Advancing terrestrial ecology by improving cross-temporal research and collaboration

Abstract

Ecology spans spatial and temporal scales and is inclusive of the history of life on Earth. However, research that occurs at millennial timescales or longer has historically been defined as paleoecology and has not always been well integrated with modern (neo-) ecology. This bifurcation has been previously highlighted, with calls for improved engagement among the subdisciplines, but their priority research areas have not been directly compared. To characterize the research agendas for terrestrial ecological research across different temporal scales, we compared two previous studies, Sutherland and colleagues (2013; neoecology) and Seddon and colleagues (2014; paleoecology), that outlined priority research questions. We identified several themes with potential for temporal integration and explored case studies that highlight cross-temporal collaboration. Finally, a path forward is outlined, focusing on education and training, research infrastructure, and collaboration. Our aim is to improve our understanding of biodiversity patterns and processes by promoting an inclusive and integrative approach that treats time as a foundational concept in ecology.

Figure 1.

The conceptual framework shows the importance of incorporating deep-time (dark green), quaternary (tan), and modern (textured melon) perspectives into ecological research, using plant–insect interactions as an example. The temporal resolution of the source data (deep time, quaternary, or modern) is represented by the length of the dashed lines, whereas the resolution or extent is represented by the width of the dashes (i.e., less space between the dash marks indicates greater resolution). Although the extent of the deep-time record is greater, the grain is often coarser than other time bins. The vertical black lines mark ecological events rooted in time that influenced plant–insect interactions. Finally, the pie charts are meant to visualize the value of the temporal source data and what is lost when it is not considered within the overall framework. Although the example we provide is plant and insect centered, these concepts are widely applicable across organisms and environments.

Figure 2.

Using the Web of Science, we created a visualization of the journal subdisciplines that cite Sutherland and colleagues (; yellow or neo) or Seddon and colleagues (; blue or paleo). Each subdiscipline is listed on the y-axis, with the x-axis showing the percentage of overall citations. To normalize the difference in overall citations, the bars represent the percentage of the total citations within the temporal range (Sutherland et al. 2013, n = 798; Seddon et al. 2014, n = 328). The precise percentage is provided at the top of each bar. This visualization emphasizes that paleo- and neoecology are largely drawing from within their temporal ranges. Sutherland and colleagues (2013) is most highly cited with the ecology subdiscipline, whereas Seddon and colleagues (2014) is most highly cited within multidisciplinary geosciences. However, Seddon and colleagues (2014) was also highly cited in ecology, environmental science, and physical geography, likely reflecting the different departments and subdisciplines paleoecologists are in. The total citation counts for each subdiscipline can be found in supplemental table S2.