Presidential Address 1988 After the first 200 years: The future of ecology and ecologists in Australia

This Address examines the current concerns of ecologists. There is instability in the organization of science at a political level, in funding bodies, and in organizations such as CSIRO and tertiary education institutions. There is less funding for research and development in Australia than in other developed countries, mainly because of poor funding from the private sector, and funds available to the new Australian Research Council are small in relation to applications for support. These factors affect career opportunities for ecologists, although students continue to be attracted to the area. The state of the Australian environment leaves much to be desired, with widespread land degradation (including erosion and salination), deterioration in water quality, and disease in natural ecosystems; many species are endangered, and there is concern about forest management. Widespread environmental problems occur despite the fact that, for more than a century, those concerned with land management have been educated in tertiary institutions. More might be done to equip graduates better for solving Australian problems, for informing the public about methods which can be used to correct environmental degradation, and for disseminating research results more directly to managers. While all scientists should emphasize the importance of basic research, it is argued that more recognition should be given to the application of science to management. Among positive aspect of the present climate are a government commitment to increase numbers in senior school years and in tertiary institutions; entry of graduates into consulting work; use of conservation strategies to enhance interaction between ecology and industry as illustrated by mining, agriculture and forestry; increased activity by organizations which raise funds from the private sector; definition of research priorities; and the identification which Australians have with an image of the countryside. With this framework of closer links between ecology, practical problem-solving, and support from industry and the private sector, it is argued that significant progress will be made in the years ahead.     

The joint cardiovascular research profile of the university medical centres in the Netherlands

Biomedical scientific research in the Netherlands has a good reputation worldwide. Quantitatively, the university medical centres (UMCs) deliver about 40?% of the total number of scientific publications of this research. Analysis of the bibliometric output data of the UMCs shows that their research is highly cited. These output-based analyses also indicate the high impact of cardiovascular scientific research in these centres, illustrating the strength of this research in the Netherlands. A set of six joint national cardiovascular research topics selected by the UMCs can be recognised. At the top are heart failure, rhythm disorder research and atherosclerosis. National collaboration of top scientists in consortia in these three areas is successful in acquiring funding of large-scale programs. Our observations suggest that funding national consortia of experts focused on a few selected research topics may increase the international competitiveness of cardiovascular research in the Netherlands.     

The Interplay between Scientific Overlap and Cooperation and the Resulting Gain in Co-Authorship Interactions

Considering the importance of scientific interactions, understanding the principles that govern fruitful scientific research is crucial to policy makers and scientists alike. The outcome of an interaction is to a large extent dependent on the balancing of contradicting motivations accompanying the establishment of collaborations. Here, we assembled a dataset of nearly 20,000 publications authored by researchers affiliated with ten top universities. Based on this data collection, we estimated the extent of different interaction types between pairwise combinations of researchers. We explored the interplay between the overlap in scientific interests and the tendency to collaborate, and associated these estimates with measures of scientific quality and social accessibility aiming at studying the typical resulting gain of different interaction patterns. Our results show that scientists tend to collaborate more often with colleagues with whom they share moderate to high levels of mutual interests and knowledge while cooperative tendency declines at higher levels of research-interest overlap, suggesting fierce competition, and at the lower levels, suggesting communication gaps. Whereas the relative number of alliances dramatically differs across a gradient of research overlap, the scientific impact of the resulting articles remains similar. When considering social accessibility, we find that though collaborations between remote researchers are relatively rare, their quality is significantly higher than studies produced by close-circle scientists. Since current collaboration patterns do not necessarily overlap with gaining optimal scientific quality, these findings should encourage scientists to reconsider current collaboration strategies.     

