<p>While I was enjoying a recent cross-country flight jammed between the fuselage and a generously proportioned passenger in the middle seat, the pilot came on the intercom and said, “we know you have a choice in airlines, thank you for choosing…”. I found that statement somewhat ironic because through deregulation and consolidation, we actually have fewer choices when we fly today than we did in the past. The same cannot be said for scientific publishing. In contrast to the number of carriers in the airline industry, the number of scientific journals in academic publishing continues to increase. Indeed, the <i>Nature</i> “family” of journals currently includes something like 55 publications, which seems more like a commune than a family to me. Nevertheless, this does mean that authors have more choices when deciding where to submit a manuscript. Of course, not all of those options are appropriate, or even desirable in the case of predatory publishers.</p><p>Although it is possible to categorize journals in multiple ways (impact factors, open access options, etc.), one clear dichotomy when considering where to submit a manuscript is the choice between a society-run journal versus a journal produced by a strictly for-profit publisher. Both the Ecological Society of America (ESA) and the British Ecological Society (BES), to name just two of many scientific societies, publish multiple journals through a commercial publisher, in this case John Wiley and Sons, or simply “Wiley”. Indeed, commercial publishers like Wiley currently dominate publishing in the ecological and broader natural sciences. To some degree, the relationship between scientific societies and commercial publishers is symbiotic in that both benefit from the interaction. Wiley makes a profit by marketing the journals and shares some of that revenue with the scientific society; at the same time, societies like ESA use those funds to advance their goals through a variety of activities as diverse as training workshops, awards and honors, or travel grants to attend the annual meeting. In contrast, with purely for-profit journals, like many published by Springer Nature, revenues go to shareholders. This does not mean that these publishers are necessarily bad choices, but in many such cases the motive is profit and the flow of revenue back to the scientific community is limited.</p><p>My interest in this topic was recently piqued by an article from a group of early career researchers (Ecol Lett 2024) who argued that the publish-or-perish ethic in research universities has created an unethical publishing system. They based this argument on the perception that academics need to publish in high-impact journals to get (and keep) a job, and many such journals originate from for-profit publishers. The authors likened this to David versus Goliath. However, their own data contradict this perception as they report that “roughly half of recent Assistant Professor hires at North American Doctoral Unive
{"title":"Thank you for choosing…","authors":"Scott L Collins","doi":"10.1002/fee.2838","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.2838","url":null,"abstract":"<p>While I was enjoying a recent cross-country flight jammed between the fuselage and a generously proportioned passenger in the middle seat, the pilot came on the intercom and said, “we know you have a choice in airlines, thank you for choosing…”. I found that statement somewhat ironic because through deregulation and consolidation, we actually have fewer choices when we fly today than we did in the past. The same cannot be said for scientific publishing. In contrast to the number of carriers in the airline industry, the number of scientific journals in academic publishing continues to increase. Indeed, the <i>Nature</i> “family” of journals currently includes something like 55 publications, which seems more like a commune than a family to me. Nevertheless, this does mean that authors have more choices when deciding where to submit a manuscript. Of course, not all of those options are appropriate, or even desirable in the case of predatory publishers.</p><p>Although it is possible to categorize journals in multiple ways (impact factors, open access options, etc.), one clear dichotomy when considering where to submit a manuscript is the choice between a society-run journal versus a journal produced by a strictly for-profit publisher. Both the Ecological Society of America (ESA) and the British Ecological Society (BES), to name just two of many scientific societies, publish multiple journals through a commercial publisher, in this case John Wiley and Sons, or simply “Wiley”. Indeed, commercial publishers like Wiley currently dominate publishing in the ecological and broader natural sciences. To some degree, the relationship between scientific societies and commercial publishers is symbiotic in that both benefit from the interaction. Wiley makes a profit by marketing the journals and shares some of that revenue with the scientific society; at the same time, societies like ESA use those funds to advance their goals through a variety of activities as diverse as training workshops, awards and honors, or travel grants to attend the annual meeting. In contrast, with purely for-profit journals, like many published by Springer Nature, revenues go to shareholders. This does not mean that these publishers are necessarily bad choices, but in many such cases the motive is profit and the flow of revenue back to the scientific community is limited.</p><p>My interest in this topic was recently piqued by an article from a group of early career researchers (Ecol Lett 2024) who argued that the publish-or-perish ethic in research universities has created an unethical publishing system. They based this argument on the perception that academics need to publish in high-impact journals to get (and keep) a job, and many such journals originate from for-profit publishers. The authors likened this to David versus Goliath. However, their own data contradict this perception as they report that “roughly half of recent Assistant Professor hires at North American Doctoral Unive","PeriodicalId":171,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment","volume":"23 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":10.0,"publicationDate":"2025-03-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/fee.2838","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143530409","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Francys Alves Paulino, Orivaldo Nunes Júnior, João Carlos Ferreira de Melo Júnior
