Christopher M Gough, Ben Bond-Lamberty, Robert T Fahey, Catherine McGuigan, Brandon C Alveshere, Cameron Clay, Erin-Darby McClain, Charles E Flower, Kayla C Mathes, Ariel Johnson, Lisa T Haber, Kalyn Dorheim, Derek M Johnson, Lucas E Nave, Kerstin Niedermaier
Disturbances from insect pests threaten ecologically and economically important goods and services supplied by forests, including wood production and carbon sequestration. We highlight the factors that influence these services’ resistance, a term quantifying the initial response to disturbance. Insects inflict damage through a range of mechanisms, prompting distinct plant physiological responses that scale to influence ecosystem processes and, with time, goods and services. The degree and timing of tree mortality and defoliation affect the amount of residual vegetation available to support compensatory wood production and influence carbon sequestration by changing rates of detritus-fueled decomposition. Compounding, or sequential, insect attacks may prime a forest for additional disturbance, further eroding wood production and carbon sequestration. Forest management practices that promote biological and structural diversity, and augment or retain limiting biological and nutrient resources, may buffer against the effects of insect pests on wood production and carbon sequestration.
{"title":"Resist!: Sustaining forest carbon sequestration and wood production after insect disturbance","authors":"Christopher M Gough, Ben Bond-Lamberty, Robert T Fahey, Catherine McGuigan, Brandon C Alveshere, Cameron Clay, Erin-Darby McClain, Charles E Flower, Kayla C Mathes, Ariel Johnson, Lisa T Haber, Kalyn Dorheim, Derek M Johnson, Lucas E Nave, Kerstin Niedermaier","doi":"10.1002/fee.2861","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.2861","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Disturbances from insect pests threaten ecologically and economically important goods and services supplied by forests, including wood production and carbon sequestration. We highlight the factors that influence these services’ <i>resistance</i>, a term quantifying the initial response to disturbance. Insects inflict damage through a range of mechanisms, prompting distinct plant physiological responses that scale to influence ecosystem processes and, with time, goods and services. The degree and timing of tree mortality and defoliation affect the amount of residual vegetation available to support compensatory wood production and influence carbon sequestration by changing rates of detritus-fueled decomposition. Compounding, or sequential, insect attacks may prime a forest for additional disturbance, further eroding wood production and carbon sequestration. Forest management practices that promote biological and structural diversity, and augment or retain limiting biological and nutrient resources, may buffer against the effects of insect pests on wood production and carbon sequestration.</p>","PeriodicalId":171,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment","volume":"23 10","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.6,"publicationDate":"2025-06-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/fee.2861","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145625582","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}
José M Rey Benayas, James M Bullock, Henrique M Pereira
Finding ways to improve the sustainability of modern agriculture by recovering nature in agricultural landscapes is critical for conserving biodiversity and enhancing human well-being. Rewilding principles could be applied to any type of landscape, which raises the possibility of employing rewilding approaches in agricultural areas while maintaining some degree of food production therein. Moving beyond the simple dichotomy of land sparing versus land sharing, here we propose a multi-scale approach that integrates rewilding principles into agricultural landscapes by combining the creation of wilder ecosystems in separate set-aside recovered areas with the implementation of farming approaches that are more sustainable, such as precision farming, ecologically intensified farming, and extensive farming, in adjacent areas. Adoption of such approaches would allow for more biodiversity elements to persist within the agricultural matrix. We explain how this approach could support the three critical components of rewilded land—dispersal, trophic complexity, and stochastic disturbances—and create agroecological landscapes that are biodiverse, resilient, and functionally connected at multiple scales.
{"title":"A multi-scale approach to integrating rewilding into agricultural landscapes","authors":"José M Rey Benayas, James M Bullock, Henrique M Pereira","doi":"10.1002/fee.2860","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.2860","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Finding ways to improve the sustainability of modern agriculture by recovering nature in agricultural landscapes is critical for conserving biodiversity and enhancing human well-being. Rewilding principles could be applied to any type of landscape, which raises the possibility of employing rewilding approaches in agricultural areas while maintaining some degree of food production therein. Moving beyond the simple dichotomy of land sparing versus land sharing, here we propose a multi-scale approach that integrates rewilding principles into agricultural landscapes by combining the creation of wilder ecosystems in separate set-aside recovered areas with the implementation of farming approaches that are more sustainable, such as precision farming, ecologically intensified farming, and extensive farming, in adjacent areas. Adoption of such approaches would allow for more biodiversity elements to persist within the agricultural matrix. We explain how this approach could support the three critical components of rewilded land—dispersal, trophic complexity, and stochastic disturbances—and create agroecological landscapes that are biodiverse, resilient, and functionally connected at multiple scales.</p>","PeriodicalId":171,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment","volume":"23 8","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.6,"publicationDate":"2025-06-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/fee.2860","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145196804","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}
Invasive plants often benefit from a change in eco-evolutionary context, escaping the herbivores, pathogens, and competing plants from their native range. Introduced into naïve native communities, invasive plants can spread rapidly, threatening native plant diversity and ecosystem functioning. Increasingly, studies have shown that native species sometimes adapt in response to the selection pressures imposed by an invasive plant. While researchers have periodically suggested using adapted native species in the management of invasive plants, the idea generally has not found its way to the field. Here, we (1) compare the concept to the more established practices of assisted migration, classic biological control, and microbiome engineering; (2) discuss some of the hurdles to practical implementation; and (3) outline directions for further research that would help expose the role of native adaptations in shaping the trajectory of plant invasions.
