Pub Date : 2021-01-20DOI: 10.3897/RETHINKINGECOLOGY.6.56285
W. Precht
Stony coral tissue loss disease (SCTLD) was first observed in September 2014 near Virginia Key, Florida. In roughly six years, the disease spread throughout Florida and into the greater Caribbean basin. The high prevalence of SCTLD and high resulting mortality in coral populations, and the large number of susceptible species affected, suggest that this outbreak is one of the most lethal ever recorded. The initial recognition and management response to this catastrophic disease in Florida was slow, which delayed the start of monitoring programs and prevented coordinated research programs by at least two years. The slow management response was a result of several factors that operated concurrently. First, the Port Miami dredging project was ongoing during the coral disease epidemic and dredging rather than SCTLD was blamed by some managers and local environmental groups for the extreme coral losses reported in the project’s compliance monitoring program. Second, this blame was amplified in the media because dredging projects are intuitively assumed to be bad for coral reefs. Third, during this same time State of Florida policy prohibited government employees to acknowledge global warming in their work. This was problematic because ocean warming is a proximal cause of many coral diseases. As a result, the well-known links between warming and coral disease were ignored. A consequence of this policy was that the dredging project provided an easy target to blame for the coral mortality noted in the monitoring program, despite convincing data that suggested otherwise. Specifically, results from the intensive compliance monitoring program, conducted by trained scientific divers, were clear. SCTLD that was killing massive numbers of corals throughout Florida was also killing corals at the dredge site – and in the same proportions and among the same suite of species. While eradication of the disease was never a possibility, early control measures may have slowed its spread or allowed for the rescue of significant numbers of large colonies of iconic species. This coral disease outbreak has similarities to the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States and there are lessons learned from both that will improve disease response outcomes in the future, to the benefit of coral reefs and human populations.
{"title":"Failure to respond to a coral disease epizootic in Florida: causes and consequences","authors":"W. Precht","doi":"10.3897/RETHINKINGECOLOGY.6.56285","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3897/RETHINKINGECOLOGY.6.56285","url":null,"abstract":"Stony coral tissue loss disease (SCTLD) was first observed in September 2014 near Virginia Key, Florida. In roughly six years, the disease spread throughout Florida and into the greater Caribbean basin. The high prevalence of SCTLD and high resulting mortality in coral populations, and the large number of susceptible species affected, suggest that this outbreak is one of the most lethal ever recorded. The initial recognition and management response to this catastrophic disease in Florida was slow, which delayed the start of monitoring programs and prevented coordinated research programs by at least two years. The slow management response was a result of several factors that operated concurrently.\u0000 First, the Port Miami dredging project was ongoing during the coral disease epidemic and dredging rather than SCTLD was blamed by some managers and local environmental groups for the extreme coral losses reported in the project’s compliance monitoring program. Second, this blame was amplified in the media because dredging projects are intuitively assumed to be bad for coral reefs. Third, during this same time State of Florida policy prohibited government employees to acknowledge global warming in their work. This was problematic because ocean warming is a proximal cause of many coral diseases. As a result, the well-known links between warming and coral disease were ignored. A consequence of this policy was that the dredging project provided an easy target to blame for the coral mortality noted in the monitoring program, despite convincing data that suggested otherwise.\u0000 Specifically, results from the intensive compliance monitoring program, conducted by trained scientific divers, were clear. SCTLD that was killing massive numbers of corals throughout Florida was also killing corals at the dredge site – and in the same proportions and among the same suite of species. While eradication of the disease was never a possibility, early control measures may have slowed its spread or allowed for the rescue of significant numbers of large colonies of iconic species. This coral disease outbreak has similarities to the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States and there are lessons learned from both that will improve disease response outcomes in the future, to the benefit of coral reefs and human populations.","PeriodicalId":36503,"journal":{"name":"Rethinking Ecology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-01-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49645071","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-09-04DOI: 10.3897/RETHINKINGECOLOGY.4.32570
C. Bradshaw