<p>The Atlantic Forest harbors one of the most diverse and threatened tropical forest biotas worldwide. Recognized as a global biodiversity hotspot, the biome extends along Brazil's Atlantic coast and into eastern Paraguay and northeastern Argentina, spanning a wide range of latitudinal, longitudinal, altitudinal, and climatic gradients. Its flora includes taxa from the Amazon Rainforest, Cerrado gallery forests, and the Andean region, encompassing approximately 25,000 species of vascular plants, 48% of which are endemic and 3400 of which are trees (Oliveira-Filho and Fontes <span>2000</span>).</p><p>The degradation of the Atlantic Forest reflects centuries of human expansion triggered by the arrival of European colonizers in the 16th century CE. Over time, economic cycles, such as those associated with brazilwood, sugarcane, gold, and coffee, as well as urbanization, ranching, and railway/road construction, have severely impacted the forest (Dean <span>2013</span>). Today, much of the Atlantic Forest consists of patches of secondary forests at varying stages of recovery, monoculture plantations of non-native trees, and small forest fragments surrounded by open areas dominated by anthropogenic landscapes (Tabarelli <i>et al</i>. <span>2010</span>). An estimated ~120 million people (70% of Brazil's population) live along Brazil's Atlantic coast, exacerbating pressure on the remaining forest, which currently covers only 12% of its original extent (SOS Mata Atlântica <span>2023</span>). In this context, urban expansion, industrialization, intensive agriculture, and mining not only accelerate deforestation and biodiversity loss but also erode the ancestral knowledge and cultures of Indigenous peoples who have inhabited these lands for millennia.</p><p>Currently, Brazil is home to 305 Indigenous peoples who speak 274 different languages. These groups inhabit territories composed of forests and other associated non-forest systems. The differences exhibited by these communities reflect their sociocultural variety, arising from distinct logics, conceptions, and practices specific to each people and shaped by various historical, social, and environmental contexts (Cunha <i>et al</i>. <span>2022</span>).</p><p>Among the Indigenous peoples coexisting within the Atlantic Forest are the Guarani (Guarani Mbya), Kaingang, Pataxó, Tupinambá, and Tupiniquim. For these groups, nature and biodiversity not only are deeply connected with beliefs, knowledge, history, and culture but also depend on management techniques to better ensure their persistence over time. Embedded within multiple dimensions—social, cultural, political, economic, environmental, philosophical, and spiritual—traditional Indigenous knowledge fosters a sustainable way of relating to nature, land, and biodiversity, contributing to landscape and biodiversity conservation (Cunha <i>et al</i>. <span>2022</span>).</p><p>Indigenous cultural practices are expressed through a diversity of songs, dances, c
{"title":"Conservation of the Atlantic Forest trees through Indigenous sustainability","authors":"Francys Alves Paulino, Orivaldo Nunes Júnior, João Carlos Ferreira de Melo Júnior","doi":"10.1002/fee.2839","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.2839","url":null,"abstract":"<p>The Atlantic Forest harbors one of the most diverse and threatened tropical forest biotas worldwide. Recognized as a global biodiversity hotspot, the biome extends along Brazil's Atlantic coast and into eastern Paraguay and northeastern Argentina, spanning a wide range of latitudinal, longitudinal, altitudinal, and climatic gradients. Its flora includes taxa from the Amazon Rainforest, Cerrado gallery forests, and the Andean region, encompassing approximately 25,000 species of vascular plants, 48% of which are endemic and 3400 of which are trees (Oliveira-Filho and Fontes <span>2000</span>).</p><p>The degradation of the Atlantic Forest reflects centuries of human expansion triggered by the arrival of European colonizers in the 16th century CE. Over time, economic cycles, such as those associated with brazilwood, sugarcane, gold, and coffee, as well as urbanization, ranching, and railway/road construction, have severely impacted the forest (Dean <span>2013</span>). Today, much of the Atlantic Forest consists of patches of secondary forests at varying stages of recovery, monoculture plantations of non-native trees, and small forest fragments surrounded by open areas dominated by anthropogenic landscapes (Tabarelli <i>et al</i>. <span>2010</span>). An estimated ~120 million people (70% of Brazil's population) live along Brazil's Atlantic coast, exacerbating pressure on the remaining forest, which currently covers only 12% of its original extent (SOS Mata Atlântica <span>2023</span>). In this context, urban expansion, industrialization, intensive agriculture, and mining not only accelerate deforestation and biodiversity loss but also erode the ancestral knowledge and cultures of Indigenous peoples who have inhabited these lands for millennia.</p><p>Currently, Brazil is home to 305 Indigenous peoples who speak 274 different languages. These groups inhabit territories composed of forests and other associated non-forest systems. The differences exhibited by these communities reflect their sociocultural variety, arising from distinct logics, conceptions, and practices specific to each people and shaped by various historical, social, and environmental contexts (Cunha <i>et al</i>. <span>2022</span>).</p><p>Among the Indigenous peoples coexisting within the Atlantic Forest are the Guarani (Guarani Mbya), Kaingang, Pataxó, Tupinambá, and Tupiniquim. For these groups, nature and biodiversity not only are deeply connected with beliefs, knowledge, history, and culture but also depend on management techniques to better ensure their persistence over time. Embedded within multiple dimensions—social, cultural, political, economic, environmental, philosophical, and spiritual—traditional Indigenous knowledge fosters a sustainable way of relating to nature, land, and biodiversity, contributing to landscape and biodiversity conservation (Cunha <i>et al</i>. <span>2022</span>).</p><p>Indigenous cultural practices are expressed through a diversity of songs, dances, c","PeriodicalId":171,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment","volume":"23 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":10.0,"publicationDate":"2025-03-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/fee.2839","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143530519","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Aaron S David, Sahas Barve, Elizabeth H Boughton, Joshua H Daskin, Hilary M Swain
