Farmland biodiversity monitoring through citizen science: A review of existing approaches and future opportunities

Biodiversity monitoring in agricultural landscapes is important for assessing the effects of both land use change and activities that influence farmland biodiversity. Despite a considerable increase in citizen science approaches to biodiversity monitoring in recent decades, their potential in farmland-specific contexts has not been systematically examined. This paper therefore provides a comprehensive review of existing citizen science approaches involving biodiversity monitoring on farmland. Using three complementary methods, we identify a range of programmes at least partially covering farmland. From these, we develop a typology of eight programme types, reflecting distinctions in types of data collected and nature of volunteer involvement, and highlight their respective strengths and limitations. While all eight types can make substantial contributions to farmland biodiversity monitoring, there is considerable scope for their further development-particularly through increased engagement of farmers, for whom receiving feedback on the effects of their own practices could help facilitate adaptive management.

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.

Grand challenges in entomology: Priorities for action in the coming decades

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.

Species turnover in ant assemblages is greater horizontally than vertically in the world's tallest tropical forest

Abiotic and biotic factors structure species assembly in ecosystems both horizontally and vertically. However, the way community composition changes along comparable horizontal and vertical distances in complex three‐dimensional habitats, and the factors driving these patterns, remains poorly understood. By sampling ant assemblages at comparable vertical and horizontal spatial scales in a tropical rainforest, we tested hypotheses that predicted differences in vertical and horizontal turnover explained by different drivers in vertical and horizontal space. These drivers included environmental filtering, such as microclimate (temperature, humidity, and photosynthetic photon flux density) and microhabitat connectivity (leaf area), which are structured differently across vertical and horizontal space. We found that both ant abundance and richness decreased significantly with increasing vertical height. Although the dissimilarity between ant assemblages increased with vertical distance, indicating a clear distance‐decay pattern, the dissimilarity was higher horizontally where it appeared independent of distance. The pronounced horizontal and vertical structuring of ant assemblages across short distances is likely explained by a combination of microclimate and microhabitat connectivity. Our results demonstrate the importance of considering three‐dimensional spatial variation in local assemblages and reveal how highly diverse communities can be supported by complex habitats.

The data-index: An author-level metric that values impactful data and incentivizes data sharing

Author-level metrics are a widely used measure of scientific success. The h-index and its variants measure publication output (number of publications) and research impact (number of citations). They are often used to influence decisions, such as allocating funding or jobs. Here, we argue that the emphasis on publication output and impact hinders scientific progress in the fields of ecology and evolution because it disincentivizes two fundamental practices: generating impactful (and therefore often long-term) datasets and sharing data. We describe a new author-level metric, the data-index, which values both dataset output (number of datasets) and impact (number of data-index citations), so promotes generating and sharing data as a result. We discuss how it could be implemented and provide user guidelines. The data-index is designed to complement other metrics of scientific success, as scientific contributions are diverse and our value system should reflect that both for the benefit of scientific progress and to create a value system that is more equitable, diverse, and inclusive. Future work should focus on promoting other scientific contributions, such as communicating science, informing policy, mentoring other scientists, and providing open-access code and tools.

Dynamic meta-analysis: a method of using global evidence for local decision making

Background

Meta-analysis is often used to make generalisations across all available evidence at the global scale. But how can these global generalisations be used for evidence-based decision making at the local scale, if the global evidence is not perceived to be relevant to local decisions? We show how an interactive method of meta-analysis—dynamic meta-analysis—can be used to assess the local relevance of global evidence.

Results

We developed Metadataset (www.metadataset.com) as a proof-of-concept for dynamic meta-analysis. Using Metadataset, we show how evidence can be filtered and weighted, and results can be recalculated, using dynamic methods of subgroup analysis, meta-regression, and recalibration. With an example from agroecology, we show how dynamic meta-analysis could lead to different conclusions for different subsets of the global evidence. Dynamic meta-analysis could also lead to a rebalancing of power and responsibility in evidence synthesis, since evidence users would be able to make decisions that are typically made by systematic reviewers—decisions about which studies to include (e.g. critical appraisal) and how to handle missing or poorly reported data (e.g. sensitivity analysis).

Conclusions

In this study, we show how dynamic meta-analysis can meet an important challenge in evidence-based decision making—the challenge of using global evidence for local decisions. We suggest that dynamic meta-analysis can be used for subject-wide evidence synthesis in several scientific disciplines, including agroecology and conservation biology. Future studies should develop standardised classification systems for the metadata that are used to filter and weight the evidence. Future studies should also develop standardised software packages, so that researchers can efficiently publish dynamic versions of their meta-analyses and keep them up-to-date as living systematic reviews. Metadataset is a proof-of-concept for this type of software, and it is open source. Future studies should improve the user experience, scale the software architecture, agree on standards for data and metadata storage and processing, and develop protocols for responsible evidence use.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12915-021-00974-w.

Network reorganization and breakdown of an ant-plant protection mutualism with elevation

Both the abiotic environment and the composition of animal and plant communities change with elevation. For mutualistic species, these changes are expected to result in altered partner availability, and shifts in context-dependent benefits for partners. To test these predictions, we assessed the network structure of terrestrial ant-plant mutualists and how the benefits to plants of ant inhabitation changed with elevation in tropical forest in Papua New Guinea. At higher elevations, ant-plants were rarer, species richness of both ants and plants decreased, and the average ant or plant species interacted with fewer partners. However, networks became increasingly connected and less specialized, more than could be accounted for by reductions in ant-plant abundance. On the most common ant-plant, ants recruited less and spent less time attacking a surrogate herbivore at higher elevations, and herbivory damage increased. These changes were driven by turnover of ant species rather than by within-species shifts in protective behaviour. We speculate that reduced partner availability at higher elevations results in less specialized networks, while lower temperatures mean that even for ant-inhabited plants, benefits are reduced. Under increased abiotic stress, mutualistic networks can break down, owing to a combination of lower population sizes, and a reduction in context-dependent mutualistic benefits.