It is unequivocal that the poor condition of South Australia’s terrestrial biodiversity is continuing to decline overall – much like elsewhere in Australia. This decline is mainly due to the legacy of vegetation clearing and habitat modification since European colonisation, the destructive influence of invasive species (especially predators like cats and foxes) on its native fauna and flora, and impotent or broken legislation to prevent further damage. The struggle to maintain our remaining biodiversity, and our intentions to restore once-healthy ecosystems, are rendered even more difficult by the added influence of rapid climate disruption. Despite the pessimistic outlook, South Australians have successfully employed several effective conservation mechanisms, including increasing the coverage of our network of protected areas, doing ecological restoration projects, reducing the densities of feral animals across landscapes, encouraging private landholders to protect their biodiversity assets, releasing environmental water flows to rivers and wetlands, and bringing more people in touch with nature. While these strategies are certainly stepping in the right direction, our policies and conservation targets have been hampered by arbitrary baselines, a lack of cohesion among projects and associated legislation, unrepresentative protected areas, and inappropriate spatial and time scales of intervention. While the challenges are many, there are several tractable and affordable actions that can be taken immediately to improve the prospect of the State’s biodiversity into the near future. These include coordinating existing and promoting broader-scale ecological restoration projects, establishing strategic and evidence-based control of invasive species, planning more representative protected-area networks that are managed effectively for conservation outcomes, fixing broken environmental legislation, avoiding or severely limiting biodiversity-offset incentives, expanding conservation covenants on private land, coordinating a state-wide monitoring network and protocol that tells the South Australian community how effective we are with our policies and actions, expanding existing conservation investment and tapping into different funding schemes, and coordinating better communication and interaction among government and non-governmental environment agencies. Having a more transparent and defensible link between specific conservation actions and targeted outcomes will also likely improve confidence that conservation investments are well-spent. With just a little more effort, coordination, funding, and foresight, South Australia has the opportunity to become a pillar of biodiversity conservation.
{"title":"Opportunities to improve the future of South Australia’s terrestrial biodiversity","authors":"C. Bradshaw","doi":"10.3897/RETHINKINGECOLOGY.4.32570","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3897/RETHINKINGECOLOGY.4.32570","url":null,"abstract":"It is unequivocal that the poor condition of South Australia’s terrestrial biodiversity is continuing to decline overall – much like elsewhere in Australia. This decline is mainly due to the legacy of vegetation clearing and habitat modification since European colonisation, the destructive influence of invasive species (especially predators like cats and foxes) on its native fauna and flora, and impotent or broken legislation to prevent further damage. The struggle to maintain our remaining biodiversity, and our intentions to restore once-healthy ecosystems, are rendered even more difficult by the added influence of rapid climate disruption. Despite the pessimistic outlook, South Australians have successfully employed several effective conservation mechanisms, including increasing the coverage of our network of protected areas, doing ecological restoration projects, reducing the densities of feral animals across landscapes, encouraging private landholders to protect their biodiversity assets, releasing environmental water flows to rivers and wetlands, and bringing more people in touch with nature. While these strategies are certainly stepping in the right direction, our policies and conservation targets have been hampered by arbitrary baselines, a lack of cohesion among projects and associated legislation, unrepresentative protected areas, and inappropriate spatial and time scales of intervention. While the challenges are many, there are several tractable and affordable actions that can be taken immediately to improve the prospect of the State’s biodiversity into the near future. These include coordinating existing and promoting broader-scale ecological restoration projects, establishing strategic and evidence-based control of invasive species, planning more representative protected-area networks that are managed effectively for conservation outcomes, fixing broken environmental legislation, avoiding or severely limiting biodiversity-offset incentives, expanding conservation covenants on private land, coordinating a state-wide monitoring network and protocol that tells the South Australian community how effective we are with our policies and actions, expanding existing conservation investment and tapping into different funding schemes, and coordinating better communication and interaction among government and non-governmental environment agencies. Having a more transparent and defensible link between specific conservation actions and targeted outcomes will also likely improve confidence that conservation investments are well-spent. With just a little more effort, coordination, funding, and foresight, South Australia has the opportunity to become a pillar of biodiversity conservation.","PeriodicalId":36503,"journal":{"name":"Rethinking Ecology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-09-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49532464","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-08-08DOI: 10.3897/RETHINKINGECOLOGY.4.36467
S. Dupont, Lauréline Guinnefollau, C. Weber, O. Petit
