Collaboration For Environmental Evidence Research Articles

Approaches and methods used to bring together Indigenous and Environmental science Knowledge in environmental research: A systematic map protocol

Abstract The bringing together of multiple knowledge sources, such as Indigenous knowledge (IK) and Environmental science Knowledge (ESK), is a topic of considerable interest and significance in environmental research. In the areas of resource management for example, the bringing together of IK and ESK datasets has raised considerable interest for its potential to increase understanding and provide insights into complex phenomena such as the effects of climate change and variability on wildlife health and distribution. The potential benefits that exist from merging these knowledge sources have been widely acknowledged. However, navigating the complex processes involved in knowledge linking continues to pose significant challenges. This systematic mapping protocol will guide the collection and analysis of literature to examine the approaches and methods used in published studies that aim to bring together Indigenous and Environmental science Knowledge in environmental research. The particular focus of this examination is placed on identification of the types of approaches and methods used to merge IK and ESK datasets at the stages of data analysis, results, and interpretation/discussion in the research process. Through a scoping exercise, a draft search string was developed based on a predetermined list of keywords. Consultation was held with a senior Indigenous scholar to advise on the keywords used and consideration for IK likely to be represented in the collected literature. The final search string will be applied to online bibliographic databases to collect studies published in peer‐reviewed journals. The final capture of the search will be screened in two stages: (1) at the level of title and abstract and (2) at full‐text. All studies included will be coded using a standardised coding template and a narrative synthesis approach will be used to identify patterns in the evidence, including knowledge gaps and clusters. Practical implication: The resulting systematic map, following the outlined procedures in this protocol and considering guidelines from the Collaboration for Environmental Evidence (CEE) and Reporting standards for Systematic Evidence Syntheses (ROSES), can serve to support and inform future research endeavours engaged in working towards the linking of IK and ESK, with practical implications for communities and policymakers.

Enhancing environmental policy through evidence synthesis: a review of the Environmental Evidence for the Future (EEF) Initiative

The Environmental Evidence for the Future (EEF) Initiative emerged in response to the challenges and opportunities presented by the UK’s decision to leave the European Union and its associated Environmental Frameworks. The Natural Environment Research Council (NERC), working closely with the Collaboration for Environmental Evidence (CEE) and UK stakeholders, developed the initiative to identify and address crucial evidence gaps, offering a long-term vision for environmental policy and sustainability. The EEF Initiative progressed through three stages: strategic priority identification, NERC panel award selection, and the production of Systematic Maps of existing evidence. The first stage involved collaborative workshops across the UK to identify key knowledge gaps in environmental science. The subsequent prioritisation resulted in 65 challenges across 10 thematic areas. The second stage saw NERC initiating, with CEE support, an open call for research proposals emphasising the use of evidence synthesis methodology. The selection process, balancing topic importance and applicant expertise, led to funding for five projects. The final stage involved the production of Systematic Maps of existing evidence based on the CEE Guidelines and Standards, providing a structured overview of existing literature on specific topics. The EEF Initiative demonstrated effective collaboration between UKRI (NERC), an independent non-profit (CEE), academia, and government agencies, addressing critical environmental challenges through rigorous evidence synthesis methodologies. The programme enhanced understanding and utilisation of these methodologies within the research community. Key lessons include the importance of inclusive priority-setting, differentiation between broad policy questions and specific Systematic Map questions, recognition of the value of Systematic Maps, and the role of experience in evidence synthesis teams. As policymakers and researchers navigate environmental policies in a resource-constrained environment, the EEF Initiative highlights the cost-effectiveness and efficiency of systematic mapping and review processes for evidence-based decision-making. The success of funding through NERC sets a precedent for future thematic evidence focused programmes, emphasising the need for continued support in developing synthesis skills among researchers and encouraging direct government commissions for targeted and responsive evidence. The EEF Initiative serves as a model for effective collaboration, providing valuable insights into addressing evidence gaps and shaping evidence-based policymaking in an ever-evolving environmental landscape.

