DOCSLIB.ORG

The Core Inefficiency of Peer Review and a Potential Solution

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Core Inefficiency of Peer Review and a Potential Solution article The Core Inefficiency of Peer Review and a Potential Solution Timothy H. Vines Time is one of the most important commodi- criteria, such that (at any given journal) few able reviewers. Either of these tasks requires ties in scientific research, and yet so much of it papers are rejected because of issues with the a considerable span of undivided attention. If is spent on peripheral and sometimes unneces- science itself. Another phenomenon exacer- the paper does go out for review, it is evalu- sary activities. One of the most time consum- bates the problem of rejections for novelty or ated by two, three, or even four reviewers over ing aspects of science is making it public. Even scope: there is relentless pressure on academ- several weeks, with each reviewer spending once a paper is written, the process of finding ics to publish their work in the most pres- a median of five hours on their evaluation a journal that is willing to publish it can take tigious journal possible. This pressure stems (Ware 2008). Once the reviews are received, months or years. from increased competition for faculty posi- the editor writes their decision. All of these tions and funding, and it encourages specula- activities impose a time cost on the scientific The dual role of journals tive submissions to high profile journals on community, typically on the most productive the chance that the paper will be accepted. If or community minded researchers. Much of the pain in publishing science stems the paper gets rejected, the next logical step A round of peer review also carries a finan- from the dual purpose of scientific journals. is submission to the second most prestigious cial cost. Every submission must be checked First, journals exist to conduct prepublica- journal, and so on down the cascade. by the editorial office staff to ensure that it tion peer review. Peer review aims to iden- The net result is that journals receive 3–5 meets journal guidelines. The office normally tify and reject papers with fundamental flaws times more submissions than they are able to runs the review process as well, which entails while offering suggestions on how to improve publish. For a typical mid-range subscription checking reviewer identities and emails, send- the remainder. Papers that are improved to journal, 30% of papers are rejected prior to ing review requests, and reminding over- meet the journal’s standards are accepted for review, and 30% are rejected after assessment due reviewers. Many larger journals employ publication, made presentable through the by external reviewers. A significant propor- managing editors to oversee the process and typesetting process, and disseminated to the tion of papers (almost 25% even among ten- ensure consistency in editorial decisions. community. The second purpose of jour- ured faculty; Cassey and Blackburn 2003; Editorial office staffs are paid professionals, nals is filtration, whereby each journal has 2004), thus end up being submitted to two and in the course of a typical 6–10 week review its own scope (i.e., subject area) and qual- or more journals before being accepted for process they spend about eight hours on each ity threshold; the latter is the answer to the publication. paper (T. Vines unpubl.). Some papers come question “what is the weakest or most bor- back in as resubmissions or as revisions, and ing paper we would accept for publication?” The costs of peer review these require additional staff time. These edi- The filtration function of journals enables torial office costs are at the heart of why sci- scientists to identify the most relevant and There is a high cost to reviewing and re- ence publishing seems so expensive, as they most important papers that pertain to their reviewing papers until they find somewhere are incurred for every paper that gets submit- research. they fit. First, every submission must be eval- ted but only recouped for those articles that The unfortunate side effect of filtration uated by an editor. The editor must either get accepted (either as Open Access fees or is that most editorial decisions are based write a decision letter giving the paper an subscription fees). The costs scale with the on how well a paper matches the journal’s immediate rejection, or choose six to ten suit- inverse of the journal’s acceptance rate. Very 36 may 2015 © 2015 Association for the Sciences of Limnology and Oceanography LOB-15-0010(10022).indd 36 5/11/15 6:59 PM selective journals assess 10 or more papers Table 1. The current Axios editorial board for the field of ecology and a partial list of journals that have before accepting one for publication, and in agreed to look at Axios referrals. the process they spend thousands of dollars Ecology Editorial Board Ecology Target Journals on salaries and related expenses. Stefano Allesina American Journal of Botany Independent peer review: the process Julia Baum American Naturalist Michael Bonsall Animal Biotelemetry Given the high costs in both researcher