Lethal interactions among vertebrate top predators: a review of concepts,assumptions and terminology

Lethal interactions among large vertebrate predators have long interested researchers because of ecological and conservation issues. Research focusing on lethal interactions among vertebrate top predators has used several terms with a broad sense, and also introduced new terminology. We analysed the published literature with reference to the main underlying concepts and the use of terminology and its ecological context. The most frequently used terms in the literature were ‘predation’, ‘intraguild predation’, ‘interference competition’, and ‘interspecific killing’. Most studies presented evidence of the killing of the victim (77%), but information regarding its consumption was not given in 48% of cases. More than half of the analysed studies (56%) had no solid information on the degree of competition between interacting species. By reviewing definitions and their underlying assumptions, we demonstrate that lethal interactions among large vertebrate predators could be designated using four terms—‘predation’, ‘intraguild predation’, ‘interspecific competitive killing’, and ‘superpredation’—without the need to employ additional terminology that may increase confusion and misuse. For a correct framework of these lethal interactions it is critical to assess if the kill is consumed, if the victim is indeed a competitor of the killer, and if the prey is a high‐order predator. However, these elements of the framework are simultaneously the most common constraints to studies of lethal interactions, since they often require a great effort to obtain. The proper use of terms and concepts is fundamental to understanding the causes behind lethal interactions and, ultimately, what is actually happening in these complex interactions.     

Problems of terminology in the teaching of plant water relations

The considerable variation and confusion in terminology used in the teaching of plant water relations is discussed. The concept of water potential is described briefly and compared with the older concepts of diffusion pressure deficit and suction pressure. The advantages of using water potential terminology are considered. Reference is made to some well-known student texts to illustrate the conflicting meanings of osmotic terms and symbols, and attention is drawn to the problems which arise when authors mix old and new terms. It is recommended that the new terminology should be incorporated into school examination syllabuses and textbooks as soon as possible.     

Mobilizing metaphors: the popular use of keystone,flagship and umbrella species concepts

Misrepresentation of terminology is a major impediment for attempts at enhancing public conservation literacy. Despite being critically important for improving conservation practice, there have been few systematic analyses of the popular use of conservation terminology. This paper draws from science communication studies and metaphor analysis, to examine how keystone, flagship and umbrella species concepts are used and represented in non-academic contexts. 557 news articles containing these terms were systematically analyzed. Mammals featured in 60% of articles on keystones, 55% on flagships and 63% on umbrella species. Number of articles explaining the terms keystone (35%) and flagship (31%) was low, and keystones were the most misrepresented term. Keystones were metaphorically linked with balance, flagships with representation and umbrella species with protection. These metaphors influenced public interpretation of scientific terminology, oriented actions towards select species, and led to a valuation of such actions. Together, the findings highlight three important aspects of popular use of conservation terminology: (1) communication is largely biased towards mammals, (2) everyday language plays a vital role in the interpretation of concepts, and (3) metaphors influence peoples’ actions and understanding. Conservation biologists need to engage with issues of language if public conservation literacy is to be improved. Further evaluations of concepts with high public and policy relevance, systematic identification of communication shortfalls, and linguistic assessments prior to promoting new terms are potential ways of achieving this.     

A consistent terminology for quantifying species diversity?

There is a genuine need for consensus on a clear terminology in the study of species diversity given that the nature of the components of diversity is the subject of an ongoing debate and may be the key to understanding changes in ecosystem processes. A recent and thought-provoking paper (Jurasinski et al. Oecologia 159:15–26, 2009) draws attention to the lack of precision with which the terms alpha, beta, and gamma diversity are used and proposes three new terms in their place. While this valuable effort may improve our understanding of the different facets of species diversity, it still leaves us far from achieving a consistent terminology. As such, the conceptual contribution of these authors is limited and does little to elucidate the facets of species diversity. It is, however, a good starting point for an in-depth review of the available concepts and methods.     

Clarifying the Nomenclature in Microbial Weed Control

Correct terminology is essential to promote the concepts of biological control. In the current literature there are many terms used interchangeably and often inappropriately. The purpose of this paper is to examine the overlapping and sometimes contradictory terms used in biological weed control and to suggest a standardized usage to clarify existing terms. This is achieved through a hierarchical classification of existing terms (bioherbicide, mycoherbicide) and the introduction of new terms such as biopestistat (an inundatively applied, living organism which reduces the competitive ability of the target weed to below a desired threshold) and microbially derived phytotoxin (secondary metabolite used in weed management practices as an analogue of a chemical herbicide).     