Does a flashing artificial light have more or conversely less impacts on animals than a continuous one? A systematic review

Background: Light pollution has been increasingly recognised as a threat to biodiversity, especially with the current expansion of public lighting. Although the impacts of light intensity, spectral composition and temporality are more often studied, another component of light, its flicker frequency, has been largely overlooked. However, flashing light could also have impacts on biodiversity, and especially on animal behaviour and physiology. Objective: This systematic review aimed at identifying the reported physiological and behavioural impacts of flashing light on animals when compared to continuous light. Methods: We followed the standards recommended by the Collaboration for Environmental Evidence (CEE) in order to achieve a comprehensive, transparent and replicable systematic review. Citations were primarily extracted from three literature databases and were then screened for relevance successively on their titles, abstracts and full-texts. Retained studies were finally critically appraised to assess their validity and all relevant data were extracted. Only studies which compared a flashing light to a continuous one were included. Results: At first, we found 19,730 citations. Screening and critical appraisal resulted in 32 accepted articles corresponding to 54 accepted observations—one observation corresponding to one species and one outcome. We collated data on four main taxa: Aves (the most studied one), Actinopterygii, Insecta and Mammalia as well as on plankton. Conclusions: The impacts of flashing light are currently critically understudied and varied between species and many light specificities (e.g. frequency, wavelength, intensity). Therefore, no definitive conclusions could be drawn for now. Thus, research on flashing light should be pressingly carried out in order to better mitigate the impacts of Artificial Light at Night (ALAN) on wildlife. In the meantime, we would recommend precautionary principles to be applied: flashing lighting should be limited when not deemed essential and flicker frequencies managed to prevent animals from experiencing any potential harm from flashing light.

What is the carbon footprint of reverse osmosis in water treatment plants? A systematic review protocol.

"Carbon footprint" (CF) is a direct measure of greenhouse gas emissions caused by a defined activity and can demonstrate global warming effects. The emissions of Greenhouse gases (GHGs) in water projects start from the primary water sources, followed by transportation, construction, and operation phases in the final treatment plants. Due to their possible environmental impacts, the water treatment plants equipped with Reverse Osmosis (RO) units will be investigated for their carbon footprint. The research question is "What is the carbon footprint of reverse osmosis in water treatment plants?". The literature search in this study will be divided into two sequential sections; in the first section, the search will be limited to Scopus, Science Direct, EMBASE, and PubMed databases. The keywords of water, "water treatment plants", "water purification", desalination, "reverse osmosis", RO, "carbon emission", "carbon dioxide/CO2 emission", "carbon footprint", "Life Cycle Assessment" and, LCA will be used. The carbon footprint of RO will be expressed based on the direct and indirect effects based on RO capacity. In the second section, the internet and specialist search will be done, and the search will be updated. No date limitation will be considered, and the main search will be done in English. When the search is completed, the screening will be performed. After removing duplicates, the title and abstract will be examined. The full text will be read if the title and abstract are not helpful for decision-making. In addition, the bibliography and references will proceed after the full-text screening. The Collaboration for Environmental Evidence (CEE) Critical Appraisal Tool will be used for risk of bias checking and study validity assessment. After full-text evaluation, data will be collected and categorized by two authors. If there is enough data, meta-analysis will be performed. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42022327572.

The application of allelopathy in integrated pest management systems to control temperate European crop pests: a systematic map

