Ovidiu Copoț, Asko Lõhmus, Kessy Abarenkov, Leho Tedersoo, Kadri Runnel
In navigating the biodiversity crisis, a major uncertainty is the conservation status of inconspicuous, yet megadiverse and functionally crucial, soil organisms. Massive datasets on soil biota are accumulating through molecular sampling approaches, but to date these datasets have provided only limited input into conservation planning and management. We investigated how environmental DNA (eDNA) data of soil macrofungi contribute to regional Red List assessments, which are currently based on fruiting bodies (hereafter, fruit-bodies). In our test region of Estonia (northern Europe), which contained ~15,000 fruit-body records for 1583 assessed species, an average soil sample increased the range estimates of Threatened and Near Threatened fungal species by 0.18%. Five hundred soil samples almost doubled their known localities and added 19% previously unrecorded species. However, even after accumulating >1000 soil samples, about half of the Threatened and Near Threatened species known by fruit-bodies remained undetected through eDNA techniques. Effective conservation assessment of soil fungi thus requires both fruit-body and eDNA data; therefore, special efforts are needed to make these data available to conservationists.
{"title":"Contribution of environmental DNA toward fungal Red Listing","authors":"Ovidiu Copoț, Asko Lõhmus, Kessy Abarenkov, Leho Tedersoo, Kadri Runnel","doi":"10.1002/fee.2791","DOIUrl":"10.1002/fee.2791","url":null,"abstract":"<p>In navigating the biodiversity crisis, a major uncertainty is the conservation status of inconspicuous, yet megadiverse and functionally crucial, soil organisms. Massive datasets on soil biota are accumulating through molecular sampling approaches, but to date these datasets have provided only limited input into conservation planning and management. We investigated how environmental DNA (eDNA) data of soil macrofungi contribute to regional Red List assessments, which are currently based on fruiting bodies (hereafter, fruit-bodies). In our test region of Estonia (northern Europe), which contained ~15,000 fruit-body records for 1583 assessed species, an average soil sample increased the range estimates of Threatened and Near Threatened fungal species by 0.18%. Five hundred soil samples almost doubled their known localities and added 19% previously unrecorded species. However, even after accumulating >1000 soil samples, about half of the Threatened and Near Threatened species known by fruit-bodies remained undetected through eDNA techniques. Effective conservation assessment of soil fungi thus requires both fruit-body and eDNA data; therefore, special efforts are needed to make these data available to conservationists.</p>","PeriodicalId":171,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment","volume":"22 9","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":10.0,"publicationDate":"2024-08-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/fee.2791","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142185885","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}
Tamika J Lunn, Reilly T Jackson, Paul W Webala, Joseph G Ogola, Kristian M Forbes
Identifying the locations and drivers of high‐risk interfaces between humans and wildlife is crucial for managing zoonotic disease risk. We suggest that continent‐wide improvements to residential housing in Africa are inadvertently creating artificial roosting habitat for synanthropic free‐tailed bats (family Molossidae), and that improved buildings are a rapidly accelerating exposure interface that needs urgent research attention and investment. Along a residential gradient in rural southern Kenya, we mapped building use by free‐tailed bats in 1109 buildings. We show that bats often roost in human‐occupied buildings, with almost one‐in‐ten buildings exhibiting evidence of bat occupation (9.2%) and one‐in‐13 found to contain active bat roosts (7.6%). We identified modern‐build styles and triangular roofing as building‐level predictors of bat occupation, and the proportion of modern buildings as a landscape‐level predictor of bat occupancy. Humane preemptive exclusion of bats (by sealing bat entry points to buildings) and restoration of natural roosting habitats should be prioritized as One Health land‐use planning strategies in rural Africa.
