Peer Review Week 2026: Building Capacity for the Long Run

Pensoft Publishers mark Peer Review Week 2026 by spotlighting some of its Editors-in-Chief across its diverse portfolio.

Every September since 2015, the scholarly publishing world has paused to examine the process that quietly underwrites the integrity of scientific knowledge. This year, Peer Review Week runs from 14 to 18 September, bringing together publishers, societies, funders, libraries and researchers to talk about the often unglamorous but essential job of reviewing each other’s work.

The 2026 theme was chosen by community vote – 2,115 votes in total, the highest participation in Peer Review Week’s history. Peer Review Capacity: Volume, Speed, and Quality emerged as the winner, taking 40% of the vote. The result reflects a strain the whole system is experiencing: submissions are rising faster than the pool of willing, qualified reviewers, while authors and funders expect faster decisions than ever. While editors are being asked to hold the line on rigour with the same volunteer hours they always had – or less.

So, to celebrate the essential work that reviewers do, highlight some of the strains the current system is under, and show how we at Pensoft are trying to support our reviewers, we wanted to spotlight our editors-in-chief, the people who see the submission pipeline every single day, by asking them what “capacity” really means to them, and what would need to change for peer review to become more sustainable.

Capacity starts with people

Person working on a laptop
Person working on a laptop. Credit to poungsaed_eco via Envato.

We asked our editors how they would describe “peer review capacity“. Almost every answer was rooted in the same place: people, and whether enough of them are still willing to do the work.

Mark Hauber, Editor-in-Chief of the journal Individual-based Ecology, points to:

It’s about people – their willingness to give the best scientific thought to review and evaluate a fellow scientist’s work.

Tammy Robinson, Editor-in-Chief of NeoBiota, described the day-to-day challenge of finding those people:

NeoBiota editors try to avoid repeatedly asking the same people to review, but it’s very difficult to get people to accept a review invitation these days.

While for Florian Leese, Editor-in-Chief of Metabarcoding and Metagenomics, the strain of growing submissions without letting quality or turnaround times slip is a daily balancing act he’s refreshingly candid about:

Submissions in MBMG are growing faster than the time I and our editors can give them – and I think it’s worth saying that openly.

Open Laptop Displaying a Blue Network of Data
Open Laptop Displaying a Blue Network of Data. Credit to GoldenDayz via Envato.

This is precisely the problem Pensoft set out to address earlier this year, when ARPHA – our end-to-end publishing platform – integrated with Prophy, an AI-driven reviewer-discovery tool that matches manuscripts to qualified researchers from a database of millions. Across more than 90 ARPHA-powered journals, editorial teams can now reach well beyond the small circle of familiar names, surfacing reviewers by expertise and research focus rather than by who comes to mind first – directly widening the pool editors like Robinson are struggling to tap.

Freeing up expertise for what matters most

Pensoft designed the ARPHA Publishing Platform to carry every manuscript through review, editing, publication, dissemination and archiving within a single collaborative environment – precisely so that the whole publishing process is made straightforward. 

ARPHA homepage
ARPHA homepage

As Leese reflects:

The workflow side is not the problem; ARPHA handles editor assignment, plagiarism checks and the mechanics of the process efficiently, and the Pensoft team is quick to spot where things are piling up and need fixes.

Where he sees the next opportunity is in the technical, time-consuming checks that sit just beneath editorial judgment: 

What no workflow tool currently helps with is the part that actually defines quality in our field: are the sequence data and metadata deposited and usable, are the bioinformatic steps reproducible, do the results actually support the conclusions? Those checks take time that has to be carved out of an already full working day, for editors as much as for reviewers.

As numbers rise, the honest answer is that editors will need support – trained data auditors, or validated AI-based tools from the publisher that pre-screen the technical parts – or the model of the volunteer editor/reviewer will not scale. We are not there yet, but we are at the point where that has to be said.

Making reviewing sustainable

Recognition” was the word the editors returned to most often when the conversation turned to sustainability, and this is an area in which Pensoft has been investing for a decade and continues to develop.

Since 2016, ARPHA has been integrated with Publons (now part of Web of Science’s Reviewer Recognition Service), so every review logged through the platform becomes part of a reviewer’s visible professional record rather than disappearing into an inbox.

Editors and reviewers across the Pensoft portfolio also receive discounts on article processing charges.

Hauber shared his vision for sustainability in five years:

A broad reviewer base, with folks at all stages of their academic and industry careers, still willing to review and evaluate peer-workers’ studies.

Robinson sees growth coming from investing in the next generation:

Training courses for early career researchers so that they are upskilled and can be drawn in as skilled reviewers. This will be good for them and the system.

Leese proposes fewer publications and a bit more visibility for reviewers’ input: 

Stop rewarding the number of papers. My proposal: publish less, and treat reviewing as an obligation to the community that scales with your own output. Review roughly twice as many papers as you publish, and make that visible as a metric. ‘Are you paying back?’ should be a question that counts in evaluations.

He also laid out what he sees as the two changes that would help most, and what’s at stake if the field doesn’t act on them:

Two things would help in parallel. First, better recognition or (even monetary) rewards for reviewers, as long as it does not end up inflating article processing charges. Second, and specifically for a data-heavy field like in our journal: the publishing field should take the necessary but tedious checks – data and metadata availability, code, reproducibility – away from reviewers and automate them, so that human expertise is spent where it is really needed: study design, context, whether the data support the claims, and whether something essential is missing that only an expert would notice. Classical peer review is at a turning point. It can be reformed, and I think it should be; the alternative is that it slowly gets replaced by AI-generated reviews that may often not do the job as we had hoped for.

Building toward that future

Past or future sign.
Past or future sign. Credit to fotodestock via Envato.

Having been around for 34 years, Pensoft treats Peer Review Week as more than a thank-you. Rather, it reflects a continued effort to build a publishing environment that makes reviewing sustainable, from AI-assisted reviewer matching to permanent recognition to the tools that take tedious checks off editors’ plates.

The record turnout in this year’s theme vote shows the community itself has named capacity as the defining challenge of this moment. As we look at insights from editors like Mark Hauber, Tammy Robinson and Florian Leese, the message is clear: the field can only be sustainable if reviewing is treated as seriously as publishing.

A honey bee colony does not follow a calendar. Should its model?

New BEEHAVE-PPE links egg-laying rates to pollen foraging, brood size, and pheromone feedback, not just average weather.

Guest blog post by Dominik Lammers

Models help us ask a deceptively simple question: if the world works in a particular way, what should we expect to happen?

For honey bee colonies, answering that question is difficult. A colony’s development depends on food, weather, disease, the surrounding landscape, and the behaviour of thousands of individual bees. These influences do not act separately. They affect one another, sometimes in ways that are hard to isolate even in carefully designed experiments.

In a recent study with Fabrice Requier, Andreas Focks, and Jürgen Groeneveld, we explored one of these connections using BEEHAVE, a computer model of a honey bee colony. We developed an exploratory extension called BEEHAVE-PPE, asking whether seasonal colony development could arise from links between pollen, brood pheromones, egg laying, and temperature, rather than following a seasonal egg-laying pattern specified in advance.

