Explore the vast range of titles available.

The use of English as the common language of science represents a major impediment to maximising the contribution of non-native English speakers to science. Yet few studies have quantified the consequences of language barriers on the career development of researchers who are non-native English speakers. By surveying 908 researchers in environmental sciences, this study estimates and compares the amount of effort required to conduct scientific activities in English between researchers from different countries and, thus, different linguistic and economic backgrounds. Our survey demonstrates that non-native English speakers, especially early in their careers, spend more effort than native English speakers in conducting scientific activities, from reading and writing papers and preparing presentations in English, to disseminating research in multiple languages. Language barriers can also cause them not to attend, or give oral presentations at, international conferences conducted in English. We urge scientific communities to recognise and tackle these disadvantages to release the untapped potential of non-native English speakers in science. This study also proposes potential solutions that can be implemented today by individuals, institutions, journals, funders, and conferences. Please see the Supporting information files (S2–S6 Text) for Alternative Language Abstracts and Figs 5 and 6.

While it is recognized that language can pose a barrier to the transfer of scientific knowledge, the convergence on English as the global language of science may suggest that this problem has been resolved. However, our survey searching Google Scholar in 16 languages revealed that 35.6% of 75,513 scientific documents on biodiversity conservation published in 2014 were not in English. Ignoring such non-English knowledge can cause biases in our understanding of study systems. Furthermore, as publication in English has become prevalent, scientific knowledge is often unavailable in local languages. This hinders its use by field practitioners and policy makers for local environmental issues; 54% of protected area directors in Spain identified languages as a barrier. We urge scientific communities to make a more concerted effort to tackle this problem and propose potential approaches both for compiling non-English scientific knowledge effectively and for enhancing the multilingualization of new and existing knowledge available only in English for the users of such knowledge.

Habitat fragmentation is considered as major threat to biodiversity worldwide. Biodiversity can be described as taxonomic, functional and phylogenetic diversity. However, the effect of forest fragmentation on taxonomic, phylogenetic and functional diversity is barely understood. We compare the response of taxonomic (species richness), phylogenetic and functional diversity of birds to forest fragmentation. We hypothesised that with increasing forest patch isolation and/or decreasing patch size the diversity of birds decreases but only if certain thresholds of fragmentation metrics are reached. Specifically, we hypothesized that out of the three diversity components the taxonomic diversity is the most sensitive to forest fragmentation, which means that it starts declining at larger patch size and higher connectivity values than phylogenetic and functional diversity do. We compared the three biodiversity metrics of central European bird species in a large set of forest patches located in an agricultural landscape. General additive modeling and segmented regression were used in analyses. Habitat fragmentation differentially affected studied biodiversity metrics. Bird taxonomic diversity was the most responsive towards changes in fragmentation. We observed an increase in taxonomic diversity with increasing patch area, which then stabilized after reaching certain patch size. Functional diversity turned out to be the least responsive to the fragmentation metrics and forest stand characteristics. It decreased linearly with the decreasing isolation of forest patches. Apart from the habitat fragmentation, bird taxonomic diversity but not phylogenetic diversity was positively associated with forest stand age. The lower share of dominant tree species, the highest taxonomic diversity was. While preserving a whole spectrum of forests (in terms of age, fragmentation and size) is important from the biodiversity perspective, forest bird species might need large, intact, old-growth forests. Since the large and intact forest becomes scarcer, our study underscore their importance for the preservation of forest specialist species.

Global biodiversity conservation is seriously challenged by gaps and heterogeneity in the geographical coverage of existing information. Nevertheless, the key barriers to the collection and compilation of biodiversity information at a global scale have yet to be identified. We show that wealth, language, geographical location and security each play an important role in explaining spatial variations in data availability in four different types of biodiversity databases. The number of records per square kilometre is high in countries with high per capita gross domestic product (GDP), high proportion of English speakers and high security levels, and those located close to the country hosting the database; but these are not necessarily countries with high biodiversity. These factors are considered to affect data availability by impeding either the activities of scientific research or active international communications. Our results demonstrate that efforts to solve environmental problems at a global scale will gain significantly by focusing scientific education, communication, research and collaboration in low-GDP countries with fewer English speakers and located far from Western countries that host the global databases; countries that have experienced conflict may also benefit. Findings of this study may be broadly applicable to other fields that require the compilation of scientific knowledge at a global level.

As the availability and performance of artificial intelligence for language editing and translation continues to improve, we can imagine a future in which everyone can use their own language to write, assess, and read science. The question is, how can we achieve it?

