Photograph and poem: the only alien here

2018-11-01 23.21.44

Wind the propagator propels air-borne seeds

To urban refuge and new opportunity

Where they germinate, elongate, grow, and flower,

Roots seeking soil, making do with mortar and render,

As, persistent in its invader role,

Buddleia grips a gable cliff, dispensing offspring

From house wall warmth into frigid space

And a clear night of stars backdrops the only alien here.

 

Advertisements

2 Comments

Filed under Biodiversity and culture, Personal biodiversity, Poetry, Urban biodiversity

How can academics help students with anxiety issues?

2018-10-29 09.14.08

This is a guest post from Karin Blak, a therapist with over 15 years of training and experience in helping people overcome issues such as anxiety, including running training workshops for young people and those with pastoral care responsibilities such as teachers.  Regular readers of the blog will also know that Karin is my wife, and I may be biased, but I think she’s written a really useful and informative piece on an issue that’s concerning many academics and their universities at the moment.  If you want to get in touch with Karin to ask about training workshops that she offers, or to follow up on any of this, click on that link to her web site or drop me a line.


 

Listening to and reading about the issues students in higher education have, anxiety seems to be on the rise.  I do wonder whether it is more likely that, with developments in psychology and therapy, we are better able to accept that there is such a condition as “anxiety” and are aware of how to spot it, rather than blaming shyness or laziness.  But whatever the source of this rise, we need to consider how academics can help students with anxiety.

Anxiety is not a disability, but it is a dis-abler.  It is a fear based condition that increases if it is treated with too much empathy.  For example, if we allow students to not participate in group activities because of anxiety, we are being too empathic and instead of helping the student, as was our intention, we empower the condition.  So if too much empathy is a bad thing, what can we do to help?  To answer this question we need to understand what anxiety actually is.

Anxiety stems from our prehistoric ancestors who had an innate strategy to detect and survive threats to their lives.  With the help of adrenaline certain abilities would be strengthened, such as strength, speed or numbness.  Their bodies would shut down all but the most important functions they needed for these actions.  This is also known as fight, flight freeze, or fall (pretend to be dead).  Once the danger was over, the body would return to normal.

We still innately possess this ability to detect danger and our bodies tend to react in the same way.  This is still important for our survival, though at times it can stop us from achieving our potential.  If this ability is activated in situations that do not threaten our lives, but where we feel uncomfortable or lack confidence, we will feel like running away, lose our words, our pulse will increase, we might begin to sweat, and ultimately we will enter into a state of panic.

Social encounters, presenting information to groups, taking part in discussions and debates all activate anxiety for someone who has been fine tuned to this strategy.  As part of developing knowledge, experience and maturity students in higher education are encouraged to partake in all of these experiences.

Almost like being possessed, extreme anxiety will effectively shut down any capabilities a student has and replace them with noise and undermining messages.  At the same time if the student is allowed not to participate, the anxiety is likely to get worse and anxiety will be controlling the student.  It is a cycle that the student will probably know really well but perhaps not be completely conscious of.

The tricky thing is that anxious students believe that anxiety is an integral part of who they are.  They have lived with it for most of their lives and many have not had help.  To feel anxiety so intensely will stop the most capable student from succeeding and academic staff will play a role in that failure if anxiety is treated like a disability.

For a student with anxiety, the most supportive action by lecturers would be to enable participation in classes.

Some suggestions for action:

  1. Referring the student to the university’s counselling services is a must. Counsellors have special training in working with anxiety and should be able to provide coping strategies while the underlying reasons are worked with.
  2. Talk with the student one-to-one and decide what they are going to say or do in an upcoming session.  Make it a short spoken sentence or piece of work initially, even if it is only to agree with something that is said in a seminar for instance, or give them a question to ask after a lecture. Let them know that you are there to support them through this.  Rehearsing the words with them will prepare the brain for participation, and if coached to participate it will be the first step in externalising anxiety rather than letting it rule the present and future life of the student.
  3. After the session, follow this up one-to-one with affirmation so the student can see that they are capable, that they did the right thing, and that they coped.
  4. Refer the student to the following two websites:

MIND’s website has reliable information to aid understanding of anxiety and how to help, as well as self-help. While it is important for academic staff to understand a condition that is affecting a growing number of today’s students, it is equally important for the students living with anxiety to be made aware of this free, valuable source of help:

https://www.mind.org.uk/information-support/types-of-mental-health-problems/anxiety-and-panic-attacks/self-care-for-anxiety/#.W9LVNWj0nic

Get-Self-Help is an approved Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) website which is another resource for people living with anxiety and it’s also free:

https://www.getselfhelp.co.uk/

It is worth academics  familiarising themselves with the information on here too so that they have a good understanding of the situation and can be of optimum help to students who live with anxiety.