time C. Titus Brown Annals of Botany ( > 16 hours) and money (~ $300) for just Lauren Buckley AoB PLANTS one round of peer review, we must look for ways in which we can fulfill the dual roles Yvonne Buckley Applications in Plant Sciences of journals while minimizing the number of Jarrett Byrnes Avian Conservation and Ecology rounds of review. One potential solution is Will Cornwell Biological Invasions independent peer review. In the Axios version Melania Cristescu Biological Journal of the Linnean Society of this process (see http://axiosreview.org), Greg Crutsinger BMC Biology the paper undergoes a standard round of Brant Faircloth BMC Ecology review, but the editor is part of an independ- Jeremy Fox BMC Plant Biology ent editorial board and not a journal. The process is as follows. Once the paper Kevin Gaston Botany is written and ready for peer review, authors Nicholas Gotelli Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences submit their manuscript to Axios. The W. Stan Harpole Canadian Journal of Microbiology authors also provide a ranked list of four Carlos Herrera Canadian Journal of Zoology target journals where they think it could be Randall Hughes Climate Change Responses published. The paper is assigned to an edi- Ari Jumpponen Ecological Monographs tor, and the editor can either decide that it Bart Kempenaers Ecology and Evolution is not ready for peer review (and return it to the authors), or select suitable reviewers. The Jeremy Kerr Ecology Letters editor can also ask the authors to revise their Katia Koelle eLife target journal list. Nathan Kraft Evolutionary Ecology The remaining papers are then sent out Brian Langerhans Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment for review. The reviewers are asked to com- Margie Mayfield Frontiers in Zoology ment on (a) the novelty of the paper relative Luc de Meester International Journal of Plant Sciences to recent articles in the same area, (b) its suitability for each of the four target jour- Ryan Norris Journal of Biological Research – Thessaloniki nals, and (c) the overall technical merits and Camille Parmesan Journal of Ecology weaknesses of the work. Once two or three Rod Peakall Journal of Fish Biology reviews are returned, the paper is returned to Eric Seabloom Molecular Ecology the editor for their decision. Depending on Diane Srivastava Molecular Ecology Resources the comments from the reviewers, the editor Jonathan Shurin PeerJ may, for example, decide that it is not suitable Matthew Symonds PLoS Biology for either of the top two target journals but that the paper seems like a good fit for target Leho Tedersoo PLoS ONE journals #3 and #4. Mark Urban Systematic Botany With the authors’ permission, Axios Jana Vamosi Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling then sends a referral to journal #3. A refer- Koen Verhoeven Theoretical Ecology ral is essentially a very detailed presubmission Hillary Young Theoretical Population Biology enquiry. It contains the manuscript itself, reviews from two or three expert reviewers, and the identity of those reviewers. The jour- submit it to journal #3 by their regular sub- reviewers, and send the new version back to nal can then decide whether or not it would mission route. Axios. The editor then checks over the paper like the paper to be submitted. If not, a refer- Of course, the Axios reviewers may have and the response, and makes a decision on ral is sent to target journal #4. If journal #3 is identified a number of substantial problems where the paper can be referred. The referral keen on the manuscript, the authors are asked with the paper, to the extent that none of the process then proceeds as described above. to revise their paper in response to the inde- target journals are likely to request submis- For independent peer review to be suc- pendent round of review, put into journal #3 sion. In this situation the authors are asked cessful, the journal’s Editor in Chief must format, prepare a response to reviewers, and to revise their paper, prepare a response to feel confident in the opinions provided by may 2015 37 LOB-15-0010(10022).indd 37 5/11/15 6:59 PM the reviewers and editor at the independent weeks (much like a typical journal), and the want them, journals are (by the same token) review organization. It is therefore critical referral stage an extra 2–10 days. Excluding receiving papers they actually want. Unsuit- that the editors at the review organization be the time the authors spend revising the paper, able submissions are steered elsewhere, either respected researchers in their field, preferably we average three months between submission by the Axios editor or at the referral stage.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Alternative Stable States of Tidal Marsh Vegetation Patterns and Channel Complexity
