Personal reflections on natural history as common ground for interdisciplinary multispecies socio‐ecological research

Root‐Bernstein, Meredith

doi:10.1002/geo2.15

Cited by 7 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Foraging of guanacos on V. caven was only included years after the gestation of the guanaco hypothesis [ 89 ], yet that study did not include predation of fruits or seeds by guanaco, but in leaves instead. More recent support for the role of guanacos comes from faeces piles of hybrid or captive guanacos with seeds or seedlings of V. caven [ 90 , 91 ]. Yet, as V. caven seeds could have been present in the soil prior to the defecation events, additional experimental studies are needed for confirmation.…”

Section: Trans-andean Dispersion Hypothesismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Plenty of studies indicates that this species has a positive role on the plant communities inhabiting the western range [ 6 , 8 , 9 , [130] , [131] , [132] ]. Considering its ecological importance, some authors have rejected the idea of V. caven being an introduced species, also accounting for the negative impact the labelling of ‘introduced species’ could have for society [ 81 , 90 ]. We agree that integrating both the ethical and scientific considerations, V. caven should remain treated as a native species.…”

Section: Synthesismentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Dispersal syndromes of Vachellia caven: Dismantling introduction hypotheses and the role of man as a conceptual support for an archaeophyte in South America

Velasco

Bustamante

Smit

2023

Heliyon

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Trans-andean Dispersion Hypothesismentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Synthesismentioning

confidence: 99%

Dispersal syndromes of Vachellia caven: Dismantling introduction hypotheses and the role of man as a conceptual support for an archaeophyte in South America

Velasco

Bustamante

Smit

2023

Heliyon

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Although here we do not have scope to review them, we highlight the existence of fields including the socioecological systems paradigm and the biocultural approach within the conservation literature, human ecology, anthropology of the environment, multispecies ethnography, environmental history, and ecological economics [for some examples see citations above in relevant sections as well as, here, some reviews and some examples of papers combining social sciences and ecology in these ways: Becker and Ostrom , ; Scoones , ; Dove , ; Folke , ; Nazarea , ; Shepard and Ramírez , ; Ogden et al ., ; Palsson et al ., ; Frascaroli et al ., ; Kelly et al ., ; Poe et al ., ; Ehrich et al ., ; Palmer et al ., ; Orr et al ., ; Root‐Bernstein and Frascaroli , ]. In addition, there is an increasing interest in natural history as a method for generating disciplinary inspiration, interdisciplinary shared methodologies, and public outreach [ Root‐Bernstein , ; http://naturalhistoriesproject.org, http://naturalhistorynetwork.org, https://esanaturalhistory.wordpress.com]. All of these disciplines and approaches have robust histories of producing insightful research with concrete applications, and we recommend any of them as superior approaches to linking ecology and society.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Making research relevant? Ecological methods and the ecosystem services framework

Root‐Bernstein

Jaksic

2017

Earth's Future

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We examine some unexpected epistemological conflicts that arise at the interfaces between ecological science, the ecosystem services framework, policy, and industry. We use an example from our own research to motivate and illustrate our main arguments, while also reviewing standard approaches to ecological science using the ecosystem services framework. While we agree that the ecosystem services framework has benefits in its industrial applications because it may force economic decision makers to consider a broader range of costs and benefits than they would do otherwise, we find that many alignments of ecology with the ecosystem services framework are asking questions that are irrelevant to real-world applications, and generating data that does not serve real-world applications. We attempt to clarify why these problems arise and how to avoid them. We urge fellow ecologists to reflect on the kind of research that can lead to both scientific advances and applied relevance to society. In our view, traditional empirical approaches at landscape scales or with place-based emphases are necessary to provide applied knowledge for problem solving, which is needed once decision makers identify risks to ecosystem services. We conclude that the ecosystem services framework is a good policy tool when applied to decision-making contexts, but not a good theory either of social valuation or ecological interactions, and should not be treated as one. Plain Language SummaryThe ecosystem services framework is a policy tool that aims to help industrial actors and economic decision makers to appreciate the true costs of environmental destruction. In industry standards that incorporate ecosystem services, decision makers should consider the harms to a wide range of actors who may suffer if the ecosystems that they depend on are disrupted by a project. When used this way, the ecosystem services framework appears to be good and effective. However, in the rush to show that their research is relevant to society, and to attract funding, many ecologists have tried to use the ecosystem services framework as if it were a theory of ecological interactions and ecosystem functioning. We show how ecologists, including ourselves, have developed "hybrid" methods that mix traditional ecological science with an ecosystem services perspective. We have come to the conclusion, however, that these approaches often answer questions that are not relevant to applied contexts, and provide data that are not useful for solving real-world problems. These possible mistakes can be avoided, and we discuss approaches to make ecology useful to society without misusing the ecosystem services framework