The result is not a finished replacement for the original model. It is a hypothesis about processes inside the hive: one that can produce plausible colony dynamics, while also making clear where scientific understanding remains incomplete.

A starting point that made BEEHAVE useful

Wooden beehive boxes for beekeeping and honey collecting in blooming canola field.
Wooden beehive boxes for beekeeping and honey collecting in blooming canola field. Credit to stevanovicigor via Envato.

BEEHAVE has been used to investigate how food availability, weather, parasites, pesticides, and beekeeping practices can affect honey bee colonies. It links processes inside the hive with conditions in the surrounding landscape, allowing researchers to explore combinations of stressors that would be difficult to study directly in real colonies.

To give a simulated colony a realistic seasonal trajectory, the original BEEHAVE uses an annual curve that determines how many eggs the queen lays on each day of the year. This was an effective modelling choice. It allowed the colony to develop in a broadly realistic way under typical Central European conditions and made it possible to investigate many other questions.

At the same time, this relationship shapes much of the simulated colony’s development. The queen follows a known seasonal pattern, while real colonies are likely to adjust reproduction in response to conditions inside and outside the hive.

I was interested in what would happen if that central pattern was no longer specified in advance. That became less like removing a single line from a model and more like beginning a journey. Each change exposed a new problem: without the fixed curve, what would initiate colony growth? What would prevent it from continuing indefinitely? What processes might connect the colony’s nutritional state to its reproduction?

For me, this was both a creative and an intellectual task. It involved imagining possible biological explanations, searching the literature for evidence that could support them, and translating those ideas into code. BEEHAVE-PPE emerged from that process.

A feedback loop inside the hive

The resulting model is built around three linked ideas.

Conceptual overview of the relationships between stored pollen and egg-laying in BEEHAVE and the new version, BEEHAVE-PPE. Major differences are indicated in red. Credit to Lammers et al., 2026.

First, the amount of pollen stored in the colony influences the queen’s egg laying. Pollen is the main protein source for feeding brood, so a colony with more available pollen can plausibly support more reproduction.

Second, larvae produce brood pheromones: chemical signals that can influence the behaviour of worker bees.

Third, brood pheromones can encourage workers to collect more pollen rather than nectar. This helps replenish pollen stores and can support further egg laying.

Together, these processes create a feedback loop:

pollen availability -> egg laying -> brood pheromones -> pollen collection -> pollen availability

Temperature affects this loop. In BEEHAVE-PPE, warmer conditions increase the assumed degradation of brood pheromone. This weakens the signal encouraging pollen collection and can slow colony growth.

In one sense, temperature fulfills a role similar to the original seasonal egg-laying curve: it helps shape when growth slows and when a colony reaches its annual peak. But it does so differently. Rather than instructing the queen to lay a certain number of eggs on a particular date, it represents an environmental condition that can differ between places and years. This opens the possibility that the same underlying model could respond differently under different temperature regimes, provided that its temperature relationships can eventually be tested and calibrated.

Letting seasonal dynamics emerge

Bees Entering Hive
Bees Entering Hive on Wooden Frame. Credit to NaturesCharm via Envato.

Under the average weather conditions used in this study, BEEHAVE-PPE produced plausible seasonal colony dynamics. The simulated colonies grew in spring, reached a population peak in early summer, and declined afterwards. The number of adult bees in the simulated colonies followed the broad timing and shape of the French monitoring data used to calibrate the new module.

The model did not prove that real colonies work through precisely this mechanism. It cannot do that. A model can show that a proposed explanation is capable of generating an observed pattern; it cannot establish, by itself, that the explanation is the only or exact one used in nature.

What BEEHAVE-PPE does show is that the seasonal development of a colony need not be prescribed as a curve from the outset. A plausible combination of pollen availability, brood signalling, worker behaviour, and temperature can generate it.

That changes the role of the model. Instead of only reproducing a known seasonal pattern, it asks what biological connections could be responsible for that pattern.

Learning from where the model fails

bees on honeycomb
Bees on honeycomb. Credit to Kohanova via Envato.

The model also revealed a clear limitation. It produced plausible dynamics under averaged weather conditions, but it was vulnerable to prolonged periods in which bees could not collect pollen.

In the simulation, a long interruption weakens the feedback loop. Less pollen leads to reduced egg laying; fewer larvae produce less brood pheromone; and the weaker pheromone signal reduces the incentive to collect pollen when conditions improve. The colony can become trapped in a low-pollen, low-brood state.

This is unlikely to be the complete story in real colonies. Colonies can buffer difficult periods through stored resources and changes in brood and worker management. BEEHAVE already contains potentially relevant processes, including brood cannibalism and worker self-metabolism, but these are not yet represented in sufficient nutritional detail to support recovery within the new feedback loop.

That result gives the next steps a clearer direction. Rather than simply knowing that the model behaves unrealistically after sustained poor weather, we can identify the chain of events that causes it. This points to promising improvements, including better representation of nutrient reserves, resource recovery through brood cannibalism, and the colony processes that help it restart reproduction after a difficult period.

The data needed to go further

Honey bees flying into wooden beehive.
Honey bees flying into wooden beehive. Credit to cookelma via Envato.

Developing and testing a model depends on data. The French dataset used in this study, covering 250 colonies, was especially valuable because it provided an unusually broad picture of seasonal colony development under comparable climatic conditions. It made it possible to see not just how one colony behaved, but what a larger set of colonies broadly did over a season.

This kind of baseline information is more limited than it may seem. For several important aspects of honey bee colony development, some of the most detailed observations still trace back to research from decades ago. We have valuable knowledge about individual processes, but less information showing how pollen availability, egg laying, brood development, worker behaviour, temperature, and population size change together over time.

New long-term observation approaches, including continuously monitored colonies, could help fill this gap. Targeted measurements of these linked processes would make it possible to test not only whether BEEHAVE-PPE produces realistic patterns, but whether it does so for the right biological reasons.

Why this matters for future stressor research

BEEHAVE is often used to explore how poor forage, adverse weather, parasites, pesticides, and beekeeping practices may affect colony development. In the original model, these pressures act on a colony whose broad reproductive trajectory is already set by the annual egg-laying pattern.

Honey Bee on flower
Honey Bee on flower. Credit to IciakPhotos via Envato.

BEEHAVE-PPE changes that relationship. Because egg laying, brood production, pollen collection, and colony strength can influence one another, a stressor can affect more than one isolated part of the model. A shortage of pollen, for example, may not only reduce food available on a particular day. It may also reduce reproduction, alter brood signals, change later foraging behaviour, and affect the colony’s capacity to recover.

The current version may respond too strongly when the feedback loop is interrupted. But if these dynamics can be stabilised and supported by stronger empirical evidence, future versions could give a more complete picture of how stressors interact. They could help investigate when the effects of a stressor are amplified by the colony’s internal state, which combinations are most damaging, and where a colony’s natural buffering mechanisms provide protection.

