Environmental Evidence最新文献

{"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":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Review findings: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>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":"12 1","pages":"9"},"PeriodicalIF":7.0,"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":"12 1","pages":"8"},"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":"12 1","pages":"7"},"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":"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":"10 1","pages":"5"},"PeriodicalIF":7.0,"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}

{"title":"What are the toxicity thresholds of chemical pollutants for tropical reef-building corals? A systematic review.","authors":"Dakis-Yaoba Ouédraogo, Hugo Mell, Olivier Perceval, Karen Burga, Isabelle Domart-Coulon, Laetitia Hédouin, Mathilde Delaunay, Mireille M M Guillaume, Magalie Castelin, Christophe Calvayrac, Odile Kerkhof, Romain Sordello, Yorick Reyjol, Christine Ferrier-Pagès","doi":"10.1186/s13750-023-00298-y","DOIUrl":"10.1186/s13750-023-00298-y","url":null,"abstract":"&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Background: &lt;/strong&gt;Tropical coral reefs cover only ca. 0.1% of the Earth's surface but harbour exceptional marine biodiversity and provide vital ecosystem services to millions of people living nearby. They are currently threatened by global (e.g. climate change) and local (e.g. chemical pollution) stressors that interact in multiple ways. While global stressors cannot be mitigated by local actions alone, local stressors can be reduced through ecosystem management. Here, we aimed to systematically review experimental studies assessing the toxicity of chemical pollutants to tropical reef-building corals to generate accessible and usable knowledge and data that can be used to calculate measurement endpoints in ecological risk assessment. From the quantitative estimates of effects, we determined toxicity thresholds as the highest exposures tested at which no statistically significant adverse effects were observed, and we compared them to regulatory predicted no effect concentrations for the protection of marine organisms, to assess whether these reference values are indeed protective of corals.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Methods: &lt;/strong&gt;The evidence was taken from a systematic map of the impacts of chemicals arising from human activity on tropical reef-building corals published in 2021. All studies in the map database corresponding to the knowledge cluster \"Evidence on the ecotoxicological effects of chemicals on corals\" were selected. To identify subsequently published literature, the search was updated using a subset of the search string used for the systematic map. Titles, abstracts and full-texts were screened according to the criteria defining the selected cluster of the map. Because the eligibility criteria for the systematic review are narrower than the criteria used to define the cluster in the systematic map, additional screening was performed. Studies included were critically appraised and each study was rated as low, unclear, medium, or high risk of bias. Data were extracted from the studies and synthesised according to a strategy dependent on the type of exposure and outcome.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Review findings: &lt;/strong&gt;The systematic review reports the known effects of chemical exposures on corals from 847 studies corresponding to 181 articles. A total of 697 studies (161 articles) were included in the quantitative synthesis and 150 studies (50 articles) in the narrative synthesis of the findings. The quantitative synthesis records the effects of 2706 exposure concentrations-durations of 164 chemicals or mixtures of chemicals, and identifies 105 toxicity thresholds corresponding to 56 chemicals or mixtures of chemicals. When toxicity thresholds were compared to reference values set for the protection of marine organisms by environmental agencies, the reference values appear to be protective of corals for all but three chemicals assessed: the metal copper and the pesticides diuron and irgarol 1051.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Conclusions: &lt;/strong&gt;This op","PeriodicalId":48621,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Evidence","volume":"12 1","pages":"4"},"PeriodicalIF":7.0,"publicationDate":"2023-03-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11378836/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44511799","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":"Evidence on the efficacy of small unoccupied aircraft systems (UAS) as a survey tool for North American terrestrial, vertebrate animals: a systematic map.","authors":"Jared A Elmore, Emma A Schultz, Landon R Jones, Kristine O Evans, Sathishkumar Samiappan, Morgan B Pfeiffer, Bradley F Blackwell, Raymond B Iglay","doi":"10.1186/s13750-022-00294-8","DOIUrl":"10.1186/s13750-022-00294-8","url":null,"abstract":"&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Background: &lt;/strong&gt;Small unoccupied aircraft systems (UAS) are replacing or supplementing occupied aircraft and ground-based surveys in animal monitoring due to improved sensors, efficiency, costs, and logistical benefits. Numerous UAS and sensors are available and have been used in various methods. However, justification for selection or methods used are not typically offered in published literature. Furthermore, existing reviews do not adequately cover past and current UAS applications for animal monitoring, nor their associated UAS/sensor characteristics and environmental considerations. We present a systematic map that collects and consolidates evidence pertaining to UAS monitoring of animals.