Cultural ecosystem services (ES) are consistently recognized but not yet adequately defined or integrated within the ES framework. A substantial body of models, methods, and data relevant to cultural services has been developed within the social and behavioral sciences before and outside of the ES approach. A selective review of work in landscape aesthetics, cultural heritage, outdoor recreation, and spiritual significance demonstrates opportunities for operationally defining cultural services in terms of socioecological models, consistent with the larger set of ES. Such models explicitly link ecological structures and functions with cultural values and benefits, facilitating communication between scientists and stakeholders and enabling economic, multicriterion, deliberative evaluation and other methods that can clarify tradeoffs and synergies involving cultural ES. Based on this approach, a common representation is offered that frames cultural services, along with all ES, by the relative contribution of relevant ecological structures and functions and by applicable social evaluation approaches. This perspective provides a foundation for merging ecological and social science epistemologies to define and integrate cultural services better within the broader ES framework.natural capital | scenic beauty | cultural landscapes | tourism | spiritual value

No abstract

Ecosystems provide many of the material building blocks for human well-being. Although quantification and appreciation of such contributions have rapidly grown, our dependence upon cultural connections to nature deserves more attention. We synthesize multidisciplinary peerreviewed research on contributions of nature or ecosystems to human well-being mediated through nontangible connections (such as culture). We characterize these connections on the basis of the channels through which such connections arise (i.e., knowing, perceiving, interacting with, and living within) and the components of human well-being they affect (e.g., physical, mental and spiritual health, inspiration, identity). We found enormous variation in the methods used, quantity of research, and generalizability of the literature. The effects of nature on mental and physical health have been rigorously demonstrated, whereas other effects (e.g., on learning) are theorized but seldom demonstrated. The balance of evidence indicates conclusively that knowing and experiencing nature makes us generally happier, healthier people. More fully characterizing our intangible connections with nature will help shape decisions that benefit people and the ecosystems on which we depend.

Many conservation plans remain unimplemented, in part because of insufficient consideration of the social processes that influence conservation decisions. Complementing social considerations with an integrated understanding of the ecology of a region can result in a more complete conservation approach. We suggest that linking conservation planning to a social–ecological systems (SES) framework can lead to a more thorough understanding of human–environment interactions and more effective integration of social considerations. By characterizing SES as a set of subsystems, and their interactions with each other and with external factors, the SES framework can improve our understanding of the linkages between social and ecological influences on the environment. Using this framework can help to identify socially and ecologically focused conservation actions that will benefit ecosystems and human communities, and assist in the development of more consistent evidence for evaluating conservation actions by comparing conservation case studies.

No abstract

Scientists are increasingly called upon to engage in policy formulation, but the literature on engagement is strong on speculation and weak on evidence. Using a survey administered at several broadly “ecological” conferences, we investigated: (1) the extent to which respondents engage in policy‐related activities (including reporting scientific results, interpreting science for policy makers, integrating science into decision making, taking a position on a policy issue, and acting as a decision maker); (2) what factors best explain these types of engagement; and (3) whether respondents' activity levels match their stated beliefs on such activities. Different factors explain different forms of participation. Past negative experience was identified as a barrier to taking part in policy, while self‐perceived competence in navigating the science–policy interface was consistently important in explaining activity across all engagement types, highlighting the importance of training programs linking scientists to policy. Many respondents believed that scientists should interpret, integrate, and advocate, which contrasts with previous research and relatively low levels of self‐reported participation in policy.

We report the presence of two Asian species of larval parasitoids of spotted wing Drosophila, Drosophila suzukii (Matsumura) (Diptera: Drosophilidae), in northwestern North America. Leptopilina japonica Novkovic & Kimura and Ganaspis brasiliensis (Ihering) (Hymenoptera: Figitidae) were found foraging near and emerging from fruits infested by D. suzukii at several locations across coastal British Columbia, Canada in the summer and fall of 2019. While G. brasiliensis was found in British Columbia for the first time in 2019, re-inspection of previously collected specimens suggests that L. japonica has been present since at least 2016. Additionally, we found a species of Asobara associated with D. suzukii in British Columbia that is possibly Asobara rufescens (Förster) (known only from the Palearctic Region) based on COI DNA barcode data. These findings add to the list of cases documenting adventive establishment of candidate classical biological control agents outside of their native ranges. The findings also illustrate the need for revisiting species concepts within Asobara, as well as host and geographic distribution data due to cryptic and/or misidentified species.

No abstract