History for ecologists: Biases and best practices in the use of nautical charts to understand long-term change to kelp
Clicks: 3
ID: 320405
2026
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
0.0
/100
3 views
0 readers
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Ranked #64 of 189 articles by views in Annals of botany
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 189 in total.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
Abstract Background As coastal ecosystems and their associated ecosystem services are degraded, the value of historical baselines to understanding long-term dynamics has become clear. For kelp forests, a variety of historical sources is available to reconstruct ecological baselines, yet the limitations and possibilities of using these sources have not been adequately considered, leaving ecologists at risk of making critical errors of interpretation. Methods: Here, we identify historical contexts and types of historical sources that can be used to understand long-term change for kelp. We focus on one key source type, nautical charts, to identify temporal and spatial biases that should be considered in constructing baselines for kelp. Key Results Spatial biases include a historical focus on charting regions of strategic interest, such as trading ports, as well as preferential representation in locations where kelp served as a waypoint for navigation for sailors. As a result, kelp on charts represents presence, not absence, and it cannot provide meaningful insight into the extent or density of historical kelp beds. Temporal biases also exist. Kelp was recorded on charts beginning in the 1850s, and is most useful to identify kelp until the 1910s. Surveys were only conducted in years of strategic need, with seasonality also affecting the degree to which extant kelp was recorded. Importantly, reprinting practices make it difficult to decipher whether indicated kelp is representative of a given year, and preclude the use of charts to establish time series of kelp. Conclusions To overcome these inherent biases, we provide a list of best practices for using these sources to understand baselines for kelp. This work demonstrates that there is a rich set of source material available from which to assess changes in coastal ecosystems and the associated loss of ecosystem services, and we provide a template for ecologists doing similar work globally.
| Reference Key |
openalex_W7167939329
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | Ursula Dhillon, Loren McClenachan |
| Journal | Annals of botany |
| Year | 2026 |
| DOI |
10.1093/aob/mcag167
|
| URL | |
| Keywords | Keywords not found |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.