<p>As society navigates unprecedented global change, we need science-backed solutions to confront compounding ecological crises. While we ecologists often intend to do impactful science that addresses these crises, too often we are guilty of “hoping”, rather than “planning”, for impact. Within ecologically minded institutions, having planned impacts increases the likelihood of success and starts with a well-defined <i>mission</i>, which states the organization's purpose and guides its activities. Mission-oriented science can influence agency policy, shape sustainable land-use planning, guide management best practices, train future scientists, and more. However, the challenge is to build from mission-oriented science to maximize impact. Here, we identify three key ingredients of a recipe for achieving impact: (1) <i>synergistic science</i>, (2) <i>knowledge of place</i>, and (3) <i>bridging to partners</i>. Although grounded in our experiences at Archbold Biological Station, a nonprofit field station in south-central Florida, and in our collective knowledge of similar stations, we believe these ingredients are broadly applicable across scientific institutions.</p><p><i>Synergistic science</i> refers to teams of researchers working together toward an institution's mission. Simply put, complex environmental challenges require diverse teams to address them holistically. For example, Archbold's fire management plan is based on decades of our own science across taxa, providing a comprehensive framework for balancing the fire needs of multiple organisms, and, to date, resulting in >350 prescribed burns of an endangered scrub ecosystem. Synergistic science may be interdisciplinary or emerge from participation in formal research networks (eg USDA's Long-Term Agroecosystem Research [LTAR] network). For instance, testing strategies for sustainable agroecosystems required synthesizing data collected by 18 researchers from 53 long-term co-located studies of biodiversity, water quality, soils, and greenhouse gases at Archbold’s Buck Island Ranch (Nat Commun 2023).</p><p><i>Knowledge of place</i> refers to a deep understanding of local or regional ecosystems, biota, and processes, and to being a trusted information source among key stakeholders in governmental, academic, nonprofit, and for-profit sectors (Univ. of Chicago Press 2010). Solutions to large-scale environmental challenges arise from local actions based on knowledge of place. Developing knowledge of place is often not straightforward and may require lengthy engagement to build relevant expertise, resources, datasets, and partnerships. Ultimately, knowledge of place allows organizations a seat at the table in decision making; in our case, such knowledge allows staff to engage closely with county planners on policies supporting prescribed fire, establishing conservation areas, and avoiding development sprawl.</p><p><i>Bridging to partners</i> refers to how the organization works with other, mission-
{"title":"A field station's recipe for impactful science","authors":"Aaron S David, Sahas Barve, Elizabeth H Boughton, Joshua H Daskin, Hilary M Swain","doi":"10.1002/fee.2833","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.2833","url":null,"abstract":"<p>As society navigates unprecedented global change, we need science-backed solutions to confront compounding ecological crises. While we ecologists often intend to do impactful science that addresses these crises, too often we are guilty of “hoping”, rather than “planning”, for impact. Within ecologically minded institutions, having planned impacts increases the likelihood of success and starts with a well-defined <i>mission</i>, which states the organization's purpose and guides its activities. Mission-oriented science can influence agency policy, shape sustainable land-use planning, guide management best practices, train future scientists, and more. However, the challenge is to build from mission-oriented science to maximize impact. Here, we identify three key ingredients of a recipe for achieving impact: (1) <i>synergistic science</i>, (2) <i>knowledge of place</i>, and (3) <i>bridging to partners</i>. Although grounded in our experiences at Archbold Biological Station, a nonprofit field station in south-central Florida, and in our collective knowledge of similar stations, we believe these ingredients are broadly applicable across scientific institutions.</p><p><i>Synergistic science</i> refers to teams of researchers working together toward an institution's mission. Simply put, complex environmental challenges require diverse teams to address them holistically. For example, Archbold's fire management plan is based on decades of our own science across taxa, providing a comprehensive framework for balancing the fire needs of multiple organisms, and, to date, resulting in >350 prescribed burns of an endangered scrub ecosystem. Synergistic science may be interdisciplinary or emerge from participation in formal research networks (eg USDA's Long-Term Agroecosystem Research [LTAR] network). For instance, testing strategies for sustainable agroecosystems required synthesizing data collected by 18 researchers from 53 long-term co-located studies of biodiversity, water quality, soils, and greenhouse gases at Archbold’s Buck Island Ranch (Nat Commun 2023).