Putting applied ecology into practice

Although species richness has been hypothesized to be highest at 'intermediate' levels of disturbance, empirical studies have demonstrated that the disturbance-diversity relationship can be either negative or positive depending on productivity On the other hand, hypothesized productivity diversity relationships can be positive, negative or unimodal, as confirmed by empirical studies. However, it has remained unclear under what conditions each pattern is realized, and there is little agreement about the mechanisms that generate these diverse patterns. In this study, I present a model that synthesizes these separately developed hypotheses and shows that the interactive effects of disturbance and productivity on the competitive outcome of multispecies dynamics can result in these diverse relationships of species richness to disturbance and productivity The predicted productivity diversity relationship is unimodal but the productivity level that maximizes species richness increases with increasing disturbance. Similarly, the predicted disturbance diversity relationship is unimodal but the peak moves to higher disturbance levels with increasing productivity Further, these patterns are well explained by the opposite effects of productivity and disturbance on competitive outcome that are suggested by the change in community composition along these two environmental gradients: higher productivity favours superior competitors while higher disturbance levels favour inferior competitors.

<i>Journal of Ecology</i> News

A new Editor team.

We are in the midst of some exciting changes at Ecological Monographs. While our journal has long enjoyed its reputation as the place where many of the most influential papers in ecology are published, no scientific publication can rest on its laurels in the Internet Age. We are extremely proud of our recent accomplishments. a vastly improved layout, both in terms of aesthetics and functionality; links from the references to many of the articles cited; pay-per-view and “mini-subscription” options for access by non-subscribers; options to download reference information into EndNote, Procite, etc.; information on most-viewed articles during the preceding month; and improved issue alerts. Later this year, ESA Online Journals will move to a new platform hosted by Atypon, which will allow us to add even more cutting-edge features. Effective in 2008, we have changed the “moving wall” for articles to appear in JSTOR, from four to two years. We hope that by making the back issues of the journal more accessible, especially to scientists in fields peripheral to ecology, we will increase the readership and influence of papers published in the journal. The preliminary numbers indicate that 2007 was another banner year for submissions to Ecology/Ecological Monographs. We received 1452 submissions via EcoTrack, roughly 2.5% more than in 2006. For final decisions made in 2007 the acceptance rate was about 25%. Ecological Monographs has one of the highest impact factors among journals publishing primary research articles in ecology (7.102 according to the most recent Journal Citations Report). It has been ranked among the top four journals in ecological science for many years. Ecological Monographs serves the missions of Ecology and Ecological Applications for those papers that require greater length because the work reported is particularly complex and multi-faceted. These longer papers generally take longer to review, revise, and prepare for publication than their shorter cousins in Ecology and Ecological Applications. Nonetheless, we have made dramatic progress over the past few years in decreasing the time to publication (as is evident from the manuscript histories printed as footnotes to each published paper). It is increasingly common to see papers published within a year of submission. The backlog of accepted papers awaiting publication is essentially a thing of the past. Ecological Monographs is publishing more Concepts and Synthesis papers than in the past. These are papers that provide novel insights that the editors and reviewers believe will stimulate new avenues of research. Note that three of the eight papers in the present issue are Concepts and Synthesis contributions. We have also made the pages of Ecological Monographs more open to papers that focus on applied ecology. Such papers are often edited by members of the Ecological Applications Editorial Board. Finally, we are pleased to announce that ESA journals will soon be certified by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) as meeting their rigorous standards for using paper stocks that foster sustainable use of forest resources. The intent of the FSC system is to certify that recipients are “doing the right thing [to] eliminate habitat destruction, water pollution, displacement of indigenous peoples and violence against people and wildlife that often accompanies logging.” Look for the FSC certification logo later this year in our print journal.

