Author: Journal of Applied Ecology

Pollinators, like bumblebees, are essential for agriculture, yet they’re declining due to landscape simplification and habitat loss. In this blog post, Riho Marja and colleagues tell us more about their study.

Riho Marja and his team explored the effect of field size on Bumble bee populations in Austria and Hungary. They explored this by setting up 56 commercial bumblebee colonies in Eastern Austria and Western Hungary. Two regions earlier divided by the Iron Curtain and now significantly different field sizes—Austria with very small and narrow fields (around 2 ha), and Hungary with large area fields (around 17 ha). At each site, colonies were placed next to either mass-flowering oilseed rape or near winter cereal fields, and either close to or far from semi-natural habitats like forest patches, hedgerows, river margins, or low intensively managed grasslands.

The goal was to find out how local (crop type) and landscape-scale features (field size and proximity to semi-natural habitat) affect colony success, specifically colony traffic rate (a proxy for activity), growth, and reproduction. We also examined collected pollen diversity and tested bumblebee navigation by relocating workers and recording how quickly they returned home colony with small radio frequency identification tags.

What we found

• Proximity to semi-natural habitats and oilseed rape fields increased bumblebee activity and colony performance. Colonies next to oilseed rape and near semi-natural habitats had higher traffic rates, grew faster, and produced more queen brood cells.
• Semi-natural habitats improved bumblebee orientation. Bumblebees returned to their colonies faster when they were close to semi-natural habitats, especially when flower diversity was high. In contrast, colonies far from these habitats showed slower return times, likely due to fewer visual navigation cues.

• Small field size improves navigational efficiency. Bumblebees returned faster even when flower species richness was low. This seems counterintuitive, but we believe that dense networks of field edges in these areas make orientation easier—even without a high diversity of flowers.
• Bumblebees didn’t just use for the most abundant flowers. Interestingly, bumblebees often preferred pollen from wild bushes or trees and herbs in semi-natural habitats over the more abundant and flowering oilseed rape. While oilseed rape supported colony growth, the majority (more than 80% of cases) of pollen came from wild plants like Acer and Prunus species.

Why it matters for land managers and policymakers

This study shows that small fields are very importantm but aren’t a only solution to support pollinators. Their benefits for pollinators depend also on nearby semi-natural habitats, which offer diverse and season-long food resources and help bumblebees navigate.

In large-scale farming areas, restoring or maintaining semi-natural habitats becomes even more critical. Without them, even mass-flowering crops like oilseed rape can’t fully compensate for the lack of food resources throughout the season.

So, for effective pollinator conservation and sustainable agriculture, we recommend:

• Retaining or restoring semi-natural habitats, especially in large-scale agricultural regions.
• Maintaining or creating small field sizes where possible.
• Enhancing flower diversity, not just abundance. Diverse pollen sources are key to colony health and reproduction.

Final thoughts

Our findings suggest that smart landscape design—not just crop choice—is crucial for supporting pollinators. Semi-natural habitats and small-scale farming systems complement each other in creating a pollinator-friendly environment.

For the farmers we recommend: combine small field structures with patches of semi-natural habitat to support healthy pollinator populations and the ecosystem services they provide.

Read the full article ‘Pollinator benefits of small-scale landscapes depend also on semi-natural habitat‘ in Journal of Applied Ecology.

Patrick Cook discusses the impacts of beaver wetlands on pollinator communities, summarising recently-published research.

Can beaver wetlands create a buzz and a flutter for pollinators? That’s a question that has occupied my mind since 2022. It began one evening sat at the edge of a beaver wetland looking at Greater Spearwort and wondering what pollinators visit the yellow flowers of this gigantic buttercup! Subsequently the research question evolved into a wider understanding of how plants, pollinators and the interactions between them differ between beaver wetlands and human-created ponds.