Among the pressures introduced by urbanization, artificial light at night (ALAN) can be problematic, particularly for nocturnal species. Populations of European hamsters (Cricetus cricetus) have dramatically decreased in France since 1972 because of habitat loss due to urbanisation and changes in agricultural methods. The conservation project Life Alister aims to increase the abundance of this species in suburban areas via hamster release. However, the success of this population-restoration project may be compromised due to the possible effects of ALAN on the daily and seasonal cycles and behaviour of this nocturnal species. To understand how hamsters may respond to relocation, we experimentally studied the impact of ALAN on hamster foraging, a decisive behaviour for survival in natural habitats. This study assessed the behavioural responses of 18 animals when choosing between two food sources of different palatability in two different lighting conditions: artificial light (4 or 40 lux) or darkness. Our results show that hamsters avoided lighting that mimics suburban streetlights, particularly when grooming. Moreover, this study reveals that hamsters do not avoid street-lit areas when highly palatable food is present, suggesting they would be more susceptible to predation under these circumstances. Our results suggest that the adverse effects of ALAN on the behaviour of hamsters released on the outskirts of developed suburban areas could be limited by restricting the number of street lights, moderating the intensity of street lighting, or switching lights off during the hours hamsters are most active. We further recommend that wildlife managers avoid planting plants that are highly palatable to hamsters close to lighting in suburban areas to limit the risk of predation for this species.
{"title":"Impact of artificial light at night on the foraging behaviour of the European Hamster: consequences for the introduction of this species in suburban areas","authors":"S. Dupont, Lauréline Guinnefollau, C. Weber, O. Petit","doi":"10.3897/RETHINKINGECOLOGY.4.36467","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3897/RETHINKINGECOLOGY.4.36467","url":null,"abstract":"Among the pressures introduced by urbanization, artificial light at night (ALAN) can be problematic, particularly for nocturnal species. Populations of European hamsters (Cricetus cricetus) have dramatically decreased in France since 1972 because of habitat loss due to urbanisation and changes in agricultural methods. The conservation project Life Alister aims to increase the abundance of this species in suburban areas via hamster release. However, the success of this population-restoration project may be compromised due to the possible effects of ALAN on the daily and seasonal cycles and behaviour of this nocturnal species. To understand how hamsters may respond to relocation, we experimentally studied the impact of ALAN on hamster foraging, a decisive behaviour for survival in natural habitats. This study assessed the behavioural responses of 18 animals when choosing between two food sources of different palatability in two different lighting conditions: artificial light (4 or 40 lux) or darkness. Our results show that hamsters avoided lighting that mimics suburban streetlights, particularly when grooming. Moreover, this study reveals that hamsters do not avoid street-lit areas when highly palatable food is present, suggesting they would be more susceptible to predation under these circumstances. Our results suggest that the adverse effects of ALAN on the behaviour of hamsters released on the outskirts of developed suburban areas could be limited by restricting the number of street lights, moderating the intensity of street lighting, or switching lights off during the hours hamsters are most active. We further recommend that wildlife managers avoid planting plants that are highly palatable to hamsters close to lighting in suburban areas to limit the risk of predation for this species.","PeriodicalId":36503,"journal":{"name":"Rethinking Ecology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-08-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44696639","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-07-16DOI: 10.3897/RETHINKINGECOLOGY.4.32751
Miriam A. Zemanova
The Earth’s biodiversity is currently experiencing immense pressure from habitat loss, overexploitation, global climate change, and invasive species, which escalate the global extinction crisis. Comprehensive knowledge of the extent and impact of biodiversity loss is therefore critical for determining species vulnerability and prioritizing conservation goals. An integral part of wildlife conservation research and management is nowadays genetic sampling. Animal DNA has been traditionally obtained invasively, from blood or other tissues, however public concerns over animal welfare require that animals are affected as little as possible during research. One of the ways to minimize the impact on wildlife animal welfare is to use non-invasive genetic sampling. Even though non-invasive genetic sampling techniques have been developed for many animal species, it is not clear how often they are being implemented. Here, I present an overview of recently published articles on genetics in amphibians, birds, carnivores, molluscs and rodents, for which I examined whether they used a lethal, invasive or non-invasive DNA sampling technique. Disappointingly, only 22% of the identified relevant studies implemented the available non-invasive genetic sampling method. I conclude highlighting the need for better implementation of non-invasive DNA collection methods in wildlife research through raising awareness, increasing financial support, and introducing more stringent criteria for obtaining research permits.
