Environmental Evidence最新文献

{"title":"How effective are perches in promoting bird-mediated seed dispersal for natural forest regeneration? A systematic review protocol.","authors":"Jelaine Lim Gan, Matthew James Grainger, Mark David Foster Shirley, Marion Pfeifer","doi":"10.1186/s13750-023-00308-z","DOIUrl":"10.1186/s13750-023-00308-z","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Forest landscape restoration (FLR), often through tree planting, is one of the priorities in many global and national initiatives for carbon offsetting as part of climate change mitigation and biodiversity conservation. However, active efforts to meet FLR objectives entail substantial costs for the procurement of planting stocks and require an experienced workforce for planting and nurturing tree seedlings. Alternatively, restoration projects can be more cost-effective and potentially may have greater biodiversity gain through assisting and accelerating natural forest regeneration. The use of perches is one of the strategies under Assisted Natural Regeneration (ANR) and is used to attract avian seed dispersers to degraded habitats for increased tree seed supply and seedling establishment. This systematic review and potential meta-analysis aim to determine the effectiveness of artificial and natural perches in promoting natural forest regeneration. Specifically, we will evaluate their effectiveness in driving seed richness, seed density, seedling richness, and seedling density. The results will synthesize available evidence on the topic, identify knowledge gaps we need filling to upscale the strategy, and inform their use in concert with other ANR strategies.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The search strategy was informed through a literature scan and discussions with stakeholders and experts. A total of eight databases, which include an organizational library and a web-based search engine, will be searched using the refined search string in English. The search string was formed using keywords corresponding to the PICO structure of the research question, and its comprehensiveness was evaluated using 10 benchmark articles. The search results will be screened by the review team (composed of a primary and at least two secondary reviewers) using the set eligibility criteria at the title and abstract level, followed by the full-text screening. The screened studies will then undergo critical appraisal using the assessment criteria based on risk of bias and methods. Data from the accepted studies will be extracted to the standard data sheet for meta-analysis. Effect size (Hedges' g) will be computed to determine whether perches are effective in increasing seed dispersal and seedling establishment in degraded sites. The effect of potential modifiers relating to the landscape will be explored via mixed models.</p>","PeriodicalId":48621,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Evidence","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2023-08-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11378788/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44763248","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"On-site communication measures as a tool in outdoor recreation management: a systematic map.","authors":"Sofie Kjendlie Selvaag, Rose Keller, Øystein Aas, Vegard Gundersen, Frode Thomassen Singsaas","doi":"10.1186/s13750-023-00305-2","DOIUrl":"10.1186/s13750-023-00305-2","url":null,"abstract":"&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Background: &lt;/strong&gt;Communication is a central tool used to manage the balance between outdoor recreation and environmental protection in natural areas. Several studies have evaluated different communication measures in case studies, but rarely are these measures compared across contexts. We review the literature guided by the question: what is the scope of evidence of on-site communication to change human behavior towards a more sustainable direction in outdoor recreation? Taking natural areas as our starting point, we map research-based distribution and abundance of communication measures, with emphasis on their outcomes and study design.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Methods: &lt;/strong&gt;The target population for our mapping review are outdoor recreationists and nature-based tourists who visit natural or near-natural settings. We examined studies that have crafted written, oral and visual intervention measures to change behavior by using persuasion, education and information rather than legal restrictions or bans. Examples of challenges addressed with communication measures include proper waste disposal, using designated trails, minimizing wear and tear at campsites, avoid disturbing wildlife, and encouraging appropriate and safe behavior. We did not restrict our search geographically. We searched publication databases for peer-reviewed published articles (WoS, Scopus) and forward and backward citation chasing. To identify grey literature we used the database IRMA and internet searches in Google Scholar supplemented with specialist searches. Inclusion criteria and related search terms were based on PICO and included population (P: people participating in outdoor recreation in natural settings), terms that denoted intervention (I: on-site communication measures in situ vs. C: no communication measures) and terms that denoted outcome (O: changed behavior). We screened first by title and abstract and finally full text. For each article selected for full-text screening, metadata was extracted on key variables of interest such as behavior category, context, targeted population, study design and outcomes.