Meta‐analysis plays a crucial role in syntheses of quantitative evidence in ecology and biodiversity conservation. The reliability of estimates in meta‐analyses strongly depends on unbiased sampling of primary studies. Although earlier studies have explored potential biases in ecological meta‐analyses, biases in reported statistical results and associated study characteristics published in different languages have never been tested in environmental sciences. We address this knowledge gap by systematically searching published meta‐analyses and comparing effect‐size estimates between English‐ and Japanese‐language studies included in existing meta‐analyses. Of the 40 published ecological meta‐analysis articles authored by those affiliated to Japanese institutions, we find that three meta‐analysis articles searched for studies in the two languages and involved sufficient numbers of English‐ and Japanese‐language studies, resulting in four eligible meta‐analyses (i.e., four meta‐analyses conducted in the three meta‐analysis articles). In two of the four, effect sizes differ significantly between the English‐ and Japanese‐language studies included in the meta‐analyses, causing considerable changes in overall mean effect sizes and even their direction when Japanese‐language studies are excluded. The observed differences in effect sizes are likely attributable to systematic differences in reported statistical results and associated study characteristics, particularly taxa and ecosystems, between English‐ and Japanese‐language studies. Despite being based on a small sample size, our findings suggest that ignoring non‐English‐language studies may bias outcomes of ecological meta‐analyses, due to systematic differences in study characteristics and effect‐size estimates between English‐ and non‐English languages. We provide a list of actions that meta‐analysts could take in the future to reduce the risk of language bias. 摘要 元分析在生态学和生物多样性保护定量证据的合成中起着至关重要的作用。元分析中估计的可靠性在很大程度上取决于对初级研究的公正抽样。虽然早期的研究已经探索了生态元分析的潜在偏差，但以不同语言发表的报告的统计结果和相关研究特征的偏差从未在环境科学中测试过。我们通过系统地搜索已发布的元分析，并比较现有元分析中包含的英语和日语研究之间的效应量估计值，来解决这种知识差距。在由日本研究机构下属机构撰写的40篇已发表的生态元分析文章中，我们发现有三篇元分析文章搜索了这两种语言的研究，涉及足够数量的英语和日语研究，产生了4个合资格的元分析（即三篇元分析文章中进行的四个元分析）。在这四个元分析的两个中，元分析中所包含的英语和日语研究之间的效应量差别很大，在排除日语研究时，导致总体平均效应量甚至其走向发生显著变化。观察到的效应量差异可能归因于英语和日语研究之间报告的统计结果以及相关研究特征，特别是分类和生态系统的系统性差异。尽管基于较小的样本量，我们的发现表明，由于英语和非英语语言之间在研究特征和效应量估计方面存在着系统性差异，因而忽视非英语研究可能会使生态元分析的结果有偏差。我们提供了一份元分析人员将来可能采取的一些行动的列表，以降低语言偏差的风险。 Résumé La méta‐analyse joue un rôle essentiel dans les synthèses de preuves quantitatives en écologie et en conservation de la biodiversité. La fiabilité des estimations dans les méta‐analyses dépend fortement d’un échantillonnage non biaisé des études primaires. Bien que des études antérieures aient examiné les biais potentiels dans les méta‐analyses écologiques, les biais n’ont jamais été mis à l’épreuve dans les sciences de l’environnement lors de publications dans différentes langues de résultats statistiques enregistrés et de caractéristiques des études associées. Nous abordons cette lacune dans les connaissances en recherchant de manière systématique des méta‐analyses publiées et en comparant les estimations d’ampleur de l’effet entre des études en anglais et en japonais figurant dans les méta‐analyses existantes. Sur 40 articles publiés de méta‐analyse écologique dont les auteurs sont affiliés à des institutions japonaises, nous trouvons que trois articles de méta‐analyse ont recherché des études dans les deux langues et ont mis en jeu des nombres suffisants d’études en anglais et en japonais, avec pour résultat quatre méta‐analyses admissibles (c.‐à‐d. quatre méta‐analyses effectuées dans les trois articles de méta‐analyse). Dans deux de ces quatre cas, les ampleurs de l’effet diffèrent de façon significative entre les études en japonais et en anglais comprises dans les méta‐analyses, ce qui provoque des changements considérables dans les ampleurs moyennes globales de l’effet et même dans leur direction lorsque les études en japonais sont exclues. On peut probablement attribuer les différences observées dans les ampleurs de l’effet entre les études en japonais et en anglais, en particulier en ce qui concerne les taxons et les écosystèmes, aux différences systématiques dans les résultats statistiques enregistrés, de même que dans les caractéristiques des études associées. Bien que basés sur un échantillon de petite taille, nos résultats suggèrent que le fait d’ignorer les études non anglophones peut biaiser les résultats de méta‐analyses écologiques en raison des différences systématiques dans les caractéristiques d’étude et les estimations d’ampleur de l’effet entre langue anglaise et langues non anglophones. Nous proposons une liste de mesures qui pourraient être adoptées à l’avenir dans les méta‐analyses pour réduire le risque de biais linguistique. 要旨 メタ分析は、生態学や生物多様性保全における定量的エビデンスの統合において重要な役割を果たしている。メタ分析における推定値の信頼性は、偏りのない一次研究の収集に大きく依存する。