{"title":"Inducing biological resistance to invasive plants with adapted native species","authors":"G Scott Clark, Kerri M Crawford","doi":"10.1002/fee.2857","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.2857","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Invasive plants often benefit from a change in eco-evolutionary context, escaping the herbivores, pathogens, and competing plants from their native range. Introduced into naïve native communities, invasive plants can spread rapidly, threatening native plant diversity and ecosystem functioning. Increasingly, studies have shown that native species sometimes adapt in response to the selection pressures imposed by an invasive plant. While researchers have periodically suggested using adapted native species in the management of invasive plants, the idea generally has not found its way to the field. Here, we (1) compare the concept to the more established practices of assisted migration, classic biological control, and microbiome engineering; (2) discuss some of the hurdles to practical implementation; and (3) outline directions for further research that would help expose the role of native adaptations in shaping the trajectory of plant invasions.</p>","PeriodicalId":171,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment","volume":"23 9","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.6,"publicationDate":"2025-06-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145470168","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}
Virginia H Dale, Steven P Norman, Rebecca A Efroymson
Large disturbances to ecosystems can severely impact the stability of a region's natural resources, habitats, and outdoor recreation. Because extreme events can be large and relatively infrequent, they test institutional capacity to support recovery and restoration. When hurricanes and other large-scale disturbances like wildfires occur, much of the impacted landscape receives little to no active management. Ecosystems are often allowed to either recover or transition without much direct intervention, and successional dynamics are sometimes altered by novel invasive species, management history, or other environmental changes.
Recovery and restoration are especially challenging for landscapes with highly fragmented private ownership, such as the forests of the eastern US. Acting alone, non-industrial private forest landowners have little capacity to effectively respond to unexpected forest loss and to oversee forest recovery, as the scale of actions needed after extreme events may require cooperation across ownerships or jurisdictions.
In September 2024, Hurricane Helene exposed these underlying vulnerabilities of southern Appalachian forests. In western North Carolina alone, about 196,000 hectares of forest received major damage from Hurricane Helene, with most impacts occurring on private lands and in unusually large blowdown patches with no known regional precedent. Not since the widespread forest loss of the late 19th and early 20th centuries due to extensive logging and the American chestnut blight have so few trees covered the region's slopes.
This enormous damage to southern Appalachian forests raises concerns about loss of wildlife habitat, increased wildfire risks due to the abundance of fuel, reduced water quality from erosion and sedimentation, and spread of invasive species. Damaged forests are likely to reestablish as novel ecosystems composed of new species assemblages with a suite of interactions and processes that differ from prior conditions. On public and private lands, the duration of forest recovery will take decades or more and will be highly dependent on management choices and market incentives.
Since Hurricane Helene, disaster relief crews continue to work hard to remove fallen trees and debris near structures, roads, trails, and recreation areas as time and funds are available. However, removing downed and damaged wood is more costly and dangerous than typical forest harvesting. Piles of downed, unused wood may be burned, but combustion releases smoke and carbon into the atmosphere. Historically, debris burning and arson are the region's primary sources of wildfire ignitions, and it is hard to control burns when so many of the surrounding forests have high flammability.