This is particularly relevant as weather patterns, flowering times, forage availability, and temperature change together. BEEHAVE-PPE is not yet a forecasting tool for climate change or colony risk. It is a first step from an imposed seasonal pattern toward interacting biological mechanisms.

Its main value is that it makes both a plausible explanation and its remaining gaps visible. That is one of the strengths of models: they do not only tell us what we can predict. They show us what we still need to understand before prediction becomes possible.

Original source: 

Lammers D, Requier F, Focks A, Groeneveld J (2026) Food for thought: could the queen’s egg-laying rate in the BEEHAVE honey bee model emerge from the effects of brood pheromones, weather conditions, and pollen availability? Individual-based Ecology 2: e185721. https://doi.org/10.3897/ibe.2.185721

Pensoft at the 4th BioSyst.EU Meeting 2026

The 4th BioSyst.EU meeting took place in Uppsala, Sweden, from 17 to 19 August 2026, organised by the Swedish Systematics Association, in collaboration with Uppsala University.

The 4th BioSyst.EU meeting took place in Uppsala, Sweden, from 17 to 19 August 2026, organised by the Swedish Systematics Association, in collaboration with Uppsala University. For three days, the conference brought together European systematists to celebrate the discipline in the very city where it was born, home to Carl Linnaeus and the foundations of modern taxonomy.

BioSyst.EU exists to give individual scientists across Europe a shared platform, working through their national and regional societies rather than institutions. It sits alongside the Consortium of European Taxonomic Facilities (CETAF), which represents natural history institutions, and together the two bodies aim to strengthen systematic biology, phylogenetics and biodiversity research across the continent.

This year’s programme combined talks, workshops and symposia with visits to historical sites connected to Linnaeus. The main event was preceded by an early career meeting on Sunday 16 August, which gave students and early career researchers a chance to connect before the conference proper began.

Meeting the community at our booth

Pensoft were delighted to attend with our own booth, where colleagues came to chat about our publishing services, from manuscript to final publication, as well as our tools for managing and publishing taxonomic and biodiversity data. 

Pensoft’s booth at BioSyst.EU, 2026.

It was a great opportunity to introduce our journal portfolio – more than half of which comprises taxonomy and systematics titles – to old friends and new faces alike, including titles such as: 

  • ZooKeys – one of the world’s leading journals for zoological taxonomy and biodiversity research, publishing new species descriptions and revisions across the animal kingdom
  • MycoKeys – dedicated to fungal systematics, taxonomy and biodiversity, supporting mycologists with rapid, richly illustrated publishing
  • PhytoKeys – focused on plant systematics and biodiversity, covering everything from single species descriptions to large-scale floristic studies
  • Metabarcoding and Metagenomics (MBMG) – a journal built around the fast-growing field of DNA-based biodiversity assessment, from environmental DNA to large-scale metagenomic surveys
  • Zoosystematics and Evolution – published with the Museum für Naturkunde Berlin, covering zoological systematics, morphology and evolutionary biology
  • Evolutionary Systematics – dedicated to whole-organism biology of extant and fossil animals 

…and many more!

Pensoft’s journal portfolio comprising taxonomy and systematics titles.

It was also a pleasure to meet some of our authors, reviewers and subject editors at the booth!

Conference presentation highlights

One of the undoubted highlights of the conference was the keynote talk by Sandra Knapp, editor-in-chief of PhytoKeys, titled Taming the beasts: strategies for studying megadiversity. Knapp tackled the question: what do we do with genera that contain more than a thousand species?

She subsequently made the case that studying genera properly, from geography to identification, pays dividends for both collaborative science and our understanding of evolution.

Another highlight was the keynote lecture by Paul Hebert, Chair of the MBMG Advisory Board: The End Game – All Species & Their Interactions. Hebert reflected on the tens of millions of multicellular species we share the planet with, most still undescribed and many at risk of disappearing before they are even documented.

Paul Hebert’s presentation at BioSyst.EU 2026.

Among the other talks we attended was by one of our long-time partners, Olaf Banki, on the Catalogue of Life: taxonomic data services and infrastructure for all. Olaf reflected on the initiative’s evolution, from its origins thirty years ago to today, where the Catalogue of Life now serves as the taxonomic reference underpinning close to 4 billion species occurrences mediated through GBIF.

He gave a valuable overview of where the initiative stands: what it offers different user groups, including taxonomists and data infrastructures, where taxonomic data gaps remain, and how the community can contribute going forward. 

Olaf Banki’s presentation at BioSyst.EU 2026.

Notably, Pensoft’s journals are integrated with Catalogue of Life to help list the species of the world. You can find out more about this initiative by accessing the following blog post.

A final highlight was Alexander Edwards’ presentation, titled Where Were You Yesterday? Interrogating Floral Constancy in Bumble Bee Workers Using Pollen Metabarcoding. Edwards presented work using ITS2 pollen metabarcoding to study the foraging behaviour of individually marked Bombus terrestris workers in a semi-natural university garden, sampling pollen non-lethally from returning foragers over several days.

It was particularly nice to catch up with Alexander, having worked with him previously on a guest blog post, The bee’s knees: a new, non-lethal way to study pollinator networks, which explored the same non-lethal sampling approach.

Award winners

And a massive congratulations to all our award winners! In the Best Student Poster category, first prize went to Giada Spagliardi of the University of Toronto for her poster Finding depth at the surface: museomics and species boundaries of bubble-rafting gastropods, while the runner-up prize was awarded to Hannah Cremer of the Senckenberg Research Institute and Natural History Museum, Frankfurt, for Long Hidden in Tubes: First Steps Towards Resolving the Filograna/Salmacina Complex (Serpulidae).

In the Best Student Talk category, first prize was awarded to Alexander Edwards of the University of Kassel for his talk Where Were You Yesterday? Interrogating Floral Constancy in Bumble Bee Workers Using Pollen Metabarcoding, with the runner-up prize going to Tina Kiedaisch of the University of Munich (LMU) for Intercontinental dispersal, ecological shifts and repeated origins of C4 photosynthesis shaped the evolution of Amaranthaceae s.s..

The awardees at BioSys.EU 2026.

An excursion to Linnaeus’ Hammarby

On 20 August, participants also had the option to join an excursion to Hammarby, Linnaeus’ summer house just outside Uppsala. It is a rare chance to step inside an authentic 18th century Swedish manor that reveals both the private life of Linnaeus and the scientific work he carried out there! 

Pensoft notably visited the University of Uppsala Botanical Garden, also known as the Linnaean Garden, where Olof Rudbeck the Elder and Carl von Linnaeus worked:

Until next time

The 4th BioSyst.EU meeting was a fitting tribute to the roots of systematics, held in the city where the discipline effectively began. From megadiverse genera to pollen metabarcoding and the future of biodiversity monitoring, the talks reflected how dynamic the field remains. We were delighted to be part of it, and to spend three days connecting with the scientific community. We look forward to the next BioSyst.EU meeting!