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Methods: &lt;/strong&gt;We investigated the current state of knowledge on UAS applications in terrestrial animal monitoring by using an accurate, comprehensive, and repeatable systematic map approach. We searched relevant peer-reviewed and grey literature, as well as dissertations and theses, using online publication databases, Google Scholar, and by request through a professional network of collaborators and publicly available websites. We used a tiered approach to article exclusion with eligible studies being those that monitor (i.e., identify, count, estimate, etc.) terrestrial vertebrate animals. Extracted metadata concerning UAS, sensors, animals, methodology, and results were recorded in Microsoft Access. We queried and catalogued evidence in the final database to produce tables, figures, and geographic maps to accompany this full narrative review, answering our primary and secondary questions.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Review findings: &lt;/strong&gt;We found 5539 articles from our literature searches of which 216 were included with extracted metadata categories in our database and narrative review. Studies exhibited exponential growth over time but have levelled off between 2019 and 2021 and were primarily conducted in North America, Australia, and Antarctica. Each metadata category had major clusters and gaps, which are described in the narrative review.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Conclusions: &lt;/strong&gt;Our systematic map provides a useful synthesis of current applications of UAS-animal related studies and identifies major knowledge clusters (well-represented subtopics that are amenable to full synthesis by a systematic review) and gaps (unreported or underrepresented topics that warrant additional primary research) that guide future research directions and UAS applications. The literature for the use of UAS to conduct animal surveys has expanded intensely since its inception in 2006 but is still in its infancy. Since 2015, technological improvements and subsequent cost reductions facilitated widespread research, often to validate UAS technology to survey single species with application of descriptive statistics over limited spatial and temporal scales. Studies since the 2015 expansion have still generally focused on large birds or mammals in open landsca","PeriodicalId":48621,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Evidence","volume":"12 1","pages":"3"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2023-02-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11378819/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49460165","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":"Introducing PROCEED: a new service for fast registration and publication of protocols for environmental evidence syntheses, including Rapid Reviews.","authors":"Andrew Pullin","doi":"10.1186/s13750-022-00295-7","DOIUrl":"10.1186/s13750-022-00295-7","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":48621,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Evidence","volume":"12 1","pages":"2"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2023-01-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11378766/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45614850","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":"Evidence base for non-genetic inheritance of environmental exposures in non-human animals and plants: a map of evidence syntheses with bibliometric analysis.","authors":"Erin L Macartney, Szymon M Drobniak, Shinichi Nakagawa, Malgorzata Lagisz","doi":"10.1186/s13750-022-00290-y","DOIUrl":"10.1186/s13750-022-00290-y","url":null,"abstract":"&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Background: &lt;/strong&gt;Direct effects of parental environment (particularly mothers) on offspring have been frequently demonstrated over the last decades. More recently 'indirect' non-genetic effects of ancestral environment and environmental effects through the patriline have been observed. Such research has captured the interest of many disciplines including biomedical science, toxicology, agriculture, and ecology and evolution due to the importance of understanding environmental effects on individual and population health. Consequently, the secondary literature, aimed at synthesizing non-genetic effects has also been increasing. The non-genetic inheritance secondary literature can be as diverse as the primary literature. Thus, there is a need to 'map' the non-genetic inheritance secondary literature to understand the state of the field and move forward in filling research gaps. Here, we ask four main questions: (1) What evidence exists on the impacts of non-genetic inheritance in non-human animals and plants across disciplines within the secondary 'systematic-like' (evidence synthesis) literature (2) What are the discipline-specific research patterns and gaps? (3) How connected is the literature (i.e., shared citations within and between disciplines, and collaborations between different countries)? (4) What is the overall quality of the non-genetic inheritance SR literature?