Building Better Collections Through Relationships: Sharing Expertise During Collection Downsizing

Boise State University’s Albertsons Library undertook a substantial collection downsizing project in 2017. A survey tool was developed to investigate whether this project would strengthen working relationships between technical services staff and librarians. The survey would allow us to assess the process and its outcomes and gain insight into the emotions of those participating in the project. Survey results showed librarians and staff members had different experiences during the project. Librarians experienced more anxiety during the process than staff. More staff than librarians felt that there was a barrier to sharing their expertise due to their job role. Perceptions of technical services and librarians were not significantly changed throughout the process, although survey comments indicated an increased collegiality among staff and librarians as a result of the project. The comments of the survey respondents revealed that a high-level strategy for weeding and a shared understanding of objectives and best practices would have given the project more cohesion, supported buy-in, and increased participation. Using a survey such as this prior to undertaking a large-scale weeding process would help identify communication preferences, areas where training is needed, and best practices to use for the project. A similar survey after the project would evaluate the success of implantation from the perspective of library employees

EBL (eBook Library) eBook Use at Albertsons Library July 1, 2011-January 31, 2012

Academic libraries are searching for ways to adapt to new information needs, provide digital information, and manage the migration to digital services. The use of eBooks is now an accepted practice in academic institutions. As part of Albertsons Library\u27s response to user needs, the Library has dramatically increased the number of eBooks that are available to Boise State University faculty, students, and staff through the a

Crop Pests and Predators Exhibit Inconsistent Responses to Surrounding Landscape Composition

The idea that noncrop habitat enhances pest control and represents a win–win opportunity to conserve biodiversity and bolster yields has emerged as an agroecological paradigm. However, while noncrop habitat in landscapes surrounding farms sometimes benefits pest predators, natural enemy responses remain heterogeneous across studies and effects on pests are inconclusive. The observed heterogeneity in species responses to noncrop habitat may be biological in origin or could result from variation in how habitat and biocontrol are measured. Here, we use a pest-control database encompassing 132 studies and 6,759 sites worldwide to model natural enemy and pest abundances, predation rates, and crop damage as a function of landscape composition. Our results showed that although landscape composition explained significant variation within studies, pest and enemy abundances, predation rates, crop damage, and yields each exhibited different responses across studies, sometimes increasing and sometimes decreasing in landscapes with more noncrop habitat but overall showing no consistent trend. Thus, models that used landscape-composition variables to predict pest-control dynamics demonstrated little potential to explain variation across studies, though prediction did improve when comparing studies with similar crop and landscape features. Overall, our work shows that surrounding noncrop habitat does not consistently improve pest management, meaning habitat conservation may bolster production in some systems and depress yields in others. Future efforts to develop tools that inform farmers when habitat conservation truly represents a win–win would benefit from increased understanding of how landscape effects are modulated by local farm management and the biology of pests and their enemies

Crop pests and predators exhibit inconsistent responses to surrounding landscape composition

The idea that noncrop habitat enhances pest control and represents a win–win opportunity to conserve biodiversity and bolster yields has emerged as an agroecological paradigm. However, while noncrop habitat in landscapes surrounding farms sometimes benefits pest predators, natural enemy responses remain heterogeneous across studies and effects on pests are inconclusive. The observed heterogeneity in species responses to noncrop habitat may be biological in origin or could result from variation in how habitat and biocontrol are measured. Here, we use a pest-control database encompassing 132 studies and 6,759 sites worldwide to model natural enemy and pest abundances, predation rates, and crop damage as a function of landscape composition. Our results showed that although landscape composition explained significant variation within studies, pest and enemy abundances, predation rates, crop damage, and yields each exhibited different responses across studies, sometimes increasing and sometimes decreasing in landscapes with more noncrop habitat but overall showing no consistent trend. Thus, models that used landscape-composition variables to predict pest-control dynamics demonstrated little potential to explain variation across studies, though prediction did improve when comparing studies with similar crop and landscape features. Overall, our work shows that surrounding noncrop habitat does not consistently improve pest management, meaning habitat conservation may bolster production in some systems and depress yields in others. Future efforts to develop tools that inform farmers when habitat conservation truly represents a win–win would benefit from increased understanding of how landscape effects are modulated by local farm management and the biology of pests and their enemies