The above advice will not apply to all students with anxiety.  For example, if anxiety is secondary to a primary condition such as bipolar or a personality disorder, then different coping strategies need to be considered and working closely with student support services would be a recommendation.  Likewise, depression is often caused by anxiety as anxiety has a tendency to isolate an individual and destroy self-esteem.  Seeking professional help is again recommended.

We all feel anxious sometimes.  I used to accept invites to social events and as time drew closer I would end up cancelling.  It hasn’t completely gone away, but I know what anxiety is up to and can resist the temptation to dive into the overwhelming feelings it’s presenting me with.

I know of academics with vast experience of presenting their topic to large groups of students and peers, who still feel like running away before they go on stage.  People who have studied their subject in minute detail and still struggle to find the words for what they want to say..…sometimes, only sometimes, not all the time, because they too have stopped listening to the voice of anxiety.

To get to the point of being able to manage anxiety, help is needed.  Training, therapy, self-help, CBT, whatever suits the individual, is a great way of getting to know and control this monster, but most of all it takes support from people around them, including academics.

Ultimately facing the fear and doing it anyway is the only cure, and Susan Jeffers’ book of the same name is still a top seller when it comes to managing an anxious life.  University academics are in the perfect position to help change a student’s life, not just by imparting your knowledge and skills, but in the support you can provide to your anxious students.

 

 

1 Comment

Filed under University of Northampton

The biological mutualisms at the heart of sourdough bread

20181026_120748

During the road trip to Denmark that I mentioned in a post back in September – see “There ain’t no b(ee) in Starbucks” – my wife Karin received a special gift from her sister Pia.  It was a small jar containing a starter culture for sourdough bread, a culture that Pia has been using since she received it from a friend, who long ago received it from another friend.  I didn’t know much about sourdough bread and did some reading. That Wikipedia link is a good introduction but don’t be put off by the complexities of “refreshment” – we’ve kept the starter culture in the fridge since early September and it’s been fine.  Karin used the culture for the first time this morning and made the rye bread you see above.

But on to the biology.  In essence the sourdough culture is a mix of wild lactic acid bacteria and wild yeasts, plus flour and water.  When added to the bread mix (which in our case contained water, salt, seeds and molasses, as well as rye flour) the yeasts feed on some of the sugars within the mix and the lactic acid bacteria feed on other sugars that the yeast cannot metabolise.  During that bacterial fermentation, byproducts are also produced on which the yeasts feed.  The yeasts in turn produce carbon dioxide which serves to leaven the dough, and the bacteria produce lactic acid as another byproduct, which gives the bread its slightly sour flavour.  This lactic acid also lowers the pH of the environment and, together with the production of anti-fungal chemicals, the lactic acid bacteria prevent the growth of other bacteria and moulds.  The yeasts, however, can tolerate these conditions and they thrive.

At least six species of yeast and 25 species of lactic acid bacteria have been shown to be  involved in this process, often as multi-species mixtures.  The exact biodiversity of the culture is dependent upon its source: micro-organisms vary a lot across the world.  But the heart of the relationship between yeasts and bacteria is always the same: they each facilitate the growth and reproduction of the other, and so the relationship is mutualistic, much like (most) relationships between plants and pollinators, birds and berries, and sea anemones and clownfish.

Of course there is a third organism involved in this mutualism: Homo sapiens.  By producing the resources on which these organisms feed, and then distributing the starter culture, we are providing the right conditions for the yeast and lactic acid bacteria to increase their populations.  In turn the yeast and bacteria play an important role in producing food for us, and in fact this way of making bread is thousands of years old.  Microorganisms and people all benefit: what could be more mutualistic than that?  Indeed, these interactions could be classified as a rare example of a ménage à trois mutualism.

