Search

Many professions necessitate a graduate-level education, and research conducted by graduate students is integral in many fields, particularly those in the life science programs like ecology and environmental sciences. However, practices for recruiting and selecting graduate students are inconsistent among and within institutions. Although some institutions, departments, or faculty members hire graduate students through open and competitive graduate student hiring processes, graduates are frequently selected through inconsistent processes that limit the pool of applicants and do not maximize the potential for increasing workforce diversity. Here, we review and evaluate six approaches to graduate recruitment processes common in ecology and environmental science degree programs in the US to determine which approaches, or combinations of approaches, could increase equity in career development opportunities, promote workforce diversity, and provide clear justifications to funding bodies. We compiled our list of recruitment methods through informal interviews with recruiters, administrators, faculty, and graduate students in ecology, natural resources, and environmental sciences. We determined that three of the six approaches examined were most effective in supporting equitable graduate student hiring practices, and three were not. While life science fields were the primary focus of this review, our approach to evaluating graduate recruitment methods is widely applicable across disciplines where graduate students conduct research.

Natural resources managers are being asked to follow practices that accommodate for the impact of climate change on the ecosystems they manage, while global-ecosystems modelers aim to forecast future responses under different climate scenarios. However, the lack of scientific knowledge about short-term ecosystem responses to climate change has made it difficult to define set conservation practices or to realistically inform ecosystem models. Until recently, the main goal for ecologists was to study the composition and structure of communities and their implications for ecosystem function, but due to the probable magnitude and irreversibility of climate-change effects (species extinctions and loss of ecosystem function), a shorter term focus on responses of ecosystems to climate change is needed. We highlight several underutilized approaches for studying the ecological consequences of climate change that capitalize on the natural variability of the climate system at different temporal and spatial scales. For example, studying organismal responses to extreme climatic events can inform about the resilience of populations to global warming and contribute to the assessment of local extinctions. Translocation experiments and gene expression are particular useful to quantitate a species' acclimation potential to global warming. And studies along environmental gradients can guide habitat restoration and protection programs by identifying vulnerable species and sites. These approaches identify the processes and mechanisms underlying species acclimation to changing conditions, combine different analytical approaches, and can be used to improve forecasts of the short-term impacts of climate change and thus inform conservation practices and ecosystem models in a meaningful way.

Natural resources managers are being asked to follow practices that accommodate for the impact of climate change on the ecosystems they manage, while global-ecosystems modelers aim to forecast future responses under different climate scenarios. However, the lack of scientific knowledge about short-term ecosystem responses to climate change has made it difficult to define set conservation practices or to realistically inform ecosystem models. Until recently, the main goal for ecologists was to study the composition and structure of communities and their implications for ecosystem function, but due to the probable magnitude and irreversibility of climate-change effects (species extinctions and loss of ecosystem function), a shorter term focus on responses of ecosystems to climate change is needed. We highlight several underutilized approaches for studying the ecological consequences of climate change that capitalize on the natural variability of the climate system at different temporal and spatial scales. For example, studying organismal responses to extreme climatic events can inform about the resilience of populations to global warming and contribute to the assessment of local extinctions. Translocation experiments and gene expression are particular useful to quantitate a species' acclimation potential to global warming. And studies along environmental gradients can guide habitat restoration and protection programs by identifying vulnerable species and sites. These approaches identify the processes and mechanisms underlying species acclimation to changing conditions, combine different analytical approaches, and can be used to improve forecasts of the short-term impacts of climate change and thus inform conservation practices and ecosystem models in a meaningful way.

Effective conservation schemes are needed to advance the dual objectives of biodiversity conservation and agronomic production in agricultural landscapes. Understanding how plant and arthropod taxa respond to both local habitat patch characteristics and landscape complexity is crucial for planning effective agri‐environment schemes. This study investigated the relative effects of local variables (plant and insect diversity ≤100 m from patch habitat center) and landscape variables (landscape composition and configuration metrics ≤5 km from patch habitat center) on the diversity of plants and arthropods within noncrop habitat patches (1) at different spatial extents ranging from 0.1 to 5 km, while (2) quantifying differential effects of local and landscape variables on particular components of diversity (i.e., species richness and abundance), and accounting for (3) particular components of landscape extent (0.1‐, 0.5‐, 1‐, 2‐, and 5‐km radii) and complexity (i.e., landscape composition and configuration). Landscape variables were significantly correlated with local plant and arthropod species richness and abundance at all spatial extents. Biodiversity responses to landscape variables were largely scale‐dependent, as pairwise comparisons were significantly different between all spatial extents except between 1‐ and 2‐km extents, and correlations were lowest at the 5‐km extent. Partial R2 values for predicting local biodiversity were highest when both local and landscape variables were included as predictors of species richness and abundance, increasing from 0.163 to 0.469 when landscape variables were included, underscoring the importance of considering both local and landscape effects on local diversity. Landscape configuration variables accounted for more variation in plant and arthropod species richness than composition variables. However, models performed best when composition and configuration were considered together rather than alone, suggesting that both components of landscape complexity should be considered for identifying and managing conservation areas in crop fields. Existing conservation schemes that incentivize farmers to create or conserve seminatural patch habitat within crop fields may be more effective when combined with landscape‐scale designs that enhance landscape complexity across the Northern Great Plains. Local conservation efforts should be coordinated with landscape‐level efforts to ultimately enhance biodiversity and desired ecosystem service outcomes across agricultural landscapes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Pollinators, which provide vital services to wild ecosystems and agricultural crops, are facing global declines and habitat loss. As undeveloped land becomes increasingly scarce, much focus has been directed recently to roadsides as potential target zones for providing floral resources to pollinators. Roadsides, however, are risky places for pollinators, with threats from vehicle collisions, toxic pollutants, mowing, herbicides, and more. Although these threats have been investigated, most studies have yet to quantify the costs and benefits of roadsides to pollinators and, therefore, do not address whether the costs outweigh the benefits for pollinator populations using roadside habitats. In this article, we address how, when, and under what conditions roadside habitats may benefit or harm pollinators, reviewing existing knowledge and recommending practical questions that managers and policymakers should consider when planning pollinator-focused roadside management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]