Search

Synthesis research in ecology and environmental science improves understanding, advances theory, identifies research priorities, and supports management strategies by linking data, ideas, and tools. Accelerating environmental challenges increases the need to focus synthesis science on the most pressing questions. To leverage input from the broader research community, we convened a virtual workshop with participants from many countries and disciplines to examine how and where synthesis can address key questions and themes in ecology and environmental science in the coming decade. Seven priority research topics emerged: (1) diversity, equity, inclusion, and justice (DEIJ), (2) human and natural systems, (3) actionable and use-inspired science, (4) scale, (5) generality, (6) complexity and resilience, and (7) predictability. Additionally, two issues regarding the general practice of synthesis emerged: the need for increased participant diversity and inclusive research practices; and increased and improved data flow, access, and skill-building. These topics and practices provide a strategic vision for future synthesis in ecology and environmental science.

While environmental science, and ecology in particular, is working to provide better understanding to base sustainable decisions on, the way scientific understanding is developed can at times be detrimental to this cause. Locked-in debates are often unnecessarily polarised and can compromise any common goals of the opposing camps. The present paper is inspired by a resolved debate from an unrelated field of psychology where Nobel laureate David Kahneman and Garry Klein turned what seemed to be a locked-in debate into a constructive process for their fields. The present paper is also motivated by previous discourses regarding the role of thresholds in natural systems for management and governance, but its scope of analysis targets the scientific process within complex social-ecological systems in general. We identified four features of environmental science that appear to predispose for locked-in debates: (1) The strongly context-dependent behaviour of ecological systems. (2) The dominant role of single hypothesis testing. (3) The high prominence given to theory demonstration compared investigation. (4) The effect of urgent demands to inform and steer policy. This fertile ground is further cultivated by human psychological aspects as well as the structure of funding and publication systems.

Meta‐analyses often encounter studies with incompletely reported variance measures (e.g., standard deviation values) or sample sizes, both needed to conduct weighted meta‐analyses. Here, we first present a systematic literature survey on the frequency and treatment of missing data in published ecological meta‐analyses showing that the majority of meta‐analyses encountered incompletely reported studies. We then simulated meta‐analysis data sets to investigate the performance of 14 options to treat or impute missing SDs and/or SSs. Performance was thereby assessed using results from fully informed weighted analyses on (hypothetically) complete data sets. We show that the omission of incompletely reported studies is not a viable solution. Unweighted and sample size‐based variance approximation can yield unbiased grand means if effect sizes are independent of their corresponding SDs and SSs. The performance of different imputation methods depends on the structure of the meta‐analysis data set, especially in the case of correlated effect sizes and standard deviations or sample sizes. In a best‐case scenario, which assumes that SDs and/or SSs are both missing at random and are unrelated to effect sizes, our simulations show that the imputation of up to 90% of missing data still yields grand means and confidence intervals that are similar to those obtained with fully informed weighted analyses. We conclude that multiple imputation of missing variance measures and sample sizes could help overcome the problem of incompletely reported primary studies, not only in the field of ecological meta‐analyses. Still, caution must be exercised in consideration of potential correlations and pattern of missingness.

Most current research on land‐use intensification addresses its potential to either threaten biodiversity or to boost agricultural production. However, little is known about the simultaneous effects of intensification on biodiversity and yield. To determine the responses of species richness and yield to conventional intensification, we conducted a global meta‐analysis synthesizing 115 studies which collected data for both variables at the same locations. We extracted 449 cases that cover a variety of areas used for agricultural (crops, fodder) and silvicultural (wood) production. We found that, across all production systems and species groups, conventional intensification is successful in increasing yield (grand mean + 20.3%), but it also results in a loss of species richness (−8.9%). However, analysis of sub‐groups revealed inconsistent results. For example, small intensification steps within low intensity systems did not affect yield or species richness. Within high‐intensity systems species losses were non‐significant but yield gains were substantial (+15.2%). Conventional intensification within medium intensity systems revealed the highest yield increase (+84.9%) and showed the largest loss in species richness (−22.9%). Production systems differed in their magnitude of richness response, with insignificant changes in silvicultural systems and substantial losses in crop systems (−21.2%). In addition, this meta‐analysis identifies a lack of studies that collect robust biodiversity (i.e. beyond species richness) and yield data at the same sites and that provide quantitative information on land‐use intensity. Our findings suggest that, in many cases, conventional land‐use intensification drives a trade‐off between species richness and production. However, species richness losses were often not significantly different from zero, suggesting even conventional intensification can result in yield increases without coming at the expense of biodiversity l

A growing human population coupled with increasing per capita consumption, changing diets, increasing food waste, and ineffective regulation, have led to rising demands on ecosystems for the services they supply [1].