</p><p><i>Knowledge of place</i> refers to a deep understanding of local or regional ecosystems, biota, and processes, and to being a trusted information source among key stakeholders in governmental, academic, nonprofit, and for-profit sectors (Univ. of Chicago Press 2010). Solutions to large-scale environmental challenges arise from local actions based on knowledge of place. Developing knowledge of place is often not straightforward and may require lengthy engagement to build relevant expertise, resources, datasets, and partnerships. Ultimately, knowledge of place allows organizations a seat at the table in decision making; in our case, such knowledge allows staff to engage closely with county planners on policies supporting prescribed fire, establishing conservation areas, and avoiding development sprawl.</p><p><i>Bridging to partners</i> refers to how the organization works with other, mission-","PeriodicalId":171,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment","volume":"23 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":10.0,"publicationDate":"2025-02-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/fee.2833","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143111292","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Danny Caudill, Joshua H Schmidt, Graham G Frye, Elaine D Gallenberg, Gretchen Caudill, Jerrold L Belant
<p>Cassidy <i>et al</i>. (<span>2023</span>) evaluated the effect of mortality on aspects of gray wolf (<i>Canis lupus</i>) demography, concluding that “…human activities can have major negative effects on the biological processes…”. We agree that the effects of human-caused mortalities on wildlife are of broad interest (eg Caudill <i>et al</i>. <span>2017</span>; Schmidt <i>et al</i>. <span>2017</span>; Frye <i>et al</i>. <span>2022</span>). However, we contend Cassidy <i>et al</i>.'s study has shortcomings with regard to its data, design, biological inference, and statistical interpretation.</p><p>Although potentially resolvable, Cassidy <i>et al</i>.'s data contain inconsistencies and are sparse across covariate values (as detailed in Data S1, available at https://irma.nps.gov/DataStore/Reference/Profile/2302764), leading to uncertainty in the reliability and generalizability of their results. For example, missing covariate values resulted in the misapplication of model selection procedures and the exclusion of nearly all data from Voyageurs National Park from some models. Furthermore, the random effects were inappropriately structured and unstable, potentially because one site (Yukon-Charley Rivers National Preserve; YUCH) contained all observations of human-caused mortalities of >4 wolves and most observations of ≥2 leaders lost. Cassidy <i>et al</i>.'s results were also disproportionately influenced by YUCH (Data S1). Moreover, wolf harvest legally occurs within portions of Denali National Park and Preserve and YUCH, and about 62% of mortalities observed in YUCH were attributable to lethal control programs in the surrounding area (~25% of mortalities in the entire dataset were attributed to lethal control). Hence, inference on harvest and wolf control in general (eg transboundary management) is ambiguous. Instead, the results of Cassidy <i>et al</i>. may reflect the previously documented negative impact on wolf demography from a specific lethal management action conducted adjacent to YUCH (Schmidt <i>et al</i>. <span>2017</span>).</p><p>The most critical limitation within Cassidy <i>et al</i>. is the study design. To provide reliable inference, a design must adequately exclude alternate hypotheses (ie Platt <span>1964</span>). A design focused on any subset of mortality types in isolation could represent an a priori false null hypothesis because mortality in general could be negatively related to pack demography. The mixed logistic regression models in Cassidy <i>et al</i>. compared a group of packs in which human-caused mortality was observed (along with an unknown level of natural mortality) to a “contaminated” control group of packs in which human-caused mortality was not observed (but which also experienced unknown levels of natural mortality and human-caused mortality of non-collared pack members). This design cannot exclude the alternate hypothesis that any type of mortality (including natural mortality) could have caused the obser
{"title":"Wolves and human-caused mortality—a reply to Cassidy et al.","authors":"Danny Caudill, Joshua H Schmidt, Graham G Frye, Elaine D Gallenberg, Gretchen Caudill, Jerrold L Belant","doi":"10.1002/fee.2830","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.2830","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Cassidy <i>et al</i>. (<span>2023</span>) evaluated the effect of mortality on aspects of gray wolf (<i>Canis lupus</i>) demography, concluding that “…human activities can have major negative effects on the biological processes…”. We agree that the effects of human-caused mortalities on wildlife are of broad interest (eg Caudill <i>et al</i>. <span>2017</span>; Schmidt <i>et al</i>. <span>2017</span>; Frye <i>et al</i>. <span>2022</span>). However, we contend Cassidy <i>et al</i>.'s study has shortcomings with regard to its data, design, biological inference, and statistical interpretation.</p><p>Although potentially resolvable, Cassidy <i>et al</i>.'s data contain inconsistencies and are sparse across covariate values (as detailed in Data S1, available at https://irma.nps.gov/DataStore/Reference/Profile/2302764), leading to uncertainty in the reliability and generalizability of their results. For example, missing covariate values resulted in the misapplication of model selection procedures and the exclusion of nearly all data from Voyageurs National Park from some models. Furthermore, the random effects were inappropriately structured and unstable, potentially because one site (Yukon-Charley Rivers National Preserve; YUCH) contained all observations of human-caused mortalities of >4 wolves and most observations of ≥2 leaders lost. Cassidy <i>et al</i>.'s results were also disproportionately influenced by YUCH (Data S1). Moreover, wolf harvest legally occurs within portions of Denali National Park and Preserve and YUCH, and about 62% of mortalities observed in YUCH were attributable to lethal control programs in the surrounding area (~25% of mortalities in the entire dataset were attributed to lethal control). Hence, inference on harvest and wolf control in general (eg transboundary management) is ambiguous. Instead, the results of Cassidy <i>et al</i>. may reflect the previously documented negative impact on wolf demography from a specific lethal management action conducted adjacent to YUCH (Schmidt <i>et al</i>. <span>2017</span>).