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Methods: &lt;/strong&gt;We systematically searched for published and grey evidence syntheses on non-genetic inheritance in non-human animals and plants. We then extracted details pertaining to research topics and assigned each article to one of five disciplines (agriculture, biomedical science, ecology and evolution, toxicology, and cross-disciplinary research). We mapped within- and between- discipline research patterns through descriptive statistics and visualizations, and conducted a bibliometric analysis of the 'connectedness' of the literature (i.e., co-citation and collaboration networks). We also conducted a critical appraisal of the included articles.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Results: &lt;/strong&gt;We show that most evidence syntheses were in biomedical science and synthesized primary literature on rats and mice. Most evidence syntheses examined 'direct' effects of ancestral environment on descendants, particularly maternal dietary effects on offspring physiology and morphology. Ecology and evolution and cross-disciplinary evidence syntheses included the most diverse range of primary literature in their articles. We also show that most evidence syntheses have at least one author affiliated with an institution in the USA, and that the UK tends to form the most multinational collaborations. Toxicology evidence syntheses were least likely to cite studies outside of its own discipline. Lastly, we show where the quality of the non-genetic inheritance systematic-like literature could be improved.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Conclusions: &lt;/strong&gt;We have highlighted that certain areas","PeriodicalId":48621,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Evidence","volume":"12 1","pages":"1"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2023-01-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11378868/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47931925","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":"Environmental evidence in action: on the science and practice of evidence synthesis and evidence-based decision-making.","authors":"Steven J Cooke, Carly N Cook, Vivian M Nguyen, Jessica C Walsh, Nathan Young, Christopher Cvitanovic, Matthew J Grainger, Nicola P Randall, Matt Muir, Andrew N Kadykalo, Kathryn A Monk, Andrew S Pullin","doi":"10.1186/s13750-023-00302-5","DOIUrl":"10.1186/s13750-023-00302-5","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In civil society we expect that policy and management decisions will be made using the best available evidence. Yet, it is widely known that there are many barriers that limit the extent to which that occurs. One way to overcome these barriers is via robust, comprehensive, transparent and repeatable evidence syntheses (such as systematic reviews) that attempt to minimize various forms of bias to present a summary of existing knowledge for decision-making purposes. Relative to other disciplines (e.g., health care, education), such evidence-based decision-making remains relatively nascent for environment management despite major threats to humanity, such as the climate, pollution and biodiversity crises demonstrating that human well-being is inextricably linked to the biophysical environment. Fortunately, there are a growing number of environmental evidence syntheses being produced that can be used by decision makers. It is therefore an opportune time to reflect on the science and practice of evidence-based decision-making in environment management to understand the extent to which evidence syntheses are embraced and applied in practice. Here we outline a number of key questions related to the use of environmental evidence that need to be explored in an effort to enhance evidence-based decision-making. There is an urgent need for research involving methods from social science, behavioural sciences, and public policy to understand the basis for patterns and trends in environmental evidence use (or misuse or ignorance). There is also a need for those who commission and produce evidence syntheses, as well as the end users of these syntheses to reflect on their experiences and share them with the broader evidence-based practice community to identify needs and opportunities for advancing the entire process of evidence-based practice. It is our hope that the ideas shared here will serve as a roadmap for additional scholarship that will collectively enhance evidence-based decision-making and ultimately benefit the environment and humanity.</p>","PeriodicalId":48621,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Evidence","volume":"12 1","pages":"10"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10191815/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"9887496","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":"Correction: Evidence for the effects of decommissioning man-made structures on marine ecosystems globally: a systematic map.","authors":"Anaëlle J Lemasson, Paul J Somerfield, Michaela Schratzberger, Caroline Louise McNeill, Joana Nunes, Christine Pascoe, Stephen C L Watson, Murray S A Thompson, Elena Couce, Antony M Knights","doi":"10.1186/s13750-022-00293-9","DOIUrl":"10.1186/s13750-022-00293-9","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":48621,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Evidence","volume":"11 1","pages":"39"},"PeriodicalIF":7.0,"publicationDate":"2022-12-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11378775/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46127929","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}