Advertisement

Biodiversity and Conservation

, Volume 27, Issue 6, pp 1503–1516 | Cite as

The sociology of sea turtle research: evidence on a global expansion of co-authorship networks

  • Antonios D. Mazaris
  • Chrysoula Gkazinou
  • Vasiliki Almpanidou
  • George Balazs
Original Paper
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Coastal and marine biodiversity

Abstract

The conservation of biological diversity represents a major challenge for modern societies. Research offers the fundamental information to advance and integrate our knowledge on ecological systems, their processes and interactions. Yet, the transfer of scientific knowledge and results represents a critical step towards enhancing conservation efficiency. Here, we use sea turtle research, as an example to test the potential and dynamics of international scientific cooperation reflecting the advancement of knowledge. The selection of sea turtles as a case study was mainly based on two factors. First, they represent a highly mobile group of species with cosmopolitan distribution that cross geopolitical borders, policies and agreements. Second, encouraging evidence on global population recovery are increasingly presented. We used research publications on sea turtles (from 1967 since 2016) as the main product of scientific knowledge, to develop a series of co-authorship networks. Countries that were mentioned in authors’ affiliations were used as nodes, with two nodes being connected if authors of these countries had collaborated as co-authors in a publication. The properties of the co-authorship networks revealed that sea turtle scientific collaboration networks are ] getting larger and spreading constantly over different countries through time. Network metrics revealed a robust and coherent network supported by numerous countries. Our results showed a steady flow of scientific information among countries within sea turtle research communities, a factor that might have contributed to the encouraging evidence on sea turtle population trends observed globally. This analysis highlights the potential benefits generated by international collaborations reflecting the integration of skills, scientific backgrounds and knowledge.

