Search

Human activities are altering the structure of ecosystems, compromising the benefits they provide to nature and people. Effective conservation actions and management under ongoing global change rely on a better understanding of socio-ecological patterns and processes across broad spatiotemporal scales. Both macroecology and conservation science contribute to this improved understanding and, while they have different scopes, these disciplines have become increasingly interconnected over time. Here we describe examples of how macroecology has contributed to conservation science, and how conservation science can motivate further macroecological developments and applications. We identify challenges and untapped potential to further strengthen the links between these two disciplines. Major macroecological contributions include developing ecological theory, providing methodologies useful for biodiversity assessments and projections, making data more accessible and addressing knowledge gaps. These contributions have played a major role in the development of conservation science, and have supported outreach to policy makers, media, and the public. Nonetheless, a pure macroecological lens is limited to inform conservation decisions, particularly in local contexts, which frequently leads to the misuse of macroecological analyses for conservation applications, misunderstandings of research outputs, and skepticism among conservation practitioners and scientists. We propose possible solutions to overcome these challenges and strengthen links between macroecology and conservation science, including a stronger focus on ecological mechanisms and predictive approaches, and the creation of hybrid journals and meetings. Finally, we suggest new avenues for macroecological research that would further benefit conservation science.

Field ecologists and macroecologists often compete for the same grants and academic positions, with the former producing primary data that the latter generally use for model parameterization. Primary data are usually cited only in the supplementary materials, thereby not counting formally as citations, creating a system where field ecologists are routinely under-acknowledged and possibly disadvantaged in the race for funding and positions. Here, we explored how the performance of authors producing novel ecological data would change if all the citations to their work would be accounted for by bibliometric indicators. We collected the track record of >2300 authors from Google Scholar and citation data from 600 papers published in 40 ecology journals, including field-based, conservation, general ecology, and macroecology studies. Then we parameterized a simulation that mimics the current publishing system for ecologists and assessed author rankings based on number of citations, H-Index, Impact Factor, and number of publications under a scenario where supplementary citations count. We found weak evidence for field ecologists being lower ranked than macroecologists or general ecologists, with publication rate being the main predictor of author performance. Current ranking dynamics were largely unaffected by supplementary citations as they are 10 times less than the number of main text citations. This is further exacerbated by the common practice of citing datasets assembled by previous research or data papers instead of the original articles. While accounting for supplementary citations does not appear to offer a solution, researcher performance evaluations should include criteria that better capture authors’ contribution of new, publicly available data. This could encourage field ecologists to collect and store new data in a systematic manner, thereby mitigating the data patchiness and bias in macroecology studies, and further accelerating the advancement of ecology and related areas of biogeography.