Search

Abstract Background Reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) is vital for mitigating climate change and meeting commitments to international agreements such as the COP 21 Paris Agreement of 2015. Agriculture is reported to account for approximately 11 percent of total global GHG emissions such that: the agricultural sector has an important role to play in meeting climate change mitigation objectives. However, there is currently little consensus on how farm management and interventions, along with interactions with in-field variability, such as soil type, affect the production and assimilation of GHGs in arable crop lands. Practical recommendations for farmers are often vague or generalised, and models (e.g. on the amount of nitrogen fertiliser applied) are used despite limited understanding of the influence of local conditions, such as the importance of soil type. Here, we report the findings of a systematic map of the evidence relating to the impact on GHG flux from the in-field management of arable land in temperate regions. Methods We searched for, collated and catalogued research relating to the effects of in-field arable farming practices in temperate systems on GHG emissions. Results from 6 bibliographic databases, a web-based search engine and organisational websites were combined with evidence from stakeholders. Duplicates were removed and the results were then screened for relevance at title and abstract, and full-text levels according to a predefined set of eligibility criteria (following consistency checking). Relevant studies were then coded and their meta-data extracted and used to populate a systematic map database describing each study’s settings, methods and measured outcomes. Results The mapping process identified 538 relevant studies from 351 articles. Nearly all of these (96%) were found from traditional research papers, with 42% from European countries and nearly half (203 studies) lasting for 12 months or less. Over half of all studies (55%) investigated multiple interventions with chemical fertiliser (n = 100), tillage (n = 70), and organic fertiliser (n = 30) the most frequently studied single intervention types. When combining individually studied and multiple interventions, the top three intervention types most frequently studied were: chemical fertiliser (n = 312); organic fertiliser (n = 176) and tillage (n = 158). Nitrous oxide was the most commonly studied outcome, with over double the number of studies compared to carbon dioxide, the next most studied outcome. Sandy loam and silty loam were the most commonly studied soils but there was a good distribution of studies across other types. However, studies predominately focused on humid sub-tropical (Cfa) and temperate oceanic (Cfb) climates, with hot summer Mediterranean (CSa) and warm summer Mediterranean (Csb) climate zones less represented. Conclusions The mapping process identified clusters of research for chemical and organic fertiliser especially in relation to nitrous oxide emissions and for both carbon dioxide and nitrous dioxide in relation to tillage. Therefore, there is potential for further synthesis for these interventions. The spread of research across soil textures and in the humid sub-tropical and temperate oceanic climates may enable further synthesis to provide tailored in-field advice for farmers and provide an evidence base to inform subsidies policy. However, smaller amounts of research relating to biochar, cover crops, crop rotation, and nitrogen inhibitors highlight gaps where further research would be beneficial.

Abstract Finding ways of efficiently monitoring threatened species can be critical to effective conservation. The global proliferation of community science (also called citizen science) programs, like iNaturalist, presents a potential alternative or complement to conventional threatened species monitoring. Using a case study of ~700,000 observations of >10,000 IUCN Red List Threatened species within iNaturalist observations, we illustrate the potential risks and rewards of using community science to monitor threatened species. Poor data quality and risks of sending untrained volunteers to sample species that are sensitive to disturbance or harvesting are key barriers to overcome. Yet community science can expand the breadth of monitoring at little extra cost, while indirectly benefiting conservation through outreach and education. We conclude with a list of actionable recommendations to further mitigate the risks and capitalize on the rewards of community science as a threatened species monitoring tool.

The magnitude of environmental challenges we are facing today requires the involvement of a diversity of stakeholders and collaborators to develop socially, culturally, and economically robust sustainability practices. Living labs catalyse the development of user-centric solutions for complex environmental issues by exploring, co-creating, testing, and evaluating innovations within real-world contexts. The living lab approach is relatively new in the environmental and agricultural sectors but is quite well established in many areas such as information and communication technology. For living labs to play a greater role in environmental sustainability, we present a research agenda related to the evaluation and effectiveness of living labs in the context of environmental and agricultural sustainability. We refer to evaluation as the act of assessing the process and outcomes of a living lab, and effectiveness as the level to which a living lab is successful in achieving a certain desirable process or outcome. Our research agenda is based on empirical research using an adapted Delphi method – a process to iteratively gather input from a panel of experts – involving a total of 44 researchers and experts in the domains of living labs, evaluation methods, and agro-environmental issues. The resulting integrated research agenda identifies important gaps in both research and practice to improve the impact of living labs. Our findings highlight the need to better understand effective use of this collaborative, open innovation approach in research and management focused on environmental and agricultural sustainability. Future research should investigate the knowledge gaps for we have identified in terms of diversity of stakeholders, key dimensions of evaluation and how to enable effectiveness of living labs.

