Integrating Cultural Evolution into Ecological Dynamic

Integrating Cultural Evolution into Ecological Dynamic | Authorea try { document.documentElement.classList.add('js'); } catch (e) { } var _gaq = _gaq || []; _gaq.push(['_setAccount', 'G-8VDV14Y67G']); _gaq.push(['_trackPageview']); (function() { var ga = document.createElement('script'); ga.type = 'text/javascript'; ga.async = true; ga.src = ('https:' == document.location.protocol ? 'https://ssl' : 'http://www') + '.google-analytics.com/ga.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(ga, s); })(); Skip to main content Preprints Collections Wiley Open Research IET Open Research Ecological Society of Japan All Collections About About Authorea FAQs Contact Us Quick Search anywhere Search for preprint articles, keywords, etc. Search Search ADVANCED SEARCH SCROLL This is a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. 1 February 2026 V1 Latest version Share on Integrating Cultural Evolution into Ecological Dynamic Author : Shota Shibasaki 0000-0002-8196-0745 [email protected] Authors Info & Affiliations https://doi.org/10.22541/au.176990771.10567463/v1 362 views 108 downloads Contents Abstract Information & Authors Metrics & Citations View Options References Figures Tables Media Share Abstract Culture is defined as the information and behavior transmitted through learning from other individuals. Previous studies have demonstrated that cultural traits are widespread among humans and non-human animals. Unlike biological evolution, cultural traits can spread within a population without requiring generational turnover, thus enabling rapid behavioral changes. This suggests that cultural evolution complements biological evolution as a driver of ecological dynamics, particularly during periods of rapid environmental changes. However, ecological theory rarely incorporates cultural processes, and their impact on population and community dynamics remains unclear. This review synthesizes evidence and theories to argue that cultural evolution is an essential, but underappreciated driver of ecological dynamics. It proposes a unified framework that links ecological, biological, evolutionary, and cultural processes. The discussion begins by examining how human culture shapes ecological processes---both through direct effects on population size and through indirect pathways, such as landscape transformation and species spread. Subsequently, it turns to non human animal cultures, showing how they can influence population growth, predator--prey interactions, and even the structure of multi-species communities. These examples highlight the fact that the impacts of cultural evolution can propagate across species, emphasizing feedback loops among ecological dynamics, biological evolution, and cultural evolution. Finally, this review outlines future research directions for building a unified dynamic framework, including the need for interdisciplinary collaborations. Recognizing culture as a dynamic force in ecology is critical for understanding adaptive systems that respond to environmental changes. Integrating Cultural Evolution into Ecological Dynamics Shota Shibasaki 1* Faculty of Culture and Information Science, Doshisha University, 1-3 Tatara Miyakodani, Kyotanabe, Kyoto, Japan Submission to Ecological Research Article type: Review and synthesis Number of words and references: 5332 (excl. references) and 141. Number of figures, tables, and text boxes: three, zero, and one. Corresponding author: S.S. [email protected] Abstract Culture is defined as the information and behavior transmitted through learning from other individuals. Previous studies have demonstrated that cultural traits are widespread among humans and non-human animals. Unlike biological evolution, cultural traits can spread within a population without requiring generational turnover, thus enabling rapid behavioral changes. This suggests that cultural evolution complements biological evolution as a driver of ecological dynamics, particularly during periods of rapid environmental changes. However, ecological theory rarely incorporates cultural processes, and their impact on population and community dynamics remains unclear. This review synthesizes evidence and theories to argue that cultural evolution is an essential, but underappreciated driver of ecological dynamics. It proposes a unified framework that links ecological, biological, evolutionary, and cultural processes. The discussion begins by examining how human culture shapes ecological processes—both through direct effects on population size and through indirect pathways, such as landscape transformation and species spread. Subsequently, it turns to non‑human animal cultures, showing how they can influence population growth, predator–prey interactions, and even the structure of multi-species communities. These examples highlight the fact that the impacts of cultural evolution can propagate across species, emphasizing feedback loops among ecological dynamics, biological evolution, and cultural evolution. Finally, this review outlines future research directions for building a unified dynamic framework, including the need for interdisciplinary collaborations. Recognizing culture as a dynamic force in ecology is critical for understanding adaptive systems that respond to environmental changes. Keywords: animal culture; cultural evolution; eco-evolutionary dynamics; human culture; social learning Introduction How do natural environments affect cultures (see Box 1 for definitions) and vice versa? Previous studies have shown that natural environments are a source of human culture, including folklore (Shibasaki et al., 2024), city symbols (Cheng et al., 2025b; Tsuzuki et al., 2024), arts (Davis et al., 2025; Merquiol et al., 2025; Miyazaki & Murase, 2020), and religious beliefs (Cheng et al., 2025a). These examples illustrate that ecosystems inspire and diversify human culture, and that these contributions are recognized as part of cultural ecosystem services in ecology (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005). Gould & Satterfield (2025) argue that the concept of cultural ecosystem services typically ignores the reciprocal relationship between human culture and nature. Although ecosystems shape culture, cultural norms shape natural environments through their influence on human behaviors. This perspective shifts our understanding of culture from being a passive recipient of ecological inspiration to an active agent that shapes ecological outcomes. For example, supernatural beliefs condemning environmental destruction have been documented globally (Hartberg et al., 2016) and such beliefs can support sustainable resource management under certain conditions (Shibasaki et al., 2025). In addition, a study in China reported a positive association between pro-environmental attitudes and Eastern traditional religious beliefs such as Buddhism and Taoism (Yang & Lu, 2024). These results indicate that human culture shapes the way people interact with natural environments and organisms.Culture is not unique to humans; many studies have found culture in non-human animals, including insects, fish, birds, and mammals (Webster 2023; Brown and Webster 2025; Danchin, Isabel, and Nöbel 2023; Aplin et al. 2025; Whiten 2019). Cultural traits in animals can modify interaction strengths within and between species, potentially reshaping population and community dynamics. Previous studies have shown that mate choice (E. Danchin et al., 2018; Fowler-Finn et al., 2015; Nöbel et al., 2018), anti-predator behaviors (Coolen, Dangles, and Casas 2005; Ferrari, Messier, and Chivers 2007; Kelley et al. 2003), foraging decisions (Thorogood et al., 2017), and foraging techniques (Allen et al., 2013; Schuster et al., 2006) are cultural traits of non-human animals. Cultural traits can spread within a population without turnover, and cultural evolution offers a mechanism for rapid ecological change. This idea parallels the findings of eco-evolutionary dynamics, where biological evolution alters population and community dynamics through rapid adaptation, and vice versa (Govaert et al., 2019). As adaptive traits can spread within a population through cultural transmission, cultural evolution represents an alternative or complementary pathway through which biological evolution influences ecological dynamics.This review proposes that human and non-human cultures are essential drivers of ecological dynamics. Despite the growing interest in cultural evolution within evolutionary biology, such as gene–culture coevolution (Whitehead et al. 2019; Kasser et al. 2025), its ecological implications remain underexplored. For human culture, this reflects the tendency of ecologists to frame impacts as “anthropogenic” without explicitly considering dynamic cultural processes, although recent studies on sustainability science have acknowledged the impacts of human cultural evolution (Søgaard Jørgensen et al., 2024). However, research on animal culture is still emerging, and few studies have quantified the influence of cultural traits on population or community dynamics. This gap is striking, given that culture, both human and non-human, can rapidly alter traits that influence ecological interactions. Unlike previous reviews that focused on human or non-human animal culture separately (Richerson et al., 2024; Webster, 2023; Whiten, 2019) or compared human culture with non-human animal culture (Morgan & Feldman, 2024), this study synthesizes both and proposes a unified framework linking cultural, ecological, and biological evolutionary dynamics. This task is increasingly urgent because cultural traits can change within a generation, potentially reshaping ecological dynamics faster than genetic adaptation under global change. Section 2 examines the impacts of human culture on the natural environment and other organisms, demonstrating that human culture is the dominant driver of ecological dynamics. Section 3 presents the findings on cultural traits in non-human animals and outlines how these traits can affect ecological dynamics. By combining these insights, Section 4 establishes a foundation for future research that integrates cultural, ecological, and evolutionary perspectives essential for understanding the dynamics of life in a rapidly changing world (Fig. 1). Human culture matters in ecology Anthropogenic impacts on ecological and biological evolutionary dynamics have been a central research topic in ecology and evolutionary biology within frameworks such as socioecological systems (Currie et al., 2024; Søgaard Jørgensen et al., 2024). Although the term “culture” is not always emphasized in these contexts, many anthropogenic activities result from human culture rather than from innate properties. This perspective emphasizes that anthropogenic impacts can change rapidly and vary across societies through cultural evolution (McInturff et al., 2025). This section reviews cultural anthropogenic impacts on ecology and evolution in three contexts: how human culture directly affects the population and evolutionary dynamics of species with which people interact (Fig. 2A), indirectly affecting local species through landscape changes (Fig. 2B), and alters the dispersal of species on regional and global scales (Fig. 2C). 