</p><p>The most critical limitation within Cassidy <i>et al</i>. is the study design. To provide reliable inference, a design must adequately exclude alternate hypotheses (ie Platt <span>1964</span>). A design focused on any subset of mortality types in isolation could represent an a priori false null hypothesis because mortality in general could be negatively related to pack demography. The mixed logistic regression models in Cassidy <i>et al</i>. compared a group of packs in which human-caused mortality was observed (along with an unknown level of natural mortality) to a “contaminated” control group of packs in which human-caused mortality was not observed (but which also experienced unknown levels of natural mortality and human-caused mortality of non-collared pack members). This design cannot exclude the alternate hypothesis that any type of mortality (including natural mortality) could have caused the obser","PeriodicalId":171,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment","volume":"23 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":10.0,"publicationDate":"2025-01-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/fee.2830","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143117025","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Kieran D Cox, Hailey L Davies, Audrey Looby, Kelsie A Murchy, Francis Juanes, Isabelle M Côté
The nexus between changing habitats, faunal communities, and anthropogenic stressors represents an enduring conservation challenge. We propose that habitat-mediated soundscape conservation—the ability of biogenic habitats to attenuate anthropogenic noise—plays an unrecognized role in mitigating underwater noise pollution, a pervasive disturbance that disrupts the ability of species to perceive acoustic cues and communicate. We hypothesize that noise attenuation depends on the composition and physical complexity of biogenic habitats, and severe habitat degradation can cause acoustic conditions to exceed ecological tipping points, resulting in the emergence of alternative acoustic states. We examine this concept in coral reefs and kelp forests, given that the global decline of both ecosystems provides the requisite conditions to investigate our hypothesis. We then explore why anthropogenic structures fail to provide acoustic refugia. Finally, we assess whether habitat restoration or acoustic enrichment can reestablish natural soundscapes. Our review underscores the importance of considering habitat degradation when evaluating the risk that pollutants pose to ecosystems.
{"title":"Habitat-mediated soundscape conservation in marine ecosystems","authors":"Kieran D Cox, Hailey L Davies, Audrey Looby, Kelsie A Murchy, Francis Juanes, Isabelle M Côté","doi":"10.1002/fee.2824","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.2824","url":null,"abstract":"<p>The nexus between changing habitats, faunal communities, and anthropogenic stressors represents an enduring conservation challenge. We propose that habitat-mediated soundscape conservation—the ability of biogenic habitats to attenuate anthropogenic noise—plays an unrecognized role in mitigating underwater noise pollution, a pervasive disturbance that disrupts the ability of species to perceive acoustic cues and communicate. We hypothesize that noise attenuation depends on the composition and physical complexity of biogenic habitats, and severe habitat degradation can cause acoustic conditions to exceed ecological tipping points, resulting in the emergence of alternative acoustic states. We examine this concept in coral reefs and kelp forests, given that the global decline of both ecosystems provides the requisite conditions to investigate our hypothesis. We then explore why anthropogenic structures fail to provide acoustic refugia. Finally, we assess whether habitat restoration or acoustic enrichment can reestablish natural soundscapes. Our review underscores the importance of considering habitat degradation when evaluating the risk that pollutants pose to ecosystems.</p>","PeriodicalId":171,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment","volume":"23 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":10.0,"publicationDate":"2024-12-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/fee.2824","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143530790","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Heather Fair, Osmary A Medina-Báez, Barbara J Spiecker, Qingyu Gan, Yan Yin “Jenny” Cheung, Elvira D'Bastiani, Gregory R Goldsmith
<p>This was expressed by a speaker at the 2024 Ecological Society of America's (ESA's) Annual Meeting, where we conducted an experimental special session (<i>SS 31 - Towards Equity in the Communication of Science: Harnessing the Power of AI for an Inclusive Tomorrow</i>) to evaluate artificial intelligence (AI) interpretation of scientific talks by native speakers of Cantonese, Mandarin Chinese, Portuguese, and Spanish into real-time running English captions.</p><p>One fundamental value of the ESA is to “[provide] the community of ecologists of diverse backgrounds, heritage, and career paths with a supportive home that advances their aspirations”. Currently, the lingua franca at international science meetings is English, which certainly discourages or prevents many talented scientists from sharing their science, networking with colleagues, and otherwise fully participating in international conferences. Indeed, many avoid attending annual conferences altogether due to language barriers. Emerging AI technologies may soon make it possible to attract a diversity of new voices into science. ESA members are from all over the world: representing 88 countries as of 2023. By giving individuals the option to deliver presentations in the language they are most comfortable with through real-time AI interpretation, we might honor our collective ancestral voices and diversify the messages of science.</p><p>To assess the quality of AI interpretation through real-time subtitles for spoken content, we used a common presentation software and a paid AI interpretation service, in which we paired an Asian language with a Latin language of similar interpretation difficulty. After the talks, we conducted a survey and held an audience discussion assessing our experiences with the AI interpretation. Attendees of the session spoke several languages, and most were early-career individuals, both of which may not be reflective of ESA membership as a whole.