There is a growing need for collaborative and interdisciplinary research in addressing global ecological challenges, and early career researchers (ECRs) often play a vital role in such ventures. But despite the desire for such approaches, forming new and interdisciplinary collaborations is risky, and disproportionately so for ECRs, whose perspectives on this topic are rarely heard. Here, we present common perceptions among ECRs regarding opportunities for intra‐ and interdisciplinary collaboration, and barriers preventing such collaboration from taking place. We also discuss possible solutions, and the ecological outcomes of fostering more collaboration. The perceptions discussed have been distilled from a two‐day workshop in New Zealand, aiming to investigate the potential for collaboration between 34 ECRs in distinct ecological disciplines across ten research institutes. Commonality in methodology or research aims was vital for potential collaborations to be considered worthwhile, but differences in spatial or temporal scales were a key disconnect that hindered numerous potential crossovers. Individual connectivity and institutional structures were commonly perceived as barriers to acting collaboratively in general. Specifically, barriers included having a small peer network, lack of access to funding, and concerns over the risk/reward ratio of forming new collaborations. Overcoming barriers will require active, practical support from institutions, funding bodies and mentors, and participants commonly called for specific funding support and the creation of ECR‐focused spaces to better foster collaborative behavior. Fostering interdisciplinary ECR collaborations in ecology was perceived to be useful in creating larger and more useful datasets and tools, and more scalable and transferable models and outcomes. Adopting practices that facilitate more ECR‐led interdisciplinary collaboration will help generate a more integrative understanding of ecological systems globally.

The orange-back flying squid, Sthenoteuthis pteropus, plays an important role in the eastern tropical Atlantic Ocean (ETA) pelagic food web, as both predator and prey. Specimens of S. pteropus were caught off the Cape Verde Islands and concentrations of Ag, As, Cd, Co, Cr, Cu, Fe, Hg, Mn, Ni, Pb, Se, V, and Zn were measured in the digestive gland. Among the analysed elements, Cd showed the highest average concentration with values among the highest ever recorded in cephalopods. In addition to the digestive gland, Hg concentrations were also analysed in the buccal mass and mantle tissue. Among the three tissues, buccal mass showed the highest Hg concentrations. In females, Hg concentrations in the buccal mass were positively correlated with stable isotope ratios (δC and δN) and mantle length, showing both bioaccumulation with age and bioamplification along the trophic levels. High Cd and Hg concentrations in the digestive gland and muscle respectively would lead to elevated exposure of squid-eating top predators such as yellowfin tuna, swordfish or dolphinfish, which are commercially harvested for human consumption. This study provides a deeper understanding of the trace element contamination in an abundant and ecologically important, but poorly studied pelagic squid in the ETA.

Despite one-third of New Zealand's landmass being protected as public conservation land, the country still faces significant conservation challenges. Nearly 50% of the country's landmass has been converted to pastoral farming, and biological invasions pose a sustained and growing threat to remaining biodiversity across all land tenures. Managing and protecting biodiversity on-farm provides vast opportunities to create nature-rich pastoral landscapes. A key step towards bringing about necessary behaviour change to achieve this is increasing insights into farmers' attitudes towards the value of native biodiversity on their farms. Using a questionnaire underpinned by the Theory of Planned Behaviour, we surveyed 500 sheep and beef farmers from around New Zealand as to their beliefs and attitudes and perceived barriers relating to the protection and management of native biodiversity on their farm. Although the survey respondents were largely homogenous, the surveyed group of farmers were heterogeneous in their responses. When asked about advantages associated with managing and protecting native biodiversity on their farms, 690 distinct responses were provided, spanning social (47%), environmental (34%), practical (10%), and economic (2%) themes. In contrast, identified disadvantages were fewer (530 distinct responses) and less wide-ranging in scope, clustering around economic (44%), practical (26%) and social (25%) themes. Nearly three times as many farmers stated there were no disadvantages (22%) than stated there were no advantages (8%). However, the most frequently cited disadvantages were cost and time, which were also commonly cited as barriers to managing biodiversity. Our study illustrates that sheep and beef farmers perceive may advantages in maintaining native biodiversity on-farm, but there is a clear desire for greater support in overcoming identified barriers and this will require a targeted policy response.

1. An ever-expanding human population, climatic changes and the spread of intensive farming practices are putting increasing pressure on agroecosystems and their inherent biodiversity. Non-production vegetation elements, such as woody patches, riparian margins and restoration plantings, are vital for conserving agroecosystem biodiversity. Furthermore, such elements are key building blocks that are manipulated via land management, thereby influencing the biotic and abiotic processes that underpin functioning agroecosystems. 2. Despite this critical role, there has been a lack of synthesis on which types of vegetation elements drive and/or support ecological processes, and the mechanisms by which this occurs. Using a systematic, quantitative literature review of 342 articles, we asked the following questions: what are the effects of non-production vegetation on agroecosystem processes and how are these processes measured within global agroecosystems? 3. Woody patches, hedgerows and borders, riparian margins, and shelterbelts were the most studied types of non-production vegetation. The majority (61%) of studies showed positive effects of non-production vegetation on ecological processes, where the presence, level or rate of the studied process was increased or enhanced. 4. However, four key research gaps were revealed: (a) most studies (83%) used proxies for, instead of direct measurements of, ecosystem processes related to non-production vegetation; (b) study designs used to investigate non-production vegetation effects on ecosystem processes directly were largely limited to observational comparisons of non-production vegetation types, farm-scale vegetation configurations and different proximities to vegetation in terms of the effect on ecological processes; relatively few studies used manipulative experiments; (c) the relatively few studies directly measuring ecosystem processes were dominated | 293 People and Nature CASE Et Al.

No abstract