There’s also a social-cultural dimension to all of this as the passing of gifts such as the starter culture binds friendships.  If any of our local friends are reading we’d be happy to share the sourdough culture once we’ve bulked it up.  The bread that it makes is delicious and from now on we’re going to try to give up buying the shop-bought kind.

If you want to read more about all of this, and have a try at making your own starter culture from scratch, there’s some great information and links on the Microbial Menagerie blog.

Many thanks to Pia for sharing the starter culture, and to Karin for baking the bread!

5 Comments

Filed under Biodiversity, Biodiversity and culture, Mutualism

Seven things that I learned at the SCAPE 2018 meeting in Ireland

SCAPE 2018 group photo

The 32nd meeting of the Scandinavian Association for Pollination Ecology took place last week, and from Thursday through to Sunday 87 researchers from around the world met to discuss their latest findings.  For the first time the conference was held outside of Scandinavia, at Avon Rí, Blessington in Ireland.  As always it was a friendly and stimulating meeting, and a great opportunity to catch up with old friends and colleagues, and make new ones.

Here’s a link to the full programme with the abstracts.  I gave a talk about our recent work on the evolution of pollination systems in the plant family Apocynaceae which seemed to go down well enough and generated some discussion later in the bar and over breakfast.  The quality of the research and the standard of the presentations was very high and I don’t intend to single out individuals, but I did learn some things during the meeting that I wanted to highlight:

  • Some bird pollinated penstemons produce scent volatiles, even if we can’t detect them (Amy Parachnowitsch, University of New Brunswick).  Relates to this post of mine from earlier in the year on how hummingbirds have a sense of smell.
  • Staying with the theme of dispelling bird pollination myths – many of the supposedly sunbird-pollinated species of Aloe in southern Africa are in fact pollinated by non-specialist passerines such as bulbuls (Steve Johnson, University of KwaZulu-Natal).
  • There’s a data set on plant-pollinator interactions from the far north of Finland from the end of the 19th century and this area is being re-surveyed to assess changes between then and now (Leana Zoller, Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg).
  • Farmers who grow watermelons in Tanzania can improve their yields by encouraging more pollinators in their fields; the yields are better than adding fertliser or irrigating the crop (Thomas Sawe, Norwegian University of Life Sciences).
  • A weevil was introduced into Indonesia in the 1980s to improve yields of oil palm by increasing the rate of pollination (Lynn Jørgensen, University of Oslo).
  • There’s strong evidence that the current distributions of plants with specialised pollination systems in southern Africa are constrained by the environmental niche, and thus the distribution, of their pollinators (Karl Duffy, University of Naples).
  • Mobile saunas are a thing!  I took a photo of one (below) just to prove it.  Thanks to Dara Stanley and Jane Stout for organising that, and the rest of this brilliant conference!  Hope to see you all next year in Lund.

There was a lot more tweeting going on at SCAPE this year and you can see comments and images by searching Twitter for #SCAPE2018

If you attended SCAPE, what did you learn?  What surprised or interested you?  Please comment below.

SCAPE 2018 sauna

2 Comments

Filed under Biodiversity, Pollination

Pollinator availability, mating system and variation in flower morphology in a tropical savanna tree – a new, open-access study

Curatella image by Pedro Lorenzo

Widespread plant species can encounter a variety of different pollinators across their distributional range.  This in turn can result in local adaptation of flowers to particular pollinators, or to an absence of pollinators that results in adaptations for more self pollination.   A newly published study by one of my former PhD students, André Rodrigo Rech in Brazil, has looked at this in the widespread South American savanna tree Curatella americana.  André studied 10 populations separated in space by thousands of kilometres, in cerrado vegetation, one of the most threatened habitat types in Brazil.  Here’s the abstract:

Widely distributed organisms face different ecological scenarios throughout their range, which can potentially lead to micro-evolutionary differentiation at specific localities. Mating systems of animal pollinated plants are supposed to evolve in response to the availability of local pollinators, with consequent changes in flower morphology. We tested the relationship among pollination , mating system, and flower morphology over a large spatial scale in Brazilian savannas using the tree Curatella americana (Dilleniaceae). We compared fruit set with and without pollinators in the field, and analyzed pollen tube growth from self- and cross-pollinated flowers in different populations. Populations with higher natural fruit set also had lower fruit set in bagged flowers, suggesting stronger barriers to self-fertilization. Furthermore, higher levels of autogamy in field experiments were associated with more pollen tubes reaching ovules in self-pollinated flowers. Morphometric studies of floral and leaf traits indicate closer-set reproductive organs, larger stigmas and smaller anthers in populations with more autogamy. We show that the spatial variation in mating system, flower morphology and pollination previously described for herbs also applies to long-lived, perennial tropical trees, thus reemphasizing that mating systems are a population-based attribute that vary according to the ecological scenario where the plants occur