生態学におけるメタ分析で生じる様々なバイアスの可能性はこれまでの研究でも検討されてきたが、異なる言語で発表される統計結果や研究の特性にバイアスが存在するかどうかは、環境科学の分野では検証されたことがなかった。そこで本研究では、既存のメタ分析を系統的に検索し、そこで利用されている英語で発表された研究と日本語で発表された研究の間で効果サイズの推定値を比較した。日本の研究機関に所属する研究者が執筆した40の生態学におけるメタ分析論文のうち、3つのメタ分析論文のみが一次研究を2言語で検索し、その結果十分な数の英語研究と日本語研究を解析の対象としていた。そこで本研究では、この3つのメタ分析論文に含まれた4つのメタ分析を対象として用いた。4つのうち2つのメタ分析では、利用された英語研究と日本語研究で効果サイズが大きく異なり、日本語研究を除外した場合には、全体の平均効果サイズやその方向性までもが大きく変化することが明らかになった。このような効果サイズの違いは、英語研究と日本語研究で報告された統計結果や研究の特性（特に分類や生態系）が系統的に異なることに起因している可能性が高い。本研究では多くのメタ分析を対象にすることはできなかったものの、ここで得られた知見は、異なる言語で発表された研究間でその特性や効果サイズの推定値に系統的な違いがあるため、英語以外の研究を除外すると生態学におけるメタ分析の結果にバイアスが生じる可能性があることを示唆している。最後に、このようなメタ分析における言語バイアスのリスクを軽減するために有効であると考えられる対策についても提案を行う。 Resumo A metanálise desempenha um papel crucial na síntese de evidências quantitativas na ecologia e conservação da biodiversidade. A confiabilidade das estimativas nas metanálises depende fortemente da amostragem imparcial de estudos primários. Embora estudos anteriores tenham explorado possíveis vieses em metanálises ecológicas, os vieses nos resultados estatísticos relatados e características de estudos associados publicados em diferentes idiomas nunca foram testados em ciências ambientais. Abordamos essa lacuna de conhecimento pesquisando sistematicamente metanálises publicadas e comparando estimativas de tamanho de efeito entre os estudos em inglês e japonês incluídos nas metanálises existentes. Dos 40 artigos de metanálise ecológica publicados por autores filiados a instituições japonesas, descobrimos que três artigos de metanálise pesquisaram estudos nos dois idiomas e envolveram um número suficiente de estudos em inglês e japonês, resultando em quatro metanálises elegíveis (ou seja, quatro metanálises realizadas nos três artigos de metanálise). Em duas das quatro metanálises, os tamanhos de efeito diferem significativamente entre os estudos em inglês e japonês incluídos nas metanálises, causando mudanças consideráveis nos tamanhos de efeito médios em geral e até mesmo na sua direção quando os estudos em japonês são excluídos. As diferenças observadas nos tamanhos de efeito provavelmente são atribuíveis a diferenças sistemáticas nos resultados estatísticos relatados, bem como às características de estudos associados, particularmente táxons e ecossistemas, entre estudos em inglês e japonês. Embora baseados em um pequeno tamanho amostral, nossos resultados sugerem que ignorar estudos que não sejam em inglês pode influenciar os resultados de metanálises ecológicas, devido a diferenças sistemáticas nas características dos estudos e estimativas de tamanho de efeito entre o idioma inglês e o não‐inglês. Fornecemos uma lista de medidas que metanalistas podem adotar no futuro para reduzir o risco de viés de idioma. Resumen El meta‐análisis juega un papel crucial en la síntesis de evidencia cuantitativa en ecología y conservación de la biodiversidad. La fiabilidad de las estimaciones en los meta‐análisis depende en gran medida del muestreo imparcial de los estudios primarios. A pesar de que estudios previos han explorado posibles sesgos en meta‐análisis ecológicos, sesgos en resultados estadísticos y características asociadas al estudio publicados en diferentes idiomas nunca han sido comprobados en ciencias ambientales. Abordamos esta brecha de conocimiento buscando sistemáticamente los meta‐análisis publicados y comparando las estimaciones del tamaño del efecto entre los estudios en inglés y japonés incluidos en los meta‐análisis existentes. De los 40 artículos de meta‐análisis ecológicos publicados por aquellos afiliados a instituciones japonesas, encontramos que tres artículos de meta‐análisis buscaron estudios en dos idiomas e involucraron un número suficiente de estudios en inglés y japonés, lo que resultó en cuatro meta‐análisis elegibles (i.e., cuatro meta‐análisis realizados en tres artículos de meta‐análisis). En dos de los cuatro, los tamaños de los efectos difieren significativamente entre los estudios en inglés y japonés incluidos en los meta‐análisis, lo que provoca cambios considerables en los tamaños de efectos medios generales e incluso su dirección cuando se excluyen los estudios en japonés. Las diferencias observadas en los tamaños de los efectos son probablemente atribuibles a las diferencias sistemáticas en los resultados estadísticos informados, así como a las características de los estudios asociados, particularmente los taxones y los ecosistemas, entre los estudios en inglés y japonés. A pesar de estar basados ​​en un tamaño de muestra pequeño, nuestros hallazgos sugieren que ignorar los estudios que no están en inglés puede sesgar los resultados de los meta‐análisis ecológicos, debido a las diferencias sistemáticas en las características del estudio y a las estimaciones del tamaño del efecto entre el idioma inglés y el no inglés. Proporcionamos una lista de acciones que los meta‐analistas podrían tomar en el futuro para reducir el riesgo de sesgo lingüístico. Ignoring non‐English‐language literature may bias outcomes of ecological meta‐analyses, due t