Beaver wetlands

Beavers are second only to humans in their capacity to transform wetland landscapes. They create fantastic, dynamic wetlands by building dams to raise water levels, felling trees and feeding on plants both in and around their ponds. These wetlands are diverse and constantly changing making them an ecologist’s dream!

Many studies have shown that beavers have predominately positive effects on aquatic wildlife but increasingly it is recognised that these effects can spillover “beyond the pond edge” and benefit land-based wildlife too. This could potentially include pollinators, a group undergoing worrying population declines in the UK. As beavers are returning or being re-introduced to many landscapes or regions after a long absence, understanding what impact they have on pollinators has never been more important for practitioners and policy makers.

Currently in the UK, beaver wetlands are not well incentivised in agri-environment schemes whereas other wetland types such as human-created ponds and riparian buffer strips are more actively encouraged, sometimes specifically for pollinators. Could we be missing a trick by not including beaver wetlands as part of the wider toolkit in agri-environment schemes and national pollinator strategies to create connected, pollinator habitat?

To address this question we compared the plants, pollinators and plant-pollinator interactions (flower visits) around beaver wetlands and human created ponds at sites on and around Bamff Wildland, a pasture and woodland estate in Eastern Scotland.

What did we find?

The study found that beaver wetlands provided benefits over-and-above human-created ponds for some groups (hoverflies and butterflies), whereas for other groups (bees and day-flying moths) the two wetland types were comparable.

The headline figures were that beaver wetlands had 29% more hoverfly species, 119% more hoverfly individuals and 45% more butterfly individuals than human-created ponds. The wet margins of beaver wetlands provide ideal breeding conditions for hoverflies that feed on decaying organic material and varied flower resources for feeding pollinators.

These findings matter because hoverflies are increasingly recognised as an important group for the delivery of pollination while 80% of UK butterflies show declining trends in their abundance and/or distribution.

We also found differences when looking at plant-pollinator interactions. Hoverflies were the dominant group interacting with flowers in beaver wetlands, whereas bees dominated these interactions in human-created ponds. This is partially due to the difference in vegetation community around the beaver wetlands which support plant species that prefer disturbance from fluctuating water levels, digging and browsing and often produce an abundance of flowers. This suggests that having beaver wetlands in a landscape helps diversify flower resources for pollinators, important as too frequently beaver dams are removed before their wetlands can fully develop.

What does this mean for practitioners?

The findings of our study, set in a typical semi-upland agricultural landscape, shows that beavers boost hoverfly richness, hoverfly abundance and butterfly abundance, while matching up to human-created ponds for bees and day-flying moths. Beaver wetlands should therefore be viewed as a scalable nature recovery strategy to reverse pollinator declines by restoring breeding and foraging habitat.

Currently, in the UK, most agri-environment schemes support human pond creation or riparian buffer strips, with little financial incentive for landowners to accommodate beaver wetlands on their land, despite the evident potential boost in pollination services. This position needs to change if we are to benefit from the buzz, flutter and hum of pollinators that beaver wetlands promote.

Read the full article “Beaver wetlands create a buzz and a flutter for pollinators” in Journal of Applied Ecology.

Cover image © Patrick Cook

To help usher in Halloween, let’s take a look at some recent articles from Journal of Applied Ecology that explore different spooky animals and their environments!

Bats are probably the first creature to come to mind when Halloween is mentioned, but are they top of the list when someone mentions insectivores? A recent paper by Hochrien et al 2025, explores the impact that pesticides have on bat activity in Oak forests. What they found is that bats are on the hunt no matter what…

Pinaud et al, 2025 used acoustic monitoring to investigate the connectivity of bats to their environment during mass migration events. Using the data they collected, they created a regional connectivity model, that identified the main corridors connecting the main bat habitats in the region.

Other spooky creatures on the prowl includes feral cats, a mainstay on Mediterranean islands, but also present a complex eco-sociological dilemma as to how they should be managed. Using census data to estimate population dynamics, Ceccetti and Nelli, 2025 developed a Cat Population Dynamics Simulation – that helps policy makers and planners to find the best ways to manage feral cat populations. More here.