Keywords

Graph theory Multinational cooperation Marine turtles Network connectivity 

References

  1. Almpanidou V, Schofield G, Kallimanis AS, Türkozan O, Hays GC, Mazaris AD (2016) Using climatic suitability thresholds to identify past, present and future population viability. Ecol Indic 71:551–556CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Almpanidou V, Schofield G, Mazaris AD (2017) Unravelling the climatic niche overlap of global sea turtle nesting sites: impact of geographic variation and phylogeny. J Biogeogr 44:2839–2848CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Avkiran NK (1997) Scientific collaboration in finance does not lead to better quality research. Scientometrics 39:173–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Balazs GH, Van Houtan KS, Hargrove SA, Brunson SM, Murakawa SK (2015) A review of the demographic features of Hawaiian green turtles (Chelonia mydas). Chelonian Conserv Biol 14:119–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barabási A-L, Bonabeau E (2003) Scale-free networks. Sci Am 288:50–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Berkes F, Colding J, Folke C (2000) Rediscovery of traditional ecological knowledge as adaptive management. Ecol Appl 10:1251–1262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bjorndal KA, Wetherall JA, Bolten AB, Mortimer JA (1999) Twenty-six years of Green Turtle Nesting at Tortuguero, Costa Rica: an encouraging trend. Conserv Biol 13:126–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Blumenthal JM et al (2006) Satellite tracking highlights the need for international cooperation in marine turtle management. Endanger Species Res 2:51–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bodin Ö, Crona, B, Ernstson H (2006) Social networks in natural resource management: What is there to learn from a structural perspective? Ecol Soc 11:r2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bondy JA, Murty USR (1976) Graph theory with applications, vol 290. MacMillan, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Borgatti SP, Everett MG (2006) A graph-theoretic perspective on centrality. Social Netw 28:466–484CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Brewer D, Heales D, Milton D, Dell Q, Fry G, Venables B, Jones P (2006) The impact of turtle excluder devices and bycatch reduction devices on diverse tropical marine communities in Australia’s northern prawn trawl fishery. Fish Res 81:176–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Brooks TM et al (2006) Global biodiversity conservation priorities. Science 313:58–61CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Butchart SH et al (2010) Global biodiversity: indicators of recent declines. Science 328:1164–1168CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Catini R, Karamshuk D, Penner O, Riccaboni M (2015) Identifying geographic clusters: a network analytic approach. Res Policy 44:1749–1762CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Chaloupka M et al (2008) Encouraging outlook for recovery of a once severely exploited marine megaherbivore. Global Ecol Biogeogr 17:297–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Corbera E, Calvet-Mir L, Hughes H, Paterson M (2016) Patterns of authorship in the IPCC Working Group III report. Nat Clim Change 6:94–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Coyne M, Godley B (2005) Satellite Tracking and Analysis Tool (STAT): an integrated system for archiving, analyzing and mapping animal tracking data. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 301:1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dangles O, Loirat J, Freour C, Serre S, Vacher J, Le Roux X (2016) Research on biodiversity and climate change at a distance: collaboration networks between Europe and Latin America and the Caribbean. PLoS ONE 11:e0157441CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. Dirzo R, Young HS, Galetti M, Ceballos G, Isaac NJ, Collen B (2014) Defaunation in the Anthropocene. Science 345:401–406CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Drew JA (2005) Use of traditional ecological knowledge in marine conservation. Conserv Biol 19:1286–1293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Encalada S, Lahanas P, Bjorndal K, Bolten A, Miyamoto M, Bowen B (1996) Phylogeography and population structure of the Atlantic and Mediterranean green turtle Chelonia mydas: a mitochondrial DNA control region sequence assessment. Mol Ecol 5:473–483CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Encalada SE et al (1998) Population structure of loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta) nesting colonies in the Atlantic and Mediterranean as inferred from mitochondrial DNA control region sequences. Mar Biol 130:567–575CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Frazier J (2002) Marine turtles and international instruments: the agony and the ecstasy. J Int Wildl Law Policy 5:1–10Google Scholar
  25. Gadgil M, Berkes F, Folke C (1993) Indigenous knowledge for biodiversity conservation. Ambio 22:151–156Google Scholar
  26. Gallaway BJ, Caillouet Jr CW, Plotkin PT, Gazey WJ, Cole JG, Raborn SW (2013) Kemp’s ridley stock assessment project. Final Report to the Gulf States Marine Fisheries CommissionGoogle Scholar
  27. Gallo BM, Macedo S, Giffoni BdB, Becker JH, Barata PC (2006) Sea turtle conservation in Ubatuba, southeastern Brazil, a feeding area with incidental capture in coastal fisheries. Chelonian Conserv Biol 5:93–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Galpern P, Manseau M, Fall A (2011) Patch-based graphs of landscape connectivity: a guide to construction, analysis and application for conservation. BiolConserv 144:44–55Google Scholar