    ECOHYDROLOGY Ecohydrol. (2016) Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/eco.1755 Alternative stable states of tidal marsh vegetation patterns and channel complexity K. B. Moffett1* and S. M. Gorelick2 1 School of the Environment, Washington State University Vancouver, Vancouver, WA, USA 2 Department of Earth System Science, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA ABSTRACT Intertidal marshes develop between uplands and mudflats, and develop vegetation zonation, via biogeomorphic feedbacks. Is the spatial configuration of vegetation and channels also biogeomorphically organized at the intermediate, marsh-scale? We used high-resolution aerial photographs and a decision-tree procedure to categorize marsh vegetation patterns and channel geometries for 113 tidal marshes in San Francisco Bay estuary and assessed these patterns’ relations to site characteristics. Interpretation was further informed by generalized linear mixed models using pattern-quantifying metrics from object-based image analysis to predict vegetation and channel pattern complexity. Vegetation pattern complexity was significantly related to marsh salinity but independent of marsh age and elevation. Channel complexity was significantly related to marsh age but independent of salinity and elevation. Vegetation pattern complexity and channel complexity were significantly related, forming two prevalent biogeomorphic states: complex versus simple vegetation-and-channel configurations. That this correspondence held across marsh ages (decades to millennia)
    [Show full text]
  • Multiple Stable States and Regime Shifts - Environmental Science - Oxford Bibliographies 3/30/18, 10:15 AM
    Multiple Stable States and Regime Shifts - Environmental Science - Oxford Bibliographies 3/30/18, 10:15 AM Multiple Stable States and Regime Shifts James Heffernan, Xiaoli Dong, Anna Braswell LAST MODIFIED: 28 MARCH 2018 DOI: 10.1093/OBO/9780199363445-0095 Introduction Why do ecological systems (populations, communities, and ecosystems) change suddenly in response to seemingly gradual environmental change, or fail to recover from large disturbances? Why do ecological systems in seemingly similar settings exhibit markedly different ecological structure and patterns of change over time? The theory of multiple stable states in ecological systems provides one potential explanation for such observations. In ecological systems with multiple stable states (or equilibria), two or more configurations of an ecosystem are self-maintaining under a given set of conditions because of feedbacks among biota or between biota and the physical and chemical environment. The resulting multiple different states may occur as different types or compositions of vegetation or animal communities; as different densities, biomass, and spatial arrangement; and as distinct abiotic environments created by the distinct ecological communities. Alternative states are maintained by the combined effects of positive (or amplifying) feedbacks and negative (or stabilizing feedbacks). While stabilizing feedbacks reinforce each state, positive feedbacks are what allow two or more states to be stable. Thresholds between states arise from the interaction of these positive and negative feedbacks, and define the basins of attraction of the alternative states. These feedbacks and thresholds may operate over whole ecosystems or give rise to self-organized spatial structure. The combined effect of these feedbacks is also what gives rise to ecological resilience, which is the capacity of ecological systems to absorb environmental perturbations while maintaining their basic structure and function.
    [Show full text]
  • Ectomycorrhizal Fungal Communities at Forest Edges 93, 244–255 IAN A
    Journal of Blackwell Publishing, Ltd. Ecology 2005 Ectomycorrhizal fungal communities at forest edges 93, 244–255 IAN A. DICKIE and PETER B. REICH Department of Forest Resources, University of Minnesota, St Paul, MN, USA Summary 1 Ectomycorrhizal fungi are spatially associated with established ectomycorrhizal vegetation, but the influence of distance from established vegetation on the presence, abundance, diversity and community composition of fungi is not well understood. 2 We examined mycorrhizal communities in two abandoned agricultural fields in Minnesota, USA, using Quercus macrocarpa seedlings as an in situ bioassay for ecto- mycorrhizal fungi from 0 to 20 m distance from the forest edge. 3 There were marked effects of distance on all aspects of fungal communities. The abundance of mycorrhiza was uniformly high near trees, declined rapidly around 15 m from the base of trees and was uniformly low at 20 m. All seedlings between 0 and 8 m distance from forest edges were ectomycorrhizal, but many seedlings at 16–20 m were uninfected in one of the two years of the study. Species richness of fungi also declined with distance from trees. 4 Different species of fungi were found at different distances from the edge. ‘Rare’ species (found only once or twice) dominated the community at 0 m, Russula spp. were dominants from 4 to 12 m, and Astraeus sp. and a Pezizalean fungus were abundant at 12 m to 20 m. Cenococcum geophilum, the most dominant species found, was abundant both near trees and distant from trees, with lowest relative abundance at intermediate distances. 5 Our data suggest that seedlings germinating at some distance from established ecto- mycorrhizal vegetation (15.5 m in the present study) have low levels of infection, at least in the first year of growth.
