Natural history: an approach whose time has come, passed, and needs to be resurrected†

ICES Journal of Marine Science ICES Journal of Marine Science (2016), 73(9), 2150–2155. doi:10.1093/icesjms/fsw049 Food for Thought Natural history: an approach whose time has come, passed, and needs to be resurrected† Kenneth W. Able* *Corresponding author: tel: +1 609 296 5260 X230; fax: +1 609 296 1024; e-mail: Able, K. W. Natural history: an approach whose time has come, passed, and needs to be resurrected – ICES Journal of Marine Science, 73: 2150– 2155. Received 24 February 2016; accepted 25 February 2016; advance access publication 22 April 2016. The development of our understanding of fish and other marine fauna, including my own over several decades, has proceeded from basic natural history to ecology and evolution, but we often need to return to natural history to address deficiencies in our attempts to manage fisheries, conserve habitats, and model ecosystems. This resurrection of natural history is still needed because of the complex life history of fish, and many other marine fauna, and the lack of appreciation of shifting baselines in marine environments. These inadequacies are especially evident when we try to address the effects of human influences, e.g. fishing, urbanization, and climate change relative to fisheries management and conservation. A solution lies in the rebirth of natural history studies, especially at “places” such as marine field stations. Long-term monitoring, especially, continues to provide critical insights. All of these approaches are limited by inadequate appreciation and, as a result, funding. The solutions are largely site and investigation specific but would be enhanced by a greater appreciation of the advantages of comprehensive, long-term studies in natural environments, especially with regard to the increasing worldwide emphasis on conservation and habitat restoration. Keywords: estuarine research, fisheries, fish, habitats, marine field stations, natural history, shifting baselines. Introduction I mulled over the essence of this article for decades. I was prompted to crystallize my thoughts by an invitation to present a keynote address at the XV European Ichthyological Congress in Porto, Portugal in September 2015. What follows represents a combination of my review of the literature on the status of natural history studies and my personal experiences in marine science. What is natural history? The definitions of natural history are as broad as the study itself. Fleischner (2005) summarized many previous attempts at definition by pointing out that they all have “a reliance on direct observation as the most trustworthy tool for learning”. Certainly, Bartholomew’s (1986) emphasis on the following questions captures the essence of where most naturalists place their priorities. Natural history questions (for zoologists) are simple and straightforward. What animal is it? Where does it live? How many are there? How does it survive and reproduce? How did it come to be like it is and live where it does? There have been other thoughtful reviews of the need for natural history (Futuyma, 1998; Grant, 2000; Dayton and Sala, 2001; Schmidly, 2005). In fact, the essence of my thoughts was so well captured by Greene (2005) that I considered not writing this article because of his excellent treatment. However, upon further reflection, I reconsidered because 10 years has passed and I wanted to emphasize a marine perspective, which encompasses the largest but least visible part of the biosphere. This is also where my experience lies. Scientists’ perspectives on these and related issues are biased by their surroundings, so I will let you know mine. I have been interested † Food for Thought articles are essays in which the author provides their perspective on a research area, topic, or issue. They are intended to provide contributors with a forum through which to air their own views and experiences, with few of the constraints that govern standard research articles. This Food for Thought article is one in a series solicited from leading figures in the fisheries and aquatic sciences community. The objective is to offer lessons and insights from their careers in an accessible and pedagogical form from which the community, and particularly early career scientists, will benefit. # International Council for the Exploration of the Sea 2016. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: Marine Field Station, Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey, 800 c/o 132 Great Bay Boulevard, Tuckerton, NJ 08087, USA 2151 Natural history The decline of natural history studies Concern about the reduced emphasis on natural history studies has been expressed in many publications or comments therein. A sampling of these includes “the naturalists are dying off” (Noss, 1996); “despite its basic role, natural history recently has been ignored and dismissed” (Dayton and Sala, 2001); “the impending extinction of natural history” (Wilcove and Eisner, 2000); “a pervasive denigration of natural history” (Cotterill and Foissner, 2010); “the virtual banishment of natural sciences in academe” (Dayton, 2003). This decline crosses faunal taxa as indicated by “The Natural History Conundrum Revisited: Mammalogy Begins at Home” (Weigl, 2009). This disdain has resulted in the comment that “Few, if any, of us would declare ‘naturalist’ to be our occupation” (Ricklefs, 2012). In fairness, there are opinions that differ from those above, including those of Arnold (2003) who contends that “natural history is alive and well”. In addition, the decline in studies of natural history is exacerbated by paperwork associated with restrictions on field collecting andmaintaining animals in the laboratory (Greene and Losos, 1988; Cooke et al., 2016), and this has only gotten worse over time. In my experience, my field and laboratory research is compromised by frequent, time-consuming reviews of animal welfare protocols that are more appropriate for monkeys and white rats caged in a building than studies of live animals in nature. Further, animal rights groups compound this situation by emphasizing the lives of a few individuals to the detriment of the study of the health of populations which are often dependent on their natural habitats. As a further indication of the problem, some researchers in the United States have switched to working on invertebrates because the rules have become so onerous for vertebrates. In Europe, these regulations already apply to invertebrates such as decapods and cephalopods. In addition, the emphasis on hypothesis testing and modelling in recent decades (Fleischner, 2005) has contributed to the decline in natural history. Unfortunately, this often results in elegant hypotheses that are untestable because of an inadequate understanding of the natural history of the animals central to these tests. To be clear, the goal here is not to belittle current advances and approaches in science, of which there are many, but to support the publication of quantitativ (...truncated)