  29. Gaos AR et al (2010) Signs of hope in the eastern Pacific: international collaboration reveals encouraging status for a severely depleted population of hawksbill turtles Eretmochelys imbricata. Oryx 44:595–601CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hall MA et al (2007) Working with fishers to reduce by-catches. By-catch reduction in the world’s fisheries. Springer, Berlin, pp 235–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hamann M et al (2010) Global research priorities for sea turtles: informing management and conservation in the 21st century. Endanger Species Res 11:245–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hays GC (2004) Good news for sea turtles. Trends Ecol Evol 19:349–351CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Hochachka WM, Fink D, Hutchinson RA, Sheldon D, Wong W-K, Kelling S (2012) Data-intensive science applied to broad-scale citizen science. Trends Ecol Evol 27:130–137CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Houghton JD, Doyle TK, Wilson MW, Davenport J, Hays GC (2006) Jellyfish aggregations and leatherback turtle foraging patterns in a temperate coastal environment. Ecology 87:1967–1972CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Jeffers VF, Godley BJ (2016) Satellite tracking in sea turtles: how do we find our way to the conservation dividends? Biol Conserv 199:172–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Katsanevakis S, Mackelworth P, Coll M, Fraschetti S, Mačić V, Giakoumi S, Jones PJS, Levin N, Albano P, Badalamenti F, Brennan RE, Claudet J, Culibrk D, D’Anna G, Deidun A, Evagelopoulos A, García-Charton JA, Goldsborough D, Holcer D, Jimenez C, Kark S, Sørensen TR, Lazar B, Martin G, Mazaris A, Micheli F, Milner-Gulland EJ, Pipitone C, Portman M, Pranovi F, Rilov G, Smith RJ, Stelzenmüller V, Vogiatzakis I, Winters G (2017) Advancing marine conservation in European and contiguous seas with the MarCons Action. Res Ideas Outcomes 3:e11884CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kim J, Perez C (2015) Co-authorship network analysis in industrial ecology research community. J Ind Ecol 19:222–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. King DA (2004) The scientific impact of nations. Nature 430:311–316CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Kittinger JN, Houtan KSV, McClenachan LE, Lawrence AL (2013) Using historical data to assess the biogeography of population recovery. Ecography 36:868–872CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Knight AT, Cowling RM, Rouget M, Balmford A, Lombard AT, Campbell BM (2008) Knowing but not doing: selecting priority conservation areas and the research-implementation gap. Conserv Biol 22:610–617CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Kornaraki E, Matossian DA, Mazaris AD, Matsinos YG, Margaritoulis D (2006) Effectiveness of different conservation measures for loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta) nests at Zakynthos Island, Greece. Biol Conserv 130:324–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Laudel G (2001) Collaboration, creativity and rewards: why and how scientists collaborate. Intern J Techn Manag 22:762–781CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Leimu R, Koricheva J (2005a) Does scientific collaboration increase the impact of ecological articles? Bioscience 55:438–443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Leimu R, Koricheva J (2005b) What determines the citation frequency of ecological papers? Trends Ecol Evol 20:28–32CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Lewison RL, Crowder LB, Shaver DJ (2003) The impact of turtle excluder devices and fisheries closures on loggerhead and Kemp’s ridley strandings in the western Gulf of Mexico. Conserv Biol 17:1089–1097CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Li W, Zhao Y (2015) Bibliometric analysis of global environmental assessment research in a 20-year period. Environ Impact Assess Rev 50:158–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Limpus CJ (2008) A biological review of Australian marine turtles. 1. Loggerhead turtle Caretta caretta (Linneaus). State of Queensland, Australia: Environmental Protection Agency. ISBN 978-0-9803613-1-5Google Scholar
  48. Liu X, Zhang L, Hong S (2011) Global biodiversity research during 1900–2009: a bibliometric analysis. Biodivers Conserv 20:807–826CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Lortie C, Aarssen L, Budden A, Koricheva J, Leimu R, Tregenza T (2007) Publication bias and merit in ecology. Oikos 116:1247–1253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Ludwig D, Mangel M, Haddad B (2001) Ecology, conservation, and public policy. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 32:481–517CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Mazaris AD (2017) Open Data and the future of conservation biology. Ethics Sci Enviro Pol 17:29–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Mazaris AD, Almpanidou V, Wallace BP, Pantis JD, Schofield G (2014) A global gap analysis of sea turtle protection coverage. Biol Conserv 173:17–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Mazaris AD, Schofield G, Gkazinou C, Almpanidou V, Hays GC (2017) Global sea turtle conservation successes. Sci Adv 3:e1600730CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  54. Mills M, Álvarez-Romero JG, Vance-Borland K, Cohen P, Pressey RL, Guerrero AM, Ernstson H (2014) Linking regional planning and local action: towards using social network analysis in systematic conservation planning. Biol Conserv 169:6–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Mingozzi T, Masciari G, Paolillo G, Pisani B, Russo M, Massolo A (2007) Discovery of a regular nesting area of loggerhead turtle Caretta caretta in southern Italy: a new perspective for national conservation. Biodivers Conserv 16:3519–3541CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Minor ES, Urban DL (2008) A graph-theory framework for evaluating landscape connectivity and conservation planning. Conserv Biol 22:297–307CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Mortimer JA (1999) Reducing threats to eggs and hatchlings: hatcheries. In: Eckert KL, Bjorndal KA, Abreu-Grobois FA, Donnelly M (eds) Research and management techniques for the conservation of sea turtles. IUCN/SSC Marine Turtle Specialist Group Publication, (4), pp 175–178Google Scholar
