Subjects -> ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES (Total: 925 journals)
    - ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES (822 journals)
    - POLLUTION (31 journals)
    - TOXICOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY (54 journals)
    - WASTE MANAGEMENT (18 journals)

ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES (822 journals)                  1 2 3 4 5 | Last

Showing 1 - 200 of 378 Journals sorted alphabetically
ACS Chemical Health & Safety     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 4)
ACS ES&T Engineering     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 2)
Acta Brasiliensis     Open Access  
Acta Ecologica Sinica     Open Access   (Followers: 9)
Acta Environmentalica Universitatis Comenianae     Open Access  
Acta Limnologica Brasiliensia     Open Access   (Followers: 3)
Acta Oecologica     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 11)
Acta Regionalia et Environmentalica     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Advanced Electronic Materials     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 5)
Advanced Energy and Sustainability Research     Open Access   (Followers: 4)
Advanced Sustainable Systems     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 5)
Advances in Ecological Research     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 41)
Advances in Environmental Chemistry     Open Access   (Followers: 9)
Advances in Environmental Sciences - International Journal of the Bioflux Society     Open Access   (Followers: 12)
Advances in Environmental Technology     Open Access  
Advances in Life Science and Technology     Open Access   (Followers: 10)
Advances in Tropical Biodiversity and Environmental Sciences     Open Access   (Followers: 3)
Aeolian Research     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 6)
African Journal of Environmental Science and Technology     Open Access   (Followers: 2)
Agricultura Tecnica     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Agricultural & Environmental Letters     Open Access   (Followers: 3)
Agro-Science     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 1)
Agroecological journal     Open Access  
Agronomy for Sustainable Development     Open Access   (Followers: 18)
Agrosystems, Geosciences & Environment     Open Access   (Followers: 3)
Amazon's Research and Environmental Law     Open Access   (Followers: 2)
Ambiência     Open Access  
Ambiens. Revista Iberoamericana Universitaria en Ambiente, Sociedad y Sustentabilidad     Open Access  
American Journal of Energy and Environment     Open Access   (Followers: 4)
American Journal of Environmental Engineering     Open Access   (Followers: 6)
American Journal of Environmental Protection     Open Access   (Followers: 3)
American Journal of Environmental Sciences     Open Access   (Followers: 8)
American Naturalist     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 78)
Annals of Civil and Environmental Engineering     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Annals of Environmental Science and Toxicology     Open Access   (Followers: 2)
Annals of GIS     Open Access   (Followers: 29)
Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 80)
Annual Review of Environment and Resources     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 16)
Annual Review of Pharmacology and Toxicology     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 36)
Annual Review of Resource Economics     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 9)
Applied and Environmental Soil Science     Open Access   (Followers: 14)
Applied Ecology and Environmental Sciences     Open Access   (Followers: 28)
Applied Environmental Education & Communication     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 15)
Applied Journal of Environmental Engineering Science     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Aquatic Ecology     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 38)
Aquatic Toxicology     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 23)
Arcada : Revista de conservación del patrimonio cultural     Open Access  
Architecture, Civil Engineering, Environment     Open Access   (Followers: 3)
Archives des Maladies Professionnelles et de l'Environnement     Full-text available via subscription  
Archives of Environmental and Occupational Health     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 10)
Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 12)
Archives of Environmental Protection     Open Access   (Followers: 3)
Archives of Toxicology     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 20)
Arctic Environmental Research     Open Access  
Asian Journal of Environment & Ecology     Open Access  
Asian Journal of Rural Development     Open Access   (Followers: 9)
Asian Review of Environmental and Earth Sciences     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
ATBU Journal of Environmental Technology     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Atmospheric and Climate Sciences     Open Access   (Followers: 32)
Atmospheric Environment     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 72)
Atmospheric Environment : X     Open Access   (Followers: 2)
Augm Domus : Revista electrónica del Comité de Medio Ambiente de AUGM     Open Access  
Austral Ecology     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 16)
Australasian Journal of Environmental Management     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 8)
Australasian Journal of Human Security     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 1)
Australian Journal of Environmental Education     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 9)
Basic & Clinical Pharmacology & Toxicology     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 13)
Basic and Applied Ecology     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 21)
Behavioral Ecology     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 56)
Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 35)
Biocenosis     Open Access  
Biochar     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 1)
Biodegradation     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 2)
Biodiversity     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 23)
Biofouling: The Journal of Bioadhesion and Biofilm Research     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 2)
Bioremediation Journal     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 4)
BioRisk     Open Access   (Followers: 2)
BMC Ecology     Open Access   (Followers: 24)
Boletín Instituto de Derecho Ambiental y de los Recursos Naturales     Open Access  
Boletín Semillas Ambientales     Open Access  
Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 5)
Bothalia : African Biodiversity & Conservation     Open Access  
Built Environment     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 5)
Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 10)
Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society     Open Access   (Followers: 60)
Bumi Lestari Journal of Environment     Open Access  
Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 21)
Canadian Journal of Remote Sensing     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 51)
Canadian Journal of Soil Science     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 12)
Canadian Water Resources Journal     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 18)
Capitalism Nature Socialism     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 20)
Carbon Capture Science & Technology     Open Access   (Followers: 4)
Carbon Resources Conversion     Open Access   (Followers: 2)
Case Studies in Chemical and Environmental Engineering     Open Access  
Casopis Slezskeho Zemskeho Muzea - serie A - vedy prirodni     Open Access  
Cell Biology and Toxicology     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 10)
Chain Reaction     Full-text available via subscription  
