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.

AgroEcoList 1.0: A checklist to improve reporting standards in ecological research in agriculture

Many publications lack sufficient background information (e.g. location) to be interpreted, replicated, or reused for synthesis. This impedes scientific progress and the application of science to practice. Reporting guidelines (e.g. checklists) improve reporting standards. They have been widely taken up in the medical sciences, but not in ecological and agricultural research. Here, we use a community-centred approach to develop a reporting checklist (AgroEcoList 1.0) through surveys and workshops with 23 experts and the wider agroecological community. To put AgroEcoList in context, we also assessed the agroecological community's perception of reporting standards in agroecology. A total of 345 researchers, reviewers, and editors, responded to our survey. Although only 32% of respondents had prior knowledge of reporting guidelines, 76% of those that had said guidelines improved reporting standards. Overall, respondents agreed on the need of AgroEcolist 1.0; only 24% of respondents had used reporting guidelines before, but 78% indicated they would use AgroEcoList 1.0. We updated AgroecoList 1.0 based on respondents' feedback and user-testing. AgroecoList 1.0 consists of 42 variables in seven groups: experimental/sampling set-up, study site, soil, livestock management, crop and grassland management, outputs, and finances. It is presented here, and is also available on github (https://github.com/AgroecoList/Agroecolist). AgroEcoList 1.0 can serve as a guide for authors, reviewers, and editors to improve reporting standards in agricultural ecology. Our community-centred approach is a replicable method that could be adapted to develop reporting checklists in other fields. Reporting guidelines such as AgroEcoList can improve reporting standards and therefore the application of research to practice, and we recommend that they are adopted more widely in agriculture and ecology.

A classification scheme for mixed-species bird flocks

The literature on mixed-species flocks references a wide variety of bird associations. These studies, however, have used an array of unstructured characteristics to describe flocks, ranging from the temporal occurrence of flocking to the identity and behavioural features of constituent members, with little consensus on which key traits define and characterize a mixed-species flock. Moreover, although most studies report species-specific roles, there is no clear consensus about what these roles signify nor how to define them. This lack of consistency limits our ability to compare flocks from different habitats, regions and species pools. To unify this sizable body of literature, we reviewed and synthesized 538 studies on mixed-species flocks. We propose 13 categories to classify mixed-species flocks using behavioural and physical traits at the flock and participant level, as well as the habitat where the flock occurs. Lastly, we discuss the historical terminology for different species roles and propose definitions to clarify and distinguish among nuclear, leader, sentinel, and flock-following species. We envision that these guidelines will provide a universal language for mixed-species flock research, paving the way for future comparisons and new insight between different regions and systems. This article is part of the theme issue 'Mixed-species groups and aggregations: shaping ecological and behavioural patterns and processes'.

Mixed company: a framework for understanding the composition and organization of mixed-species animal groups

Mixed-species animal groups (MSGs) are widely acknowledged to increase predator avoidance and foraging efficiency, among other benefits, and thereby increase participants' fitness. Diversity in MSG composition ranges from two to 70 species of very similar or completely different phenotypes. Yet consistency in organization is also observable in that one or a few species usually have disproportionate importance for MSG formation and/or maintenance. We propose a two-dimensional framework for understanding this diversity and consistency, concentrating on the types of interactions possible between two individuals, usually of different species. One axis represents the similarity of benefit types traded between the individuals, while the second axis expresses asymmetry in the relative amount of benefits/costs accrued. Considering benefit types, one extreme represents the case of single-species groups wherein all individuals obtain the same supplementary, group-size-related benefits, and the other extreme comprises associations of very different, but complementary species (e.g. one partner creates access to food while the other provides vigilance). The relevance of social information and the matching of activities (e.g. speed of movement) are highest for relationships on the supplementary side of this axis, but so is competition; relationships between species will occur at points along this gradient where the benefits outweigh the costs. Considering benefit amounts given or received, extreme asymmetry occurs when one species is exclusively a benefit provider and the other a benefit user. Within this parameter space, some MSG systems are constrained to one kind of interaction, such as shoals of fish of similar species or leader-follower interactions in fish and other taxa. Other MSGs, such as terrestrial bird flocks, can simultaneously include a variety of supplementary and complementary interactions. We review the benefits that species obtain across the diversity of MSG types, and argue that the degree and nature of asymmetry between benefit providers and users should be measured and not just assumed. We then discuss evolutionary shifts in MSG types, focusing on drivers towards similarity in group composition, and selection on benefit providers to enhance the benefits they can receive from other species. Finally, we conclude by considering how individual and collective behaviour in MSGs may influence both the structure and processes of communities.

Intrinsic and extrinsic drivers of intraspecific variation in seed dispersal are diverse and pervasive

There is growing realization that intraspecific variation in seed dispersal can have important ecological and evolutionary consequences. However, we do not have a good understanding of the drivers or causes of intraspecific variation in dispersal, how strong an effect these drivers have, and how widespread they are across dispersal modes. As a first step to developing a better understanding, we present a broad, but not exhaustive, review of what is known about the drivers of intraspecific variation in seed dispersal, and what remains uncertain. We start by decomposing 'drivers of intraspecific variation in seed dispersal' into intrinsic drivers (i.e. variation in traits of individual plants) and extrinsic drivers (i.e. variation in ecological context). For intrinsic traits, we further decompose intraspecific variation into variation among individuals and variation of trait values within individuals. We then review our understanding of the major intrinsic and extrinsic drivers of intraspecific variation in seed dispersal, with an emphasis on variation among individuals. Crop size is the best-supported and best-understood intrinsic driver of variation across dispersal modes; overall, more seeds are dispersed as more seeds are produced, even in cases where per seed dispersal rates decline. Fruit/seed size is the second most widely studied intrinsic driver, and is also relevant to a broad range of seed dispersal modes. Remaining intrinsic drivers are poorly understood, and range from effects that are probably widespread, such as plant height, to drivers that are most likely sporadic, such as fruit or seed colour polymorphism. Primary extrinsic drivers of variation in seed dispersal include local environmental conditions and habitat structure. Finally, we present a selection of outstanding questions as a starting point to advance our understanding of individual variation in seed dispersal.

Consequences of intraspecific variation in seed dispersal for plant demography, communities, evolution and global change

As the single opportunity for plants to move, seed dispersal has an important impact on plant fitness, species distributions and patterns of biodiversity. However, models that predict dynamics such as risk of extinction, range shifts and biodiversity loss tend to rely on the mean value of parameters and rarely incorporate realistic dispersal mechanisms. By focusing on the mean population value, variation among individuals or variability caused by complex spatial and temporal dynamics is ignored. This calls for increased efforts to understand individual variation in dispersal and integrate it more explicitly into population and community models involving dispersal. However, the sources, magnitude and outcomes of intraspecific variation in dispersal are poorly characterized, limiting our understanding of the role of dispersal in mediating the dynamics of communities and their response to global change. In this manuscript, we synthesize recent research that examines the sources of individual variation in dispersal and emphasize its implications for plant fitness, populations and communities. We argue that this intraspecific variation in seed dispersal does not simply add noise to systems, but, in fact, alters dispersal processes and patterns with consequences for demography, communities, evolution and response to anthropogenic changes. We conclude with recommendations for moving this field of research forward.