Catching up with Michael Schmitt at Pensoft’s booth – our subject editor for Zookeys and Arthropods systematics and phylogeny.

Follow us on Bluesky, Facebook, X, and LinkedIn for future conference updates.

New “devil flower” species discovered in Thai national park

Researchers have described a new species of plant in western Thailand, and its otherworldly appearance has earned it a dramatic name: Thismia daemona, the “devil flower”.

Researchers have described a new species of leafless flowering plant found on the forest floor of a national park in western Thailand, and its otherworldly appearance has earned it a fittingly dramatic name: Thismia daemona, the “devil flower”.

The species belongs to Thismia, a genus of small plants sometimes called “fairy lanterns”. Unlike most plants, they contain no chlorophyll and cannot photosynthesise, instead drawing nutrients from underground fungi and spending almost their entire lives hidden beneath leaf litter.

The new species was found by botanists from Chulalongkorn University and Prince of Songkla University during surveys of Thong Pha Phum National Park, growing at nearly 1,000 metres elevation, which is an unusually high and seasonally dry setting for the genus.

“Finding Thismia daemona in Thong Pha Phum National Park was indeed a major surprise.

Typically, Thismia species are known to occur in perennially humid lowland rainforests, however, this population was discovered in a seasonal, montane evergreen forest at an elevation of nearly 1,000 metres above sea level.”

Dr Sahut Chantanaorrapint, Prince of Songkla University
Thismia daemona in natural habitat. Credit: Neeranuch Taosiri.

The find matters well beyond Thailand’s borders too. The new species belongs to Thismia section Geomitra, previously known only from Peninsular Malaysia, Borneo and Sumatra, so its discovery pushes the known range of the whole section northwards for the first time.

Its looks live up to the name. The flower is mostly black, with horn-like appendages crowning a dome shaped “mitre”, while patches of vivid reddish orange around its base recall a demon’s glowing eyes.

“Combined with its hidden, subterranean and mysterious lifestyle on the forest floor, our team unanimously agreed that naming it Thismia daemona perfectly captured its enigmatic and devil-like essence.”

Dr Chantanaorrapint

Despite its interesting appearance, its future is precarious. Known from a single population of fewer than 50 individuals in an area smaller than a football pitch, it has provisionally been assessed as Critically Endangered, partly because its habitat sits within a national park popular with tourists.

Thismia daemona. Credit: Tosak Seelanan.

Dr Chantanaorrapint sees community involvement as key to its survival:

“A key next step is adopting a sustainable conservation approach aligned with the UNESCO Man and the Biosphere concept, harmonising biodiversity conservation with human engagement.

Inspiring local people to take pride in their natural heritage not only safeguards the microhabitat, but also supports sustainable, community led ecotourism.”

The study, published in the open-access journal PhytoKeys, brings the number of Thismia species recorded in Thailand to sixteen.

Original source

Seelanan T, Chantapram I, Taosiri N, Chuchuea C, Chantanaorrapint S (2026) Thismia daemona (Thismiaceae), a new species from Thailand supported by morphological and molecular evidence. PhytoKeys 278: 177-189. https://doi.org/10.3897/phytokeys.278.202868


Make sure to follow PhytoKeys on Facebook and Bluesky for more interesting articles on plants.

Pensoft at SERE2026: Connecting Projects, Publications and People in Brest

Pensoft attended the 15th European Conference on Ecological Restoration (SERE2026) in Brest, France, where it presented a selection of EU-funded projects and scientific journals.

From 24 to 28 August 2026, Pensoft joined around 600 researchers and professionals at the 15th European Conference on Ecological Restoration (SERE2026) in Brest, France, bringing together the ecological restoration community to share knowledge, strengthen collaborations and explore new approaches to restoring ecosystems across Europe.

Hosted by the University of Brest in collaboration with the French Ecological Restoration Network (REVER) and the European Chapter of the Society for Ecological Restoration (SER-Europe), SERE2026 provided a vibrant meeting point for researchers, practitioners and policymakers working across ecological restoration. The conference covered a broad range of topics, including wetlands, coastal and marine ecosystems, ecological networks and the implementation of European restoration policies.

Pensoft was there with a selection of EU-funded projects and open-access journals, offering conference participants the chance to discover new research, explore project results and learn more about opportunities to publish and share their work.

Pensoft at SERE 2026.

A showcase of Pensoft projects

The Pensoft team presented materials from a diverse group of EU-funded projects, reflecting the wide range of environmental research and collaboration supported through the Pensoft network.

Among the projects showcased were FERRO, SpongeBoost, BioAgora, ForestPaths, EUFAWREADY, eLTER, SELINA, COAST SCAPES and COOP4CBD.

The projects cover a broad spectrum of topics, from biodiversity and ecosystem restoration to forest resilience, environmental governance, ecosystem monitoring and nature conservation. Their presence at SERE2026 offered researchers an opportunity to discover ongoing initiatives and see how scientific knowledge is being translated into practical approaches for addressing environmental challenges.

The project materials attracted interest throughout the conference, with participants stopping by to learn more about individual initiatives and explore their latest activities and results.

From ecological restoration to open-access publishing

Alongside the projects, Pensoft presented a selection of its journals and publishing platforms.

Visitors could discover titles including Nature Conservation, One Ecosystem, Research Ideas and Outcomes (RIO), Agricultural and Environmental Modelling, Biodiversity Data Journal, Check List, Journal of Regeneration and NeoBiota, alongside several other journals from Pensoft’s open-access, peer-reviewed scholarly portfolio.

The broad selection reflected the interdisciplinary nature of ecological restoration itself. Researchers working on biodiversity, ecosystems, conservation, environmental modelling, species diversity and regeneration could all find publication venues relevant to their work.

There was considerable interest in the journals throughout the conference, with discussions ranging from publishing research articles and project outputs to discovering new ways of sharing scientific data, ideas and results with the wider research community.

Celebrating excellent science

Scientific exchange was at the heart of SERE2026, and participants also had the opportunity to recognise some of the strongest contributions presented during the conference.

Several awards were presented based on votes from conference participants, highlighting outstanding talks and presentations.

Pensoft was pleased to contribute to these celebrations with the Best Talk Award. The award recognises an exceptional conference presentation and comes with a special prize: a free publication in a Pensoft journal.

This time around, the award went to Chloé Dagnelie of Gembloux AgrobioTech for her presentation: “Spontaneous succession under soil and landscape constraints: dispersal filtering and urban species pools shape brownfield true bugs communities”

By supporting awards such as this, Pensoft aims to encourage clear, engaging and impactful scientific communication while helping researchers share their work through open-access publishing.

Connecting research, restoration and communication

SERE2026 offered an inspiring setting for conversations about the future of ecological restoration and the role of research in supporting healthier and more resilient ecosystems.

