive performance by 12 measures of accuracy, discrimination power, calibration, and precision of predictions, for the biological levels of species occurrence, species richness, and community composition. Our results show large variation among the models in their predictive performance, especially for communities comprising many species that are rare. The results do not reveal any major trade‐offs among measures of model performance; the same models performed generally well in terms of accuracy, discrimination, and calibration, and for the biological levels of individual species, species richness, and community composition. In contrast, the models that gave the most precise predictions were not well calibrated, suggesting that poorly performing models can make overconfident predictions. However, none of the models performed well for all prediction tasks. As a general strategy, we therefore propose that researchers fit a small set of models showing complementary performance, and then apply a cross‐validation procedure involving separate data to establish which of these models performs best for the goal of the study.