Kua takoto te mānuka: Mātauranga Māori in New Zealand ecology

Mō te whakarauora i te taiao o Aotearoa me whakaū, me whakamana i te mātauranga o te hunga Māori. Nō nā tata nei, tē kitea i tēnei momo mātauranga ki ngā mahi pūtaiao, ngā mahi whakarauora taiao hoki o Aotearoa whānui. Mā te mahitahi ki ngā whānau, hapū me ngā iwi o te hunga Māori, ka kitea te huanga o ēnei aho mātauranga mo te oranga tonutanga o te hunga tangata me te taiao. Tekau mā toru ngā tuhinga kua whakakao mai mō tēnei whakaputanga. Mā ngā tuhinga o tēnei whakaputanga e whakatauira i ngā momo ara taunaki i te whanaungatanga o te hunga Māori me te hunga pūtaiao. Waihoki, hei whakapūmau i te mātauranga o te Māori ki tēnei whakaputanga, kua tuhia ngā auheke mo ia tuhinga roa ki te reo Māori. Ka mutu, mā ēnei tuhinga e mirimiri i te hirikapo hei whakaoho i ngā mahi rangahau mo ngā mahi pūtaiao ā-Māori nei. Ko te pae tawhiti o tēnei whakaputanga he whakapātaritari i te hunga mātai hauropi ki te taunaki i te mātauranga Māori. Mā te whakaora i te whanaungatanga ki waenga i te iwi Māori ka ora ngā ōhaki o te iwi Māori, waihoki, te taiao o Aotearoa whānui. Matauranga Maori, a knowledge system incorporating Maori philosophical thought, worldview and practice, provides important insight and practice and is vital for understanding and managing Aotearoa New Zealand’s ecosystems. Yet, until recently, it has remained largely invisible to mainstream ecologists and resource managers in Aotearoa. Partnering with Maori and incorporating matauranga into ecological research offers an additional dimension to neoclassical science, which we argue leads to better outcomes for society and the environment. This special issue brings together 13 papers that highlight key concepts and provide exemplars of good practice, which demonstrate development of authentic, long-term partnerships with Maori. The special issue itself has provided space for such scholarship, which does not necessarily align with western ideas of science, and has fostered the use of the Maori language by all papers having abstracts published in te reo Maori. Importantly, one of the key aims of this special issue is to stimulate further activity and research in this area. We contend that further research in this area will not only support Maori environmental and social aspirations but will also lead to holistic, enduring solutions for managing the unique biodiversity and ecosystems in Aotearoa. The challenge ahead for ecologists is to develop more widespread and effective partnerships with Maori and deeper understandings of matauranga Maori

Taming the terminological tempest in invasion science

\ua9 2024 The Authors. Biological Reviews published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Cambridge Philosophical Society. Standardised terminology in science is important for clarity of interpretation and communication. In invasion science – a dynamic and rapidly evolving discipline – the proliferation of technical terminology has lacked a standardised framework for its development. The result is a convoluted and inconsistent usage of terminology, with various discrepancies in descriptions of damage and interventions. A standardised framework is therefore needed for a clear, universally applicable, and consistent terminology to promote more effective communication across researchers, stakeholders, and policymakers. Inconsistencies in terminology stem from the exponential increase in scientific publications on the patterns and processes of biological invasions authored by experts from various disciplines and countries since the 1990s, as well as publications by legislators and policymakers focusing on practical applications, regulations, and management of resources. Aligning and standardising terminology across stakeholders remains a challenge in invasion science. Here, we review and evaluate the multiple terms used in invasion science (e.g. ‘non-native’, ‘alien’, ‘invasive’ or ‘invader’, ‘exotic’, ‘non-indigenous’, ‘naturalised’, ‘pest’) to propose a more simplified and standardised terminology. The streamlined framework we propose and translate into 28 other languages is based on the terms (i) ‘non-native’, denoting species transported beyond their natural biogeographic range, (ii) ‘established non-native’, i.e. those non-native species that have established self-sustaining populations in their new location(s) in the wild, and (iii) ‘invasive non-native’ – populations of established non-native species that have recently spread or are spreading rapidly in their invaded range actively or passively with or without human mediation. We also highlight the importance of conceptualising ‘spread’ for classifying invasiveness and ‘impact’ for management. Finally, we propose a protocol for classifying populations based on (i) dispersal mechanism, (ii) species origin, (iii) population status, and (iv) impact. Collectively and without introducing new terminology, the framework that we present aims to facilitate effective communication and collaboration in invasion science and management of non-native species

