Search

Biology as a field has transformed since the time of its foundation from an organized enterprise cataloging the diversity of the natural world to a quantitatively rigorous science seeking to answer complex questions about the functions of organisms and their interactions with each other and their environments. As the mathematical rigor of biological analyses has improved, quantitative models have been developed to describe multi-mechanistic systems and to test complex hypotheses. However, applications of quantitative models have been uneven across fields, and many biologists lack the foundational training necessary to apply them in their research or to interpret their results to inform biological problem-solving efforts. This gap in scientific training has created a false dichotomy of "biologists" and "modelers" that only exacerbates the barriers to working biologists seeking additional training in quantitative modeling. Here, we make the argument that all biologists are modelers and are capable of using sophisticated quantitative modeling in their work. We highlight four benefits of conducting biological research within the framework of quantitative models, identify the potential producers and consumers of information produced by such models, and make recommendations for strategies to overcome barriers to their widespread implementation. Improved understanding of quantitative modeling could guide the producers of biological information to better apply biological measurements through analyses that evaluate mechanisms, and allow consumers of biological information to better judge the quality and applications of the information they receive. As our explanations of biological phenomena increase in complexity, so too must we embrace modeling as a foundational skill. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Natural resource managers sow grass, forb, and shrub seeds across millions of hectares of public lands in the western United States to restore sagebrush‐steppe ecosystems burned by wildfire. The effects of post‐fire vegetation treatments on insect communities in these ecosystems have not been investigated.We conducted the first investigation of insect community responses to post‐fire seeding on public rangelands by comparing the composition of insect communities at burned‐and‐seeded (treatment) and burned‐and‐unseeded (control) sagebrush‐steppe ecological sites in southwestern Idaho. Insect communities in burned areas were compared to unburned (reference) areas.Insect communities in burned plots did not resemble those in reference plots. Treatment plots had greater inter‐annual variability in insect community composition than control or reference plots, suggesting that communities may be less stable in seeded areas. The vegetation composition of the landscape surrounding plots influenced mobile species.Wildfire and post‐fire seeding may have lasting effects on insect communities in sagebrush‐steppe ecosystems. Wildfires decrease shrub cover. Post‐fire seeding increases perennial bunchgrasses and, where successful, reduces non‐native annual grasses. These habitat changes influence insect community composition. Future studies are needed to expand the inference of this study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Poor condition of many streams and concerns about future droughts in the arid and semi-arid western USA have motivated novel restoration strategies aimed at accelerating recovery and increasing water resources. Translocation of beavers into formerly occupied habitats, restoration activities encouraging beaver recolonization, and instream structures mimicking the effects of beaver dams are restoration alternatives that have recently gained popularity because of their potential socioeconomic and ecological benefits. However, beaver dams and dam-like structures also harbor a history of social conflict. Hence, we identified a need to assess the use of beaver-related restoration projects in western rangelands to increase awareness and accountability, and identify gaps in scientific knowledge. We inventoried 97 projects implemented by 32 organizations, most in the last 10 years. We found that beaver-related stream restoration projects undertaken mostly involved the relocation of nuisance beavers. The most common goal was to store water, either with beaver dams or artificial structures. Beavers were often moved without regard to genetics, disease, or potential conflicts with nearby landowners. Few projects included post-implementation monitoring or planned for longer term issues, such as what happens when beavers abandon a site or when beaver dams or structures breach. Human dimensions were rarely considered and water rights and other issues were mostly unresolved or addressed through ad-hoc agreements. We conclude that the practice and implementation of beaver-related restoration has outpaced research on its efficacy and best practices. Further scientific research is necessary, especially research that informs the establishment of clear guidelines for best practices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]