Conservationists increasingly recognize the potential of managing human-inhabited landscapes for biodiversity protection and enhancement. Meanwhile, ecologists have been critiqued for studying peopleless (“wilderness” or “pristine”) landscapes to the exclusion of human-inhabited areas. In order to determine the geographical distribution of ecological field studies, we reviewed all articles published in ten top ecology journals in the past five years (American Naturalist, Conservation Biology, Ecological Applications, Ecological Monographs, Ecology, Ecology Letters, Global Change Biology, Journal of Animal Ecology, Journal of Applied Ecology, Journal of Ecology, N=8040). We assigned a landscape category to each study based on author descriptions of field sites. When possible, we cross-checked author descriptions with Google Earth and the UN World Database on Protected Areas. We also linked reported geospatial coordinates with an existing database on anthropogenic biomes.
Results/Conclusions
Over 64% of terrestrial field studies published in the past five years were conducted in areas protected by government or private organizations. In comparison, protected areas account for 12.9% of global ice-free land area. Only 13% of terrestrial field studies were conducted in food production areas (rangeland or cropland), while 2.5% were conducted in suburban or urban areas and less than 1% were conducted in rural areas. These human-inhabited landscapes are significantly under-studied by ecologists, given that human-use areas cover 75% of ice-free land area and incorporate nearly 90% of terrestrial net primary productivity. In light of these results, we call for (1) increased ecological investigation in peopled landscapes and (2) the promotion of ecologically-guided biodiversity conservation in these places. An emphasis on ecological research in human-inhabited areas would inform future conservation efforts and promote a land-ethic that respects, cherishes, and enhances the places where we live and work.