Search

Scientific communication relies on clear presentation of data. Logarithmic scales are used frequently for data presentation in many scientific disciplines, including ecology, but the degree to which they are correctly interpreted by readers is unclear. Analysing the extent of log scales in the literature, we show that 22% of papers published in the journal Ecology in 2015 included at least one log-scaled axis, of which 21% were log–log displays. We conducted a survey that asked members of the Ecological Society of America (988 responses, and 623 completed surveys) to interpret graphs that were randomly displayed with linear–linear or log–log axes. Many more respondents interpreted graphs correctly when the graphs had linear–linear axes than when they had log–log axes: 93% versus 56% for our all-around metric, although some of the individual item comparisons were even more skewed (for example, 86% versus 9% and 88% versus 12%). These results suggest that misconceptions about log-scaled data are rampant. We recommend that ecology curricula include explicit instruction on how to interpret log-scaled axes and equations, and we also recommend that authors take the potential for misconceptions into account when deciding how to visualize data. Logarithmic scales are frequently used in ecological data display, but the degree to which they are understood is not clear. Here, the authors survey members of the Ecological Society of America and find that only 56% of respondents correctly interpreted data presented on log–log axes.

Land-use change occurs nowhere more rapidly than in the tropics, where the imbalance between deforestation and forest regrowth has large consequences for the global carbon cycle(1). However, considerable uncertainty remains about the rate of biomass recovery in secondary forests, and how these rates are influenced by climate, landscape, and prior land use(2-4). Here we analyse aboveground biomass recovery during secondary succession in 45 forest sites and about 1,500 forest plots covering the major environmental gradients in the Neotropics. The studied secondary forests are highly productive and resilient. Aboveground biomass recovery after 20 years was on average 122 megagrams per hectare (Mg ha(-1)), corresponding to a net carbon uptake of 3.05 Mg C ha(-1) yr(-1), 11 times the uptake rate of old-growth forests. Aboveground biomass stocks took a median time of 66 years to recover to 90% of old-growth values. Aboveground biomass recovery after 20 years varied 11.3-fold ( from 20 to 225 Mg ha(-1)) across sites, and this recovery increased with water availability (higher local rainfall and lower climatic water deficit). We present a biomass recovery map of Latin America, which illustrates geographical and climatic variation in carbon sequestration potential during forest regrowth. The map will support policies to minimize forest loss in areas where biomass resilience is naturally low (such as seasonally dry forest regions) and promote forest regeneration and restoration in humid tropical lowland areas with high biomass resilience.