Monitoring the impacts of anthropogenic threats and interventions to mitigate these threats is key to understanding how to best conserve biodiversity. Ecologists use many different study designs to monitor such impacts. Simpler designs lacking controls (e.g. Before–After (BA) and After) or pre‐impact data (e.g. Control–Impact (CI)) are considered to be less robust than more complex designs (e.g. Before–After Control‐Impact (BACI) or Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs)). However, we lack quantitative estimates of how much less accurate simpler study designs are in ecology. Understanding this could help prioritize research and weight studies by their design's accuracy in meta‐analysis and evidence assessment. We compared how accurately five study designs estimated the true effect of a simulated environmental impact that caused a step‐change response in a population's density. We derived empirical estimates of several simulation parameters from 47 ecological datasets to ensure our simulations were realistic. We measured design performance by determining the percentage of simulations where: (a) the true effect fell within the 95% Confidence Intervals of effect size estimates, and (b) each design correctly estimated the true effect's direction and magnitude. We also considered how sample size affected their performance. We demonstrated that BACI designs performed: 1.3–1.8 times better than RCTs; 2.9–4.2 times versus BA; 3.2–4.6 times versus CI; and 7.1–10.1 times versus After designs (depending on sample size), when correctly estimating true effect's direction and magnitude to within ±30%. Although BACI designs suffered from low power at small sample sizes, they outperformed other designs for almost all performance measures. Increasing sample size improved BACI design accuracy, but only increased the precision of simpler designs around biased estimates. Synthesis and applications. We suggest that more investment in more robust designs is needed in ecology since inferences from simpler designs, even with large sample sizes may be misleading. Facilitating this requires longer‐term funding and stronger research–practice partnerships. We also propose ‘accuracy weights’ and demonstrate how they can weight studies in three recent meta‐analyses by accounting for study design and sample size. We hope these help decision‐makers and meta‐analysts better account for study design when assessing evidence. Foreign Language Japanese 生物多様性の保全を効果的に行うためには、人為的脅威の影響や保全対策の効果を適切に評価することが重要となる。生態学ではこのような評価を行うために、様々な研究デザインが用いられている。対照区が存在しないBefore‐After (BA)デザインやAfterデザイン、また処理以前のデータが存在しないControl‐Impact (CI)デザインなど簡素な研究デザインは、Before‐After Control‐Impact (BACI)デザインやランダム化比較試験（RCTs: Randomized Controlled Trials)などの複雑なデザインよりも頑健さに劣ると考えられている。しかしながら、生態学においてこれら簡素な研究デザインがどれだけ正確度に劣るのか、定量的な評価はこれまで行われていない。研究デザインの正確度を定量的に評価することで、メタ解析やエビデンスの評価を行う際に、用いられた研究デザインの正確度に基づいて各研究の優先順位付けや重み付けを行うことが可能になるだろう。 本研究では、環境変化が個体群密度に及ぼす影響を、5種類の研究デザインがどれだけ正確に推定することができるのか、シミュレーションを用いて検討した。より現実に即した状況を再現するため、シミュレーションで用いたパラメータは、47の生態学的データから抽出した。各研究デザインの正確度は、シミュレーションにおいて、（１）推定された効果サイズの95％信頼区間に真の効果が含まれる割合、（２）推定された効果が真の効果の方向・程度と一致した割合、を算出することによって評価した。またサンプルサイズの違いが各研究デザインの正確度に及ぼす影響も検討した。 シミュレーションの結果、BACIデザインはランダム化比較試験に対して1.3–1.8倍、BAデザインに対して2.9–4.2倍、CIデザインに対して3.2–4.6倍、Afterデザインに比較すると7.1–10.1倍も正確に真の効果を推定できる（推定された効果が真の効果の方向と一致し、且つ真の効果の ± 30%内に含まれる）ことが明らかになった（比較値のばらつきはサンプルサイズによる）。BACIデザインの正確度はサンプルサイズが小さい場合には低下したが、それでもほとんどの指標において他のデザインよりも高い正確度を示していた。サンプルサイズを増やすことでBACIデザインの正確度は向上したが、他の研究デザインでは偏った推定値の精度が向上するだけであった。 Synthesis and applications. 例えサンプルサイズが十分であったとしても、簡素なデザインに基づいた推論は正確でない可能性があるため、生態学においてもより頑健な研究デザインの利用を推進していく必要があると考えられる。頑健な研究デザインの利用を推進するためには、長期に渡る研究資金の確保や、研究と実践の間でのより強固な連携が必要となるだろう。本研究では更にこれらの結果に基づいて、メタ解析において研究デザインとサンプルサイズに基づいて各研究の重み付けをする手法を提案し、近年行われた３つのメタ解析を用いてその実用例を提示した。これらの結果は、意思決定者やメタ解析を行う研究者が、研究デザインを考慮したエビデンスの評価を行うために有用となるだろう。 We suggest that more investment in more robust designs is needed in ecology since inferences from simpler designs, even with large sample sizes may be misleading. Facilitating this requires longer‐term funding and stronger research–practice partnerships. We also propose ‘accuracy weights’ and demonstrate how they can weight studies in three recent meta‐analyses by accounting for study design and sample size. We hope these help decision‐makers and meta‐analysts better account for study design when assessing evidence.