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Review findings: &lt;/strong&gt;Overall, we identified 54 studies that were assessed in the review. Our review documents growing academic interest looking at actual behavior change in outdoor recreation. Theory is often subsidiary to attempted behavioral change via communication and different situational aspects, such as targeted visitor populations and environmental context, as well as psychological factors remain underexplored in the literature. The primary communication medium in the reviewed papers is passive use of signs. Awareness raising is the dominant communication mode, but other modes such as emotions, identity, and social norms are common. The geographic distribution of the studies is highly skewed to the United States.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Conclusions: &lt;/strong&gt;The amassed studies have an uneven focus on different settings and mediums used t","PeriodicalId":48621,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Evidence","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2023-07-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11378867/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44250080","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Existing evidence on the impact of changes in marine ecosystem structure and functioning on ecosystem service delivery: a systematic map.","authors":"Carole Sylvie Campagne, Laurie-Anne Roy, Joseph Langridge, Joachim Claudet, Rémi Mongruel, Damien Beillouin, Éric Thiébaut","doi":"10.1186/s13750-023-00306-1","DOIUrl":"10.1186/s13750-023-00306-1","url":null,"abstract":"&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Background: &lt;/strong&gt;The current biodiversity crisis underscores the urgent need for sustainable management of the human uses of nature. In the context of sustainability management, adopting the ecosystem service (ES) concept, i.e., the benefits humans obtain from nature, can support decisions aimed at benefiting both nature and people. However, marine ecosystems in particular endure numerous direct drivers of change (i.e., habitat loss and degradation, overexploitation, pollution, climate change, and introduction of non-indigenous species) all of which threaten ecosystem structure, functioning, and the provision of ES. Marine ecosystems have received less attention than terrestrial ecosystems in ES literature, and knowledge on marine ES is hindered by the highly heterogeneous scientific literature with regard to the different types of marine ecosystem, ES, and their correlates. Here, we constructed a systematic map of the existing literature to highlight knowledge clusters and knowledge gaps on how changes in marine ecosystems influence the provision of marine ES.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Method: &lt;/strong&gt;We searched for all evidence documenting how changes in structure and functioning of marine ecosystems affect the delivery of ES in academic and grey literature sources. In addition to Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar, we searched 6 online databases from intergovernmental agencies, supranational or national organizations, and NGOs. We screened English-language documents using predefined inclusion criteria on titles, abstracts, and then full texts, without any geographic or temporal limitations. All qualifying literature was coded and metadata were extracted. No formal validity appraisal was undertaken. We identified knowledge clusters and gaps in terms of which ecosystem types, biodiversity components, or ES types have been studied and how these categories are linked.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Review findings: &lt;/strong&gt;Our searches identified 41 884 articles published since 1968 of which 12 140 were duplicates; 25 747 articles were excluded at the title-screening stage, then 2774 at the abstract stage. After full-text screening, a total of 653 articles-having met the eligibility criteria-were included in the final database, spanning from 1977 to July 2021. The number of studies was unevenly distributed across geographic boundaries, ecosystem types, ES, and types of pressure. The most studied ecosystems were pelagic ecosystems on continental shelves and intertidal ecosystems, and deep-sea habitats and ice-associated ecosystems were the least studied. Food provision was the major focus of ES articles across all types of marine ecosystem (67%), followed by climate regulation (28%), and recreation (14%). Biophysical values were assessed in 91% of the analysed articles, 30% assessed economic values, but only 3% assessed socio-cultural values. Regarding the type of impact on ecosystems, management effects were the most studied, followed by overexploita","PeriodicalId":48621,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Evidence","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2023-07-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11378828/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41540906","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"What approaches exist to evaluate the effectiveness of UK-relevant natural flood management measures? A systematic map.","authors":"Angela Connelly, Andrew Snow, Jeremy Carter, Jana Wendler, Rachel Lauwerijssen, Joseph Glentworth, Adam Barker, John Handley, Graham Haughton, James Rothwell","doi":"10.1186/s13750-023-00297-z","DOIUrl":"10.1186/s13750-023-00297-z","url":null,"abstract":"&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Background: &lt;/strong&gt;This systematic map principally sought to understand the different forms of effectiveness that existing studies evaluate in relation to Natural Flood Management (NFM) in the UK with a supplementary question of whether studies engaged with climate change and future flood risk. NFM measures seek to protect, enhance, emulate, or restore the natural function of rivers as part of approaches to flood risk management (FRM). While there is agreement in both academic and practice/policy literature that NFM should be part of a holistic FRM strategy to address current and future flood risk, the specifics of how to expand the application of and consistently implement NFM successfully in practice are less well known. A core focus of this study is on how the effectiveness of NFM measures is evaluated in different studies based on approaches drawn from the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) literature: procedural, substantive, transactive and normative. The systematic map also examines how studies account for climate change, which is a crucial issue given the connections between NFM and climate change adaptation and resilience.