The scale‐variant interstage flow makes biological insights possible: A response to Hinrichsen

Abstract Hinrichsen (2025) identifies two primary limitations of the interstage flow matrix introduced by Yokomizo et al. (2024). The first limitation is described as biological unrealism due to equal weighting for each individual across all the stages. The second limitation is that interstage flow is scale‐variant. However, we argue that these two points are not limitations of the interstage flow approach. Life‐history strategies vary among species: Some species produce many offspring with low survivorship, while others produce fewer offspring with higher survivorship. The concentration of populations in immature stages often reflects biologically meaningful traits rather than a problem requiring correction as Yokomizo et al. (2024) showed. Hinrichsen (2025) also highlights differences between interstage flows derived from pre‐breeding and post‐breeding census models due to scale variance. While these differences are important, they do not justify the adoption of balancing. Balancing disregards the life‐history strategies inherent to developmental stages, potentially oversimplifying biologically significant traits. Synthesis . Interstage flows are inherently scale‐variant and appropriately weigh small, abundant individuals alongside large, less abundant individuals. These characteristics reflect species and population traits. Interstage flows reveal differences among functional groups and facilitate comparisons between populations. While balancing may offer insights into certain metrics, it must be applied with careful consideration of biological relevance. Employing both approaches—interstage flows and balancing interstage flows—could deepen our understanding of species and populations.