On the Numerous Concepts in Invasion Biology

The study of biological invasions has triggered the production of a diversity of concepts. The terminology has, however, often been applied inconsistently and inaccurately. This article lists and assesses the most commonly used terms and concepts in invasion ecology. In each case the most coherent definition and use is suggested.     

BILDUNG UND GEBRAUCH VON BEGRIFFEN IN DER PALÄOÖKOLOGIE

During the past 20 years, palaeoecology has established itself as a concept in palaeontology and geology. As in other interdisciplinary sciences, the interchange of methods and terminology between the branches involved has led to changes in the meaning of the terms, and changes or confusion in the corresponding scientific concepts. This calls for stricter adherence to the original definition of the terms in many cases and for their redefinition in others. Starting with a critical review of the scientific and methodological range of palaeoecology, this paper presents a reconsideration of its basic concepts, with proposals concerning the conservation or redefinition of terms and with special regard to terms coined in German literature. It is desirable that similar revisions be undertaken in other language areas in order to attain a stricter, internationalized terminology, preferably substantiated in a dictionary.     

Seed,dispersal, microsite,habitat and recruitment limitation: identification of terms and concepts in studies of limitations

Recently, there is an increase in number of studies concerned with the effect of various types of limitations on species local population size and distribution pattern at the landscape scale. The terminology used to describe these limitations is, however, very inconsistent. Since the different terms often appear in conclusions of the papers, the inconsistency in their use obscures the message of these papers. In this study, we review the current uses of these terms, identify the basic concepts involved in the discussion of a limitation and link the concepts with the currently used terms. Finally, we discuss the experimental approaches used to assess the different types of limitations. We differentiated four basic concepts resulting from the combination of limitation by environment versus ability to grow and spread, and two spatial scales (local and regional scale). The two concepts at each spatial scale are expected to form a gradient of all possible combinations of the two respective types of limitations. In the considerations of various experimental approaches used to assess these limitations, we conclude that sowing experiments, i.e. seed addition into existing populations or seed introduction into unoccupied habitats, are the only reliable types of evidence for the different types of limitations.     

Signal propagation in proteins and relation to equilibrium fluctuations

Elastic network (EN) models have been widely used in recent years for describing protein dynamics, based on the premise that the motions naturally accessible to native structures are relevant to biological function. We posit that equilibrium motions also determine communication mechanisms inherent to the network architecture. To this end, we explore the stochastics of a discrete-time, discrete-state Markov process of information transfer across the network of residues. We measure the communication abilities of residue pairs in terms of hit and commute times, i.e., the number of steps it takes on an average to send and receive signals. Functionally active residues are found to possess enhanced communication propensities, evidenced by their short hit times. Furthermore, secondary structural elements emerge as efficient mediators of communication. The present findings provide us with insights on the topological basis of communication in proteins and design principles for efficient signal transduction. While hit/commute times are information-theoretic concepts, a central contribution of this work is to rigorously show that they have physical origins directly relevant to the equilibrium fluctuations of residues predicted by EN models.     

A neutral terminology to define 'invasive' species

The use of simple terms to articulate ecological concepts can confuse ideological debates and undermine management efforts. This problem is particularly acute in studies of nonindigenous species, which alternatively have been called ‘exotic’, ‘introduced’, ‘invasive’ and ‘naturalised’, among others. Attempts to redefine commonly used terminology have proven difficult because authors are often partial to particular definitions. In an attempt to form a consensus on invasion terminology, we synthesize an invasional framework based on current models that break the invasion process into a series of consecutive, obligatory stages. Unlike previous efforts, we propose a neutral terminology based on this framework. This ‘stage‐based’ terminology can be used to supplement terms with ambiguous meanings (e.g. invasive, introduced, naturalized, weedy, etc.), and thereby improve clarity of future studies. This approach is based on the concept of ‘propagule pressure’ and has the additional benefit of identifying factors affecting the success of species at each stage. Under this framework, invasions can be more objectively understood as biogeographical, rather than taxonomic, phenomena; and author preferences in the use of existing terminology can be addressed. An example of this recommended protocol might be: ‘We examined distribution data to contrast the characteristics of invasive species (stages IVa and V) and noninvasive species (stages III and IVb)’.     