2.1 Direct impacts on ecological and evolutionary processes Human cultural innovation is now recognized as a major driver of ecological and evolutionary dynamics, operating in suppressive and protective directions (Fig. 2A). Technological developments, such as antimicrobials, herbicides, and chemical pest-control tools, have markedly reduced the population sizes of susceptible pathogens, insects, and associated taxa (Coates et al., 2018; Henrik Barmentlo et al., 2021; Lee et al., 2023), whereas imposing strong selection for resistance (Alexander et al., 2014; Cazares et al., 2025; Hawkins et al., 2019; Kreiner et al., 2018). Cultural norms and institutions can weaken anthropogenic pressures. For example, the overuse of antibiotics is currently discouraged because antibiotic-resistant strains are becoming increasingly prevalent (Hutchings et al., 2019). Religious taboos and state-imposed hunting bans have been shown to reduce the intensity of exploitation, thereby allowing wildlife populations to recover (Carboneras et al., 2024; Nijhawan et al., 2025). These contrasting pathways illustrate how human cultural evolution governs the redirection of demographic and evolutionary trajectories across ecosystems.Conservation practices are clear examples of human intervention in the population dynamics of target species. However, conservation priorities are shaped by culturally transmitted perceptions of the attractiveness, symbolic value, and emotional salience of a species (Albert et al., 2018; Bowen–Jones & Entwistle, 2002). These preferences tend to prioritize research intensity and funding allocation to iconic or flagship species—typically large mammals or birds, over less conspicuous taxa (Clucas et al., 2008; Hayashi & Shibasaki, 2025). A growing body of empirical research has shown that these species can effectively motivate public engagement and provide financial support for conservation (Colléony et al., 2017; Skibins et al., 2013). However, this focus can skew conservation investments toward mammals and birds, including the least endangered species (Guénard et al., 2025), suggesting that the target species are not necessarily rigorously selected. Culturally shaped preferences are also volatile spatially and temporally. For example, psychological studies have shown that attitudes toward endangered species differ across regions (Bruder et al., 2022). Media exposure can amplify interest in certain species and boost conservation engagement (Fukano et al., 2020; Leighton & Serieys, 2025), and the same mechanism can create unintended risks for conservation (Bergman et al., 2022). Taken together, conservation practices are clear examples of how human cultural preferences and dynamics affect the population dynamics of target species. 2.2 Indirect impacts through landscape transformation Cultural practices can substantially shape landscapes, thereby influencing the composition and diversity of ecological communities (Spitzig et al., 2025). Cultural landscapes, often regarded as semi-natural ecosystems, arise from long-standing interactions among traditional land use, local institutions, and ecological processes that generate and maintain heterogeneous habitat structures (Saito et al., 2020). In other words, cultural landscapes are products of human culture and ecological processes. Owing to their fine-grained mosaic of semi-natural habitat elements, these landscapes frequently support elevated biodiversity (Fig. 2B). Distinct habitat components harbor different species assemblages, and their co-occurrence within a single landscape enhances overall diversity. Recent empirical analyses, including multi-regional assessments of agroecological mosaics (Estrada-Carmona et al., 2022) and landscape-scale surveys of semi-natural habitats (Maurer et al., 2022), have provided strong evidence for the facilitation of biodiversity in heterogeneous landscapes. However, these landscapes are not static; they change as cultural norms and socioeconomic priorities shift, making cultural evolution a key driver of biodiversity changes over time. Cultural landscapes are increasingly threatened by contemporary land-use transitions in two contrasting directions: abandonment and intensification. Both trajectories are driven by shifts in human culture and broader socioeconomic changes, including rural depopulation, urban migration, and increasing reliance on chemical inputs (Daskalova & Kamp, 2023; Shipley et al., 2024). According to a recent meta-analysis, abandonment tends to decrease plant biodiversity, whereas intensification has neutral or negative effects on it (Hempel et al., 2025). These findings demonstrate that cultural landscapes and the biodiversity they sustain are closely linked to the dynamics of human society.Urban ecosystem is another clear example of how human culture influences local ecological and evolutionary processes (Schilthuizen, 2018). Although cities share commonalities, they differ in their historical and cultural backgrounds, which affect the ecological processes (Alberti et al., 2020; Des Roches et al., 2021). Historical, cultural, and institutional legacies, such as zoning practices and discriminatory housing policies—reflect societal norms that have evolved over time and shaped the spatial distribution of green spaces (Schell et al., 2020). They underpin the luxury effect, in which wealth is positively correlated with local biodiversity (Hope et al., 2003; Leong et al., 2018). These cultural and historical legacies alter resource availability, influencing species interactions and evolutionary trajectories in urban ecosystems (Martin et al., 2024; Schmidt & Garroway, 2022). Therefore, human culture structures socioeconomic inequalities within cities and drives ecological and evolutionary dynamics by shaping habitat heterogeneity, species interactions, and selection pressures, linking historical legacies to contemporary ecological patterns. Cities are undergoing dynamic changes as norms and societal values shift. Recent greening initiatives illustrate how such cultural norm shifts can translate into measurable biodiversity gains in cities (Mata et al., 2023).In addition to terrestrial systems, human culture affects freshwater systems. Temporal increases in the salinity of freshwater systems have been documented globally, particularly in North America and Europe (Kaushal et al., 2021). Previous studies have noted that the drivers of this problem include human cultural practices, such as winter road de-icing (Cunillera-Montcusí et al., 2022; Dugan et al., 2017). These practices are not merely technical choices; they reflect cultural priorities for mobility and safety during winter. Historically, norms discouraged driving during snow events; however, the cultural evolution toward year-round mobility, coupled with technological advances such as road infrastructure and automobile proliferation, has entrenched practices such as road salting. This interplay of shifting norms and technologies illustrates how cultural evolution drives ecological change, with long-term consequences for freshwater ecosystems. Salinity stress affects the population size of freshwater phytoplankton and zooplankton species by decreasing birth rates or increasing death rates (Klauschies & Isanta-Navarro, 2022; Sarma et al., 2006; Venâncio et al., 2019), although these species can adapt to salinity stress through rapid biological evolution (Chambers et al., 2025; Shibasaki & Yamamichi, 2024). Moreover, salinity stress can alter interspecific interactions; for example, salinity stress induces palmelloid clump formation in green algae, which functions as a defense against predation by rotifers (Shibasaki & Yamamichi, 2025b). Thus, human-induced salinization can affect predator-prey dynamics through multiple pathways, including altered demographic rates and changes in prey phenotypes. These findings illustrate how culturally mediated land-use practices can propagate in freshwater ecosystems and reshape ecological interactions and community dynamics. 