Meta-analysis is the quantitative, scientific synthesis of research results. Since the term and modern approaches to research synthesis were first introduced in the 1970s, meta-analysis has had a revolutionary effect in many scientific fields, helping to establish evidence-based practice and to resolve seemingly contradictory research outcomes. At the same time, its implementation has engendered criticism and controversy, in some cases general and others specific to particular disciplines. Here we take the opportunity provided by the recent fortieth anniversary of meta-analysis to reflect on the accomplishments, limitations, recent advances and directions for future developments in the field of research synthesis.

Peer review is widely considered fundamental to maintaining the rigour of science, but it often fails to ensure transparency and reduce bias in published papers, and this systematically weakens the quality of published inferences. In part, this is because many reviewers are unaware of important questions to ask with respect to the soundness of the design and analyses, and the presentation of the methods and results; also some reviewers may expect others to be responsible for these tasks. We therefore present a reviewers’ checklist of ten questions that address these critical components. Checklists are commonly used by practitioners of other complex tasks, and we see great potential for the wider adoption of checklists for peer review, especially to reduce bias and facilitate transparency in published papers. We expect that such checklists will be well received by many reviewers.

Ecological and evolutionary research increasingly uses quantitative synthesis of primary research studies (meta-analysis) for answering fundamental questions, informing environmental policy and summarizing results for decision makers.Knowing how meta-analysis works is important for researchers so that their research can have broader impact. Meta-analytic thinking encourages scientists to see single primary research studies as substantial contributions to a larger picture.To facilitate inclusion in a meta-analysis, relevant primary research studies must be found and basic information about the methods and results must be thoroughly, clearly and transparently reported. While many published papers provide this information, it is common for essential data to be omitted, leading to study exclusion from meta-analyses.We provide guidelines for correctly reporting basic data needed from primary studies in ecology and evolutionary biology so that they can be included in meta-analyses, together with examples that show how data should be reported to enable calculation and analysis of effect sizes, and how data should be made accessible.These guidelines are important for reporting research results in general, whether or not results are included in subsequent meta-analyses, because they are necessary for the interpretation and assessment of study outcomes. Increased implementation of these guidelines by authors, editors and publishers, and reinforcement by funders, will foster higher quality and more inclusive syntheses, further the goals of transparency and reproducibility in science, and improve the quality and value of primary research studies.

Biodiversity conservation and agricultural production are often seen as mutually exclusive objectives. Strategies for reconciling them are intensely debated. We argue that harmonization between biodiversity conservation and crop production can be improved by increasing our understanding of the underlying relationships between them. We provide a general conceptual framework that links biodiversity and agricultural production through the separate relationships between land use and biodiversity and between land use and production. Hypothesized relationships are derived by synthesizing existing empirical and theoretical ecological knowledge. The framework suggests nonlinear relationships caused by the multifaceted impacts of land use (composition, configuration, and intensity). We propose solutions for overcoming the apparently dichotomous aims of maximizing either biodiversity conservation or agricultural production and suggest new hypotheses that emerge from our proposed framework.

Biodiversity conservation and agricultural production are often seen as mutually exclusive objectives. Strategies for reconciling them are intensely debated. We argue that harmonization between biodiversity conservation and crop production can be improved by increasing our understanding of the underlying relationships between them. We provide a general conceptual framework that links biodiversity and agricultural production through the separate relationships between land use and biodiversity and between land use and production. Hypothesized relationships are derived by synthesizing existing empirical and theoretical ecological knowledge. The framework suggests nonlinear relationships caused by the multifaceted impacts of land use (composition, configuration, and intensity). We propose solutions for overcoming the apparently dichotomous aims of maximizing either biodiversity conservation or agricultural production and suggest new hypotheses that emerge from our proposed framework.

Carbon-isotope ratios were examined as?? 13 C values in several C 3, C 4, and C 3???C 4 Flaveria species, and compared to predicted?? 13 C, values generated from theoretical models. The measured?? 13 C values were within 4??? of those predicted from the models. The models were used to identify factors that contribute to C 3 -like?? 13 C values in C 3???C 4 species that exhibit considerable C 4 -cycle activity. Two of the factors contributing to C 3 -like?? 13 C values are high CO 2 leakiness from the C 4 pathway and pi/pa values that were higher than C 4 congeners. A marked break occurred in the relationship between the percentage of atmospheric CO 2 assimilated through the C 4 cycle and the?? 13 C value. Below 50% C 4 -cycle assimialtion there was no significant relationship between the variables, but above 50% the?? 13 C values became less negative. These results demonstrate that the level of C 4 -cycle expression can increase from, 0 to 50% with little integration of carbon transfer from the C 4 to the C 3 cycle. As expression increaces above 50%, however, increased integration of C 3 - and C 4 -cycle co-function occurs.