<i>Journal of Ecology</i> news

Summary We asked 229 authors who have published recently in the Journal of Applied Ecology (1999–2001) whether their papers made management or policy recommendations and whether they had evidence of consequent uptake. A total of 108 respondents working in the UK (34%), Europe (30%), the Americas (12%), Australasia (11%), Asia (7%) and Africa (6%) reported on 110 papers. They represented agro‐ecosystems (35%), temperate forests or woodlands (16%), savanna, grass or arid lands (11%), rivers or wetlands (10%), estuaries or marine systems (7%) and tropical forests (5%). The major organisms were invertebrates (27%), birds (24%), mammals (21%) and higher plants (21%). Topics apparently under‐represented in recent coverage include ecosystem science, urban areas, soils, mountain systems, fish, amphibians and lower organisms such as algae. Almost all papers (99%) carried recommendations and for 57% there was evidence of uptake in the broad categories of ‘environmental management or models’, ‘information, training and education’ and ‘monitoring and assessment’. Most uptake involved large geographical scales through habitat or species management plans (32% of cases), effects on reserve design or designation (6%), and effects on agri‐environmental policy (5%). The development of further research (11%), the communication of methods to other ecologists (9%), the dissemination of recommendations to practitioners or agencies (7%), and uptake in training or education (5%) were important uses of information. Prestige from publication in the Journal of Applied Ecology aided several authors in convincing end‐users of research value. User involvement in research as participants or funders was widespread (&gt; 42% of papers), a fact which almost certainly promotes uptake along with the parallel dissemination of management messages. We view applied issues as an important interface between end‐users and ecologists of value to ‘both’ communities but suggest that improved communication will further benefit the sponsorship and application of ecological science. The major reason offered for lack of uptake was that it was still too soon after publication (21% of respondents). Costs, difficulty of implementation, the scale of the problem, and ‘challenges to existing thinking’ each figured in more than one response. For some respondents, papers were led by curiosity rather than the need for direct application. Several authors published in the Journal to share ideas internationally, or said that recommendations were general, conceptual or long‐term rather than specific. The editors of the Journal of Applied Ecology recognize the seminal importance of contributions that affect policy incrementally and conceptually as much as those with specific application. These data provide evidence that ecological science is aiding environmental management and policy across a wide range of regions, ecosystems and types of organisms; rather than merely detecting problems, applied ecology is offering solutions both directly and more diffusely through conceptual advance. We invite the user community to offer their own perspectives about the value of research‐led publications such as this Journal, about how links between researchers and users might be strengthened, and about how the uptake of applied ecology might be further advanced.

Submission rates at Ecological Monographs have been increasing for the last three years; they are up 12% from 2017 and 33% from 2016. We are receiving more varied and cross-cutting manuscripts than ever before and the quality of these manuscripts is reflected by an increase in our acceptance rate – we accepted 30% of the manuscripts submitted to Ecological Monographs this past year, up from 21% in 2017. We received submissions with authors from 42 countries in 2017, and from 52 countries in 2018, a number we'd like to see continue to increase. By far, most authors are from the US (34%) with China (13%) and Australia (9%) following. As a group, Europeans account for 29% of authors in 2018. We realize the quality of our journal is contingent on the quality of the manuscripts submitted. Many thanks to the authors who submit to Ecological Monographs; we know the time and effort it takes to produce excellent scientific work and your manuscripts enable our journal to tell diverse and multifaceted scientific stories. The 38 manuscripts published in Ecological Monographs in 2018 are varied and included topics exploring migrating song birds, city biodiversity, nutrient limitation of tropical soil microbes, using herbaria to answer global change questions, upscaling biodiversity estimates, as well as a review of Bayesian approaches for predictive inference. We published 26 traditional Articles, five Concepts and Synthesis papers, and seven Review papers. We continue to encourage synthetic and cross-disciplinary submissions that need space to explore new and emerging ideas in observational, quantitative and applied ecology. Please contact us if you have ideas for manuscripts, reviews, or concepts and synthesis papers; we are also keen to work with authors interested in across-journal online virtual issues on current topics. Ecological Monographs continues to be one of the top ranked journals in Ecology and the papers we publish have a lasting impact on science. In 2018, it was ranked seventh among ISI's “Ecology” journals, and our papers continue to have a citation “half-life” of greater than ten years. After editorial review, about half of the manuscripts received were sent out for external peer review. The average time to a first decision for reviewed manuscripts was 79 days, similar to both 2016 and 2017. Our average time from acceptance to publication is 90 days, 13% faster than in 2017 and 31% faster than in 2016. On average, we have to send requests to 5.0 reviewers to get two people to review one of our manuscripts (thank you reviewers!) a slightly higher number than last year (4.9); having to request more reviewers is a trend that appears to be increasing across journals globally. We appreciate the effort from the many authors, editors, and reviewers who worked with us on the manuscripts submitted to the journal, because we know the sustained quality of our journal relies on their support and hard work. The editorial boards of Ecology and Ecological Applications spend countless hours reading, reviewing, and editing our manuscripts. Their work is what keeps the quality of papers published within the journal high. I know many of you agree, the editorial team at ESA is just terrific. They keep manuscripts moving and still find time to answer questions from authors and editors. In particular, many thanks to Anne Marie Whelan, Heather Carlo, and Brad Walker. We also thank Steve Sayre for his work with the organization and the journals. Finally, Don Strong will step down as the Editor-in-Chief of Ecology this year. Don was the EIC of Ecology and Ecological Monographs for eight years and the journals continue to share an editorial board. There is no way Ecological Monographs would be the journal it is today without his commitment and hard work. We cannot thank Don enough for his leadership, service, advice, and support. He will be missed.