2.3 Human culture facilitates species migration Finally, human cultural practices have shaped species distribution on regional and global scales. This context aligns with that of alien species that have overcome biogeographical barriers due to human activity (Pyšek et al., 2020). For instance, religion shapes our values toward species, and the introduction of species can accompany the spread of religion (Fig. 2C). Recent studies have shown that the spread of Buddhism in China has influenced local plant biodiversity, as some plant species (e.g., Ginkgo biloba and Ficus religiosa ) are assigned special meanings in Buddhism and have been introduced and protected by people (Cheng et al., 2025a; Huang et al., 2025). Simultaneously, religious practices can contribute to conservation, as sacred areas can serve as refuges for endangered species (Huang et al., 2025) and promote plant (Sullivan et al., 2024) and bird (Matsumoto et al., 2024) biodiversity. Beyond religious influences, global trade and transportation, driven by human ideologies and technological advancements, have historically facilitated the translocation of species across continents (Hulme, 2021). For example, European empires from the late-19 th to mid-20 th century facilitated the invasion of non-native species into colonial countries (Bonnamour & Bertelsmeier, 2025; Lenzner et al., 2022). After WWII, European empires lost their power, but globalization drove the dispersal of alien insect species (Fenn-Moltu et al., 2023), leading to the homogenization of biota (Yang et al., 2021). These examples illustrate that human culture has facilitated species dispersal, but its consequences for biodiversity are context-dependent, sometimes promoting conservation, such as at sacred sites, and at other times driving the introduction of non-native species that lead to ecological disruptions. Non-human animal culture affects ecological dynamics Cultural evolution and social learning have been observed in many non-human animals across taxa. Previous studies have reported that many cultural traits are associated with survival and reproductive success. Unfortunately, empirical evidence that non-human cultural evolution affects ecological dynamics is limited, potentially because long generation times in many organisms constrain field observations and model systems for laboratory experiments are lacking. However, this review argues that non-human animal cultures can drive ecological dynamics, similar to biological evolution, by synthesizing existing evidence and theoretical perspectives. This section explores how non-human animal cultures may influence (i) population dynamics and persistence, (ii) predator-preyor dynamics, and (iii) community dynamics. Because cultural evolution can occur faster than genetic evolution, organisms with slow biological evolutionary rates, such as vertebrates, can adapt to rapid environmental changes through cultural evolution. Social learning in foraging behaviors, including food search (Swaney et al., 2001; Webster & Laland, 2017) and prey choice (Crane et al., 2018; Thorogood et al., 2017), has been observed in many species (Fig. 3A). This is because social learning is adaptive, allowing learners to obtain nutritious food and/or avoid toxic foods more effectively. Social learning in mate choice (Danchin et al., 2018; Fowler-Finn et al., 2015; Nöbel et al., 2018) and oviposition site preference (Battesti et al., 2012) is adaptive for similar reasons; social learners can obtain high-quality resources, factors that affect their survival and reproductive success (Hastings & Gross, 2012)—and/or avoid low-quality resources. This idea aligns with the concept of social learning as adaptive when adaptive behaviors are uncertain (Laland, 2004), such as in fluctuating environments (Aoki et al., 2005). Evidence for the so-called “copy-when-uncertain” social learning has accumulated in non-human animals (Henry et al., 2025; Smolla et al., 2016). These results suggest that social learning is adaptive and increases population growth by allowing individuals to obtain resources more effectively. Although the effects of social learning and cultural evolution on population dynamics remain empirically understudied, theoretical studies suggest that these processes play crucial roles in population dynamics and conservation (Brakes et al., 2025a; Brakes et al., 2019). For example, a recent review indicated that social knowledge held by older elephants enhances the survival and reproductive success of individuals within matriarchal groups (Bates et al., 2025). A simple age-structured model demonstrated that population size could recover when adaptive behaviors spread through social learning (Brakes et al., 2025b). Populations may avoid extinction when adaptive behaviors evolve culturally, a phenomenon known as cultural evolutionary rescue (Fogarty & Kandler, 2020). This concept is analogous to evolutionary rescue (Bell, 2017), in which a population escapes extinction through rapid biological evolution. Although evolutionary rescue has been documented in microorganisms such as bacteria (Lindsey et al., 2013), yeasts (Bell & Gonzalez, 2011), and green algae (Shibasaki & Yamamichi, 2024), empirical evidence for evolutionary rescue in vertebrates remains limited (Clark-Wolf et al., 2024; Vander Wal et al., 2013). This limitation is largely due to the long generation times of these species, which constrain the pace of biological evolution in response to environmental changes. However, because cultural evolution can occur over shorter timescales than biological evolution, it may offer a viable pathway for population persistence in such species. Further empirical and theoretical studies are required to explore these possibilities. However, cultural evolution may lead to a decline in population size because social learning does not always spread adaptive behaviors. Maladaptive information and behavior can spread through social learning (Laland, 2008). Unlike maladaptive cultures in humans (Richerson & Boyd, 2005), there seems to be no clear evidence of maladaptive cultural evolution in non-human animals. However, cultural evolution may still promote suboptimal behavior. For example, social learners in guppies and bumblebees can make energetically costly or low-reward foraging decisions (Laland and Williams 1998; Aurore Avarguès-Weber, Lachlan, and Chittka 2018), and female fruit flies copy the majority’s or primacy demonstrators’ partner choices even when all males are from an identical strain (E. Danchin et al., 2018; Santiago Araújo et al., 2024). These cases suggest that cultural evolution may cause the individual distribution of resources to deviate from the ideal free distribution (Tregenza, 1995). However, the relationship between the ideal free distribution and population dynamics is complex (Křivan et al., 2008). To identify the impact of cultural evolution on population dynamics, future research should construct a baseline model of population dynamics that excludes cultural evolution, against which the effects of cultural evolution can be evaluated. Social learning and cultural evolution in non-human animals may affect the ecological and evolutionary dynamics of other species with which social learners interact (Fig. 3B). Many prey species learn predator-avoidance behaviors socially from experienced individuals (Coolen et al., 2005; Ferrari et al., 2007; Kacsoh et al., 2015; León et al., 2023). Such socially learned anti-predator defenses can reduce predator population growth by decreasing the attack rate, albeit at an energetic cost of defending the prey individuals. Therefore, it is crucial to compare the effects of prey social learning on predator-prey dynamics with those of induced defense (Boeing & Ramcharan, 2010; Verschoor et al., 2004) or the rapid biological evolution of prey defense (Becks et al., 2010; Hiltunen et al., 2018; Yoshida et al., 2003). These processes differ in timescales and mechanisms of adaptation. Behavioral changes through social learning and induced defenses are forms of phenotypic plasticity. Cultural evolution occurs only when prey species exhibit phenotypic variations, whereas induced defenses are driven by predator density. In this sense, the impact of cultural evolution on predator-prey dynamics is more similar to rapid biological evolution than to induced defense because phenotypic variation in evolutionary processes can be inherited by other individuals. Cultural evolution enhances the coexistence of prey and predator species, similar to biological evolution, in which they are more likely to coexist under oscillation (Yamamichi et al., 2011). The cultural evolution of predators can also affect their ecological and evolutionary dynamics. Kikuchi and Simon (2023) demonstrated that social learning in predators typically destabilizes the equilibrium point and causes oscillatory dynamics. Another mathematical model revealed that social learning in predators can facilitate the evolution of aposematic prey (Thorogood et al., 2017). These results highlight the importance of cultural evolution in predator-prey dynamics, particularly when comparing its effects with those of biological evolution and other mechanisms of rapid adaptation. One of the most crucial aspects of nonhuman animal culture is that individuals can learn from other species (Avarguès‐Weber et al., 2013), a process that can shape community dynamics. For example, information regarding the presence of parasitoid wasps can be transmitted across species within the genus Drosophila , leading female fruit flies to reduce their egg-laying rates (Kacsoh et al., 2018). Another example of interspecific social learning is observed between great and blue tits, in which individuals learn about prey quality through heterospecific interactions (Hämäläinen et al., 2020, 2021). This heterospecific social learning may alter the net effects of species interactions. In the examples above, individuals learn from phylogenetically close species competing for resources (Grzędzicka, 2018). Although the presence of heterospecific competitors typically reduces the population size of the focal species, social learning from these competitors may accelerate adaptive cultural evolution, because individuals gain more frequent opportunities to acquire appropriate behaviors (e.g., foraging decisions or predator avoidance) from conspecifics and heterospecifics. Therefore, heterospecific social learning may mask the negative effects of interspecific competition and reshape species interaction networks, influencing the coexistence of species occupying similar niches. In other words, information transmitted through heterospecific social learning may