ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Body size and echolocation call frequencies are related in bats. However, it is unclear if this allometry applies to the entire clade. Differences have been suggested between nasal and oral emitting bats, as well as between some taxonomic families. Additionally, the scaling of other echolocation parameters, such as bandwidth and call duration, needs further testing. Moreover, it would be also interesting to test whether changes in body size have been coupled with changes in these echolocation parameters throughout bat evolution. Here, we test the scaling of peak frequency, bandwidth, and call duration with body mass using phylogenetically informed analyses for 314 bat species. We specifically tested whether all these scaling patterns differ between nasal and oral emitting bats. Then, we applied recently developed Bayesian statistical techniques based on large-scale simulations to test for the existence of correlated evolution between body mass and echolocation. RESULTS: Our results showed that echolocation peak frequencies, bandwidth, and duration follow significant allometric patterns in both nasal and oral emitting bats. Changes in these traits seem to have been coupled across the laryngeal echolocation bats diversification. Scaling and correlated evolution analyses revealed that body mass is more related to peak frequency and call duration than to bandwidth. We exposed two non-exclusive kinds of mechanisms to explain the link between size and each of the echolocation parameters. CONCLUSIONS: The incorporation of Bayesian statistics based on large-scale simulations could be helpful for answering macroevolutionary patterns related to the coevolution of traits in bats and other taxonomic groups.
Subject(s)
Chiroptera , Echolocation , Humans , Animals , Bayes Theorem , Body SizeABSTRACT
Biodiversity research is essential for addressing the global biodiversity crisis, necessitating diverse participation and perspectives. However, the field currently faces a significant inclusivity problem as local expertise from biodiversity-rich but economically disadvantaged regions is often underrepresented. The underrepresentation of local experts is driven by four main challenges: linguistic bias, undervalued contributions, parachute science practices, and capacity constraints. While fragmented solutions exist, a unified multi-stakeholder approach is necessary to address these interconnected and systemic issues. Here, we introduce a holistic framework of collective responsibility, integrating tailored strategies that embrace diversity and dismantle systemic barriers for equitable collaboration. This framework delineates the diverse actors and practices required for promoting inclusivity in biodiversity research, assigning clear responsibilities to researchers, publishers, institutions, and funding bodies. Strategies for researchers include cultivating self-awareness, expanding literature searches, fostering partnerships with local experts, and promoting knowledge exchange. For institutions, we recommend establishing specialized liaison roles, implementing equitable policies, allocating resources for diversity initiatives, and enhancing support for international researchers. Publishers can facilitate multilingual dissemination, remove financial barriers, establish inclusivity standards, and ensure equitable representation in peer review. Funders should remove systemic barriers, strengthen research networks, and prioritize equitable resource allocation. Implementing these stakeholder-specific strategies can help dismantle deep-rooted biases and structural inequities in biodiversity research, catalyzing a shift towards a more inclusive and representative model that amplifies diverse perspectives and maximizes collective knowledge for effective global conservation.
