Search

A growing body of empirical evidence shows that experiences of nature provide people with diverse psychological benefits, including improved cognitive function and mental health. While our understanding of the proximate causes of these positive psychological responses of humans to nature has advanced, the ultimate (evolutionary) drivers behind them remain poorly understood.In this study, we provide a summary of several widely accepted evolutionary hypotheses originating from Biophilia, reviewing their challenges and limitations. Subsequently, we propose a new evolutionary psychological hypothesis—the greenery hypothesis—that integrates recent findings in evolutionary psychiatry with many experimental results unexplained by existing hypotheses/theories.Our proposed hypothesis states that humans have adapted to periodic severe drought and re‐watering cycles by developing both negative and positive psychological responses to the absence or presence of greenery within the landscape as cues to optimise their own behavioural activity.The greenery hypothesis holds the potential to yield several insights into the fundamental understanding of human psychological responses to nature exposure with significant implications for various related fields, including psychiatry, urban planning, and biodiversity conservation and restoration. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of People & Nature is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The overabundance of large herbivores can have detrimental effects on the local environment due to overgrazing. Culling is a common management practice implemented globally that can effectively control herbivore populations and allow vegetation communities to recover. However, the broader indirect effects of culling large herbivores remain relatively unknown, particularly on insect species such as ground-dwelling beetles that perform key ecosystem processes such as decomposition. Here we undertook a preliminary investigation to determine how culling sika deer on an island in North Japan impacted ground-beetle community dynamics. We conducted pitfall trapping in July and September in 2012 (before culling) and again in 2019 (after culling). We compared beetle abundance and community composition within 4 beetle families (Carabidae, Scarabaeidae, Geotrupidae, and Silphidae), across seasons and culling treatments. We found each family responded differently to deer culling. Scarabaeidae displayed the greatest decline in abundance after culling. Silphidae also had reduced abundance but to a lesser extent compared to Scarabaeidae. Carabidae had both higher and lower abundance after culling, depending on the season. We found beetle community composition differed between culling and season, but seasonal variability was reduced after culling. Overall, the culling of large herbivores resulted in a reduction of ground-dwelling beetle populations, particularly necrophagous species dependent on dung and carrion for survival. Our preliminary research highlights the need for long-term and large-scale experiments to understand the indirect ecological implications of culling programs on ecosystem processes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of People & Nature is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)