pave the way for new coexistence mechanisms. Understanding the interplay between community ecology and cultural evolution is a promising direction for future studies. Discussion Cultural transmission through social learning fundamentally shapes behavioral repertoires that influence ecological processes. The influence of cultural evolution on ecological dynamics complements that of biological evolution. Because cultural traits can change without generational turnover, cultural evolution may exert particularly strong effects on population and community dynamics under current environmental changes. Accumulating evidence shows that human culture affects other species by altering interspecific interactions, transforming landscapes, and facilitating species dispersal. Although ecologists typically call these impacts anthropogenic, many are cultural products rather than biologically innate and thus can change more rapidly than genetic evolution (Perreault, 2012). Such rapid human cultural changes are a double-edged sword: they can promote pro-conservation shifts through social media and policies before endangered species become extinct (Carboneras et al., 2024; Fukano et al., 2020); however, they can outpace the adaptive capacity of other organisms and lead to extinction (Vermeij, 2012). Recognizing the temporal scales of these dynamics is critical to ecological theory. These insights underscore the need to integrate cultural processes into ecological and evolutionary theories to fully understand how species persist and interact in a rapidly changing world. Current ecological studies have certain limitations in assessing anthropogenic cultural impacts on ecosystems. First, most studies emphasize contemporary anthropogenic impacts, overlooking historical cultural shifts, such as technological, ideological, and religious changes—that have shaped ecosystems over millennia (but see Fenn-Moltu et al., 2023; Huang et al., 2025; Lenzner et al., 2022). To reveal how human culture has affected ecology in the past, the integration of data from archaeology (Bradshaw et al., 2024; Briggs et al., 2006; Crabtree et al., 2019; Fukasawa & Akasaka, 2019), history(Bonnamour & Bertelsmeier, 2025), and arts (Davis et al., 2025; Merquiol et al., 2025; Miyazaki & Murase, 2020) is important. These historical perspectives would inform the theory and practice of addressing contemporary environmental crises. Second, current insights from socio-ecological systems may be biased toward results from certain countries, particularly those in North America and Europe. Psychologists and behavioral scientists have noted that human studies often rely on Western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic populations; however, their psychological processes are not necessarily universal (Henrich et al., 2010). This caution may be applicable to ecological studies on human-nature relationships. If perceptions of nature’s values and worldviews differ across societies (but see Tateishi et al., 2026), conservation strategies and policies should be context-sensitive, reflecting local cultural norms and attitudes toward nature. Previous studies have documented cross-cultural differences in conservation attitudes (Bruder et al., 2022), and cultural products such as religion can motivate conservation (Xu et al., 2024). Addressing global biodiversity loss requires an understanding of these cultural differences, which demands collaboration between psychology, anthropology, and other social sciences. Without interdisciplinary integration, ecological research risks overlooking the cultural forces that shape biodiversity and ecosystem resilience. Culture also exists in non-human animals and potentially contributes to their conservation (Brakes et al., 2025a). However, their ecological consequences remain largely unknown. This limits our ability to predict how species respond to environmental changes through social learning. Although social learning and cultural evolution have been documented in many taxa (Webster, 2023; Whiten, 2019), few studies have quantified the influence of these cultural traits on population growth, species interactions, or community stability. This gap partly reflects methodological challenges. Long-lived species, such as primates (Gunasekaram et al., 2024), cetaceans (Arnon et al., 2025), and birds (Merino Recalde et al., 2025), make demographic tracking difficult, and most laboratory model organisms for eco-evolutionary dynamics, such as bacteria (Lindsey et al., 2013), yeast (Bell & Gonzalez, 2011), and plankton (Shibasaki & Yamamichi, 2024), lack social learning. Short-lived species capable of cultural transmission, such as insects and small vertebrates (Danchin et al., 2023; Laland et al., 2011) offer promising experimental systems for ecocultural feedback. In addition to empirical work, a theoretical investigation is required to formalize eco‑cultural feedbacks, identify the conditions under which cultural traits alter ecological stability, and predict when cultural evolution will amplify or buffer species’ responses to environmental change. A few current models address how social learning affects population or predator-prey dynamics (Brakes et al., 2025b; Fogarty & Kandler, 2020; Kikuchi & Simon, 2023). However, it remains unclear how transmission biases affect ecological processes, whether the effects of cultural evolution differ from those of biological evolution, and how interspecific social learning shapes community composition. Developing such predictions from mathematical models will guide experiments and reveal how cultural evolution alters population persistence, which is a central question in ecology. Integrating culture into ecology deepens our understanding of biological dynamics by linking three types of dynamics across species: ecological dynamics, biological evolution, and cultural evolution (Fig. 1). This framework unifies and expands the socio-ecological system (human culture and the ecological dynamics of other species; Søgaard Jørgensen et al., 2024), gene–cultural coevolution (biological and cultural evolution within a species; Whitehead et al., 2019), and eco-evolutionary dynamics (feedbacks between ecological and biological evolutionary dynamics; Govaert et al., 2019). For example, the cultural evolution of one species can further alter the population dynamics and biological evolution of another, which can alter the cultural evolution of the focal species. This feedback manifests in diverse contexts, from predator–prey dynamics, where cultural shifts in prey choice interact with aposematism (Thorogood et al., 2017), to human innovation in antibiotics and the subsequent bacterial evolution of antibiotic resistance (Cazares et al., 2025; Hutchings et al., 2019). Moreover, the cultural products of one species may alter the cultural dynamics of other species, whose behavioral changes may, in turn, propagate changes in community dynamics within an ecosystem. A recent study showed that human age–selective fisheries impede the cultural transmission of herring migration strategies, which likely affects energy transport within the coastal food web (Slotte et al., 2025). These examples suggest that without incorporating cultural evolution, our understanding of ecological and biological evolutionary dynamics remains incomplete. Conclusion The integration of culture is a promising but understudied research direction in the field of ecology. Cultural evolution allows individuals, both humans and non-human animals, to rapidly change their behaviors, and its effects can propagate to population and community dynamics, similar to biological evolution. Furthermore, cultural changes in one species can alter the biological and cultural evolutionary dynamics of another, leading to complex interdependencies among ecological, biological, and cultural evolutionary processes. Incorporating cultural evolution into ecological theory will improve our understanding of ecological processes and inform strategies for biodiversity conservation and sustainability. A combination of field studies, laboratory experiments, and theoretical models, alongside interdisciplinary collaboration with the humanities and social sciences, is essential to capture the richness of cultural effects. As Dobzhansky (1973) noted, “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution”— a statement that holds for both biological and cultural evolution. Acknowledgment S.S. is honored to have received the 13th Suzuki Award from the Ecological Society of Japan and to have been invited to this study. The author would like to thank Editage (www.editage.jp) for English editing and their assistance in creating the graphical abstract for this paper. This study was supported by the JGC-Saneyoshi Scholarship Foundation No. 2536, a grant-in-aid from the Harris Science Research Institute, Doshisha University (FY2025), and Research Institute for Humanity and Nature (RIHN: a constituent member of NIHU) Project No. RIHN14210183. Conflict of interest The author declares no conflict of interest. References Albert, C., Luque, G. M., & Courchamp, F. (2018). The twenty most charismatic species. PLoS ONE , 13 (7). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0199149 Alberti, M., Palkovacs, E. P., Roches, S. Des, De Meester, L., Brans, K. I., Govaert, L., Grimm, N. B., Harris, N. C., Hendry, A. P., Schell, C. J., Szulkin, M., Munshi-South, J., Urban, M. C., & Verrelli, B. C. (2020). The Complexity of Urban Eco-evolutionary Dynamics. In BioScience (Vol. 70, Issue 9, pp. 772–793). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biaa079 Alexander, H. K., Martin, G., Martin, O. Y., & Bonhoeffer, S. (2014). Evolutionary rescue: Linking theory for conservation and medicine. Evolutionary Applications , 7 (10), 1161–1179. https://doi.org/10.1111/eva.12221 Allen, J., Weinrich, M., Hoppitt, W., & Rendell, L. (2013). Network-Based Diffusion Analysis Reveals Cultural Transmission of Lobtail Feeding in Humpback Whales. Science , 340 (6131), 485–488. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1231976 Aoki, K., Wakano, J. Y., & Feldman, M. W. (2005). The emergence of social learning in a temporally changing environment: A theoretical model. Current Anthropology , 46 (2), 334–340. https://doi.org/10.1086/428791 Aplin, L., Crates, R., Flack, A., & McGregor, P. (2025). Social learning and culture in birds: emerging patterns and relevance to conservation. Philosophical Transactions B , 380 (1925). https://doi.org/10.1098/RSTB.2024.0128 Avarguès‐Weber, A., Dawson, E. H., & Chittka, L. (2013). Mechanisms of social learning across species boundaries. Journal of Zoology , 290 (1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1111/jzo.12015 Avarguès-Weber, A., Lachlan, R., & Chittka, L. (2018). Bumblebee social learning can lead to suboptimal foraging choices. Animal Behaviour , 135 , 209–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2017.11.022 Avital, Eytan., & Jablonka, Eva. (2000). Animal traditions : behavioural inheritance in evolution . Cambridge University Press. Bates, L., Fishlock, V. L., Plotnik, J., De Silva, S., & Shannon, G. (2025). Knowledge transmission, culture and the consequences of social disruption in wild elephants. In Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences (Vol. 380, Issue 1925). Royal Society Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2024.0132 Battesti, M., Moreno, C., Joly, D., & Mery, F. (2012). Spread of Social Information and Dynamics of Social Transmission within Drosophila Groups. Current Biology , 22 (4), 309–313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2011.12.050 Becks, L., Ellner, S. P., Jones, L. E., & Hairston Jr, N. G. (2010). Reduction of adaptive genetic diversity radically alters eco-evolutionary community dynamics. Ecology Letters , 13 (8), no-no. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2010.01490.x Bell, G., & Gonzalez, A. (2011). Adaptation and Evolutionary Rescue in Metapopulations Experiencing Environmental Deterioration. Science , 332 (6035), 1327–1330. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1203105 Bergman, J. N., Buxton, R. T., Lin, H.-Y., Lenda, M., Attinello, K., Hajdasz, A. C., Rivest, S. A., Tran Nguyen, T., Cooke, S. J., & Bennett, J. R. (2022). Evaluating the benefits and risks of social media for wildlife conservation. FACETS , 7 , 360–397. https://doi.org/10.1139/facets-2021-0112 Bonnamour, A., & Bertelsmeier, C. (2025). European colonial empires accelerated ant invasions. Ecography , e07887. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecog.07887 Bowen-Jones, E., & Entwistle, A. (2002). Identifying appropriate flagship species: The importance of culture and local contexts. ORYX , 36 (2), 189–195. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605302000261 Bradshaw, C. J. A., Saltré, F., Crabtree, S. A., Reepmeyer, C., & Moutsiou, T. (2024). Small populations of Palaeolithic humans in Cyprus hunted endemic megafauna to extinction. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences , 291 (2031). https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2024.0967 Brakes, P., Aplin, L., Carroll, E. L., Greggor, A. L., Whiten, A., & Garland, E. C. (2025a). Animal culture: conservation in a changing world. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences , 380 (1925). https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2024.0127 Brakes, P., Dall, S. R. X., Aplin, L. M., Bearhop, S., Carroll, E. L., Ciucci, P., Fishlock, V., Ford, J. K. B., Garland, E. C., Keith, S. A., McGregor, P. K., Mesnick, S. L., Noad, M. J., Notarbartolo di Sciara, G., Robbins, M. M., Simmonds, M. P., Spina, F., Thornton, A., Wade, P. R., … Rutz, C. (2019). Animal cultures matter for conservation. Science , 363 (6431), 1032–1034. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaw3557 Brakes, P., Dall, S. R. X., & Townley, S. (2025b). Cultural processes and demography: implications for conservation and beyond. Philosophical Transactions B , 380 (1925). https://doi.org/10.1098/RSTB.2024.0145 Briggs, J. M., Spielmann, K. A., Schaafsma, H., Kintigh, K. W., Kruse, M., Morehouse, K., & Schollmeyer, K. (2006). Why ecology needs archaeologists and archaeology needs ecologists. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment , 4 (4), 180–188. https://doi.org/10.1890/1540-9295(2006)004[0180:WENAAA]2.0.CO;2 Brown, C., & Webster, M. (2025). Fishy culture in a changing world. Philosophical Transactions B , 380 (1925). https://doi.org/10.1098/RSTB.2024.0130 Bruder, J., Burakowski, L. M., Park, T., Al-Haddad, R., Al-Hemaidi, S., Al-Korbi, A., & Al-Naimi, A. (2022). Cross-Cultural Awareness and Attitudes Toward Threatened Animal Species. Frontiers in Psychology , 13 . https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.898503 Carboneras, C., Šilarová, E., Škorpilová, J., & Arroyo, B. (2024). Rapid population response to a hunting ban in a previously overharvested, threatened landbird. Conservation Letters , 17 (6). https://doi.org/10.1111/CONL.13057 Chambers, O. M., Burchell, S. P., Nichols, B. R., Kulzy, K. A., & Rogalski, M. A. (2025). Rapid evolutionary response to salinity fluctuations in a coastal Daphnia population. The American Naturalist . https://doi.org/10.1086/737753 Cheng, J., Hu, S., Zhou, L., Huang, | Li, Pan, | Yingji, Jim, | C Y, Song, K., Minor, J., & Yang, Y. (2025a). Religious uses shape the selection and distribution of Chinese Buddhist tree species. People and Nature , 00 (September 2024), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1002/PAN3.70097 Cheng, Z., Wu, Z., Chen, W., Li, W., Lin, C., Zhang, Q., & Long, C. (2025b). The homogenization of China’s city flowers and city trees. People and Nature . https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10788 Clark-Wolf, T. J., Boersma, P. D., Plard, F., Rebstock, G. A., & Abrahms, B. (2024). Increasing environmental variability inhibits evolutionary rescue in a long-lived vertebrate. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 121 (34). https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2406314121 Clucas, B., McHugh, K., & Caro, T. (2008). Flagship species on covers of US conservation and nature magazines. Biodiversity and Conservation , 17 (6), 1517–1528. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10531-008-9361-0/FIGURES/5 Coates, J., Park, B. R., Le, D., Şimşek, E., Chaudhry, W., & Kim, M. (2018). Antibiotic-induced population fluctuations and stochastic clearance of bacteria. ELife , 7 . https://doi.org/10.7554/ELIFE.32976 Colléony, A., Clayton, S., Couvet, D., Saint Jalme, M., & Prévot, A. C. (2017). Human preferences for species conservation: Animal charisma trumps endangered status. Biological Conservation , 206 , 263–269. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.BIOCON.2016.11.035 Coolen, I., Dangles, O., & Casas, J. (2005). Social Learning in Noncolonial Insects? Current Biology , 15 (21), 1931–1935. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2005.09.015 Crabtree, S. A., Bird, D. W., & Bird, R. B. (2019). Subsistence Transitions and the Simplification of Ecological Networks in the Western Desert of Australia. Human Ecology , 47 (2), 165–177. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-019-0053-z Crane, A. L., Helton, E. J., Ferrari, M. C. O., & Mathis, A. (2018). Learning to find food: evidence for embryonic sensitization and juvenile social learning in a salamander. Animal Behaviour , 142 , 199–206. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ANBEHAV.2018.06.021 Cunillera-Montcusí, D., Beklioğlu, M., Cañedo-Argüelles, M., Jeppesen, E., Ptacnik, R., Amorim, C. A., Arnott, S. E., Berger, S. A., Brucet, S., Dugan, H. A., Gerhard, M., Horváth, Z., Langenheder, S., Nejstgaard, J. C., Reinikainen, M., Striebel, M., Urrutia-Cordero, P., Vad, C. F., Zadereev, E., & Matias, M. (2022). Freshwater salinisation: a research agenda for a saltier world. In Trends in Ecology and Evolution (Vol. 37, Issue 5, pp. 440–453). Elsevier Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2021.12.005 Currie, T. E., Borgerhoff Mulder, M., Fogarty, L., Schlüter, M., Folke, C., Haider, L. J., Caniglia, G., Tavoni, A., Jansen, R. E. V., Jørgensen, P. S., & Waring, T. M. (2024). Integrating evolutionary theory and social-ecological systems research to address the sustainability challenges of the Anthropocene. In Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences (Vol. 379, Issue 1893). Royal Society Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2022.0262 Danchin, É., Isabel, G., & Nöbel, S. (2023). Culture in Insects. In J. J. Tehrani, J. Kendal, & R. Kendal (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Cultural Evolution . Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198869252.001.0001 Danchin, E., Nöbel, S., Pocheville, A., Dagaeff, A.-C., Demay, L., Alphand, M., Ranty-Roby, S., van Renssen, L., Monier, M., Gazagne, E., Allain, M., & Isabel, G. (2018). Cultural flies: Conformist social learning in fruitflies predicts long-lasting mate-choice traditions. Science , 362 (6418), 1025–1030. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aat1590 Daskalova, G. N., & Kamp, J. (2023). Abandoning land transforms biodiversity. Science , 380 (6645), 581–583. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adf1099 Davis, C. C., Kehoe, J., Knaap, A. C., & Atkins, C. D. M. (2025). Science × art: spotlighting unconventional collaborations. In Trends in Ecology and Evolution . Elsevier Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2024.12.004 Des Roches, S., Brans, K. I., Lambert, M. R., Rivkin, L. R., Savage, A. M., Schell, C. J., Correa, C., De Meester, L., Diamond, S. E., Grimm, N. B., Harris, N. C., Govaert, L., Hendry, A. P., Johnson, M. T. J., Munshi‐South, J., Palkovacs, E. P., Szulkin, M., Urban, M. C., Verrelli, B. C., & Alberti, M. (2021). Socio‐eco‐evolutionary dynamics in cities. Evolutionary Applications , 14 (1), 248–267. https://doi.org/10.1111/eva.13065 Dugan, H. A., Bartlett, S. L., Burke, S. M., Doubek, J. P., Krivak-Tetley, F. E., Skaff, N. K., Summers, J. C., Farrell, K. J., McCullough, I. M., Morales-Williams, A. M., Roberts, D. C., Ouyang, Z., Scordo, F., Hanson, P. C., & Weathers, K. C. (2017). Salting our freshwater lakes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 114 (17), 4453–4458. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1620211114 Fenn-Moltu, G., Ollier, S., Caton, B., Liebhold, A. M., Nahrung, H., Pureswaran, D. S., Turner, R. M., Yamanaka, T., & Bertelsmeier, C. (2023). Alien insect dispersal mediated by the global movement of commodities. Ecological Applications , 33 (1), e2721. https://doi.org/10.1002/EAP.2721 Ferrari, M. C. O., Messier, F., & Chivers, D. P. (2007). First documentation of cultural transmission of predator recognition by larval amphibians. Ethology , 113 (6), 621–627. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0310.2007.01362.x Fogarty, L., & Kandler, A. (2020). The fundamentals of cultural adaptation: implications for human adaptation. Scientific Reports , 10 (1), 14318. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-70475-3 Fowler-Finn, K. D., Sullivan-Beckers, L., Runck § §, A. M., & Hebets, E. A. (2015). The complexities of female mate choice and male polymorphisms: Elucidating the role of genetics, age, and mate-choice copying. Current Zoology , 61 (6), 1015–1035. https://academic.oup.com/cz/article/61/6/1015/1800593 Fukasawa, K., & Akasaka, T. (2019). Long-lasting effects of historical land use on the current distribution of mammals revealed by ecological and archaeological patterns. Scientific Reports 2019 9:1 , 9 (1), 10697-. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-46809-1 Gould, R. K., & Satterfield, T. (2025). Critiques of cultural ecosystem services, and ways forward that minimize them. In The Routledge Handbook of Cultural Ecosystem Services (pp. 13–25). Taylor and Francis. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003414896-3 Govaert, L., Fronhofer, E. A., Lion, S., Eizaguirre, C., Bonte, D., Egas, M., Hendry, A. P., De Brito Martins, A., Melián, C. J., Raeymaekers, J. A. M., Ratikainen, I. I., Saether, B. E., Schweitzer, J. A., & Matthews, B. (2019). Eco-evolutionary feedbacks—Theoretical models and perspectives. Functional Ecology , 33 (1), 13–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2435.13241 Grzędzicka, E. (2018). Habitat and diet variability of two coexisting tit species in central European forests. Bird Study , 65 (1), 52–61. https://doi.org/10.1080/00063657.2018.1443054 Guénard, B., Hughes, A. C., Lainé, C., Cannicci, S., Russell, B. D., & Williams, G. A. (2025). Limited and biased global conservation funding means most threatened species remain unsupported. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 122 (9). https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2412479122 Hämäläinen, L., Hoppitt, W., Rowland, H. M., Mappes, J., Fulford, A. J., Sosa, S., & Thorogood, R. (2021). Social transmission in the wild can reduce predation pressure on novel prey signals. Nature Communications , 12 (1). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-24154-0 Hämäläinen, L., Mappes, J., Rowland, H. M., Teichmann, M., & Thorogood, R. (2020). Social learning within and across predator species reduces attacks on novel aposematic prey. Journal of Animal Ecology , 89 (5), 1153–1164. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2656.13180 Hartberg, Y., Cox, M., & Villamayor-Tomas, S. (2016). Supernatural monitoring and sanctioning in community-based resource management. Religion, Brain & Behavior , 6 (2), 95–111. https://doi.org/10.1080/2153599X.2014.959547 Hastings, Alan., & Gross, L. J. . (2012). Encyclopedia of theoretical ecology . https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2504(08)60067-7 Hawkins, N. J., Bass, C., Dixon, A., & Neve, P. (2019). The evolutionary origins of pesticide resistance. Biological Reviews , 94 (1), 135–155. https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12440 Hayashi, R., & Shibasaki, S. (2025). The Invisible Majority: Disciplinary Bias and the Systematic Neglect of Real Biodiversity. EcoEvoRxiv . https://doi.org/10.32942/X2CQ08 Hempel, S., Herzog, F., Batáry, P., Öckinger, E., & Knop, E. (2025). The impact of abandonment and intensification on the biodiversity of agriculturally marginal grasslands – a systematic review. Basic and Applied Ecology , 88 , 9–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.BAAE.2025.08.003 Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). Most people are not WEIRD. Nature 2010 466:7302 , 466 (7302), 29–29. https://doi.org/10.1038/466029a Henrik Barmentlo, S., Schrama, M., De Snoo, G. R., Van Bodegom, P. M., Van Nieuwenhuijzen, A., & Vijver, M. G. (2021). Experimental evidence for neonicotinoid driven decline in aquatic emerging insects. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America , 118 (44), e2105692118. https://doi.org/10.1073/PNAS.2105692118/SUPPL_FILE/PNAS.2105692118.SAPP.PDF Henry, E. G., Dunkley, K., & Herbert-Read, J. E. (2025). Sandeels increase reliance on social cues when private information is uncertain. Animal Behaviour , 226 , 123236. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ANBEHAV.2025.123236 Hiltunen, T., Cairns, J., Frickel, J., Jalasvuori, M., Laakso, J., Kaitala, V., Künzel, S., Karakoc, E., & Becks, L. (2018). Dual-stressor selection alters eco-evolutionary dynamics in experimental communities. Nature Ecology & Evolution , 2 (December). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-018-0701-5 Huang, L., Tian, L., Huang, L., Jin, C., Hu, S., Zhang, Z., Yan, E., Jim, C. Y., Yang, Y., Lindenmayer, D. B., & Tang, Z. (2025). Religious temples are long-term refuges for old trees in human-dominated landscapes in China. Current Biology , 35 (12), 2994-3000.e3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2025.05.030 Hulme, P. E. (2021). Unwelcome exchange: International trade as a direct and indirect driver of biological invasions worldwide. One Earth , 4 (5), 666–679. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2021.04.015 Hutchings, M., Truman, A., & Wilkinson, B. (2019). Antibiotics: past, present and future. In Current Opinion in Microbiology (Vol. 51, pp. 72–80). Elsevier Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mib.2019.10.008 Kacsoh, B. Z., Bozler, J., & Bosco, G. (2018). Drosophila species learn dialects through communal living . https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1007430 Kacsoh, B. Z., Bozler, J., Ramaswami, M., & Bosco, G. (2015). Social communication of predator-induced changes in Drosophila behavior and germ line physiology. ELife , 4 . https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.07423 Kasser, S. M., Lala, K. N., Fortunato, L., & Feldman, M. W. (2025). Not by Selection Alone: Expanding the Scope of Gene‐Culture Coevolution. Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews , 34 (3). https://doi.org/10.1002/evan.70007 Kaushal, S. S., Likens, G. E., Pace, M. L., Reimer, J. E., Maas, C. M., Galella, J. G., Utz, R. M., Duan, S., Kryger, J. R., Yaculak, A. M., Boger, W. L., Bailey, N. W., Haq, S., Wood, K. L., Wessel, B. M., Park, C. E., Collison, D. C., Aisin, B. Y. ’aaqob I., Gedeon, T. M., … Woglo, S. A. (2021). Freshwater salinization syndrome: from emerging global problem to managing risks. Biogeochemistry , 154 (2), 255–292. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10533-021-00784-w Kelley, J. L., Evans, J. P., Ramnarine, I. W., & Magurran, A. E. (2003). Back to school: Can antipredator behaviour in guppies be enhanced through social learning? Animal Behaviour , 65 (4), 655–662. https://doi.org/10.1006/anbe.2003.2076 Kikuchi, D. W., & Simon, M. W. (2023). Social Learning of Innovations in Dynamic Predator-Prey Systems. The American Naturalist , 201 (6), 895–907. https://doi.org/10.1086/724491 Klauschies, T., & Isanta-Navarro, J. (2022). The joint effects of salt and 6PPD contamination on a freshwater herbivore. Science of the Total Environment , 829 . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.154675 Kreiner, J. M., Stinchcombe, J. R., & Wright, S. I. (2018). Population Genomics of Herbicide Resistance: Adaptation via Evolutionary Rescue . https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-arplant-042817 Křivan, V., Cressman, R., & Schneider, C. (2008). The ideal free distribution: A review and synthesis of the game-theoretic perspective. Theoretical Population Biology , 73 (3), 403–425. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tpb.2007.12.009 Kroeber, A. L. (1948). Anthropology: race, language, culture, psychology, pre-history . Harcourt, Brace. https://archive.org/details/anthropologyrace00kroe/page/252/mode/2up Laland, K. N. (2004). Social learning strategies. Learning & Behavior , 32 (1), 4–14. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196002 Laland, K. N. (2008). Animal cultures. Current Biology , 18 (9), R366–R370. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2008.02.049 Laland, K. N., Atton, N., & Webster, M. M. (2011). From fish to fashion: Experimental and theoretical insights into the evolution of culture. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences , 366 (1567), 958–968. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2010.0328 Laland, K. N., & Williams, K. (1998). Social transmission of maladaptive information in the guppy. Behavioral Ecology , 9 (5), 493–499. https://doi.org/10.1093/BEHECO/9.5.493 Lee, K., Raguideau, S., Sirén, K., Asnicar, F., Cumbo, F., Hildebrand, F., Segata, N., Cha, C. J., & Quince, C. (2023). Population-level impacts of antibiotic usage on the human gut microbiome. Nature Communications 2023 14:1 , 14 (1), 1191-. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-36633-7 Lenzner, B., Latombe, G., Schertler, A., Seebens, H., Yang, Q., Winter, M., Weigelt, P., van Kleunen, M., Pyšek, P., Pergl, J., Kreft, H., Dawson, W., Dullinger, S., & Essl, F. (2022). Naturalized alien floras still carry the legacy of European colonialism. Nature Ecology and Evolution , 6 (11), 1723–1732. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-022-01865-1 León, J., Quintero, F., & Zuberbühler, K. (2023). Acquisition of predator knowledge in sooty mangabeys. Animal Behaviour , 205 , 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ANBEHAV.2023.08.012 Lindsey, H. A., Gallie, J., Taylor, S., & Kerr, B. (2013). Evolutionary rescue from extinction is contingent on a lower rate of environmental change. Nature , 494 (7438), 463–467. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11879 Mata, L., Hahs, A. K., Palma, E., Backstrom, A., Johnston, N., King, T., Olson, A. R., Renowden, C., Smith, T. R., Vogel, B., & Ward, S. (2023). Large positive ecological changes of small urban greening actions. Ecological Solutions and Evidence , 4 (3). https://doi.org/10.1002/2688-8319.12259 Maurer, C., Sutter, L., Martínez-Núñez, C., Pellissier, L., & Albrecht, M. (2022). Different types of semi-natural habitat are required to sustain diverse wild bee communities across agricultural landscapes. Journal of Applied Ecology , 59 (10), 2604–2615. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.14260 McInturff, A., Alagona, P. S., Cannon, C. E. B., & Pellow, D. N. (2025). The socio-ecological niche. People and Nature . https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.70032 Merquiol, L., Tribot, A.-S., Faget, D., Denys, G. P. J., Richard, T., & Changeux, T. (2025). Italian still life paintings as a resource for reconstructing past Mediterranean aquatic biodiversity. Npj Biodiversity , 4 (1), 33. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44185-025-00103-8 Mesoudi, Alex. (2021). Cultural Evolution : How Darwinian Theory Can Explain Human Culture and Synthesize the Social Sciences . University of Chicago Press. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being : synthesis . Island Press. Miyazaki, Y., & Murase, A. (2020). Fish rubbings, ‘gyotaku’, as a source of historical biodiversity data. ZooKeys , 2020 (904), 89–101. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.904.47721 Morgan, T. J. H., & Feldman, M. W. (2024). Human culture is uniquely open-ended rather than uniquely cumulative. Nature Human Behaviour 2024 9:1 , 9 (1), 28–42. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-024-02035-y Nijhawan, S., Mihu, A., Tapo, I., Rondo, A., Pulu, J., & Rowcliffe, M. (2025). Do cultural taboos regulate hunting in transitioning Indigenous communities? The case of the Idu Mishmi of Northeast India. People and Nature , 00 , 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1002/PAN3.70180 Nöbel, S., Allain, M., Isabel, G., & Danchin, E. (2018). Mate copying in Drosophila melanogaster males. Animal Behaviour , 141 , 9–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ANBEHAV.2018.04.019 Perreault, C. (2012). The Pace of Cultural Evolution. PLoS ONE , 7 (9), e45150. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0045150 Pyšek, P., Hulme, P. E., Simberloff, D., Bacher, S., Blackburn, T. M., Carlton, J. T., Dawson, W., Essl, F., Foxcroft, L. C., Genovesi, P., Jeschke, J. M., Kühn, I., Liebhold, A. M., Mandrak, N. E., Meyerson, L. A., Pauchard, A., Pergl, J., Roy, H. E., Seebens, H., … Richardson, D. M. (2020). Scientists’ warning on invasive alien species. Biological Reviews , 95 (6), 1511–1534. https://doi.org/10.1111/BRV.12627 Richerson, P. J. ., & Boyd, Robert. (2005). Not by genes alone : how culture transformed human evolution . University of Chicago Press. Richerson, P. J., Boyd, R. T., & Efferson, C. (2024). Agentic processes in cultural evolution: relevance to Anthropocene sustainability. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences , 379 (1893), 20220252. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2022.0252 Saito, O., Subramanian, S. M., Hashimoto, S., & Takeuchi, K. (2020). Introduction: Socio-ecological Production Landscapes and Seascapes (pp. 1–10). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-1133-2_1 Santiago Araújo, R., Nöbel, S., Antunes, D. F., Danchin, E., & Isabel, G. (2024). A social learning primacy trend in mate-copying: an experiment in Drosophila melanogaster . Royal Society Open Science , 11 (6). https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.240408 Sarma, S. S. S., Nandini, S., Morales-Ventura, J., Delgado-Martínez, I., & González-Valverde, L. (2006). Effects of NaCl salinity on the population dynamics of freshwater zooplankton (rotifers and cladocerans). Aquatic Ecology , 40 (3), 349–360. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10452-006-9039-1 Schell, C. J., Dyson, K., Fuentes, T. L., Roches, S. Des, Harris, N. C., Miller, D. S., Woelfle-Erskine, C. A., & Lambert, M. R. (2020). The ecological and evolutionary consequences of systemic racism in urban environments. In Science (Vol. 369, Issue 6509). American Association for the Advancement of Science. https://doi.org/10.1126/SCIENCE.AAY4497 Schilthuizen, Menno. (2018). Darwin comes to town : how the urban jungle drives evolution . Picador. Schmidt, C. E., & Garroway, C. J. (2022). Systemic racism alters wildlife genetic diversity . https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas Schuster, S., Wöhl, S., Griebsch, M., & Klostermeier, I. (2006). Animal Cognition: How Archer Fish Learn to Down Rapidly Moving Targets. Current Biology , 16 (4), 378–383. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CUB.2005.12.037 Shibasaki, S., Nakadai, R., & Nakawake, Y. (2024). Biogeographical ‍distributions of trickster animals. Royal Society Open Science , 11 (5). https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.231577 Shibasaki, S., Nakawake, Y., Tateishi, W., Fujii, S., & Nakadai, R. (2025). Fear of supernatural punishment can harmonize human societies with nature: an evolutionary game-theoretic approach. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications , 12 (1), 1575. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-025-05734-7 Shibasaki, S., & Yamamichi, M. (2024). The double-edged effect of environmental fluctuations on evolutionary rescue. BioRxiv . https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.08.09.607399 Shibasaki, S., & Yamamichi, M. (2025a). Applying invasion criterion to cultural evolution. BioRxiv . https://doi.org/10.1101/2025.11.12.688139 Shibasaki, S., & Yamamichi, M. (2025b). Quantifying a trait-mediated indirect effect of an environmental stressor on population dynamics. BioRxiv . https://doi.org/10.1101/2025.09.04.674171 Shipley, J. R., Frei, E. R., Bergamini, A., Boch, S., Schulz, T., Ginzler, C., Barandun, M., Bebi, P., Bolliger, J., Bollmann, K., Delpouve, N., Gossner, M. M., Graham, C., Krumm, F., Marty, M., Pichon, N., Rigling, A., & Rixen, C. (2024). Agricultural practices and biodiversity: Conservation policies for semi-natural grasslands in Europe. Current Biology , 34 (16), R753–R761. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2024.06.062 Skibins, J. C., Powell, R. B., & Hallo, J. C. (2013). Charisma and conservation: Charismatic megafauna’s influence on safari and zoo tourists’ pro-conservation behaviors. Biodiversity and Conservation , 22 (4), 959–982. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10531-013-0462-Z/TABLES/4 Slotte, A., Salthaug, A., Vatnehol, S., Johnsen, E., Mousing, E. A., Høines, Å., Broms, C. T., Bjarnason, S., Homrum, E. í, Skagseth, Ø., & Stenevik, E. K. (2025). Herring spawned poleward following fishery-induced collective memory loss. Nature , 642 (8069), 965–972. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-025-08983-3 Smolla, M., Alem, S., Chittka, L., & Shultz, S. (2016). Copy-when-uncertain: bumblebees rely on social information when rewards are highly variable. Biology Letters , 12 (6). https://doi.org/10.1098/RSBL.2016.0188 Søgaard Jørgensen, P., Weinberger, V. P., & Waring, T. M. (2024). Evolution and sustainability: gathering the strands for an Anthropocene synthesis. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences , 379 (1893). https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2022.0251 Spitzig, A., Rösch, M., Woodbridge, J., Bauch, M., Guzowski, P., Erhart, P., Fyfe, R., Marinova, E., & Izdebski, A. (2025). Cultural innovation can increase and maintain biodiversity: A case study from medieval Europe. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 122 (47). https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2506266122 Swaney, W., Kendal, J., Capon, H., Brown, C., & Laland, K. N. (2001). Familiarity facilitates social learning of foraging behaviour in the guppy. Animal Behaviour , 62 (3), 591–598. https://doi.org/10.1006/ANBE.2001.1788 Tateishi, W., Nakawake, Y., Fujii, S., Shibasaki, S., & Nakadai, R. (2026). Nature’s value associated with traditional worldviews: psychological validation of relational, intrinsic, and instrumental dimensions in Japan. Current Research in Ecological and Social Psychology , 10 , 100259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cresp.2025.100259 Thorogood, R., Kokko, H., & Mappes, J. (2017). Social transmission of avoidance among predators facilitates the spread of novel prey. Nature Ecology & Evolution , 2 (2), 254–261. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-017-0418-x Tregenza, T. (1995). Building on the Ideal Free Distribution. Advances in Ecological Research , 26 , 253–307. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2504(08)60067-7 Tsuzuki, Y., Ohsaki, H., Kawaguchi, Y. W., Suzuki, S., Harada, S., Otake, Y., Shinohara, N., & Katsuhara, K. R. (2024). Nationwide diversity of symbolic “city flowers” in Japan is increasing. Ecological Research . https://doi.org/10.1111/1440-1703.12540 Tylor, E. Burnett. (2010). Primitive Culture : Researches into the Development of Mythology, Philosophy, Religion, Art, and Custom. Volume 1 . Cambridge University Press. Vander Wal, E., Garant, D., Festa-Bianchet, M., & Pelletier, F. (2013). Evolutionary rescue in vertebrates: Evidence, applications and uncertainty. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences , 368 (1610). https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2012.0090 Venâncio, C., Castro, B. B., Ribeiro, R., Antunes, S. C., Abrantes, N., Soares, A. M. V. M., & Lopes, I. (2019). Sensitivity of freshwater species under single and multigenerational exposure to seawater intrusion. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences , 374 (1764). https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2018.0252 Vermeij, G. J. (2012). THE LIMITS OF ADAPTATION: HUMANS AND THE PREDATOR–PREY ARMS RACE. Evolution , 66 (7), 2007–2014. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1558-5646.2012.01592.X Webster, M. M. (2023). Social learning in non-grouping animals. Biological Reviews , 98 (4), 1329–1344. https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12954 Webster, M. M., & Laland, K. N. (2017). Social information use and social learning in non-grouping fishes. Behavioral Ecology , 28 (6), 1547–1552. https://doi.org/10.1093/BEHECO/ARX121 Whitehead, H., Laland, K. N., Rendell, L., Thorogood, R., & Whiten, A. (2019). The reach of gene–culture coevolution in animals. In Nature Communications (Vol. 10, Issue 1). Nature Publishing Group. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-10293-y Whiten, A. (2019). Cultural Evolution in Animals. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics , 50 (1), 27–48. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-110218-025040 Whiten, A. (2021). The burgeoning reach of animal culture. In Science (Vol. 372, Issue 6537). American Association for the Advancement of Science. https://doi.org/10.1126/SCIENCE.ABE6514 Xu, W., Xu, L., Cao, Y., Zheng, J., Wang, Y., Cheng, K., Lee, C. H., Dai, H., Mei, S., & Zong, C. (2024). Community perspectives of flagship species: can conservation motivators mitigate human-wildlife conflict? Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution , 12 , 1265694. https://doi.org/10.3389/FEVO.2024.1265694/XML Yamamichi, M., Yoshida, T., & Sasaki, A. (2011). Comparing the effects of rapid evolution and phenotypic plasticity on predator-prey dynamics. American Naturalist , 178 (3), 287–304. https://doi.org/10.1086/661241 Yang, J., & Lu, C. (2024). The environmental impact of religious beliefs in the East and West: evidence from China. Frontiers in Psychology , 15 . https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1432142 Yang, Q., Weigelt, P., Fristoe, T. S., Zhang, Z., Kreft, H., Stein, A., Seebens, H., Dawson, W., Essl, F., König, C., Lenzner, B., Pergl, J., Pouteau, R., Pyšek, P., Winter, M., Ebel, A. L., Fuentes, N., Giehl, E. L. H., Kartesz, J., … van Kleunen, M. (2021). The global loss of floristic uniqueness. Nature Communications 2021 12:1 , 12 (1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-27603-y Yoshida, T., Jones, L. E., Ellner, S. P., Fussmann, G. F., & Hairston, N. G. (2003). Rapid evolution drives ecological dynamics in a predator–prey system. Nature , 424 (6946), 303–306. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature01767 Text box Box 1: Definition of culture and cultural evolution Researchers have proposed multiple definitions of culture across disciplines. Although some researchers have narrowed the definition of culture to humans (Kroeber, 1948; Tylor, 1871/2010), this view is anthropocentric. This article defines culture as the information or behaviors that are transmitted by learning from other individuals (i.e., social learning), following the cultural evolution studies (Mesoudi, 2021; Richerson & Boyd, 2005; Whiten, 2021). This definition of culture applies to humans and non-human animals (Avital and Jablonka 2000; E. Danchin et al. 2018) and focuses on a specific form of learning, social learning. Unlike individual learning (i.e., learning from individual experiences), studied as a form of phenotypic plasticity in ecology (Shimada et al., 2010), social learning depends on phenotypic variation within a population. Furthermore, biases in social learning (e.g., whom to imitate) can accelerate or constrain cultural change within a population (Shibasaki & Yamamichi, 2025a). Cultural evolution refers to changes in the distribution of cultural traits within a population over time, driven by processes such as social learning and innovation. Unlike genetic evolution, cultural evolution can occur without generational turnover, allowing behaviors and information to spread rapidly across individuals. These points emphasize culture and cultural evolution as population-level processes that can rapidly influence ecological dynamics, forming the conceptual foundation for this review. Fig. 1 Conceptual framework linking cultural, ecological, and evolutionary dynamics across species This figure illustrates the proposed integration of cultural evolution into ecological theory by unifying three dynamic processes: ecological dynamics (population and community dynamics), biological evolution (genetic change), and cultural evolution (socially transmitted behavioral changes). This framework unifies and expands existing concepts of feedback loops among these processes, including socio-ecological systems, gene–culture coevolution, and eco-evolutionary dynamics. Fig. 2 Examples of human cultural impacts on ecological dynamics Human cultural practices influence ecological processes through multiple pathways: (A) direct effects on species population sizes and evolutionary trajectories (e.g., antibiotic use and the rise of resistant bacteria), (B) indirect effects via landscape transformation (e.g., a semi-natural system maintaining local biodiversity), and (C) facilitation of species dispersal across regions and continents (e.g., the spread of Buddhism and G. biloba in China). Fig. 3 Potential impacts of non-human animal culture on ecological dynamics Cultural evolution in nonhuman animals can influence ecological processes through multiple pathways: (A) changes in resource preferences and foraging strategies that affect population dynamics (e.g., social learning of resource preference by fruit flies), (B) learned prey and predator strategies that modify predator-prey interaction strength (crickets learning to escape from spiders by hiding under leaves), and (C) heterospecific social learning that reshapes species interaction networks and potentially promotes coexistence among ecologically similar species (e.g., social learning between bird species about prey choice). In the above examples, lamp icons indicate those who learn socially. Information & Authors Information Version history V1 Version 1 01 February 2026 Copyright This work is licensed under a Non Exclusive No Reuse License. Keywords 1: evolutionary ecology 2: behavioral ecology 4: population ecology 6: community ecology animal culture cultural evolution eco-evolutionary dynamics human culture social learning Authors Affiliations Shota Shibasaki 0000-0002-8196-0745 [email protected] Doshisha University Faculty of Culture and Information Science View all articles by this author Metrics & Citations Metrics Article Usage 362 views 108 downloads .FvxKWukQNSOunydq8rnd { width: 100px; } Citations Download citation Shota Shibasaki. Integrating Cultural Evolution into Ecological Dynamic. Authorea . 01 February 2026. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22541/au.176990771.10567463/v1 If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download. For more information or tips please see 'Downloading to a citation manager' in the Help menu . Format Please select one from the list RIS (ProCite, Reference Manager) EndNote BibTex Medlars RefWorks Direct import Tips for downloading citations document.getElementById('citMgrHelpLink').addEventListener('click', function() { popupHelp(this.href); return false; }); $(".js__slcInclude").on("change", function(e){ if ($(this).val() == 'refworks') $('#direct').prop("checked", false); $('#direct').prop("disabled", ($(this).val() == 'refworks')); }); View Options View options PDF View PDF Figures Tables Media Share Share Share article link Copy Link Copied! Copying failed. Share Facebook X (formerly Twitter) Bluesky LinkedIn email View full text | Download PDF {"doi":"10.22541/au.176990771.10567463/v1","type":"Article"} Now Reading: Share Figures Tables Close figure viewer Back to article Figure title goes here Change zoom level Go to figure location within the article Download figure Toggle share panel Toggle share panel Share Toggle information panel Toggle information panel Go to previous graphic Go to next graphic Go to previous table Go to next table All figures All tables View all material View all material xrefBack.goTo xrefBack.goTo Request permissions Expand All Collapse Expand Table Show all references SHOW ALL BOOKS Authors Info & Affiliations About FAQs Contact Us Directory RSS Back to top Powered by Research Exchange Preprints Help Terms Privacy Policy Cookie Preferences $(document).ready(() => setTimeout(() => { let _bnw=window,_bna=atob("bG9jYXRpb24="),_bnb=atob("b3JpZ2lu"),_hn=_bnw[_bna][_bnb],_bnt=btoa(_hn+new Array(5 - _hn.length % 4).join(" ")); $.get("/resource/lodash?t="+_bnt); },4000)); (function(){function c(){var b=a.contentDocument||a.contentWindow.document;if(b){var d=b.createElement('script');d.innerHTML="window.__CF$cv$params={r:'9fe219716a27f047',t:'MTc3OTE4MzE5OA=='};var a=document.createElement('script');a.src='/cdn-cgi/challenge-platform/scripts/jsd/main.js';document.getElementsByTagName('head')[0].appendChild(a);";b.getElementsByTagName('head')[0].appendChild(d)}}if(document.body){var a=document.createElement('iframe');a.height=1;a.width=1;a.style.position='absolute';a.style.top=0;a.style.left=0;a.style.border='none';a.style.visibility='hidden';document.body.appendChild(a);if('loading'!==document.readyState)c();else if(window.addEventListener)document.addEventListener('DOMContentLoaded',c);else{var e=document.onreadystatechange||function(){};document.onreadystatechange=function(b){e(b);'loading'!==document.readyState&&(document.onreadystatechange=e,c())}}}})();