BackgroundPesticides perform vital roles within agriculture but growing concern for their impact on the environment and non-target organisms has created a market for biopesticides with fewer ecological impacts. One source of biopesticides is allelochemicals, here defined as compounds released by an organism that have an inhibitory or stimulatory effect on neighbouring organisms. The focus of this study is allelopathic plants and their inhibitory effects on invertebrate herbivorous agricultural pests of temperate Europe. A systematic map is required to describe the current state of research and collate evidence.MethodsTwo academic databases were searched for relevant studies in temperate climates. The results were imported into EPPI-Reviewer, duplicates removed, studies screened and data extracted into a searchable database following the inclusion criteria and coding tool set out in the protocol. Screening consistency was checked at each stage using 5% of the studies. Critical appraisal was not conducted. Each unique combination of key variables (pest, plant, allelochemical, application method, intervention form) was treated as a separate datapoint or experiment. The data was then analysed and cross-tabulated to produce descriptive statistics and heatmaps.ResultsThis systematic map produced a database which included 243 studies containing 717 experiments from 5550 initial results. Research was unevenly distributed among all key variables with a distinct bias towards extracted allelochemical experiments under laboratory conditions. Allyl isothiocyanate was the most studied allelochemical and of the 99 identified chemical groups, flavonoids and glucosinolates were the most frequent. A wide range of pest and plant species were identified. Brassicas were the most studied plant family and Lepidoptera the most studied pest order. Physical living plants, as opposed to plant extracts or isolated allelochemicals, were predominantly studied in terms of resistance. Allelopathy application methods were not specified in the abstract of 22% of experiments and only 10% of experiments were conducted under field conditions.ConclusionAllelopathy has been studied in the context of temperate invertebrate pest control in some breadth but little depth and key pest species have not been targeted. The map highlighted significant gaps in the evidence base and a distinct lack of field studies or studies comparing application methods. It contains insufficient evidence to guide policy or management decisions, but provides a research tool and indicates areas for future studies including highlighting topics for secondary research. Critical appraisal is needed to determine allelopathic affect and future search strings should detail all application methods.Protocol registrationThe a-priori protocol was peer-reviewed and published through PROCEED (Kiely C, Randall N. Collaboration for Environmental Evidence: PROCEED. How have allelopathic plants been used within integrated pest management systems to control European crop pests in arable and field vegetable systems in temperate climates?: A Systematic Map Protocol. 2022. https://www.proceedevidence.info/protocol/view-result?id=14. Accessed 5 Jan 2023.).

Understanding target-specific effects of antidepressant drug pollution on molluscs: A systematic review protocol.

The environmental prevalence of widely prescribed human pharmaceuticals that target key evolutionary conserved biomolecules present across phyla is concerning. Antidepressants, one of the most widely consumed pharmaceuticals globally, have been developed to target biomolecules modulating monoaminergic neurotransmission, thus interfering with the endogenous regulation of multiple key neurophysiological processes. Furthermore, rising prescription and consumption rates of antidepressants caused by the burgeoning incidence of depression is consistent with increasing reports of antidepressant detection in aquatic environments worldwide. Consequently, there are growing concerns that long-term exposure to environmental levels of antidepressants may cause adverse drug target-specific effects on non-target aquatic organisms. While these concerns have resulted in a considerable body of research addressing a range of toxicological endpoints, drug target-specific effects of environmental levels of different classes of antidepressants in non-target aquatic organisms remain to be understood. Interestingly, evidence suggests that molluscs may be more vulnerable to the effects of antidepressants than any other animal phylum, making them invaluable in understanding the effects of antidepressants on wildlife. Here, a protocol for the systematic review of literature to understand drug target-specific effects of environmental levels of different classes of antidepressants on aquatic molluscs is described. The study will provide critical insight needed to understand and characterize effects of antidepressants relevant to regulatory risk assessment decision-making, and/or direct future research efforts. The systematic review will be conducted in line with the guidelines by the Collaboration for Environmental Evidence (CEE). A literature search on Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed, as well as grey literature databases, will be carried out. Using predefined criteria, study selection, critical appraisal and data extraction will be done by multiple reviewers with a web-based evidence synthesis platform. A narrative synthesis of outcomes of selected studies will be presented. The protocol has been registered in the Open Science Framework (OSF) registry with the registration DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/P4H8W.

