1. River rhythmicity refers to the periodic, recurrent phenomena of a riverscape that are synchronized with the rise and fall of river water, creating regimes of river time.River rhythmicity can serve as a lens into the temporal dimension of river formation and socio-ecological dynamics that are of great interest to many disciplines.2. In this paper, we introduce river rhythmicity as a conceptual and analytical framework to unify riparian human communities, academic disciplines and water agencies in approaching research and management of rivers. We also explore how the disruptions to riverine rhythms that are experienced by river-dwelling communities, and are often visible in river discharge data through time, reconfigure, hinder or sever relationships between people and rivers. 3. To ground our discussion in practical, lived experience, we provide brief descriptions of regimes of river time to demonstrate how rhythmic patterns established with rivers in north-central Canada and Amazonian Colombia shape the lives of two of our co-authors. By prioritizing holistic accounts of river rhythms, we can elucidate a fuller range of phenomena and their dynamic interactions, revealing riverscape features that are highly valued by local communities yet not often visible to any one discipline. 4. Rhythmicity provides a conceptual framework to help address several challenges facing river conservation and water allocation dilemmas. By emphasizing relationality, it serves to (a) move beyond a biophysical framing of human-nature connectedness by demonstrating that dynamic processes and relationships are constitutive of rivers, not derivative of them; (b) enhance understanding of how the temporal dimensions of riverine relationships and river dwelling are experienced; (c) highlight the socio-cultural consequences of changes to river time and (d) centre socially embedded relationships with rivers forged from generations of observations of care and reciprocity.

As educators, we should not assume that students are progressing toward intended STEM careers simply because they have persisted and received a STEM degree. In addition to learning biology content and scientific skills, students need guidance in making optimal career choices.

Linnaean taxonomy is a cornerstone of Western biology in which organisms are given a two-part name (a genus and species), creating biological units that help us order and manage our knowledge of the living world. In this system, the names of species themselves take on additional functions, such as describing features of the organism or honoring individuals (known as eponyms). Here, we interrogate how power and authority over the natural world are claimed through Western scientific naming practices to evaluate the legacies of imperialism, dispossession, and exclusion in these practices. We compile and analyze a dataset of all bird species descriptions from 1950 to present, asking: who has access and power to name species, and who is honored in species names? We show that 95% of newly described species are described from the global South, but the majority of species and eponyms are described by authors, and named after individuals, from the global North. We find an increase through time in authors from the global South, which is associated with a rise in eponyms that honor individuals from global South countries. However, this formal inclusion of global South authors has not translated into increases in first authorship (a primary form of credit and authority in Western science). We contextualize these disparities in naming and authorship within broader global structures of access and power put in place through centuries of European and U.S. imperialism, but a historical perspective alone ignores institutional and individual agency and incentives in present-day actions. As we increasingly reflect on the social foundations and impacts of our science, these findings show how research and labor in the global South continue to be disproportionately translated into power and authority in the global North, upholding and re-enacting imperial structures of domination.

No abstract

No abstract

The Andean Condor (Vultur gryphus) is a culturally iconic wildlife symbol for the South American Andes, but is naturally found at very low population densities, and is increasingly threatened. Using the Range Wide Priority Setting methodology, we (a group of 38 Andean Condor experts) updated the Andean Condor historical range (3,230,061 km2), systematized 9998 Andean Condor distribution points across the range, and identified geographic areas for which there was expert knowledge (66%), including areas where Andean Condors no longer occur (7%), and geographic areas where condors are believed to range, but for which there was not expert knowledge about condor presence (34%). To prioritize conservation action into the future and identify existing Andean Condor population strongholds, we used expert knowledge to identify 21 of the most important areas for the conservation of the species (i.e., Andean Condor Conservation Units [ACCUs]) that cover 37% of the revised historical range, and range in size from 837 km2 to 298,951 km2. In general, ACCUs were relatively small in the northern portion of the range in Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador, and northern Peru, and significantly larger in the central and southern portion of the range in Peru, Bolivia, Chile, and Argentina, reflecting the reduced and narrower historical range in the northern portion of the range, as well as increased threats. Andean Condors can fly extremely long distances and so the populations of many neighboring ACCUs are probably still functionally connected, although this situation also underlines the need for integrated and large-scale conservation efforts for this species. As a function of the Range Wide Priority Setting results, we make recommendations to ensure population connectivity into the future and engage a wide range of actors in Andean Condor conservation efforts.

No abstract

Urban forests are critical infrastructure for mitigating environmental and social challenges cities face. Municipalities and non-governmental entities, among others, often set goals (e.g., tree planting or canopy targets) to support urban forests and their benefits. We focus on canopy goals and develop conceptual underpinnings for an analysis of where additional canopy, as one important dimension of the urban forest, can fit within the landscape, while considering factors that influence where trees can be planted and where canopy can grow – ‘practical canopy.’ We apply this in New York City (NYC) to inform the setting of a canopy goal by the NYC Urban Forest Task Force (UFTF) for the NYC Urban Forest Agenda, which may trigger a virtuous cycle that supports the urban forest there. We further develop framing for a ‘priority canopy’ analysis to understand where urban forest expansion should be prioritized given more context (e.g., environmental hazards, local preferences), which can inform how expansion of the urban forest is achieved. We estimate an opportunity for 15,899 ha of new canopy in NYC given existing opportunities and constraints (practical canopy), which, if leveraged, could result in nearly doubling the canopy as of 2017 (17,253 ha). However, like existing canopy, practical canopy is not evenly distributed, in general, or across jurisdictions and land uses. Relying solely on areas identified as practical canopy to expand the urban forest would exacerbate inequities in its distribution. We discuss how the NYC UFTF established an aspirational but achievable goal of 30% canopy cover by 2035, which was informed by this analysis and guided by priorities of equity, health, and resilience. Achievement of this goal will ultimately require a combination of protecting and stewarding the existing resource, and leveraging opportunities for tree planting. Achieving a more equitable urban forest will also require identification of priority canopy, and, in cases, creation of new opportunities for tree planting and canopy expansion. Overall, the collaborative establishment of such goals based on local context can be instrumental in creating a virtuous cycle, moving conservation actors toward exercising influence and agency within the social ecological system.