Pieter Hendrik Nienhuis: Aquatic Ecologist and Environmental Scientist

Prof. Dr. Pieter Hendrik (Piet) Nienhuis worked for almost 40 years in all aspects of aquatic ecology and environmental science and retired on 31 October 2003. He can be characterised as a distinguished scientist, shaped in an applied estuarine and aquatic research ambience of the former Delta Institute for Hydrobiological Research (DIHO) in Yerseke in the Netherlands. His appointment as a full professor at the Radboud University Nijmegen offered him a challenging step from monodisciplinarity in ecology, via multidisciplinarity in the application of ecological knowledge in river science to interdisciplinarity in environmental science and management. This paper describes his education, teaching activities, research, scientific publications, science management, and significance for various scientific disciplines. He made important contributions to biosystematics of angiosperms and algae, the ecology of seagrasses, nutrient cycling and eutrophication in estuarine ecosystems, and the integrated modelling of the ecological functioning of estuaries. Subsequently, he paid much attention to environmental problems in river basins, ecological rehabilitation and sustainable development. His work influenced the view of ecologists, aquatic scientists and water managers in the Netherlands as well as abroad, in particular regarding the drawbacks of compartmentalization of the estuaries and the importance of connectivity and morphodynamics in river systems. In hindsight, it appears as a logical line that he gradually moved from estuarine ecological research that became increasingly driven by societal and environmental problems to the field of environmental science and management.     

How can we improve information delivery to support conservation and restoration decisions?

Incorporating science into resource conservation and management is becoming increasingly important, but it is not yet clear how to provide information to decision makers most effectively. To evaluate sources of information used to support the management and conservation of California’s riparian bird habitat, we distributed a questionnaire to restoration practitioners and public and private land managers. We asked respondents to rate the importance and availability of different sources of information they use to inform their decisions. Synthetic reviews and peer-reviewed publications both received high importance and availability ratings. Web-based tools received low importance and availability ratings. One-on-one interactions between ecologists and decision makers received high importance ratings, similar to those of peer-reviewed publications and synthetic reviews, but their availability was rated lower than any other method of decision support. Our results suggest that the decision makers we surveyed are already using a wide variety of information, but that prioritizing one-on-one interactions between scientists and decision makers will enhance the delivery of all sources of information.     

Amphibians as models for studying environmental change

The use of amphibians as models in ecological research has a rich history. From an early foundation in studies of amphibian natural history sprang generations of scientists who used amphibians as models to address fundamental questions in population and community ecology. More recently, in the wake of an environment that human disturbances rapidly altered, ecologists have adopted amphibians as models for studying applied ecological issues such as habitat loss, pollution, disease, and global climate change. Some of the characteristics of amphibians that make them useful models for studying these environmental problems are highlighted, including their trophic importance, environmental sensitivity, research tractability, and impending extinction. The article provides specific examples from the recent literature to illustrate how studies on amphibians have been instrumental in guiding scientific thought on a broad scale. Included are examples of how amphibian research has transformed scientific disciplines, generated new theories about global health, called into question widely accepted scientific paradigms, and raised awareness in the general public that our daily actions may have widespread repercussions. In addition, studies on amphibian declines have provided insight into the complexity in which multiple independent factors may interact with one another to produce catastrophic and sometimes unpredictable effects. Because of the complexity of these problems, amphibian ecologists have been among the strongest advocates for interdisciplinary research. Future studies of amphibians will be important not only for their conservation but also for the conservation of other species, critical habitats, and entire ecosystems.     

Conducting robust ecological analyses with climate data

Although the number of studies discerning the impact of climate change on ecological systems continues to increase, there has been relatively little sharing of the lessons learnt when accumulating this evidence. At a recent workshop entitled ‘Using climate data in ecological research’ held at the UK Met Office, ecologists and climate scientists came together to discuss the robust analysis of climate data in ecology. The discussions identified three common pitfalls encountered by ecologists: 1) selection of inappropriate spatial resolutions for analysis; 2) improper use of publically available data or code; and 3) insufficient representation of the uncertainties behind the adopted approach. Here, we discuss how these pitfalls can be avoided, before suggesting ways that both ecology and climate science can move forward. Our main recommendation is that ecologists and climate scientists collaborate more closely, on grant proposals and scientific publications, and informally through online media and workshops. More sharing of data and code (e.g. via online repositories), lessons and guidance would help to reconcile differing approaches to the robust handling of data. We call on ecologists to think critically about which aspects of the climate are relevant to their study system, and to acknowledge and actively explore uncertainty in all types of climate data. And we call on climate scientists to make simple estimates of uncertainty available to the wider research community. Through steps such as these, we will improve our ability to robustly attribute observed ecological changes to climate or other factors, while providing the sort of influential, comprehensive analyses that efforts to mitigate and adapt to climate change so urgently require.     