Challenges in Sustainability     Open Access   (Followers: 9)
Chemical Research in Toxicology     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 22)
Chemico-Biological Interactions     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 3)
Chemosphere     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 15)
Child and Adolescent Mental Health     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 66)
Ciencia, Ambiente y Clima     Open Access  
City and Environment Interactions     Open Access   (Followers: 2)
Civil and Environmental Engineering     Open Access   (Followers: 6)
Civil and Environmental Engineering Reports     Open Access   (Followers: 3)
Civil and Environmental Research     Open Access   (Followers: 15)
CLEAN - Soil, Air, Water     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 17)
Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 4)
Cleaner Environmental Systems     Open Access   (Followers: 3)
Cleaner Production Letters     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 4)
Cleanroom Technology     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 1)
Climate and Energy     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 5)
Climate Change Ecology     Open Access   (Followers: 9)
Climate Change Economics     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 35)
Climate Policy     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 45)
Climate Resilience and Sustainability     Open Access   (Followers: 18)
Coastal Engineering Journal     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 7)
Cogent Environmental Science     Open Access  
Columbia Journal of Environmental Law     Open Access   (Followers: 12)
Computational Ecology and Software     Open Access   (Followers: 9)
Computational Water, Energy, and Environmental Engineering     Open Access   (Followers: 5)
Conservation and Society     Open Access   (Followers: 12)
Conservation Letters     Open Access   (Followers: 48)
Conservation Science     Open Access   (Followers: 26)
Consilience : The Journal of Sustainable Development     Open Access   (Followers: 2)
Contemporary Problems of Ecology     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 4)
Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 11)
Critical Reviews in Toxicology     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 26)
Cuadernos de Investigación Geográfica / Geographical Research Letters     Open Access  
Culture, Agriculture, Food and Environment     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 21)
Culture, Agriculture, Food and Environment     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 9)
Current Environmental Health Reports     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 1)
Current Forestry Reports     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 1)
Current Landscape Ecology Reports     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 1)
Current Opinion in Environmental Science & Health     Hybrid Journal  
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 14)
Current Research in Ecological and Social Psychology     Open Access   (Followers: 4)
Current Research in Environmental Sustainability     Open Access   (Followers: 2)
Current Research in Green and Sustainable Chemistry     Open Access  
Current Research in Microbiology     Open Access   (Followers: 21)
Current Sustainable/Renewable Energy Reports     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 7)
Die Bodenkultur : Journal of Land Management, Food and Environment     Open Access  
Disaster Prevention and Management     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 29)
Discover Sustainability     Open Access   (Followers: 2)
disP - The Planning Review     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 1)
Drug and Chemical Toxicology     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 13)
Duke Environmental Law & Policy Forum     Open Access   (Followers: 7)
Dynamiques Environnementales     Open Access  
E3S Web of Conferences     Open Access  
Earth and Environmental Science Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 5)
Earth Interactions     Open Access   (Followers: 11)
Earth Science Informatics     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 5)
Earth System Governance     Open Access  
Earth System Science Data (ESSD)     Open Access   (Followers: 7)
Earth Systems and Environment     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 2)
EchoGéo     Open Access  
Eco-Thinking     Open Access   (Followers: 2)
Ecocycles     Open Access   (Followers: 4)
Ecohydrology     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 8)
Ecohydrology & Hydrobiology     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 4)
Ecologia Aplicada     Open Access  
Ecología en Bolivia     Open Access  
Ecological Applications     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 134)
Ecological Chemistry and Engineering S     Open Access   (Followers: 2)
Ecological Complexity     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 7)
Ecological Engineering     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 4)
Ecological Indicators     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 20)
Ecological Informatics     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 3)
Ecological Management & Restoration     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 15)
Ecological Modelling     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 69)
Ecological Monographs     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 36)
Ecological Processes     Open Access   (Followers: 2)
Ecological Questions     Open Access   (Followers: 4)
Ecological Research     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 10)
Ecological Restoration     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 21)
Ecologist, The     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 22)
Ecology     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 337)
Ecology and Evolution     Open Access   (Followers: 89)
Ecology Letters     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 236)
EcoMat : Functional Materials for Green Energy and Environment     Open Access  
Economics and Policy of Energy and the Environment     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 13)
Économie rurale     Open Access   (Followers: 3)
Ecoprint : An International Journal of Ecology     Open Access   (Followers: 4)
Ecopsychology     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 7)
Ecosphere     Open Access   (Followers: 8)
Ecosystem Services     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 7)
Ecosystems     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 31)
Ecosystems and People     Open Access   (Followers: 2)
Ecotoxicology     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 9)
Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 10)
Ecotrophic : Journal of Environmental Science     Open Access  
Ecozon@ : European Journal of Literature, Culture and Environment     Open Access   (Followers: 4)
Éducation relative à l'environnement     Open Access  
Electronic Green Journal     Open Access   (Followers: 4)
Empowering Sustainability International Journal     Open Access   (Followers: 5)
Energy & Environment     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 23)
Energy & Environmental Science     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 32)
Energy and Climate Change     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 7)
Energy and Environment Focus     Free   (Followers: 7)

        1 2 3 4 5 | Last

Similar Journals
Journal Cover
Current Landscape Ecology Reports
Number of Followers: 1  
 
  Hybrid Journal Hybrid journal (It can contain Open Access articles)
ISSN (Online) 2364-494X
Published by Springer-Verlag Homepage  [2484 journals]
  • Diversifying Landscapes for Wild Bees: Strategies for North American
           Prairie Agroecosystems

    • Free pre-print version: Loading...

