Witnessing Microaggressions on Campus: Effective and Ineffective Ally Behaviors

Microaggressions are common, intentional or unintentional everyday insults towards a minority group (Sue et al., 2007). Despite the everyday occurrences of microaggressions and links with low well-being and academic performance (Keels et al., 2017), there is limited research on effective behaviors to combat microaggressions. This study examined ways students respond to microaggressions based on gender, sexuality, and ethnicity. Building on previous research (Toomey & McGeorge, 2018), we hypothesized that women, ethnic minorities, and sexual minorities will show more effective allyship behaviors than those who do not identify as a minority.We recruited 218 first year college students (74% women, 24% men, 2% trans/non-binary; Mage = 18) to take a three part online study about campus climate. Participants were asked questions about their campus experiences, knowledge about microaggression, and ally behaviors. Questions regarding ally behaviors asked participants their typical reaction to a microaggression, using a scale from 1 (does not describe my typical response) to 5 (describes my typical response extremely well). Questions in this section ranged from ineffective (“laugh”), neutral (“wait to hear/see what the victim does”), to effective (“ask the victim if they are okay”) behaviors. Inconsistent with our hypotheses, we found no effect of gender, sexual orientation, or ethnicity on effective or ineffective ally behaviors (B range .06 to .43, p \u3e .05). As for neutral ally behaviors, a statistically significant effect was found for the variable of gender on the use of neutral strategies ( B = 0.39, p \u3c 0.05). Hence, cis-gendered women reported to be more likely to use neutral strategies than cis-gendered men. No significant effect was found for sexuality (B range = -0.0080 to 0.29, p \u3e 0.05). Although our hypotheses were not supported, interesting insights can be drawn from this study. Participants may have felt pressure to answer in socially desirable ways by reporting more allyship behaviors. Furthermore, there were little participants who identified as part of a majority group compared to participants who identified as minorities, which suggests a lack of willingness from more privileged individuals to participate in a study studying micro-aggressions

Exploring movement patterns and changing distributions of baleen whales in the western North Atlantic using a decade of passive acoustic data

