Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology
Terrestrial ecologists ignore aquatic literature: Asymmetry in citation breadth in ecological publications and implications for generality and progress in ecology☆
Introduction
A prime motivation in research is to ask if one's results are applicable to systems beyond the one of focus. Given the immense diversity of ecological systems, answering this question is key to advancing our understanding of community and ecosystem functioning. In community and ecosystem ecology, however, the search for generality often seems hindered by a relative lack of awareness of progress in other systems. For example, several authors have commented on the gap in communication between scientists working in aquatic and terrestrial habitats (e.g., Steele, 1991, Chase, 2000, Stergiou and Browman, 2005a, Richardson and Poloczanska, 2008). In some respects, this terrestrial vs. aquatic “controversy” is based on real and important contrasts. Terrestrial and aquatic environments are inherently different, as reflected in several aspects of the ecology of the communities and organisms within them (Carr et al., 2003). However, most fundamental ecological processes are shared among systems. Further, contrary to the opinions of some (e.g., Richardson and Poloczanska, 2008), much of our conceptual framework applies across all systems with ideas flowing in both directions between aquatic and terrestrial arenas (e.g., Halley, 2005, Paine, 2005, Raffaelli et al., 2005).
But what is generality, exactly? As implied by the above-cited controversy, is it the extent to which results in one habitat apply to systems in other habitats? That is, do outcomes obtained in a study conducted in a terrestrial environment contribute to inductively reasoned inferences about the dynamics of systems occurring in the other major habitat types, marine or freshwater? We define this as “habitat” generality. Or is generality more theoretical, in which model results apply to a broad range of populations, communities or ecosystems? “Theoretical” generality was one of a triumvirate of characteristics (generality, precision, and realism) identified decades ago by Levins (1966) as a tradeoff that constrained the effects of model builders, with the asserted limitation that particular types of models (analytical, simulations) could satisfy two but not all three of these traits. Generality could also be “geographic,” such that results obtained in a particular type of ecosystem in one geographic region apply to the same type of ecosystems located in different geographic regions. Another possible form of generality is conceptual, in which ecological concepts such as top-down, bottom-up, trophic cascade, positive interactions and intermediate disturbance provide a deductive framework for investigating patterns and processes that may operate across broad suites of individual systems (e.g., Chase, 2000).
Here we focus on generality as reflected in citation patterns of terrestrial, marine and freshwater papers in publications categorized into these three groups. Our interest in examining habitat generality was prompted by personal experience and comments of colleagues (see e.g., Underwood, 2005) that reviewers often criticized submissions of marine ecological papers to general journals as not being of sufficiently broad interest; they were “too marine.” The usual guidance was to demonstrate that results were of interest to a non-marine audience, usually understood as terrestrial.
Such comments made us wonder if non-marine authors received similar criticisms. In lieu of directly surveying authors, a difficult and relatively subjective method, we approached this question through a literature survey. Assuming that the extent of comparison of one's results would be reflected in the frequency of citations of papers from other systems, and using papers sampled from general ecological journals, we estimated the proportions of marine, freshwater, and terrestrial citations in marine, freshwater and terrestrial publications in community and ecosystem ecology. To assess the publication scenario against which these citation frequencies occur, we also summarized the frequencies of all terrestrial, marine, freshwater papers in each journal. Of course, one would expect that, correcting for citations that may largely be independent of habitat (methodological, conceptual/theoretical, reviews/books, and theses, collectively termed “other”), most citations in a terrestrial (or marine or freshwater) paper, for example, will be terrestrial (or marine or freshwater). But if all authors are being urged to emphasize generality or breadth independently of habitat, then the proportion of citations of papers from habitats other than the subject of the paper should be similar regardless of whether the paper was terrestrial, marine or freshwater.