Policy Language in Restoration Ecology

Relating restoration ecology to policy is one of the aims of the Society for Ecological Restoration and its journal Restoration Ecology. As an interdisciplinary team of researchers in both ecological science and political science, we have struggled with how policy‐relevant language is and could be deployed in restoration ecology. Using language in scientific publications that resonates with overarching policy questions may facilitate linkages between researcher investigations and decision‐makers' concerns on all levels. Climate change is the most important environmental problem of our time and to provide policymakers with new relevant knowledge on this problem is of outmost importance. To determine whether or not policy‐specific language was being included in restoration ecology science, we surveyed the field of restoration ecology from 2008 to 2010, identifying 1,029 articles, which we further examined for the inclusion of climate change as a key element of the research. We found that of the 58 articles with “climate change” or “global warming” in the abstract, only 3 identified specific policies relevant to the research results. We believe that restoration ecologists are failing to include themselves in policy formation and implementation of issues such as climate change within journals focused on restoration ecology. We suggest that more explicit reference to policies and terminology recognizable to policymakers might enhance the impact of restoration ecology on decision‐making processes.     

Cultivating inclusive instructional and research environments in ecology and evolutionary science

As we strive to lift up a diversity of voices in science, it is important for ecologists, evolutionary scientists, and educators to foster inclusive environments in their research and teaching. Academics in science often lack exposure to research on best practices in diversity, equity, and inclusion and may not know where to start to make scientific environments more welcoming and inclusive. We propose that by approaching research and teaching with empathy, flexibility, and a growth mind‐set, scientists can be more supportive and inclusive of their colleagues and students. This paper provides guidance, explores strategies, and directs scientists to resources to better cultivate an inclusive environment in three common settings: the classroom, the research laboratory, and the field. As ecologists and evolutionary scientists, we have an opportunity to adapt our teaching and research practices in order to foster an inclusive educational ecosystem for students and colleagues alike.     

Our view of islands: Joining the values of science and society

Both the public and the scientific perception of an island's value are important in deciding its future, with regard to the levels of access, protection and funding for research. There is a popular belief that the preservation of islands equates to the slightly idiosyncratic conservation of unique remote habitats, where the value of any island is its isolation. However, by understanding how scientists use islands, a different picture emerges; islands may be seen also as integrated, or representative fragments of the world that contribute to biodiversity and scientific theory far beyond their narrow geographical boundaries. Here, we broadly review the full scope of values science places on islands. We resolve four central perspectives by which scientists view islands, based on how islands are incorporated into their research: (i) species‐level studies; (ii) island‐level studies; (iii) islands as model systems; and (iv) islands as part of a global network. Recognising this diverse value system helps enlarge our understanding of islands and reforges their importance to the public and policy makers.     

The Funding of Research in Social-Cultural Anthropology at the National Science Foundation

The National Science Foundation is the largest single source of finds for research targeted in cultural anthropology. The patterns of funding for "senior" research (post-Ph.D.) since 1956 are described and analyzed. Total dollars spent have increased, but the average grant size has decreased in recent years. The chances of getting funding are found not to be different if one is female or more senior, has resubmitted a previously declined proposal, or has a Ph.D. from an "elite" program. Smaller proposals and proposals from "elite" institutions have a slightly higher probability of getting funded. Differences in funding across research areas (geographical and substantive) are also discussed.     

Some implications of paleoecology for contemporary ecology

The paleoecological record allows contemporary ecologists to put current phenomena into the context of a longer time-frame, thereby providing the opportunity to evaluate the importance of slowly operating processes, past cyclic or unusual events, disturbance regimes, and historically constrained phenomena. We briefly outline the environmental history of the Quaternary, discuss the spatial and temporal resolution of the paleoecological evidence for biotic change, and summarize data relevant to such current issues as the nature of the biotic community, the role of disturbance, stability versus rapid change, evolutionary theory, explanations of species diversity, and refugia theory. Finally, we offer examples of the utility of paleoecological techniques for ecologists and environmental scientists.     