    [Show full text]
  • Curriculum Vitae Fulbright Postdoctoral Fellow Soil and Fungal
    1 LOUISE M. EGERTON-WARBURTON Curriculum Vitae Chicago Botanic Garden Phone: 847.835.6915 1000 Lake Cook Rd Fax: 847.835.5484 Glencoe IL 60022 [email protected] EDUCATION: Fulbright Postdoctoral Fellow University of California, 1994- Soil and fungal ecology Riverside 1997 Ph.D., Environmental Biology Curtin University of 1994 Dissertation: Soil-plant relationships of Eucalyptus species Technology, Australia in acidic coal mining soils. Adviser: Byron B. Lamont B.S., Biology (Highest Honors) Curtin University of 1989 Minor: Statistics Technology, Australia B.S., Nursing Western Australian School 1984 Clinical specialty: Operating Theater of Nursing APPOINTMENTS: Director and Coordinator, Research Experiences for Chicago Botanic Garden 2004- Undergraduates (REU) site in Plant Conservation and 2010 Biology Adjunct Professor of Biology Northwestern University 2003- present Conservation Scientist, Chicago Botanic Garden 2001- Soil and Microbial Ecology, and present Manager, Soil Sciences Program Assistant Researcher, University of California, 1999- Soil Microbial Ecology Riverside 2001 Post-doctoral Research Fellow, University of Melbourne, 1998- Cell & Molecular Biology, Nanotechnology Australia 1999 TEACHING APPOINTMENTS: Instructor, §Field and Lab Methods in Conservation Northwestern University 2009- Biology (PBC499) present Instructor, §Soils and Environment (PBC448), Northwestern University 2008- Fall quarter present Guest lecturer, Introductory Mycology University of Wisconsin, 2008 Winter quarter Madison 2 Guest lecturer,
    [Show full text]
  • Putting Constraints on the Role of Competition in Limiting Diversity In
    Curriculum Vitae - Bryan Latimer Foster Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology / Kansas Biological Survey University of Kansas Lawrence, KS 66045 785-864-3346, [email protected] EEB Faculty page: http://www2.ku.edu/~eeb/faculty/foster.shtml Lab Website: http://kbs.ku.edu/people/staff_www/foster/index.htm EDUCATION 1996 Ph.D. Botany and Plant Pathology, Michigan State University. Advisor: Katherine Gross 1992 M.S. Zoology, Michigan State University. Advisor: Katherine Gross 1989 B.S. Range Science, Texas A&M University. Advisor: Fred Smeins PROFFESSIONAL APPOINTMENTS 2012-present Professor, Dept. of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Kansas 2012-present Senior Scientist, Kansas Biological Survey 2005-2011 Associate Professor, Dept. of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Kansas 1999-2005 Assistant Professor, Dept. of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Kansas 1997-1999 Postdoctoral Fellow, Dept. of Ecology, Evolution and Behavior, University of Minnesota. Advisor: David Tilman 1996-1997 Postdoctoral Researcher, Kellogg Biological Station, Michigan State University. Advisor: Katherine Gross, Mike Klug RESEARCH EXPERTISE Community Ecology, Restoration Ecology COURSES TAUGHT Principles of Ecology (BIOL 414) Community and Ecosystems Ecology (BIOL 714) Field and Laboratory Methods in Ecology (BIOL 415) Plant Ecology (BIOL 602) Field and Laboratory Exercises in Plant Ecology (BIOL 607) Biodiversity and Ecosystem Function (BIOL 701 graduate seminar) Species Coexistence and Community Organization (BIOL 701 graduate seminar) Ecological Applications (BIOL 701 graduate seminar) Community Ecology (BIOL 701 graduate seminar) Restoration Ecology (BIOL 701 graduate seminar) EXTERNAL FUNDING 2010-2015. NSF-Population and Community Ecology ($580,362). Plant recruitment, coexistence and community assembly in developing prairie restorations. PI: B.