      Abstract: Purpose of Review We reviewed the common mechanisms through which intensively cropped landscapes are modified to increase wild bee abundance and diversity in North American prairie ecosystems. We categorized these efforts into three main categories: retaining parcels of land identified as important to wild bee communities, augmenting currently cropped areas to increase available resources, and restoring spaces from cropland to pollinator habitat. We discuss considerations that should be included at both the farm and “farm-neighborhood” scale, and review the literature pertaining to the costs and benefits of each strategy. Recent Findings Wild bee conservation has been a topic of much interest in the past decade, with research generally focused at the field scale. Initial studies have focused on providing evidence that restoring, augmenting, and retaining land for wild bees shows the desired effects. Research quantifying the costs associated with each method still has significant knowledge gaps, as does understanding patterns of variability common in natural prairie ecosystems. Summary Retaining, augmenting, and restoring habitat for wild pollinators can create “win-win” scenarios for both wild bees and land-use decision-makers, whereby increased insect abundance has the potential to increase yield. There are considerations to be taken into account at both the farm and farm-neighborhood scale, and we present a framework which can be used to demonstrate the value of non-cropped areas to land-use decision-makers. Rapidly developing technology, such as GPS yield monitoring, has the potential to dramatically increase our power to detect which areas of a field may be ideal candidates for restoration or augmentation efforts.
      PubDate: 2021-09-01
      DOI: 10.1007/s40823-021-00066-z
       
  • Open-source Tools in R for Landscape Ecology

    • Free pre-print version: Loading...

      Abstract: Purpose of Review Landscape ecology, the study of the complex interactions between landscapes and ecological processes, has hugely benefited from the increase in widely available open-source software in recent years. In particular, the R programming language provides a wealth of community developed tools for landscape ecology. Recent Findings In this paper, we examine existing packages for downloading, processing and visualisation of spatial data, as well as those specifically developed for spatial ecological analysis. Additionally, we outline the results of a survey of R users within the landscape ecology community. Summary We found that landscape ecologists are generally satisfied with the functionality available within R, and that as a community they are continually further developing the functionality available. Suggested future developments include improvement of computation performance; additional methods for landscape characterisation such as surface metrics; and advanced, accessible visualisation tools.
      PubDate: 2021-09-01
      DOI: 10.1007/s40823-021-00067-y
       
  • Responses of Vertebrate Wildlife to Oil and Natural Gas Development:
           Patterns and Frontiers

    • Free pre-print version: Loading...

      Abstract: Purpose of Review Anthropogenic activities can lead to the loss, fragmentation, and alteration of wildlife habitats. I reviewed the recent literature (2014–2019) focused on the responses of avian, mammalian, and herpetofaunal species to oil and natural gas development, a widespread and still-expanding land use worldwide. My primary goals were to identify any generalities in species’ responses to development and summarize remaining gaps in knowledge. To do so, I evaluated the directionality of a wide variety of responses in relation to taxon, location, development type, development metric, habitat type, and spatiotemporal aspects. Recent Findings Studies (n = 70) were restricted to the USA and Canada, and taxonomically biased towards birds and mammals. Longer studies, but not those incorporating multiple spatial scales, were more likely to detect significant responses. Negative responses of all types were present in relatively low frequencies across all taxa, locations, development types, and development metrics but were context-dependent. The directionality of responses by the same species often varied across studies or development metrics. Summary The state of knowledge about wildlife responses to oil and natural gas development has developed considerably, though many biases and gaps remain. Studies outside of North America and that focus on herpetofauna are lacking. Tests of mechanistic hypotheses for effects, long-term studies, assessment of response thresholds, and experimental designs that isolate the effects of different stimuli associated with development, remain critical. Moreover, tests of the efficacy of habitat mitigation efforts have been rare. Finally, investigations of the demographic effects of development across the full annual cycle were absent for non-game species and are critical for the estimation of population-level effects.
      PubDate: 2021-09-01
      DOI: 10.1007/s40823-021-00065-0
       
  • Changes in Land Use and Land Cover Along an Urban-Rural Gradient Influence
           Floral Resource Availability

    • Free pre-print version: Loading...

      Abstract: Purpose of Review While several hundred thousand species of insects, mammals, and birds rely on flowers for food or reproduction, a surprising dearth of literature focuses specifically on floral resources. An understanding of floral resource availability is particularly necessary in urban areas, which have recently been proposed as important habitat for declining pollinator populations. In this study, we aim to synthesize existing information and provide new insights about the effects of land use and land cover (LULC) change and urbanization on the distribution, diversity, and abundance of floral resources. Recent Findings Our results suggest that certain LULC types provide more floral resources than others. In particular, urban lands may have higher floral density than agricultural or natural lands. However, we also observed inconsistent findings between studies, and the relationship between urbanization and floral resource availability may vary by city, with this variation possibly due in part to city size, LULC composition, regional biome, and biases in sampling. Summary It appears that cities have the potential to provide an important source of floral resources. However, a complete understanding of the effects of urbanization on floral resources requires that landscape composition and heterogeneity be taken into account. We recommend that more studies estimate floral resource availability at a landscape scale by combining data about LULC composition with data about floral resource availability within various LULC types. These studies should focus specifically on flower communities and be conducted along a full urban-rural gradient.
      PubDate: 2021-06-01
      DOI: 10.1007/s40823-021-00064-1
       
  • Urban Landscape Genetics: Are Biologists Keeping Up with the Pace of
           Urbanization'

    • Free pre-print version: Loading...

