Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32284630›Full record

ArticleBioscience2020

Theoretical Perspectives of the Baltimore Ecosystem Study: Conceptual Evolution in a Social-Ecological Research Project.

Steward T A Pickett, Mary L Cadenasso, Matthew E Baker, Lawrence E Band, Christopher G Boone, Geoffrey L Buckley, Peter M Groffman, J Morgan Grove, Elena G Irwin, Sujay S Kaushal and 7 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Bioscience, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Waves of change: A systematic literature review of water and environmental justice research.Hydrological sciences journal = Journal des sciences hydrologiques · 2023
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

17 authors.

Steward T A PickettCary Institute of Ecosystem Studies, Millbrook New York.ORCID 0000-0002-1899-976X
Mary L CadenassoDepartment of Plant Sciences, University of California Davis, Davis, California.
Matthew E BakerDepartment of Geography and Environmental Systems, University of Maryland, Baltimore County, Baltimore, Maryland.
Lawrence E BandDepartments of Environmental Science and Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Christopher G BooneProfessor and dean of the School of Human Evolution and Social Change and the Global Institute of Sustainability, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona.
Geoffrey L BuckleyDepartment of Geography at Ohio University, Athens, Ohio.
Peter M GroffmanCity University of New York's Advanced Science Research Center, Graduate Center, New York, New York, and a senior fellow at the Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies, Millbrook, New York.
J Morgan GroveTeam leader with the USDA Forest Service, Baltimore Field Station, Northern Research Station, Baltimore, Maryland.
Elena G IrwinDepartment of Agricultural, Environmental, and Development Economics and director of the Ohio State Sustainability Institute, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio.
Sujay S KaushalUniversity of Maryland, College Park, Maryland.
Shannon L LaDeauCary Institute of Ecosystem Studies, Millbrook New York.ORCID 0000-0003-4825-5435
Andrew J MillerDepartment of Geography and Environmental Systems, University of Maryland, Baltimore County, Baltimore, Maryland.
Charles H NilonSchool of Natural Resources, Fisheries, and Wildlife, University of Missouri-Columbia, Columbia, Missouri.
Michele RomoliniManaging director of the Center for Urban Resilience, Loyola Marymount University, Los Angeles, California.
Emma J RosiCary Institute of Ecosystem Studies, Millbrook New York.
Christopher M SwanDepartment of Geography and Environmental Systems, University of Maryland, Baltimore County, Baltimore, Maryland.
Katalin SzlaveczDepartment of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The Earth's population will become more than 80% urban during this century. This threshold is often regarded as sufficient justification for pursuing urban ecology. However, pursuit has primarily focused on building empirical richness, and urban ecology theory is rarely discussed. The Baltimore Ecosystem Study (BES) has been grounded in theory since its inception and its two decades of data collection have stimulated progress toward comprehensive urban theory. Emerging urban ecology theory integrates biology, physical sciences, social sciences, and urban design, probes interdisciplinary frontiers while being founded on textbook disciplinary theories, and accommodates surprising empirical results. Theoretical growth in urban ecology has relied on refined frameworks, increased disciplinary scope, and longevity of interdisciplinary interactions. We describe the theories used by BES initially, and trace ongoing theoretical development that increasingly reflects the hybrid biological-physical-social nature of the Baltimore ecosystem. The specific mix of theories used in Baltimore likely will require modification when applied to other urban areas, but the developmental process, and the key results, will continue to benefit other urban social-ecological research projects.

Indexed as

frameworksocial–ecological systemtheory developmenturban ecologyurban ecosystem

Identifiers

PMID32284630
PMCPMC7138672

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.