Do environmental systematic reviews impact policy and practice? Author perspectives on the application of their work

Environmental decisions related to policy and practice should be based on the best available evidence. Given the vast amounts of information of varying reliability, an ongoing challenge for decision-makers is how to access, collate, and use this information. The Collaboration for Environmental Evidence (CEE) is dedicated to the synthesis of environmental evidence via systematic reviews (SRs) to advance evidence-informed policy and practice. The CEE has now published 79 completed SRs (as of August 2019), building a wealth of experience and expertise among authors of these works. This article reports meta-data from the 79 completed SRs, as well as findings from a survey of authors (N = 18) regarding their perspectives on the application of the SRs that they have produced (representing a total of 26 SRs). The survey asked authors to evaluate the extent to which the findings from their SRs have been applied, as well as possible facilitators and barriers to application. Based on author-reported perspectives, 13 of 25 cases were identified as having an impact on policy and practice. Respondents felt their work was most successful in identifying research gaps, transferring knowledge, and informing policy and/or practice. The most common barriers experienced by respondents were challenges in communication and engagement with stakeholders, challenges with evidentiary ambiguity arising from SR findings due to overly broad research questions, and limited financial resources. Our findings lead us to posit that, in order to maximise the impact of future SRs, evidence syntheses should: (1) be based on well-defined and policy relevant research questions; (2) involve extensive collaboration among evidence-synthesizers and end users throughout the entire process; (3) create opportunities for partners to build “end user” capacity and awareness of the principles of evidence-based management; (4) develop formal and (eventually) standardized measures and indicators of impact for long-term tracking and comparability purposes. Future research should extend to understanding the perspectives of end users and stakeholders on the relevance of SRs to inform environmental policy and practice.

What evidence exists on the possible effects of urban forms on terrestrial biodiversity in western cities? A systematic map protocol

BackgroundAs urban areas expand, scientists now agree that the city is an important space for biodiversity conservation. Yet, still relatively little is known about how urban forms could have a differential impact on terrestrial species and ecosystems. If some reviews have been conducted to examine the link between biodiversity and urban characteristics at an infra-city scale, none have explored the relationship between urban organization and biodiversity and tried to assess the capacity of various urban forms to maintain and possibly favour flora and fauna in the city. The resulting map will present the state of knowledge regarding possible relationships between urban forms and its features on the establishment and settlement of terrestrial and temperate biodiversity at infra-city scale in western cities.MethodsThe systematic map will follow the Collaboration for Environmental Evidence (CEE) Guidelines. We will collect the relevant peer-reviewed and grey literature in French and English language. The scientific literature will be retrieved with the use of a search string in two publication databases, one environmental and one social science database (Web Of Science Core Collection, and Cairn.info). We will also perform supplementary searches (search engines, call for literature, search for relevant reviews). All references will be screened for relevance using a three-stage process, according to a predefined set of eligibility criteria. Our study will concentrate on urban areas at the infra-city scale in cities of the temperate biogeographical zone. The subject population will include terrestrial species and ecosystems, except for archaea and bacteria. The exposure will consider all types of urban forms described by any urban descriptors or measures including heterogeneity, fragmentation, housing density, organisation of urban matrix, urban fabric) and all types of urban features (e.g. size, age of the buildings, materials, urban artefacts). All relevant outcomes will be considered (e.g. species richness, abundance, behaviour). We will provide an open-access database of the studies included in the map. Our results will also be presented narratively, together with tables and graphs summarising the key information coded from the retained articles (e.g. study characteristics, types and areas of research that has been undertaken, types of exposure, population concerned, etc.).

Novel tools and methods for designing and wrangling multifunctional, machine-readable evidence synthesis databases

One of the most important steps in the process of conducting a systematic review or map is data extraction and the production of a database of coding, metadata and study data. There are many ways to structure these data, but to date, no guidelines or standards have been produced for the evidence synthesis community to support their production. Furthermore, there is little adoption of easily machine-readable, readily reusable and adaptable databases: these databases would be easier to translate into different formats by review authors, for example for tabulation, visualisation and analysis, and also by readers of the review/map. As a result, it is common for systematic review and map authors to produce bespoke, complex data structures that, although typically provided digitally, require considerable efforts to understand, verify and reuse. Here, we report on an analysis of systematic reviews and maps published by the Collaboration for Environmental Evidence, and discuss major issues that hamper machine readability and data reuse or verification. We highlight different justifications for the alternative data formats found: condensed databases; long databases; and wide databases. We describe these challenges in the context of data science principles that can support curation and publication of machine-readable, Open Data. We then go on to make recommendations to review and map authors on how to plan and structure their data, and we provide a suite of novel R-based functions to support efficient and reliable translation of databases between formats that are useful for presentation (condensed, human readable tables), filtering and visualisation (wide databases), and analysis (long databases). We hope that our recommendations for adoption of standard practices in database formatting, and the tools necessary to rapidly move between formats will provide a step-change in transparency and replicability of Open Data in evidence synthesis.