      Abstract: Purpose of Review Urbanization has the potential to jeopardize the sustainability of populations of organisms living within and dispersing across urban areas. Landscape genetics approaches offer a great promise for quantifying how urban features affect ecological and evolutionary processes for species living within and around cities. In this review, we assess the current state (2015–2020) of urban landscape genetics research, examining what types of urban features are quantified, what genetic measures are used, what species are studied, and in which geographic regions they are conducted. We then make recommendations for future research. Recent Findings We identified relatively few landscape genetic studies conducted within urban areas published in the last 5 years. We also found a publication bias towards certain taxa and geographic regions (mainly mammals studied in North America), based on results from relatively few molecular markers. These studies used varied measures of urbanization in their analysis, but the most common was urban land use/land cover measured at different resolutions, followed by buildings/development and transportation infrastructure (roads, railroads, and tramways). The results of these studies reflect previously conducted urban research findings that urban features may inhibit, facilitate, or have no correlation with gene flow, usually a product of which focal taxa is being studied, as well as what urban features are present/measured within variable cityscapes. Summary We urge future research to directly measure urban features and stress the need for explicitly sampling within and around urban areas to gain full understanding of whether urbanization impedes, facilitates, or does not affect genetic differentiation between populations. To facilitate the development of robust theory, we urge the formation of a global network of urban landscape geneticists to collaborate and sample diverse taxa, in varied global landscapes and climates, and analyze genome-wide datasets for more robust conclusions about gene flow and genetic diversity. We advocate for analyzing urban features at multiple scales to allow broad conclusions about the effects of urbanization across studies, taxa, and regions. Finally, we recommend that study designs include social, cultural, and economic differences in human land use, which have the potential to affect how species disperse, survive, and reproduce in urban areas. Taking these factors into account, we can make novel advances in understanding how complex urban landscapes shape contemporary evolution.
      PubDate: 2021-06-01
      DOI: 10.1007/s40823-021-00062-3
       
  • Mismatches in the Ecosystem Services Literature—a Review of Spatial,
           Temporal, and Functional-Conceptual Mismatches

    • Free pre-print version: Loading...

      Abstract: Purpose of Review The objective of this review is to identify commonly researched ecosystem service mismatches, including mismatches concerning management and policies implemented to manage ecosystem service delivery. It additionally discusses how mismatches affect the ability to develop effective policies and management guidelines for ecosystem services. Recent Findings Recent ecosystem service literature considers mismatches in the ecosystem, the social system, and as social-ecological interactions. These mismatches occur over three dimensions: spatial, temporal, and functional-conceptual. The research field incorporates not only ecological aspects but also social ones like the management and governance of ecosystem services. However, the focus of the reviewed literature is mainly on spatial and temporal dimensions of mismatches and the production of scientific knowledge, rather than the implementation of the knowledge in management and policies. Summary Research on ecosystem service mismatches reflects the complexity and interconnectedness of social-ecological systems as it encompasses a broad variety of approaches. However, temporal mismatches received less attention than spatial mismatches, especially in regard to social and social-ecological aspects and could be a topic for future research. Furthermore, in order to develop effective policies and management guidelines, research must work closer with decision-makers to not only advance scientific understanding of ecosystem service mismatches but also create understanding and support the uptake of this knowledge.
      PubDate: 2021-06-01
      DOI: 10.1007/s40823-021-00063-2
       
  • Distance-Dependent Landscape Effects in Terrestrial Systems: a Review and
           a Proposed Spatio-Temporal Framework

    • Free pre-print version: Loading...

      Abstract: Purpose of Review We review recent methodological advancements in estimation of distance-dependent landscape effects on terrestrial species. These methods address key theoretical elements from landscape and metapopulation ecology that were ignored in previous approaches. Models that treat landscapes as circles within which all land features are equally important to a focal population ignore distant-dependent population processes, such as dispersal, resource selection, and social interactions. Realistic models that estimate variation in landscape-scale effects over space and time are necessary to understand the complex processes that influence population dynamics. Recent Findings The addition of kernel smoothers to generalized linear models has potential to increase the biological realism of landscape-species models. These models include estimation of parameters that dictate the relationship between distance and importance of landscape features to focal populations. There are examples of implementing these models in both maximum likelihood and Bayesian frameworks, as well as examples using model selection to determine appropriate smoothing kernel shape. One key limitation of these models is computational effort, although we provide some guidance for reducing model runtime. Summary Models allowing for inference on explicit ecological processes are critical to advancing knowledge of the basic landscape ecology of species and will benefit efforts to prioritize conservation and evaluate species recovery efforts. We describe how distance-dependent landscape-scale effect models can be used for these purposes in a variety of scenarios. We conclude by proposing a process-based, spatio-temporal framework for understanding the mechanisms behind the spatial scale at which landscapes influence species.
      PubDate: 2021-03-01
      DOI: 10.1007/s40823-020-00061-w
       
  • Consequences of Urban Living: Urbanization and Ground Beetles

    • Free pre-print version: Loading...