A major dilemma is what to do with all this downed wood and debris from Hurricane Helene and how to pay for its removal. There is ongoing timber demand for large intact boles, at least where they can be accessed, but demand i
{"title":"Managing ecosystem damage from extreme events","authors":"Virginia H Dale, Steven P Norman, Rebecca A Efroymson","doi":"10.1002/fee.2855","DOIUrl":"10.1002/fee.2855","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Large disturbances to ecosystems can severely impact the stability of a region's natural resources, habitats, and outdoor recreation. Because extreme events can be large and relatively infrequent, they test institutional capacity to support recovery and restoration. When hurricanes and other large-scale disturbances like wildfires occur, much of the impacted landscape receives little to no active management. Ecosystems are often allowed to either recover or transition without much direct intervention, and successional dynamics are sometimes altered by novel invasive species, management history, or other environmental changes.</p><p>Recovery and restoration are especially challenging for landscapes with highly fragmented private ownership, such as the forests of the eastern US. Acting alone, non-industrial private forest landowners have little capacity to effectively respond to unexpected forest loss and to oversee forest recovery, as the scale of actions needed after extreme events may require cooperation across ownerships or jurisdictions.</p><p>In September 2024, Hurricane Helene exposed these underlying vulnerabilities of southern Appalachian forests. In western North Carolina alone, about 196,000 hectares of forest received major damage from Hurricane Helene, with most impacts occurring on private lands and in unusually large blowdown patches with no known regional precedent. Not since the widespread forest loss of the late 19th and early 20th centuries due to extensive logging and the American chestnut blight have so few trees covered the region's slopes.</p><p>This enormous damage to southern Appalachian forests raises concerns about loss of wildlife habitat, increased wildfire risks due to the abundance of fuel, reduced water quality from erosion and sedimentation, and spread of invasive species. Damaged forests are likely to reestablish as novel ecosystems composed of new species assemblages with a suite of interactions and processes that differ from prior conditions. On public and private lands, the duration of forest recovery will take decades or more and will be highly dependent on management choices and market incentives.</p><p>Since Hurricane Helene, disaster relief crews continue to work hard to remove fallen trees and debris near structures, roads, trails, and recreation areas as time and funds are available. However, removing downed and damaged wood is more costly and dangerous than typical forest harvesting. Piles of downed, unused wood may be burned, but combustion releases smoke and carbon into the atmosphere. Historically, debris burning and arson are the region's primary sources of wildfire ignitions, and it is hard to control burns when so many of the surrounding forests have high flammability.</p><p>A major dilemma is what to do with all this downed wood and debris from Hurricane Helene and how to pay for its removal. There is ongoing timber demand for large intact boles, at least where they can be accessed, but demand i","PeriodicalId":171,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment","volume":"23 6","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.6,"publicationDate":"2025-06-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/fee.2855","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144751549","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}
Pavel Pipek, Shane Canavan, Susan Canavan, César Capinha, Jérôme MW Gippet, Ana Novoa, Petr Pyšek, Allan T Souza, Shengyu Wang, Ivan Jarić
<p>Large language models (LLMs) are becoming an integral part of our daily work. In the field of ecology, LLMs are already being applied to a wide range of tasks, such as extracting georeferenced data or taxonomic entities from unstructured texts, information synthesis, coding, and teaching (<i>Methods Ecol Evol</i> 2024; <i>Npj Biodivers</i> 2024). Further development and increased use of LLMs in ecology, as in science in general, is likely to intensify and accelerate the process of research and increase publication output—thus pressuring scientists to keep up with the elevated pace, which in turn creates a feedback loop by promoting even greater LLM use.</p><p>However, this all comes at a cost. While not directly borne by end users, aside from occasional response delays, LLMs require considerable computational power and are energy-demanding during both their initial training phase and their subsequent operational use (<i>Nature</i> 2025). Furthermore, partly externalized energy costs are linked to intensive searching and processing of discovered sources as part of Deep Research. Currently, it remains challenging to estimate the total energy costs of LLMs, largely due to limited transparency from their companies of origin.</p><p>The ways to improve LLM sustainability, for example by algorithmic or hardware optimization and renewable energy use during development and operation, have been extensively examined. However, we contend that the role of end users, including researchers, has been largely overlooked. End users can and should be part of the solution, to their own benefit. By selecting less resource-intensive options, optimizing their prompts, or selecting platforms that use renewable energy sources, users would not only contribute to LLM sustainability but also improve their own workflows. Besides reducing energy consumption, a more parsimonious use of LLMs could also lessen other harms, such as cooling water use and extraction of rare earth metals. Consequently, companies should support users in making such informed choices.