2010 ISI Impact Factors out now (with some surprises)

29 06 2011

It’s been another year of citations and now the latest list of ISI Impact Factors (2010) has come out. Regardless of how much stock you put in these (see here for a damning review), you cannot ignore their influence on publishing trends and author journal choices.

As I’ve done for 2008 and 2009, I’ve taken the liberty of providing the new IFs for some prominent conservation and ecology journals, and a few other journals occasionally publishing conservation-related material.

One particular journal deserves special attention here. Many of you might know that I was Senior Editor with Conservation Letters from 2008-2010, and I (with other editorial staff) made some predictions about where the journal’s first impact factor might be on the scale (see also here). Well, I have to say the result exceeded my expectations (although Hugh Possingham was closer to the truth in the end – bugger!). So the journal’s first 2010 impact factor (for which I take a modicum of credit ;-) is a whopping… 4.694 (3rd among all ‘conservation’ journals). Well done to all and sundry who have edited and published in the journal. My best wishes to the team that has to deal with the inevitable rush of submissions this will likely bring!

So here are the rest of the 2010 Impact Factors with the 2009 values for comparison: Read the rest of this entry »





Reforesting wealthy countries for the common good

29 06 2011

The Coalition of Financially Challenged Countries with Lots of Trees, known as ‘CoFCCLoT’, representing most of the world’s remaining tropical forests, is asking wealthy nations to share global responsibilities and reforest their land for the common good of stabilizing climate and protecting biodiversity.

“We are willing to play our part, but we require a level playing field in which we all commit to equal sacrifices,” a coalition spokeswoman says. “Returning forest cover in the G8 countries and the European Union back to historic coverage will benefit all of us in the long-term.”

Seventy-five per cent of Europe was once forested. Now it is 45 per cent. Some countries such as Ireland saw forest cover reduced to near zero. Most forest cover in the developed world is now often planted with stands of alien trees, turning them into deserts for biodiversity. Remaining natural forests are often highly fragmented and have few native species. Read the rest of this entry »





Time to cough up for Navjot

27 06 2011

© N. Kantonicolas

You’d have to have been living under a rock for the last two weeks not to know that our esteemed colleague, great mate and all-round poker-in-the-eyes-of-convention, Professor Navjot Sodhi, died tragically on 12 June 2011 of lymphoma. but just in case you were under a rock, you can read about it here.

In the weeks that have elapsed, several amazing things have happened – despite Navjot being a complete bastard (note: I use this term in the Australian parlance meaning ‘one who could hold his own, who could detect bullshit at 100 m, who was a wonderful mate, and an even more terrible enemy’ – in essence, the highest compliment and expression of platonic love a man can give to another), his army of students, colleagues, admirers and distant relatives have flown into action to make damn sure he is not forgotten.

First, the outpouring of grief and accolades in the blogosphere hit a pick the week following his death (see here, here and here for examples). There was even a Facebook tribute page established within days. It just so happened too that he died during the Association for Tropical Biology and Conservation‘s annual meeting in Arusha, Tanzania (and with whom Navjot was a council member). I have heard from the likes of Bill Laurance, Luke Gibson, Nigel Stork and others that the meeting ended up essentially being in honour of Navjot once everyone heard the dreadful news. Read the rest of this entry »





The rarity paradox

22 06 2011

© C. Madden

My friend and colleague at the Centre National de Recherche Scientfique (CNRS), Laboratoire d’Ecologie Systématique & Evolution based at the Université Paris-Sud in France, Dr. Franck ‘Allee EffectCourchamp, has asked me to help him out finding a suitable candidate for what sounds like a very cool job. If you’re in the market for a very interesting and highly relevant conservation post-doctoral fellowship, please read on.

And even if you’re not looking for a position, but are interested in the anthropogenic Allee effect, then by all means, please read on as well.

This two-year fellowship is part of a grant focused on demonstrating the novel rarity paradox, either in new wildlife trade markets (i.e., exotic pets, traditional medicine, et cetera) or in newly exploited species (e.g., tibetan antilope, seahorses, et cetera). Read the rest of this entry »





The few, the loud and the factually challenged

18 06 2011

© The Guardian

Here’s a little paraphrased response I received from a colleague who works for a particular agency concerned about the ridiculous politicking and misinformation associated with marine parks proposed for South Australia.

I’ve posted several times before why marine parks are a win for all involved, from the biodiversity it is meant to protect, to the fishers who benefit from the free, public-good resource that they assist in maintaining (see here, here and here). The evidence is clear world-wide: marine parks benefit pretty much everything and everyone.

However, just like the climate change denalists who use every psychological tactic in the book to try to convince people that climate change is a belief when in fact, it is a soundly evidenced phenomenon, there are those Luddites who think that any change in the marine setting fundamentally threatens their way of life.

Here’s what my colleague had to say about some recent ill-informed comments on this blog:

I wondered when they would find your blog. In my experience, do not engage. A game of intimidation has started. Read the rest of this entry »





Navjot Sodhi is gone, but not forgotten

13 06 2011

I woke up this morning to a battery of emails expressing condolences on the tragic passing of Navjot Sodhi. I have to say that his death is personally a huge blow, and professionally, a tragic loss to the fields of ecology and conservation biology. He was a good friend, and a bloke with whom I had some great times. He was someone I could trust.

Many of you will know that Navjot had been ill for the last few months. I was told that at first it was something unidentifiable, then it was suspected diabetes, then the shock – some sort of ‘blood cancer’. I found out today it was one of the worst and most aggressive kinds of lymphoma that shuffled dear Navjot off this mortal coil. And it acted fast.

As I reflect on this moment, I remember all the times I spent with Navjot. I first met him in 1992 in the most unlikely of places – Edmonton, Canada at the University of Alberta where I was doing my MSc, and he his post-doc with Sue Hannon. Many years later, Navjot confessed that he thought I was a complete knob when he first met me, and that’s something we’ve laughed about on many occasions thereafter. Read the rest of this entry »





Know thy threat

9 06 2011

Here’s another great guest post by Megan Evans of UQ – her previous post on resolving the environmentalist’s paradox was a real hit, so I hope you enjoy this one too.

The reasons for the decline of Australia’s unique biodiversity are many, and most are well known. Clearing of vegetation for urban and agricultural land uses, introduced species and changed fire patterns are regularly cited in State of the Environment reports, recovery plans and published studies as major threats to biodiversity. But, while these threats are widely acknowledged, little has been done to quantify them in terms of the proportion of species affected, or their spatial extent at a national, state or local scale. To understand why such information on threats may be useful, consider for instance how resources are allocated in public health care1.

Threat knowledge

Conditions such as cancer, heart disease and mental health are regarded as National Health Priority Areas in Australia, and have been given special attention when prioritising funds since the late 1980s. The burden of disease in these priority areas are quantified according to the incidence or prevalence of disease or condition, and its social and economic costs. Estimates of burden of disease and their geographic distribution (often according to local government areas) can assist in communicating broad trends in disease burden, but also in prioritising efforts to achieve the best outcomes for public health. An approach similar to that used in healthcare could help to identify priorities for biodiversity conservation – using information on the species which are impacted by key threats, the spatial distributions of species and threats, and the costs of implementing specific management actions to address these threats. Read the rest of this entry »