Pensoft Publishers at 15th European Conference on Ecological Restoration

For Pensoft, the conference was also an opportunity to bring together several strands of its work: supporting EU-funded research projects, publishing scientific knowledge through open-access journals and creating opportunities for researchers to connect, communicate and collaborate.

The strong interest in both the projects and journals showcased in Brest was a reminder of the value of bringing science and scientific communication together in one place.

As Europe moves towards ambitious restoration goals, strengthening the connections between research, practice, policy and communication will be essential. Events such as SERE2026 provide an important space for these connections to grow.

Pensoft was delighted to be part of the ecological restoration community in Brest and looks forward to continuing these conversations at future events.

Human-Driven Fires Have Shaped The Amazonian Forest For Over 10,000 Years

New pyrogeographic research indicates that over thousands of years, human-induced fires have contributed to vegetation change in parts of the Amazon.

New research is dismantling the long-standing myth of the “pristine” Amazon. A reconstruction of 10,000 years of Amazonian pyrogeography, based on 1,361 radiocarbon (¹⁴C) dates across 303 sites – including soil charcoal and burned archaeological material – shows that fire in the rainforest is almost exclusively a human-driven phenomenon, not a natural one.

Over the last two millennia, human-ignited fire has driven vegetation change on a scale comparable to major climatic shifts, such as deglaciation or the extinction of Pleistocene megafauna.

The research has been published in the open-access, peer-reviewed Frontiers of Biogeography journal.

The human spark

Amazonian fires rarely, if ever, ignite without human input. In the pre-human evolutionary history of these wet forests, fire was an exceptional rarity.

Forest fire in the Brazilian Amazon
Forest fire in the Brazilian Amazon. Credit to J Brarymi via Getty images.

Glacial-aged paleoecological reconstructions from sites like the Hill of Six Lakes in Brazil and the Serra Sul dos Carajás reveal that charcoal was either entirely absent or present in only minuscule amounts before human arrival. Even more striking, the Campo Libre sediment core on the Andean slopes of Ecuador showed a total absence of fire for 30,000 years, ending only when humans appeared on the landscape around 4,500 years ago.

Lead author Crystal N. H. McMichael of the University of Amsterdam describes the arrival of humans as the introduction of fire to a “naïve landscape.” Because Amazonian plants are evolutionarily fire-sensitive, the introduction of regular burning by a fire-using species fundamentally altered a system that had been stable since the late Pleistocene.

The ignition timeline

By compiling and analysing 1,361 (¹⁴C) radiocarbon-dated charcoal fragments and archaeological materials, researchers mapped a history of human-driven fire across Amazonia that unfolded over three phases of the Holocene. 

Map of Amazonian sites with 1329 14C AMS dated charcoal fragments or burned archaeological material used in the summed probability analyses. Sites are color coded by geographic region: central (CA), eastern (EA), northwestern (WAN), southwestern (WAS), southern (SA) Amazonia, and Guiana Shield (GS). Symbols denote new 14C dates from this study (squares inside dashed boxes), and previously published 14C dates from soil charcoal surveys (circles) and archaeological surveys (triangles). Symbol size indicates the number of 14C dates at each site. Tree cover is shown as the fractional tree cover in proportions ranging from 0 to 1 for the year 2020 (Liu et al. 2024); b. Frequencies of 14C dates over the last 12,000 years for this study (left), previously published dated soil charcoal fragments from paleoecological surveys (center), or previously published dated material from archaeological sites (right). Credit to McMichael et al., 2026.

Between 10,000 and 6,000 years ago, fires were highly restricted, occurring primarily within the basin’s peripheral areas and along the main channel of the Amazon River. This localised footprint shifted dramatically between 6,000 and 4,000 years ago, as the geographic spread of fire and occupation sites accelerated sharply across most regions – a development that coincided with the onset of early maize cultivation in northwestern and southwestern Amazonia. 

Finally, between 3,000 and 2,000 years ago, fire reached the deep interior of the basin: though central Amazonia had remained a relatively fire-free refuge for thousands of years while the periphery burned, it was ultimately transformed as expanding human influence and fire-use reached the very heart of the forest. 

The dying fire

This human-driven fire history is marked by a dramatic, two-phase decline over the last 700 years. 

Summed probability distribution of 14C AMS dated charcoal fragments and burned archaeological material (N = 1329 dates over 303 sites) for the last 10,000 years (a) and a zoom-in of the last 2000 years (b). Panels (c) and (d) show the composite kernel density estimates based on 1000 iterations of randomly sampled ages for the last 10,000 years and 2000 years. The black dashed line in (c) and (d) is the mean probability of all 1000 iterations, and the green shaded areas are confidence intervals. Ship icon and vertical dashed line in (b) and (d) indicate the timing of the first expedition down the Amazon River in A.D. 1541. Credit to McMichael et al., 2026.

First, an initial decrease in fire frequency 600 to 700 years ago which supports the “early abandonment” of lands several centuries before European arrival. Physical evidence from lake sediments shows a significant “pollen surge” during this window, signaling massive reforestation and a major pre-Columbian shift in land use or site abandonment.

The second and larger decline followed the “Great Dying” after A.D. 1541, when disease, warfare, and enslavement killed an estimated 90-95% of Indigenous peoples in the Americas. As ignitions vanished with the population, the forest entered a second, more extensive phase of recovery. 

The ecological legacy of 10 000 years of fire

Burning fire
Burning fire. Credit to Keith Lowery via Pexels.

These changing fire patterns – particularly over the last two millennia – led to an increase in human-caused fires, which spread across all regions and accelerated changes in vegetation. Ultimately, this left a profound ecological imprint that has strongly shaped today’s plant communities by selectively favoring fire-tolerant species, such as palms, over fire-sensitive vegetation.

The restructuring of Amazonian pyrogeography over the last 2,000 years has likely played a large role in shaping modern forests. The intensification of fire during this period induced rates and magnitudes of vegetation change that are comparable to major climatic shifts. The impact was subtle,  favoring species that were already there but showed the most fire tolerance, such as some palms, but this pressure has undoubtedly changed the configuration of Amazonian plant communities.

the team explained in their research article

Citation:

McMichael CNH, Heijink BM, Witteveen NH, Zwarts A, Bush MB (2026) The pyrogeography of Amazonia: a Holocene perspective. Frontiers of Biogeography 19: e169863. https://doi.org/10.21425/fob.19.169863

New spider species discovered in Idaho, named in honour of the University of Idaho’s “Vandals”

Researchers at the University of Idaho have identified a new species of spider in the mountains of northern Idaho and given it a name that pays tribute to the university itself: Hexura vandal.

Researchers at the University of Idaho have identified a new species of spider in the mountains of northern Idaho and given it a name that pays tribute to the university itself: Hexura vandal.

The spider belongs to a small group of funnel-web spiders related to tarantulas. Until now, only two species in this genus were known, both living hundreds of miles away in the coastal forests and mountains of Oregon and Washington.