show abstract

“…Although here we do not have scope to review them, we highlight the existence of fields including the socioecological systems paradigm and the biocultural approach within the conservation literature, human ecology, anthropology of the environment, multispecies ethnography, environmental history, and ecological economics [for some examples see citations above in relevant sections as well as, here, some reviews and some examples of papers combining social sciences and ecology in these ways: Becker and Ostrom, 1995;Scoones, 1999;Dove, 2006;Folke, 2006;Nazarea, 2006 ROOT-BERNSTEIN AND JAKSIC METHODOLOGIES AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES 10.1002/2016EF000501 Kelly et al, 2014;Poe et al, 2014;Ehrich et al, 2016;Palmer et al, 2015;Orr et al, 2015;Root-Bernstein and Frascaroli, 2016]. In addition, there is an increasing interest in natural history as a method for generating disciplinary inspiration, interdisciplinary shared methodologies, and public outreach [Root-Bernstein, 2016; http://naturalhistoriesproject.org, http://naturalhistorynetwork.org, https://esanaturalhistory.wordpress .com]. All of these disciplines and approaches have robust histories of producing insightful research with concrete applications, and we recommend any of them as superior approaches to linking ecology and society.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Making Research Relevant

Morris¹,

Wester

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We examine some unexpected epistemological conflicts that arise at the interfaces between ecological science, the ecosystem services framework, policy, and industry. We use an example from our own research to motivate and illustrate our main arguments, while also reviewing standard approaches to ecological science using the ecosystem services framework. While we agree that the ecosystem services framework has benefits in its industrial applications because it may force economic decision makers to consider a broader range of costs and benefits than they would do otherwise, we find that many alignments of ecology with the ecosystem services framework are asking questions that are irrelevant to real-world applications, and generating data that does not serve real-world applications. We attempt to clarify why these problems arise and how to avoid them. We urge fellow ecologists to reflect on the kind of research that can lead to both scientific advances and applied relevance to society. In our view, traditional empirical approaches at landscape scales or with place-based emphases are necessary to provide applied knowledge for problem solving, which is needed once decision makers identify risks to ecosystem services. We conclude that the ecosystem services framework is a good policy tool when applied to decision-making contexts, but not a good theory either of social valuation or ecological interactions, and should not be treated as one. Plain Language Summary The ecosystem services framework is a policy tool that aims to help industrial actors and economic decision makers to appreciate the true costs of environmental destruction. In industry standards that incorporate ecosystem services, decision makers should consider the harms to a wide range of actors who may suffer if the ecosystems that they depend on are disrupted by a project. When used this way, the ecosystem services framework appears to be good and effective. However, in the rush to show that their research is relevant to society, and to attract funding, many ecologists have tried to use the ecosystem services framework as if it were a theory of ecological interactions and ecosystem functioning. We show how ecologists, including ourselves, have developed "hybrid" methods that mix traditional ecological science with an ecosystem services perspective. We have come to the conclusion, however, that these approaches often answer questions that are not relevant to applied contexts, and provide data that are not useful for solving real-world problems. These possible mistakes can be avoided, and we discuss approaches to make ecology useful to society without misusing the ecosystem services framework REVIEW 10.1002/2016EF000501 Key Points: • The ecosystem services framework has good industrial applications to decision making. Ecologists should understand what those uses are. • The ecosystem services framework is not a theory of ecological interactions, or societal valuation, and should not be used that way. • Many methodologies that combine empirical research with t...

show abstract

Personal reflections on natural history as common ground for interdisciplinary multispecies socio‐ecological research

Cited by 7 publications

References 15 publications

Dispersal syndromes of Vachellia caven: Dismantling introduction hypotheses and the role of man as a conceptual support for an archaeophyte in South America

Dispersal syndromes of Vachellia caven: Dismantling introduction hypotheses and the role of man as a conceptual support for an archaeophyte in South America

Making research relevant? Ecological methods and the ecosystem services framework

Making Research Relevant

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About