RESUMEN
Entomology is key to understanding terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems at a time of unprecedented anthropogenic environmental change and offers substantial untapped potential to benefit humanity in a variety of ways, from improving agricultural practices to managing vector-borne diseases and inspiring technological advances.We identified high priority challenges for entomology using an inclusive, open, and democratic four-stage prioritisation approach, conducted among the membership and affiliates (hereafter 'members') of the UK-based Royal Entomological Society (RES).A list of 710 challenges was gathered from 189 RES members. Thematic analysis was used to group suggestions, followed by an online vote to determine initial priorities, which were subsequently ranked during an online workshop involving 37 participants.The outcome was a set of 61 priority challenges within four groupings of related themes: (i) 'Fundamental Research' (themes: Taxonomy, 'Blue Skies' [defined as research ideas without immediate practical application], Methods and Techniques); (ii) 'Anthropogenic Impacts and Conservation' (themes: Anthropogenic Impacts, Conservation Options); (iii) 'Uses, Ecosystem Services and Disservices' (themes: Ecosystem Benefits, Technology and Resources [use of insects as a resource, or as inspiration], Pests); (iv) 'Collaboration, Engagement and Training' (themes: Knowledge Access, Training and Collaboration, Societal Engagement).Priority challenges encompass research questions, funding objectives, new technologies, and priorities for outreach and engagement. Examples include training taxonomists, establishing a global network of insect monitoring sites, understanding the extent of insect declines, exploring roles of cultivated insects in food supply chains, and connecting professional with amateur entomologists. Responses to different challenges could be led by amateur and professional entomologists, at all career stages.Overall, the challenges provide a diverse array of options to inspire and initiate entomological activities and reveal the potential of entomology to contribute to addressing global challenges related to human health and well-being, and environmental change.
RESUMEN
Evidence-based decision-making is most effective with comprehensive access to scientific studies. If studies face significant publication delays or barriers, the useful information they contain may not reach decision-makers in a timely manner. This represents a potential problem for mission-oriented disciplines where access to the latest data is required to ensure effective actions are undertaken. We sought to analyse the severity of publication delay in conservation science-a field that requires urgent action to prevent the loss of biodiversity. We used the Conservation Evidence database to assess the length of publication delay (time from finishing data collection to publication) in the literature that tests the effectiveness of conservation interventions. From 7,447 peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed studies of conservation interventions published over eleven decades, we find that the raw mean publication delay was 3.2 years (±2SD = 0.1) and varied by conservation subject. A significantly shorter delay was observed for studies focused on Bee Conservation, Sustainable Aquaculture, Management of Captive Animals, Amphibian Conservation, and Control of Freshwater Invasive Species (Estimated Marginal Mean range from 1.4-1.9 years). Publication delay was significantly shorter for the non-peer-reviewed literature (Estimated Marginal Mean delay of 1.9 years ± 0.2) compared to the peer-reviewed literature (i.e., scientific journals; Estimated Marginal Mean delay of 3.0 years ± 0.1). We found publication delay has significantly increased over time (an increase of ~1.2 years from 1912 (1.4 years ± 0.2) to 2020 (2.6 years ± 0.1)), but this change was much weaker and non-significant post-2000s; we found no evidence for any decline. There was also no evidence that studies on more threatened species were subject to a shorter delay-indeed, the contrary was true for mammals, and to a lesser extent for birds. We suggest a range of possible ways in which scientists, funders, publishers, and practitioners can work together to reduce delays at each stage of the publication process.
RESUMEN
Repeatability is the cornerstone of science, and it is particularly important for systematic reviews. However, little is known on how researchers' choice of database, and search platform influence the repeatability of systematic reviews. Here, we aim to unveil how the computer environment and the location where the search was initiated from influence hit results.We present a comparative analysis of time-synchronized searches at different institutional locations in the world and evaluate the consistency of hits obtained within each of the search terms using different search platforms.We revealed a large variation among search platforms and showed that PubMed and Scopus returned consistent results to identical search strings from different locations. Google Scholar and Web of Science's Core Collection varied substantially both in the number of returned hits and in the list of individual articles depending on the search location and computing environment. Inconsistency in Web of Science results has most likely emerged from the different licensing packages at different institutions.To maintain scientific integrity and consistency, especially in systematic reviews, action is needed from both the scientific community and scientific search platforms to increase search consistency. Researchers are encouraged to report the search location and the databases used for systematic reviews, and database providers should make search algorithms transparent and revise access rules to titles behind paywalls. Additional options for increasing the repeatability and transparency of systematic reviews are storing both search metadata and hit results in open repositories and using Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) to retrieve standardized, machine-readable search metadata.
RESUMEN
Conflict between stakeholders with opposing interests can hamper biodiversity conservation. When conflicts become entrenched, evidence from applied ecology can reveal new ways forward for their management. In particular, where disagreement exists over the efficacy or ethics of management actions, research clarifying the uncertain impacts of management on wildlife can move debates forwards to conciliation.Here, we explore a case-study of entrenched conflict where uncertainty exists over the impacts of multiple management actions: namely, moorlands managed for the shooting of red grouse (willow ptarmigan) Lagopus lagopus in the United Kingdom (UK). Debate over how UK moorlands should be managed is increasingly polarized. We evaluate, for the first time at a regional scale, the relative impacts of two major moorland management practices-predator control and heather burning-on nontarget bird species of conservation concern.Birds were surveyed on 18 estates across Northern England and Southeast Scotland. Sites ranged from intensively managed grouse moors to moorland sites with no management for grouse shooting. We hypothesised that both targeted predator control and burning regimes would enhance ground-nesting wader numbers and, as a consequence of this, and of increased grouse numbers, nontarget avian predators should also be more abundant on heavily managed sites.There were positive associations between predator control and the abundance of the three most widespread species of ground-nesting wader: strong effects for European golden plover Pluvialis apricaria and Eurasian curlew Numenius arquata and, less strongly, for common snipe Gallinago gallinago. These effects saturated at low levels of predator control. Evidence for effects of burning was much weaker. We found no evidence of enhanced numbers of nontarget predators on heavily managed sites.
RESUMEN
Despite the important roles ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) play in ecosystems, the highly valued ecosystem services they provide, and ample descriptive documentation of their phenology, the relative impact of various environmental factors on carabid phenology is not well studied. Using the long-term pitfall trap capture data from 12 terrestrial Environmental Change Network (ECN) sites from the UK, we examined how changing climate influenced the phenology of common carabids, and the role particular climate components had on phenological parameters. Of the 28 species included in the analyses, 19 showed earlier start of their activity. This advance was particularly pronounced in the spring, supporting the view that early phenophases have a greater tendency to change and these changes are more directly controlled by temperature than later ones. Autumn activity extended only a few cases, suggesting a photoperiod-driven start of hibernation. No association was found between life-history traits and the ability of species to change their phenology. Air temperatures between April and June were the most important factors determining the start of activity of each species, whilst late season precipitation hastened the cessation of activity. The balance between the advantages and disadvantages of changing phenology on various levels is likely to depend on the species and even on local environmental criteria. The substantially changing phenology of Carabidae may influence their function in ecosystems and the ecosystem services they provide.