{"title":"Modern building structures are a landscape‐level driver of bat–human exposure risk in Kenya","authors":"Tamika J Lunn, Reilly T Jackson, Paul W Webala, Joseph G Ogola, Kristian M Forbes","doi":"10.1002/fee.2795","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.2795","url":null,"abstract":"Identifying the locations and drivers of high‐risk interfaces between humans and wildlife is crucial for managing zoonotic disease risk. We suggest that continent‐wide improvements to residential housing in Africa are inadvertently creating artificial roosting habitat for synanthropic free‐tailed bats (family Molossidae), and that improved buildings are a rapidly accelerating exposure interface that needs urgent research attention and investment. Along a residential gradient in rural southern Kenya, we mapped building use by free‐tailed bats in 1109 buildings. We show that bats often roost in human‐occupied buildings, with almost one‐in‐ten buildings exhibiting evidence of bat occupation (9.2%) and one‐in‐13 found to contain active bat roosts (7.6%). We identified modern‐build styles and triangular roofing as building‐level predictors of bat occupation, and the proportion of modern buildings as a landscape‐level predictor of bat occupancy. Humane preemptive exclusion of bats (by sealing bat entry points to buildings) and restoration of natural roosting habitats should be prioritized as One Health land‐use planning strategies in rural Africa.","PeriodicalId":171,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment","volume":"11 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":10.3,"publicationDate":"2024-08-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141945176","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}
Tyrone H Lavery, Steve Cranwell, George Tauika, David Lindenmayer
{"title":"Can 30 × 30 targets stop island extinctions?","authors":"Tyrone H Lavery, Steve Cranwell, George Tauika, David Lindenmayer","doi":"10.1002/fee.2790","DOIUrl":"10.1002/fee.2790","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":171,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment","volume":"22 7","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":10.0,"publicationDate":"2024-08-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141926663","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}
Lauren Jarvis, Bailey C McMeans, Cindy Chu, Tyler D Tunney
To promote sustainable fisheries under climate change, fisheries managers must apply appropriate adaptation measures. However, little is known about how species interactions shift with climate change and the potential effectiveness of such adaptation measures. Here, we modeled the application of a species control measure in a lake ecosystem using a temperature‐dependent food‐web model containing different thermal guilds. A warm‐adapted predator (bass, Micropterus spp) was removed to locally mitigate undesirable effects of climate warming on a cool‐adapted species (walleye, Sander vitreus). Nevertheless, a warming‐induced thermally mediated trophic cascade can lead to expected and unexpected outcomes, with bass removal depending on food‐web linkages. With low levels of bass predation on juvenile walleye, walleye persist in warmer temperatures when bass are present (not controlled) than when bass are absent (controlled). Therefore, we encourage managers to use caution and consider various scenarios of food‐web changes, to determine when species control may be effective for climate adaptation.
{"title":"Species control for managing thermal guild interactions in warming food webs","authors":"Lauren Jarvis, Bailey C McMeans, Cindy Chu, Tyler D Tunney","doi":"10.1002/fee.2794","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.2794","url":null,"abstract":"To promote sustainable fisheries under climate change, fisheries managers must apply appropriate adaptation measures. However, little is known about how species interactions shift with climate change and the potential effectiveness of such adaptation measures. Here, we modeled the application of a species control measure in a lake ecosystem using a temperature‐dependent food‐web model containing different thermal guilds. A warm‐adapted predator (bass, <jats:italic>Micropterus</jats:italic> spp) was removed to locally mitigate undesirable effects of climate warming on a cool‐adapted species (walleye, <jats:italic>Sander vitreus</jats:italic>). Nevertheless, a warming‐induced thermally mediated trophic cascade can lead to expected and unexpected outcomes, with bass removal depending on food‐web linkages. With low levels of bass predation on juvenile walleye, walleye persist in warmer temperatures when bass are present (not controlled) than when bass are absent (controlled). Therefore, we encourage managers to use caution and consider various scenarios of food‐web changes, to determine when species control may be effective for climate adaptation.","PeriodicalId":171,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment","volume":"25 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":10.3,"publicationDate":"2024-08-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141945178","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}
Andrew J Abraham, Christopher E Doughty, Kate E Plummer, Ethan S Duvall
Supplementary feeding of garden birds and gamebirds is a common practice worldwide. Bird feed is rich in phosphorus (P), which plays a key role in animal health and ecosystem function. However, much of the P in bird feed originates from mined rock deposits, which is then transported thousands of kilometers to feeder stations, where it represents an external source of nutrients for recipient ecosystems. Here, we demonstrate that diffusion of P by birds and other animals from feeder stations to ecosystems can represent a nontrivial contribution to local biogeochemical cycles. Using the UK as a case study, we show that supplementary bird feeding supplies 2.4 (range: 1.9–3.0) gigagrams of P per year across the UK, a flux similar in magnitude to atmospheric deposition. Phosphorus provided to garden birds alone is equal to that supplied through the application of garden fertilizers. In natural and semi-natural ecosystems, additional feeder-derived P inputs may exacerbate eutrophication at the local scale and adversely impact biodiversity.