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Methods: &lt;/strong&gt;We searched 13 bibliographic databases, Google scholar as a web-based search engine, and 21 organisational sites. Articles were screened by title, abstract, and full text based on defined eligibility criteria. Checks were performed for consistency amongst reviewers. Forms of effectiveness were coded on the basis of the included studies in the systematic map. The quantity and characteristics of the available evidence are summarised with the frequencies of effectiveness forms for each NFM measure are presented in heat maps.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Review findings: &lt;/strong&gt;A total of 216 articles reported eligible studies that were coded as part of the systematic map. Overall, the systematic map shows that the majority of studies considered at least one approach to effectiveness; however, very few studies considered multiple forms of effectiveness. The systematic map also demonstrates that climate change is considered systematically by around one-quarter of studies although many studies make claims about NFM's effectiveness in the face of future climatic change.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Conclusions: &lt;/strong&gt;NFM can be effective in several different ways owing to their multiple benefits; however, there are evidence gaps around understanding these different forms of effectiveness. This is particularly marked for studies considering transactive and normative effectiveness. Interdisciplinary studies are more likely to consider multiple forms of effectiveness. This systematic map also found that whilst 75% of studies mention future climate change in their studies, only 24.1% contain a systematic consideration of the issue through, for example, using climate change projections. NFM is also at risk of climate change (e.g. through drought) and therefore it is imperative that study designs seek to inco","PeriodicalId":48621,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Evidence","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2023-05-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11378772/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46266024","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"What evidence exists on the performance of nature-based solutions interventions for coastal protection in biogenic, shallow ecosystems? A systematic map protocol.","authors":"Avery B Paxton, Trevor N Riley, Camille L Steenrod, Carter S Smith, Y Stacy Zhang, Rachel K Gittman, Brian R Silliman, Christine A Buckel, T Shay Viehman, Brandon J Puckett, Jenny Davis","doi":"10.1186/s13750-023-00303-4","DOIUrl":"10.1186/s13750-023-00303-4","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Anthropogenic pressures and climate change threaten the capacity of ecosystems to deliver a variety of services, including protecting coastal communities from hazards like flooding and erosion. Human interventions aim to buffer against or overcome these threats by providing physical protection for existing coastal infrastructure and communities, along with added ecological, social, or economic co-benefits. These interventions are a type of nature-based solution (NBS), broadly defined as actions working with nature to address societal challenges while also providing benefits for human well-being, biodiversity, and resilience. Despite the increasing popularity of NBS for coastal protection, sometimes in lieu of traditional hardened shorelines (e.g., oyster reefs instead of bulkheads), gaps remain in our understanding of whether common NBS interventions for coastal protection perform as intended. To help fill these knowledge gaps, we aim to identify, collate, and map the evidence base surrounding the performance of active NBS interventions related to coastal protection across a suite of ecological, physical, social, and economic outcomes in salt marsh, seagrass, kelp, mangrove, shellfish reef, and coral reef systems. The resulting evidence base will highlight the current knowledge on NBS performance and inform future uses of NBS meant for coastal protection.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Searches for primary literature on performance of NBS for coastal protection in shallow, biogenic ecosystems will be conducted using a predefined list of indexing platforms, bibliographic databases, open discovery citation indexes, and organizational databases and websites, as well as an online search engine and novel literature discovery tool. All searches will be conducted in English and will be restricted to literature published from 1980 to present. Resulting literature will be screened against set inclusion criteria (i.e., population, intervention, outcome, study type) at the level of title and abstract followed by full text. Screening will be facilitated by a web-based active learning tool that incorporates user feedback via machine learning to prioritize articles for review. Metadata will be extracted from articles that meet inclusion criteria and summarized in a narrative report detailing the distribution and abundance of evidence surrounding NBS performance, including evidence clusters, evidence gaps, and the precision and sensitivity of the search strategy.