</p><p>For instance, most companies provide LLMs of different complexities or sizes, often measured by the number of parameters. Relying on the largest models can be excessive in many cases (eg answering emails, checking grammar, or conducting searches that could be done by traditional search engines). By selecting a smaller, less energy-intensive model, users can also benefit from quicker responses. In addition, some smaller models are trained to perform specific tasks, eg coding, and can thus match or outperform bigger ones.</p><p>Another potential way to reduce energy costs and save user time is to trim the expected length and complexity of the model's response. For example, for some questions, an elaborate answer is unnecessary, if not counterproductive (ie because it takes time to read through); in other cases, only code is needed, without any further explanations. And this can be directly specified in the prompt.<
{"title":"Sustainability of large language models—user perspective","authors":"Pavel Pipek, Shane Canavan, Susan Canavan, César Capinha, Jérôme MW Gippet, Ana Novoa, Petr Pyšek, Allan T Souza, Shengyu Wang, Ivan Jarić","doi":"10.1002/fee.2856","DOIUrl":"10.1002/fee.2856","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Large language models (LLMs) are becoming an integral part of our daily work. In the field of ecology, LLMs are already being applied to a wide range of tasks, such as extracting georeferenced data or taxonomic entities from unstructured texts, information synthesis, coding, and teaching (<i>Methods Ecol Evol</i> 2024; <i>Npj Biodivers</i> 2024). Further development and increased use of LLMs in ecology, as in science in general, is likely to intensify and accelerate the process of research and increase publication output—thus pressuring scientists to keep up with the elevated pace, which in turn creates a feedback loop by promoting even greater LLM use.</p><p>However, this all comes at a cost. While not directly borne by end users, aside from occasional response delays, LLMs require considerable computational power and are energy-demanding during both their initial training phase and their subsequent operational use (<i>Nature</i> 2025). Furthermore, partly externalized energy costs are linked to intensive searching and processing of discovered sources as part of Deep Research. Currently, it remains challenging to estimate the total energy costs of LLMs, largely due to limited transparency from their companies of origin.</p><p>The ways to improve LLM sustainability, for example by algorithmic or hardware optimization and renewable energy use during development and operation, have been extensively examined. However, we contend that the role of end users, including researchers, has been largely overlooked. End users can and should be part of the solution, to their own benefit. By selecting less resource-intensive options, optimizing their prompts, or selecting platforms that use renewable energy sources, users would not only contribute to LLM sustainability but also improve their own workflows. Besides reducing energy consumption, a more parsimonious use of LLMs could also lessen other harms, such as cooling water use and extraction of rare earth metals. Consequently, companies should support users in making such informed choices.</p><p>For instance, most companies provide LLMs of different complexities or sizes, often measured by the number of parameters. Relying on the largest models can be excessive in many cases (eg answering emails, checking grammar, or conducting searches that could be done by traditional search engines). By selecting a smaller, less energy-intensive model, users can also benefit from quicker responses. In addition, some smaller models are trained to perform specific tasks, eg coding, and can thus match or outperform bigger ones.</p><p>Another potential way to reduce energy costs and save user time is to trim the expected length and complexity of the model's response. For example, for some questions, an elaborate answer is unnecessary, if not counterproductive (ie because it takes time to read through); in other cases, only code is needed, without any further explanations. And this can be directly specified in the prompt.<","PeriodicalId":171,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment","volume":"23 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.6,"publicationDate":"2025-06-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/fee.2856","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144191146","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}
Rui-Ting Ju, Xiting Gui, John Measey, Qiang He, Xiaoqing Xian, Jianguo Liu, William J Sutherland, Bo Li, Jihua Wu
To meet Kunming-Montreal Target 6 of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), we argue that more comprehensive measures are needed to manage invasive alien species (IAS), which is especially true for China, given that it is undergoing an unprecedented wave of invasions due to its rapid development. Here, we consider the status of IAS in China, evaluate China's ongoing countermeasures against IAS, and provide recommendations for improving management. In total, 802 IAS have been identified in China. Facing the growing threats of IAS, China has made progress in IAS management, but more stringent and thorough measures are still required. In addition to improving legislation and governance, China should strengthen transdisciplinary and proactive research, implement more comprehensive prevention and control actions against IAS, and enhance international cooperation and translational education. By creating a model for IAS management that other countries can follow, China's efforts can contribute substantially to the CBD's Kunming-Montreal 2030 Global Targets.