Abstract Mutually respectful and reciprocal relationships between people and their environment is a central tenet of many Indigenous worldviews. Across the Americas, this relational connection is particularly evident when it comes to freshwater ecosystems. However, there are numerous threats to these central relationships between Indigenous peoples and their environment. Using all available ways of knowing to conserve, prioritize, and restore relationships between Indigenous peoples and the environment they live in, and are a part of, is critical. Despite legislative requirements and policy commitments, developing and implementing inclusive approaches that bridge multiple ways of knowing remains a challenge. This systematic map examines the extent, range, and nature of published case studies that seek to bridge Indigenous and Western sciences in ecological research, monitoring, or natural resource management across Canada's freshwater aquatic ecosystems. A total of 74 Canadian case studies from 72 articles were included in the systematic map. There were 30 distinct species of focus across the collection of case studies. This systematic map highlights the diversity of ways knowledge systems can be woven, but that the application of these approaches is limited to some key regions (the Pacific and northern regions) and species (whitefish and salmon). The extent and nature of information provided with regards to demographics (e.g., gender, age) of Indigenous knowledge holders contributing to the studies varied widely and in general was poorly reported. Across all of the case studies included in the systematic map there were 78 distinct Indigenous knowledge systems represented. Fifteen different methodological approaches were identified with community‐based participatory research being the most prevalent approach. The presence and diversity of Indigenous methodologies employed was also notable and was greater as compared to a previous study of Canada's coastal marine regions. Collectively, these findings point to a potential emerging transformation in research focused on freshwater ecosystems, habitats, and species to a practice that elevates the role of Indigenous communities, centres Indigenous science and knowledge, and is informed by Indigenous ways of being and doing.

The economic valuation of ecosystem services in part reflects the desire to use conventional economic tools (markets and economic instruments) to conserve ecosystem services. However, for regulating and supporting ecosystem services that depend on ecosystem structure and function, estimation of economic value requires estimates of the current level of underlying ecological functions first. This primary step is in principle, the job of environmental scientists, not economists. Here, we provide a coarse-level quantitative assessment of the relationship between the research effort expended by environmental scientists (on the biophysical values) and economists (on the monetary values) on 15 different regulating and supporting services in 32 ecosystem types using peer-reviewed article hits retrieved from bibliographic databases as a measure of research effort. We find a positive, moderately strong (r = 0.69) correlation between research efforts in the two domains, a result that, while encouraging, is likely to reflect serendipity rather than the deliberate design of integrated environmental science-economics research programs. Our results suggest that compared to environmental science research effort economic valuation is devoted to a smaller, less diverse set of ecosystem services but a broader, more diverse, set of ecosystem types. The two domains differed more with respect to the ecosystem services that are the major focus of research effort than they did with respect to the ecosystem types of principal research interest. For example, carbon sequestration, erosion regulation, and nutrient cycling receive more relative research effort in the environmental sciences; air quality regulation in economic valuations. For both domains, cultivated areas, wetlands, and urban/semi-urban ecosystem types received relatively large research effort, while arctic and mountain tundra, cave and subterranean, cryosphere, intertidal/littoral zone, and kelp forest ecosystem types received negligible research effort. We suggest ways and means by which the field of sustainability science may be improved by the design and implementation of a searchable database of environmental science and economic valuation literature as well as a global ecosystem service research network and repository that explicitly links research on the estimation and prediction of biophysical ecosystem functions with that of the social sciences and other knowledge systems. These suggestions would, at least in principle, facilitate a more efficient research agenda between economists and environmental scientists and aid management, regulatory and judicial decision-makers.