      Abstract: Purpose of Review Urbanization is increasing worldwide, transforming environmental and habitat parameters, and causing adverse effects on organisms living in urban habitats. Urban studies on ground beetles are exponentially increasing and cover all levels of biological organization. Still, to date, there is no comprehensive paper reviewing the impacts of urbanization on ground beetles at different levels of biological organization. Recent Findings At the population level, urbanization induces changes in the morphological characters, including fluctuating asymmetry, physiological condition, behavioral characteristics, seasonal activity, population size, and genetic diversity in ground beetles. Different species groups (habitat specialists vs. generalists, large vs. small-sized species, poor vs. good dispersers, predators vs. herbivores) respond differently to urbanization. Community-level changes associated with urbanization include the abundance, taxonomic as well as functional diversity, community assembly mechanisms, composition, and body size distribution. At the ecosystem level, urbanization influences several ecosystem processes and functions related to ground beetles, but data are only available concerning the edge effect and predation. Summary Urbanization has a considerable effect at various levels of the biological organization on ground beetles living in urban habitats. However, results—especially at the population and community levels—show inconsistent patterns. This discrepancy may result from individual responses and different sensitivity of species to urbanization, suggesting the importance of individualistic and functional approach in future urban studies. To preserve a rich carabid diversity in urban areas, multi-scale greenspace planning and management schemes are needed; these will also ensure both the recreational and the diversity-preserving function of urban green spaces.
      PubDate: 2021-03-01
      DOI: 10.1007/s40823-020-00060-x
       
  • A Review of Overlapping Landscapes: Pseudoreplication or a Red Herring in
           Landscape Ecology'

    • Free pre-print version: Loading...

      Abstract: Purpose of Review Identifying the spatial scale at which a species or population most strongly responds to habitat composition and configuration is known as scale-of-effect and is a fundamental pursuit of landscape ecology. In conducting scale-of-effect studies, it is common to measure habitat in landscape buffers of varying sizes surrounding sample sites. When sample sites are in close spatial proximity to one another, these landscape buffers will overlap. Researchers commonly worry that data generated from these overlapping landscapes, and subsequently used as predictor variables in statistical modeling, represent a form of pseudoreplication that violates the assumption of independence. Recent Findings Here, we review the concept of overlapping landscapes and their theoretical and practical implications in landscape ecology. We suggest that the perceived problem of overlapping landscapes is distinct from more important issues in landscape ecology, such as a robust sampling design complete with a discrete assessment of spatial autocorrelation. Through simulation, we demonstrate that changing the amount of landscape overlap does not alter the degree of spatial autocorrelation. Yet, in reviewing over 600 journal articles, we found that a third (29%) of the studies perceived overlapping landscapes as an issue requiring either changes in sampling design or statistical solutions. Researchers concerned with overlapping landscapes often go to great lengths to alter their sampling design by removing or aggregating sites. Overlapping landscapes remain a prevalent concern in landscape ecology despite previous studies that show that overlapping landscapes are not a violation of independence and represent an oversimplification of the statistical concerns of spatial autocorrelation. Summary The concern over overlapping landscapes as a form of pseudoreplication persists in landscape ecology, but acts as a potential red herring detracting from more relevant concerns of proper sampling design and spatial autocorrelation in ecological studies.
      PubDate: 2020-12-01
      DOI: 10.1007/s40823-020-00059-4
       
  • What Hampers Implementation of Integrated Landscape Approaches in Rural
           Landscapes'

    • Free pre-print version: Loading...

      Abstract: Purpose of Review In rural areas, frameworks of integrated landscape approaches are increasingly being used to reconcile conflicting objectives of stakeholders and sectors, such as agriculture and conservation. In accommodating multiple land uses, social, economic, and environmental trade-offs need to be balanced. Different social processes underly integrated landscape approaches. The aim of this review is to provide an overview of the barriers described in peer-reviewed case studies to better understand what hampers the implementation of integrated landscape approaches. To this purpose, we conducted a systematic literature study. We clustered the barriers into the following barriers groups: (1) participation problems, (2) interaction problems, (3) resource problems, and (4) institutional problems, and analyzed how these barriers hindered implementation of the following key landscape processes: planning and visioning, developing and implementing practices, establishing good governance, and monitoring and evaluation. Recent Findings We analyzed barriers described in 56 peer-reviewed papers that document 76 cases of integrated landscape approaches in 35 countries worldwide. Main stakeholder problems were related to absence of specific stakeholder groups, varying levels of engagement, or lack of stakeholder experience and skills. Interaction problems included a lack of communication, collaboration, or coordination, a lack of agreement due to different stakeholder visions, and power relations. Institutional problems were related to incompatible (national) policies and institutional structures hindering integration, and resource problems included limited availability of financial resources and a lack of data. These barriers hampered the implementation of the key processes needed to transition towards integrated landscape approaches in different ways. This paper provides an overview of the main barriers found for each landscape process. Summary Rural landscapes are often characterized by a variety of stakeholders and land use sectors, such as agriculture and natural resource conservation. Landscape approaches aim to integrate different goals such as conservation, production, and livelihoods simultaneously, but their implementation appears to be challenging. In this study, we take stock of the barriers described in the literature and analyze how different types of challenges related to stakeholder engagement, interaction between stakeholders, resources, and institutions hinder implementation of landscape approaches. According to this analysis, we demonstrate why particular problems pose challenges to the implementation of specific elements of landscape approaches. Few barriers were related to testing and implementing sustainable business practices since business stakeholders were often not involved. Most approaches were still in an early stage of development. The continuity of approaches is mostly not secured and calls for better institutionalization of landscape approaches. The set of identified barriers and their relations to key processes can be used as a diagnostic tool to enhance learning and improve the performance of landscape approaches in the transition towards integrated landscape management.
      PubDate: 2020-12-01
      DOI: 10.1007/s40823-020-00057-6
       
  • Recent Methodological Solutions to Identifying Scales of Effect in
           Multi-scale Modeling

    • Free pre-print version: Loading...

