The manifold costs of being a non-native English speaker in science.

The use of English as the common language of science represents a major impediment to maximising the contribution of non-native English speakers to science. Yet few studies have quantified the consequences of language barriers on the career development of researchers who are non-native English speakers. By surveying 908 researchers in environmental sciences, this study estimates and compares the amount of effort required to conduct scientific activities in English between researchers from different countries and, thus, different linguistic and economic backgrounds. Our survey demonstrates that non-native English speakers, especially early in their careers, spend more effort than native English speakers in conducting scientific activities, from reading and writing papers and preparing presentations in English, to disseminating research in multiple languages. Language barriers can also cause them not to attend, or give oral presentations at, international conferences conducted in English. We urge scientific communities to recognise and tackle these disadvantages to release the untapped potential of non-native English speakers in science. This study also proposes potential solutions that can be implemented today by individuals, institutions, journals, funders, and conferences. Please see the Supporting information files (S2-S6 Text) for Alternative Language Abstracts and Figs 5 and 6.

Academic publishing requires linguistically inclusive policies.

Scientific knowledge is produced in multiple languages but is predominantly published in English. This practice creates a language barrier to generate and transfer scientific knowledge between communities with diverse linguistic backgrounds, hindering the ability of scholars and communities to address global challenges and achieve diversity and equity in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM). To overcome those barriers, publishers and journals should provide a fair system that supports non-native English speakers and disseminates knowledge across the globe. We surveyed policies of 736 journals in biological sciences to assess their linguistic inclusivity, identify predictors of inclusivity, and propose actions to overcome language barriers in academic publishing. Our assessment revealed a grim landscape where most journals were making minimal efforts to overcome language barriers. The impact factor of journals was negatively associated with adopting a number of inclusive policies whereas ownership by a scientific society tended to have a positive association. Contrary to our expectations, the proportion of both open access articles and editors based in non-English speaking countries did not have a major positive association with the adoption of linguistically inclusive policies. We proposed a set of actions to overcome language barriers in academic publishing, including the renegotiation of power dynamics between publishers and editorial boards.

Tapping into non-English-language science for the conservation of global biodiversity.

The widely held assumption that any important scientific information would be available in English underlies the underuse of non-English-language science across disciplines. However, non-English-language science is expected to bring unique and valuable scientific information, especially in disciplines where the evidence is patchy, and for emergent issues where synthesising available evidence is an urgent challenge. Yet such contribution of non-English-language science to scientific communities and the application of science is rarely quantified. Here, we show that non-English-language studies provide crucial evidence for informing global biodiversity conservation. By screening 419,679 peer-reviewed papers in 16 languages, we identified 1,234 non-English-language studies providing evidence on the effectiveness of biodiversity conservation interventions, compared to 4,412 English-language studies identified with the same criteria. Relevant non-English-language studies are being published at an increasing rate in 6 out of the 12 languages where there were a sufficient number of relevant studies. Incorporating non-English-language studies can expand the geographical coverage (i.e., the number of 2° × 2° grid cells with relevant studies) of English-language evidence by 12% to 25%, especially in biodiverse regions, and taxonomic coverage (i.e., the number of species covered by the relevant studies) by 5% to 32%, although they do tend to be based on less robust study designs. Our results show that synthesising non-English-language studies is key to overcoming the widespread lack of local, context-dependent evidence and facilitating evidence-based conservation globally. We urge wider disciplines to rigorously reassess the untapped potential of non-English-language science in informing decisions to address other global challenges. Please see the Supporting information files for Alternative Language Abstracts.

Unrecognized threat to global soil carbon by a widespread invasive species.

Most of Earth's terrestrial carbon is stored in the soil and can be released as carbon dioxide (CO2 ) when disturbed. Although humans are known to exacerbate soil CO2 emissions through land-use change, we know little about the global carbon footprint of invasive species. We predict the soil area disturbed and resulting CO2 emissions from wild pigs (Sus scrofa), a pervasive human-spread vertebrate that uproots soil. We do this using models of wild pig population density, soil damage, and their effect on soil carbon emissions. Our models suggest that wild pigs are uprooting a median area of 36,214 km2 (mean of 123,517 km2 ) in their non-native range, with a 95% prediction interval (PI) of 14,208 km2 -634,238 km2 . This soil disturbance results in median emissions of 4.9 million metric tonnes (MMT) CO2 per year (equivalent to 1.1 million passenger vehicles or 0.4% of annual emissions from land use, land-use change, and forestry; mean of 16.7 MMT) but that it is highly uncertain (95% PI, 0.3-94 MMT CO2 ) due to variability in wild pig density and soil dynamics. This uncertainty points to an urgent need for more research on the contribution of wild pigs to soil damage, not only for the reduction of anthropogenically related carbon emissions, but also for co-benefits to biodiversity and food security that are crucial for sustainable development.

