Search

With increasing attention to climate change and biodiversity loss, conservation social science research on land management practices is burgeoning. Researchers have broadened their focus from protected areas to diverse types of land management to support conservation and climate mitigation. But, developing effective strategies for these issues requires an in‐depth understanding of both the socio‐psychological factors that guide landholders' decision‐making and global trends in land management practices and literature. To assess the trends and status of land management behavior research, we systematically reviewed research published between 2010 and 2020 in five seminal conservation journals. Of 11,607 articles reviewed, we identified 100 articles about land management behavior. We assessed theoretical groundings, measurement methodology, land‐use terminology and practices, ecosystem type, and geographic distribution. We identified strengths and significant gaps and weaknesses across land management research. For example, 52% of articles made no meaningful connection to theory, only 14% of papers used observed behavioral data, 86% of studies uses non‐experimental methods and researchers disproportionately measured land management behavior in developed nations (66%). We also find that language used to describe land management behavior is very heterogeneous, making it difficult to summarize land management research using traditional systematic review methods. Conducting a limited systematic review can help summarize research and also identify trends across disciplines that might otherwise missed. Results from our limited systematic review can guide future research and support the development of evidence‐based policies to mitigate climate change and biodiversity loss. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

LGBTQ+ individuals face unique barriers to participation in ecology. Such barriers are particularly relevant during fieldwork, including physical and discriminatory risks, increased isolation and noninclusive infrastructure.To make science and fieldwork more accessible to LGBTQ+ people, we must consider safety and survival needs along with personal LGBTQ+ affirmation. In this paper, we discuss alleviating barriers to participation in field ecology, identify best practices for institutions and provide advice for LGBTQ+ field researchers and heterosexual advocates.Synthesis and applications. We recommend that mentors and institutions take action on the safety, financial, medical and administrative support needed by field researchers who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, queer or other marginalized gender and sexual identities (LGBTQ+) field researchers. We also suggest that LGBTQ+ field ecologists prioritize their wellbeing and safety, and recommend maintaining connection to LGBTQ+ communities and identities during isolating fieldwork. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Forced copulations are a type of sexual coercion that typically occurs when the fitness interests of males and females are in conflict. Forced copulations are rare in most species of birds, and there are only a few reports in passerine species. Here we report the first published observation of an immature Red-winged Blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus male attempting a forced copulation on a nesting Red-winged Blackbird female. We describe the behaviour and discuss potential explanations and implications for our observations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An understanding of private landowner's perceptions can guide decisions about conservation in rural landscapes. However, mailed surveys that evaluate landowner views are increasingly plagued by falling response rates and nonresponse bias. Using survey data from research conducted in the Midwestern United States in 2007 and 2017, we adapted a framework for testing nonresponse bias across demographics, attitudes, and land-use practices inferred from aerial imagery. We compared respondents and nonrespondents, early and late-respondents, low- and high-interest respondents, and our sample and published data. Across all comparisons, we found little consistent evidence of nonresponse bias, except a possible under-sampling of Amish landowners and conflicting results on gender. Many discrepancies were likely related to the sampling methodology. Because comparisons yielded conflicting results, we recommend that researchers engaged in survey research with rural communities use multiple methods to triangulate nonresponse bias to determine whether subgroups of rural populations are under-sampled. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]