English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Invasion biology is well-positioned epistemologically, theoretically and practically to address the challenge of being both scientifically and socially relevant. Yet, how well are we achieving these two dimensions of academic inquiry and impact? We explored this issue by a) surveying Argentine invasion biology practitioners (students, scientists and managers) to determine the types of collaborations they report and their stated preferences regarding research thematic priorities (autecology, impacts, management, patterns/distribution, presence/absence, processes/mechanisms, policy, social), and b) reviewing the invasion biology literature in Argentine Patagonia to establish research productivity, the publications’ taxonomic, methodological (review, inventory, sampling, experimental, modeling) and thematic foci, and the journals, languages and accessibility of publications. Finally, we compared the stated preferences (“expected frequency”) with the publication literature review (“observed frequency”). We found all three respondent groups had a similar research prioritization. Management, policy and impact studies were considered the most important themes. Research on invasion biology has increased substantially but only 20% of respondents reported joint publications between managers and scientists. Also, we found biases towards impact research and sampling methods. Compared to the total invasive species assemblage, only a few species and taxonomic groups are well studied in Patagonia (e.g., salmonids, deer and Castor canadensis and Undaria pinnatifida). A significant difference was discovered between what invasive species researchers say is important and what they actually study. Impact research was overrepresented in the literature, while social, policy and management studies were under-produced, compared to stated preferences. Various scenarios could explain this discrepancy. A time lag may exist, whereby the reviewed publications reflect an antiquated mentality focused on the invasive species’ autecology and impacts. A more troubling possibility is that Patagonia lacks scientific evaluation and funding structures that allow researchers to fulfill their own (and society’s) priorities and to conduct applied and socially relevant endeavors, rather than purely theoretical studies. [

Do what I say, not what I do. Are we linking research and decision-making about invasive species in Patagonia?