Spatial and temporal scales of coral reef fish ecological research and management: a systematic map protocol

BackgroundCoral reefs are rapidly changing in response to local and global stressors. Research to better understand and inform the management of these stressors is burgeoning. However, in situ studies of coral reef ecology are constrained by complex logistics and limited resources. Many reef studies are also hampered by the scale-dependent nature of ecological patterns, and inferences made on causal relationships within coral reef systems are limited by the scales of observation. This is because most socio-ecological studies are conducted at scales relevant to the phenomenon of interest. However, management often occurs across a significantly broader, often geopolitical, range of scales. While there is a critical need for incisive coral reef management actions at relevant spatial and temporal scales, it remains unclear to what extent the scales of empirical study overlap with the scales at which management inferences and recommendations are made. This systematic map protocol will evaluate this potential scale mismatch with the goal of raising awareness about the significance of effectively addressing and reporting the scales at which researchers collect data and make assumptions.MethodsWe will use the Collaboration for Environmental Evidence (CEE) systematic mapping guidelines to identify relevant studies using a framework-based synthesis to summarise the spatial and temporal scales of coral reef fish ecology research and the scales at which management inferences or recommendations are made. Using tested predefined terms, we will search for relevant published academic and grey literature, including bibliographic databases, web-based search engines, and organisational websites. Inclusion criteria for the evidence map are empirical studies that focus on coral reef fish ecological organisation and processes, those informing management interventions and policy decisions, and management documents that cite coral reef research for management decision-making. Study results will be displayed graphically using data matrices and heat maps. This is the first attempt to systematically assess and compare the scales of socio-ecological research conducted on coral reef systems with their management.

Mitigating Climate Change via Food Consumption and Food Waste: A Systematic Map of Behavioral Interventions

Demand-side policies for mitigating climate change based on behavioral insights are gaining increased attention in research and practice. Here we describe a systematic map that catalogs existing research on behaviorally informed interventions targeting changes in consumer food consumption and food waste behavior. The purpose is to gain an overview of research foci and gaps, providing an evidence base for deeper analysis. In terms of food consumption, we focus on animal protein (meat, fish, dairy, and eggs) and its substitutes. The map follows the standards for evidence synthesis from the Collaboration for Environmental Evidence (CEE) as well as the RepOrting Standards for Systematic Evidence Syntheses (ROSES). We identified 49 articles including 56 separate studies, as well as 18 literature reviews. We find a variety of study designs with a focus on canteen and restaurant studies as well as a steep increase of publications since 2016. We create an interactive evidence atlas that plots these studies across geographical space. Here, we find a concentration of research in the Anglo-Saxon world. Most studies follow multi-intervention designs and focus on actual food consumption behavior, fewer on food waste behavior. We identify knowledge clusters amenable for a systematic review focusing on the effectiveness of these interventions, namely: priming, disclosure, defaults, social norms, micro-environment changes, and ease of use. The systematic map highlights knowledge gaps, where more primary research is needed and evidence cannot support policy; it identifies knowledge clusters, where sufficient studies exist but there is a lack of clarity over effectiveness, and so full synthesis can be conducted rapidly; finally, it reveals patterns in research methods that can highlight best practices and issues with methodology that can support the improvement of primary evidence production and mitigation of research waste. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first systematic study mapping this specific area.

Predicting the time needed for environmental systematic reviews and systematic maps.

