Internet addiction and sleep quality: a response to Jahan et al. (2019)

Sleep and Biological Rhythms -     

Pigeon homing and magnetic fields: a response to Luschi et al. (1996)

This paper comments on an article ''Pigeon homing: evidence against reliance on magnetic information picked up en route at release sites'' by P. Luschi, C. del Seppia, E. Crosio and F. Papi, which appeared in this journal. It is pointed out that the particular effects which these authors show to be stress-induced artefacts are restricted to their specific strain of homing pigeons. The same effects could not be observed in pigeons from two other lofts: a difference in response that was shown to have a genetic base. In view of this, conclusions drawn from the results of Luschi et al. must be restricted to their own findings; they cannot be generalized to the other findings which indicate the use of magnetic outward journey information in young homing pigeons.     

Open science and meta‐analysis allow for rapid advances in ecology: A response to Menegotto et al. (2019)

Menegotto and colleagues’ (2019) commentary on our paper (Kinlock et al., 2018) does not negate our findings, but by recategorizing and reanalysing a portion of our data set, advances our knowledge of the latitudinal diversity gradients (LDGs) in marine ecosystems, particularly emphasizing different findings for benthic LDGs as a result of the recategorization of the data. Furthermore, we see the contribution by Menegotto et al. (2019) as highlighting the importance of scientific transparency; we believe that this insight into the nature of LDGs in marine systems would have been delayed, if not unobtainable, had we not provided fully transparent methods and complete data in our paper.     

Reply to response to Dyck et al. (2007) on polar bears and climate change in western Hudson Bay by Stirling et al. (2008)

We address the three main issues raised by Stirling et al. [Stirling, I., Derocher, A.E., Gough, W.A., Rode, K., in press. Response to Dyck et al. (2007) on polar bears and climate change in western Hudson Bay. Ecol. Complexity]: (1) evidence of the role of climate warming in affecting the western Hudson Bay polar bear population, (2) responses to suggested importance of human–polar bear interactions, and (3) limitations on polar bear adaptation to projected climate change. We assert that our original paper did not provide any “alternative explanations [that] are largely unsupported by the data” or misrepresent the original claims by Stirling et al. [Stirling, I., Lunn, N.J., Iacozza, I., 1999. Long-term trends in the population ecology of polar bears in western Hudson Bay in relation to climate change. Arctic 52, 294–306], Derocher et al. [Derocher, A.E., Lunn, N.J., Stirling, I., 2004. Polar bears in a warming climate. Integr. Comp. Biol. 44, 163–176], and other peer-approved papers authored by Stirling and colleagues. In sharp contrast, we show that the conclusion of Stirling et al. [Stirling, I., Derocher, A.E., Gough, W.A., Rode, K., in press. Response to Dyck et al. (2007) on polar bears and climate change in western Hudson Bay. Ecol. Complexity] – suggesting warming temperatures (and other related climatic changes) are the predominant determinant of polar bear population status, not only in western Hudson (WH) Bay but also for populations elsewhere in the Arctic – is unsupportable by the current scientific evidence.The commentary by Stirling et al. [Stirling, I., Derocher, A.E., Gough, W.A., Rode, K., in press. Response to Dyck et al. (2007) on polar bears and climate change in western Hudson Bay. Ecol. Complexity] is an example of uni-dimensional, or reductionist thinking, which is not useful when assessing effects of climate change on complex ecosystems. Polar bears of WH are exposed to a multitude of environmental perturbations including human interference and factors (e.g., unknown seal population size, possible competition with polar bears from other populations) such that isolation of any single variable as the certain root cause (i.e., climate change in the form of warming spring air temperatures), without recognizing confounding interactions, is imprudent, unjustified and of questionable scientific utility. Dyck et al. [Dyck, M.G., Soon, W., Baydack, R.K., Legates, D.R., Baliunas, S., Ball, T.F., Hancock, L.O., 2007. Polar bears of western Hudson Bay and climate change: Are warming spring air temperatures the “ultimate” survival control factor? Ecol. Complexity, 4, 73–84. doi:10.1016/j.ecocom.2007.03.002] agree that some polar bear populations may be negatively impacted by future environmental changes; but an oversimplification of the complex ecosystem interactions (of which humans are a part) may not be beneficial in studying external effects on polar bears. Science evolves through questioning and proposing hypotheses that can be critically tested, in the absence of which, as Krebs and Borteaux [Krebs, C.J., Berteaux, D., 2006. Problems and pitfalls in relating climate variability to population dynamics. Clim. Res. 32, 143–149] observe, “we will be little more than storytellers.”     

Passive restoration is often quite effective: response to Zahawi et al. (2014)

Although we share many of the ideas expressed by Zahawi et al., we believe that they are more skeptical in some aspects of the value of passive restoration than we are. Their comment is based primarily on experience within tropical habitats with idiosyncratic legal and social circumstances that limit extrapolations to other habitats. Passive restoration is not always slower than active restoration, and restoration goals should not always focus on rapid development of mature vegetation structure and function. Even less mature vegetation may provide important benefits. A meta‐analysis to compare passive and active restoration in a variety of habitats and geographical regions is needed.