</p>","PeriodicalId":48621,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Evidence","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2023-05-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11378832/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44810461","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"What evidence exists on the impact of anthropogenic radiofrequency electromagnetic fields on animals and plants in the environment: a systematic map.","authors":"Ken Karipidis, Chris Brzozek, Rohan Mate, Chhavi Raj Bhatt, Sarah Loughran, Andrew W Wood","doi":"10.1186/s13750-023-00304-3","DOIUrl":"10.1186/s13750-023-00304-3","url":null,"abstract":"&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Background: &lt;/strong&gt;Exposure to radiofrequency (RF) electromagnetic fields (EMF), particularly from telecommunications sources, is one of the most common and fastest growing anthropogenic factors on the environment. In many countries, humans are protected from harmful RF EMF exposure by safety standards that are based on guidelines by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP). The ICNIRP guidelines are based on knowledge of how RF EMF affects the human body, however, there are currently no recognised international guidelines to specifically protect animals and plants. Whether the ICNIRP guidelines for humans are adequate to provide protection to the environment is a subject of active debate. There is some public concern that new telecommunications technologies, like the 5G mobile phone network may affect the natural environment. This systematic map presents a searchable database of all the available evidence on whether anthropogenic RF EMF has an effect on plants and animals in the environment. The map also identifies gaps in knowledge, recommends future research and informs environmental and radiation protection authorities.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Methods: &lt;/strong&gt;The method used was published in an a priori protocol. Searches included peer-reviewed and grey literature published in English with no time and geographic restrictions. The EMF-Portal, PubMed and Web of Science databases were searched, and the resulting articles were screened in three stages: title, abstract and full text. Studies were included with a subject population of all animals and plants, with exposures to anthropogenic RF EMF (frequency range 100 kHz-300 GHz) compared to no or lower-level exposure, and for any outcomes related to the studied populations. For each included study, metadata were extracted on key variables of interest that were used to represent the distribution of available evidence.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Review findings: &lt;/strong&gt;The initial search, search update and supplementary searches produced 24,432 articles and of those 334 articles (237 on fauna and 97 on flora) that were relevant were included in the systematic map. The vast majority of studies were experiments conducted in a laboratory rather than observational studies of animals and plants in the natural environment. The majority of the studies investigated exposures with frequencies between 300 and 3000 MHz, and although the exposure level varied, it was mainly low and below the ICNIRP limits. Most of the animal studies investigated insects and birds, whereas grains and legumes were the most investigated plants. Reproduction, development and behaviour were the most investigated effects for animals, and germination and growth for plants. The vast majority of the studies employed poor quality methods.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Conclusion: &lt;/strong&gt;There are distinct evidence clusters: for fauna, on insect and bird reproduction, development and behaviour; and for flora, grain and legum","PeriodicalId":48621,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Evidence","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2023-05-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11378816/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46800946","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Quantitative evidence synthesis: a practical guide on meta-analysis, meta-regression, and publication bias tests for environmental sciences.","authors":"Shinichi Nakagawa, Yefeng Yang, Erin L Macartney, Rebecca Spake, Malgorzata Lagisz","doi":"10.1186/s13750-023-00301-6","DOIUrl":"10.1186/s13750-023-00301-6","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Meta-analysis is a quantitative way of synthesizing results from multiple studies to obtain reliable evidence of an intervention or phenomenon. Indeed, an increasing number of meta-analyses are conducted in environmental sciences, and resulting meta-analytic evidence is often used in environmental policies and decision-making. We conducted a survey of recent meta-analyses in environmental sciences and found poor standards of current meta-analytic practice and reporting. For example, only ~ 40% of the 73 reviewed meta-analyses reported heterogeneity (variation among effect sizes beyond sampling error), and publication bias was assessed in fewer than half. Furthermore, although almost all the meta-analyses had multiple effect sizes originating from the same studies, non-independence among effect sizes was considered in only half of the meta-analyses. To improve the implementation of meta-analysis in environmental sciences, we here outline practical guidance for conducting a meta-analysis in environmental sciences. We describe the key concepts of effect size and meta-analysis and detail procedures for fitting multilevel meta-analysis and meta-regression models and performing associated publication bias tests. We demonstrate a clear need for environmental scientists to embrace multilevel meta-analytic models, which explicitly model dependence among effect sizes, rather than the commonly used random-effects models. Further, we discuss how reporting and visual presentations of meta-analytic results can be much improved by following reporting guidelines such as PRISMA-EcoEvo (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for Ecology and Evolutionary Biology). This paper, along with the accompanying online tutorial, serves as a practical guide on conducting a complete set of meta-analytic procedures (i.e., meta-analysis, heterogeneity quantification, meta-regression, publication bias tests and sensitivity analysis) and also as a gateway to more advanced, yet appropriate, methods.