      Abstract: Purpose of Review This review summarizes the characteristics of contemporary multi-scale studies (i.e., those that quantify ecological relationships over multiple spatial extents), outlines limitations associated with analyses typically used to model multi-scale ecological relationships, and highlights recent methodological progress overcoming these limits. Recent Findings The majority of recent studies investigating scales of effect in ecological relationships were conducted within a simplified model selection, information theoretic framework that suffers under the specters of collinearity, imperfect detection, and limited candidate scale space. The few studies that deviate from this framework offer greater flexibility in identifying or directly estimating relevant scales of effect by allowing predictors to have independent scales of effect, simultaneously evaluated, and explicitly consider the unique issue of collinearity in multi-scale studies, with extensions to hierarchical models that account for imperfect detection. Summary Accurate ecological inference requires that the scales of ecological processes, observations, and analyses align. Wider adoption of emerging analytical methods for identifying important scales of effect, though not traditional, and in some cases more computationally intensive, will broaden the scope for understanding the ecological factors operating on organisms at different scales. By estimating full models (i.e., not single-predictor models), which are not scale constrained (i.e., each predictor can have its own scale of effect), and that disentangle ecological processes from observational processes when relevant will provide a comprehensive base of estimates from which to explore underlying mechanisms governing scale dependence in ecology.
      PubDate: 2020-12-01
      DOI: 10.1007/s40823-020-00055-8
       
  • Influencing Landscape-Scale Revegetation Trajectories through Restoration
           Interventions

    • Free pre-print version: Loading...

      Abstract: Purpose of Review This review focuses on potential approaches to restoring vegetation across former agricultural land, mainly considering the relatively well-studied case of once-forested landscapes. It presents an ecological framework within which the potential consequences of different practical interventions are described and compared, and then identifies implications for restoration decision-making. Recent Findings There is a still-growing range of restoration interventions other than high-cost intensive tree-planting. These aim to accelerate vegetation recovery at different stages of forest redevelopment, by removing factors that would otherwise have an inhibitory influence. Potential interventions include adding seed, installing structures to attract seed dispersers, selectively protecting or removing different vegetation elements (trees or ground plants) in the regenerating communities, and managing fire, livestock grazing or wildlife. Summary Given the potential variety of approaches, at a landscape scale, the best solution is most likely a spatial mosaic that tailors specific restoration interventions to differing contexts and outcomes. However, the current evidence base is insufficient to adequately guide decisions about how to match method to site, landscape and cost. Research has typically been small-scale and often disconnected from restoration practice. Larger-scale investment in collaborative and innovative restoration trials and experiments is needed to enable better decision-making.
      PubDate: 2020-12-01
      DOI: 10.1007/s40823-020-00058-5
       
  • How Does the Landscape Affect Metacommunity Structure' A Quantitative
           Review for Lentic Environments

    • Free pre-print version: Loading...

      Abstract: Purpose of Review We conducted a literature review to understand how landscape patterns affect ecological processes in metacommunities in lentic environments. Our aim was to identify trends in these studies considering taxa, aquatic systems, landscape metrics, and response variables. We also recorded whether studies were presenting the exclusive effect of landscape on metacommunities (i.e., the effect of landscape independent from other environmental variables). Finally, we provide some guidelines for future studies. Recent Findings We identified a consistent increase in the number of studies from 2006 to 2018. Insects and amphibians were the most studied organisms and ponds (ponds and pools) were the systems most studied. Patch-level metrics and landscape-level metrics were similarly reported. Beta diversity was more common than alpha diversity as a response variable, especially for those employing taxonomic data. Finally, most studies reported the effect of landscape separated from other variables, although the metrics used and their effects on metacommunities varied. Summary Our understanding of how landscape affects the structure of metacommunities in lentic systems is still limited, because of the low number of studies, the approaches used to assess the contribution of landscape, and the variety of landscape metrics used in these studies. We recommend that future studies aiming to understand the role of landscape on metacommunities should avoid summarizing local and landscape variables or different landscape metrics into a single variable, but carefully choose the best landscape metric to match the hypothesis being tested.
      PubDate: 2020-09-01
      DOI: 10.1007/s40823-020-00049-6
       
  • Restoration at the landscape scale as a means of mitigation and adaptation
           to climate change

    • Free pre-print version: Loading...

      Abstract: Purpose of Review Although landscape-scale restoration efforts are gaining traction worldwide, their success is generally unknown. We review landscape-scale restorations to gain insight to whether focal ecological outcomes have been achieved, in the face of changing environmental conditions. Recent Findings Only 9% of the 477 articles that resulted from our search were studies of landscape-scale restorations. The majority (73%) of the landscape restorations from our study have occurred since the 1990s, indicating that this type of restoration has gained in popularity in the last 30 years. Furthermore, 67% of these restoration studies occurred in a single country: China. Many scientific studies have addressed the ability of a species to shift ranges with climate change, yet few of the landscape-scale restoration studies used for our study addressed this question. Instead, 87% of the studies focused on ecosystem function, rather than community-level processes, as a result of restoration. Summary There is a clear need for more research to be undertaken on the ecological outcomes of landscape-scale restorations to understand whether they enable species and communities to shift their ranges or adapt to climate change. Conservation practitioners could utilize our decision matrix as a tool to guide restoration of individual sites within a landscape context, as well as current and future climatic conditions, to guide ecological outcomes of interest. Optimal biodiversity maintenance requires habitat conservation in concert with restoration activities at the landscape scale, and the latter, likely increasingly so in a world of changing climate.
      PubDate: 2020-09-01
      DOI: 10.1007/s40823-020-00056-7
       
  • Remote Sensing’s Recent and Future Contributions to Landscape
           Ecology

    • Free pre-print version: Loading...

