Geology topics

Kadambari Devarajan

Publications and source records attributed to Kadambari Devarajan.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

USGS2025

Methodology for quantifying biodiversity

Protected and Conserved Areas (PCAs) are usually created and managed for multiple values, with biodiversity conservation being the primary value for most PCAs (see Chapter 1). When using Natural Climate Solutions (NCS) or Ecosystem-based Management (EBM) approaches to climate change mitigation, it is important to ensure that there are no unintended negative consequences on biodiversity and co-benefits for biodiversity are sought. This requires baseline biodiversity information and periodic monitoring. The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) has developed a monitoring framework to measure progress (CBD COP 15 2022) towards the GBF. The framework consists of: • headline indicators for national, regional and global monitoring; • global level indicators (collated from yes/no responses in national reports and used to provide a count of the number of countries having undertaken specific activities); • component indicators (which are a list of optional indicators that may apply at global, regional, national and sub-national levels); • complementary indicators (which are a list of optional indicators for thematic or in-depth analysis of each goal and target). Further details of the monitoring framework can be found in Decision 15/5: Monitoring framework for the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (CBD COP 15, 2022). See Table 5.1 for headline indicators and related targets that they measure. These indicators are used to track national progress towards the GBF. However, those designing sub-national or regional PCA frameworks can use them as well. Biodiversity can be measured at different scales, both spatially and temporally, and at different levels and attributes of biological organisation (Noss, 1990). The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) (Convention on Biological Diversity, 2022, December 18) includes goals and targets across scales, with Targets 1 and 3 focused on spatial planning and PCA creation, Targets 2 and 4 focused on restoration and species management to prevent extinction, Target 5 focused on fish stocks, Target 8 on minimising climate change impacts, Target 11 on ecosystem services, and Target 21 on biodiversity information for monitoring the GBF.

IUCN WCPA Protected Area Technical Report Series↗

USGS2025

When the wild things are: Defining mammalian diel activity and plasticity

Circadian rhythms are a mechanism by which species adapt to environmental variability and fundamental to understanding species behavior. However, we lack data and a standardized framework to accurately assess and compare temporal activity for species during rapid ecological change. Through a global network representing 38 countries, we leveraged 8.9 million mammalian observations to create a library of 14,587 standardized diel activity estimates for 445 species. We found that less than half the species’ estimates were in agreement with diel classifications from the reference literature and that species commonly used more than one diel classification. Species diel activity was highly plastic when exposed to anthropogenic change. Furthermore, body size and distributional extent were strongly associated with whether a species is diurnal or nocturnal. Our findings provide essential knowledge of species behavior in an era of rapid global change and suggest the need for a new, quantitative framework that defines diel activity logically and consistently while capturing species plasticity.

Science Advances↗

USGS2021

Ten simple rules for productive lab meetings

The aim of this article is to delineate 10 simple rules on how to achieve productive lab meetings. We use the term “meeting” interchangeably to represent both the single meeting event and the overarching concept of the recurring meeting. In this article we speak from our experience, as a lab group at the University of Massachusetts that meets regularly ( Fig 1 ). Although the rules are mostly tailored toward academic or research institution settings, insights can be gained for other contexts. We believe these rules are applicable across a diverse set of labs and lab structures. For example, while many members of our current lab have remained constant for many years, the lab composition has changed as various undergraduate students, graduate students, postdoctoral fellow, visiting professors, and other faculty have joined and/or moved on. Throughout these experiences, lab rules, presented in modified form here, proved flexible and adaptable enough to be useful in helping guide productive lab meetings. Note that this article is written for principal investigator/s (PI), students, postdocs, and other lab members; it takes the whole lab group to succeed. The key to planning productive lab meetings boils down to discussing and determining as a team the answers to why, who, what, where, when, and how: Why are lab meetings important for the functioning of the lab? Who will participate? What will be the focus of lab meetings? When and where should the lab meetings occur? How should each meeting be structured and carried out so that the goals and objectives of the lab and its participants are met?

PLOS Computational Biology↗

USGS2020

Multi‐species occupancy models: Review, roadmap, and recommendations

Recent technological and methodological advances have revolutionized wildlife monitoring. Although most biodiversity monitoring initiatives are geared towards focal species of conservation concern, researchers are increasingly studying entire communities, specifically the spatiotemporal drivers of community size and structure and interactions among species. This has resulted in the emergence of multi‐species occupancy models (MSOMs) as a promising and efficient approach for the study of community ecology. Given the potential of MSOMs for conservation and management action, it is critical to know whether study design and model assumptions are consistent with inference objectives. This is especially true for studies that are designed for a focal species but can give insights about a community. Here, we review the recent literature on MSOMs, identify areas of improvement in the multi‐species study workflow, and provide a reference model for best practices for focal species and community monitoring study design. We reviewed 92 studies published between 2009 and early 2018, spanning 27 countries and a variety of taxa. There is a consistent under‐reporting of details that are central to determining the adequacy of designs for generating data that can be used to make inferences about community‐level patterns of occupancy, including the spatial and temporal extent, types of detectors used, covariates considered, and choice of field methods and statistical tools. This reporting bias could consequently result in skewed estimates, affecting conservation actions and management plans. On the other hand, comprehensive reporting is likely to help researchers working on MSOMs assess the robustness of inferences, in addition to making strides in terms of reproducibility and reusability of data. We use our literature review to inform a roadmap with best practices for MSOM studies, from simulations to design considerations and reporting, for the collection of new data as well as those involving existing datasets.

Ecography↗