© The Author(s), 2020. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License. The definitive version was published in Davis, G. E., Baumgartner, M. F., Corkeron, P. J., Bell, J., Berchok, C., Bonnell, J. M., Thornton, J. B., Brault, S., Buchanan, G. A., Cholewiak, D. M., Clark, C. W., Delarue, J., Hatch, L. T., Klinck, H., Kraus, S. D., Martin, B., Mellinger, D. K., Moors-Murphy, H., Nieukirk, S., Nowacek, D. P., Parks, S. E., Parry, D., Pegg, N., Read, A. J., Rice, A. N., Risch, D., Scott, A., Soldevilla, M. S., Stafford, K. M., Stanistreet, J. E., Summers, E., Todd, S., & Van Parijs, S. M. Exploring movement patterns and changing distributions of baleen whales in the western North Atlantic using a decade of passive acoustic data. Global Change Biology, (2020): 1-30, doi:10.1111/gcb.15191.Six baleen whale species are found in the temperate western North Atlantic Ocean, with limited information existing on the distribution and movement patterns for most. There is mounting evidence of distributional shifts in many species, including marine mammals, likely because of climate‐driven changes in ocean temperature and circulation. Previous acoustic studies examined the occurrence of minke (Balaenoptera acutorostrata ) and North Atlantic right whales (NARW; Eubalaena glacialis ). This study assesses the acoustic presence of humpback (Megaptera novaeangliae ), sei (B. borealis ), fin (B. physalus ), and blue whales (B. musculus ) over a decade, based on daily detections of their vocalizations. Data collected from 2004 to 2014 on 281 bottom‐mounted recorders, totaling 35,033 days, were processed using automated detection software and screened for each species' presence. A published study on NARW acoustics revealed significant changes in occurrence patterns between the periods of 2004–2010 and 2011–2014; therefore, these same time periods were examined here. All four species were present from the Southeast United States to Greenland; humpback whales were also present in the Caribbean. All species occurred throughout all regions in the winter, suggesting that baleen whales are widely distributed during these months. Each of the species showed significant changes in acoustic occurrence after 2010. Similar to NARWs, sei whales had higher acoustic occurrence in mid‐Atlantic regions after 2010. Fin, blue, and sei whales were more frequently detected in the northern latitudes of the study area after 2010. Despite this general northward shift, all four species were detected less on the Scotian Shelf area after 2010, matching documented shifts in prey availability in this region. A decade of acoustic observations have shown important distributional changes over the range of baleen whales, mirroring known climatic shifts and identifying new habitats that will require further protection from anthropogenic threats like fixed fishing gear, shipping, and noise pollution.We thank Chris Pelkie, David Wiley, Michael Thompson, Chris Tessaglia‐Hymes, Eric Matzen, Chris Tremblay, Lance Garrison, Anurag Kumar, John Hildebrand, Lynne Hodge, Russell Charif, Kathleen Dudzinski, and Ann Warde for help with project planning, field work support, and data management. For all the support and advice, thanks to the NEFSC Protected Species Branch, especially the passive acoustics group, Josh Hatch, and Leah Crowe. We thank the field and crew teams on all the ships that helped in the numerous deployments and recoveries. This research was funded and supported by many organizations, specified by projects as follows: data recordings from region 1 were provided by K. Stafford (funding: National Science Foundation #NSF‐ARC 0532611). Region 2 data: D. K. Mellinger and S. Nieukirk, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) PMEL contribution #5055 (funding: NOAA and the Office of Naval Research #N00014–03–1–0099, NOAA #NA06OAR4600100, US Navy #N00244‐08‐1‐0029, N00244‐09‐1‐0079, and N00244‐10‐1‐0047). Region 3A data: D. Risch (funding: NOAA and Navy N45 programs). Region 3 data: H. Moors‐Murphy and Fisheries and Oceans Canada (2005–2014 data), and the Whitehead Lab of Dalhousie University (eastern Scotian Shelf data; logistical support by A. Cogswell, J. Bartholette, A. Hartling, and vessel CCGS Hudson crew). Emerald Basin and Roseway Basin Guardbuoy data, deployment, and funding: Akoostix Inc. Region 3 Emerald Bank and Roseway Basin 2004 data: D. K. Mellinger and S. Nieukirk, NOAA PMEL contribution #5055 (funding: NOAA). Region 4 data: S. Parks (funding: NOAA and Cornell University) and E. Summers, S. Todd, J. Bort Thornton, A. N. Rice, and C. W. Clark (funding: Maine Department of Marine Resources, NOAA #NA09NMF4520418, and #NA10NMF4520291). Region 5 data: S. M. Van Parijs, D. Cholewiak, L. Hatch, C. W. Clark, D. Risch, and D. Wiley (funding: National Oceanic Partnership Program (NOPP), NOAA, and Navy N45). Region 6 data: S. M. Van Parijs and D. Cholewiak (funding: Navy N45 and Bureau of Ocean and Energy Management (BOEM) Atlantic Marine Assessment Program for Protected Species [AMAPPS] program). Region 7 data: A. N. Rice, H. Klinck, A. Warde, B. Martin, J. Delarue, and S. Kraus (funding: New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Massachusetts Clean Energy Center, and BOEM). Region 8 data: G. Buchanan, and K. Dudzinski (funding: New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and the New Jersey Clean Energy Fund) and A. N. Rice, C. W. Clark, and H. Klinck (funding: Center for Conservation Bioacoustics at Cornell University and BOEM). Region 9 data: J. E. Stanistreet, J. Bell, D. P. Nowacek, A. J. Read, and S. M. Van Parijs (funding: NOAA and US Fleet Forces Command). Region 10 data: L. Garrison, M. Soldevilla, C. W. Clark, R. A. Chariff, A. N. Rice, H. Klinck, J. Bell, D. P. Nowacek, A. J. Read, J. Hildebrand, A. Kumar, L. Hodge, and J. E. Stanistreet (funding: US Fleet Forces Command, BOEM, NOAA, and NOPP). Region 11 data: C. Berchok as part of a collaborative project led by the Fundacion Dominicana de Estudios Marinos, Inc. (Dr. Idelisa Bonnelly de Calventi; funding: The Nature Conservancy [Elianny Dominguez]) and D. Risch (funding: World Wildlife Fund, NOAA, and Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs)

A sensorimotor control framework for understanding emotional communication and regulation

JHGW and CFH are supported by the Northwood Trust. TEVR was supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Early Career Fellowship (1088785). RP and MW were supported by the the Australian Research Council (ARC) Centre of Excellence for Cognition and its Disorders (CE110001021)Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Ecological Role of Submarine Canyons and Need for Canyon Conservation: A Review

