A geographic analysis of the published aquatic biodiversity research in relation to the ecological footprint of the country where the work was done

Original Paper

Abstract

The use of the term “biodiversity” in the aquatic literature has expanded rapidly during the last years. In this paper, we address the influence of the geographic, social and economic characteristics of a country in the published effort as it appears in the bibliography from the corresponding author of each publication. Social and geographic characteristics are expressed by coast length, population, the population living a maximum of 100 km from the coast, population density, total fish catches, and continental shelf surface. Economic characteristics are expressed by gross national product, gross national product per capita, footprint and ecological deficit. Our results showed that the majority of the published aquatic biodiversity research was in aquatic ecology journals. The number of publications referring to marine biodiversity per country of origin of the corresponding author was significantly correlated to the length of coastline, fisheries production, gross national product, population density and other economic, social and geographic characteristics of the country. Most of the highly publishing countries are developed countries with an ecologically harmful lifestyle. The research per country carried out in non-adjacent to the country sea zones remains low.

Keywords

Marine Bibliographic analysis Human geography Political ecology Ecological economics Social ecology 

References

  1. Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts database (ASFA). 1978–2001Google Scholar
  2. Batabyal AA (2007) International aspects of invasive species management: a research agenda. Stoch Env Res Risk A 21:717–727CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baum JK, Myers RA, Kehler DG, Worm B, Harley SJ, Doherty PA (2003) Collapse and conservation of shark populations in the Northwest Atlantic. Science 299:389–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Casey JM, Myers RM (1998) Near extinction of a large, widely distributed fish. Science 281:690–692CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. CBD (1992) Convention on biological diversity. UNCED, Rio de JaneiroGoogle Scholar
  6. Clarke A (1992) Is there a latitudinal diversity cline in the sea. Trends Ecol Evol 7:286–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Common M, Perrings C (1992) Towards an ecological economics of sustainability. Ecol Econ 6:7–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Costanza R (1996) Ecological economics: reintegrating the study of humans and nature. Ecol Appl 6:978–990CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. FAO, World statistics (2000)Google Scholar
  10. Gaston KJ (1996) What is biodiversity? In: Gaston KJ (ed) Biodiversity: a biology of numbers and difference. Blackwell Science, Oxford, pp 1–9Google Scholar
  11. Gaston KJ, Spicer JL (1998) Biodiversity: an introduction. Blackwell Science, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  12. Gessner MO, Inchausti P, Persson L, Raffaelli GS, Giller PS (2004) Biodiversity effects on ecosystem functioning: insights from aquatic systems. Oikos 104:419–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gray JS (2000) The measurement of marine species diversity, with an application to the benthic fauna of the Norwegian continental shelf. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 250:23–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gray JS (2002) The species diversity of marine soft sediments. Mar Ecol Progr Se 244:285–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Heip C, Warwick R, d’Ozouville L, (eds) (1998) A European science plan on marine biodiversity. Yerseke, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  16. Levin PS, Kochin BF (2004) Diversity: publication of marine conservation papers: is conservation biology too dry? Conserv Biol 18:1160–1162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lourie SA, Vincent ACJ (2004) Using biogeography to help set priorities in marine conservation. Conserv Biol 18:1004–1020CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Man JP, Weinkauf JG, Tsang M, Sin DD (2004) Why do some countries publish more than others? An international comparison of research funding English proficiency and publication output in highly ranked general medical journals. Eur J Epidemiol 19:811–817CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Margalef R (1997) Our biosphere. Excellence in ecology, 10. Ecology Institute, Oldendorf/LuheGoogle Scholar
  20. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: biodiversity synthesis. World Resources Institute, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  21. Moustakas A, Karakassis I (2005) How diverse is aquatic biodiversity research? Aquat Ecol 39:367–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Myers RA, Worm B (2003) Rapid worldwide depletion of predatory fish communities. Nature 423:280–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Odum HT (1971) Environment, power, and society. John Wiley & Sons, NY, USAGoogle Scholar
  24. Ormerod SJ (2003) Current issues with fish and fisheries: editor’s overview and introduction. J Appl Ecol 40:204–213Google Scholar
  25. Ren L, Yuan X, Liu R (2006) Research on method development during the strategic environmental assessment. Stoch Env Res Risk A 31:151–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Roberts K, Weitzman ML (1981) Funding criteria for research, development and exploration projects. Econometrica 49:1261–1288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rohde K (1998) Latitudinal gradients in species diversity. Area matters, but how much? Oikos 82:184–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rosenzweig ML (1995) Species diversity in space and time. Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  29. Sutherland WJ et al (2006) The identification of 100 ecological questions of high policy relevance in the UK. J Appl Ecol 43:617–627CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Swanson T (1996) The reliance of northern economies on southern biodiversity: biodiversity as information. Ecol Econ 17:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Tamerius JD, Wise EK, Uejio CK, McCoy AM, Comrie AC (2007) Climate and human health: synthesizing environmental complexity and uncertainty. Stoch Env Res Risk A 21:601–613CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Thomas CD et al (2004) Extinction risk from climate change. Nature 427:145–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Valdovinos C, Navarrete SA, Marquet PA (2003) Mollusk species diversity in the Southeastern Pacific: why are there more species towards the pole? Ecography 26:139–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Vanaverbeke J, Soetaert K, Heip C, Vanreusel A (1997) The metazoan meiobenthos along the continental slope of the Goban Spur (NE Atlantic). J Sea Res 38:93–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wackernagel M, Onisto L, Bello P, Callejas Linares A, Lopez Falfan IS, Mendez Garcia J, Suarez Guerrero AI, Suarez Guerrero MG (1999) National natural capital accounting with ecological footprint concept. Ecol Econ 29:375–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Walker PA (2005) Political ecology: where is the ecology? Prog Hum Geogr 29:73–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Walters CJ (1986) Adaptive management of renewable resources. McGraw-Hill, NY, USAGoogle Scholar
  38. Wang X, Bai S, Lu X, Li Q, Zhang X, Yu L (2008) Ecological risk assessment of eutrophication in Songhua Lake, China. Stoch Env Res Risk A 22:477–486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wilson EO (1986) Biodiversity. National academy of sciences, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Integrative and Comparative Biology, Faculty of Biological SciencesUniversity of LeedsLeedsUK
  2. 2.Biology DepartmentUniversity of CreteCreteGreece

Personalised recommendations