Palaeoecology and long-term human impact in plant biology

Human impact is a collective concept that requires a holistic approach. Human needs eventually caused the development of cultural landscapes that are at the base of the current landscapes. The papers included in this special issue are evidence that cooperation between different disciplines helps to understand the trend of environmental transformation from past to future. Palaeoecology studies ecosystems of the past and needs archaeology to deepen sociocultural intervention in environmental patterns. In a similar way, ecologists have to include the complexity of societies and economies into landscape ecology by adding principles of human ecology into sustainability science. A brief history of previous actions encouraging the integration of palynology, archaeobotany, archaeology, botany and ecology is reported. The application of integrated studies comes to a new point, the research on the Long-Term Human Impact.     

Toward a predictive macrosystems framework for migration ecology

Concern about the sustainability of intercontinental‐scale migration systems grows apace with global change. Traditional organism‐centred approaches to this problem have provided insights at the population level, but not at the systems level. We are sceptical that an accumulation of data from a species‐by‐species approach will yield an understanding of these systems in the near term. As an alternative, we advocate a new research programme that grows from an explicitly system‐based framework that leverages existing Earth observation infrastructure to make inferences directly at the macrosystem level. We illustrate how this approach can be used to generate and test system‐level predictions, using NEXRAD radar data as an example. We urge organismal ecologists to recognize that some of the most urgent migration questions are at the macrosystem scale and that tackling these questions requires an interdisciplinary approach if we are to make progress at a pace that exceeds that of climate change.     

Ten Heuristics for Interdisciplinary Modeling Projects

Complex environmental and ecological problems require collaborative, interdisciplinary efforts. A common approach to integrating disciplinary perspectives on these problems is to develop simulation models in which the linkages between system components are explicitly represented. There is, however, little guidance in the literature on how such models should be developed through collaborative teamwork. In this paper, we offer a set of heuristics (rules of thumb) that address a range of challenges associated with this enterprise, including the selection of team members, negotiating a consensus view of the research problem, prototyping and refining models, the role of sensitivity analysis, and the importance of team communication. These heuristics arose from a comparison of our experiences with several interdisciplinary modeling projects. We use one such experience—a project in which natural scientists, social scientists, and local residents came together to investigate the sustainability of small indigenous communities in the Arctic—to illustrate the heuristics. Received 27 April 2001; accepted 12 November 2001.     

New paradigms for supporting the resilience of marine ecosystems

Resource managers and scientists from disparate disciplines are rising to the challenge of understanding and moderating human impacts on marine ecosystems. Traditional barriers to communication between marine ecologists, fisheries biologists, social scientists and economists are beginning to break down, and the distinction between applied and basic research is fading. These ongoing trends arise, in part, from an increasing awareness of the profound influence of people on the functioning of all marine ecosystems, an increased focus on spatial and temporal scale, and a renewed assessment of the role of biodiversity in the sustainability of ecosystem goods and services upon which human societies depend. Here, we highlight the emergence of a complex systems approach for sustaining and repairing marine ecosystems, linking ecological resilience to governance structures, economics and society.     

Building a Micro Foundation for Industrial Ecology

Abstract: Industrial ecologists study phenomena at several distinct scales, and linking the resulting insights could advance the field. The disciplines of ecology and economics have each attempted, with partial success, to accomplish this by building a behavioral micro foundation, and industrial ecology should do the same. These fields all study evolving systems made up of autonomous individuals who operate in a largely self-interested manner, exhibit diverse behaviors, and self-organize many higher-level structures such as communities or sectors in a bottom-up fashion. Industrial ecologists should explicitly attempt to integrate empirical and normative views about agency, and more carefully distinguish between two types of agents—firms and individual humans.     