{"title":"Supplementary bird feeding as an overlooked contribution to local phosphorus cycles","authors":"Andrew J Abraham, Christopher E Doughty, Kate E Plummer, Ethan S Duvall","doi":"10.1002/fee.2793","DOIUrl":"10.1002/fee.2793","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Supplementary feeding of garden birds and gamebirds is a common practice worldwide. Bird feed is rich in phosphorus (P), which plays a key role in animal health and ecosystem function. However, much of the P in bird feed originates from mined rock deposits, which is then transported thousands of kilometers to feeder stations, where it represents an external source of nutrients for recipient ecosystems. Here, we demonstrate that diffusion of P by birds and other animals from feeder stations to ecosystems can represent a nontrivial contribution to local biogeochemical cycles. Using the UK as a case study, we show that supplementary bird feeding supplies 2.4 (range: 1.9–3.0) gigagrams of P per year across the UK, a flux similar in magnitude to atmospheric deposition. Phosphorus provided to garden birds alone is equal to that supplied through the application of garden fertilizers. In natural and semi-natural ecosystems, additional feeder-derived P inputs may exacerbate eutrophication at the local scale and adversely impact biodiversity.</p>","PeriodicalId":171,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment","volume":"22 9","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":10.0,"publicationDate":"2024-08-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/fee.2793","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141945179","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}
Amanda M Schwantes, Carina Rauen Firkowski, Flavio Affinito, Peter S Rodriguez, Marie-Josée Fortin, Andrew Gonzalez
In the Anthropocene, ecosystems are changing along with their capacity to support human well-being. Monitoring ecosystem services (ESs) is required to assess the changing state of human–nature interactions. To standardize the monitoring of multiple facets of ESs, the Group on Earth Observations Biodiversity Observation Network (GEO BON) recently proposed the essential ecosystem service variables (EESVs), which are organized into six classes: Ecological Supply, Use, Demand, Anthropogenic Contribution, Instrumental Value, and Relational Value. We apply the EESV framework to three case studies in British Columbia, Canada, each targeting a single ES. Using trend and intervention analysis, we show how EESVs are changing and affected by policy. We discuss key challenges and solutions while providing guidance on how to quantify EESVs. Finally, we demonstrate the potential of EESVs to harmonize metrics across conceptual frameworks, monitor ES change, and provide decision support to assess progress under various international policy conventions.