</p>","PeriodicalId":48621,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Evidence","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2023-04-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11378872/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46900121","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Climate change and the global redistribution of biodiversity: substantial variation in empirical support for expected range shifts.","authors":"Madeleine A Rubenstein, Sarah R Weiskopf, Romain Bertrand, Shawn L Carter, Lise Comte, Mitchell J Eaton, Ciara G Johnson, Jonathan Lenoir, Abigail J Lynch, Brian W Miller, Toni Lyn Morelli, Mari Angel Rodriguez, Adam Terando, Laura M Thompson","doi":"10.1186/s13750-023-00296-0","DOIUrl":"10.1186/s13750-023-00296-0","url":null,"abstract":"&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Background: &lt;/strong&gt;Among the most widely predicted climate change-related impacts to biodiversity are geographic range shifts, whereby species shift their spatial distribution to track their climate niches. A series of commonly articulated hypotheses have emerged in the scientific literature suggesting species are expected to shift their distributions to higher latitudes, greater elevations, and deeper depths in response to rising temperatures associated with climate change. Yet, many species are not demonstrating range shifts consistent with these expectations. Here, we evaluate the impact of anthropogenic climate change (specifically, changes in temperature and precipitation) on species' ranges, and assess whether expected range shifts are supported by the body of empirical evidence.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Methods: &lt;/strong&gt;We conducted a Systematic Review, searching online databases and search engines in English. Studies were screened in a two-stage process (title/abstract review, followed by full-text review) to evaluate whether they met a list of eligibility criteria. Data coding, extraction, and study validity assessment was completed by a team of trained reviewers and each entry was validated by at least one secondary reviewer. We used logistic regression models to assess whether the direction of shift supported common range-shift expectations (i.e., shifts to higher latitudes and elevations, and deeper depths). We also estimated the magnitude of shifts for the subset of available range-shift data expressed in distance per time (i.e., km/decade). We accounted for methodological attributes at the study level as potential sources of variation. This allowed us to answer two questions: (1) are most species shifting in the direction we expect (i.e., each observation is assessed as support/fail to support our expectation); and (2) what is the average speed of range shifts?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Review findings: &lt;/strong&gt;We found that less than half of all range-shift observations (46.60%) documented shifts towards higher latitudes, higher elevations, and greater marine depths, demonstrating significant variation in the empirical evidence for general range shift expectations. For the subset of studies looking at range shift rates, we found that species demonstrated significant average shifts towards higher latitudes (average = 11.8 km/dec) and higher elevations (average = 9 m/dec), although we failed to find significant evidence for shifts to greater marine depths. We found that methodological factors in individual range-shift studies had a significant impact on the reported direction and magnitude of shifts. Finally, we identified important variation across dimensions of range shifts (e.g., greater support for latitude and elevation shifts than depth), parameters (e.g., leading edge shifts faster than trailing edge for latitude), and taxonomic groups (e.g., faster latitudinal shifts for insects than plants).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Conclusions: &lt;/strong&gt;Despi","PeriodicalId":48621,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Evidence","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2023-04-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11378804/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45153896","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Existing evidence related to soil retention of phosphorus from on-site wastewater treatment systems in boreal and temperate climate zones: a systematic map.","authors":"Ida Envall, Fritjof Fagerlund, Lena Johansson Westholm, Arvid Bring, Magnus Land, Charlotte Åberg, Neal R Haddaway, Jon Petter Gustafsson","doi":"10.1186/s13750-023-00300-7","DOIUrl":"10.1186/s13750-023-00300-7","url":null,"abstract":"&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Background: &lt;/strong&gt;In Sweden there are nearly one million soil-based on-site wastewater treatment systems (OWTSs). OWTSs may contribute to eutrophication of surface waters, due to the discharge of phosphorus (P). Hence, in certain cases, a high P removal rate (up to 90%) of OWTSs is required by Swedish authorities. Since these requirements may have costly consequences to property owners, it is debated whether they are too strict. In this debate, it is often claimed that the soil retention of P occurring in the natural environments may be underestimated by authorities. Soil retention is the inhibition of the transport of P through the ground, due to different chemical, physical and biological processes occurring there. These processes make the P transport slower, which may reduce the unwanted impact on receiving water bodies. However, the efficiency of soil retention of P remains unclear. The objective of this systematic map was to collect, code, organise and elucidate the relevant evidence related to the topic, to be able to guide stakeholders through the evidence base, and to support future research synthesising, commissioning, and funding. The systematic map was carried out in response to needs declared by the Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management but the conclusions should be valid for a wider range of countries across boreo-temperate regions.