Here’s the full citation with a link to the paper which is open access:

Rech, A.R., Ré Jorge, L., Ollerton, J. & Sazima, M. (2018) Pollinator availability, mating system and variation in flower morphology in a tropical savannah tree. Acta Botanica Brasilica (in press)

The illustration of Curatella americana  and its pollinators is by Pedro Lorenzo.

This paper is a contribution to a special issue of Acta Botanica Brasilica dedicated to floral biology and pollination biology in Brazil It’s all open access and if you follow that link you can download the papers.

Leave a comment

Filed under Bees, Biodiversity, Biogeography, Brazil, Evolution, Pollination

Is there really a “battle for the soul of biodiversity” going on at IPBES? UPDATED x 2

Carved demon

No.  But perhaps I should give some context to both question and answer…

The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) describes itself as “the intergovernmental body which assesses the state of biodiversity and of the ecosystem services it provides to society, in response to requests from decision makers”.   Sounds a little dry, I agree, but in fact IPBES is the most exciting and innovative international environmental body to have emerged in recent years.  Exciting because its remit is specifically to assess how society is affecting global biodiversity in toto, but also its value to humans.  Innovative because it’s a broad church that is trying to bring together the knowledge and expertise of both natural and social scientists, practitioners, indigenous peoples, and stakeholders of all kinds. This broad approach is something which some other international bodies have not, traditionally, been so keen to adopt.

IPBES has its critics who see it as superfluous in that its mission overlaps too much with that of organisations such as the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Ecosystem Services Partnership, and the United Nations Environment Programme.  However I certainly think that there’s room for such an organisation.  We need as many voices as possible shouting about how important these issues are, at all levels of society, from the work of local conservation volunteers and the People’s Walk for Wildlife upwards to the highest levels of international governance.  So I’m a supporter of what IPBES is trying to do; perhaps I’m biased but I was especially impressed by the fact that the first major output of IPBES was a badly needed Assessment Report on Pollinators, Pollination and Food Production for which I acted as an expert peer reviewer over its two iterations.  I’ve written posts about this a couple of times – see for example this one.

In recent weeks, however, there’s been some reports of in-fighting within IPBES, and between IPBES and other organisations, that science journalists have seen as being a major war of ideas.  It culminated in Nature publishing a piece entitled “The battle for the soul of biodiversity“, backed up by an editorial suggesting that “the global body for biodiversity science and policy must heal rifts“.

The crux of the perceived disagreements centre on terminology and concepts as much as anything, and specifically the notion of ‘ecosystem services’ versus ‘nature’s contributions to people”.  These seem to me to be saying much the same thing using different words, and I have to say that I was shocked when I read those articles and wondered what the hell was going on: was IPBES really falling apart before it had even managed to firmly establish itself (remember it only launched in 2013)?  Or was this just journalistic hyperbole of the kind that serves no real purpose other than to increase sales and page views?

I have no inside track to IPBES’s workings so I kept an eye on developments.  I was delighted, therefore, to see the 19th September issue of Nature publish four letters from IPBES insiders and experts from other organisations.  All of these, plus the articles I linked to above, are open access.

The first letter is from Jasper Montana of Sheffield University pointing out that “ideas need time to mature” and that “debates are grist to the mill of innovation for environmental governance”.  In other words, IPBES is a young organisation and the sorts of terminology being used are far from mature: terms such as “ecosystem services” and “natural capital” are at most a few decades old.  Clearly there is an urgency in building governance systems that can effectively conserve biodiversity, but debates around the best terms to use will not hinder that process.

The second letter from Bernardo Strassburg in Brazil entitled “honour guidelines that reconcile world views” pointed out that IPBES’s own guide to such concepts notes that the ecosystem services approach is just one of several, all perfectly valid, ways of viewing the relationships between people and nature, and of seeing people as part of nature.

