| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
- Jeppsson, Tobias, et al.
(författare)
-
Oh, how we pick and choose: on theoretical constructs in subfields of ecology
- 2016
-
Annan publikation (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- Ecology consists of a large number of theoretical constructs, empirical patterns and methods; a pool from which applied ecology can draw ideas when exploring practical problems. Subfields of applied ecology - including pest control, conservation, and wildlife management - deal with the management of biological populations, and should therefore rest on the same ecological foundations. But is this really the case? We study this issue by analyzing recent citation rates (2010-2014) to more than 130 highly cited, classic publications, covering a wide range of topics. Using ordination methods, we find a clear clustering of journals, where conservation occupies another part of the ordination space than pest control. Classifying papers into broad topics reveals that the ordination patterns are driven by striking differences in how often ecological concepts are used in different subfields. While some patterns are easy to understand, e.g. the use of biodiversity concepts in conservation, others are left unexplained. For instance, the lack of spatial concepts and competition in pest control, predation in conservation journals, and foodweb ideas in wildlife journals are harder to understand. Microbial ecology also appears devoid of large parts of ecological theory. These patterns imply distinct divides within ecology, where subfields selectively use certain parts of ecological theory. Therefore, we argue that work in applied ecology would benefit from broader theoretical perspectives. Collaboration and inspiration across sub-disciplines could be one way to achieve this, perhaps inspiring novel research directions.
|
|
| 5. |
- Jeppsson, Tobias
(författare)
-
The many forms of beta diversity: a comment on McGill et al. and some notational suggestions
- 2017
-
Ingår i: PeerJ Preprints. - : PeerJ. - 2167-9843.
-
Annan publikation (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- Fundamentally, beta diversity is a measure of species turnover across time or space. In practice, it is sometimes unclear exactly what aspect of beta diversity that is implied in studies. For instance, a trend in ’spatial beta diversity’ can be used to refer to both differences in spatial beta diversity between sites, as well as a temporal trend in spatial beta diversity (at the same site). In a recent review, McGill et al. [1] provide a useful and much needed overview of different aspects of biodiversity change, and show areas where we lack knowledge. Even so, McGill et al. ignore some aspects of beta diversity and sometimes pool different types of beta diversity under the same heading. However, their review mainly focused on temporal trends in diversity, while I here want to highlight spatial patterns in temporal β -diversity (species turnover) as an important but somewhat overlooked component of biodiversity change. Furthermore, I propose a slightly modified classification and nomenclature of metrics of biodiversity change, with the aim of complementing their review. The notation used here can hopefully be useful to other authors as well.
|
|
| 6. |
- van Oosten, H. Herman, et al.
(författare)
-
Hatching failure and accumulation of organic pollutants through the terrestrial food web of a declining songbird in Western Europe
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Science of the Total Environment. - : Elsevier BV. - 0048-9697 .- 1879-1026. ; 650:1, s. 1547-1553
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Population growth in passerine birds is largely driven by fecundity. If fecundity is affected, for instance by hatching failure, populations may decline. We noted high hatching failure of up to 27% per year in relict populations of the Northern wheatear (Oenanthe oenanthe) in The Netherlands, a strongly declining, migratory passerine in Europe. This hatching failure itself can cause population decline, irrespective of other adverse factors. Additionally, we investigated the cause of hatching failure. Unhatched eggs showed egg yolk infections or embryonic malformations, part of which is associated with the actions of dioxin-like compounds (DLCs). Indeed, DLCs appear to bioaccumulate in the local foodweb, where the soil contained only background concentrations, similar to those found at many other locations. DLC concentrations in Dutch eggs were six-fold higher than those in a reference population in Sweden, where egg failure was only 6%. However, Northern wheatears appear to be only moderately sensitive to the actions of DLCs, because of their specific Ah-receptor type which may moderate the receptor mediated effects of DLCs. This indicates that the concentrations of DLCs, although elevated, may not have caused the embryo malformations or the low hatching rates. We discuss whether other toxins may be important or imbalances in the nutrition and if inbreeding may play a larger role than expected.
|
|