Towards a shared understanding of sustainability for neglected tropical disease programs

BackgroundSustainability within neglected tropical disease (NTD) programs is a complex and challenging issue. The need for a shared understanding about what sustainability means for NTD programs is more important than ever as stakeholders are currently realigning for the next decade of NTD programming with the launch of WHO’s new NTD roadmap for 2012–2030. The aim of this paper is to assess different perspectives to generate a working definition of sustainability for NTD programs.Methodology/Principal findingsThis study surveyed affiliates of the NTD NGO Network (NNN) about their definitions of sustainability and then analyzed the data using an inductive and deductive process. The research team drafted a sustainability statement based on the survey findings and then solicited and incorporated feedback on the statement from a diverse group of expert reviewers. The final statement includes a working definition of sustainability for NTD programs that highlights three key essential components to sustainability: domestic commitment, responsive resource mobilization, and accountability.Conclusions/SignificanceThis research resulted in a sustainability statement, based on a survey and extensive consultation with stakeholders, that represents a starting point for shared understanding around the concept of sustainability for NTD programs. Future collaborative work should build off this definition and seek to incorporate indicators for sustainability into programmatic decision-making.     

How Multidisciplinary Are the Multidisciplinary Journals Science and Nature?

Interest in cross-disciplinary research knowledge interchange runs high. Review processes at funding agencies, such as the U.S. National Science Foundation, consider plans to disseminate research across disciplinary bounds. Publication in the leading multidisciplinary journals, Nature and Science, may signify the epitome of successful interdisciplinary integration of research knowledge and cross-disciplinary dissemination of findings. But how interdisciplinary are they? The journals are multidisciplinary, but do the individual articles themselves draw upon multiple fields of knowledge and does their influence span disciplines? This research compares articles in three fields (Cell Biology, Physical Chemistry, and Cognitive Science) published in a leading disciplinary journal in each field to those published in Nature and Science. We find comparable degrees of interdisciplinary integration and only modest differences in cross-disciplinary diffusion. That said, though the rate of out-of-field diffusion might be comparable, the sheer reach of Nature and Science, indicated by their potent Journal Impact Factors, means that the diffusion of knowledge therein can far exceed that of leading disciplinary journals in some fields (such as Physical Chemistry and Cognitive Science in our samples).     

When to use what: Methods for weighting and aggregating sustainability indicators

ContextSustainability indices (SIs) have become increasingly important to sustainability research and practice. However, while the validity of SIs is heavily dependent on how their components are weighted and aggregated, the typology and applicability of the existing weighting and aggregation methods remain poorly understood.ObjectivesTo close the knowledge gap regarding when to use which weighting and aggregation methods for constructing SIs, we review the most commonly used methods for weighting and aggregating SIs, discuss their benefits and drawbacks, and suggest a process-oriented approach for choosing appropriate weighting and aggregation methods depending on research objectives.MethodsOur review synthesis was based on peer-reviewed journal articles, books, and reports by international organizations, governmental agencies, and research institutions. After carefully examining their principles, characteristics, and applications, we selected and classified the frequently used methods for indicator weighting and aggregation.ResultsWe systematically discuss the benefits and drawbacks of nine weighting methods and three aggregation methods. We propose a four-step process for choosing the most suitable weighting and aggregation methods based on: research purposes, spatial and temporal scales, and sustainability perspectives.ConclusionsIn this research, we chose the most commonly used methods for weighting and aggregating SIs and analyzed the characteristics, strengths and weaknesses of each method. We found that choosing appropriate weighting and aggregation methods for a specific sustainability assessment project is an extremely important and challenging task. To meet this challenge, we propose a process-oriented approach for properly selecting methods according to the purpose, scale and sustainability concept. This approach can facilitate the proper selection of these methods in sustainability research and practice.     

Talking Frogs: The Role of Communication in Ecological Research on Private Land

This paper argues that improving the communication between landholders and ecologists will result in better conservation outcomes for ecosystem management on private land. It examines a case study of ecological research on frogs undertaken on private, agricultural land in south-eastern Australia. The paper questions the traditional separation of ecological science from landholders specifically and the public in general. In addressing this issue the authors wish to improve the relevance of ecology for landholders, raise the profile of social science for ecologists working on private land and examine the implications of improving ecologist – landholder relationships. For landholders, an improved understanding of the ecological context of their agricultural activities may lead to sustainability gains. For ecologists, a deeper appreciation for the social context of their ecological research provides an opportunity to see how their work is perceived and/or acted upon in practice. For both parties, a communicative relationship may minimise future need for ecosystem repair. Such an approach (for both landholders and ecologists) can lead to the break down of stereotypes and/or a greater appreciation of the others’ perspectives, constraints and values with respect to conservation on private land. In the productive discussions arising from conversations between landholders and ecologists, new approaches to sustainable land management and nature conservation may emerge.     

