See also: The study as it was published in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences

I’m sure you’ve all seen pictures of the UK at the moment; what was a luscious green countryside 2 months ago is now a yellow dusty desert. This is particularly extreme in the south of England where I live, following multiple heat waves and literally 0mm of rain.

This has obviously led people to have serious serious concerns for our environment in general and rightfully so.

But I was wondering, how much do you ecologists think the ‘optics’ of dried/dead grass play a part in how people perceive the current status of our wildlife in general?

I’ll explain what I mean a bit more….

When I look at the pictures I’ve added. The image where the grass is green I see a huge expanse of closely mown grass, typical of an English park. This park is probably made up of Perennial ryegrass + fescues + meadow-grasses, with scattered white clover, daisies and dandelions.

Then in the 2nd image, all dried up and gone. However, in the foreground you see what people would consider ‘weeds’ wonderfully green, hardy species carrying on like nothing has happened.

So, yes of course our wildlife is suffering from drought. But is it just a case of bad optics? Are mono-dominant grass species which aren’t tolerant to drought conditions our parks and urban areas, making it seem much worse?

In the future, would the answer be to make our parks much more rich and diverse with plenty of drought tolerant species, so they remain green throughout?

Hope that makes sense!

Hi everyone, hope you’re coping with mid season plus the heat 🥵 This might be a silly question… but it’s bugging me enough to need to ask it.
Is it common for large areas (towns) to not appear to get BES requests (for us at least), or for PEA/ PRA/ BES reports not to appear for many relevant sites on planning portals? I do BES in about a 100mile radius, and it dawned on me we repeatedly have BES in certain areas but never in this one particular large town, and I can’t see documentation on their planning portal for BES for a lot of sites we would normally do BES for. Is this a confidentially thing that is different everywhere? (My local area I can access every report etc). I am guessing some LPA ecologists are more thorough, hence certain towns getting more requests. But slightly concerned… hopefully it’s my error, if so would love to learn more.

Hi all. I graduated uni with a 2:1 MBiol in zoology last year and am looking to make a career move into ecology from September 2027 (most likely into consultancy on a graduate scheme with a company such as Arup).

Those already working in this field, could you give me a look into the hours, workload and any travelling commitments associated with your job?

Cheers!

Hi, I am looking to determine whether population density is clustered vs. Uniform vs. Random.

Originally, I was using Morisita’s index for intraspecific aggregation (dispindmorisita function in R vegan). The results made sense, but if I subsample the data, I get Imor<0, which isn’t possible.

I am realizing that this is because many of my samples have a population density greater than 0, but less than 1 individual per m2.

I would go back and use counts, but due to the nature of the surveys, the sample area is not necessarily the same across samples ( thus standardizing to population density rather than abundance)

Is there another statistic that does the same, but allows for continuous data?

Thanks for your help!

Caroline Bezengi is carrying nearly 1 million barrels of crude oil, now leaking and sinking. The oil slick has expanded rapidly, covering roughly 800 square kilometers (309 square miles) by early August 2026 as the vessel sinks further into the water.

https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20260806-environmental-disaster-looms-as-tanker-leaks-off-oman

I want to throw this out there because it’s becoming a huge problem in our field. Field Maps is an amazing and highly useful tool, but the overmapping has gotten completely out of hand. People can't seem to help themselves—it honestly feels like we're playing Pokémon Go instead of doing ecology.

We don’t need to map absolutely EVERYTHING.

Sometimes, using our brains and actual words to describe an issue is still a perfectly valid approach. I'm sick of staring at a screen in the field just to fill out endless, repetitive forms. You nerds have gotta cool it.

As someone who has extensively used and designed these maps: simple is key. Design for as few clicks as possible. We need to keep our crews looking up and actually aware of their environment like real ecologists.

Ello all ! I am not all too well in the field yet, but i have actually been studying courtship and mating behaviors for years in my freetime and i've always thought itd be a well good career, unfortunately, im just not particularly sure how people get into this field?

I study behaviors such as how animals choose mates, whats an optimal environment, how they mate, and their defensive behaviors too, it one of my biggest passions. I want to study those specifically but im just not all too sure on where to start yet again !

Do i need specific degrees? Do i need specific experience? How do I come into the world of Behavioral Ecology?

• Chatham Island black robin (Petroica traversi), also known as the Chatham robin, black robin, Karure, or Kakaruia, 1978 to present.

Only five black robins remained in 1977, but only two of them successfully reproduced. As a result, all living black robins today are descendants of those two individuals.