{"title":"Monitoring ecosystem services with essential ecosystem service variables","authors":"Amanda M Schwantes, Carina Rauen Firkowski, Flavio Affinito, Peter S Rodriguez, Marie-Josée Fortin, Andrew Gonzalez","doi":"10.1002/fee.2792","DOIUrl":"10.1002/fee.2792","url":null,"abstract":"<p>In the Anthropocene, ecosystems are changing along with their capacity to support human well-being. Monitoring ecosystem services (ESs) is required to assess the changing state of human–nature interactions. To standardize the monitoring of multiple facets of ESs, the Group on Earth Observations Biodiversity Observation Network (GEO BON) recently proposed the essential ecosystem service variables (EESVs), which are organized into six classes: <i>Ecological Supply</i>, <i>Use</i>, <i>Demand</i>, <i>Anthropogenic Contribution</i>, <i>Instrumental Value</i>, and <i>Relational Value</i>. We apply the EESV framework to three case studies in British Columbia, Canada, each targeting a single ES. Using trend and intervention analysis, we show how EESVs are changing and affected by policy. We discuss key challenges and solutions while providing guidance on how to quantify EESVs. Finally, we demonstrate the potential of EESVs to harmonize metrics across conceptual frameworks, monitor ES change, and provide decision support to assess progress under various international policy conventions.</p>","PeriodicalId":171,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment","volume":"22 8","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":10.0,"publicationDate":"2024-08-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/fee.2792","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141945177","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}
<p>If there is one common experience shared by all scientists, regardless of subdiscipline, it is the gauntlet of peer review. We all know the painful experience of rejection, the frustration of acquiescing to reviewers’ demands, and the many months that can sometimes elapse between the submission of and first decision on a paper. But for many, it is the peer-review process that adds the necessary ingredient of rigor—the stamp of approval—to science. For instance, science journalists primarily cover peer-reviewed studies, and the court systems consider peer-reviewed science to be the gold standard in environmental and conservation-related cases.</p><p>I have always thought that peer review acted as the primary filter excluding the most egregious error-laden and misguided science from entering the canon of scientific literature. But think about it—how often have you tossed out a paper of yours because it was rejected after peer review? How often have you, after making minimal changes, or no changes at all, re-submitted to another journal hoping for a “better” draw of peer reviewers? Perhaps several decades ago, when all journals were print-only and page space and the number of journal options were limited, the situation really was “make the changes or bust”. But with the remarkable proliferation of journals that now exist in every subdiscipline, every paper can find a home. According to Scopus, there are at least 550 indexed journals in the environmental science subcategory of “ecology”, and that number is growing. After each rejection, you could quite literally re-submit the same paper every few months to a new journal for the rest of your career, and know that you'll get a bite at some point.</p><p>The problem of poor-quality science in the literature is worsened by the exponentially growing sector of “predatory” or “pay-to-publish” outlets. These outlets’ journals, which often spam prospective authors with urgent messages asking for a rapid submission, will publish papers with little to no peer-review oversight, and for a fee. Much has been written about this seedy underbelly of academic publishing, and “sting” operations have revealed how little these outlets care about the content in their journals. One of my favorite examples occurred in 2020 when Dr. Dan Baldassarre, a behavioral ecologist at the State University of New York-Oswego, submitted a spoof paper titled “What's the Deal with Birds?” to a suspected predatory journal, the <i>Scientific Journal of Research and Reviews</i>. To the delight of Dr. Baldassarre's followers on social media, the paper was accepted, published within only seven days of its initial submission (!) if the metadata are to be believed, and still stands as one of the greatest publishing punk-jobs in science. Sometimes we have to laugh so that we don't cry; and while this example still makes me chuckle, the problems in publishing do not.</p><p>If we cannot trust journals at the “fringe”, then perhaps we can place mo