The next letter is from IPBES chair Sir Bob Watson assuring us that “squabbles don’t obscure the bigger picture” and that a diversity of opinions and ideas is one of IPBES’s strengths.  It’s worth noting here that the original model for IPBES was the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) which has in the past been criticised for not allowing a diversity of opinions among contributors to its reports.  You can’t please all the people all of the time, and clearly not Nature journalists….

Finally Rudolf de Groot, chair of the Ecosystem Services Partnership, plus colleagues Pavan Sukhdev & Mark Gough, argued that “sparring makes us strong” and write the most critical of the four letters, stating that they “strongly object to the tone and content” of the original article.  They assure us that the Ecosystem Services Partnership and IPBES are not in competition and that there is mutual respect for different opinions and concepts.  Furthermore “both organizations…stand united against biodiversity loss and ecosystem degradation…. Irrespective of the terminology used, our community is undivided in our knowledge that we fundamentally depend on nature in countless ways.”

So there you have it.  The Nature article and editorial were, in my opinion and those of the letter writers, over the top, exaggerating debates and disagreements that, whilst certainly real, do not endanger IPBES nor its mission.  I urge you to read the original articles then the letters, and make up your own mind.  Comments welcome as always.

UPDATE 1:  Just after I tweeted this post the Natural Capital Coalition added it to the bottom of a tweet thread that they had started when the original articles were published.  I confess that I missed these first time round but the thread adds extra detail to why the articles were misleading.  Well worth reading – here’s the start of the thread:

 

UPDATE 2:  It seems Nature is happy to continue the exchange of views following the article; the current issue of the journal contains another letter (once again open access), this time from Jim Harris (Cranfield University) and Janne S. Kotiah (University of Jyväskylä, Finland) pointing out that “the debate around which framework to use to value biodiversity could stem from the relatively recent coining and adoption of the concept of nature’s contribution to people (NCP).  Google Scholar returns only 19 hits for NCP and nearly 100,000 for ecosystem services, mainly because the latter has been in use for much longer“.

They go on to say (as all the correspondents on this article have) that they see no reason why the two worldviews of NCP and ecosystem services are irreconcilable. NCP seems new and different because it’s unfamiliar jargon   All of this reminded me of one of my first posts on this blog – “Business and biodiversity: oil and water?” which documented an event that I attended in London called “Biodiversity & ecosystem services: new collaboration opportunities for academics with businesses” .  It’s worth quoting what I said with regard to jargon within the field:

“In the workshop I attended there was some discussion as to whether technical language such as “biodiversity”, “natural capital” and “ecosystem services” (which one contributor referred to as “eco-babble”) deters senior business managers from engaging with nature conservation. I pointed out that words and phrases such as “email”, “internet” and “world wide web” were not so very long ago similarly considered to be technical jargon but are now part of our every day language.”

I still stand by this: technical language is only a barrier to engagement if people do not take the time to understand the jargon.  And jargon can become everyday language very swiftly.

16 Comments

Filed under Biodiversity, Ecosystem services, IPBES, Pollination

The good and the bad in biodiversity

20180928_154925

At some point last week a small fly bit my leg, perhaps a biting midge in the family Ceratopogonidae*.   In doing so, the fly infected the wound with bacteria, possibly a Staphylococcus species.  That’s turned into a large, painful cellulitis (pictured) that is causing fever, body aches, dizziness, sweating, sleep problems, exhaustion, and general unwellness**.  Although I love biodiversity, sometimes it causes all kinds of health problems for humans.  Bad biodiversity.

A visit to my GP yesterday afternoon resulted in her prescribing me a course of antibiotics, specifically clarithromycin.  Although this is a synthetic antibiotic it was developed as a variant of erythromycin which in turn is a natural antibiotic isolated from the bacterium Streptomyces erythraea.  Good biodiversity.

There’s a temptation in environmentalism to see nature as all good, a Mother Earth that provides for us.  Which it does, and one way of considering these benefits is as ecosystem services.  However nature also inflicts a whole range of ecosystem disservices on the human population of this planet, backed up by some of its biodiversity.  Nature is neither all good nor all bad, it just is.

