Search

As coastal urbanization increases globally, the subsequent effects on marine animals, especially endangered species, inhabiting nearshore waters have become a research priority. The smalltooth sawfish Pristis pectinata, once abundant in US waters, now only persists in a few parts of its former range, including South Florida. Many areas utilized by smalltooth sawfish are estuarine systems or other shallow coastal habitats, making this species particularly vulnerable to threats associated with coastal development. To date, P. pectinata has been understudied in the waters in and around Biscayne Bay, Florida, a coastal waterway subjected to the urbanization of adjacent Miami-Dade County. Here, we summarize data from reported smalltooth sawfish encounters dating as far back as 1895 (N = 90) and detail opportune recordings (incidental catches, acoustic detections, and baited remote underwater videos) of sub-adults and adults (N = 14 individuals) in Biscayne Bay and the adjacent reef tract. These data demonstrate historical and increased contemporary use of the study area by this imperiled species, suggesting potential local and regional recovery. Most documented sawfish occurrences were near the urban center, indicating a need to understand the effects of coastal urbanization on sawfish and on the species' recovery potential. We suggest priorities for future research on P. pectinata in the study area that will assist in addressing regional management goals and contribute to understanding the ecology of smalltooth sawfish under environmental change.

Scholarly peer review relies on rigorous yet fair assessments of articles by qualified referees in a timely manner. We considered the extent to which a prolonged peer-review process can delay the dissemination of results in a conservation context by combining insight from a survey with our own perspectives. A survey of authors who published peer-reviewed articles in biodiversity and conservation in 2012 and 2013 yielded 461 responses from participants in 119 countries. Approximately 44% of respondents thought that slow review times might hamper conservation, while only ~5% provided specific examples of how slow reviews had actually impeded conservation actions or policy formation. When queried about the value of expediting the review process for studies of high policy or conservation relevance, ca. 1/3 of respondents thought it was a worthwhile idea in principle, though mechanics of implementing such practices are unclear. Author self-identification of potentially important papers could lead to requesting a rapid review provided that a paper meets certain criteriaóan approach already used by some generalist journals. Given the urgency of many conservation-oriented initiatives, we encourage the entire editorial team (staff, editors, referees, authors) to make a concerted effort towards improving the speed of the peer-review process while maintaining quality. Such efforts would reflect the notion that timeliness is a key component of scientific relevance to practitioners and policy makers in a crisis discipline. We conclude that there is a ëneed for speedí and advocate that rapid, rigorous and thorough peer review can be accomplished and can provide collective benefits to the scientific community and global biodiversity.