Suchergebnisse

Dispersal and recruitment are fundamental processes for population recovery following disturbances in sessile species. While both processes are well understood for many terrestrial species, they still remain poorly resolved for some macroalgal species. Here we experimentally investigated the effective dispersal and recruit survival of a mesophotic Mediterranean fucoid, Cystoseira zosteroides. In three isolated populations, four sets of settlement collectors were placed at increasing distances (from 0 to 10 m) and different orientations (North, South, East and West). We observed that effective dispersal was restricted to populations' vicinity, with an average of 6.43 m and not further than 13.33 m, following a Weibull distribution. During their first year of life, survival was up to 50%, but it was lower underneath the adult canopy, suggesting a negative density-dependence. To put our results in a broader context we compared the effective dispersal of other fucoid and kelp species reported in the literature, which confirmed the low dispersal ability of brown algae, in particular for fucoids, with an effective dispersal of few meters. Given the importance of recruitment for the persistence and recovery of populations after disturbances, these results underline the vulnerability of C. zosteroides and other fucoid species to escalating threats. ; Funding was provided by the Spanish MINECO (CGL2012-32194) and the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under grant agreement No 689518 (MERCES). Support for this work was provided by an FI-DRG grant from the Secretaria d'Universitats i Recerca from the Economy and Knowledge Department of the Generalitat de Catalunya to Pol Capdevila and by a Ramon y Cajal research contract (RyC-2011-08134) to Cristina Linares. The authors are part of the Marine Biodiversity Conservation research group (2014SGR1297, www.medrecover.org) from Generalitat de Catalunya. ; Peer reviewed

Este artículo contiene 18 páginas, 1 tabla, 5 figuras. ; Conferences are ideal platforms for studying gender gaps in science because they are important cultural events that reflect barriers to women in academia. Here, we explored women's participation in ecology conferences by analyzing female representation, behavior, and personal experience at the 1st Meeting of the Iberian Society of Ecology (SIBECOL). The conference had 722 attendees, 576 contributions, and 27 scientific sessions. The gender of attendees and presenters was balanced (48/52% women/men), yet only 29% of the contributions had a woman as last author. Moreover, men presented most of the keynote talks (67%) and convened most of the sessions. Our results also showed that only 32% of the questions were asked by women, yet the number of questions raised by women increased when the speaker or the convener was a woman. Finally, the post-conference survey revealed that attendees had a good experience and did not perceive the event as a threatening context for women. Yet, differences in the responses between genders suggest that women tended to have a worse experience than their male counterparts. Although our results showed clear gender biases, most of the participants of the conference failed to detect it. Overall, we highlight the challenge of increasing women's scientific leadership, visibility and interaction in scientific conferences and we suggest several recommendations for creating inclusive meetings, thereby promoting equal opportunities for all participants. ; AL was supported by the Government of Catalonia and the the European Social Fund (ESF) through the program Beatriu de Pino´s (BP-2018- 00082). PR-L was supported by a Margalida Comas postdoctoral contract (PD/031/2018), funded by the Government of the Balearic Islands and the ESF. AA-R was supported by a Humboldt Research Fellowship. MB was supported by the Spanish Government through the project Alkaldia (PID2019-111137GB-C21). SB was supported by a Ramon y Cajal fellowship from the Spanish Government and AEI/FEDER UE (RYC-2017- 22643). AGB was supported by a Marie Sklodowska-Curie (MSCA) Individual Fellowship (H2020-MSCA-IF-2016; project-749645). NC was funded by the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the MSCA grant agreement No.839709. MJF was supported by the Portuguese Foundation of Science and Technology (FCT) through MARE strategic project (UIDB/04292/2020) and Norma Transito´ria. AGO was supported by the CESAM and FCT/MCTES (UIDP/50017/2020 + UIDB/50017/ 2020). CG-C was supported by the Spanish Government through a Juan de la Cierva – Incoporacio´n contract (IJC2018-036642-I). FL had a doctoral grant funded by FCT (PD/BD/52598/ 2014). GO was supported by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research within the Collaborative Project"Bridging in Biodiversity Science – BIBS"(01LC1501A-H). SP was supported by a postdoctoral fellowship MSCA Seal of Excellence of the Research Foundation – Flanders (12ZZS21N). ; Peer reviewed

14 pages, 6 figures, 1 table, supplementary material https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmars.2021.626843/full#supplementary-material ; Restoration is considered an effective strategy to accelerate the recovery of biological communities at local scale. However, the effects of restoration actions in the marine ecosystems are still unpredictable. We performed a global analysis of published literature to identify the factors increasing the probability of restoration success in coastal and marine systems. Our results confirm that the majority of active restoration initiatives are still concentrated in the northern hemisphere and that most of information gathered from restoration efforts derives from a relatively small subset of species. The analysis also indicates that many studies are still experimental in nature, covering small spatial and temporal scales. Despite the limits of assessing restoration effectiveness in absence of a standardized definition of success, the context (degree of human impact, ecosystem type, habitat) of where the restoration activity is undertaken is of greater relevance to a successful outcome than how (method) the restoration is carried out. Contrary to expectations, we found that restoration is not necessarily more successful closer to protected areas (PA) and in areas of moderate human impact. This result can be motivated by the limits in assessing the success of interventions and by the tendency of selecting areas in more obvious need of restoration, where the potential of actively restoring a degraded site is more evident. Restoration sites prioritization considering human uses and conservation status present in the region is of vital importance to obtain the intended outcomes and galvanize further actions. ; Research funded by the EU project MERCES of the European Union's Horizon 2020 research (Grant agreement No. 689518, http://www.merces-project.eu). ; Research funded by the EU project MERCES of the European Union's Horizon 2020 research (Grant agreement No. 689518, http://www.merces-project.eu) ; Peer reviewed

Restoration is considered an effective strategy to accelerate the recovery of biological communities at local scale. However, the effects of restoration actions in the marine ecosystems are still unpredictable. We performed a global analysis of published literature to identify the factors increasing the probability of restoration success in coastal and marine systems. Our results confirm that the majority of active restoration initiatives are still concentrated in the northern hemisphere and that most of information gathered from restoration efforts derives from a relatively small subset of species. The analysis also indicates that many studies are still experimental in nature, covering small spatial and temporal scales. Despite the limits of assessing restoration effectiveness in absence of a standardized definition of success, the context (degree of human impact, ecosystem type, habitat) of where the restoration activity is undertaken is of greater relevance to a successful outcome than how (method) the restoration is carried out. Contrary to expectations, we found that restoration is not necessarily more successful closer to protected areas (PA) and in areas of moderate human impact. This result can be motivated by the limits in assessing the success of interventions and by the tendency of selecting areas in more obvious need of restoration, where the potential of actively restoring a degraded site is more evident. Restoration sites prioritization considering human uses and conservation status present in the region is of vital importance to obtain the intended outcomes and galvanize further actions ; Research funded by the EU project MERCES of the European Union's Horizon 2020 research (Grant agreement No. 689518