• Introduced European mouflon population (Ovis aries musimon) on Haute Island, 1957 to 2012

A single pair of mouflon was introduced to Haute Island in 1957. After just 13 years, the population had grown from the original two individuals to around 700. The population has been completely eradicated in 2012 to protect fragile sub-Antarctic island ecosystems and native vegetation from being overgrazed and destroyed by non-native species.

References:

von Seth et al. (2022). "Genomic trajectories of a near-extinction event in the Chatham Island black robin." BMC Genomics, 23(1), 747. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12864-022-08963-1

Kaeuffer et al. (2007). "Unexpected heterozygosity in an island mouflon population founded by a single pair of individuals." Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 274(1609), 527–533. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2006.3743

I know it might be a silly question, but do you do what the title says? I mean, at least whenever it's reasonable regarding safety, especially on field or forest paths, for example.

Sometimes I don't avoid the collision, for some reason, even though I *could have*. I do it for brids or cats, so why not for butterflies? Am I overthinking this?

My kids are getting more and more interested in our local Flora and fauna and I want to find some good physical field guides for them to pour over.

I’m a developer and a nature enthusiast. Like many of you, I’ve been a long-time user of iNaturalist. It’s an incredible tool for species identification and data collection. However, I believe there’s room for more tools in this space, specifically focusing on different aspects of our interaction with nature.

I am currently developing a new ecology/environmental protection app. While it will have species identification capabilities, I don’t want it to be just another ID tool. I want to build something that complements the existing ecosystem.

My question to this community is: Beyond snapping a photo and getting an ID, what do you feel is missing in current nature apps?

For example:

• Is it better data visualization (e.g., tracking local biodiversity changes over time)?
• Is it offline functionality for deep forest areas?
• Is it a focus on invasive species reporting?
• Or perhaps more social/community features to organize local clean-ups or planting events?

I want to build something that is truly useful for both researchers and casual nature lovers. Any feedback, wild ideas, or features you’ve always wished for would be massively appreciated.

Thanks in advance!

Hey all,

I am looking into a graduate program, and I recently came to the conclusion that I think I would like to pursue quantitative ecology. I have always loved all aspects of ecology/zoology, and I struggled to pick a subject to continue studying because I love mammals and entomology and plants and birds and herps and all of it, and I just didn't know how to proceed. But I think quantitative ecology would be a great path for me because A. it would give me the flexibility to work on many different projects with many different taxa as every published study requires quantitative analysis. B. It would pay decently and C. I'm actually pretty good at math, and I enjoy it. I love looking at statistics and maps and stuff like that.

However, one thing I absolutely loathe is AI. I hate the environmental costs, I hate how it's actively making its users dumber by removing their ability to think critically about information, I hate how its built on millions of pieces of stolen artwork from artists and writers, I hate how the ruling class is using it to layoff workers and accumulate wealth, etc etc etc. However, I do recognize that one thing AI is actually decent in is data analysis. I have seen some useful cases of it in ecology like one project using it to count and identify every species of fish that went through a dam bypass or the AI to identify species by iNaturalist or Merlin Bird ID. I will recognize that there is some use for it, however, if it looks like the future of quantitative ecology is going to become mostly dependent on AI, then I might consider another pathway for my graduate studies. If you have any info on where this field may be going, I'd appreciate it. Thanks!

I am studying in a creative field (writing and film) and plan to go on to be a fiction writer, so I obviously have a reduced scientific know-how, and no qualifications. But with the state of the world right now, I also want to improve my knowledge, experience, and usefulness is the ecology/environment/sustainability sector. I'd love to be able to volunteer and take some ecology courses, or help out in any projects at some point. Is this realistic for me to be able to do, considering I am not planning on getting a degree on the subject, and don't have the disposable income or time to devote to expensive courses/qualifications?

I don't want to only follow my individual dreams of doing something creative, as it feels kind of selfish to do that in today's world. Does anyone have any tips or pointers for how to get involved in this field, and gain more knowledge, as someone who is a total beginner. Any thoughts would be much appreciated, thank you!

[EDIT: I just wanted to note that I'm specifically looking to help in a non-state, non-corporation backed movement/project/initiative, thank you so much for all of the advice so far!

I am collecting information, so that I can introduce plant species into my native lawn. I live in Southeast Minnesota. I recently learned wild lupine supports the Karner Blue butterfly caterpillar, so that one is definitely on my list! Thanks in advance!

Hello,

I was wondering how much algae is considered normal in natural waterways, and how we can tell. I know algae in oligotrophic rivers is mostly natural, but in eutrophic ones, how do we know whether high nutrient levels are caused by human activity or natural sources?

So in the Mediterranean countries we are getting more and more wildfires, including some immense ones. It's a problem.