Improving the dialogue between public health and ecosystem science on antimicrobial resistance

The concept of health has evolved markedly from a bio-medical, mechanistic model to include an interdisciplinary perspective where human, animal and ecosystem health are integrated. One Health, EcoHealth and Planetary Health are examples of approaches to health advocating collaboration and interdisciplinarity at multiple levels. In practice, successful integration has been challenging and in particular, understanding of the ecosystem component of health lags behind the human and animal components. Antimicrobial resistance is an important threat to human health, which develops, is maintained and transmitted at the human–animal–environment interface. While the human and livestock components of resistance are well understood, this is not the case for the ecosystem component. This gap in knowledge leads to a poor representation of the environmental dimension of antimicrobial resistance in key policy documents and in interdisciplinary work around this issue. We interviewed a group of leading researchers in public health and ecology to explore their perceptions on the integration of ecosystem and public health research in the context of antimicrobial resistance. Experts from both fields considered that research on antimicrobial resistance is only beginning to consider ecosystems. They highlighted various barriers that have contributed to limited integration, such as conceptual barriers, and a lack of knowledge translators as facilitators. Better interdisciplinary integration is needed to address the challenge of antimicrobial resistance. Improving the dialogues between the disciplines is a necessary first step in this process. Greater engagement of ecologists is needed to build a more complete understanding of the role of ecosystems in human health, and identify how human interactions with ecosystems can both contribute to, and restrict, the development of antimicrobial resistance.     

Ecosystem Approaches to Health for a Global Sustainability Agenda

International research agendas are placing greater emphasis on the need for more sustainable development to achieve gains in global health. Research using ecosystem approaches to health, and the wider field of ecohealth, contribute to this goal, by addressing health in the context of inter-linked social and ecological systems. We review recent contributions to conceptual development of ecosystem approaches to health, with insights from their application in international development research. Various similar frameworks have emerged to apply the approach. Most predicate integration across disciplines and sectors, stakeholder participation, and an articulation of sustainability and equity to achieve relevant actions for change. Drawing on several frameworks and on case studies, a model process for application of ecosystem approaches is proposed, consisting of an iterative cycles of participatory study design, knowledge generation, intervention, and systematization of knowledge. The benefits of the research approach include innovations that improve health, evidence-based policies that reduce health risks; empowerment of marginalized groups through knowledge gained, and more effective engagement of decision makers. With improved tools to describe environmental and economic dimensions, and explicit strategies for scaling-up the use and application of research results, the field of ecohealth will help integrate both improved health and sustainability into the development agenda.     

Future research in weight bias: What next?

The 2015 Canadian Weight Bias Summit disseminated the newest research advances and brought together 40 experts, stakeholders, and policy makers in various disciplines in health, education, and public policy to identify future research directions in weight bias. In this paper we aim to share the results of the Summit as well as encourage international and interdisciplinary research collaborations in weight bias reduction. Consensus emerged on six research areas that warrant further investigation in weight bias: costs, causes, measurement, qualitative research and lived experience, interventions, and learning from other models of discrimination. These discussions highlighted three key lessons that were informed by the Summit, namely: language matters, the voices of people living with obesity should be incorporated, and interdisciplinary stakeholders should be included.     

Contributions of MIR to soundscape ecology. Part 3: Tagging and classifying audio features using a multi-labeling k-nearest neighbor approach

Scientists are using acoustic monitoring to assess the impact of altered soundscapes on wildlife communities and human systems. In the soundscape ecology field, monitoring and analyses approaches rely on the interdisciplinary intersection of ecology, acoustics, and computer science. Combining theory and practice of each field in the context of Knowledge Discovery in Databases (KDD), soundscape ecologists provide innovative monitoring solutions for ecologically-driven research questions. We propose a soundscape content analysis framework for improved knowledge outcome with assistance of the new multi-label (ML) concept.Here, we investigated the effectiveness of a ML k-nearest neighbor algorithm (ML-kNN) for labeling concurrent soundscape components within a single recording. We manually labeled 1200 field recordings for the presence of soundscape components and extracted ecological acoustic features, audio profile features, and Gaussian-mixture model features for each recording. Then, we tested the ML-kNN algorithm accuracy with well-established metrics adapted to ML learning.We found that seventeen unique acoustic features could predict a set of biophonic, geophonic, and anthrophonic labels for a single field recording with average precision of 0.767. However, certain labels were predicted incorrectly depending on the time of day and co-occurrence of that label with another label, suggesting further refinement is needed to improve the accuracy of predicted labels.Overall, this ML classification approach could enable researchers to label field recordings more quickly and generate an “alert” system for monitoring changes in a specific sound class. Ultimately, the adaptation of the ML algorithm may provide soundscape ecologists with new metadata labels that are searchable in large databases of soundscape field recordings.     