如果说所有科学家,无论属于哪个分支学科,都有一个共同的经历,那就是同行评审的重重考验。我们都知道被拒稿的痛苦经历,默许审稿人要求的挫败感,以及有时从提交论文到首次做出决定之间长达数月的时间。但对许多人来说,正是同行评审过程为科学增添了必要的严谨成分--认可的印记。例如,科学记者主要报道经过同行评议的研究,而法院系统则认为经过同行评议的科学是环境和保护相关案件的黄金标准。我一直认为,同行评议是一个主要的过滤器,可以将最严重的错误和误导性科学排除在科学文献之外。但仔细想想,你有多少次因为同行评审后论文被拒而放弃自己的论文?你又有多少次在做了极少的改动或根本没有改动之后,又重新投稿给另一家期刊,希望能抽到 "更好的 "同行评审员?也许几十年前,当所有期刊都是纯印刷版,版面空间和期刊选择有限时,情况确实是 "要么改,要么废"。但随着现在各分支学科期刊的大量涌现,每篇论文都能找到归宿。根据 Scopus 的统计,在 "生态学 "这一环境科学子类中,至少有 550 种期刊被收录,而且这一数字还在不断增长。每次被拒后,你都可以在职业生涯的余下时间里,每隔几个月向新的期刊重新投递同一篇论文,而且你知道自己总会有机会被采用。这些机构的期刊经常会向潜在作者发送紧急邮件,要求他们尽快投稿,它们会在几乎没有同行评审监督的情况下发表论文,并收取一定费用。关于学术出版界的这一丑恶现象已经有很多报道,"刺探 "行动也揭示了这些机构对其期刊内容的漠不关心。我最喜欢的一个例子发生在 2020 年,当时纽约州立大学奥斯威戈分校的行为生态学家丹-巴尔达萨里博士(Dr. Dan Baldassarre)向疑似掠夺性期刊《科学研究与评论杂志》(Scientific Journal of Research and Reviews)提交了一篇题为《鸟类是怎么回事?让 Baldassarre 博士在社交媒体上的粉丝们欣喜若狂的是,这篇论文被接受了,如果元数据属实的话,它在首次投稿后仅七天内就发表了(!),至今仍是科学界最伟大的出版朋克之一。如果我们不能信任 "边缘 "期刊,那么也许我们可以更多地信任在顶级期刊和社会办期刊上发表的科学成果,比如您现在正在阅读的这本期刊。我确实认为这是一个部分解决方案;专业学会在维护其在学术界的声誉方面有着强烈的既得利益,而学会期刊通常由该领域德高望重的人士编辑。但我们仍能看到论文被撤稿的情况,即使是在声誉极佳的期刊上,最近也有一些备受瞩目的数据捏造或篡改事件被曝光。一家隶属于知名学术团体的期刊最近发现,作为特刊一部分发表的大量论文存在造假行为。在另一家学会主办的期刊上发表论文的作者对同行评审人的评论质量低下表示担忧。这暗示了审稿人负担过重这一更广泛的问题。不过,从整体上看,我们在科学文献中读到的东西开始变得越来越不可信。那么,既然同行评审存在缺陷,它的意义何在?同行评审虽然不是灵丹妙药,但它确实起到了过滤器的作用,哪怕只是一个粗糙的过滤器。同行评议往往会产生更好的论文,即使它们仍然不完美。主编、副主编和审稿人不可能发现所有的错误或错误推论,而要找出不当行为更是难上加难。同行评审的局限性应该让我们学会对所读到的任何东西保持健康的怀疑态度;这种永恒的质疑精神正是优秀科学家的标志,不是吗?当社会上的其他人都在努力解决如何解析互联网上的(错误)信息时,我们也必须对已发表的科学成果提出更多质疑,同时避免愤世嫉俗。对于科学家和社会来说,减少将同行评审视为认可的印章,而成为更具批判性的信息消费者,也许是一件健康的事情。
{"title":"What's the point of peer review?","authors":"Gavin M Jones","doi":"10.1002/fee.2785","DOIUrl":"10.1002/fee.2785","url":null,"abstract":"<p>If there is one common experience shared by all scientists, regardless of subdiscipline, it is the gauntlet of peer review. We all know the painful experience of rejection, the frustration of acquiescing to reviewers’ demands, and the many months that can sometimes elapse between the submission of and first decision on a paper. But for many, it is the peer-review process that adds the necessary ingredient of rigor—the stamp of approval—to science. For instance, science journalists primarily cover peer-reviewed studies, and the court systems consider peer-reviewed science to be the gold standard in environmental and conservation-related cases.</p><p>I have always thought that peer review acted as the primary filter excluding the most egregious error-laden and misguided science from entering the canon of scientific literature. But think about it—how often have you tossed out a paper of yours because it was rejected after peer review? How often have you, after making minimal changes, or no changes at all, re-submitted to another journal hoping for a “better” draw of peer reviewers? Perhaps several decades ago, when all journals were print-only and page space and the number of journal options were limited, the situation really was “make the changes or bust”. But with the remarkable proliferation of journals that now exist in every subdiscipline, every paper can find a home. According to Scopus, there are at least 550 indexed journals in the environmental science subcategory of “ecology”, and that number is growing. After each rejection, you could quite literally re-submit the same paper every few months to a new journal for the rest of your career, and know that you'll get a bite at some point.</p><p>The problem of poor-quality science in the literature is worsened by the exponentially growing sector of “predatory” or “pay-to-publish” outlets. These outlets’ journals, which often spam prospective authors with urgent messages asking for a rapid submission, will publish papers with little to no peer-review oversight, and for a fee. Much has been written about this seedy underbelly of academic publishing, and “sting” operations have revealed how little these outlets care about the content in their journals. One of my favorite examples occurred in 2020 when Dr. Dan Baldassarre, a behavioral ecologist at the State University of New York-Oswego, submitted a spoof paper titled “What's the Deal with Birds?” to a suspected predatory journal, the <i>Scientific Journal of Research and Reviews</i>. To the delight of Dr. Baldassarre's followers on social media, the paper was accepted, published within only seven days of its initial submission (!) if the metadata are to be believed, and still stands as one of the greatest publishing punk-jobs in science. Sometimes we have to laugh so that we don't cry; and while this example still makes me chuckle, the problems in publishing do not.</p><p>If we cannot trust journals at the “fringe”, then perhaps we can place mo","PeriodicalId":171,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment","volume":"22 6","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":10.0,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/fee.2785","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141883231","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}