{"title":"How can China curb biological invasions to meet Kunming-Montreal Target 6?","authors":"Rui-Ting Ju, Xiting Gui, John Measey, Qiang He, Xiaoqing Xian, Jianguo Liu, William J Sutherland, Bo Li, Jihua Wu","doi":"10.1002/fee.2853","DOIUrl":"10.1002/fee.2853","url":null,"abstract":"<p>To meet Kunming-Montreal Target 6 of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), we argue that more comprehensive measures are needed to manage invasive alien species (IAS), which is especially true for China, given that it is undergoing an unprecedented wave of invasions due to its rapid development. Here, we consider the status of IAS in China, evaluate China's ongoing countermeasures against IAS, and provide recommendations for improving management. In total, 802 IAS have been identified in China. Facing the growing threats of IAS, China has made progress in IAS management, but more stringent and thorough measures are still required. In addition to improving legislation and governance, China should strengthen transdisciplinary and proactive research, implement more comprehensive prevention and control actions against IAS, and enhance international cooperation and translational education. By creating a model for IAS management that other countries can follow, China's efforts can contribute substantially to the CBD's Kunming-Montreal 2030 Global Targets.</p>","PeriodicalId":171,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment","volume":"23 7","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.6,"publicationDate":"2025-05-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144927764","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}
Ana Miller-ter Kuile, Jamie S Sanderlin, Jessalyn Ayars, Helen E Chmura, Melissa Dressen, Jessie D Golding, Gavin M Jones, Rebecca Kirby, Kari EA Norman, Zachary L Steel, Valerie Stein Foster
Ecological integrity—the degree to which an ecosystem supports ecological structure, composition, diversity, function, and connectivity typical of natural conditions—has been a guiding principle in ecosystem monitoring around the world. However, in terrestrial ecosystems, integrity-based monitoring often excludes animal communities, even though they are critical drivers of integrity. Methodological advances in monitoring and data science have made it easier to document animal communities. We highlight examples of these advances and how they remove barriers to adopting animal-specific integrity metrics. We then illustrate how describing animal communities in terms of functional ecology, which has also undergone substantial development over the past several decades, can provide a generalizable approach to incorporating animal communities into integrity-based monitoring across taxa and ecosystems. Incorporating animal communities into ecological integrity monitoring is a vital step toward understanding how human-driven change, restoration, and conservation shape terrestrial ecosystems worldwide.
{"title":"Functionalizing ecological integrity: using functional ecology to monitor animal communities","authors":"Ana Miller-ter Kuile, Jamie S Sanderlin, Jessalyn Ayars, Helen E Chmura, Melissa Dressen, Jessie D Golding, Gavin M Jones, Rebecca Kirby, Kari EA Norman, Zachary L Steel, Valerie Stein Foster","doi":"10.1002/fee.2852","DOIUrl":"10.1002/fee.2852","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Ecological integrity—the degree to which an ecosystem supports ecological structure, composition, diversity, function, and connectivity typical of natural conditions—has been a guiding principle in ecosystem monitoring around the world. However, in terrestrial ecosystems, integrity-based monitoring often excludes animal communities, even though they are critical drivers of integrity. Methodological advances in monitoring and data science have made it easier to document animal communities. We highlight examples of these advances and how they remove barriers to adopting animal-specific integrity metrics. We then illustrate how describing animal communities in terms of functional ecology, which has also undergone substantial development over the past several decades, can provide a generalizable approach to incorporating animal communities into integrity-based monitoring across taxa and ecosystems. Incorporating animal communities into ecological integrity monitoring is a vital step toward understanding how human-driven change, restoration, and conservation shape terrestrial ecosystems worldwide.</p>","PeriodicalId":171,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment","volume":"23 7","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.6,"publicationDate":"2025-05-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144927765","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}
Scholars have long recognized the social dimensions of environmental problems. Environmental scientists have responded by increasingly focusing on the interactions between nature and social dynamics. This helps reveal problematic interactions that cause environmental challenges, many of which impact human well-being. Research teams that include environmental and social scientists engaging with diverse stakeholders can use many available tools to ask how changing a factor pivotal to problematic interactions influences environmental and social outcomes. When the research also includes identifying actions targeting those interactions and identifying those who can implement the actions, the research is most likely to lead to positive outcomes in the long term. This is especially true when researchers link changes to improving a given ecosystem service. Changes can not only involve adapting natural resource policies but also involve altering attitudes and beliefs. We describe a stepwise process that eases the path toward such actionable environmental science by researchers.
