Explore the vast range of titles available.

Owing to its specialised methodology, palaeoecology is often regarded as a separate field from ecology, even though it is essential for understanding long-term ecological processes that have shaped the ecosystems that ecologists study and manage. Despite advances in ecological modelling, sample dating, and proxy-based reconstructions facilitating direct comparison of palaeoecological data with neo-ecological data, most of the scientific knowledge derived from palaeoecological studies remains siloed. We surveyed a group of palaeo-researchers with experience in crossing the divide between palaeoecology and neo-ecology, to develop Ten Simple Rules for publishing your palaeoecological research in non-palaeo journals. Our 10 rules are divided into the preparation phase, writing phase, and finalising phase when the article is submitted to the target journal. These rules provide a suite of strategies, including improved networking early in the process, building effective collaborations, transmitting results more efficiently to improve cross-disciplinary accessibility, and integrating concepts and methodologies that appeal to ecologists and a wider readership. Adhering to these Ten Simple Rules can ensure palaeoecologists’ findings are more accessible and impactful among ecologists and the wider scientific community. Although this article primarily shows examples of how palaeoecological studies were published in journals for a broader audience, the rules apply to anyone who aims to publish outside specialised journals.

Clearcutting increases temperatures of forest streams, and, in temperate zones, the effects can extend far downstream of the clearcut itself. Here, we studied whether similar patterns are found in colder, boreal zones, and if riparian buffers can prevent stream water from heating up. We recorded temperature at 45 locations across nine streams with varying buffer widths. In these streams, we compared upstream (control) reaches with reaches at clearcuts and up to 150 m immediately downstream of the clearcut. In summer, we found daily maximum water temperature increases at clearcuts up to 4.1°C, with the warmest week ranging from 12.0°C to 18.6°C. We further found that warming was sustained 150 m downstream of clearcuts in three out of six streams with buffers <10 m. Surprisingly, temperature patterns in autumn resembled those in summer, yet, with lower absolute temperatures (maximum warming was 1.9°C in autumn). Clearcuts in boreal forests can indeed warm streams, and, because these temperature effects are propagated downstream, we risk catchment‐scale effects and cumulative warming when streams pass through several clearcuts. In this study, riparian buffers wider than 15 m protected against water temperature increases; hence, we call for a general increase of riparian buffer width along small streams in boreal forests. Key Points Clearcutting of boreal forests can warm streams, and these temperature effects can be propagated at least 150 m downstream Temperature effects are not only isolated to summer, but instead patterns can also sustain into autumn and resemble those in summer Riparian buffers wider than 15 m protected against water temperature increases

Field data collection is a foundation of ecological research, but it can be challenging and error‐prone. Researchers planning and undertaking fieldwork for the first time are especially vulnerable to logistical issues that can be avoided with more guidance. We offer guidelines to enhance the accuracy and efficiency of field data collection. Our guidance takes the prospective field ecologist through five steps: (1) identifying which variables should be recorded (focusing on your scientific question, but considering opportunities for additional data collection); (2) designing the data structure (understanding data structure, assigning useful IDs and avoiding confusing characters); (3) preparing a data collection protocol (building in redundancy, choosing a data collection technology, clean data recording and taking additional notes); (4) undertaking a pilot test (including data collection and digitising, communicating with the team); (5) following the protocol (assigning a decision‐maker, noting any changes, following routines and backing up data). This article is motivated by our own trial‐and‐error experiences and those of our colleagues and students, and a desire to help future researchers to avoid them. Our intention is to streamline the planning and field stages of data collection to avoid common pitfalls, thereby saving money, time and resources and supporting the whole data life cycle. Field data collection occurs across disciplines looking to understand the natural world, and each field excursion poses its own unique challenges. However, these guidelines can be useful as a starter for researchers to support open, reproducible, efficient and effective field data collection.