Finding a third species so far inland, in the Rocky Mountains near the town of Kooskia, came as a surprise to the research team, led by Arnau Calatayud-Mascarell, Ethan J. Briggs and Chris A. Hamilton. It extends the known range of the genus by roughly 500 kilometres and is the first new taxonomic work done on this group of spiders in almost fifty years.

Distribution and habitat of Hexura spiders including new records, records from iNaturalist, Gertsch and Platnick (1979), and The Burke Museum of Natural History in Seattle, Washington. Blue = H. picea, Pink = H. rothi, Yellow = H. vandal.

Associate Professor Dr. Chris A. Hamilton stated:

“It’s always exciting when you realize the samples you’ve been looking at are an undescribed new species. This is one of the main reasons we do this job – to document Earth’s incredible biodiversity and expand our foundational biological knowledge of our planet. It just makes it even more exciting when that undescribed diversity can be found in your backyard (figuratively speaking).”

The name is where the story becomes especially local. Rather than a Latin descriptor, the researchers chose “vandal”, which is a direct nod to the university’s own mascot. The nickname dates back to 1917, when student journalist Harry Lloyd McCarty described the men’s basketball team’s fierce style of play as “vandalizing” their opponents. The name stuck, and the University of Idaho remains the only Division I university in the United States with the Vandals as its mascot.

Hexura vandal sp. nov. female (L) and male (R). Credit: Arnau Calatayud-Mascarell et al., (2026).

When discussing how the name was picked, Hamilton said:

“It didn’t take very long for the lab to sit down and decide what to name the new species. It was basically, this is really unique because it’s only found in Idaho and it’s not very far (relative) from campus. It’s black (sorry that it’s not black and gold like the school colors!). It’s a predator that attacks. It’s a Vandal.”

The discovery comes with a note of caution. Hexura vandal has so far only been found in a handful of sites within a very small area of forest in Idaho, despite repeated searches nearby. The region faces pressure from logging, and wildfires, which are becoming more frequent, and tend to strike during the spiders’ breeding season. Taken together, these factors have led the researchers to consider the micro-endemic species likely endangered, and they hope the discovery will help build the case for protecting its habitat.

The findings are described in a newly published scientific paper in ZooKeys by the research team, based at the University of Idaho’s Department of Entomology, Plant Pathology and Nematology.


University of Idaho, home of the Vandals, is Idaho’s land-grant university and the state’s first Carnegie R1 research institution — a ranking reserved for the top 4% of U.S. universities. From its residential campus in Moscow, U of I serves the state through centers in Boise, Coeur d’Alene, Idaho Falls and McCall, nine research and Extension centers, and Extension offices in 42 counties. With more than 12,000 students, U of I is a leader in student-centered experiential learning, interdisciplinary research, business and community service and global outreach. The Vandals compete as a founding member of the Big Sky Conference and as an affiliate in the Big West and Mountain Pacific Sports Federation.

Pensoft is an independent, open-access scholarly publisher and technology provider, best known for its 30+ biodiversity journals, including ZooKeys, Biodiversity Data Journal, PhytoKeys, MycoKeys, One Ecosystem, and Metabarcoding and Metagenomics. Ever since becoming the first to introduce semantic enrichments and hyperlinks within a scientific article in the field of biodiversity in 2010, Pensoft has been working on various tools and workflows designed to facilitate data findability, accessibility, discoverability and interoperability.

Cover image:

Top: US Highway 12, near Hexura vandal sp. nov. type locality, Apgar Campgrounds, Lowell, Idaho.; Bottom: Mixed conifer forest logs, Hexura vandal sp. nov. type locality, Apgar Campgrounds, Lowell, Idaho

Original source:

Calatayud-Mascarell A, Briggs EJ, Hamilton CA (2026) Hidden in the woods: A new species of Hexura (Araneae, Mygalomorphae, Antrodiaetidae) from a highly restricted range in Idaho. ZooKeys 1290: 339–355. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.1290.200898

Two decades of fieldwork produce the first complete guide to the native reptiles of the Turks and Caicos Islands

A researcher from the University of North Carolina Asheville has drawn on 20 years of collaborative fieldwork to create a single illustrated reference for scientists, conservationists and nature enthusiasts.

A researcher from the University of North Carolina Asheville has published the first comprehensive checklist of the native terrestrial reptiles of the Turks and Caicos Islands (TCI), drawing on 20 years of collaborative fieldwork to create a single illustrated reference for scientists, conservationists and nature enthusiasts.

The study, led by Professor R. Graham Reynolds of UNC Asheville’s Department of Biology, is published in the open-access journal ZooKeys. It documents the 11 native reptile species across the archipelago’s Turks and Caicos Banks, eight of which are found nowhere else on Earth.

Two further species are represented in the islands by their own endemic subspecies. The checklist combines published research through 2026 with original field data collected by Dr Reynolds between 2006 and 2025, and includes original photographs, distribution information and conservation assessments for every species.

An adult male Turks and Caicos Anole (Anolis scriptus scriptus) watching his territory from the trunk of a tree. Big Ambergris Cay, Turks and Caicos Islands. Photograph by R. Graham Reynolds, UNC Asheville. 

Dr Reynolds began studying the islands’ reptiles in 2006, in his first year of graduate school, working alongside Dr Glenn Gerber of the San Diego Zoo Wildlife Alliance:

“This quickly turned into a passion, and I have made studying these animals the focus of my career.

I conduct fieldwork several times a year on the islands, and this year is the 20th year of this work. In that time, I have published dozens of papers on the reptiles of the region and collected a huge amount of data, and I felt that, after two decades, it was time to produce something to showcase everything we’ve learned about these animals.”

Although information on the islands’ reptiles has existed scattered across books, online databases and journal articles, no single resource has previously combined photographs, distribution maps, natural history and conservation status for every species.

“Somewhat surprisingly, there has never been a comprehensive checklist for the terrestrial reptiles of the region.

“Portions of this are available elsewhere, such as distribution maps and some photographs on the online database CaribHerp, or island checklists and natural history information in a book chapter. But this is the first time that all of this information has been brought together to fully describe and illustrate the amazing terrestrial reptiles of the Turks and Caicos.”

Dr Reynolds

Seven of the 11 native species are of conservation concern. The Turks Island Skink is Critically Endangered and may now survive as a single protected population, while the Turks and Caicos Iguana, classified as Endangered, has been lost from around 90% of its historical range. Introduced predators, particularly feral cats and rats, are identified as the main cause of these declines, alongside habitat loss and road mortality.

An adult male Turks and Caicos Curlytail (Leiocephalus psammodromus apocrinus) perches on top of a Turks cap Cactus (Melocactus intortus). Big Ambergris Cay, Turks and Caicos Islands. Photograph by R. Graham Reynolds, UNC Asheville.

The study also revises the taxonomy of the Curly-tailed Lizard, recommending that six previously recognised subspecies be reduced to two, reflecting recent genetic evidence.

Original source

Reynolds RG (2026) An annotated checklist and species accounts of the native terrestrial reptiles of the Turks and Caicos Islands. ZooKeys 1290: 1-33. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.1290.198843


For more articles on zoology, visit the ZooKeys website and follow the journal on BlueSky and Facebook.