{"title":"A stepwise process for actionable environmental science research","authors":"Margaret A Palmer, James W Boyd","doi":"10.1002/fee.2854","DOIUrl":"10.1002/fee.2854","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Scholars have long recognized the social dimensions of environmental problems. Environmental scientists have responded by increasingly focusing on the interactions between nature and social dynamics. This helps reveal problematic interactions that cause environmental challenges, many of which impact human well-being. Research teams that include environmental and social scientists engaging with diverse stakeholders can use many available tools to ask how changing a factor pivotal to problematic interactions influences environmental and social outcomes. When the research also includes identifying actions targeting those interactions and identifying those who can implement the actions, the research is most likely to lead to positive outcomes in the long term. This is especially true when researchers link changes to improving a given ecosystem service. Changes can not only involve adapting natural resource policies but also involve altering attitudes and beliefs. We describe a stepwise process that eases the path toward such actionable environmental science by researchers.</p>","PeriodicalId":171,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment","volume":"23 7","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.6,"publicationDate":"2025-05-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/fee.2854","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144927763","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>Global science suffers from persistent geographical disparities that skew research toward affluent countries and regions, primarily in Europe and North America (Maas <i>et al</i>. <span>2021</span>; Gomez <i>et al</i>. <span>2022</span>). Despite increased awareness, efforts to foster inclusivity within scientific communities often perpetuate existing biases. Studies claiming to have global representation among their authors are, in reality, mostly skewed to authors from particular countries, typically those that are more economically developed within a given continent. For instance, in research collaborations that include authors from South America, Africa, and Asia, those authors are primarily affiliated with only a few economically developed countries—such as Brazil, South Africa, and China—leaving many other nations on those continents underrepresented. In general, this could deceptively suggest that research is not being conducted in the underrepresented countries. Besides providing a misleading image of global inclusiveness, excluding voices from these regions leads to data gaps and diminished spatial coverage of studies, and overlooks opportunities to enhance scientific capacity in marginalized countries (Shaaban <i>et al</i>. <span>2024</span>).</p><p>This issue is partly driven by international research networks and consortia favoring established “traditional” institutions and experts, alongside the persistence of “parachute research” practices. Scientists from regionally misrepresented countries often face limited professional visibility (eg online profiles, personal websites), as well as restricted access to international conferences, funding, and collaboration networks—further entrenching their geographic exclusion. In addition, many scholars from underrepresented countries often publish research in non-English languages or local scientific journals, both of which are vastly unavailable in or excluded from major international scholarly bibliographic databases (eg Web of Science, Scopus; Chowdhury <i>et al</i>. <span>2022</span>). Consequently, relying on such databases to ascertain representation within so-called global projects, assessments, and analyses (hereafter, global studies) provides a highly incomplete picture of the actual research landscape.</p><p>An analysis of the involvement of authors from misrepresented countries in global studies within the wider field of ecology and conservation (for methods, see Appendix 1: Panel S1) revealed strong regional disparities (Figure 1). In the publications that originated from these global studies (3731 in all), collaborations and authorship tended to be regionally concentrated in only a few economically developed countries, while regionally low-income countries were rarely involved. For example, in purportedly global studies that included at least one author from Africa, authors from low-income countries were involved in only 27% of publications (56 out of 209), which were dominated