Ecosystem services and biodiversity conservation: concepts and a glossary

The RUBICODE project draws on expertise from a range of disciplines to develop and integrate frameworks for assessing the impacts of environmental change on ecosystem service provision, and for rationalising biodiversity conservation in that light. With such diverse expertise and concepts involved, interested parties will not be familiar with all the key terminology. This paper defines the terms as used within the project and, where useful, discusses some reasoning behind the definitions. Terms are grouped by concept rather than being listed alphabetically.     

Text mining and ontologies in biomedicine: making sense of raw text

The volume of biomedical literature is increasing at such a rate that it is becoming difficult to locate, retrieve and manage the reported information without text mining, which aims to automatically distill information, extract facts, discover implicit links and generate hypotheses relevant to user needs. Ontologies, as conceptual models, provide the necessary framework for semantic representation of textual information. The principal link between text and an ontology is terminology, which maps terms to domain-specific concepts. This paper summarises different approaches in which ontologies have been used for text-mining applications in biomedicine.     

What biological invasions ‘are’ is a matter of perspective

Invasion research today integrates active fields like biogeography, nature conservation, ecology, and evolutionary biology, and each of these fields contributes its own conceptual and terminological background. In this essay we advance the view that this is the reason why discussions on terminology keep flaring up time and time again. Our basic argument is that biological invasions cannot be perceived and defined independent of the specific research motivation. There are different, but equally valuable perspectives on biological invasions, each entailing a specific opinion about what the peculiarity of invasions is. We argue that a uniform usage of terms is not feasible, and even not desirable for invasion research, and suggest that the existing plurality of terms and concepts should be taken as an incentive to discuss the implications of different definitions. A stronger awareness and acknowledgement of the concepts underlying the terms used in interrelated research fields will enhance communication and promote progress in invasion research towards integrative, problem-oriented transdisciplinarity.     

Morphological indicators of foot posture in mammals: a statistical and biomechanical analysis

Mammalian foot posture has previously been described through the three-tiered hierarchy of plantigrady, digitigrady and unguligrady. This broadly applicable terminology has been used to categorize both living and fossil taxa, despite the fact that these postural grades, as traditionally used, do not rely on strict mechanical, kinematic or morphologic definitions. This paper redefines these terms: hind foot posture can be more accurately categorized if these definitions are based on the primary joint of flexure in the standing position. Once postures are so defined, a number of morphological features in taxa can be correlated with the use of particular postures. Bivariate and multivariate statistical analyses of morphological measurements from a large ( n = 61) group of plantigrade and digitigrade eutherian mammals indicate that foot posture can be reliably detected from a relatively small number of morphological measurements on a few limb and tarsal bones (femur, astragalus, calcaneum and metatarsals). The features important in distinguishing postural grades fit expectations from biomechanical theory, and should prove useful for the prediction of foot posture in fossil taxa, particularly when complete specimens are not known.     

Editor's column: Planktic, nektic, benthic

The terms planktic, nektic , and benthic are taken as examples of the construction and malconstruction of biological and geological terms. Both in vernacular terminology and systematic nomenclature the formation of adjectives and compounds follows the same basic rules - keep the three concepts of stem, suffix, and connective vowel clear, and most of the serious malconstructions will be avoided.     

The origin, evolution and proposed stabilization of the terms 'genome size' and 'C-value' to describe nuclear DNA contents