My first year undergraduate classes start next week with the module Biodiversity: an Introduction.  I hope to be well enough to teach it and at some point I’ll use this as an example the good and the bad in biodiversity.

 

 

*Ironically flies in this family are major pollinators of one of the main groups of plants I study in the genus Ceropegiasee this post from last year.

**And a pain in the arse to my wife – sorry Karin!  It was she who persuaded me to go and see the GP after a few days of “no, no, it will get better on its own….”

14 Comments

Filed under Biodiversity

Hornets are pollinators too!

20180926_121735

This morning I spent a very pleasant couple of hours walking around the farm that’s at the heart of the Warner Edwards Gin Distillery, in Harrington just north of Northampton.  We are setting up some collaborations around conservation and sustainability between the university and Warner Edwards.  The first of these involves surveys of their farm by one of our final year undergraduates, Ellie West, to assess pollinator diversity and abundance, and opportunities for habitat enhancement on the farm.

One of the highlights of this morning’s visit was seeing this gorgeous hornet (Vespa crabro) taking nectar from common ivy (Hedera helix).  I think that she’s a queen stocking up on energy prior to hibernating.  But just look at how much pollen she’s carrying!  There’s every chance that she’s a very effective pollinator of ivy, which is a key nectar resource at this time of year.  It’s such an important plant in other ways too: ivy binds the landscape physically and ecologically, in ways few other native plants do.  Pollination by insects such as hornets (and hundreds of other species) results in berries that are eaten by birds and mammals, whilst the branches and dense, evergreen canopy provides nesting sites for birds and shelter for over wintering insects.

Hornets and ivy: two of my favourite native British species.

20180926_121532

9 Comments

Filed under Biodiversity, Birds, Mammals, Pollination, University of Northampton, Wasps

Which h index should I use? UPDATED

2018-09-16 10.04.28

UPDATE:  Thanks to my kind commentators (below) who pointed out that one can change Google Scholar, taking out papers that don’t belong, merging variants, etc.  It had been a while since I looked at Google Scholar and perhaps I knew this in the past but had forgotten.  However I had an issue with it linking to my Google account and so had to delete the old profile and set up a new one.  That seems to have worked OK, I have got rid of the publications that weren’t mine, and my h-index looks to be fairly accurate at 38.  I have adjusted the text below to reflect this.

————————————————————————-

Despite some (well founded) criticism as to its usefulness, the h-index seems to be with us to stay.  In a couple of posts I’ve articulated some of its advantages and disadvantages – see for example What’s the point of the h-index? and How does a scientist’s h-index change over time? – and it’s clear that more and more funding agencies are using it to evaluate the track record of applicants.  Just this afternoon I finished the second of a couple of grant reviews in which the applicant was asked to state their h-index.  What they were not asked was which h-index they should state, i.e. the source of the value, though I think that this is important information.  Why?  Because it varies so much depending on where the it comes from.  I’ll give you an example – here’s my own h-index values taken from a few different sources:

Google Scholar: h = 38

ResearchGate: h = 36

ResearchGate (excluding self citations): h = 34

Web of Science (all databases): h = 34

Web of Science (Core Collection): h = 29

Scopus: h = 29

There’s a 10 point difference (almost 25%) between the largest and the smallest values.  So which one should I cite in grant applications, on my CV, etc.  Well the largest one, obviously!  Right?  Well maybe, but not necessarily.  In fact none of these values are completely accurate, though some are more accurate than others.

Web of Science includes papers and book chapters that don’t belong to me, and I can easily shave a couple of points off that value.  Some of these mis-attributions are chapters from a volume that I co-edited.  Some are papers that I edited for PLoS ONE and which have been assigned to my record.  Others are for the two or three other researchers named “J. Ollerton” who are out there.  Google Scholar had some entries which are just bizarre, such as “The social life of musical instruments” by Eliot Bates, which Google Scholar seems to think I wrote and has credited me with its 102 citations.  However, as you can see form the update, I’ve corrected this.

Web of Science and Scopus don’t pick up as many citations in books or reports as does Google Scholar which is a deficiency in my opinion.  Being cited in a peer-reviewed journal is often thought of as being the gold standard of citation but frankly I’m very happy to be cited in government and NGO reports, policy documents, etc., which themselves may often be peer reviewed, just by a different type of peer.