</p><p>There was much to be excited about. Of the attendees who completed the survey, 84% (27/32) indicated they were likely to attend future sessions with interpretation subtitles, 84% (27/32) rated the continued exploration of AI interpretation as important, and 97% (29/30) agreed that “AI interpretation technologies make scientific conferences more inclusive for non-native English speakers”. These results demonstrate support for AI interpretation as a means to enhance inclusion at scientific conferences, but there is more work to do to ensure that adequate consideration is given to how diverse individuals obtain and communicate information.</p><p>From our collective experience and discussion, we learned that AI interpretation is advancing rapidly, but is still not ready for widespread implementation: (1) The audience experienced cognitive overload with the lines of scrolling subtitles, which moved too quickly even with rehearsed pauses by the speakers; (2) As AI switched the grammatical structure from Asian languages to
{"title":"Can AI interpretation increase inclusivity?","authors":"Heather Fair, Osmary A Medina-Báez, Barbara J Spiecker, Qingyu Gan, Yan Yin “Jenny” Cheung, Elvira D'Bastiani, Gregory R Goldsmith","doi":"10.1002/fee.2821","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.2821","url":null,"abstract":"<p>This was expressed by a speaker at the 2024 Ecological Society of America's (ESA's) Annual Meeting, where we conducted an experimental special session (<i>SS 31 - Towards Equity in the Communication of Science: Harnessing the Power of AI for an Inclusive Tomorrow</i>) to evaluate artificial intelligence (AI) interpretation of scientific talks by native speakers of Cantonese, Mandarin Chinese, Portuguese, and Spanish into real-time running English captions.</p><p>One fundamental value of the ESA is to “[provide] the community of ecologists of diverse backgrounds, heritage, and career paths with a supportive home that advances their aspirations”. Currently, the lingua franca at international science meetings is English, which certainly discourages or prevents many talented scientists from sharing their science, networking with colleagues, and otherwise fully participating in international conferences. Indeed, many avoid attending annual conferences altogether due to language barriers. Emerging AI technologies may soon make it possible to attract a diversity of new voices into science. ESA members are from all over the world: representing 88 countries as of 2023. By giving individuals the option to deliver presentations in the language they are most comfortable with through real-time AI interpretation, we might honor our collective ancestral voices and diversify the messages of science.</p><p>To assess the quality of AI interpretation through real-time subtitles for spoken content, we used a common presentation software and a paid AI interpretation service, in which we paired an Asian language with a Latin language of similar interpretation difficulty. After the talks, we conducted a survey and held an audience discussion assessing our experiences with the AI interpretation. Attendees of the session spoke several languages, and most were early-career individuals, both of which may not be reflective of ESA membership as a whole.</p><p>There was much to be excited about. Of the attendees who completed the survey, 84% (27/32) indicated they were likely to attend future sessions with interpretation subtitles, 84% (27/32) rated the continued exploration of AI interpretation as important, and 97% (29/30) agreed that “AI interpretation technologies make scientific conferences more inclusive for non-native English speakers”. These results demonstrate support for AI interpretation as a means to enhance inclusion at scientific conferences, but there is more work to do to ensure that adequate consideration is given to how diverse individuals obtain and communicate information.</p><p>From our collective experience and discussion, we learned that AI interpretation is advancing rapidly, but is still not ready for widespread implementation: (1) The audience experienced cognitive overload with the lines of scrolling subtitles, which moved too quickly even with rehearsed pauses by the speakers; (2) As AI switched the grammatical structure from Asian languages to ","PeriodicalId":171,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment","volume":"22 10","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":10.0,"publicationDate":"2024-12-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/fee.2821","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142762472","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Caitlin E Littlefield, Justin P Suraci, Julia Kintsch, Renee Callahan, Patricia Cramer, Molly S Cross, Brett G Dickson, Leslie Ann Duncan, Jonathan RB Fisher, Patrick T Freeman, Renee Seidler, Anna Wearn, Kimberly M Andrews, Marta Brocki, Norris Dodd, Jeff Gagnon, Aran Johnson, Meade Krosby, Matt Skroch, Ron Sutherland
Beyond the well-established benefits of wildlife road crossings and associated infrastructure—improving driver safety, reducing animal mortality, reconnecting habitats—there is another important but often underappreciated benefit: supporting wildlife and ecosystems in adapting to climate change. We explore this potential by (1) synthesizing the literature surrounding climate adaptation and wildlife crossings, (2) presenting a case study on how crossings support shifting animal migrations, and (3) describing key considerations for incorporating climate information into crossing prioritizations. Among other climate-adaptive benefits, research suggests crossings can support species range shifts and protect access to resources even as drought and human development compromise that access. Our case study outlines an approach for prioritizing crossing locations most likely to support animal migration both today and into the future. By accounting for such dynamics, wildlife crossings can be a cost-effective tool that protects wildlife as well as motorists and enhances the resilience of infrastructure and ecosystems in a changing world.