How else can species removal affect the landscape? Harrison et al, 2025 investigated the effect that ‘Predator Free Havens’ have on the local prey populations, especially their anti-predator mechanisms. Is being free of fear actually a net negative? Or do they remain on the lookout for frights?

Would a witches brew be complete without some frogs? Maybe they should look for them in older forest plots, as a recent study by Rakotozafy et al, 2025 investigated the impacts of agroecology on amphibian populations, and found a higher level of species richness in Old forests, when compared to younger agroecological plots.

Can’t get enough? Read some more spooky articles from our other journals, below:

Methods in Ecology and Evolution:

Journal of Animal Ecology:

People and Nature:

In our ‘Field Diaries’ series, The Applied Ecologist is sharing stories from a range of different fieldwork experiences. In this post Guilherme Castro shares his research on using remote sensing to better understand how to restore landscapes.

About the Author

Guilherme Castro, he/him

Affiliation: Royal Holloway University of London & Royal Botanic Gardens Kew

Ecology interests: Landscapes, restoration, remote sensing

Overview of fieldwork

I am a PhD student at Royal Holloway University of London and Royal Botanic Gardens Kew researching ways to better restore landscapes. I use remote sensing technology to understand how the structural complexity of vegetation influences ecological processes across different land management practices – from rewilding and natural colonization to wood pastures and ancient woodlands.

To study how these different land management strategies influence ecosystem functioning, I fly drones to collect high-resolution imagery. As ecosystems change with the seasons, I am collecting data at different times of the year to assess how those changes look from above. The different cameras attached to the drone measure how much light is being reflected by the vegetation in different bandwidths. This allows me to calculate indices that are good indicators for specific ecological processes, for example the Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) as a proxy for primary productivity.

In addition to the drone work, I have been also collecting structural data using LiDAR technology. The terrestrial 3D scanner uses lasers to detect objects and allows to build highly accurate 3D models of the vegetation structure. After collecting the data, I can then calculate different metrics (e.g. vegetation height) to fully characterize the structural profiles of each site.

This is when collaborating with partners becomes crucial to unpick trends and patterns. My PhD project brings together several partners across Sussex in Southern UK, including Wakehurst Kew, Sussex Wildlife Trust, Nymans National Trust, Knepp Wilding, as well as farmers and private landowners. With their vast knowledge of how the study areas are and have been managed over time, I can better understand what the data is telling me. At the same time, this evidence is well received by all partners as it gives new insights to the management and monitoring of their sites.

Why is this an important project?

We know that structural complexity is important for biodiversity in wide variety of ways, for example by providing different habitat types to different species. But it also plays a major role in how ecosystems function and the services they provide, such as temperature regulation and pollution mitigation. In the UK context, we see vast landscapes with simplified structural complexity, which  brings direct consequences for biodiversity, while also reducing the ability of  ecosystems to resist and adapt to future climate scenarios.  Therefore, we need to understand more deeply how structural complexity shapes ecosystem functioning, especially on a restoration perspective.

Spending so much time covering different sites around Sussex has broadened my understanding of the importance of implementing different restoration and management strategies at a landscape scale. If we are to scale up restoration efforts, it is critical to understand which contributions the different land management practices provide from a structural and functional perspective. Such evidence can help us to balance different strategies and prioritize areas to implement restoration actions for effective nature recovery.

Next steps

While we already know a lot about restoring nature at scale, there are still great uncertainties on how and in what measure different strategies should be implemented. I am hoping to keep contributing with new evidence to support implementation claims and help design effective ways to put nature on a path of recovery. Not least, I have been delving into the world of remote sensing applied to the study of ecosystems and landscapes. It has been an exciting and rewarding journey and has made me a more resourceful ecologist. As the end of my fieldwork campaign approaches, I am now looking forward to analysing data, producing useful outputs and sharing it with the world.

