8
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Relationship between conservation biology and ecology shown through machine reading of 32,000 articles

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Conservation biology was founded on the idea that efforts to save nature depend on a scientific understanding of how it works. It sought to apply ecological principles to conservation problems. We investigated whether the relationship between these fields has changed over time through machine reading the full texts of 32,000 research articles published in 16 ecology and conservation biology journals. We examined changes in research topics in both fields and how the fields have evolved from 2000 to 2014. As conservation biology matured, its focus shifted from ecology to social and political aspects of conservation. The 2 fields diverged and now occupy distinct niches in modern science. We hypothesize this pattern resulted from increasing recognition that social, economic, and political factors are critical for successful conservation and possibly from rising skepticism about the relevance of contemporary ecological theory to practical conservation.

          Abstract

          Article impact statement: Quantitative literature evaluation reveals that the research topics of ecology and conservation biology are drawing apart.

          Translated abstract

          Relaciones entre la Biología de la Conservación y la Ecología Mostradas a través de la Lectura Mediante Máquina de 32,000 Artículos

          Resumen

          La biología de la conservación se fundó a partir de la idea de que los esfuerzos para salvar a la naturaleza dependen del entendimiento científico de cómo funciona. La biología de la conservación buscaba aplicar los principios ecológicos a los problemas de conservación. En este trabajo investigamos si la relación entre estos ámbitos ha cambiado con el tiempo al realizar una lectura mediante máquina de 32,000 textos completos de artículos de investigación publicados en 16 revistas sobre ecología y biología de la conservación. También examinamos los cambios en los temas de investigación en ambos ámbitos y cómo éstos han evolucionado desde el año 2000 hasta el 2014. Conforme ha madurado la biología de la conservación, su enfoque se ha movido de los aspectos ecológicos de la conservación a los aspectos políticos y sociales. La ecología y la biología de la conservación se han separado y ahora ocupan nichos distintos dentro de la ciencia moderna. Nuestra hipótesis considera que este patrón resultó de incrementar el reconocimiento de que los factores sociales, económicos y políticos son muy importantes para una conservación exitosa. Posiblemente el patrón también proviene del creciente escepticismo acerca de la relevancia que la teoría ecológica contemporánea tiene para la conservación en práctica.

          摘要

          保护生物学是建立在拯救自然的努力是依靠对自然过程的科学理解的基本理念之上, 它致力于将生态学原理应用于保护问题。我们通过对发表在 16 个生态学和保护生物学期刊上的 32,000 篇研究论文全文进行机器阅读, 分析了这两个领域的关系是否随时间发生了变化。本研究涵盖了 2000‐2014 年间这两个领域研究主题的变化及其演变。结果显示, 随着保护生物学学科成熟, 它的关注点从生态学转向了保护的社会和政治方面。因此, 保护生物学与生态学也逐渐分歧, 并在现代科学中占据了截然不同的位置。我们认为这种格局是由于越来越多的人意识到社会、经济和政治因素对保护成功与否至关重要, 也可能是由于越来越多的人开始怀疑当代生态学理论与保护实践之间的联系。 【翻译: 胡怡思; 审校: 聂永刚】

          Related collections

          Most cited references41

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Environmental heterogeneity as a universal driver of species richness across taxa, biomes and spatial scales.

          Environmental heterogeneity is regarded as one of the most important factors governing species richness gradients. An increase in available niche space, provision of refuges and opportunities for isolation and divergent adaptation are thought to enhance species coexistence, persistence and diversification. However, the extent and generality of positive heterogeneity-richness relationships are still debated. Apart from widespread evidence supporting positive relationships, negative and hump-shaped relationships have also been reported. In a meta-analysis of 1148 data points from 192 studies worldwide, we examine the strength and direction of the relationship between spatial environmental heterogeneity and species richness of terrestrial plants and animals. We find that separate effects of heterogeneity in land cover, vegetation, climate, soil and topography are significantly positive, with vegetation and topographic heterogeneity showing particularly strong associations with species richness. The use of equal-area study units, spatial grain and spatial extent emerge as key factors influencing the strength of heterogeneity-richness relationships, highlighting the pervasive influence of spatial scale in heterogeneity-richness studies. We provide the first quantitative support for the generality of positive heterogeneity-richness relationships across heterogeneity components, habitat types, taxa and spatial scales from landscape to global extents, and identify specific needs for future comparative heterogeneity-richness research. © 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd/CNRS.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Are There General Laws in Ecology?

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Neutral macroecology.

              G. Bell (2001)
              The central themes of community ecology-distribution, abundance, and diversity-display strongly marked and very general patterns. These include the log-normal distribution of abundance, the relation between range and abundance, the species-area law, and the turnover of species composition. Each pattern is the subject of a large literature that interprets it in terms of ecological processes, typically involving the sorting of differently specialized species onto heterogeneous landscapes. All of these patterns can be shown to arise, however, from neutral community models in which all individuals have identical properties, as the consequence of local dispersal alone. This implies, at the least, that functional interpretations of these patterns must be reevaluated. More fundamentally, neutral community models provide a general theory for biodiversity and conservation biology capable of predicting the fundamental processes and patterns of community ecology.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                j.rosindell@imperial.ac.uk
                Journal
                Conserv Biol
                Conserv. Biol
                10.1111/(ISSN)1523-1739
                COBI
                Conservation Biology
                John Wiley and Sons Inc. (Hoboken )
                0888-8892
                1523-1739
                10 December 2019
                June 2020
                : 34
                : 3 ( doiID: 10.1111/cobi.v34.3 )
                : 721-732
                Affiliations
                [ 1 ] Department of Life Sciences Imperial College London Silwood Park campus, Buckhurst Road Ascot Berkshire SL5 7PY U.K.
                [ 2 ] Groningen Institute for Evolutionary Life Sciences University of Groningen Groningen 9747 AG The Netherlands
                [ 3 ] Department of Biology University of Florida Gainesville FL 32611 U.S.A.
                [ 4 ] Arcadia Fund Sixth Floor, 5 Young Street London W8 6EH U.K.
                Author notes
                [†]

                Both the authors contributed equally.

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2585-3643
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6478-8365
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3520-2046
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0091-2857
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9865-0770
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6563-0500
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5603-0351
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5060-9346
                Article
                COBI13435
                10.1111/cobi.13435
                7317371
                31702070
                647a2ec7-9831-4a3e-ac43-f3b9fe32d0d5
                © 2019 The Authors. Conservation Biology published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of Society for Conservation Biology.

                This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 26 April 2019
                : 17 August 2019
                : 30 August 2019
                Page count
                Figures: 6, Tables: 0, Pages: 12, Words: 6782
                Funding
                Funded by: Natural Environment Research Council , open-funder-registry 10.13039/501100000270;
                Award ID: NE/L011611/1
                Categories
                Contributed Paper
                Contributed Papers
                Custom metadata
                2.0
                June 2020
                Converter:WILEY_ML3GV2_TO_JATSPMC version:5.8.4 mode:remove_FC converted:26.06.2020

                Ecology
                bibliometrics,ecological applications,ecological theory,interdisciplinary,latent dirichlet allocation,aplicaciones ecológicas,asignación latente dirichlet,bibliometría,interdisciplinario,teoría ecológica,潜在狄利克雷分布模型, 跨学科, 生态学理论, 生态学应用, 文献计量学

                Comments

                Comment on this article