    [Show full text]
  • Disturbance Ecology and Forest Management: a Review of the Literature
    United States Department of Agriculture Disturbance Ecology and Forest Service Intermountain Forest Management: a Research Station General Technical Review of the Literature Report INT-GTR-336 May 1996 Paul Rogers The Author Forest Service has adopted a policy of ecosystem management that emphasizes maintaining the values of sustainability, biodiver- Paul Rogers is an ecologist in the Interior West Resource Inven- sity, productivity, and forest health rather than focusing on particu- tory, Monitoring, and Evaluation Program at the Intermountain lar deliverable products. Research Station. His primary responsibility is to conduct field work In the attempt to implement ecosystem management, land and report on Forest Health Monitoring efforts in the Interior West. managers are asking basic scientific questions that go far beyond He holds a B.S. degree in geography from Utah State University the scope of historical Forest Service research. Concurrent with and an M.S. degree in geography from the University of Wisconsin- this demand are budgets being slashed and research positions Madison. Since beginning his career with the Forest Service in being eliminated. Land managers are being asked to implement 1987, Rogers has specialized in conducting large-scale field and new knowledge-intensive programs at a time when resources are remote vegetative surveys. being dramatically reduced. To address this significant dilemma, we need to re-evaluate how research is conducted within the Forest Service and how more effectively to involve partners from Research Summary the research community. Land managers are incorporating ecosystem perspectives into As a part of this effort, we have established an Intermountain their local and regional management decisions.
    [Show full text]
  • Does Invasive Species Research Use More Militaristic Language Than Other Ecology and Conservation Biology Literature?
    A peer-reviewed open-access journal NeoBiota 44:Does 27–38 invasive (2019) species research use more militaristic language than other ecology and... 27 doi: 10.3897/neobiota.44.32925 RESEARCH ARTICLE NeoBiota http://neobiota.pensoft.net Advancing research on alien species and biological invasions Does invasive species research use more militaristic language than other ecology and conservation biology literature? Rachel M. Janovsky1, Eric R. Larson1 1 Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, Illinois, 61801, USA Corresponding author: Eric R. Larson ([email protected]) Academic editor: I. Kowarik | Received 7 January 2019 | Accepted 18 March 2019 | Published 4 April 2019 Citation: Janovsky RM, Larson ER (2019) Does invasive species research use more militaristic language than other ecology and conservation biology literature? NeoBiota 44: 27–38. https://doi.org/10.3897/neobiota.44.32925 Abstract Invasive species research has been criticised for a reliance on hyperbolic or sensationalistic language, in- cluding the use of militaristic language that dates to the popularisation of this concept. We sought to evaluate whether the invasive species literature used more militaristic language than other literature across the fields of ecology and conservation biology, given that many research areas in these fields (e.g. competi- tion) may routinely use militaristic language. We compared militaristic language use in journal articles on invasive species or other topics across both applied and basic science journals in the fields of ecology and conservation biology. We further restricted our study to papers where lead-authors were located at institutions in the United States, to evaluate whether militaristic language use varied over peace time and conflict periods for this country.