Invasion biologists often suggest that phenotypic plasticity plays an important role in successful plant invasions. Assuming that plasticity enhances ecological niche breadth and therefore confers a fitness advantage, recent studies have posed two main hypotheses: (1) invasive species are more plastic than non-invasive or native ones; (2) populations in the introduced range of an invasive species have evolved greater plasticity than populations in the native range. These two hypotheses largely reflect the disparate interests of ecologists and evolutionary biologists. Because these sciences are typically interested in different temporal and spatial scales, we describe what is required to assess phenotypic plasticity at different levels. We explore the inevitable tradeoffs of experiments conducted at the genotype vs. species level, outline components of experimental design required to identify plasticity at different levels, and review some examples from the recent literature. Moreover, we suggest that a successful invader may benefit from plasticity as either (1) a Jack-of-all-trades, better able to maintain fitness in unfavourable environments; (2) a Master-of-some, better able to increase fitness in favourable environments; or (3) a Jack-and-master that combines some level of both abilities. This new framework can be applied when testing both ecological or evolutionary oriented hypotheses, and therefore promises to bridge the gap between the two perspectives.

Climate change due to greenhouse gas emissions is predicted to raise the mean global temperature by 1.0-3.5°C in the next 50-100 years. The direct and indirect effects of this potential increase in temperature on terrestrial ecosystems and ecosystem processes are likely to be complex and highly varied in time and space. The Global Change and Terrestrial Ecosystems core project of the International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme has recently launched a Network of Ecosystem Warming Studies, the goals of which are to integrate and foster research on ecosystem-level effects of rising temperature. In this paper, we use meta-analysis to synthesize data on the response of soil respiration, net N mineralization, and aboveground plant productivity to experimental ecosystem warming at 32 research sites representing four broadly defined biomes, including high (latitude or altitude) tundra, low tundra, grassland, and forest. Warming methods included electrical heat-resistance ground cables, greenhouses, vented and unvented field chambers, overhead infrared lamps, and passive night-time warming. Although results from individual sites showed considerable variation in response to warming, results from the meta-analysis showed that, across all sites and years, 2-9 years of experimental warming in the range 0.3-6.0°C significantly increased soil respiration rates by 20% (with a 95% confidence interval of 18-22%), net N mineralization rates by 46% (with a 95% confidence interval of 30-64%), and plant productivity by 19% (with a 95% confidence interval of 15-23%). The response of soil respiration to warming was generally larger in forested ecosystems compared to low tundra and grassland ecosystems, and the response of plant productivity was generally larger in low tundra ecosystems than in forest and grassland ecosystems. With the exception of aboveground plant productivity, which showed a greater positive response to warming in colder ecosystems, the magnitude of the response of th

The International Tundra Experiment (ITEX) is a collaborative, multisite experiment using a common temperature manipulation to examine variability in species response across climatic and geographic gradients of tundra ecosystems. ITEX was designed specifically to examine variability in arctic and alpine species response to increased temperature. We compiled from one to four years of experimental data from 13 different ITEX sites and used meta-analysis to analyze responses of plant phenology, growth, and reproduction to experimental warming. Results indicate that key phenological events such as leaf bud burst and flowering occurred earlier in warmed plots throughout the study period; however, there was little impact on growth cessation at the end of the season. Quantitative measures of vegetative growth were greatest in warmed plots in the early years of the experiment, whereas reproductive effort and success increased in later years. A shift away from vegetative growth and toward reproductive effort and success in the fourth treatment year suggests a shift from the initial response to a secondary response. The change in vegetative response may be due to depletion of stored plant reserves, whereas the lag in reproductive response may be due to the formation of flower buds one to several seasons prior to flowering. Both vegetative and reproductive responses varied among life-forms; herbaceous forms had stronger and more consistent vegetative growth responses than did woody forms. The greater responsiveness of the herbaceous forms may be attributed to their more flexible morphology and to their relatively greater proportion of stored plant reserves. Finally, warmer, low arctic sites produced the strongest growth responses, but colder sites produced a greater reproductive response. Greater resource investment in vegetative growth may be a conservative strategy in the Low Arctic, where there is more competition for light, nutrients, or water, and there may be little oppo