Joelcio Freitas, Elton John de Lírio, Favio González, Anderson Alves-Araújo
{"title":"A new and unexpected survivor of Aristolochia toxicity?","authors":"Joelcio Freitas, Elton John de Lírio, Favio González, Anderson Alves-Araújo","doi":"10.1002/fee.2786","DOIUrl":"10.1002/fee.2786","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":171,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment","volume":"22 6","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":10.0,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141883232","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}
{"title":"What is the fitness benefit of night lighting for toads?","authors":"Matthew L Richardson","doi":"10.1002/fee.2787","DOIUrl":"10.1002/fee.2787","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":171,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment","volume":"22 6","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":10.0,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141883359","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}
Benjamin R Goldstein, Sara Stoudt, Jayme MM Lewthwaite, Vaughn Shirey, Eros Mendoza, Laura Melissa Guzman
The volume of and interest in unstructured participatory science data has increased dramatically in recent years. However, unstructured participatory science data contain taxonomic biases—encounters with some species are more likely to be reported than encounters with others. Taxonomic biases are driven by human preferences for different species and by logistical factors that make observing certain species challenging. We investigated taxonomic bias in reports of butterflies by characterizing differences between a dedicated participatory semi-structured dataset, eButterfly, and a popular unstructured dataset, iNaturalist, in spatiotemporally explicit models. Across 194 butterfly species, we found that 53 species were overreported and 34 species were underreported in opportunistic data. Ease of identification and feature diversity were significantly associated with overreporting in opportunistic sampling, and strong patterns in overreporting by family were also detected. Quantifying taxonomic biases not only helps us understand how humans engage with nature but also is necessary to generate robust inference from unstructured participatory data.
{"title":"Logistical and preference bias in participatory science butterfly data","authors":"Benjamin R Goldstein, Sara Stoudt, Jayme MM Lewthwaite, Vaughn Shirey, Eros Mendoza, Laura Melissa Guzman","doi":"10.1002/fee.2783","DOIUrl":"10.1002/fee.2783","url":null,"abstract":"<p>The volume of and interest in unstructured participatory science data has increased dramatically in recent years. However, unstructured participatory science data contain taxonomic biases—encounters with some species are more likely to be reported than encounters with others. Taxonomic biases are driven by human preferences for different species and by logistical factors that make observing certain species challenging. We investigated taxonomic bias in reports of butterflies by characterizing differences between a dedicated participatory semi-structured dataset, eButterfly, and a popular unstructured dataset, iNaturalist, in spatiotemporally explicit models. Across 194 butterfly species, we found that 53 species were overreported and 34 species were underreported in opportunistic data. Ease of identification and feature diversity were significantly associated with overreporting in opportunistic sampling, and strong patterns in overreporting by family were also detected. Quantifying taxonomic biases not only helps us understand how humans engage with nature but also is necessary to generate robust inference from unstructured participatory data.</p>","PeriodicalId":171,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment","volume":"22 8","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":10.0,"publicationDate":"2024-07-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/fee.2783","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141771958","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}