Interdisciplinary research for the proposal of the Urban Biosphere Reserve of Rome Municipality

Abstract

The issue of urban sustainability is considered within the context of the metropolis of Rome, the capital of Italy. The aim is pursued through an Urban Biosphere Reserve proposal, drawn up by an interdisciplinary group of experts comprising landscape ecologists, geologists, plant ecologists, zoologists, geographers, city planners and environmental psychologists. The potential applicability of this project on an international level is discussed, with particular focus on its importance as (i) one of the first proposals of an Urban Biosphere Reserve encompassing the whole municipality of a large city, (ii) an original approach to urban ecosystem investigations within the framework of landscape ecology principles, and (iii) a good example of cooperation between scientists and local decision-makers to preserve the cultural and landscape identity in an urban and periurban context.     

The Impact of Funding through the RF President’s Grants for Young Scientists (the field – Medicine) on Research Productivity: A Quasi-Experimental Study and a Brief Systematic Review

The impact of grants on research productivity has been investigated by a number of retrospective studies. The results of these studies vary considerably. The objective of my study was to investigate the impact of funding through the RF President’s grants for young scientists on the research productivity of awarded applicants. The study compared the number of total articles and citations for awarded and rejected applicants who in 2007 took part in competitions for young candidates of science (CoS’s) and doctors of science (DoS’s) in the scientific field of medicine. The bibliometric analysis was conducted for the period from 2003 to 2012 (five years before and after the competition). The source of bibliometric data is the eLIBRARY.RU database. The impact of grants on the research productivity of Russian young scientists was assessed using the meta-analytical approach based on data from quasi-experimental studies conducted in other countries. The competition featured 149 CoS’s and 41 DoS’s, out of which 24 (16%) and 22 (54%) applicants, respectively, obtained funding. No difference in the number of total articles and citations at baseline, as well as in 2008–2012, for awarded and rejected applicants was found. The combination of data from the Russian study and other quasi-experimental studies (6 studies, 10 competitions) revealed a small treatment effect – an increase in the total number of publications over a 4–5-year period after the competition by 1.23 (95% CI 0.48–1.97). However, the relationship between the number of total publications published by applicants before and after the competition revealed that this treatment effect is an effect of the “maturation” of scientists with a high baseline publication activity – not of grant funding.     

Carbon Offsets as Ecological Restorations

The explosive growth of carbon markets is creating unprecedented opportunities for landscape‐scale restoration worldwide. Most mandatory and voluntary greenhouse gas reduction programs allow use of carbon offset credits, including biosequestration projects, to replace actual emission reductions. Are the market schemes configured in a way that promotes ecosystem recovery and long‐term carbon storage? As importantly, is it likely that these efforts will provide significant social and environmental co‐benefits to justify trading offsets rather than actually reducing emissions? Compared with social scientists working in sustainable development, restoration ecologists have not offered much advice on the way carbon markets could be configured to support lasting restorations. Under current standards, the market price is likely governing the quality of restorations, not the reverse. A variety of reforms are needed to ensure that biosequestration projects deliver real, additional, and permanent removals of carbon dioxide. In particular, developing and adopting social and environmental impact assessment tools, changing accounting practices to allow for natural disturbances, universal adoption of strong additionality testing, and supporting critical research through tonnage fees could substantially improve what is accomplished through carbon offsets. Given the magnitude and importance of what carbon markets are attempting to achieve, insights from restoration ecologists are urgently needed to help shape their future.     

