The distribution of the diversity and abundance of life on Earth is thought to be shaped by the patterns of plant growth (net primary production, NPP) in the oceans and on land. The well‐known latitudinal gradient of species diversity reaches its maximum in tropical rain forests, which are considered to be the most productive ecosystems on the planet. However, this high tropical productivity on land is the opposite of the well‐documented distribution of marine productivity, which is greatest in the high‐latitude oceans around the poles. This paradox can be resolved by a reevaluation of the terrestrial productivity gradient. Compilations of direct measurements of forest NPP show that annual NPP in tropical forests is no different than annual NPP in temperate forests, contrary to recent syntheses and to the output of global vegetation models. Other properties of forest ecosystems, such as basal area of trees, wood density, and the ratio of wood to leaf production, as well as animal properties such as body size, population density, and reproductive rates, support the conclusion that ecologically relevant terrestrial productivity is actually highest in the temperate latitudes, reaching a maximum between 30° and 50° before declining toward the poles. This “reversal” of the latitudinal productivity gradient, if substantiated by a systematic global sampling effort, will necessitate a major reevaluation of ecological and evolutionary theory, as well as conservation strategies and international development policies.

Bergmann's rule, which proposes a heat‐balance explanation for the observed latitudinal gradient of increasing animal body size with increasing latitude, has dominated the study of geographic patterns in animal size since it was first proposed in 1847. Several critical reviews have determined that as many as half of the species examined do not fit the predictions of Bergmann's rule. We have proposed an alternative hypothesis for geographic variation in body size based on food availability, as regulated by the net primary production (NPP) of plants, specifically NPP during the growing season, or eNPP (ecologically and evolutionarily relevant NPP). Our hypothesis, “the eNPP rule,” is independent of latitude and predicts both spatial and temporal variation in body size, as well as in total population biomass, population growth rates, individual health, and life history traits of animals, including humans, wherever eNPP varies across appropriate scales of space or time. In the context of a revised interpretation of the global patterns of NPP and eNPP, we predict contrasting latitudinal correlations with body size in three distinct latitudinal zones. The eNPP rule explains body‐size patterns that are consistent with Bergmann's rule, as well as two distinct types of contradictions of Bergmann's rule: the lack of latitudinal patterns within the tropics, and the decline in body size above approximately 60° latitude. Both types of contradictions of Bergmann's rule are consistent with the eNPP rule, as are a wide range of other phenomena.

No abstract

Ethnobiology is increasingly recognized from within and outside of its boundaries as interdisciplinary. The Society of Ethnobiology defines the field as “the scientific study of dynamic relationships among peoples, biota, and environments.” Ethnobiologists are able to skillfully assess challenges of biocultural conservation across the divides of political ecology. They are situated to mediate between conservation programs that target biodiversity preservation with little concern for the needs of human communities, and those (such as the New Conservation movement) that privilege those needs. Ethnobiology also transcends the pervasive assumption in these fields that Western knowledge and economic goals should guide change. Because of ethnobiology's importance as a bridging discipline, it is important to ask what unifies ethnobiology. Is it common subject matter? Or, is there an underlying emphasis representing an “ethnobiological perspective?” Answers to these questions are explored here using content analysis and discourse-and-ideology analysis. We use the results to identify the unique roles ethnobiologists play in biocultural conservation. This analysis also proved useful in the systematic identification of four salient themes that unify ethnobiology—ethics in ethnobiology, shared environmental and cultural heritage, interdisciplinary science and non-science, and ecological understanding. How ethnobiologists conceive of themselves is critical for further enrichment of the field as interdisciplinary human-environmental scholarship, particularly in reference to biocultural conservation. Self-definition makes explicit the unique strengths of the field, which by its very nature integrates a sophisticated understanding of political ecology with appreciation of the value of traditional ecological knowledge (TEK), social science, and the biological sciences.

Several analytical problems with the use of utility curves in archaeofaunal analysis have arisen since Lewis Binford first introduced them in 1978. First, do utility curves actually reflect which parts of an animal carcass were chosen or preferred by prehistoric hunters, or do the curves represent transport choices of hunters (what they could carry)? Second, differential preservation of elements mediated by bone density also contributes to what bones archaeologists recover from sites. Density-mediated destruction of bone can produce curves that mimic those of human behavior; thus, inferences about human behavior might be better attributed to bone-preservation factors. A shift from use of prey body-part representation to the use of fragmentation of prey bones as an inferential tool to study prehistoric foraging of prey carcasses diminishes both analytical problems.