      Abstract: Purpose of Review The purpose of this article is to review landscape ecology research from the past 5 years to identify past and future contributions from remote sensing to landscape ecology. Recent Findings Recent studies in landscape ecology have employed advances made in remote sensing. These include the use of reliable and open datasets derived from remote sensing, the availability of new sources for freely available satellite imagery, and machine-learning image classification techniques for classifying land cover types. Remote sensing data sources and methods have been used in landscape ecology to examine landscape structure. Additionally, these data sources and methods have been used to analyze landscape function including the effects of landscape structure and landscape change on biodiversity and population dynamics. Lastly, remote sensing data sources and methods have been used to analyze historical landscape changes and to simulate future landscape changes. Summary The ongoing integration of remote sensing analyses in landscape ecology will depend on continued accessibility of free imagery from satellite sources and open-access data-analysis software, analyses spanning multiple spatial and temporal scales, and novel land cover classification techniques that produce accurate and reliable land cover data. Continuing advances in remote sensing can help to address new landscape ecology research questions, enabling analyses that incorporate information that ranges from ground-based field samples of organisms to satellite-collected remote sensing data.
      PubDate: 2020-09-01
      DOI: 10.1007/s40823-020-00054-9
       
  • Are Flagship, Umbrella and Keystone Species Useful Surrogates to
           Understand the Consequences of Landscape Change'

    • Free pre-print version: Loading...

      Abstract: Purpose of Review Umbrella, flagship and keystone species are among the most widely employed surrogate species concepts. We explored whether these concepts are useful for understanding the consequences of landscape change. We assessed the literature on surrogate species in relation to landscape change and identified key foci and notable gaps within the existing evidence base. We outlined strengths and limitations of surrogate species as proxies for landscape change. Recent Findings We found that few studies evaluated whether taxa claimed to be surrogate species were in fact robust proxies. This is particularly so for flagship species but is also common in work on umbrella species. We also found marked differences in how the terms and concepts of umbrella, flagship and keystone species were used, both between studies and between disciplines (e.g. forestry versus community ecology). Research into surrogates is often conducted independently of research on landscape change. This leaves a major gap in knowledge about how surrogates can inform decision-making in relation to ongoing threatening processes, including landscape change. Summary Based on results of our literature search and insights from large-scale, long-term empirical studies in south-eastern Australia, we identified a diverse mix of examples where the application of surrogate approaches has been successful, and where it has not. However, it is currently not possible to determine a priori where a given surrogate approach will work. Resolution of this problem requires considerable further work. Surrogates should be used in a critical way to help avoid mistakes in resource and biodiversity management.
      PubDate: 2020-09-01
      DOI: 10.1007/s40823-020-00052-x
       
  • Are Habitat Fragmentation Effects Stronger in Marine Systems' A Review
           and Meta-analysis

    • Free pre-print version: Loading...

      Abstract: Purpose of the Review The importance of habitat fragmentation in driving biodiversity loss has been recently debated. While the negative effects of habitat loss are well-documented, the effects of habitat fragmentation independent of habitat loss (e.g., habitat configuration) are more equivocal. Marine ecosystems have been underrepresented in past reviews, yet may differ fundamentally from terrestrial systems in their responses to habitat fragmentation because of the nature of energy/material flow, open population structure of most marine species, and narrow habitat extents. We conducted a systematic literature review and meta-analysis on the effects of habitat fragmentation in marine ecosystems. Recent Findings In our review of 180 studies from 28 articles, we found that habitat fragmentation effects were more often negative than positive, although the overall mean effect did not differ from zero. Interestingly, the mean effect was positive when the response was a measure of abundance, biodiversity, or population/ecosystem stability. Habitat fragmentation had overwhelmingly negative effects when it involved hydrological fragmentation. We found some support for the fragmentation threshold hypothesis via a weak negative relationship between habitat percent cover in the landscape and the habitat fragmentation effect. Summary Results of this review on the effects of habitat fragmentation in marine ecosystems are largely consistent with another recent review finding that habitat fragmentation (independent of habitat loss) does not have consistent, negative impacts on biodiversity, and in many cases may increase biodiversity. Future work should focus on factors driving this variability and employ multi-scale frameworks to test for congruence between patch- and landscape-scale studies.
      PubDate: 2020-09-01
      DOI: 10.1007/s40823-020-00053-w
       
  • Beneficial Health Outcomes of Natural Green Infrastructure in Cities

    • Free pre-print version: Loading...