基于Web of Science的国际海草研究文献计量评价

海草及其与周围环境形成的海草场是近海海洋生态系统的重要组成部分,具有多种重要的生态服务功能。相较于红树林和珊瑚礁,国内外学者和公众对海草的关注度偏低,至今对国际海草研究的现状、趋势和热点等的认识还较为有限。检索了1983-2017年Web of Science的SCI-E数据库中收录的海草研究相关文献,借助文献计量信息可视化分析方法,从年度发文量、研究力量和研究热点与主题等方面进行了较为系统的文献计量评价,以期阐明国内外海草研究的态势与热点。结果表明:1983-2017年间国际海草研究的文献数量总体呈明显上升趋势,该领域发文量排前3位的国家是美国、澳大利亚和西班牙;全球发文量最多的机构是佛罗里达州立大学,其次是西班牙高等科学研究理事会与美国国家海洋和大气管理局;发文总量较多的作者是Duarte CM、Marba N和Fourqurean JW,近3年发文量最高的是学者Santos R;刊文量最多的期刊分别是《Marine Ecology Progress Series》、《Aquatic Botany》和《Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science》,刊文量前15期刊中影响因子最高的是《Limnology and Oceanography》(3.969)。在国家、机构与作者合作方面,西班牙、丹麦、荷兰、墨西哥4个国家形成了关系密切的合作网络,西班牙高等科学研究理事会和美国国家海洋和大气管理局是海草研究机构合作网络中的两个中心,Duarte CM、Marba N等较多学者间有紧密的学术合作关系。通过高频关键词的关联关系分析,表明该领域的3个热点研究主题,即环境(污染)胁迫对海草场的影响、海草的生长与生理生态和海草及其相关生态系统的结构与功能。中国科学院、中国海洋大学等机构为我国海草研究做出了重要贡献,但由于研究起步较晚,我国学者的发文量、篇均被引频次等与欧美国家学者存在一定差距,但近几年的发文量增长迅速,预计未来的发展趋势良好。     

Value of long‐term ecological studies

Long‐term ecological studies are critical for providing key insights in ecology, environmental change, natural resource management and biodiversity conservation. In this paper, we briefly discuss five key values of such studies. These are: (1) quantifying ecological responses to drivers of ecosystem change; (2) understanding complex ecosystem processes that occur over prolonged periods; (3) providing core ecological data that may be used to develop theoretical ecological models and to parameterize and validate simulation models; (4) acting as platforms for collaborative studies, thus promoting multidisciplinary research; and (5) providing data and understanding at scales relevant to management, and hence critically supporting evidence‐based policy, decision making and the management of ecosystems. We suggest that the ecological research community needs to put higher priority on communicating the benefits of long‐term ecological studies to resource managers, policy makers and the general public. Long‐term research will be especially important for tackling large‐scale emerging problems confronting humanity such as resource management for a rapidly increasing human population, mass species extinction, and climate change detection, mitigation and adaptation. While some ecologically relevant, long‐term data sets are now becoming more generally available, these are exceptions. This deficiency occurs because ecological studies can be difficult to maintain for long periods as they exceed the length of government administrations and funding cycles. We argue that the ecological research community will need to coordinate ongoing efforts in an open and collaborative way, to ensure that discoverable long‐term ecological studies do not become a long‐term deficiency. It is important to maintain publishing outlets for empirical field‐based ecology, while simultaneously developing new systems of recognition that reward ecologists for the use and collaborative sharing of their long‐term data sets. Funding schemes must be re‐crafted to emphasize collaborative partnerships between field‐based ecologists, theoreticians and modellers, and to provide financial support that is committed over commensurate time frames.     

To Crowdfund Research,Scientists Must Build an Audience for Their Work

As rates of traditional sources of scientific funding decline, scientists have become increasingly interested in crowdfunding as a means of bringing in new money for research. In fields where crowdfunding has become a major venue for fundraising such as the arts and technology, building an audience for one''s work is key for successful crowdfunding. For science, to what extent does audience building, via engagement and outreach, increase a scientist''s abilities to bring in money via crowdfunding? Here we report on an analysis of the #SciFund Challenge, a crowdfunding experiment in which 159 scientists attempted to crowdfund their research. Using data gathered from a survey of participants, internet metrics, and logs of project donations, we find that public engagement is the key to crowdfunding success. Building an audience or “fanbase” and actively engaging with that audience as well as seeking to broaden the reach of one''s audience indirectly increases levels of funding. Audience size and effort interact to bring in more people to view a scientist''s project proposal, leading to funding. We discuss how projects capable of raising levels of funds commensurate with traditional funding agencies will need to incorporate direct involvement of the public with science. We suggest that if scientists and research institutions wish to tap this new source of funds, they will need to encourage and reward activities that allow scientists to engage with the public.