{"title":"Evaluating and elevating the role of wildlife road crossings in climate adaptation","authors":"Caitlin E Littlefield, Justin P Suraci, Julia Kintsch, Renee Callahan, Patricia Cramer, Molly S Cross, Brett G Dickson, Leslie Ann Duncan, Jonathan RB Fisher, Patrick T Freeman, Renee Seidler, Anna Wearn, Kimberly M Andrews, Marta Brocki, Norris Dodd, Jeff Gagnon, Aran Johnson, Meade Krosby, Matt Skroch, Ron Sutherland","doi":"10.1002/fee.2816","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.2816","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Beyond the well-established benefits of wildlife road crossings and associated infrastructure—improving driver safety, reducing animal mortality, reconnecting habitats—there is another important but often underappreciated benefit: supporting wildlife and ecosystems in adapting to climate change. We explore this potential by (1) synthesizing the literature surrounding climate adaptation and wildlife crossings, (2) presenting a case study on how crossings support shifting animal migrations, and (3) describing key considerations for incorporating climate information into crossing prioritizations. Among other climate-adaptive benefits, research suggests crossings can support species range shifts and protect access to resources even as drought and human development compromise that access. Our case study outlines an approach for prioritizing crossing locations most likely to support animal migration both today and into the future. By accounting for such dynamics, wildlife crossings can be a cost-effective tool that protects wildlife as well as motorists and enhances the resilience of infrastructure and ecosystems in a changing world.</p>","PeriodicalId":171,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment","volume":"23 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":10.0,"publicationDate":"2024-11-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/fee.2816","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143117183","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Bone gnawing in a Japanese squirrel","authors":"Kenji Suetsugu, Koichi Gomi","doi":"10.1002/fee.2813","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.2813","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":171,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment","volume":"22 9","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":10.0,"publicationDate":"2024-11-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142579627","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
<p> <i>“When you can't breathe, nothing else matters.”—slogan of The American Lung Association</i> </p><p>The world's waters are losing oxygen, and we should be very concerned.</p><p>In 2017, Denise Breitburg, Lisa Levin, and I wrote a guest editorial for this column about ocean deoxygenation—the loss of dissolved oxygen in our oceans, estuaries, and coastal zones. At the time, deoxygenation was little known among many scientists, let alone the general public or policy makers, except as related to eutrophication. We pointed out that although many low oxygen events are tied to sewage pollution and agricultural runoff, deoxygenation is increasingly recognized as a climate-driven problem, affecting even waters without excess nutrients.</p><p>2017 was the year when we learned that the oceans had lost ~2% of their oxygen inventory since 1960. Then in 2018, scientists led by Denise and Lisa published a groundbreaking synthesis of what we then knew about coastal “dead zones” and oxygen minimum zones (OMZs), those vast regions of the open ocean where oxygen depletion occurs naturally, which are expanding due to the physics of warming on ocean circulation and ventilation. And in 2019, the IUCN published a summary volume on ocean deoxygenation, which was featured at that year's UN Climate Change Conference (COP25). These works were supported by a UNESCO–Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission working group, the Global Ocean Oxygen Network (GO<sub>2</sub>NE), whose mission is to promote awareness, stimulate research, and provide advice to policy makers on all aspects of ocean deoxygenation.</p><p>Currently, efforts are underway to produce an open-access and community-driven Global Ocean Oxygen Database and Atlas (GO<sub>2</sub>DAT), to make the growing volume of coastal and open ocean data accessible for displays and analyses. This will be part of the Global Ocean Oxygen Decade, a program within the UN Ocean Decade, and should help us with a better understanding of where problem areas are happening.</p><p>But deoxygenation is not limited to oceans: inland water bodies are also losing oxygen, due to a combination of warming, elevated organic matter loading from increased precipitation, longer seasonal stratification, and the attendant impacts of human population growth. In a survey of nearly 400 temperate lakes and reservoirs between 1980 and 2017, Stephen Jane and colleagues reported that surface waters lost >5%, and hypolimnions >18%, of their oxygen. Even rivers are deoxygenating, despite their flowing nature; Penn State's Wei Zhi and colleagues discovered that 70% of 580 rivers surveyed lost oxygen.</p><p>Colleagues of mine working in the Adirondack Mountains of New York are concerned about oxygen-related threats to coldwater fishes. Thermal refugia in Adirondack lakes are shrinking as hypoxic/anoxic periods extend longer into the fall. And in New York's Hudson River estuary, 28 years of high-resolution, continuous monito
