Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment最新文献

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.

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.

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.

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 Scientific Journal of Research and Reviews. 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.

If we cannot trust journals at the “fringe”, then perhaps we can place mo

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.

There is growing interest in enhancing soil carbon sequestration (SCS) as a climate mitigation strategy, including neutralizing atmospheric emissions from fossil-fuel combustion through the development of soil carbon offset markets. Several studies have focused on refining estimates of the magnitude of potential SCS or on developing methods for soil carbon quantification in markets. We call on scientists and policy makers to resist assimilating soils into carbon offset markets due to not only fundamental flaws in the logic of these markets to reach climate neutrality but also environmental justice concerns. Here, we first highlight how carbon offset markets rely on an inappropriate substitution of inert fossil carbon with dynamic stocks of soil carbon. We then note the failure of these markets to account for intersecting anthropogenic perturbations to the carbon cycle, including the soil carbon debt and ongoing agricultural emissions. Next, we invite scientists to consider soil functions beyond productivity and profitability. Finally, we describe and support historical opposition to offset markets by environmental justice advocates. We encourage scientists to consider how their research and communications can promote diverse soil functions and just climate-change mitigation.