Poised in the middle of this range, ResearchGate may be most accurate but it lacks transparency: as far as I can see there isn’t a way to look at all of your citation data per paper in one go, you have to look at each publication individually (and who has time for that, frankly?)

As far as calculating an accurate h-index is concerned I don’t think we will ever come to an agreement as to what should be considered a publication or a citation.  But systems like Google Scholar and Web of Science should at least try to be accurate when assigning publications to an individual’s record.

So which h-index should you use?  In the interests of accuracy and honesty I think it’s best to state a range and/or add a proviso that you have corrected the value for mis-attribution of publications.  In my case I’d say something like:

“Depending on source my h-index lies between 29 (Scopus) and 38 (Google Scholar)”.

If the h-index is to have any value at all (and there are those who argue that it doesn’t and shouldn’t) then it requires us as scholars to at least try to make it as accurate as we can.  Because frankly I don’t think it’s going to go away any time soon.

 

 

11 Comments

Filed under Biodiversity

Why I’m joining the People’s Walk for Wildlife on Saturday 22nd September

Peoples walk for wildlife

If you live in the UK and have an interest in wildlife you’ve probably heard about the event that takes place in London this coming Saturday:  The People’s Walk for Wildlife.  If you follow that link you’ll find a video of Chris Packham explaining what the walk is all about and why he’s organised it, plus logistical information, timings, etc.

Karin and I are going to join the walk and I thought I’d give a brief summary of why I think it’s important for people to take part.

If you watch the video you’ll see that Chris does a great job of laying out the issue of wildlife loss, a loss not just of species but of abundance.  There are species that still can be found in Britain but which have declined in numbers by 90% or more over my lifetime.  Such species can be found in all of the major groups of biodiversity in this country:  birds, mammals, fish, reptiles and amphibians, insects and other invertebrates, fungi, and plants.  Many, many millions of individuals gone from our countryside.

Why has this happened?  Well, the causes are complex and inter-related.  Agricultural intensification over the last century has been a major issue as I’ve previously discussed on this blog in relation to pollinator extinctions.  But that’s only part of it. Another big problem that we have in the UK is an unwillingness to let nature just get on with itself.  We feel that we have to manage everything: Too many ravens?  Cull them.  Hedgerows or road verges looking a bit untidy?  Cut them.  Old tree infected with a fungus?  Chop it down.

In part this mindset is linked to an idea of what natural heritage should look like, an idea of order within a landscape, of making the countryside look pretty, and of doing things simply because that’s what our predecessors did.  A good example was recently tweeted by Dave Goulson who had found mole traps on a Natural Trust property that he visited; as Dave rightly said:  “When will we stop slaughtering harmless wildlife that causes us the tiniest inconvenience?”  There is no reason in this day and age to kill moles – what conceivable harm do they do?  In fact, as ecosystem engineers, they are an important part of the ecology of the British countryside.

One of the reasons why this is happening largely unnoticed by the government agencies responsible for the environment is that our landscapes change at a very slow rate.  Indeed places like the Lake District or the Scottish Highlands or the Chiltern Hills look much the same as they have done for hundreds of years.  Visually they are still stunning places to visit and that’s why they attract millions of tourists every year, and also why people enjoy living there.  But they have lost much of their wildlife and, with it, some of the ecological function that makes them work as ecosystems.  If this continues then natural processes such as dispersal of seeds by birds and mammals, and the subsequent maintenance of tree populations, will cease.

But that’s okay isn’t it?  Trees and shrubs not establishing themselves: go out and plant them by hand.  Is this really what we want?  If it is then we will end up turning our countryside into a museum.  And not even a very good museum at that: not a museum with dynamic interactive displays, rather a static, dull set of exhibits that you can only peer at through dusty glass.

So that’s why we are joining the People’s Walk for Wildlife next Saturday: this is an important issue and people need to show government that they are concerned.  I hope you agree and I hope you will join us.

Dave G. has promised to come dressed as a bumblebee; I’ve seen his costume and he’s a man of his word, so it’ll be worth looking out for him.  I can’t promise anything so flamboyant but I may well take a placard that says something like:  “Save ALL of our pollinators, not just bees!”  If you spot it, do some over and say hello.

8 Comments

Filed under Bees, Biodiversity, Ecosystem services