A multifaceted framework to establish the presence of meaning in non-human communication

Does non-human communication, like language, involve meaning? This question guides our focus through an interdisciplinary review of the theories and terminology used to study meaning across disciplines and species. Until now, it has been difficult to apply the concept of meaning to communication in non-humans. This is partly because of the varied approaches to the study of meaning. Additionally, while there is a scholarly acknowledgement of potential meaning in non-human cognition, there is also scepticism when the topic of communication arises. We organise some of the key literature into a coherent framework that can bridge disciplines and species, to ensure that aspects of meaning are accurately and fairly compared. We clarify the growing view in the literature that, rather than requiring multiple definitions or being split into different types, meaning is a multifaceted yet still unified concept. In so doing, we propose that meaning is an umbrella term. Meaning cannot be summed up with a short definition or list of features, but involves multiple complexities that are outlined in our framework. Specifically, three global facets are needed to describe meaning: a Signal Meaning Facet, an Interactant Meaning Facet, and a Resultant Meaning Facet. Most importantly, we show that such analyses are possible to apply as much to non-humans as to humans. We also emphasise that meaning nuances differ among non-human species, making a dichotomous approach to meaning questionable. Instead, we show that a multifaceted approach to meaning establishes how meaning appears within highly diverse examples of non-human communication, in ways consistent with the phenomenon's presence in human non-verbal communication and language(s). Therefore, without further recourse to ‘functional’ approaches that circumvent the critical question of whether any non-human meaning exists, we show that the concept of meaning is suitable for evolutionary biologists, behavioural ecologists, and others to study, to establish exactly which species exhibit meaning in their communication and in what ways.     

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.     

A Toolkit for Ecosystem Ecologists in the Time of Big Science

Ecosystem ecologists are being challenged to address the increasingly complex problems that comprise Big Science. These problems include multiple levels of biological organization that cross multiple interacting temporal and spatial scales, from individual plants, animals, and microbes to landscapes, continents, and the globe. As technology improves, the availability of data, derived data products, and information to address these complex problems are increasing at finer and coarser scales of resolution, and legacy, dark data are brought to light. Data analytics are improving as big data increase in importance in other fields that are improving access to these data. New data sources (crowdsourcing, social media) and ease of communication and collaboration among ecosystem ecologists and other disciplines are increasingly possible via the internet. It is increasingly important that ecosystem ecologists be able to communicate their findings, and to translate their concepts and findings into concrete bits of information that a general public can understand. Traditional approaches that portray ecosystem sciences as a dichotomy between empirical research and theoretical research will keep the field from fully contributing to the complexity of global change questions, and will keep ecosystem ecologists from taking full advantage of the data and technology available. Building on previous research, we describe a more forward-looking, integrated empirical–theoretical modeling approach that is iterative with learning to take advantage of the elements of Big Science. We suggest that training ecosystem ecologists in this integrated approach will be critical to addressing complex Earth system science questions, now and in the future.     

Regional sustainability assessment framework for integrated coastal zone management: Satoumi,ecosystem services approach,and inclusive wealth