Systematic reviews (SRs) and systematic mapping aim to maximize transparency and comprehensiveness while minimizing subjectivity and bias. These are time-consuming and complex tasks, so SRs are considered resource intensive, but published estimates of systematic-review resource requirements are largely anecdotal. We analyzed all Collaboration for Environmental Evidence (CEE) SRs (n = 66) and maps (n = 20) published from 2012 to 2017 to estimate the average number of articles retained at each review stage. We also surveyed 33 experienced systematic reviewers to collate information on the rate at which those stages could be completed. In combination, these data showed that the average CEE SR takes an estimated 164 d (full-time equivalent) (SD 23), and the average CEE systematic map (SM) (excluding critical appraisal) takes 211 d (SD 53). While screening titles and abstracts is widely considered time-consuming, metadata extraction and critical appraisal took as long or longer to complete, especially for SMs. Given information about the planned methods and evidence base, we created a software tool that predicts time requirements of a SR or map with evidence-based defaults as a starting point. Our results shed light on the most time-consuming stages of the SR and mapping processes, will inform review planning, and can direct innovation to streamline processes. Future predictions of effort required to complete SRs and maps could be improved if authors provide more details on methods and results.

Online tools supporting the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and systematic maps: a case study on CADIMA and review of existing tools

Systematic reviews and systematic maps represent powerful tools to identify, collect, evaluate and summarise primary research pertinent to a specific research question or topic in a highly standardised and reproducible manner. Even though they are seen as the “gold standard” when synthesising primary research, systematic reviews and maps are typically resource-intensive and complex activities. Thus, managing the conduct and reporting of such reviews can become a time consuming and challenging task. This paper introduces the open access online tool CADIMA, which was developed through a collaboration between the Julius Kühn-Institut and the Collaboration for Environmental Evidence, in order to increase the efficiency of the evidence synthesis process and facilitate reporting of all activities to maximise methodological rigour. Furthermore, we analyse how CADIMA compares with other available tools by providing a comprehensive summary of existing software designed for the purposes of systematic review management. We show that CADIMA is the only available open access tool that is designed to: (1) assist throughout the systematic review/map process; (2) be suited to reviews broader than medical sciences; (3) allow for offline data extraction; and, (4) support working as a review team.

Eligibility screening in evidence synthesis of environmental management topics

The eligibility screening step of a systematic review or systematic map (sometimes referred to as ‘study selection’, ‘evidence selection’ or ‘inclusion screening’) determines the scope of the evidence that may answer the review or map question. Eligibility screening involves the development, testing and application of eligibility criteria (inclusion and exclusion criteria) by an evidence synthesis review team, based on methods pre-specified in the review or map protocol. Some parts of the process require judgement, meaning that consistent and transparent reporting of the eligibility criteria and the process for applying them are essential in order to reduce the risk of introducing errors or bias. The existing Collaboration for Environmental Evidence (CEE) Guidelines for Systematic Reviews in Environmental Management (version 4.2, March 2013) give relatively limited guidance on how to conduct eligibility screening. In this paper we provide more in-depth information on good practice methods for this step of evidence synthesis, based on a critical consideration of existing guidance and current practice. Our aim is to provide recommendations to support those conducting CEE systematic reviews or systematic maps for environmental management questions; however, the methods we describe are generic and should be broadly applicable across a wide range of environmental research topics.

Systematic searching for environmental evidence using multiple tools and sources

BackgroundThis paper provides guidance about how to plan, prepare, conduct, report, amend or update a systematic search. It aims to contribute to a new version of the Collaboration for Environmental Evidence (CEE) Guidelines for Systematic Reviews in Environmental Management, and the methods we describe are likely to be broadly applicable across a wider range of topics. In evidence synthesis, searches are expected to be repeatable, fit for purpose, with minimum biases, and to collate a maximum number of relevant articles. Failing to include relevant information in an evidence synthesis may lead to inaccurate or skewed conclusions and/or changes in conclusions as soon as the omitted information is added.MethodThe paper takes into account similar documents produced by the Cochrane Collaboration and the Campbell Collaboration, including necessary adjustments for environmental policy and management, and the current version of the CEE Guidelines (version 4.2, 2013). Where possible this guidance is based on evidence from research, and in its absence on expert opinion and experience.ResultsHere we aim to provide guidance on the optimal search structure as the basis on which any evidence synthesis should be built.ConclusionIt is aimed at all those who intend to conduct systematic evidence synthesis, including reviews and Ph.D. thesis.