A pesquisa em biodiversidade é essencial para enfrentar a crise global de biodiversidade, exigindo perspectivas diversificadas. No entanto, este campo do conhecimento enfrenta um significativo problema de inclusão, uma vez que os conhecimentos ecológicos produzidos em áreas ricas em biodiversidade, mas economicamente desfavorecidas, são frequentemente sub-representados. Esta sub-representação é impulsionada por quatro desafios principais: viés linguístico, contribuições científicas subvalorizadas, colaborações baseadas em práticas colonialistas (parachute science) e lacunas na capacitação e no acesso a dados. Embora soluções fragmentadas existam, uma abordagem multilateral unificada é necessária para abordar estas questões sistêmicas. Aqui, introduzimos uma abordagem holística de responsabilidade coletiva, integrando estratégias personalizadas que abraçam a diversidade e desmantelam barreiras sistêmicas para uma colaboração equitativa. Esta abordagem delineia os diversos atores e práticas necessárias para promover a inclusão na pesquisa sobre biodiversidade, atribuindo responsabilidades claras a pesquisadores, editoras, instituições e órgãos de fomento. As estratégias para os investigadores incluem o cultivo da autoconsciência, a expansão das pesquisas bibliográficas, o fomento de parcerias com especialistas locais e a promoção do intercâmbio de conhecimentos. Para as instituições, recomendamos o estabelecimento de funções de intermediação especializadas, a implementação de políticas equitativas, a alocação de recursos para iniciativas de diversidade e o reforço do apoio a pesquisadores internacionais. As editoras podem facilitar a divulgação multilíngue, eliminar barreiras financeiras, estabelecer normas de inclusão e assegurar uma representação equitativa na avaliação pelos pares. Os financiadores devem eliminar barreiras sistêmicas, fortalecer redes de pesquisa e dar prioridade à distribuição equitativa de recursos. A implementação dessas estratégias específicas para as partes interessadas pode ajudar a desmantelar vieses profundamente enraizados e desigualdades estruturais na pesquisa de biodiversidade, catalisando uma mudança para um modelo mais inclusivo e representativo que amplifica perspectivas diversas e maximiza o conhecimento coletivo para uma eficaz conservação da biodiversidade global.
ABSTRACT
Biodiversity research is essential for addressing the global biodiversity crisis, necessitating diverse participation and perspectives. However, the field currently faces a significant inclusivity problem as local expertise from biodiversity-rich but economically disadvantaged regions is often underrepresented. The underrepresentation of local experts is driven by four main challenges: linguistic bias, undervalued contributions, parachute science practices, and capacity constraints. While fragmented solutions exist, a unified multi-stakeholder approach is necessary to address these interconnected and systemic issues. Here, we introduce a holistic framework of collective responsibility, integrating tailored strategies that embrace diversity and dismantle systemic barriers for equitable collaboration. This framework delineates the diverse actors and practices required for promoting inclusivity in biodiversity research, assigning clear responsibilities to researchers, publishers, institutions, and funding bodies. Strategies for researchers include cultivating self-awareness, expanding literature searches, fostering partnerships with local experts, and promoting knowledge exchange. For institutions, we recommend establishing specialized liaison roles, implementing equitable policies, allocating resources for diversity initiatives, and enhancing support for international researchers. Publishers can facilitate multilingual dissemination, remove financial barriers, establish inclusivity standards, and ensure equitable representation in peer review. Funders should remove systemic barriers, strengthen research networks, and prioritize equitable resource allocation. Implementing these stakeholder-specific strategies can help dismantle deep-rooted biases and structural inequities in biodiversity research, catalyzing a shift towards a more inclusive and representative model that amplifies diverse perspectives and maximizes collective knowledge for effective global conservation.
La investigación sobre la biodiversidad es esencial para hacer frente a la crisis mundial de la biodiversidad, lo cual requiere una participación y perspectivas diversas. Sin embargo, el estudio de la biodiversidad se enfrenta actualmente a un importante problema de inclusión, ya que los conocimientos locales de regiones altamente biodiversas, aunque económicamente desfavorecidas, suelen tener menor representación. La escasa representación de los expertos locales se debe a cuatro retos principales: el sesgo lingüístico, la subestimación de contribuciones, las prácticas científicas de paracaídas y las limitaciones de capacidad. Si bien existen soluciones fragmentadas, es necesario un enfoque unificado de múltiples partes interesadas para abordar estos problemas interconectados y sistémicos. Aquí, presentamos un marco holístico de responsabilidad colectiva, integrando estrategias personalizadas que abrazan la diversidad y desmantelan las barreras sistémicas para una colaboración equitativa. Este marco delinea los diversos actores y prácticas necesarias para promover la inclusión en la investigación sobre biodiversidad, asignando responsabilidades claras a investigadores, editores, instituciones y organismos de financiación. Las