From an Herbarium Cabinet to the Lava Fields of Isabela: Restoring One of the Galápagos’ Rarest Plants

Or how decades of curiosity, teamwork and persistence helped give one of the Galápagos’ rarest plants a second chance.

Guest blog post by Patricia Jaramillo Díaz

When I arrived in the Galápagos in 1996, I never imagined that one of the most meaningful conservation projects of my career would begin inside an herbarium cabinet. At the Charles Darwin Research Station, I spent many hours working with herbarium collections assembled over more than a century by botanists who had explored the archipelago. Each specimen preserved a moment in time – a record of where a species had lived and the landscapes it once inhabited. Together, they formed a living archive of the Galápagos flora.

Two years later, in 1998, one specimen began to capture my attention. Collected near Caleta Tagus on northern Isabela Island in 1962, it belonged to Galvezia leucantha subsp. leucantha, a small shrub found nowhere else on Earth.

Every time I opened that cabinet, I found myself asking the same question: Does this plant still survive? 

Herbarium of Galvezia leucantha subsp. leucantha
Herbarium specimen of Galvezia leucantha subsp. leucantha, collected near Caleta Tagus in 1962. More than six decades later, this historical record helped inspire and guide the restoration of one of the Galápagos’ rarest endemic plants. Courtesy of Patricia Jaramillo Díaz, CDS Herbarium.

At first, it was simply curiosity. Over the years, however, that question grew into something much larger. It inspired field expeditions, nursery experiments, ecological restoration and scientific research spanning almost three decades.

Historical herbarium records and botanical surveys led us to Playa Tortuga Negra, on the remote northern coast of Isabela Island, where the species had last been documented. In 2017, the Galápagos Verde 2050 (GV2050) restoration program began working to prevent the disappearance of this critically endangered population.

Reaching the site was never easy. After travelling by boat along the rugged coastline, we crossed extensive young lava flows under the equatorial sun, carrying equipment and supplies. When we finally located the plants, our excitement quickly gave way to concern. Only a handful of wild individuals remained, some growing from narrow cracks in the lava. Their resilience was extraordinary, but so was their vulnerability.

Standing beside those plants, it became clear that we were looking at much more than a rare shrub. These were the last representatives of a unique evolutionary lineage found nowhere else on Earth. Losing them would mean losing an irreplaceable part of the Galápagos’ botanical heritage.

Our question changed: instead of asking whether Galvezia leucantha still survived, we began asking how we could help ensure that it would continue to survive.

That question became the foundation of a long-term restoration program developed through collaboration among the Charles Darwin Foundation, the Galápagos National Park Directorate, researchers, park rangers, field assistants, students and volunteers.

Researchers collecting and preparing alvezia leucantha subsp. leucantha specimens for the CDS Herbarium at Isabela Island
Researchers and a Galápagos National Park ranger collecting and preparing Galvezia leucantha subsp. leucantha specimens for the CDS Herbarium at Playa Tortuga Negra, Isabela Island, during a collaborative field expedition across several islands of the Galápagos Archipelago in 2012. Photo: Rubén Heleno.

Before restoring the species, however, we first had to learn how to propagate it. Very little information existed. There were no established protocols or published studies describing how to cultivate the species. Germination was inconsistent, seedlings were delicate and survival varied depending on growing conditions.

Through observation, experimentation and patience, we gradually refined propagation techniques, tested different substrates and identified conditions that improved germination and seedling development. The nursery became a living laboratory where research and practical conservation came together. Every healthy seedling represented months of work, from collecting seeds in the field to monitoring germination and growth.

Equally important was documenting what we learned. Developing a propagation protocol strengthened our restoration program while providing practical guidance for future conservation projects involving threatened island plants.

Read our complete Propagation Guide here.

Producing healthy seedlings was only the beginning. Returning them to one of the youngest volcanic landscapes in the Galápagos presented an entirely different challenge. Every restoration campaign required months of preparation. Seedlings were gradually acclimated before transport, while strict biosecurity protocols ensured that no invasive organisms accompanied them into one of the world’s most protected ecosystems.

Moving hundreds of young plants across rough seas and unstable lava fields required close coordination between the Charles Darwin Foundation and the Galápagos National Park Directorate. Once on site, every planting location was carefully selected to maximize the seedlings’ chances of survival.

Collection, sorting, disinfection, and laboratory germination trials of Galvezia leucantha subsp. leucantha seeds. Photos: Paúl Mayorga and Patricia Jaramillo Díaz.

Because northern Isabela experiences prolonged dry seasons and shallow volcanic soils retain very little moisture, we also evaluated techniques to improve plant establishment.

During the first restoration campaigns, hydrogel and the Groasis Waterboxx® were tested to reduce water stress during the most vulnerable stage of seedling development. Planting a seedling takes only a few minutes. Helping it become part of a self-sustaining population takes years. That is why restoration never ends when the last plant is placed in the ground.

Watch the restoration work in the Galápagos.

Researchers Anna Calle-Loor and Nicolás Velasco surveying the restoration site at Tagus Cove, Isabela Island, before planting Galvezia leucantha subsp. leucantha. Photo: Carlos Espinoza/FCD.

Every year, our team returned to Playa Tortuga Negra to monitor the restored plants. We recorded their survival, growth, flowering and fruit production, always asking the same question: Could the population eventually recover on its own?

For several years, the answer remained uncertain. Although the restored plants survived, flowered and set seed, the clearest sign of recovery had yet to appear. Then, three years after the first reintroductions, during a monitoring expedition in 2021, everything changed.

While surveying the restoration site, Galápagos National Park rangers and researchers from the Galápagos Verde 2050 program noticed a tiny seedling emerging from a narrow crack in the lava. Only a few centimeters tall, it was easy to overlook. A closer look revealed something extraordinary: it was not one of the seedlings we had planted.

  • Galvezia leucantha in the lava crack.
  • Detailed images of Galvezia leucantha subsp. leucantha

It had germinated naturally from seeds produced by the restored population. After years of restoration efforts, we were witnessing the first evidence that Galvezia leucantha was once again reproducing in the wild. The discovery filled us with excitement, but also with scientific caution. One naturally established seedling was encouraging, yet we needed to know whether it represented the beginning of broader recovery.

Galvezia leucantha subsp. leucantha seedlings. Left: Monitoring and data collection. Right: Seedlings growing under protective mesh. Photos: Carlos Espinoza.

Subsequent monitoring confirmed that it was not an isolated event. By the end of the monitoring period, our team had recorded four naturally established seedlings, all resulting from natural recruitment rather than nursery-grown plants. They demonstrated that restored individuals were flowering, producing viable seeds and giving rise to a new generation without direct human intervention. They also provided the first clear evidence that restoration was rebuilding not only the population, but the ecological processes need for the species to persist over time.

  • Seedling of Galvezia leucantha
  • Flowering Galvezia leucantha.
  • Flowering Galvezia leucantha.