This study proposes a novel regional sustainability assessment framework for integrated coastal zone management (ICZM). Various ICZM indicators have been developed, but their management insights are not always clear. Our framework integrates three separately developed approaches with an explicit reflection of stakeholders’ values: Satoumi (a Japanese concept of socio-ecological production landscapes, SEPLs), ecosystem services approach (ESA), and inclusive wealth (IW). We suggest that the integration of Satoumi, a uniquely Japanese concept, with the ESA and IW complements each other and increases the effectiveness of all three approaches when applied to ICZM and decision making. Satoumi describes the desired state of a coastal zone. The ESA translates Satoumi into IW and helps explain which changes to ecosystems contribute to the asset quality (i.e., shadow prices). As a sustainability indicator, IW differs from other ecological indicators because it comprises human, natural, and manufactured capital assets and incorporates shadow prices to weigh the contribution of each asset to the present value of social welfare. Shadow prices may capture the quality of capital assets in terms of how much people value them, and can therefore be a direct management target for realizing a desired coastal zone. We propose adding two sustainability criteria, desired state and strong sustainability, to the original IW to make it operational. The framework was tested in Japan’s Seto Inland Sea, and the results were analyzed in depth. Based on the outcomes, we discuss the insights for ICZM and future research. While Satoumi is a Japanese concept, the framework could be applied to other countries where similar SEPLs exist.     

Review of Florida Red Tide and Human Health Effects

This paper reviews the literature describing research performed over the past decade on the known and possible exposures and human health effects associated with Florida red tides. These harmful algal blooms are caused by the dinoflagellate, Karenia brevis, and similar organisms, all of which produce a suite of natural toxins known as brevetoxins. Florida red tide research has benefited from a consistently funded, long term research program, that has allowed an interdisciplinary team of researchers to focus their attention on this specific environmental issue-one that is critically important to Gulf of Mexico and other coastal communities. This long-term interdisciplinary approach has allowed the team to engage the local community, identify measures to protect public health, take emerging technologies into the field, forge advances in natural products chemistry, and develop a valuable pharmaceutical product. The Review includes a brief discussion of the Florida red tide organisms and their toxins, and then focuses on the effects of these toxins on animals and humans, including how these effects predict what we might expect to see in exposed people.     

Progress in sustainability science: lessons learnt from current methodologies for sustainability assessment: Part 1

Purpose

Sustainability Science (SS) is considered an emerging discipline, applicative and solution-oriented whose aim is to handle environmental, social and economic issues in light of cultural, historic and institutional perspectives. The challenges of the discipline are not only related to better identifying the problems affecting sustainability but to the actual transition towards solutions adopting an integrated, comprehensive and participatory approach. This requires the definition of a common scientific paradigm in which integration and interaction amongst sectorial disciplines is of paramount relevance. In this context, life cycle thinking (LCT) and, in particular, life cycle-based methodologies and life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA) may play a crucial role. The paper illustrates the main challenges posed to sustainability assessment methodologies and related methods in terms of ontology, epistemology and methodology of SS. The aims of the analysis are twofold: (1) to identify the main features of methodologies for sustainability assessment and (2) to present key aspects for the development of robust and comprehensive sustainability assessment.

Methods

The current debate on SS addressing ontological, epistemological and methodological aspects has been reviewed, leading to the proposal of a conceptual framework for SS. In addition, a meta-review of recent studies on sustainability assessment methodologies and methods, focusing those life cycle based, supports the discussion on the main challenges for a comprehensive and robust approach to sustainability assessment. Starting from the results of the meta-review, we identified specific features of sustainable development-oriented methods: firstly, highlighting key issues towards robust methods for SS and, secondly, capitalising on the findings of each review’s paper. For each issue, a recommendation towards a robust sustainability assessment method is given. Existing limitations of sectorial academic inquiries and proposal for better integration and mainstreaming of SS are the key points under discussion.

Discussion

In the reviewed papers, LCT and its basic principles are acknowledged as relevant for sustainability assessment. Nevertheless, LCT is not considered as a reference approach in which other methods could also find a place. This aspect has to be further explored, addressing the lack of multi-disciplinary exchange and putting the mainstreaming of LCT as a priority on the agenda of both life cycle assessment and sustainability assessment experts. Crucial issues for further developing sustainability assessment methodologies and methods have been identified and can be summarised as follows: holistic and system wide approaches, shift from multi- towards trans-disciplinarity; multi-scale (temporal and geographical) perspectives; and better involvement and participation of stakeholders.

Conclusions

Those are also the main challenges posed to LCSA in terms of progress of ontology, epistemology and methodology in line with the progress of SS. The life cycle-based methodologies should be broadened from comparing alternatives and avoiding negative impacts, to also proactively enhancing positive impacts, and towards the achievement of sustainability goals.