A regionally coherent ecological fingerprint of climate change, evidenced from natural history collections.

Climate change has dramatic impacts on ecological systems, affecting a range of ecological factors including phenology, species abundance, diversity, and distribution. The breadth of climate change impacts on ecological systems leads to the occurrence of fingerprints of climate change. However, climate fingerprints are usually identified across broad geographical scales and are potentially influenced by publication biases. In this study, we used natural history collections spanning over 250 years, to quantify a range of ecological responses to climate change, including phenology, abundance, diversity, and distributions, across a range of taxa, including vertebrates, invertebrates, plants, and fungi, within a single region, Central Norway. We tested the hypotheses that ecological responses to climate change are apparent and coherent at a regional scale, that longer time series show stronger trends over time and in relation to temperature, and that ecological responses change in trajectory at the same time as shifts in temperature. We identified a clear regional coherence in climate signal, with decreasing abundances of limnic zooplankton (on average by 7691 individuals m-3 °C-1) and boreal forest breeding birds (on average by 1.94 territories km-2 °C-1), and earlier plant flowering phenology (on average 2 days °C-1) for every degree of temperature increase. In contrast, regional-scale species distributions and species diversity were largely stable. Surprisingly, the effect size of ecological response did not increase with study duration, and shifts in responses did not occur at the same time as shifts in temperature. This may be as the long-term studies include both periods of warming and temperature stability, and that ecological responses lag behind warming. Our findings demonstrate a regional climate fingerprint across a long timescale. We contend that natural history collections provide a unique window on a broad spectrum of ecological responses at timescales beyond most ecological monitoring programs. Natural history collections are thus an essential source for long-term ecological research.

Getting to the bottom of research funding: Acknowledging the complexity of funding dynamics.

Research funding is an important factor for public science. Funding may affect which research topics get addressed, and what research outputs are produced. However, funding has often been studied simplistically, using top-down or system-led perspectives. Such approaches often restrict analysis to confined national funding landscapes or single funding organizations and instruments in isolation. This overlooks interlinkages, broader funding researchers might access, and trends of growing funding complexity. This paper instead frames a 'bottom-up' approach that analytically distinguishes between increasing levels of aggregation of funding instrument co-use. Funding of research outputs is selected as one way to test this approach, with levels traced via funding acknowledgements (FAs) in papers published 2009-18 by researchers affiliated to Denmark, the Netherlands or Norway, in two test research fields (Food Science, Renewable Energy Research). Three funding aggregation levels are delineated: at the bottom, 'funding configurations' of funding instruments co-used by individual researchers (from single-authored papers with two or more FAs); a middle, 'funding amalgamations' level, of instruments co-used by collaborating researchers (from multi-authored papers with two or more FAs); and a 'co-funding network' of instruments co-used across all researchers active in a research field (all papers with two or more FAs). All three levels are found to include heterogenous funding co-use from inside and outside the test countries. There is also co-funding variety in terms of instrument 'type' (public, private, university or non-profit) and 'origin' (domestic, foreign or supranational). Limitations of the approach are noted, as well as its applicability for future analyses not using paper FAs to address finer details of research funding dynamics.

Developing a methodology to assess the impact of research grant funding: a mixed methods approach.

This paper discusses the development of a mixed methods approach to analyse research funding. Research policy has taken on an increasingly prominent role in the broader political scene, where research is seen as a critical factor in maintaining and improving growth, welfare and international competitiveness. This has motivated growing emphasis on the impacts of science funding, and how funding can best be designed to promote socio-economic progress. Meeting these demands for impact assessment involves a number of complex issues that are difficult to fully address in a single study or in the design of a single methodology. However, they point to some general principles that can be explored in methodological design. We draw on a recent evaluation of the impacts of research grant funding, discussing both key issues in developing a methodology for the analysis and subsequent results. The case of research grant funding, involving a complex mix of direct and intermediate effects that contribute to the overall impact of funding on research performance, illustrates the value of a mixed methods approach to provide a more robust and complete analysis of policy impacts. Reflections on the strengths and weaknesses of the methodology are used to examine refinements for future work.