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Methods: &lt;/strong&gt;Searches were made for peer-reviewed and grey literature using bibliographic databases, search engines, specialist websites, and stakeholder contacts. The references were screened for relevance according to a predefined set of eligibility criteria. A detailed database of the relevant studies was compiled. Data and metadata that enable evaluation and discussion of the character and quality of the evidence base were extracted and coded. Special focus was placed on assessing if existing evidence could contribute to policy and practice decision making. Descriptive information about the evidence base was presented in tables and figures. An interactive evidence atlas and a choropleth were created, displaying the locations of all studies.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Review findings: &lt;/strong&gt;234 articles out of 10,797 screened records fulfilled the eligibility criteria. These articles contain 256 studies, performed in the field or in the laboratory. Six different study types were identified, based on where the measurements were conducted. Most studies, including laboratory studies, lack replicates. Most field studies are observational case studies.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Conclusions: &lt;/strong&gt;It is not possible to derive valid generic measures of the efficiency of soil retention of P occurring in the natural soil environment from available research. Neither does the evidence base allow for answering the question of the magnitude of the potential impact of OWTSs on the P concentration in recipients on a general basis, or under what conditions OWTSs generally have such an impact. A ","PeriodicalId":48621,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Evidence","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2023-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11378865/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45280159","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Identifying the most effective behavioural assays and predator cues for quantifying anti-predator responses in mammals: a systematic review.","authors":"Natasha D Harrison, Rochelle Steven, Ben L Phillips, Jan M Hemmi, Adrian F Wayne, Nicola J Mitchell","doi":"10.1186/s13750-023-00299-x","DOIUrl":"10.1186/s13750-023-00299-x","url":null,"abstract":"&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Background: &lt;/strong&gt;Mammals, globally, are facing population declines. Protecting and breeding threatened populations inside predator-free havens and translocating them back to the wild is commonly viewed as a solution. These approaches can expose predator-naïve animals to predators they have never encountered and as a result, many conservation projects have failed due to the predation of individuals that lacked appropriate anti-predator responses. Hence, robust ways to measure anti-predator responses are urgently needed to help identify naïve populations at risk, to select appropriate animals for translocation, and to monitor managed populations for changes in anti-predator traits. Here, we undertake a systematic review that collates existing behavioural assays of anti-predator responses and identifies assay types and predator cues that provoke the greatest behavioural responses.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Methods: &lt;/strong&gt;We retrieved articles from academic bibliographic databases and grey literature sources (such as government and conservation management reports), using a Boolean search string. Each article was screened against eligibility criteria determined using the PICO (Population-Intervention-Comparator-Outcome) framework. Using data extracted from each article, we mapped all known behavioural assays for quantifying anti-predator responses in mammals and examined the context in which each assay has been implemented (e.g., species tested, predator cue characteristics). Finally, with mixed effects modelling, we determined which of these assays and predator cue types elicit the greatest behavioural responses based on standardised difference in response between treatment and control groups.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Review findings: &lt;/strong&gt;We reviewed 5168 articles, 211 of which were eligible, constituting 1016 studies on 126 mammal species, a quarter of which are threatened by invasive species. We identified six major types of behavioural assays: behavioural focals, capture probability, feeding station, flight initiation distance, giving-up density, and stimulus presentations. Across studies, there were five primary behaviours measured: activity, escape, exploration, foraging, and vigilance. These behaviours yielded similar effect sizes across studies. With regard to study design, however, studies that used natural olfactory cues tended to report larger effect sizes than those that used artificial cues. Effect sizes were larger in studies that analysed sexes individually, rather than combining males and females. Studies that used 'blank' control treatments (the absence of a stimulus) rather than a treatment with a control stimulus had higher effect sizes. Although many studies involved repeat measures of known individuals, only 15.4% of these used their data to calculate measures of individual repeatability.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Conclusions: &lt;/strong&gt;Our review highlights important aspects of experimental design and reporting that should be considered. Wher","PeriodicalId":48621,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Evidence","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11378833/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43900337","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}