Where can we find more information? 

A blog post about my PhD can be found here.

Discover more posts from our Fieldwork Diaries blog series here.

Are you less than five years post-PhD, live in or are from the Global South, and looking to gain hands-on experience with an editorial board? Why not apply for the 2026 mentoring scheme with Journal of Applied Ecology!

What does it involve?

Since 2015, Journal of Applied Ecology has welcomed a small group of mentees with minimum editorial experience each year. This voluntary two-year position aims to develop mentees’ understandings of the peer review process and to boost confidence. Each successful candidate can expect to:

• Be appointed one of five Senior Editors who can help guide them through the peer review process, acting as on-going support throughout the two years
• Receive continous support for any queries from the Editorial Office
• Gain experience in the peer review process by assessing manuscripts via selecting reviewers and submitting recommendations to Senior Editors
• Have opportunities to help shape the future of Journal of Applied Ecology through submitting ideas and getting involved in journal initiatives

Due to the high volume of applications we receive for our mentoring scheme, please note that this program now only recruits applicants based in the Global South (as defined here). This decision aims to help mentees develop their research agenda by engaging with international networks. Researchers from the Global South with temporary research positions in the Global North are also eligible.

---

Feedback from past mentees

Aashna Sharma (mentee 2023-2025)

‘Being a mentee with Journal of Applied Ecology was a key milestone in my journey as an early-career scientist. From 2023–2025, I was mentored by Dr. Tadeu Siqueira, whose guidance made this experience truly rewarding. One of the most valuable aspects of working with him, was learning the subtle but crucial distinction between the roles of a reviewer and an editor, something I had previously found challenging.

The structure of the mentoring program, with direct one-on-one engagement with Senior Editors, fostered open communication and thoughtful learning. The journal’s exceptional Editorial team plays a vital role in shaping this high-quality experience. I am grateful to the journal for trusting me with this opportunity and helping me grow into the role of an editor. It has been deeply rewarding to help shape promising submissions into high-quality research articles that reach and resonate with a broad ecological readership.

The journey of an ecologist includes conducting good research, writing papers, reviewing them, as well as taking on editorial roles – tasks that might seem similar, but are in fact very different. I strongly recommend applying for this opportunity, as it is rare to be systematically trained as an editor, and such training can inform many valuable decisions for the conservation of biodiversity.’

Nahuel Policelli (mentee 2023-2025)

‘In academia, no one trains you to be a reviewer or an editor, yet these are things we are usually expected to do and are evaluated on during our academic careers. Thanks to the Mentoring Opportunity at Journal of Applied Ecology, I had the chance to learn what it means to be an Editor with the help of my mentor and the Editorial Team. Not only have I been able to keep up to date with the latest research in the field as soon as it is submitted to the journal for consideration, but I have also learned a great deal about the editorial process itself. This has helped me improve the quality of my reviews, my feedback as an Associate Editor, and rethink my own work as an author.

I have also had access to editorial board meetings and had the opportunity to write Research Highlight articles for the Journal. In turn, I acted as a reviewer for the BES Small Research Grants on several occasions. For those reasons, these two years have been a fundamental step in my academic career as an Early Career Researcher from Argentina and have opened up new opportunities in the short term.’

Raquel Carvalho (mentee 2023-2025)

‘I learned a lot about the editing and reviewing process. Reading articles from different fields helped me develop a more critical eye as a scientist. When I started as a mentee in 2023, I was a postdoctoral researcher. Now, as I complete my two-year term, I am a professor in the Department of Zoology at the University of São Paulo, Brazil.  I believe that being part of this team helped me in the interviews to get a permanent position, as I was able to demonstrate my commitment to quality scientific research with practical application, capable of contributing to decision-making.’

You can hear more from our past mentees here.