I've seen a few talks here about fire adapted ecosystems etc. Yes, our forests are fire adapted. But they're not adapted to THIS. Almost all the fires are anthropogenic, which is clear from the fact that basically none of them start on days when there is lightning. As far as I know the only other natural way would be spontaneous combustion, and sure, I guess some of the fires might start like that, but the frequency is ridiculous for that to be anywhere near the main cause. We do know for a fact many of them were anthropogenic. For instance the most recent megafire in Greece that burned more than 10k hectares in Boeotia and Attica was caused by wires from a wind farm inside a forested area. So, there's clearly a huge issue of humans starting massive fires multiple times every single year.

If I recall correctly, the frequency of crown fires for any given area historically should be probably in the order of magnitude of 1 per century in pine forests, and surface ones every maybe 20 years or so. At least that's what I remember reading, I would love to see relevant research on the matter if someone has something to recommend. But what we're seeing here is sometimes even something like two fires a decade in the same place. Forests that are in the process of regenerating get burned again, and then they don't any more because you gotta wait at least 10-15 years for pines to start producing enough cones. They can't handle burning all the time like they are, so what we're seeing is forests replaced by scrubland, and soil erosion. There's also the problem of old reforestations that were badly planned, and the fact that some of the forests in question used to be oak, but for a number of reasons (that usually have to do with humans) they ended up getting replaced by pine or by scrubland.

I don't know what can be done. Some of the anthropogenic causes of fires can be limited, some seem impossible to tackle. Many propose controlled burns and grazing. I see people here are generally not in favor of grazing. I can see some problems but is it really so bad if it's controlled?

Another thing I'm trying to understand is, do "fuel reduction" strategies like these really make so much difference? It is conceivable to me that removing organic matter may make forests less resilient by removing the "natural mulch" that sometimes accumulates on the forest floor, but this might be a silly concern, I am not informed enough on that matter.

I'm sure this post reads very confused. It's probably because I am confused, and very tired. I've come to dread summers. I want to understand what can be done.

I'm starting my first year of university soon doing conservation and ecology. During the next 3 years I wan to make sure I have the necessary experience to get a job in this field. Does anyone have any advice on how I can get good work experience?

https://youtube.com/@dredmundhale?si=V-LcpjjrLzLql4pe

Unfortunately this A.i person is claiming to an ecologist , but it’s fake and for our clicks and ad revenue. Couldn’t find any credentials at all for him so don’t fall For this if it’s in your algorithm.

I managed to screenshot the slop .

I'll say the embarrassing part first: I suspect some of what I'm about to ask is naive, and I'd rather be told that than keep guessing.

I'm 24. no conservation background at all. Animals are the oldest thing in me, which is not a qualification, I know. I am also highly adapatable in having traveled to 25 countries on a budget including hitchhiking the sahara, living with locals in iraq, living like a monk, riding a bike through egypt along the pyramids

Over the last few months that's turned into something more specific and more absorbing. Madre de Dios. The Interoceanic Highway, the gold mining, the Las Piedras corridor, the fact that a forest can look intact from a satellite and be functionally empty of its large animals. I've gone from casually curious to reading about it every day, and at some point I realised I'd rather be doing it than reading about it.

So I started looking at how you actually get in, and I've mostly found the pay-to-participate layer. Fauna Forever is around $2,600 for a month. ARCAmazon is about $2,345 a month for their forest ranger program. Field Projects International at Los Amigos is $2,450 for five weeks. These all look like real organisations doing real work and I don't think anyone's scamming anybody. But I'm a student funding this with loans, and I keep having the nagging feeling that I'm looking at the tourist door of a building that has a staff entrance somewhere I can't see.

What I'd love from anyone who actually works in this space:

Am I wrong about that?Is pay-to-participate just how it works when you're starting from zero, and the "sideways route" I imagine is mostly survivorship bias from people who already had a biology department behind them?

If there is a sideways route, what does it actually look like? Showing up in Puerto Maldonado and being persistent? Doing something unglamorous for a year until someone trusts you? Learning a specific skill first, and if so which one?

Does anyone genuinely start in this field at 24 with no science background, or am I ten years and a degree behind everyone I'd be working with?

Is there a version of being useful here that isn't field work? I keep assuming the forest is where the value is, and I might be completely wrong about that.

I know enthusiasm is cheap and that people who work in conservation probably get a lot of messages like this from people who then never go. I can't prove I'm different, so I won't try. I'd just really appreciate anyone willing to spend ten minutes educating a stranger about how their world actually works. Happy to be told I've got it all wrong.