Invasive wild pigs (Sus scrofa) as a human-mediated source of soil carbon emissions: Uncertainties and future directions.

Invasive wild pigs (Sus scrofa) have been spread by humans outside of their native range and are now established on every continent except Antarctica. Through their uprooting of soil, they affect societal and environmental values. Our recent article explored another threat from their soil disturbance: greenhouse gas emissions (O'Bryan et al., Global Change Biology, 2021). In response to our paper, Don (Global Change Biology, 2021) claims there is no threat to global soil carbon stocks by wild pigs. While we did not investigate soil carbon stocks, we examine uncertainties regarding soil carbon emissions from wild pig uprooting and their implications for management and future research.

Urban green space use during a time of stress: A case study during the COVID-19 pandemic in Brisbane, Australia.

Spending time in nature is one potential way to cope with the negative physical and psychological health impacts from major stressful life events. In 2020, a large fraction of the global population was impacted by restrictions to contain the spread of the COVID-19 outbreak, a period characterised by marked health risks and behavioural changes. Here we explore whether people responded to this stressor by spending more time in nature and investigate the reasons for any changes.We surveyed 1,002 people in Brisbane, Australia in 2020, to measure the change in use of green space during the restrictions period and benefits people associated with visiting them.About 36% of participants increased their urban green space use, but 26% reduced it, indicating a great deal of flux. Furthermore, 45% of the previous non-users of urban green space began using it for the first time during the restrictions period. Older people were less likely to increase their green space use and those with a backyard were more likely to increase their use of green spaces.Participants' change in use occurred regardless of the amount of green space available in close proximity to their households. In addition, we did not find a relationship between nature-relatedness and change in use.People's reasons for green space use shifted during the pandemic-related restrictions period, with many emphasising improvement of personal well-being rather than consolidating community capital. Most participants indicated an increase in the importance of the psychological and physical benefits obtained from urban green spaces.We conclude that increased urban green space use during moments of stress such as the COVID-19 pandemic has the potential to ameliorate some of the negative effects of the stressor, but that the capacity and desire to spend more time in green space varies markedly across society. Sufficient urban green space provision for all sections of society will maximise the opportunity to employ a nature-based coping mechanism during times of personal or community stress.

Pasar tiempo en la naturaleza es una forma de contrarrestar el impacto físico y psicológico que tiene los eventos estresantes en nuestras vidas. En el 2020, una gran porción de la población mundial fue impactada por las restricciones impuestas por la propagación del COVID­19, un periodo que se caracterizó por notables riesgos para la salud y cambios en el comportamiento de las personas. Aquí exploramos si las personas respondieron a este evento estresante pasando más tiempo en la naturaleza y también investigamos las razones asociadas a cualquier cambio.Encuestamos a 1002 personas en Brisbane, Australia, en el 2020, para medir el cambio en el uso de los espacios verdes públicos durante la cuarentena ocasionada por la pandemia y los beneficios que la gente ha asociado a su visita.Alrededor del 36% de los encuestados aumentaron el uso de los espacios verdes públicos urbanos y el 26% lo redujo, lo que indica un cambio en la concepción del uso durante la pandemia. Esto se confirma ya que un 45% de los encuestados que no han usado espacios verdes públicos previo a la cuarentena, lo utilizaron por primera vez. Los adultos mayores fueron menos proclive a aumentar el uso de espacios verdes y los encuestados que poseían un patio en sus hogares, tendieron a un mayor uso de los espacios verdes.Independientemente a la cantidad disponible de espacios verdes públicos en la proximidad de los hogares de los participantes, se ha producido un cambio en las visitas a espacios verdes públicos. Además, no encontramos una relación entre la conexión con la naturaleza de los participantes y el cambio de uso de espacios verdes públicos.Durante la cuarentena, los participantes han cambiado las razones por las cuales utilizaron espacios verdes públicos urbanos. Muchos participantes hicieron hincapié en los beneficios al bienestar personal en lugar de aquellos beneficios comunitarios. Por ejemplo, la mayoría de los participantes indicaron un aumento de la importancia de los beneficios psicológicos y físicos obtenidos por el uso de espacios verdes públicos urbanos.Concluimos que, en momentos de estrés, como por ejemplo la pandemia COVID­19, un aumento en el uso de espacios verdes tiene el potencial de mejorar algunos de los efectos negativos del estrés, pero que el deseo y la habilidad de pasar más tiempo en los espacios verdes varía notablemente en la sociedad. Proveer suficientes espacios verdes públicos para todos los sectores de la sociedad, maximizaría la oportunidad de emplear un mecanismo para afrontar los estreses personales o comunitarios, basado en la naturaleza. A free Plain Language Summary can be found within the Supporting Information of this article.