{"title":"Poor implementation of non-invasive sampling in wildlife genetics studies","authors":"Miriam A. Zemanova","doi":"10.3897/RETHINKINGECOLOGY.4.32751","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3897/RETHINKINGECOLOGY.4.32751","url":null,"abstract":"The Earth’s biodiversity is currently experiencing immense pressure from habitat loss, overexploitation, global climate change, and invasive species, which escalate the global extinction crisis. Comprehensive knowledge of the extent and impact of biodiversity loss is therefore critical for determining species vulnerability and prioritizing conservation goals. An integral part of wildlife conservation research and management is nowadays genetic sampling. Animal DNA has been traditionally obtained invasively, from blood or other tissues, however public concerns over animal welfare require that animals are affected as little as possible during research. One of the ways to minimize the impact on wildlife animal welfare is to use non-invasive genetic sampling. Even though non-invasive genetic sampling techniques have been developed for many animal species, it is not clear how often they are being implemented. Here, I present an overview of recently published articles on genetics in amphibians, birds, carnivores, molluscs and rodents, for which I examined whether they used a lethal, invasive or non-invasive DNA sampling technique. Disappointingly, only 22% of the identified relevant studies implemented the available non-invasive genetic sampling method. I conclude highlighting the need for better implementation of non-invasive DNA collection methods in wildlife research through raising awareness, increasing financial support, and introducing more stringent criteria for obtaining research permits.","PeriodicalId":36503,"journal":{"name":"Rethinking Ecology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-07-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48171398","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-06-14DOI: 10.3897/RETHINKINGECOLOGY.4.33383
R. Karkarey, Amod M. Zambre, K. Isvaran, R. Arthur
Historically unfished, high-density spawning aggregations are vanishingly uncommon. Behavioural observations from such aggregations are rare, and may be sometimes novel and unexpected. Given the weight of evidence required to document spawning aggregations, how can we best report rare and unusual behavioural variations in spawning populations? Based on two years of in-water observations of a high-density spawning aggregation of the squaretail grouper in the Lakshadweep Archipelago, we described a previously unreported male alternative reproductive tactic (ART) and an inverse size assortment with large males courting several small females that shoaled mid-water (https://doi.org/10.1186/s12898-017-0120-5). In critiquing our manuscript, it has been suggested that our observations, methodologies and interpretation are inadequate, flawed, and do not fit within currently accepted theory (https://doi.org/10.1186/s12898-018-0206-8). While offering a detailed counter of the main methodological and theoretical criticisms we question how best to document and interpret novel behaviours in poorly known systems. Reporting novelty itself can hardly be the basis of criticism. Our report relied on direct in-water observations, conducted at peak densities over two spawning years. The critique ignores this, choosing instead to focus on a supplementary video which was not the basis of our conclusions. Like other researchers working on this species, we did not directly observe mating, but report courtship as a well-established proxy used across mating systems studies. Apart from these methodological concerns, the authors suggest that there is no theoretical support for our observations. However, sexual selection theory provides well-established frameworks showing that, at very high mating densities, a variety of tactics can emerge, that often vary considerably between populations and locations. In our original paper, we use this broader theory of sexual selection together with detailed behavioural data to propose plausible evolutionary explanations that bear testing in these novel, high-density systems. We agree with the authors that novel observations should be scrutinised carefully as they can challenge our current understanding of the range of behaviours populations display and serve as a springboard for theoretical advancement. Given their rarity, these observations should be evaluated against the rigour of their documentation and the transparency of their reporting. In this context, we hope our carefully documented observations serve as a useful addition to the fascinating and complex natural history of species like the squaretail grouper.