    [Show full text]
  • Associate Professor Ecology and Evolution Biology Yale University
    A. CARLA STAVER Associate Professor Ecology and Evolution Biology Yale University PROFESSIONAL APPOINTMENTS 2019- Associate Professor, Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Yale University 2014-2019 Assistant Professor, Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Yale University 2015-pres Secondary Appointment, Forestry & Environmental Studies, Yale University 2012-2014 Prize Postdoctoral Fellow, E3B, Columbia University 2012 Postdoctoral Researcher, EEB, Princeton University EDUCATION AND TRAINING 2008-2012 Ph.D. in Ecology and Environmental Biology, Princeton University 2006-2008 M.Sc. in Botany, University of Cape Town (Distinction) 2001-2005 B.A. in Ecology, Evolution, & Environmental Biology, Columbia University NOTABLE HONORS AND AWARDS 2017 Tansley Medal shortlist from the New Phytologist Trust 2015-2020 Early Career Fellow, Ecological Society of America 2015 Runner-up for Harper Prize, British Ecological Society 2013 Jasper Loftus-Hills Young Investigator Award, American Society of Naturalists 2012 George Mercer Award, Ecological Society of America 2005-2006 Fulbright US Student Fellowship GRANTS AND FUNDING 2018-2023 Scaling Fire Size from Local Process to Continental Pattern (PI) $1,035,000 NSF Macrosystems Biology (Total: $1,035,000) 2016-2019 Spatial Dynamics of Savanna-Forest Boundaries (PI) $250,000 NSF Mathematical Biology (Total: $400,000) 2016-2019 NSF Graduate Research Fellowship to Madelon Case $132,000 2015 Reading the Historical Record of the Mara Using Sediment Cores from the Mara Wetland (Co-PI; PI David Post, Yale) $65,641 World Wildlife Fund for Nature 2012-2015 Fire, land use, and the savannization of seasonally dry Amazon forests (Co-PI) Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation $112,838 Sub-award from Woods Hole Research Center (PI: M. Coe, Total $1,344,453) 1 A.
    [Show full text]
  • Recruitment of Reviewers Is Becoming Harder at Some Journals: a Test of the Influence of Reviewer Fatigue at Six Journals in Ecology and Evolution Charles W
    Fox et al. Research Integrity and Peer Review (2017) 2:3 Research Integrity and DOI 10.1186/s41073-017-0027-x Peer Review COMMENTARY Open Access Recruitment of reviewers is becoming harder at some journals: a test of the influence of reviewer fatigue at six journals in ecology and evolution Charles W. Fox1*, Arianne Y. K. Albert2 and Timothy H. Vines3 Abstract Background: It is commonly reported by editors that it has become harder to recruit reviewers for peer review and that this is because individuals are being asked to review too often and are experiencing reviewer fatigue. However, evidence supporting these arguments is largely anecdotal. Main body: We examine responses of individuals to review invitations for six journals in ecology and evolution. The proportion of invitations that lead to a submitted review has been decreasing steadily over 13 years (2003–2015) for four of the six journals examined, with a cumulative effect that has been quite substantial (average decline from 56% of review invitations generating a review in 2003 to just 37% in 2015). The likelihood that an invitee agrees to review declines significantly with the number of invitations they receive in a year. However, the average number of invitations being sent to prospective reviewers and the proportion of individuals being invited more than once per year has not changed much over these 13 years, despite substantial increases in the total number of review invitations being sent by these journals—the reviewer base has expanded concomitant with this growth in review requests. Conclusions: The proportion of review invitations that lead to a review being submitted has been declining steadily for four of the six journals examined here, but reviewer fatigue is not likely the primary explanation for this decline.
    [Show full text]
  • Resource Constraints Highlight Complex Microbial Interactions During Lake Biofilm Development