Submarine canyons are major geomorphic features of continental margins around the world. Several recent multidisciplinary projects focused on the study of canyons have considerably increased our understanding of their ecological role, the goods, and services they provide to human populations, and the impacts that human activities have on their overall ecological condition. Pressures from human activities include fishing, dumping of land-based mine tailings, and oil and gas extraction. Moreover, hydrodynamic processes of canyons enhance the down-canyon transport of litter. The effects of climate change may modify the intensity of currents. This potential hydrographic change is predicted to impact the structure and functioning of canyon communities as well as affect nutrient supply to the deep-ocean ecosystem. This review not only identifies the ecological status of canyons, and current and future issues for canyon conservation, but also highlights the need for a better understanding of anthropogenic impacts on canyon ecosystems and proposes other research required to inform management measures to protect canyon ecosystemsVersión del edito

Cetacean rapid assessment : an approach to fill knowledge gaps and target conservation across large data deficient areas

The work was funded by the Pew Marine Fellows Program and WCS.1. Many species and populations of marine megafauna are undergoing substantial declines, while many are also very poorly understood. Even basic information on species presence is unknown for tens of thousands of kilometres of coastline, particularly in the developing world, which is a major hurdle to their conservation. 2. Rapid ecological assessment is a valuable tool used to identify and prioritize areas for conservation; however, this approach has never been clearly applied to marine cetaceans. Here a rapid assessment protocol is outlined that will generate broad‐scale, quantitative, baseline data on cetacean communities and potential threats, that can be conducted rapidly and cost-effectively across whole countries, or regions. 3. The rapid assessment was conducted in Tanzania, East Africa, and integrated collection of data on cetaceans from visual, acoustic, and interview surveys with existing information from multiple sources, to provide low resolution data on cetacean community relative abundance, diversity, and threats. Four principal threats were evaluated and compared spatially using a qualitative scale: cetacean mortality in fishing gear (particularly gillnets); cetacean hunting, consumption or use by humans; shipping related collision risk and noise disturbance; and dynamite fishing. 4. Ninety‐one groups of 11 species of marine mammal were detected during field surveys. Potentially the most important area for cetaceans was the Pemba Channel, a deep, high‐current waterway between Pemba Island and mainland Africa, where by far the highest relative cetacean diversity and high relative abundance were recorded, but which is also subject to threats from fishing. 5. A rapid assessment approach can be applied in data deficient areas to quickly provide information on cetaceans that can be used by governments and managers for marine spatial planning, management of developments, and to target research activities into the most important locations.PostprintPeer reviewe

Developing Behavior Change Interventions

Peer reviewe

Changing Behavior : A Theory- and Evidence-Based Approach

Social problems in many domains, including health, education, social relationships, and the workplace, have their origins in human behavior. The documented links between behavior and social problems have sparked interest in governments and organizations to develop effective interventions to promote behavior change. The Handbook of Behavior Change provides comprehensive coverage of contemporary theory, research, and practice on behavior change. The handbook incorporates theory- and evidence-based approaches to behavior change with chapters from leading theorists, researchers, and practitioners from multiple disciplines, including psychology, sociology, behavioral science, economics, and implementation science. Chapters are organized into three parts: (1) Theory and Behavior Change; (2) Methods and Processes of Behavior Change: Intervention Development, Application, and Translation; and (3) Behavior Change Interventions: Practical Guides to Behavior Change. This chapter provides an overview of the theory- and evidence-based approaches of the handbook, introduces the content of the handbook, and provides suggestions on how the handbook may be used by different readers. The handbook aims to provide all interested in behavior change, including researchers and students, practitioners, and policy makers, with up-to-date knowledge on behavior change and guidance on how to develop effective interventions to change behavior in different populations and contexts.Peer reviewe

Working Group on Marine Mammal Ecology (WGMME)

159 pages.-- This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0)The Working Group on Marine Mammal Ecology met in 2022 to address five terms of reference. Under the first of these, ToR A, new information on cetacean and seal population abundance, distribution, population/stock structure, was reviewed, including information on vagrant ma-rine mammal species. This was done to ensure the recording of possible range changes in marine mammal species in the future. For cetaceans, an update is given for the different species, providing for a latest estimate for all species studies. In this report, particular attention is given to the updating of information from Canadian and US waters, and together with those countries, latest estimates for cetacean species are provided. For seals, latest monitoring results are given for harbour, grey and Baltic ringed seals. In addition, where possible, local long-term trends are illustrated for those species, based on earlier WGMME efforts to assemble these data into the WGMME seal database. For both spe-cies’ groups, a first account of vagrant species is providedN