Section snippets
Methods
We surveyed ten general ecological journals having the highest impact factors in which community and ecosystem ecology papers were frequently published. Our primary measure of impact was the ISI Impact factor index (http://www.isiwebofknowledge.com), averaged over 2003–2007 (Table 1). For comparison we also show a second measure, the eigenfactor index (Table 1; http://www.eigenfactor.org). Journals that specialize in reviews, applied papers, discussion, perspectives, ideas, and current events
Results
Overall we analyzed citation statistics for 793 papers, 55% (440) of which were terrestrial, 21% (165) freshwater and 22% (177) marine (Table 2). Similar proportions were sampled for the past vs. recent analysis (58%, 20%, and 22% from 2002–2006 vs. 51%, 24% and 25%, respectively, from 1980–1985). By journal, numbers ranged from 65 (Ecological Monographs) to 105 (Ecology Letters) (Table 2). Similar numbers of freshwater and marine papers were analyzed within each journal except for American
Discussion
Both null hypotheses were rejected. Terrestrial ecologists do not cite aquatic papers as often as aquatic ecologists cite terrestrial papers. Citation patterns were highly asymmetric, with aquatic community ecologists citing terrestrial papers almost an order of magnitude more often than terrestrial ecologists cited aquatic papers. Citation frequencies by habitat varied somewhat among the seven general ecological journals, but the general patterns of citation frequencies were similar among the
Acknowledgements
We thank many colleagues for helpful comments, including Carol Blanchette, Elizabeth Borer, Jennifer Burnaford, Heather Leslie, David Lytle, Duncan Menge, Sergio Navarrete, Laura Petes, Pete Raimondi, Eric Sanford, David Schiel, and Sandra Shumway. Communications with John Bruno, Emmett Duffy, Steve Gaines, Pete Raimondi and Jay Stachowicz were influential in spurring our pursuit of the question of citation asymmetry. This is publication number 325 from PISCO, the Partnership for
References (31)
Are there real differences among aquatic and terrestrial food webs?
Trends Ecol. Evol.
(2000)Metapopulation dynamics: does it help to have more of the same?
Trends Ecol. Evol.
(1989)Can ecological theory cross the land-sea boundary?
J. Theor. Biol.
(1991)- et al.
What determines the strength of a trophic cascade?
Ecology
(2005) - et al.
Nutrient cycling
Science
(1967) - et al.
Comparing marine and terrestrial ecosystems: implications for the design of coastal marine reserves
Ecol. Appl.
(2003) - et al.
Cascading trophic interactions and lake productivity
Bioscience
(1985) An Analysis of the Development of Vegetation
(1916)The influence of interspecific competition and other factors on the distribution of the barnacle Chthamalus stellatus
Ecology
(1961)Effects of competition, predation by Thais lapillus, and other factors on natural populations of the barnacle Balanus balanoides
Ecol. Monogr.
(1961)
The physiographic ecology of Chicago and vicinity: a study of the origin, development and classification of plant societies (concluded)
Bot. Gaz.
The structure and development of the plant association
Bull. Torrey Bot. Club
Comparing aquatic and terrestrial variability: at what scale do ecologists communicate?
Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser.
Homage to Santa Rosalia, or why are there so many kinds of animals?
Am. Nat.
The strategy of model building in population biology
Am. Sci.
Cited by (47)
Long-term trends and drivers of biological invasion in Central European streams
2023, Science of the Total EnvironmentNovel physiological data needed for progress in global change ecology
2023, Basic and Applied EcologyBiological invasion costs reveal insufficient proactive management worldwide
2022, Science of the Total EnvironmentEconomic costs of biological invasions in the United States
2022, Science of the Total EnvironmentGlobal economic costs of aquatic invasive alien species
2021, Science of the Total EnvironmentDo drivers of biodiversity change differ in importance across marine and terrestrial systems — Or is it just different research communities' perspectives?
2017, Science of the Total EnvironmentCitation Excerpt :Nevertheless, mainstream ecology is dominated by terrestrial research (Raffaelli et al., 2005), joint studies are rare (Rotjan and Idjadi, 2013) and different research communities have developed (Stergiou and Browman, 2005). Marine and terrestrial ecologists even tend to ignore each other's work, with especially terrestrial ecologists hardly citing marine research (Menge et al., 2009). Marine and terrestrial ecosystems however, are not disconnected but they are linked with each other, and some functional principles may be similar.
- ☆
Editor's Note: This paper represents the complete version of a manuscript that was shortened and published as a “peer-reviewed” letter to the editor in Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment (2009, Vol 7:182–183). Having read and commented upon the original version, this Editor noted that key pieces had been deleted in the shorter version and encouraged the authors to submit the manuscript in its original form to JEMBE. The issues discussed are important and pertinent to all ecological research, be it marine, aquatic or terrestrial. S.E. Shumway.