---

The application process

If you’re interested in the scheme, please fill out this form. You’ll need to include the following when applying:

• What you know about publishing and the peer review process currently, as well as what you’d like to learn more about and gain from the scheme.
• A brief overview of your areas of expertise and research interests.
• Which Senior Editor you feel would be best suited as your mentor based on your research areas. You can find out more about them here.
• A copy of your CV.

If you have any questions about the scheme or the application process, please email Lydia via [email protected].

Deadline for applications: 8th October 2025, 3pm GMT.

In this blog post, Martin Nuñez, one of Journal of Applied Ecology’s Senior Editors tells us about the importance of being able to write effectively and how his latest book can help researchers to do just that.

Working as an editor for Journal of Applied Ecology has made me think a lot about the barriers researchers face in getting their papers published. There are many barriers and we have published many Editorials on this (see here for an example). One of the biggest barriers is the set of unspoken rules of scientific writing and publishing. Senior researchers usually learn these over time, but for many early-career researchers, they can be a frustrating mystery. I wrote this book to help change that.

When I was an undergraduate lab assistant, I thought writing papers would be a minor step compared to actually doing research. I quickly learned it was one of the biggest challenges. Like most researchers in Latin America, I didn’t grow up speaking English, so writing a scientific manuscript felt overwhelming—sometimes more so than developing research questions or collecting data.

Over the past 20+ years—as a student, researcher, and now editor—I’ve seen countless great ideas never reach publication. Sometimes the manuscript lacks structure. Sometimes avoidable mistakes in replying to reviewers end up in a rejecton. And often, writing simply feels so hard that we put it off.

I’ve been there. Early in my career, writing often felt impossible. Even after moving to the U.S. for my PhD, it remained a challenge. But I was determined to improve. I paid attention to what prolific writers were doing, asked questions, made (many) mistakes, and kept going. I still remember when I got two rejection emails for the same paper in one day (yes, it’s possible!).

This new book is the guide I wish I had 20 years ago. It distills everything I’ve learned: how to structure a paper, choose the right journal, respond to reviewers, and avoid common pitfalls. It’s short, practical, and (I hope) easy to read. I even added comics by Walter Policelli to make the process a bit more enjoyable (see some examples in this post).

My goal is to make this book especially useful for early-career researchers, particularly those from the Global South or anyone facing barriers to writing and publishing. I know how isolating the process can feel, and I hope this guide makes it more manageable—and maybe even a little fun.

We don’t need to be brilliant writers (I’m not!). But if we want to share our findings—or, more practically, earn a degree or get a job in science—we do need to make writing happen. If you’re working on a manuscript, mentoring students, or just want to better understand publishing, I think this book can help.

After years of learning from the Journal of Applied Ecology community, I hope this book gives something back. It’s my first, so I’d love your feedback. You can find it here.

Emil S. Thomassen explains the recent diet study of rewilded cattle and horses, showing functional differences between the two species and reveals the impacts of management actions on this functionality as described in their latest research.

The use of DNA metabarcoding for herbivorous diet analysis is a promising tool, yielding high-resolution data on plant consumption. In a time, where nature restoration and conservation are of high priority, we need more data on different management approaches, and how they affect ecosystems. Using this approach, we show that horse and cattle diets differ functionally and can be affected by winter feeding in semi-natural areas, where year-round grazing with both species is applied to restore natural functions and biodiversity.

Background

Reintroductions of large herbivores to exert control of vegetation communities (an example of trophic rewilding) has gained wide support and is currently being implemented in many areas across the globe with varying levels of implementation. Due to societal- and legislative constraints, it is not possible to fully abandon management and let the animals live completely wild. To avoid starvation, feeding is often provided in winter, where food is scarce, and animals are sometimes treated with anti-parasitic compounds to increase animal welfare. However, these management actions may impose unintended, detrimental effects on the functionality of the herbivores as well as the biodiversity connected to their dung.