In light of climate change and biodiversity loss, modeling and mapping soil moisture at high spatiotemporal resolution is increasingly crucial for a wide range of applications in Earth and environmental sciences, particularly in boreal forests, which play a key role in global carbon cycling, are highly sensitive to hydrological changes, and are experiencing rapid warming and more frequent disturbances. However, modeling and mapping soil moisture dynamics is challenging due to the nonlinear interactions among numerous physical and biological factors and the wide range of spatial and temporal scales at play. This study aims to identify key spatial and temporal controls on soil moisture using an empirically based modeling approach. We focused on a boreal forest landscape in northern Sweden, where we monitored surface soil moisture with dataloggers at 78 locations during the summer of 2022. We investigated the relationships between observed soil moisture variations and numerous environmental and meteorological predictors from multiple sources at varying spatial resolutions and temporal scales, and we assessed how these relationships changed over time. Spatial variation in soil moisture was influenced not only by topography and by the spatial resolution used to represent it, but also by soil properties, vegetation, and land use/land cover (LULC). In addition, the relative importance of these factors changed over time, with topography generally explaining more spatial variation during wet periods, while soil and vegetation were more relevant during dry periods. This suggests that current soil moisture maps relying primarily on topographic indices could benefit from integrating soil, vegetation, and LULC information to better capture spatial variability under different wetness conditions, as well as from selecting the optimal spatial resolution for the specific area of interest. Temporal variation in soil moisture was better explained by hydrological and meteorological variables averaged over 5 to 7 d preceding soil moisture measurements, highlighting the importance of accounting for both lagged and cumulative effects of weather conditions. Field predictors generally outperformed remote sensing and modeled predictors, indicating that soil moisture mapping based solely on spatially continuous predictors requires improving spatial detail of maps describing soil texture, structure, and organic matter content. Our findings contribute to improving the accuracy and interpretability of data-driven methods, such as machine learning, for mapping soil moisture across space and time for forest management and nature conservation.

Most statistical models of microclimate focus on the difference or \"offset' between standardized air temperatures (macroclimate) and those of a specific habitat such as forest understorey, grassland or under a log. However, these offsets can fluctuate from positive to negative over a single day such that common practice consists in aggregating data into daily mean, minimum and maximum before modelling monthly offsets for each summary statistic. Here, we propose a more parsimonious and flexible approach relying on just two parameters: the slope and equilibrium. The slope captures the linear relationship between microclimate and macroclimate, while the equilibrium is the point at which microclimate equals macroclimate. Although applicable to other habitats, we demonstrate the relevance of our method by focusing on forest understoreys.We installed temperature sensors at 1-m height inside forest stands and in nearby open grasslands equipped with standardized weather stations, across 13 sites in France spanning a wide climatic gradient. From a year of hourly temperatures and for each sensor, we established relationships between microclimate and macroclimate temperatures using two linear mixed-effects models, during the leaf -on (May- November) and leaf -off period (December- April). We extracted the monthly equilibrium and slope for each sensor, and used another set of linear mixed-effects models to investigate their main determinants.The slope was chiefly determined by stand structure variables interacting with the leaf- on/leaf- off period: stand type (conifer vs broadleaf); shade-casting ability; stand age; dominant height; stem density; and cover of the upper and lower shrub layer. In contrast, forest structure had no explanatory power on the equilibrium. We found the equilibrium to be positively related to mean macroclimate temperature, interacting with the open/forest habitat.The method introduced here overcomes several shortcomings of modelling microclimate offsets. By demonstrating that the slope and equilibrium vary in predictable ways, we have established a general linkage between microclimate and macroclimate temperatures that can be applied to any location or time if we know the mean macroclimate temperature (equilibrium) and buffering or amplifying capacity of the habitat (slope). We also warn about methodological biases due to the reference used for macroclimate.

Sacred areas are the oldest form of habitat protection, and many of these areas contribute to biodiversity conservation. While sacred groves have received considerable scholarly attention, little is known about fresh water swamps in the Western Ghats, India and sacred swamps have largely been ignored. This paper provides a first overview testing the conjecture that sacred swamps have physical features that distinguish them from non-sacred swamps. We assessed 110 fresh water swamps in the district of Uttara Kannada, Central Western Ghats, India, through extensive field surveys. Out of them 11 swamps are ‘sacred’ according to local testimony. Swamps are found in wet evergreen and evergreen forest types, but sacred swamps occur only in the wet evergreen forests. Sacred swamps differ significantly from non-sacred swamps with respect to size and shape, distance to the nearest road, human settlement, and commercial orchard, and population density within a radius of 500 m. This shows that preferentially swamps close to settlements, orchards and roads have been declared as sacred, probably to regulate the continuing provision of relevant ecosystem services. While we find a variety of deities associated with these sacred swamps, the practices associated with sacred swamp status and management are essentially the same across belief groups. However, the conservation practice is at risk due to migration dynamics.