BACKGROUND: Perusing the literature on nuclear 'genome size' shows that the term is not stabilized, but applied with different meanings. It is used for the DNA content of the complete chromosome complement (with chromosome number n), for which others use 'C-value', but also for the DNA content of the monoploid chromosome set only (with chromosome number x). Reconsideration of the terminology is required. AIM: Our purpose is to discuss the currently unstable usage of the terms 'genome size' and 'C-value', and to propose a new unified terminology which can describe nuclear DNA contents with ease and without ambiguity. PROPOSALS: We argue that there is a need to maintain the term genome size in a broad sense as a covering term, because it is widely understood, short and phonetically pleasing. Proposals are made for a unified and consensual terminology. In this, 'genome size' should mean the DNA content based on chromosome number x and n, and should be used mainly in a general sense. The necessary distinction of the kinds of genome sizes is made by the adjectives 'monoploid' and the neology 'holoploid'. 'Holoploid genome size' is a shortcut for the DNA content of the whole chromosome complement characteristic for the individual (and by generalization for the population, species, etc.) irrespective of the degree of generative polyploidy, aneuploidies, etc. This term was lacking in the terminology and is for reasons of linguistic consistency indispensable. The abbreviated terms for monoploid and holoploid genome size are, respectively, Cx-value and C-value. Quantitative data on genome size should always indicate the C-level by a numerical prefix, such as 1C, 1Cx, 2C, etc. The proposed conventions cover general fundamental aspects relating to genome size in plants and animals, but do not treat in detail cytogenetic particularities (e.g. haploids, hybrids, etc.) which will need minor extensions of the present scheme in a future paper.     

Combining Evidence, Specificity, and Proximity towards the Normalization of Gene Ontology Terms in Text

Structured information provided by manual annotation of proteins with Gene Ontology concepts represents a high-quality reliable data source for the research community. However, a limited scope of proteins is annotated due to the amount of human resources required to fully annotate each individual gene product from the literature. We introduce a novel method for automatic identification of GO terms in natural language text. The method takes into consideration several features: (1) the evidence for a GO term given by the words occurring in text, (2) the proximity between the words, and (3) the specificity of the GO terms based on their information content. The method has been evaluated on the BioCreAtIvE corpus and has been compared to current state of the art methods. The precision reached 0.34 at a recall of 0.34 for the identified terms at rank 1. In our analysis, we observe that the identification of GO terms in the _cellular component_ subbranch of GO is more accurate than for terms from the other two subbranches. This observation is explained by the average number of words forming the terminology over the different subbranches.     

Anatomical terminology, then and now

Anatomical terminology, which had become chaotic by the nineteenth century, was codified in the BNA of 1895, when some 5,000 terms were carefully selected from among approximately 50,000 names. The BNA and its three major revisions (BR, INA, PNA) are here reviewed and placed in historical perspective. It is emphasized that many anatomical terms are very ancient and that the various nomenclatures are not 'new terminologies' but rather, for the most part, selections of already existing names. This can be seen clearly in the naming of the cranial nerves. Another example, the carpal and tarsal bones, is analysed in detail. Of the 8 carpal bones, for instance, the current names for 7 of them are those proposed by Henle in 1855. All the nomenclatures are, as they should be, in Latin, but it is understood that translations of many terms into other languages are necessary. Although views pro and con have been expressed, current usage favours the erect posture and the anatomical position as a basis, as well as the elimination of eponyms. In both teaching and research, the Nomina has been of great benefit in reducing drastically the number of unnecessary synonyms and in providing a coherent, internationally accepted system that is now the standard in anatomical textbooks. Hence, further use of the Nomina should be encouraged.     

Terminology and quantification of environmental heterogeneity in species‐richness research

Spatial environmental heterogeneity (EH) is an important driver of species diversity, and its influence on species richness has been analysed for numerous taxa, in diverse ecological settings, and over a large range of spatial scales. The variety and ambiguity of concepts and terminology, however, have hampered comparisons among studies. Based on a systematic literature survey of 192 studies including 1148 data points, we provide an overview of terms and measures related to EH, and the mechanisms that relate EH to species richness of plants and animals in terrestrial systems. We identify 165 different measures used to quantify EH, referred to by more than 350 measure names. We classify these measures according to their calculation method and subject area, finding that most studies have analysed heterogeneity in land cover, topography, and vegetation, whereas comparatively few studies have focused on climatic or soil EH. Overall, elevation range emerged as the most frequent measure in our dataset. We find that there is no consensus in the literature about terms (such as ‘habitat diversity’ or ‘habitat complexity’), their meanings and associated quantification methods. More than 100 different terms have been used to denote EH, with largely imprecise delimitations. We reveal trends in use of terms and quantification with respect to spatial scales, study taxa, and locations. Finally, we discuss mechanisms involved in EH–richness relationships, differentiating between effects on species coexistence, persistence, and diversification. This review aims at guiding researchers in their selection of heterogeneity measures. At the same time, it shows the need for precise terminology and avoidance of ambiguous synonyms to enhance understanding and foster among‐study comparisons and synthesis.