Our study and the results

To test this, we extracted DNA from 315 dung samples from cattle and horses in five areas in Denmark, which had different approaches to feeding and treatments – in two areas the animals were fed a little bit, in two areas no feeding was provided, and in one area the animals received high amounts of winter fodder.

Using the DNA data, we characterized the diet compositions of the animals and the communities of dung-visiting invertebrates and found large differences between cattle and horses. The anti-parasitic treatments mainly affected the main target: parasitic roundworms, but due to methodological limitations, we cannot rule out that other dung-associated arthropods were negatively affected as well. We also found indications of altered diets when feeding was provided, resulting in higher consumption of forbs and legumes, which probably origins from the fodder at the expense of woody plants. However, these results need validation over more study sites in setups were area-specific properties can be clearly disentangled from management effects before they can be fully generalized.

Implications for management of future trophic rewilding projects

We show that feeding has the potential to affect diets of reintroduced, herbivorous mammals, and consequently, feeding practices might create “unnatural” grazing pressures. The consequences of such could be reduced plant diversity, vegetation densification, and encroachment of trees and shrubs, as expansive species are favoured by reduced consumption in the winter period. In the worst cases, feeding may compromise some of the intended biodiversity-effects of rewilding initiatives. However, it is worth noting that we did not address vegetation development directly in this study but simply discussed it based on our diet results. We encourage future studies to investigate how the trajectories of vegetation communities depend on winter feeding in controlled settings, to validate our findings and increase our knowledge of rewilding outcomes, with benefit for future applications.

Based on our diet results, while taking a cautious approach, we recommend that proactive management actions such as provision of feeding and anti-parasitic treatments should be reduced as much as possible in full-year grazing projects. Importantly, this does not imply reduction of management but rather the contrary. We suggest that reactive actions designed to mimic missing ecological processes, such as predation, natural population dynamics and grazing behaviour should be applied wisely and timely to avoid animal welfare problems while circumventing the need for proactive actions. We believe this approach to management is essential for promoting natural processes in contemporary, rewilded ecosystems.

Read the full article “Impacts of proactive health management on cattle and horse diets and dung biodiversity in Danish rewilding areas” in Journal of Applied Ecology.

In this blog post, Virgilio Hermoso explains how to plan the recovery of longitudinal and lateral connectivity to restore free-flowing rivers in their latest study.

Rivers are more than lines on a map—they are living networks. They connect mountains to coasts, nourish floodplains, and support incredible biodiversity. But over the past century, we have fragmented these systems with dams, weirs, levees and floodwalls, breaking the natural flows that sustain both wildlife and people.

There’s now growing momentum to reverse this damage. In Europe, the new Nature Restoration Regulation sets a bold target: restore at least 25,000 km of free-flowing rivers by 2030 (EC, 2020). But what does “free-flowing” actually mean? And how do we make sure that restoration efforts lead to real ecological recovery—not just nice numbers?

A new study in Spain’s Duero River basin offers a roadmap. It shows how we can move beyond piecemeal restoration and instead plan strategically, targeting the barriers whose removal will deliver the biggest ecological benefits.

Beyond just removing dams

The EU defines a free-flowing river as one that’s not interrupted by artificial barriers and remains connected to its floodplain (Van De Bund et al., 2024). That means thinking not only about longitudinal barriers (like dams and weirs), but also lateral ones—such as levees or embankments that stop rivers from spreading into their natural floodplains.

Both dimensions matter. Longitudinal connectivity allows fish to migrate and sediment to move. Lateral connectivity allows rivers to flood their floodplains, supporting wetland species, recharging aquifers, and storing carbon.

Too often, however, restoration efforts focus mainly on removing old, unused dams—projects that are easier and cheaper. But this narrow focus can miss the bigger picture. For example, removing small barriers in headwater streams might help us hit kilometre targets, but won’t restore the ecological function of entire river networks.