Editorial and retrospective 2010

SUMMARYIn recent years, the term ‘adaptive management’ has become integrated in government agriculture and conservation programmes in the United States. Adaptive management is described as ‘a process of developing improved management practices for efficient production and resource conservation by use of participatory learning through continuous systematic assessment’, by the NEERA1002 Coordinating Committee on Adaptive Nutrient Management. Such developments reflect recognition by government agencies of (1) the need for continuous improvement in managing agricultural systems to enhance productivity and environmental protection at farm, state, watershed and federal levels, and (2) the effectiveness of continuous systematic assessment and an outcome-based evaluation in achieving and documenting such progress. Various methods have existed for knowledge development and transfer in the past, some effective, others less successful. The present paper presents and discusses lessons learned from three different adaptive management approaches, implemented at field, whole farm and regional/state levels, which contributed to improvements in field, farm and regional/state balances for nitrogen and phosphorus in New York. These examples show that a combination of governmental regulations and an innovative, outcome-focused adaptive management approach that includes research, extension, and a focus on human dimensions (a people-based approach) will be most effective in obtaining greater sustainability of agriculture in future years.

Editorial.

Variation in preferences describing how to value the future among conservation practitioners and its implications for today's protection priorities

Philosophers, policymakers, and scientists have long asserted that ecological science – and especially notions of homeostasis, balance, or stability – help to determine environmental values and to supply imperatives for environmental ethics and policy. We argue that this assertion is questionable. There are no well developed general ecological theories having predictive power, and fundamental ecological concepts, such as ‘community’ and ‘stability’, are used in inconsistent and ambiguous ways. As a consequence, the contribution of ecology to environmental ethics and values lies more in the realm of natural history and case studies than in the realm of general theory. Moreover, although general ecological theory is unable to contribute to environmental values in the way many philosophers and policymakers have hoped, environmental values can and do contribute to ecological hypotheses and methods. Using examples related to preservation versus development, hunting versus animal rights, and controversies over pest control, we show that, because ecology is conceptually and theoretically underdetermined, environmental values often influence the practice of ecological science.

Understanding mental constructs of biodiversity: Implications for biodiversity management and conservation

Heritage conservation and adaptive reuses of textile mills are not only tasks for planners, architects, and conservationists in practice, but are also framed by policies, inspired by initiatives, and promoted by real estate companies. Forty years of experience in Northwest England, and practices in the Rhine region of Germany provide reflections on good practice in heritage conservation and adaptive reuse. The article considers case studies of smaller cities and towns neighbouring these two industrial regions. Our main findings are: first, best practice criteria for heritage conservation of textile mills differ slightly between England and Germany. The discussion in England pays more attention to long-term use and effective management, and we also recognise the influence of powerful stakeholders with economic interests. Second, heritage conservation and adaptive reuse of textile mills is an important task for regional mills, smaller textile towns and within areas of deprivation. Furthermore, such areas provide examples of good practice. Third, a ‘one size fits all’ approach is not appropriate: instead, such projects require a variety of motivations, stakeholders, and concepts. Most important is the key role of heritage conservation in awareness-building, research, listing of heritage, and consultancy in the planning and construction processes.

Knowledge integration as a method to develop capacity for evaluating technical information on biodiversity and ocean currents for integrated coastal management