State-controlled protected areas (PAs) have dominated conservation strategies globally, yet their performance relative to other governance regimes is rarely assessed comprehensively. Furthermore, performance indicators of forest PAs are typically restricted to deforestation, although the extent of forest degradation is greater. We address these shortfalls through an empirical impact evaluation of state PAs, Indigenous Territories (ITs), and civil society and private Conservation Concessions (CCs) on deforestation and degradation throughout the Peruvian Amazon. We integrated remote-sensing data with environmental and socio-economic datasets, and used propensity-score matching to assess: (i) how deforestation and degradation varied across governance regimes between 2006–2011; (ii) their proximate drivers; and (iii) whether state PAs, CCs and ITs avoided deforestation and degradation compared with logging and mining concessions, and the unprotected landscape. CCs, state PAs, and ITs all avoided deforestation and degradation compared to analogous areas in the unprotected landscape. CCs and ITs were on average more effective in this respect than state PAs, showing that local governance can be equally or more effective than centralized state regimes. However, there were no consistent differences between conservation governance regimes when matched to logging and mining concessions. Future impact assessments would therefore benefit from further disentangling governance regimes across unprotected land.

Mangrove forests store high amounts of carbon, protect communities from storms, and support fisheries. Mangroves exist in complex social-ecological systems, hence identifying socioeconomic conditions associated with decreasing losses and increasing gains remains challenging albeit important. The impact of national governance and conservation policies on mangrove conservation at the landscape-scale has not been assessed to date, nor have the interactions with local economic pressures and biophysical drivers. Here, we assess the relationship between socioeconomic and biophysical variables and mangrove change across coastal geomorphic units worldwide from 1996 to 2016. Globally, we find that drivers of loss can also be drivers of gain, and that drivers have changed over 20 years. The association with economic growth appears to have reversed, shifting from negatively impacting mangroves in the first decade to enabling mangrove expansion in the second decade. Importantly, we find that community forestry is promoting mangrove expansion, whereas conversion to agriculture and aquaculture, often occurring in protected areas, results in high loss. Sustainable development, community forestry, and co-management of protected areas are promising strategies to reverse mangrove losses, increasing the capacity of mangroves to support human-livelihoods and combat climate change. Mangrove forests protect communities from storms and support fisheries. Here, the authors show that the association with economic growth has shifted from negatively impacting mangroves to enabling mangrove expansion, and that community forestry is promoting mangrove expansion.