True restoration begins when nature no longer depends on us.

As the project continued, another chapter brought me back to where everything had begun.

The herbarium specimen that inspired my original question once again became central to our work. Historical collections showed that Galvezia leucantha had once occurred near Caleta Tagus, where it had last been collected more than sixty years earlier. Those specimens, together with field observations and ecological assessments, helped identify suitable sites for restoring part of the species’ historical range.

In 2024, the restoration program expanded to Caleta Tagus, helping re-establish the species in part of its historical range for the first time in more than sixty years. Returning plants there felt like completing a circle.

Decades earlier, botanists had carefully preserved specimens documenting a disappearing population. Without knowing it, they had also preserved information that would later help guide its recovery. For me, this reinforced the extraordinary value of herbaria. They are far more than collections of dried plants; they are archives of biodiversity that connect the past with the future, helping us understand species distributions, identify restoration opportunities and guide conservation decisions.

Learn more in the Galvezia leucantha Restoration Plan

The restoration of Galvezia leucantha also taught us that conservation does not end in the field. Sharing what we learn is just as important. In 2025, nearly three decades of experience came together in a scientific paper, a restoration plan and a propagation guide, ensuring that these lessons could support future restoration efforts.

Looking back today, I do not think first about the number of seedlings we planted or the kilometers we walked across lava fields. I think about the people: the park rangers who protected restoration sites, field assistants who carried plants across difficult terrain, nursery staff who cared for thousands of seedlings, researchers who designed experiments, and students and volunteers whose enthusiasm sustained this project over the years.

Although this story is written from my perspective, the recovery of Galvezia leucantha has always been the result of teamwork. When I first opened that herbarium cabinet nearly three decades ago, I could never have imagined where one preserved specimen would lead.

Today, nearly thirty years later, that question finally has an answer. Yes. Galvezia leucantha still survives.

Galapagos fieldwork
Our work continues in the field and laboratory to support the recovery of this species and, we hope, keep sharing good news through 2050. Photos: Patricia Jaramillo Díaz, Paúl Mayorga, and Carlos Espinoza.

More importantly, it is no longer represented only by a few isolated shrubs growing from cracks in lava. Restored plants are flowering, producing seeds and giving rise to a new generation in the wild. The species still faces challenges, but its future is far brighter than it once seemed.

For us, that is the greatest lesson of this journey. Conservation begins with curiosity, advances through science and succeeds through collaboration. Sometimes, a single herbarium specimen is enough to inspire a question.

Sometimes, answering that question takes nearly thirty years, but the journey is worth every step.

Original source:

Jaramillo Díaz P, Charette C, Calle-Loor A, Espinosa-Ortega N, Mayorga P, Zambrano D, Chango R, Velasco N (2026) Advances in the recovery of Galvezia leucantha subsp. leucantha (Plantaginaceae): restoring a critically endangered species on northern Isabela Island, Galápagos. Nature Conservation 64: 111-133. https://doi.org/10.3897/natureconservation.64.177895

New Workflow Helps Ecologists Measure How Individual Animals Use Their Habitat

A new, reproducible R workflow that enables ecologists to standardise the measurement of individual differences in habitat use based on GPS data, demonstrated using data on 13 lapwings, has been published in Individual-Based Ecology.

The ecological niche concept describes the set of environmental conditions a species needs to survive and reproduce, but it has traditionally been applied at the species or population level – even though individual animals are known to vary widely in behavior, diet, and habitat choice.

Individuals belonging to the same species do not necessarily use or respond to their environment in the same way. This variation has been traditionally treated as statistical noise but now we know that it has important implications for the long-term survival of a species.

said Dr. Takola

Despite this, few tools exist to translate modern tracking data and space use patterns into practical, comparable measures of individual habitat specialisation. This new workflow aims to address this gap.

Dr. Elina Takola built an R workflow letting ecologists standardise individual habitat-use differences using GPS data of 13 lapwings.
Heuristic representation of the different niche levels. A) A community can be represented as a set of species in which each occupies a different niche. B) A species can be represented as a set of metapopulations with different niches. C) A population consists of multiple individuals with different individualised niches (the potential niche is shown with transparent dots, and the realised niche is shown with bold dots). Adapted from Takola and Schielzeth (2022).

Working at the individual level, it treats each animal’s personal range of habitat conditions as its own ‘individualised niche’, distinguishing for each individual between the conditions it actually uses (its realised niche) and the conditions available to it but not necessarily used (its potential niche).

These concepts were defined in a previous study by E. Takola and H. Schielzeth. Takola has now taken these concepts a step further, translating them into a practical workflow for studying individual animals in the wild.

To achieve this, it uses combined mixed-effects resource selection functions such as statistical models that estimate both average habitat preferences and how much individuals deviate from that average with hypervolume exploration methods, a way of mapping all the environmental conditions an individual could occupy as a multidimensional space. 

The full worklfow is now published in the open-access, peer-reviewed Individual-based ecology journal.

How the Workflow Works

Graphical abstract
Graphical abstract of the workflow. Generated by Dr. Takola using ChatGPT.

Implemented entirely in R, the workflow draws on tools from ecological niche modeling, behavioral ecology, and spatial ecology. Further, the workflow is divided into three stages: data preparation, analysis, and output generation.

Throughout, it distinguishes between the environmental conditions available to an individual and the conditions it actually uses, allowing researchers to quantify niche breadth or how broad or narrow an individual’s habitat use is; niche overlap or how much individuals’ habitat use overlaps with one another; and repeatability – how consistent an individual’s habitat use is over time. 

The lapwing case study puts this into practice. By using publicly available GPS tracking data from 13 northern lapwings, the study shows how the workflow integrates multiple environmental layers such as earthworm abundance, human presence, pesticides, management, soil variables, and vegetation. 

Why Individual Variation Matters And Future Outlook

Individual organisms differ in genotype, morphology, life strategy, diet, and behavior. Individual-based approaches capture how animals adapt locally and respond to environmental stress in ways population-level averages can obscure.

This has real implications for conservation. Individual-based models, ones that account for energy costs, demographic trends, habitat-selection patterns, and life-history traits, offer a more accurate, mechanistic picture of wild population dynamics, and a better basis for predicting how populations will fare as conditions change. 

Although demonstrated on the northern lapwing, the workflow is designed to be transferable to other mobile species with GPS tracking data, giving ecologists a general-purpose tool for incorporating individual variation into habitat and conservation models.

explains Takola

The data and code underpinning the workflow are available on GitHub

By making individual specialisation measurable and comparable across taxa and datasets, the workflow can help researchers study niche specialisation and population-level heterogeneity across ecological scales, linking individual-level variation back to population- and species-level patterns, and giving conservationists a tool to move beyond population averages toward more targeted conservation methods. 

Original source:

Takola E (2026) The individualized niche in motion: Quantifying individual specialisation with movement data. Individual-based Ecology 2: e203247. https://doi.org/10.3897/ibe.2.203247