{"title":"Hypothesizing novel mating behaviours in the squaretail grouper based on direct behavioural observations","authors":"R. Karkarey, Amod M. Zambre, K. Isvaran, R. Arthur","doi":"10.3897/RETHINKINGECOLOGY.4.33383","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3897/RETHINKINGECOLOGY.4.33383","url":null,"abstract":"Historically unfished, high-density spawning aggregations are vanishingly uncommon. Behavioural observations from such aggregations are rare, and may be sometimes novel and unexpected. Given the weight of evidence required to document spawning aggregations, how can we best report rare and unusual behavioural variations in spawning populations? Based on two years of in-water observations of a high-density spawning aggregation of the squaretail grouper in the Lakshadweep Archipelago, we described a previously unreported male alternative reproductive tactic (ART) and an inverse size assortment with large males courting several small females that shoaled mid-water (https://doi.org/10.1186/s12898-017-0120-5). In critiquing our manuscript, it has been suggested that our observations, methodologies and interpretation are inadequate, flawed, and do not fit within currently accepted theory (https://doi.org/10.1186/s12898-018-0206-8). While offering a detailed counter of the main methodological and theoretical criticisms we question how best to document and interpret novel behaviours in poorly known systems. Reporting novelty itself can hardly be the basis of criticism. Our report relied on direct in-water observations, conducted at peak densities over two spawning years. The critique ignores this, choosing instead to focus on a supplementary video which was not the basis of our conclusions. Like other researchers working on this species, we did not directly observe mating, but report courtship as a well-established proxy used across mating systems studies. Apart from these methodological concerns, the authors suggest that there is no theoretical support for our observations. However, sexual selection theory provides well-established frameworks showing that, at very high mating densities, a variety of tactics can emerge, that often vary considerably between populations and locations. In our original paper, we use this broader theory of sexual selection together with detailed behavioural data to propose plausible evolutionary explanations that bear testing in these novel, high-density systems. We agree with the authors that novel observations should be scrutinised carefully as they can challenge our current understanding of the range of behaviours populations display and serve as a springboard for theoretical advancement. Given their rarity, these observations should be evaluated against the rigour of their documentation and the transparency of their reporting. In this context, we hope our carefully documented observations serve as a useful addition to the fascinating and complex natural history of species like the squaretail grouper.","PeriodicalId":36503,"journal":{"name":"Rethinking Ecology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-06-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48572031","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-05-10DOI: 10.3897/RETHINKINGECOLOGY.4.32252
Apostolos‐Manuel Koussoroplis, Toni Klauschies, S. Pincebourde, D. Giron, A. Wacker
In their recent contribution, Wetzel et al. [Wetzel et al. (2016) Variability in plant nutrients reduces insect herbivore performance. Nature 539: 425-427] predict that variance in the plant nutrient level reduces herbivore performance via the nonlinear averaging effect (named Jensen’s effect by the authors) while variance in the defense level does not. We argue that the study likely underestimates the potential of plant defenses’ variance to cause Jensen’s effects for two reasons. First, this conclusion is based on the finding that the average Jensen’s effect of various defense traits on various herbivores is zero which does not imply that the Jensen’s effect of specific defense traits on specific herbivores is null, just that the effects balance each other globally. Second, the study neglects the nonlinearity effects that may arise from the synergy between nutritive and defense traits or between co-occurring defenses on herbivore performance. Covariance between interacting plant defense traits, or between plant nutritive and defense traits, can affect performance differently than would nutritive or single plant defense variance alone. Overlooking the interactive effects of plant traits and the traits’ covariance could impair the assessment of the true role of plant trait variability on herbivore populations in natural settings.