全球科学受到持续的地理差异的影响,这些差异使研究向富裕国家和地区倾斜,主要是在欧洲和北美(Maas et al. 2021;Gomez et al. 2022)。尽管提高了认识,但在科学界促进包容性的努力往往使现有的偏见永久化。实际上,声称在其作者中具有全球代表性的研究大多倾向于来自特定国家的作者,通常是那些在给定大陆内经济更发达的国家。例如,在包括来自南美、非洲和亚洲的作者的研究合作中,这些作者主要隶属于少数几个经济发达国家——比如巴西、南非和中国——而这些大陆上的许多其他国家没有得到充分的代表。一般来说,这可能会让人误以为没有在代表性不足的国家进行研究。除了提供全球包容性的误导性形象外,排除这些地区的声音会导致数据缺口和研究的空间覆盖范围缩小,并忽视了提高边缘化国家科学能力的机会(Shaaban et al. 2024)。这一问题部分是由国际研究网络和财团推动的,这些研究网络和财团倾向于成熟的“传统”机构和专家,以及“降落伞研究”实践的持续存在。来自地区代表性不佳的国家的科学家往往面临着有限的专业知名度(例如在线简介、个人网站),以及对国际会议、资助和合作网络的限制——这进一步巩固了他们的地理排斥。此外,许多来自代表性不足的国家的学者经常在非英语语言或当地科学期刊上发表研究成果,这两种语言在主要的国际学术书目数据库(例如Web of Science, Scopus;Chowdhury et al. 2022)。因此,依靠这样的数据库来确定所谓的全球项目、评估和分析(以下简称全球研究)的代表性,对实际的研究前景提供了一个非常不完整的图景。对来自被歪曲的国家的作者参与更广泛的生态和保护领域的全球研究(方法见附录1:专题1)的分析显示出强烈的区域差异(图1)。在源自这些全球研究的出版物(总共3731份)中,合作和作者往往只集中在少数经济发达国家,而区域低收入国家很少参与。例如,在包括至少一名非洲作者的所谓全球研究中,来自低收入国家的作者只参与了27%的出版物(209篇中有56篇),而这些出版物主要是来自南非的作者(54%,209篇中有112篇)——是所有区域低收入国家总和的两倍。同样,在包含至少一位亚洲作者的全球研究中,来自低收入国家的作者仅占出版物的18%(1499篇中有273篇),其中来自中国的作者占主导地位(64%,1499篇中有958篇),其次是日本(13%,1499篇中有188篇)。同样,在包括至少一位南美作者的全球研究中,来自低收入国家的作者仅贡献了24%的出版物(277篇中有67篇),其中巴西作者占主导地位(64%,277篇中有176篇),其次是阿根廷(21%,277篇中有59篇)。来自区域低收入国家的作者参与度最低的是北美(5%,以中美洲国家为代表)和欧洲(14%,主要来自东欧和东南欧国家)。许多亚洲国家和绝大多数非洲国家只参与了一项研究,或者没有参与任何评估的研究(图1)。考虑到这些国家中有许多生物多样性水平很高,当地科学界迫切需要有效地实施保护计划,这一发现尤其令人担忧。由于作者来自这些被排除在外或代表性不足的国家,我们相信一个更综合的愿景不仅可以促进包容性,还可以通过整合不同的观点和资源来提高研究的质量和范围。为了培养真正的包容性,科学必须超越大洲,并在研究合作中优先考虑区域地理公平。这包括主动与代表性不足的国家的科学家接触,以及在组建国际研究团队和联盟时超越区域内的传统合作伙伴。 一个免费访问的在线数据库汇集了来自代表性不足地区的当地专家的当地专业知识描述和联系信息,这将大大提高边缘化科学家的知名度和合作机会。通过全球机构积极推动该平台,并将其与资助机会联系起来,这种工具可以促进持久、公平的伙伴关系,并确保将不同的声音纳入国际研究。此外,可持续性科学通过强调研究不公平的长期、系统解决方案,提供了一种补充方法。通过将公平、包容和能力建设原则纳入研究框架,可持续性科学可以帮助重塑国际合作,使其更加公正和有弹性。这意味着与当地科学家共同制定研究议程,确保知识交流是双向的,并促进以与全球相关的方式解决区域挑战的跨学科方法。将这些原则与结构性改革结合起来,将形成一个更平衡、更有代表性的全球研究生态系统(Clark and Harley 2020)。
{"title":"Moving beyond continents for global and inclusive science","authors":"Ivan Jarić, Christophe Diagne, Shawan Chowdhury","doi":"10.1002/fee.2851","DOIUrl":"10.1002/fee.2851","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Global science suffers from persistent geographical disparities that skew research toward affluent countries and regions, primarily in Europe and North America (Maas <i>et al</i>. <span>2021</span>; Gomez <i>et al</i>. <span>2022</span>). Despite increased awareness, efforts to foster inclusivity within scientific communities often perpetuate existing biases. Studies claiming to have global representation among their authors are, in reality, mostly skewed to authors from particular countries, typically those that are more economically developed within a given continent. For instance, in research collaborations that include authors from South America, Africa, and Asia, those authors are primarily affiliated with only a few economically developed countries—such as Brazil, South Africa, and China—leaving many other nations on those continents underrepresented. In general, this could deceptively suggest that research is not being conducted in the underrepresented countries. Besides providing a misleading image of global inclusiveness, excluding voices from these regions leads to data gaps and diminished spatial coverage of studies, and overlooks opportunities to enhance scientific capacity in marginalized countries (Shaaban <i>et al</i>. <span>2024</span>).</p><p>This issue is partly driven by international research networks and consortia favoring established “traditional” institutions and experts, alongside the persistence of “parachute research” practices. Scientists from regionally misrepresented countries often face limited professional visibility (eg online profiles, personal websites), as well as restricted access to international conferences, funding, and collaboration networks—further entrenching their geographic exclusion. In addition, many scholars from underrepresented countries often publish research in non-English languages or local scientific journals, both of which are vastly unavailable in or excluded from major international scholarly bibliographic databases (eg Web of Science, Scopus; Chowdhury <i>et al</i>. <span>2022</span>). Consequently, relying on such databases to ascertain representation within so-called global projects, assessments, and analyses (hereafter, global studies) provides a highly incomplete picture of the actual research landscape.</p><p>An analysis of the involvement of authors from misrepresented countries in global studies within the wider field of ecology and conservation (for methods, see Appendix 1: Panel S1) revealed strong regional disparities (Figure 1). In the publications that originated from these global studies (3731 in all), collaborations and authorship tended to be regionally concentrated in only a few economically developed countries, while regionally low-income countries were rarely involved. For example, in purportedly global studies that included at least one author from Africa, authors from low-income countries were involved in only 27% of publications (56 out of 209), which were dominated ","PeriodicalId":171,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment","volume":"23 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.6,"publicationDate":"2025-05-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/fee.2851","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143900869","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}
Beavers are everywhere…but not literally though. In fact, they are nowhere nearly as ubiquitous compared to where they used to be. Estimates suggest that while as many as 400 million beavers (Castor canadensis) were present in North America prior to European colonialization, there are around 10 million now. In Europe, by the end of the 19th century, the total number of Eurasian beavers (Castor fiber) was estimated to be just 1200 individuals scattered across eight isolated populations. A recent estimate puts the Eurasian beaver population at 1.5 million individuals (Mamm Rev 2021).