Smarter planning, better results

To explore better options, this study used spatial planning tools (commonly applied in reserve design) to prioritise barrier removal across the Spanish portion of the Duero basin. Both longitudinal and lateral barriers were considered, mapping where their removal could reconnect habitats for freshwater fish and restore floodplain ecosystems.

This study also considered the opportunity cost of restoration. This cost depicts what might be lost or disrupted, like farmland or infrastructure, when we remove barriers. Four planning scenarios were tested, ranging from traditional uncoordinated approaches to more integrated strategies.

The results were clear: coordinated planning that considers both types of barriers and their costs leads to more effective and efficient restoration. It ensures, for instance, that floodplains restored by removing lateral barriers are also receiving natural flows upstream—a key ingredient for real ecological recovery. Uncoordinated approaches, in contrast, often failed to align these efforts, limiting their impact.

Looking ahead: from symbolic to functional restoration

As river restoration accelerates, it’s critical to look beyond total kilometres reconnected rivers and streams, as stated under the current policy context. Restoration must support not just structural connectivity, but functional recovery of rivers, including natural flows, species movements, sediment transport, and floodplain processes. Moreover, the European Union (EU) suggests focusing on removing old or unused barriers, as these projects typically involve fewer trade-offs or costs (EC, 2022).

However, removing only obsolete barriers may not be enough to meet ambitious river restoration goals. For example, while taking out many unused barriers in small headwater streams could reconnect up to 25,000 km of rivers, it would do little to restore the natural flow and ecological processes across entire river systems. In other words, this approach might be cost-efficient, but not very effective at improving the health of rivers overall.

Integrated planning offers a way to align ecological needs with policy goals. By identifying where coordinated barrier removal can restore whole ecosystems—not just fragmented pieces that usually results from opportunistic decisions, so we can bring rivers closer to being truly free-flowing.

Read the full article “Restoring free-flowing rivers: Planning for longitudinal and lateral connectivity recovery” in Journal of Applied Ecology.

In their new study, “Immersion patterns alone can predict vessel following by albatrosses”, Jonathan Rutter et al. present a new behaviour-based method to detect previously hidden interactions between seabirds and fishing vessels.

In oceans around the world, seabirds follow fishing vessels looking for easy meal. This puts them at risk of bycatch, when birds are killed after getting caught or colliding with fishing gear. A new study led by the University of Oxford’s Department of Biology has revealed that there are certain albatross behaviours that are almost exclusively seen when they are following a vessel – a finding that could help manage bycatch risk for ‘hidden’ fisheries. The study was conducted in collaboration with Birdlife International and Instituto Universitário’s Marine and Environmental Sciences Centre (MARE).

Tracking devices like GPS are a fundamental tool when identifying bycatch risk, allowing us to see where birds forage and if this aligns with areas of known fishing vessel activity. But there is a big catch – many fishing vessels are hidden. Small-scale and artisanal fishing vessels, which make up most vessels worldwide, are often not required to broadcast their locations. Meanwhile, some fisheries – especially illegal fisheries – deliberately turn off their tracking systems. Tracking the birds themselves is not always easy either, particularly for young or non-breeding birds that spend long periods at sea.

To try and find a solution to this challenge, researchers tracked the foraging trips of 45 black-browed albatrosses in the Falkland Islands. They tagged the birds with two devices: a large back-mounted GPS, for high-resolution movement data (a location every 5 or 10 seconds); and a small leg-mounted immersion logger. When a bird was sitting in the water, this logged as wet, and when a bird was flying, it logged as dry. They used the GPS data to find occasions where birds were actively following known fishing vessels. After looking closer at the wet/dry data, they noticed something striking. Lead researcher Jonathan Rutter said: “I noticed immediately how the bird’s movements are in perfect sync with the vessel, and I thought there was no way that movement happens without a vessel being there. That ended up inspiring our entire analysis. Small-scale and illegal fishing vessels represent a massive blind spot in seabird bycatch risk assessments. With this study, we’ve unlocked a new way of seeing the unseen.”