      Abstract: Purpose of Review We examined recent literature on the human health impacts of natural green infrastructure (NGI). NGI refers to green space that requires less maintenance than traditional formal urban green spaces such as city parks. Where declining cities have excess land and fewer funds for land maintenance, NGI is globally emerging as a cost-effective way to convert abandoned land into useful green space producing ecosystems services. Our goal was to determine if recent studies show that NGI provides human health benefits. Much previous work shows that urban green infrastructure in general has human health benefits but we ask the question whether this specific kind of green infrastructure also provides human health benefits. Recent Findings We found 29 studies reporting positive human health impacts from NGI. Most reported mental health benefits but wellbeing, crime reduction, obesity, and recreation were also reported. These studies also reveal the specific characteristics of NGI that contribute to the positive health impacts: forests, trees, wilderness, biodiversity, and tranquility. We also found an additional 13 studies of low-maintenance greening projects on urban vacant land that all report health benefits including crime reduction, mental health, and pro-social behavior. These 42 studies utilize a variety of different research designs and metrics. Summary The recent literature indicates that NGI may be a low-cost way to convert abandoned land in declining urban areas into green space that provides health benefits to people who often lack access to green space. NGI provides benefits of mental health, wellbeing, and crime reduction that are comparable, if not better, than other, more costly urban green infrastructure.
      PubDate: 2020-06-01
      DOI: 10.1007/s40823-020-00051-y
       
  • Linking Landscape Ecology and Macroecology by Scaling Biodiversity in
           Space and Time

    • Free pre-print version: Loading...

      Abstract: Purpose of Review Despite the decades-long recognition of the importance of scaling in ecology, our knowledge about many ecological patterns and processes is still largely restricted to particular spatial and temporal scale domains with relatively narrow ranges. There is no exception when it comes to the study of biodiversity, one of the most important and active research fields in ecology. Increasing work suggests that such narrow ranges of scales are in most cases inadequate for addressing conservation challenges associated with biodiversity change. The need for understanding how biodiversity is shaped and will change across different scales is stronger than ever. Recent Findings Here, we review recent progresses of up-scaling and down-scaling biodiversity in the context of global environmental change, with focus on two relatively large spatial scale domains, i.e., the landscape and macroecological scales. Landscape ecology and macroecology are both active, but so-far poorly connected research fields. They share a common central motivation of unraveling spatial patterning of biodiversity and the underlying mechanisms. Our literature review suggests that landscape-scale processes may exert unexpected up-scaling effects to shape biodiversity patterns at macroecological scales, while macroecological processes may generate a range of down-scaling effects on landscape biodiversity. Specifically, although there is a lack of consensus on the underlying mechanisms, it is likely that landscape processes scale up through connectivity and feedback loops within and across landscapes to affect macroecological biodiversity responses. On the other hand, the down-scaling effects of macroecological processes on biodiversity is often confounded with small-scale processes, leading to various responses inconsistent with direct down-scaling extrapolations. In addition, the temporal dimension is indispensable to investigating effects and mechanisms of cross-scale processes. Specifically, long-term (decades and beyond) perspectives are necessary for re-evaluating ecological knowledge obtained from biodiversity responses to short-term environmental changes and recognizing historical legacies of both landscape and macroecological processes on biodiversity at the two spatial scales. Summary Overall, scaling analyses of ecological processes across spatial extents ranging from small habitats to the globe have revealed biodiversity responses to anthropogenic environmental changes as inconsistent with assumptions and extrapolations based on extant ecological knowledge at a few fixed scales. Such analyses are needed to better inform conservation actions and planning practiced mainly at local to macroecological scales. We suggest that elucidating cross-scaling mechanisms and accumulating long-term time series at multiple spatial scales are key to linking landscape ecology and macroecology in terms of biodiversity dynamics. Such efforts would be an important contribution to the ecological basis for managing biodiversity change in the Anthropocene, as these dynamics involve multiple up-scaling and down-scaling processes over time.
      PubDate: 2020-06-01
      DOI: 10.1007/s40823-020-00050-z
       
  • Assessing the Relative Importance of Factors at Multiple Spatial Scales
           Affecting Terrestrial and Aquatic Wildlife

    • Free pre-print version: Loading...

      Abstract: Purpose of Review We reviewed recent studies focused on assessing the relative roles of factors operating at different scales in shaping animal populations, species, communities, and individual behaviors. Our goal was to summarize the current state of the science by documenting trends and advances in approaches used to weigh the relative impact of drivers at different scales. Recent Findings We identify several recent advances in remote sensing–based data collection, such as unmanned aerial vehicles and terrestrial laser scanning, that have the potential to increase the range of scales over which more detailed measurements of the composition and structure of environments can be made. We also highlight the promise of experimental studies and specific statistical approaches for providing a more solid understanding of the relative importance of factors operating at different spatial scales. Summary We found that after nearly three decades of studies focused on the relative importance of factors operating at different scales, no general pattern has emerged. There is no clear evidence that one scale or one set of scales consistently plays a larger role than others. Nonetheless, it is clear from this research that ecological processes are indeed affected by processes operating at multiple spatial scales. We conclude that a more productive line of questioning might focus not on the relative importance of factors operating at different scales, but on understanding which factors affect a given process, at what scales they operate, and how they interact.
      PubDate: 2020-03-01
      DOI: 10.1007/s40823-019-00047-3
       
 
JournalTOCs
School of Mathematical and Computer Sciences
Heriot-Watt University
Edinburgh, EH14 4AS, UK
Email: journaltocs@hw.ac.uk
Tel: +00 44 (0)131 4513762
 


Your IP address: 3.81.172.77
 
Home (Search)
API
About JournalTOCs
News (blog, publications)
JournalTOCs on Twitter   JournalTOCs on Facebook

JournalTOCs © 2009-