The reintroduction of beaver populations represents a major conservation success. Although modern beaver populations remain a fraction of their historical numbers, due to centuries of trapping and habitat loss, their recovery can be attributed to a suite of factors including not only effective conservation and legal protections, habitat restoration, and conflict resolution strategies, but also increased public awareness. Their resurgence, juxtaposed with the near-extirpation of C canadensis and C fiber from North America and Europe, respectively, may contribute to the perception that beavers are now widespread. However, recognizing this recovery within the context of historical population baselines underscores the continuing need for conservation and habitat restoration efforts.
Human fascination with this cute, orange-toothed, semi-aquatic rodent is encapsulated in several successful popular press books including Eager: The surprising, secret life of beavers and why they matter (White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green) by Ben Goldfarb; Beaverland: How one weird rodent made America (New York, NY: Twelve) by Leila Philip; and Bringing back the beaver: The story of one man's quest to rewild Britain's waterways (White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green) by Derek Gow. And there is now among the public a growing recognition of the ecological roles beavers play across the landscape. As ecosystem engineers, they actively shape their environments by regulating water flow, enhancing landscape resilience to wildfire, and creating critical habitat for a diverse array of species. A review out of the University of Helsinki of the ecosystem services that beavers provide would put a value of about $900 per hectare per year where beavers are active (Mamm Rev 2021).
Our lab began studying beavers after a 15-meter-long dam appeared seemingly overnight in one of the University of Vermont's Natural Areas. While students celebrated the new habitat, reactions were mixed, prompting us to reroute a trail and install signage highlighting the ecological benefits of these ecosystem engineers. This event sparked a series of research initiatives examining the ecological and social dimensions of beaver activity. We analyzed water quality upstream and downstream of beaver dams to assess their role in nutrient retentio
{"title":"Dam Beavers, for a more sustainable world","authors":"Brendan Fisher, Olivia Buchler, Mariano Rodriguez-Cabal","doi":"10.1002/fee.2850","DOIUrl":"10.1002/fee.2850","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Beavers are everywhere…but not literally though. In fact, they are nowhere nearly as ubiquitous compared to where they used to be. Estimates suggest that while as many as 400 million beavers (<i>Castor canadensis</i>) were present in North America prior to European colonialization, there are around 10 million now. In Europe, by the end of the 19th century, the total number of Eurasian beavers (<i>Castor fiber</i>) was estimated to be just 1200 individuals scattered across eight isolated populations. A recent estimate puts the Eurasian beaver population at 1.5 million individuals (<i>Mamm Rev</i> 2021).</p><p>The reintroduction of beaver populations represents a major conservation success. Although modern beaver populations remain a fraction of their historical numbers, due to centuries of trapping and habitat loss, their recovery can be attributed to a suite of factors including not only effective conservation and legal protections, habitat restoration, and conflict resolution strategies, but also increased public awareness. Their resurgence, juxtaposed with the near-extirpation of <i>C canadensis</i> and <i>C fiber</i> from North America and Europe, respectively, may contribute to the perception that beavers are now widespread. However, recognizing this recovery within the context of historical population baselines underscores the continuing need for conservation and habitat restoration efforts.</p><p>Human fascination with this cute, orange-toothed, semi-aquatic rodent is encapsulated in several successful popular press books including <i>Eager: The surprising, secret life of beavers and why they matter</i> (White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green) by Ben Goldfarb; <i>Beaverland: How one weird rodent made America</i> (New York, NY: Twelve) by Leila Philip; and <i>Bringing back the beaver: The story of one man's quest to rewild Britain's waterways</i> (White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green) by Derek Gow. And there is now among the public a growing recognition of the ecological roles beavers play across the landscape. As ecosystem engineers, they actively shape their environments by regulating water flow, enhancing landscape resilience to wildfire, and creating critical habitat for a diverse array of species. A review out of the University of Helsinki of the ecosystem services that beavers provide would put a value of about $900 per hectare per year where beavers are active (<i>Mamm Rev</i> 2021).</p><p>Our lab began studying beavers after a 15-meter-long dam appeared seemingly overnight in one of the University of Vermont's Natural Areas. While students celebrated the new habitat, reactions were mixed, prompting us to reroute a trail and install signage highlighting the ecological benefits of these ecosystem engineers. This event sparked a series of research initiatives examining the ecological and social dimensions of beaver activity. We analyzed water quality upstream and downstream of beaver dams to assess their role in nutrient retentio","PeriodicalId":171,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment","volume":"23 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.6,"publicationDate":"2025-05-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/fee.2850","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143900872","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}