Promoting inclusive metrics of success and impact to dismantle a discriminatory reward system in science.

Success and impact metrics in science are based on a system that perpetuates sexist and racist "rewards" by prioritizing citations and impact factors. These metrics are flawed and biased against already marginalized groups and fail to accurately capture the breadth of individuals' meaningful scientific impacts. We advocate shifting this outdated value system to advance science through principles of justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion. We outline pathways for a paradigm shift in scientific values based on multidimensional mentorship and promoting mentee well-being. These actions will require collective efforts supported by academic leaders and administrators to drive essential systemic change.

Shifting headlines? Size trends of newsworthy fishes.

The shifting baseline syndrome describes a gradual lowering of human cognitive baselines, as each generation accepts a lower standard of resource abundance or size as the new norm. There is strong empirical evidence of declining trends of abundance and body sizes of marine fish species reported from docks and markets. We asked whether these widespread trends in shrinking marine fish are detectable in popular English-language media, or whether news writers, like many marine stakeholders, are captive to shifting baselines. We collected 266 English-language news articles, printed between 1869 and 2015, which featured headlines that used a superlative adjective, such as 'giant', 'huge', or 'monster', to describe an individual fish caught. We combined the reported sizes of the captured fish with information on maximum species-specific recorded sizes to reconstruct trends of relative size (reported size divided by maximum size) of newsworthy fishes over time. We found some evidence of a shifting baseline syndrome in news media over the last 140 years: overall, the relative length of the largest fish worthy of a headline has declined over time. This pattern held for charismatic fish species (e.g. basking sharks, whale sharks, giant mantas), which are now reported in the media at smaller relative lengths than they were near the turn of the 20th century, and for the largest species under high risk of extinction. In contrast, there was no similar trend for pelagic gamefish and oceanic sharks, or for species under lower risk of extinction. While landing any individual of the large-bodied 'megafish' may be newsworthy in part because of their large size relative to other fish species, the 'megafish' covered in our dataset were small relative to their own species-on average only 56% of the species-specific maximum length. The continued use in the English-language media of superlatives to describe fish that are now a fraction of the maximum size they could reach, or a fraction of the size they used to be, does reflect a shifting baseline for some species. Given that media outlets are a powerful tool for shaping public perception and awareness of environmental issues, there is a real concern that such stories might be interpreted as meaning that superlatively large fish still abound.

Multiple drivers of contrasting diversity-invasibility relationships at fine spatial grains.

The diversity-invasibility hypothesis and ecological theory predict that high-diversity communities should be less easily invaded than species-poor communities, but empirical evidence does not consistently support this prediction. While fine-scale experiments tend to yield the predicted negative association between diversity and invasibility, broad-scale observational surveys generally report a positive correlation. This conflicting pattern between experiments and observational studies is referred to as the invasion paradox and is thought to arise because different processes control species composition at different spatial scales. Here, we test empirically the extent to which the strength and direction of published diversity-invasibility relationships depend on spatial scale and on the metrics used to measure invasibility. Using a meta-analytic framework, we explicitly separate the two components of spatial scale: grain and extent, by focusing on fine-grain studies that vary in extent. We find evidence of multiple drivers of the paradox. When we consider only fine-grain studies, we still observe conflicting patterns between experiments and observational studies. In contrast, when we examine studies that are conducted at both a fine grain and fine extent, there is broad overlap in effect sizes between experiments and observation, suggesting that comparing studies with similar extents resolves the paradox at local scales. However, we uncover systematic differences in the metrics used to measure invasibility between experiments, which use predominantly invader performance, and observational studies, which use mainly invader richness. When we consider studies with the same metric (i.e., invader performance), the contrasting associations between study types also disappear. It is not possible, at present, to fully disentangle the effect of spatial extent and metric on the paradox because both variables are systematically associated in different directions with study type. There is therefore an urgent need to conduct experiments and observational studies that incorporate the full range of variability in spatial extent and invasibility metric.

What doesn't kill you makes you wary? Effect of repeated culling on the behaviour of an invasive predator.

As a result of being hunted, animals often alter their behaviour in ways that make future encounters with predators less likely. When hunting is carried out for conservation, for example to control invasive species, these behavioural changes can inadvertently impede the success of future efforts. We examined the effects of repeated culling by spearing on the behaviour of invasive predatory lionfish (Pterois volitans/miles) on Bahamian coral reef patches. We compared the extent of concealment and activity levels of lionfish at dawn and midday on 16 coral reef patches off Eleuthera, The Bahamas. Eight of the patches had been subjected to regular daytime removals of lionfish by spearing for two years. We also estimated the distance at which lionfish became alert to slowly approaching divers on culled and unculled reef patches. Lionfish on culled reefs were less active and hid deeper within the reef during the day than lionfish on patches where no culling had occurred. There were no differences at dawn when removals do not take place. Lionfish on culled reefs also adopted an alert posture at a greater distance from divers than lionfish on unculled reefs. More crepuscular activity likely leads to greater encounter rates by lionfish with more native fish species because the abundance of reef fish outside of shelters typically peaks at dawn and dusk. Hiding deeper within the reef could also make remaining lionfish less likely to be encountered and more difficult to catch by spearfishers during culling efforts. Shifts in the behaviour of hunted invasive animals might be common and they have implications both for the impact of invasive species and for the design and success of invasive control programs.