Taming the terminological tempest in invasion science

Standardized terminology in science is important for clarity of interpretation and communication. In invasion science — a dynamic and quickly evolving discipline — the rapid proliferation of technical terminology has lacked a standardized framework for its language development. The result is a convoluted and inconsistent usage of terminology, with various discrepancies in descriptions of damages and interventions. A standardized framework is therefore needed for a clear, universally applicable, and consistent terminology to promote more effective communication across researchers, stakeholders, and policymakers. Inconsistencies in terminology stem from the exponential increase in scientific publications on the patterns and processes of biological invasions authored by experts from various disciplines and countries since the 1990s, as well as publications by legislators and policymakers focusing on practical applications, regulations, and management of resources. Aligning and standardizing terminology across stakeholders remains a prevailing challenge in invasion science. Here, we review and evaluate the multiple terms used in invasion science (e.g. 'non-native', 'alien', 'invasive' or 'invader', 'exotic', 'non-indigenous', 'naturalized, 'pest') to propose a more simplified and standardized terminology. The streamlined framework we propose and translate into 28 other languages is based on the terms (i) 'non-native', denoting species transported beyond their natural biogeographic range, (ii) 'established non-native', i.e. those non-native species that have established self-sustaining populations in their new location(s) in the wild, and (iii) 'invasive non-native' — populations of established non-native species that have recently spread or are spreading rapidly in their invaded range actively or passively with or without human mediation. We also highlight the importance of conceptualizing 'spread' for classifying invasiveness and 'impact' for management. Finally, we propose a protocol for classifying populations based on (1) dispersal mechanism, (2) species origin, (3) population status, and (4) impact. Collectively and without introducing new terminology, the framework that we present aims to facilitate effective communication and collaboration in invasion science and management of non-native species

Taming the terminological tempest in invasion science

Standardised terminology in science is important for clarity of interpretation and communication. In invasion science – a dynamic and rapidly evolving discipline – the proliferation of technical terminology has lacked a standardised framework for its development. The result is a convoluted and inconsistent usage of terminology, with various discrepancies in descriptions of damage and interventions. A standardised framework is therefore needed for a clear, universally applicable, and consistent terminology to promote more effective communication across researchers, stakeholders, and policymakers. Inconsistencies in terminology stem from the exponential increase in scientific publications on the patterns and processes of biological invasions authored by experts from various disciplines and countries since the 1990s, as well as publications by legislators and policymakers focusing on practical applications, regulations, and management of resources. Aligning and standardising terminology across stakeholders remains a challenge in invasion science. Here, we review and evaluate the multiple terms used in invasion science (e.g. ‘non-native’, ‘alien’, ‘invasive’ or ‘invader’, ‘exotic’, ‘non-indigenous’, ‘naturalised’, ‘pest’) to propose a more simplified and standardised terminology. The streamlined framework we propose and translate into 28 other languages is based on the terms (i) ‘non-native’, denoting species transported beyond their natural biogeographic range, (ii) ‘established non-native’, i.e. those non-native species that have established self-sustaining populations in their new location(s) in the wild, and (iii) ‘invasive non-native’ – populations of established non-native species that have recently spread or are spreading rapidly in their invaded range actively or passively with or without human mediation. We also highlight the importance of conceptualising ‘spread’ for classifying invasiveness and ‘impact’ for management. Finally, we propose a protocol for classifying populations based on (i) dispersal mechanism, (ii) species origin, (iii) population status, and (iv) impact. Collectively and without introducing new terminology, the framework that we present aims to facilitate effective communication and collaboration in invasion science and management of non-native species

Human Perceptions of Megafaunal Extinction Events Revealed by Linguistic Analysis of Indigenous Oral Traditions

Human settlement into new regions is typically accompanied by waves of animal extinctions, yet we have limited understanding of how human communities perceived and responded to such ecological crises. The first megafaunal extinctions in New Zealand began just 700 years ago, in contrast to the deep time of continental extinctions. Consequently, indigenous Māori oral tradition includes ancestral sayings that explicitly refer to extinct species. Our linguistic analysis of these sayings shows a strong bias towards critical food species such as moa, and emphasizes that Māori closely observed the fauna and environment. Temporal changes in form and content demonstrate thatMāori recognized the loss of important animal resources, and that this loss reverberated culturally centuries later. The data provide evidence that extinction of keystone fauna was important for shaping ecological and social thought inMāori society, and suggest a similar role in other early societies that lived through megafaunal extinction events.Peer Reviewe

Carotenoid and riboflavin content of banana cultivars from Makira, Solomon Islands

The Solomon Islands face problems of vitamin A deficiency and infectious diseases, including malaria. It is essential to identify nutrient-rich indigenous foods for preventing and alleviating these diseases. Previous work in Micronesia identified yellow/orange-fleshed carotenoid-rich banana cultivars, in particular Fe’i cultivars (characterized by upright bunches), with potential to alleviate vitamin A deficiency. Although there is a great diversity of Solomon Islands bananas, little is documented about these cultivars and their nutrient content. Using an ethnographic approach, this study aimed to identify nutrient-rich cultivars and to collect information relating to production and consumption. Seven Fe’i cultivars (not previously analyzed) and three non-Fe’i cultivars were assessed for flesh color, fruit size and other attributes and analyzed for provitamin A carotenoids (β- and α-carotene), total carotenoids and riboflavin. Five Fe’i and two non-Fe’i cultivars were identified as carotenoid-rich. Of 10 cultivars analyzed the concentrations of β-carotene equivalents ranged from 45 to 7124 μg/100 g. Compared to cultivars with light-colored flesh, the yellow/orange-fleshed cultivars generally contained higher carotenoid concentrations. All Fe’i cultivars contained riboflavin, from 0.10 to 2.72 mg/100 g, some having substantial concentrations. The nutrient-rich cultivars, including Fe’i, should be promoted for their potential to contribute to vitamin A intake and overall health