  58. Nel R, Punt AE, Hughes GR (2013) Are coastal protected areas always effective in achieving population recovery for nesting sea turtles? PLoS ONE 8:e63525CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  59. Newman M, Ghoshal G (2008) Bicomponents and the robustness of networks to failure. Phys Rev Lett 100:138701CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. NOAA-Southeast Fisheries Science Center (2018) Sea Turtle Protection and Shrimp Fisheries. http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/protected_resources/sea_turtle_protection_and_shrimp_fisheries/. Accessed 20 Jan 2018
  61. Parsons E et al (2014) Seventy-one important questions for the conservation of marine biodiversity. Conserv Biol 28:1206–1214CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  62. Peckham SH, Diaz DM, Walli A, Ruiz G, Crowder LB, Nichols WJ (2007) Small-scale fisheries bycatch jeopardizes endangered Pacific loggerhead turtles. PLoS ONE 2:e1041CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  63. Pereira HM et al (2010) Scenarios for global biodiversity in the 21st century. Science 330:1496–1501CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. Pimm SL et al (2014) The biodiversity of species and their rates of extinction, distribution, and protection. Science 344:1246752CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. Rands MR et al (2010) Biodiversity conservation: challenges beyond 2010. Science 329:1298–1303CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. Rees A et al (2016) Are we working towards global research priorities for management and conservation of sea turtles? Endanger Species Res 31:337–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Reyers B, Roux DJ, Cowling RM, Ginsburg AE, Nel JL, Farrell PO (2010) Conservation planning as a transdisciplinary process. Conserv Biol 24:957–965CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. Richardson IJ (1999) Priorities for studies of reproduction and nest biology. In: Eckert KL, Bjorndal KA, Abreu-Grobois FA, Donnelly M (eds) Research and management techniques for the conservation of sea turtles. IUCN/SSC Marine Turtle Specialist Group Publication No. 4Google Scholar
  69. Russell JM, Ainsworth S (2013) Mapping S & T Collaboration between Latin America and Europe: bibliometric analysis of co-authorships (1984–2007). In: Gaillard J, Arvanitis R (eds) Research collaborations between Europe and Latin America Mapping and understanding partnership. Edition des Archives contemporaines; pp 43–46Google Scholar
  70. Santidrián Tomillo P, Vélez E, Reina RD, Piedra R, Paladino FV, Spotila JR (2007) Reassessment of the leatherback turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) nesting population at Parque Nacional Marino Las Baulas, Costa Rica: effects of conservation efforts. Chelonian Conserv Biol 6:54–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Scellato G, Franzoni C, Stephan P (2015) Migrant scientists and international networks. Res Policy 44:108–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Teasley S, Wolinsky S (2001) Scientific collaborations at a distance. Science 292:2254–2255CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. Timko RE, Kolz AL (1982) Satellite sea turtle tracking. Mar Fish Rev 44:19–24Google Scholar
  74. UK Government (2017) 2010 to 2015 government policy: UK Overseas Territories. Policy paper. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/2010-to-2015-government-policy-uk-overseas-territories/2010-to-2015-government-policy-uk-overseas-territories. Accessed 25 Nov 2017
  75. Urban DL, Minor ES, Treml EA, Schick RS (2009) Graph models of habitat mosaics. Ecol Lett 12:260–273CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. Wagner CS, Leydesdorff L (2005) Network structure, self-organization, and the growth of international collaboration in science. Res Policy 34:1608–1618CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Waldron A et al (2013) Targeting global conservation funding to limit immediate biodiversity declines. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 110:12144–12148CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  78. Wallace BP et al (2011) Global conservation priorities for marine turtles. PLoS ONE 6:e24510CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  79. Weiss K, Hamann M, Kinney M, Marsh H (2012) Knowledge exchange and policy influence in a marine resource governance network. Global Env Change 22:178–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Antonios D. Mazaris
    • 1
  • Chrysoula Gkazinou
    • 1
  • Vasiliki Almpanidou
    • 1
  • George Balazs
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Ecology, School of BiologyAristotle UniversityThessaloníkiGreece
  2. 2.Golden Honu Services of OceaniaHonoluluUSA

Personalised recommendations