Wetzel et al.(2016)植物养分的变化会降低昆虫的食草性表现。[Nature 539: 425-427]预测植物营养水平的变化通过非线性平均效应(作者称之为Jensen效应)降低了食草动物的表现，而防御水平的变化则不会。我们认为，这项研究可能低估了植物防御变异导致詹森效应的潜力，原因有两个。首先，该结论是基于各种防御性状对各种食草动物的平均Jensen效应为零，这并不意味着特定防御性状对特定食草动物的Jensen效应为零，只是在全局上相互平衡。其次，该研究忽略了营养性状和防御性状之间的协同作用或共同发生的防御性状之间对食草动物生产性能的非线性影响。相互作用的植物防御性状之间或植物营养性状与防御性状之间的协方差对生产性能的影响不同于营养性状或单一植物防御性状之间的协方差。忽视植物性状和性状协方差之间的相互作用，可能会影响对植物性状变异在自然环境下对草食动物种群的真正作用的评估。
{"title":"A comment on “Variability in plant nutrients reduces insect herbivore performance”","authors":"Apostolos‐Manuel Koussoroplis, Toni Klauschies, S. Pincebourde, D. Giron, A. Wacker","doi":"10.3897/RETHINKINGECOLOGY.4.32252","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3897/RETHINKINGECOLOGY.4.32252","url":null,"abstract":"In their recent contribution, Wetzel et al. [Wetzel et al. (2016) Variability in plant nutrients reduces insect herbivore performance. Nature 539: 425-427] predict that variance in the plant nutrient level reduces herbivore performance via the nonlinear averaging effect (named Jensen’s effect by the authors) while variance in the defense level does not. We argue that the study likely underestimates the potential of plant defenses’ variance to cause Jensen’s effects for two reasons. First, this conclusion is based on the finding that the average Jensen’s effect of various defense traits on various herbivores is zero which does not imply that the Jensen’s effect of specific defense traits on specific herbivores is null, just that the effects balance each other globally. Second, the study neglects the nonlinearity effects that may arise from the synergy between nutritive and defense traits or between co-occurring defenses on herbivore performance. Covariance between interacting plant defense traits, or between plant nutritive and defense traits, can affect performance differently than would nutritive or single plant defense variance alone. Overlooking the interactive effects of plant traits and the traits’ covariance could impair the assessment of the true role of plant trait variability on herbivore populations in natural settings.","PeriodicalId":36503,"journal":{"name":"Rethinking Ecology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-05-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46363832","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-03-19DOI: 10.3897/RETHINKINGECOLOGY.4.34440
A. Komonen, P. Halme, J. Kotiaho
“Unless we change our ways of producing food, insects as a whole will go down the path of extinction in a few decades.” or “Our work reveals dramatic rates of decline that may lead to the extinction of 40% of the world's insect species over the next few decades.” These are verbatim conclusions of the recent paper by Sánchez-Bayoa and Wyckhuys (2019) in Biological Conservation. Because of fundamental methodological flaws, their conclusions are unsubstantiated. Like noted by The Guardian, the conclusions of the paper were set out in unusually forceful terms for a peer-reviewed scientific paper. The current case has already seen corrections and withdrawals in print and social media. We are concerned that such development is eroding the importance of the biodiversity crisis, making the work of conservationists harder, and undermining the credibility of conservation science.
{"title":"Alarmist by bad design: Strongly popularized unsubstantiated claims undermine credibility of conservation science","authors":"A. Komonen, P. Halme, J. Kotiaho","doi":"10.3897/RETHINKINGECOLOGY.4.34440","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3897/RETHINKINGECOLOGY.4.34440","url":null,"abstract":"“Unless we change our ways of producing food, insects as a whole will go down the path of extinction in a few decades.” or “Our work reveals dramatic rates of decline that may lead to the extinction of 40% of the world's insect species over the next few decades.” These are verbatim conclusions of the recent paper by Sánchez-Bayoa and Wyckhuys (2019) in Biological Conservation. Because of fundamental methodological flaws, their conclusions are unsubstantiated. Like noted by The Guardian, the conclusions of the paper were set out in unusually forceful terms for a peer-reviewed scientific paper. The current case has already seen corrections and withdrawals in print and social media. We are concerned that such development is eroding the importance of the biodiversity crisis, making the work of conservationists harder, and undermining the credibility of conservation science.","PeriodicalId":36503,"journal":{"name":"Rethinking Ecology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-03-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43185028","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-02-07DOI: 10.3897/RETHINKINGECOLOGY.4.32767
William C. Wetzel, Heather M. Kharouba, M. Robinson, M. Holyoak, R. Karban
SADIE (Spatial Analysis by Distance Indices) is designed specifically to quantify patterns in spatially-referenced count-based data. It was developed for dealing with data that can be considered ‘patchy’. Such distributions are commonly found, for example, in insect populations where discrete patches of individuals are often evident. The distributions of such populations have ‘hard edges’, with patches and gaps occurring spatially. In these cases variance of abundance does not vary smoothly, but discontinuously. In this paper we outline the use of SADIE and provide free access to the SADIE software suite, establishing Rethinking Ecology as its permanent home. Finally, we review the use of SADIE and demonstrate its use in a wide variety of sub-disciplines within the general field of ecology.
{"title":"Plant trait covariance and nonlinear averaging: a reply to Koussoroplis et al.","authors":"William C. Wetzel, Heather M. Kharouba, M. Robinson, M. Holyoak, R. Karban","doi":"10.3897/RETHINKINGECOLOGY.4.32767","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3897/RETHINKINGECOLOGY.4.32767","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 SADIE (Spatial Analysis by Distance Indices) is designed specifically to quantify patterns in spatially-referenced count-based data. It was developed for dealing with data that can be considered ‘patchy’. Such distributions are commonly found, for example, in insect populations where discrete patches of individuals are often evident. The distributions of such populations have ‘hard edges’, with patches and gaps occurring spatially. In these cases variance of abundance does not vary smoothly, but discontinuously. In this paper we outline the use of SADIE and provide free access to the SADIE software suite, establishing Rethinking Ecology as its permanent home. Finally, we review the use of SADIE and demonstrate its use in a wide variety of sub-disciplines within the general field of ecology.","PeriodicalId":36503,"journal":{"name":"Rethinking Ecology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-02-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.3897/RETHINKINGECOLOGY.4.32767","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44496018","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-02-04DOI: 10.3897/RETHINKINGECOLOGY.4.32763
Jaeson Clayborn, A. Delamarre
Through interactive gaming, virtual reality applied to butterfly and forest conservation activities can reach a broad audience and initiate a paradigm shift towards coexistence between humans and butterflies under urban settings. Butterfly World 1.0 is a serious game designed to teach players about butterflies and plants in dry forest ecosystems in the Florida Keys (USA). Tasks include butterfly and plant identification and the removal of an invasive ant species. The immersive virtual environment allows players to explore the forest without swarms of mosquitoes and oppressive heat present in the real environment. Rethinking a different way of communicating butterfly conservation and environmental stewardship through gaming, we can reach many who might otherwise remain untouched by traditional education routes. Virtual gaming, designed to educate the player through meaningful tasks and measurable outcomes, presents another avenue for direct knowledge acquisition and passive empathy through direct experiences.