Response to “Collating science-based evidence to inform public opinion on the environmental effects of marine drilling platforms in the Mediterranean Sea”

In their recent review article, Mangano and Será (Journal of Environmental Management, 188:195–202) collate and describe the evidence base relating to the impacts of marine drilling platforms in the Mediterranean. The authors claim to have undertaken a systematic map using the Guidelines for Systematic Review in Environmental Management produced by the Collaboration for Environmental Evidence (CEE) as a basis for their methods. Here, I highlight major problems with their methods and the reporting of their activities. I demonstrate that a higher level of rigour and transparency is necessary for a true systematic map. Whilst their work is not without merit and may prove useful for decision-makers, their review could have been conducted and reported to a greater level of reliability. I stress the importance of transparency, comprehensiveness, and repeatability in ensuring that reviews are reliable and fit-for-purpose. I highlight the pitfalls of the authors’ approach in terms of: question framing; searching for evidence; the definition of grey literature; key outputs from systematic maps; and the dangers of vote-counting.

Beyond PRISMA: Systematic reviews to inform marine science and policy

A recent article by Sierra-Correa and Cantera Kintz published in Marine Policy 51 2015 identifies the need for systematic reviews of evidence to inform marine policy and management. To guide their review, the authors apply the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) Statement as a methodology. We identified eighteen systematic reviews published on marine topics between 2008 and 2015. Of those which stated a methodology (N=12), 25% (N=3) applied the PRISMA Statement. PRISMA is a checklist designed by the medical community to improve reporting standards of systematic reviews and meta-analyses, rather than guidelines for their conduct. Relevant guidelines have already been produced by the Collaboration for Environmental Evidence. By using PRISMA as a methodology without referring to these guidelines, or worse, post hoc without conducting a full systematic review, authors may unintentionally give the impression of having undertaken a more rigorous review than is in fact the case. Given the apparent increase in systematic reviews of marine and coastal topics, it is vital that appropriate methodology be used. Authors undertaking future reviews should use existing environmental systematic review guidance to help plan and conduct their review. By following these guidelines, standards for marine reviews should increase, ultimately resulting in more rigorous reviews better able to inform future marine science and policy.

PROTOCOL: Access to Electricity for Improving Health, Education and Welfare in Low‐ and Middle‐Income Countries: A Systematic Review

PROTOCOL: Access to Electricity for Improving Health, Education and Welfare in Low‐ and Middle‐Income Countries: A Systematic Review