estrategias para los investigadores incluyen cultivar la autoconciencia, la ampliación de las búsquedas bibliográficas, el fomento de asociaciones con expertos locales y la promoción del intercambio de conocimientos. En el caso de las instituciones, recomendamos establecer funciones de colaboración especializadas, implementar políticas equitativas, asignar recursos para iniciativas de diversidad y mejorar el apoyo a los investigadores internacionales. Los editores pueden facilitar la difusión multilingüe, eliminar las barreras financieras, establecer normas de inclusión y garantizar una representación equitativa en la revisión por pares. Los financiadores deben eliminar las barreras sistémicas, fortalecer las redes de investigación y priorizar la asignación equitativa de recursos. La implementación de estas estrategias específicas para las partes interesadas puede ayudar a desmantelar los sesgos profundamente arraigados y las desigualdades estructurales en la investigación sobre biodiversidad, catalizando un cambio hacia un modelo más inclusivo y representativo que amplifique las diversas perspectivas y maximice el conocimiento colectivo para una conservación global efectiva.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Climate change is expected to have profound effects on the distribution of venomous snake species, including reductions in biodiversity and changes in patterns of envenomation of humans and domestic animals. We estimated the effect of future climate change on the distribution of venomous snake species and potential knock-on effects on biodiversity and public health. METHODS: We built species distribution models based on the geographical distribution of 209 medically relevant venomous snake species (WHO categories 1 and 2) and present climatic variables, and used these models to project the potential distribution of species in 2070. We incorporated different future climatic scenarios into the model, which we used to estimate the loss and gain of areas potentially suitable for each species. We also assessed which countries were likely to gain new species in the future as a result of species crossing national borders. We integrated the species distribution models with different socioeconomic scenarios to estimate which countries would become more vulnerable to snakebites in 2070. FINDINGS: Our results suggest that substantial losses of potentially suitable areas for the survival of most venomous snake species will occur by 2070. However, some species of high risk to public health could gain climatically suitable areas for habitation. Countries such as Niger, Namibia, China, Nepal, and Myanmar could potentially gain several venomous snake species from neighbouring countries. Furthermore, the combination of an increase in climatically suitable areas and socioeconomic factors (including low-income and high rural populations) means that southeast Asia and Africa (and countries including Uganda, Kenya, Bangladesh, India, and Thailand in particular) could have increased vulnerability to snakebites in the future, with potential effects on public human and veterinary health. INTERPRETATION: Loss of venomous snake biodiversity in low-income countries will affect ecosystem functioning and result in the loss of valuable genetic resources. Additionally, climate change will create new challenges to public health in several low-income countries, particularly in southeast Asia and Africa. The international community needs to increase its efforts to counter the effects of climate change in the coming decades. FUNDING: German Research Foundation, Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico, Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior, German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research, Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación de España, European Regional Development Fund.
Subject(s)
Snake Bites , Animals , Humans , Snake Bites/epidemiology , Venomous Snakes , Climate Change , Ecosystem , Public Health , Biodiversity , KenyaABSTRACT
The climatic changes of the next decades will modify human and livestock interactions with venomous animals; Some venomous species will disappear in the coming decades; Other venomous species will shift their distributions or increase their geographic ranges invading new countries that may not have specific antivenoms.
Subject(s)
Antivenins , Venoms , AnimalsABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To identify areas that present a higher risk of exposure to accidents with scorpions in Brazil. METHODS: We used techniques of spatial prioritisation to determine the most vulnerable localities to envenomation by four scorpion species. Our prioritisation integrated ecological niche models with health investment, antivenin availability, access to health care facilities and metrics of human impact data. RESULTS: The ecological niche models indicated that three scorpion species (Tityus bahiensis, Tityus serrulatus, and Tityus stigmurus) are more associated with human population density, while T. obscurus demonstrated a strong association with temperature variations during the year. Spatial prioritisation indicated that the areas with higher risk exposure to accidents with scorpions are in northern and northeastern Brazil. Alternatively, more isolated but densely populated areas in the southeastern and central regions also emerged as a priority. CONCLUSION: Mapping areas where humans are more likely to interact with scorpions can assist in the design of efficient public health policies.