{"title":"Living room conservation: a virtual way to engage participants in insect conservation","authors":"Jaeson Clayborn, A. Delamarre","doi":"10.3897/RETHINKINGECOLOGY.4.32763","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3897/RETHINKINGECOLOGY.4.32763","url":null,"abstract":"Through interactive gaming, virtual reality applied to butterfly and forest conservation activities can reach a broad audience and initiate a paradigm shift towards coexistence between humans and butterflies under urban settings. Butterfly World 1.0 is a serious game designed to teach players about butterflies and plants in dry forest ecosystems in the Florida Keys (USA). Tasks include butterfly and plant identification and the removal of an invasive ant species. The immersive virtual environment allows players to explore the forest without swarms of mosquitoes and oppressive heat present in the real environment. Rethinking a different way of communicating butterfly conservation and environmental stewardship through gaming, we can reach many who might otherwise remain untouched by traditional education routes. Virtual gaming, designed to educate the player through meaningful tasks and measurable outcomes, presents another avenue for direct knowledge acquisition and passive empathy through direct experiences.","PeriodicalId":36503,"journal":{"name":"Rethinking Ecology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-02-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48439692","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-02-04DOI: 10.3897/RETHINKINGECOLOGY.4.32116
Mohsen Kayal, H. Lewis, Joanne P. Ballard, E. Kayal
A year ago, Ripple et al.’s “Warning to Humanity” was published (Ripple et al. 2017), reigniting debate on the importance of addressing the environmental crisis that humanity will increasingly face in the 21st century. While we fully endorse the pertinence of this initiative, we identify critical gaps which impede the capacity of this call to action in fostering the positive change that humanity needs. With our present manuscript, we provide a complementary assessment to Ripple et al.’s article for addressing the current environmental crisis, as well as some alternative paths forward. We emphasize the importance of considering historical patterns and underlying drivers of the current global socio-ecosystem, particularly in relation to social inequalities, human demography, and food production systems. Without such considerations, several of the steps proposed in the warning might be interpreted as prescriptions from a western-biased vision of our global socio-ecosystem, undermining the fundamental message of this unique initiative for achieving sustainability.
一年前，Ripple等人发表了《对人类的警告》(Ripple et al. 2017)，重新引发了关于解决人类在21世纪将日益面临的环境危机重要性的辩论。虽然我们完全赞同这一倡议的针对性，但我们指出阻碍这一行动呼吁促进人类所需要的积极变革的能力的关键差距。在我们目前的手稿中，我们为Ripple等人的文章提供了一个补充评估，以解决当前的环境危机，以及一些可供选择的前进道路。我们强调考虑当前全球社会生态系统的历史模式和潜在驱动因素的重要性，特别是在社会不平等、人口和粮食生产系统方面。如果没有这些考虑，警告中提出的几个步骤可能会被解读为来自西方对全球社会生态系统的偏见，破坏了这一实现可持续发展的独特倡议的基本信息。
{"title":"Humanity and the 21 st century’s resource gauntlet: a commentary on Ripple et al.’s article “World scientists’ warning to humanity: a second notice”","authors":"Mohsen Kayal, H. Lewis, Joanne P. Ballard, E. Kayal","doi":"10.3897/RETHINKINGECOLOGY.4.32116","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3897/RETHINKINGECOLOGY.4.32116","url":null,"abstract":"A year ago, Ripple et al.’s “Warning to Humanity” was published (Ripple et al. 2017), reigniting debate on the importance of addressing the environmental crisis that humanity will increasingly face in the 21st century. While we fully endorse the pertinence of this initiative, we identify critical gaps which impede the capacity of this call to action in fostering the positive change that humanity needs. With our present manuscript, we provide a complementary assessment to Ripple et al.’s article for addressing the current environmental crisis, as well as some alternative paths forward. We emphasize the importance of considering historical patterns and underlying drivers of the current global socio-ecosystem, particularly in relation to social inequalities, human demography, and food production systems. Without such considerations, several of the steps proposed in the warning might be interpreted as prescriptions from a western-biased vision of our global socio-ecosystem, undermining the fundamental message of this unique initiative for achieving sustainability.","PeriodicalId":36503,"journal":{"name":"Rethinking Ecology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-02-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41789430","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","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：