When natural habitat fails to enhance biological pest control – Five hypotheses

Ecologists and farmers often have contrasting perceptions about the value of natural habitat in agricultural production landscapes, which so far has been little acknowledged in ecology and conservation. Ecologists and conservationists often appreciate the contribution of natural habitat to biodiversity and potential ecosystem services such as biological pest control, whereas many farmers see habitat remnants as a waste of cropland or source of pests. While natural habitat has been shown to increase pest control in many systems, we here identify five hypotheses for when and why natural habitat can fail to support biological pest control, and illustrate each with case studies from the literature: (1) pest populations have no effective natural enemies in the region, (2) natural habitat is a greater source of pests than natural enemies, (3) crops provide more resources for natural enemies than does natural habitat, (4) natural habitat is insufficient in amount, proximity, composition, or configuration to provide large enough enemy populations needed for pest control, and (5) agricultural practices counteract enemy establishment and biocontrol provided by natural habitat. In conclusion, we show that the relative importance of natural habitat for biocontrol can vary dramatically depending on type of crop, pest, predator, land management, and landscape structure. This variation needs to be considered when designing measures aimed at enhancing biocontrol services through restoring or maintaining natural habitat

Crop pests and predators exhibit inconsistent responses to surrounding landscape composition.

The idea that noncrop habitat enhances pest control and represents a win-win opportunity to conserve biodiversity and bolster yields has emerged as an agroecological paradigm. However, while noncrop habitat in landscapes surrounding farms sometimes benefits pest predators, natural enemy responses remain heterogeneous across studies and effects on pests are inconclusive. The observed heterogeneity in species responses to noncrop habitat may be biological in origin or could result from variation in how habitat and biocontrol are measured. Here, we use a pest-control database encompassing 132 studies and 6,759 sites worldwide to model natural enemy and pest abundances, predation rates, and crop damage as a function of landscape composition. Our results showed that although landscape composition explained significant variation within studies, pest and enemy abundances, predation rates, crop damage, and yields each exhibited different responses across studies, sometimes increasing and sometimes decreasing in landscapes with more noncrop habitat but overall showing no consistent trend. Thus, models that used landscape-composition variables to predict pest-control dynamics demonstrated little potential to explain variation across studies, though prediction did improve when comparing studies with similar crop and landscape features. Overall, our work shows that surrounding noncrop habitat does not consistently improve pest management, meaning habitat conservation may bolster production in some systems and depress yields in others. Future efforts to develop tools that inform farmers when habitat conservation truly represents a win-win would benefit from increased understanding of how landscape effects are modulated by local farm management and the biology of pests and their enemies

A genome-wide investigation of the worldwide invader Sargassum muticum shows high success albeit (almost) no genetic diversity

Twenty years of genetic studies of marine invaders have shown that successful invaders are often characterized by native and introduced populations displaying similar levels of genetic diversity. This pattern is presumably due to high propagule pressure and repeated introductions. The opposite pattern is reported in this study of the brown seaweed, Sargassum muticum, an emblematic species for circumglobal invasions. Albeit demonstrating polymorphism in the native range, microsatellites failed to detect any genetic variation over 1,269 individuals sampled from 46 locations over the Pacific-Atlantic introduction range. Single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) obtained from ddRAD sequencing revealed some genetic variation, but confirmed severe founder events in both the Pacific and Atlantic introduction ranges. Our study thus exemplifies the need for extreme caution in interpreting neutral genetic diversity as a proxy for invasive potential. Our results confirm a previously hypothesized transoceanic secondary introduction from NE Pacific to Europe. However, the SNP panel unexpectedly revealed two additional distinct genetic origins of introductions. Also, conversely to scenarios based on historical records, southern rather than northern NE Pacific populations could have seeded most of the European populations. Finally, the most recently introduced populations showed the lowest selfing rates, suggesting higher levels of recombination might be beneficial at the early stage of the introduction process (i.e., facilitating evolutionary novelties), whereas uniparental reproduction might be favored later in sustainably established populations (i.e., sustaining local adaptation).Agence Nationale de la Recherche - ANR-10-BTBR-04; European Regional Development Fund; Fundacao para a Ciencia e a Tecnologia - SFRH/BPD/107878/2015, UID/Multi/04326/2016, UID/Multi/04326/2019; Brittany Region;info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio