Abstract
Dissent is a source of scientific progress. Confirmatory bias in scientific communities limits their growth and development by making it difficult for dominant ideas to be replaced by those emerging from new research. I present four groups of findings that challenge well established dominant views (consensus) in the community of ecologists: 1) habitat fragmentation does not generally result in biodiversity losses at the landscape scale, 2) non-native species invasions contribute to increases in biodiversity of plant communities and may even contribute to a diversification explosion during the Anthropocene, 3) planetary primary productivity is increasing, the global area of forests is not decreasing, desertification and burnt area are not expanding (there is no generalized ‘degradation’ of ecosystems), and 4) organic agriculture and landscapes mixing agriculture with (semi) natural ecosystems generally result in decreases in yield, which (in contrast, for example, with GMO-based agriculture) increases the demand for land, further threatening biodiversity and ecosystem services of natural ecosystems. I propose five non-exclusive hypothetical mechanisms to explain the confirmatory bias in ecology: intellectual conservatism, aesthetic and ideological preferences, and the influence of political-institutional and economic power. Challenging established consensus on the basis of new information should imply disruptive changes in the scientific and political agendas which had them as their foundation. The earlier this happens, the faster science will advance and the more effective environmental policies will be. In order to make this happen, I suggest the scientific and educational agenda should be specifically directed to counter the confirmatory bias by promoting critical thinking.
Highlights
Mientras la búsqueda de consenso es generalmente deseable para decisiones, los avances del conocimiento se nutren significativamente del disenso (Geddes 2005; Leslie 2021)
En la primera parte de este ensayo presento ejemplos de hallazgos que contradicen o amenazan visiones dominantes en ecología y que son de difícil aceptación para el público en general y para la comunidad científica en particular
A partir de esto, se acepta que si un ambiente se aísla, perderá biodiversidad, y esto redundará en una pérdida de diversidad del paisaje
Summary
Mientras la búsqueda de consenso es generalmente deseable para decisiones, los avances del conocimiento se nutren significativamente del disenso (Geddes 2005; Leslie 2021). Si bien un fragmento puede experimentar aumentos en la tasa de extinción local por efectos de borde negativos y reducción de la movilidad de los organismos, a nivel de paisaje también operan mecanismos asociados positivamente con la biodiversidad (efectos de borde positivos, disminución de la competencia interespecífica, disminución del riesgo ante efectos contagiosos, diversificación y mayor complementariedad de hábitat) y que explicarían el patrón observado precisamente a esa escala (Fahrig et al 2019). En síntesis (exceptuando, por ejemplo, los cultivos muy dependientes de polinizadores naturales o en zonas muy sensibles a erosión de suelo), estos estudios implican que mezclar tierras de cultivos con ambientes naturales o seminaturales no resulta en mayores ventajas productivas, aun sin ‘penalizar’ el cálculo, considerando que las tierras no productivas ocupan parte del área, ni incluir en el análisis las dificultades de manejo y automatización derivadas de un ambiente más heterogéneo. Si bien los presento como mecanismos individuales, creo que no son independientes, sino que frecuentemente tienden a actuar de manera sinérgica
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