Owing to its specialised methodology, palaeoecology is often regarded as a separate field from ecology, even though it is essential for understanding long-term ecological processes that have shaped the ecosystems that ecologists study and manage. Despite advances in ecological modelling, sample dating, and proxy-based reconstructions facilitating direct comparison of palaeoecological data with neo-ecological data, most of the scientific knowledge derived from palaeoecological studies remains siloed. We surveyed a group of palaeo-researchers with experience in crossing the divide between palaeoecology and neo-ecology, to develop Ten Simple Rules for publishing your palaeoecological research in non-palaeo journals. Our 10 rules are divided into the preparation phase, writing phase, and finalising phase when the article is submitted to the target journal. These rules provide a suite of strategies, including improved networking early in the process, building effective collaborations, transmitting results more efficiently to improve cross-disciplinary accessibility, and integrating concepts and methodologies that appeal to ecologists and a wider readership. Adhering to these Ten Simple Rules can ensure palaeoecologists’ findings are more accessible and impactful among ecologists and the wider scientific community. Although this article primarily shows examples of how palaeoecological studies were published in journals for a broader audience, the rules apply to anyone who aims to publish outside specialised journals.

Owing to its specialised methodology, palaeoecology is often regarded as a separate field from ecology, even though it is essential for understanding long-term ecological processes that have shaped the ecosystems that ecologists study and manage. Despite advances in ecological modelling, sample dating, and proxy-based reconstructions facilitating direct comparison of palaeoecological data with neo-ecological data, most of the scientific knowledge derived from palaeoecological studies remains siloed. We surveyed a group of palaeo-researchers with experience in crossing the divide between palaeoecology and neo-ecology, to develop Ten Simple Rules for publishing your palaeoecological research in non-palaeo journals. Our 10 rules are divided into the preparation phase, writing phase, and finalising phase when the article is submitted to the target journal. These rules provide a suite of strategies, including improved networking early in the process, building effective collaborations, transmitting results more efficiently to improve cross-disciplinary accessibility, and integrating concepts and methodologies that appeal to ecologists and a wider readership. Adhering to these Ten Simple Rules can ensure palaeoecologists’ findings are more accessible and impactful among ecologists and the wider scientific community. Although this article primarily shows examples of how palaeoecological studies were published in journals for a broader audience, the rules apply to anyone who aims to publish outside specialised journals.

Reduced cardiac vagal control reflected in low heart rate variability (HRV) is associated with greater risks for cardiac morbidity and mortality. In two-stage meta-analyses of genome-wide association studies for three HRV traits in up to 53,174 individuals of European ancestry, we detect 17 genome-wide significant SNPs in eight loci. HRV SNPs tag non-synonymous SNPs (in NDUFA11 and KIAA1755 ), expression quantitative trait loci (eQTLs) (influencing GNG11 , RGS6 and NEO1 ), or are located in genes preferentially expressed in the sinoatrial node ( GNG11 , RGS6 and HCN4) . Genetic risk scores account for 0.9 to 2.6% of the HRV variance. Significant genetic correlation is found for HRV with heart rate (−0.74< r g <−0.55) and blood pressure (−0.35< r g <−0.20). These findings provide clinically relevant biological insight into heritable variation in vagal heart rhythm regulation, with a key role for genetic variants ( GNG11 , RGS6) that influence G-protein heterotrimer action in GIRK-channel induced pacemaker membrane hyperpolarization. Heart rate variability (HRV) describes the individual variation in cardiac cycle duration and is a measure of vagal control of heart rate. Here, the authors identify seventeen single-nucleotide polymorphisms associated with HRV, lending new insight into the vagal regulation of heart rhythm.

Nature Communications 8: Article number: 15805 (2017); Published: 14 June 2017; Updated: 2 August 2017 In Supplementary Fig. 10 of this Article, images for panels a and b were inadvertently omitted. The correct version of Supplementary Fig. 10 is provided as Supplementary Information associated withthis Erratum.