The study showed that as birds follow vessels, they constantly alternate between landing and taking off – and they do so in a very regular way: for example, multiple repetitions of 80 seconds of sitting (wet) followed by 40 seconds of flying (dry). Jonathan added: “This behaviour looked unlike any natural foraging behaviour we had seen before – in other words, it might show vessel following, even if we could not see the vessel.”

Using wet/dry data alone, the researchers were able to detect over 80% of albatrosses’ vessel following time. Just as importantly, they rarely detected vessel following when it was not happening.

For now, the behaviour has only been confirmed in black-browed albatrosses following trawler vessels discarding fishing waste. However, the finding can still be used to prioritise conservation efforts in fisheries around the world, including the use of mitigation measures such as bird-scaring lines and managing fisheries discards. It can also help identify which areas are most in need of more monitoring and enforcement of existing regulations.

Jonathan concluded: “We do not yet know whether this distinct behavioural pattern is also seen in other seabird species following other types of fishing vessel, such as longliners. A clear next step for us is to test the method for other species; we are currently looking at the Balearic shearwater, a smaller species that frequently follows artisanal fishing vessels along the Mediterranean coast of Spain.”

This study was supported by Falklands Conservation and SAERI (South Atlantic Environmental Research Institute). This article has also been published on the University of Oxford Department of Biology website.

Read the full article “Immersion patterns alone can predict vessel following by albatrosses” in Journal of Applied Ecology.

In this blog post, Yunhui Liu and team share insights from their recent global meta-analysis on how cover crop mixtures can enhance agricultural sustainability by promoting multiple ecosystem functions.

As agriculture faces growing challenges from climate change and land degradation, cover crops are increasingly recognized as an essential tool for improving soil health and farm resilience. While the use of single-species cover crops is well established, multi-species cover crop mixtures are gaining attention for their potential to deliver a broader range of ecosystem benefits. To explore this potential, Yunhui Liu and team synthesized 1,895 paired data points from 61 field studies across the globe to compare the performance of multi-species mixtures versus single cover crops across a wide range of agroecosystems.

Mixing matters: More biomass, more nutrients, better yields

The study found that multi-species cover crop mixtures outperformed single species in several key areas. On average, mixtures increased cover crop biomass by 21.7% and accumulated more carbon (+27.7%), nitrogen (+27.7%), phosphorus (+22.8%), and potassium (+24.1%). These gains translated into a 4.9% boost in the yields of the following main crops—an effect especially pronounced in paddy fields and with certain species combinations such as milk vetch-rapeseed and milk vetch-ryegrass.

Improving soils above and below ground

The benefits of cover crop mixtures extended below ground as well. Mixtures enhanced soil moisture by 1.5%, increased total soil nitrogen by 5.8%, and boosted microbial biomass carbon and nitrogen by nearly 38%. Notably, they also improved fungal richness (Chao1 index +12.6%) and reduced soil bulk density and electrical conductivity—key indicators of soil compaction and salinity, respectively.

Tailoring mixtures to maximize impact

Not all mixtures performed equally. The analysis highlighted that both field type and species combination played a critical role. Paddy systems, in particular, saw the most significant improvements across ecosystem functions. Among mixtures, milk vetch–rapeseed and milk vetch–ryegrass stood out for consistently delivering high biomass, nutrient accumulation, and subsequent crop yields.

Concluding remarks

The findings suggest that multi-species cover crop mixtures are a promising practice for boosting both productivity and sustainability in farming systems. But for maximum benefits, mixtures should be carefully designed to suit local conditions and management goals. Functional complementarity—pairing species that bring different strengths—is key to optimizing results.

Read the full article “Cover crop mixtures enhance multiple ecosystem functions: A global meta-analysis” in Journal of Applied Ecology.