    Received: 30 October 2018 | Accepted: 3 June 2019 DOI: 10.1111/1365-2745.13223 RESEARCH ARTICLE Resource constraints highlight complex microbial interactions during lake biofilm development Kevin H. Wyatt1 | Rody C. Seballos1 | Maria N. Shoemaker1 | Shawn P. Brown2 | Sudeep Chandra3 | Kevin A. Kuehn4 | Allison R. Rober1 | Steven Sadro5 1Department of Biology, Ball State University, Muncie, Indiana Abstract 2Department of Biological Sciences, The 1. This study evaluated how the availability of nutrients and organic carbon interact University of Memphis, Memphis, Tennessee to influence the associations between autotrophic and heterotrophic micro‐or- 3Global Water Center, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada ganisms during lake biofilm development. Considering that decomposers are often 4Department of Biological Sciences, The better competitors for nutrients than producers in aquatic environments, we hy- University of Southern Mississippi, pothesized that heterotrophs would outcompete autotrophs for available nutri- Hattiesburg, Mississippi ents unless heterotrophs were limited by organic carbon provided by autotrophs. 5Department of Environmental Science and Policy, University of California, Davis, 2. To test our hypothesis, we evaluated autotrophic (algae) and heterotrophic (fungi, California bacteria) biomass in response to a factorial enrichment of nutrients (nitrogen and Correspondence phosphorus in combination) and glucose using nutrient‐diffusing substrates with Kevin H. Wyatt either inorganic or organic discs in a subalpine lake. In
    [Show full text]
  • Fluctuating Resources in Plant Communities: a General Theory of Invasibility
    Journal of FORUM Ecology 2000, 88, 528±534 Fluctuating resources in plant communities: a general theory of invasibility MARK A. DAVIS, J. PHILIP GRIME* and KEN THOMPSON* Department of Biology, Macalester College, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55105, USA; and *Unit of Comparative Plant Ecology, Department of Animal and Plant Sciences, The University, Sheeld S10 2TN, UK Summary 1 The invasion of habitats by non-native plant and animal species is a global phe- nomenon with potentially grave consequences for ecological, economic, and social systems. Unfortunately, to date, the study of invasions has been primarily anecdo- tal and resistant to generalization. 2 Here, we use insights from experiments and from long-term monitoring studies of vegetation to propose a new theory in which ¯uctuation in resource availability is identi®ed as the key factor controlling invasibility, the susceptibility of an envir- onment to invasion by non-resident species. The theory is mechanistic and quanti- tative in nature leading to a variety of testable predictions. 3 We conclude that the elusive nature of the invasion process arises from the fact that it depends upon conditions of resource enrichment or release that have a vari- ety of causes but which occur only intermittently and, to result in invasion, must coincide with availability of invading propagules. Key-words: plant invasions, invasibility, resource availability, ¯uctuating resources, disturbance, exotic species Journal of Ecology (2000) 88, 528±534 Introduction region's climate, the environment's disturbance regime, and the competitive abilities of the resident The invasion of habitats by non-native species is a species (Lonsdale 1999). Invasibility may also be global phenomenon with serious consequences for aected by the presence (or absence) of herbivores ecological, economic, and social systems (Vitousek and pathogens (D'Antonio 1993; Lonsdale 1999), et al.
    [Show full text]
  • FORUM: Sustaining Ecosystem Functions in a Changing World: a Call
    Journal of Applied Ecology 2013, 50, 1124–1130 doi: 10.1111/1365-2664.12116 FORUM Sustaining ecosystem functions in a changing world: a call for an integrated approach Hiroshi Tomimatsu1*a, Takehiro Sasaki1a, Hiroko Kurokawa1a, Jon R. Bridle2, Colin Fontaine3, Jun Kitano4, Daniel B. Stouffer5,6, Mark Vellend7, T. Martijn Bezemer8, Tadashi Fukami9, Elizabeth A. Hadly9, Marcel G.A. van der Heijden10, Masakado Kawata1, Sonia Kefi 11, Nathan J.B. Kraft12, Kevin S. McCann13, Peter J. Mumby14, Tohru Nakashizuka1, Owen L. Petchey15, Tamara N. Romanuk16, Katharine N. Suding17, Gaku Takimoto18, Jotaro Urabe1 and Shigeo Yachi19 1Graduate School of Life Sciences, Tohoku University, Sendai 980-8578, Japan; 2School of Biological Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol BS8 1UD, UK; 3CERSP UMR 7204, Museum National d’Histoire Naturelle, 75005, Paris, France; 4Ecological Genetics Laboratory, National Institute of Genetics, Shizuoka 411-8540, Japan; 5Integrative Ecology Group, Estacion Biological de Donana~ (EBD-CSIC), c/Americo Vespucio s/n, 41092 Sevilla, Spain; 6School of Biological Sciences, University of Canterbury, Private Bag 4800, Christchurch 8140, New Zealand; 7Departement de biologie, Universite de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Quebec J1K 2R1, Canada; 8Department of Terrestrial Ecology, Netherlands Institute of Ecology, PO BOX 50, 6700AB, Wageningen, The Netherlands; 9Department of Biology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA; 10Ecological Farming Systems, Research Station ART, Agroscope Reckenholz Tanikon,€ 8046 Zurich, Switzerland; 11Institut
    [Show full text]