Updating reviews: commitments and opportunities

Unlike primary research, all reviews, whether systematicor not, have a limited ‘shelf-life’. As new findings of pri-mary research are reported, dated review findings be-come less reliable as an assessment of the best availableevidence. This can be a particular issue when reviews re-port a quantitative synthesis that provides combinedmeans of effects of interventions or impacts of expo-sures. Combined means can be changed substantially bythe addition of findings from a new, large, well designedstudy. This is particularly true when the evidence base isweak as is often the case in environmental management.Equally, new findings may enable a quantitative synthe-sis, when the previously published review may have con-cluded that no quantitative synthesis was possible. Forthese reasons a key component of systematic review(SR) methodology is the commitment to keep SRs up-dated on an appropriate timescale so that they track thedevelopment of the evidence base. Collaboration forEnvironmental Evidence (CEE) guidelines note that outof date SRs can be misleading and suggest an averagetime period of five years for updates [1]. However, sci-ence in different areas of environmental managementadvances at different rates and so five years is very mucha guideline and not a rule.The guidelines go on to suggest that:– ifareviewisfiveormoreyearsoutofdate,theCEEeditorial team will contact the authors inviting themto update the review.– if the authors are unable to take up this invitation,the review will be marked as ‘update sought’ andupdates will be open to any interested party.– in the case that a new review team is formed toupdate a review, they will be expected to liaise asmuch as possible with the original team, who mayalso be named as authors in the updated review toreflect the intellectual input into the review as awhole.Registration of an update, as with a new SR, is throughthe submission of a protocol. The protocol should citethe original protocol and be clear about how the newone differs from (and possibly improves on) the old. Up-dating is also an opportunity to learn from previous ef-forts and to improve methodology. It is therefore notexpected that an update will be a faithful repetition ofthe original. However, changes should be highlightedand explained.The CEE Library of completed reviews (www.environ-mentalevidence.org/Reviews.html) includes over 20 SRsthat are more than five years old and none have so farbeen updated. The majority were conducted as part ofthe process of developing systematic review method-ology for environmental management and could nodoubt be improved in many ways. Updates can thus bein the form of methodology, as reflected in the devel-opment of CEE Guidelines (now at version 4.2), as wellas adding new research findings. Some reviews can beeven more dated than their publication date suggestsas the searches may have been conducted years earlier.The first example of an update in progress has recentlybeen published as a protocol [2] and relates to a CEESR originally published in 2010 in which the searchwas conducted in 2008 [3].Beside updating CEE SRs, an exciting opportunity existsto update other reviews and meta-analyses to meet CEEstandards. In general, published reviews and meta-analysesare of very variable standard [4] and the raising of thesestandards is a key objective of CEE. It seems sensible thento have dual objectives of updating old reviews by addingnew findings and updating methodology and conduct ofthe review to CEE standards. We call on authors of re-views and meta-analyses to consider if it is the right timeto update their review and to register their protocol withCEE. Again, registration would be the same process exceptthat the protocol would likely be entirely new and referonly to the former review article as a basis for the CEE SR.Of course many original authors may not be motivated toperiodically update a review and so I would like toencourage anyone interested in conducting a SR and

Evaluating effects of land management on greenhouse gas fluxes and carbon balances in boreo-temperate lowland peatland systems

Peatlands cover 2 to 5 percent of the global land area, while storing between 30 and 50 percent of all global soil carbon (C). Peatlands constitute a substantial sink of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) via photosynthesis and organic matter accumulation, but also release methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and CO2 through respiration, all of which are powerful greenhouse gases (GHGs). Lowland peats in boreo-temperate regions may store substantial amounts of C and are subject to disproportionately high land-use pressure. Whilst evidence on the impacts of different land management practices on C cycling and GHG fluxes in lowland peats does exist, these data have yet to be synthesised. Here we report on the results of a Collaboration for Environmental Evidence (CEE) systematic review of this evidence. Evidence was collated through searches of literature databases, search engines, and organisational websites using tested search strings. Screening was performed on titles, abstracts and full texts using established inclusion criteria for population, intervention/exposure, comparator, and outcome key elements. Remaining relevant full texts were critically appraised and data extracted according to pre-defined strategies. Meta-analysis was performed where sufficient data were reported. Over 26,000 articles were identified from searches, and screening of obtainable full texts resulted in the inclusion of 93 relevant articles (110 independent studies). Critical appraisal excluded 39 studies, leaving 71 to proceed to synthesis. Results indicate that drainage increases N2O emission and the ecosystem respiration of CO2, but decreases CH4 emission. Secondly, naturally drier peats release more N2O than wetter soils. Finally, restoration increases CH4 release. Insufficient studies reported C cycling, preventing quantitative synthesis. No significant effect was identified in meta-analyses of the impact of drainage and restoration on DOC concentration. Consistent patterns in C concentration and GHG release across the evidence-base may exist for certain land management practices: drainage increases N2O production and CO2 from respiration; drier peats release more N2O than wetter counterparts; and restoration increases CH4 emission. We identify several problems with the evidence-base; experimental design is often inconsistent between intervention and control samples, pseudoreplication is common, and variability measures are often unreported.