{"title":"Deoxygenation—coming to a water body near you","authors":"Karin E Limburg","doi":"10.1002/fee.2812","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.2812","url":null,"abstract":"<p>\u0000 <i>“When you can't breathe, nothing else matters.”—slogan of The American Lung Association</i>\u0000 </p><p>The world's waters are losing oxygen, and we should be very concerned.</p><p>In 2017, Denise Breitburg, Lisa Levin, and I wrote a guest editorial for this column about ocean deoxygenation—the loss of dissolved oxygen in our oceans, estuaries, and coastal zones. At the time, deoxygenation was little known among many scientists, let alone the general public or policy makers, except as related to eutrophication. We pointed out that although many low oxygen events are tied to sewage pollution and agricultural runoff, deoxygenation is increasingly recognized as a climate-driven problem, affecting even waters without excess nutrients.</p><p>2017 was the year when we learned that the oceans had lost ~2% of their oxygen inventory since 1960. Then in 2018, scientists led by Denise and Lisa published a groundbreaking synthesis of what we then knew about coastal “dead zones” and oxygen minimum zones (OMZs), those vast regions of the open ocean where oxygen depletion occurs naturally, which are expanding due to the physics of warming on ocean circulation and ventilation. And in 2019, the IUCN published a summary volume on ocean deoxygenation, which was featured at that year's UN Climate Change Conference (COP25). These works were supported by a UNESCO–Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission working group, the Global Ocean Oxygen Network (GO<sub>2</sub>NE), whose mission is to promote awareness, stimulate research, and provide advice to policy makers on all aspects of ocean deoxygenation.</p><p>Currently, efforts are underway to produce an open-access and community-driven Global Ocean Oxygen Database and Atlas (GO<sub>2</sub>DAT), to make the growing volume of coastal and open ocean data accessible for displays and analyses. This will be part of the Global Ocean Oxygen Decade, a program within the UN Ocean Decade, and should help us with a better understanding of where problem areas are happening.</p><p>But deoxygenation is not limited to oceans: inland water bodies are also losing oxygen, due to a combination of warming, elevated organic matter loading from increased precipitation, longer seasonal stratification, and the attendant impacts of human population growth. In a survey of nearly 400 temperate lakes and reservoirs between 1980 and 2017, Stephen Jane and colleagues reported that surface waters lost >5%, and hypolimnions >18%, of their oxygen. Even rivers are deoxygenating, despite their flowing nature; Penn State's Wei Zhi and colleagues discovered that 70% of 580 rivers surveyed lost oxygen.</p><p>Colleagues of mine working in the Adirondack Mountains of New York are concerned about oxygen-related threats to coldwater fishes. Thermal refugia in Adirondack lakes are shrinking as hypoxic/anoxic periods extend longer into the fall. And in New York's Hudson River estuary, 28 years of high-resolution, continuous monito","PeriodicalId":171,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment","volume":"22 9","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":10.0,"publicationDate":"2024-11-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/fee.2812","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142579667","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Corey T Callaghan, Carly Winnebald, Blaze Smith, Brittany M Mason, Laura López-Hoffman
Human development and population growth are placing immense pressure on natural ecosystems, necessitating the establishment of a balance between development and biodiversity preservation. Citizen science may serve as a valuable resource for monitoring biodiversity and informing decision-making processes, but its use has not been investigated within the realm of environmental review. We sought to quantify the extent to which citizen science data are currently being used, mentioned, or suggested in environmental impact statements (EISs) by analyzing more than 1300 EISs produced under the US National Environmental Policy Act. Among the sampled EISs, we found increasing incorporation of citizen science within the environmental review process, with 40% of EISs in 2022 using, mentioning, or suggesting use of such information, as compared with just 3% in 2012. Citizen science offers substantial potential to enhance biodiversity monitoring and conservation efforts within environmental review, but numerous considerations must be broadly discussed before citizen science data can be widely adopted.
{"title":"Citizen science as a valuable tool for environmental review","authors":"Corey T Callaghan, Carly Winnebald, Blaze Smith, Brittany M Mason, Laura López-Hoffman","doi":"10.1002/fee.2808","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.2808","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Human development and population growth are placing immense pressure on natural ecosystems, necessitating the establishment of a balance between development and biodiversity preservation. Citizen science may serve as a valuable resource for monitoring biodiversity and informing decision-making processes, but its use has not been investigated within the realm of environmental review. We sought to quantify the extent to which citizen science data are currently being used, mentioned, or suggested in environmental impact statements (EISs) by analyzing more than 1300 EISs produced under the US National Environmental Policy Act. Among the sampled EISs, we found increasing incorporation of citizen science within the environmental review process, with 40% of EISs in 2022 using, mentioning, or suggesting use of such information, as compared with just 3% in 2012. Citizen science offers substantial potential to enhance biodiversity monitoring and conservation efforts within environmental review, but numerous considerations must be broadly discussed before citizen science data can be widely adopted.</p>","PeriodicalId":171,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment","volume":"23 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":10.0,"publicationDate":"2024-10-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/fee.2808","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143114194","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：