ArticlePDF Available

Abstract and Figures

This study summarizes the temporal variation, the relative contribution of each university, the research topics addressed, the taxonomic groups studied and the differences in author and its ad-visors' gender in the 303 PhD theses on herpetology defended in Spain and gathered in Teseo © and Dialnet © between 1977 and 2020. The number of theses defended per year is around 7 with an upward trend. Complutense and Autonomous University of Madrid universities hosted the highest number of theses, followed by Barcelona and Valencia universities. The most addressed topic was morphology, biometry and anatomy, followed by physiology and histology, genetics and habitat selection. The most studied herpetofauna orders were Squamata and Anura and the families most tackled were Lacertidae, followed by Ranidae and Salamandridae. The most addressed species were native to Spain and without protection status, as opposed to those that were non-native or with protection status. The study of invasive species is very poorly represented. The number of PhD theses defended by men is higher compared to those by women (1.43:1), however, both genders show an upward trend in the number of theses. The results represent an approximation of the development, trends and interests pursued by herpetological research in Spain.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Basic and Applied Herpetology 36 (2022) 81-94
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.11160/bah.235 Supplementary material available online
Herpetology in Spain: a current overview through
doctoral theses
Gisela Marín-Capuz1, Javier Menéndez-Blázquez2,*
1 Dpto. de Genética, Microbiología y Estadística & IRBio, Universidad de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
2 Dpto. Ecología Evolutiva, Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales - CSIC, Madrid, Spain.
*Correspondence: jmenendezblazquez@gmail.com
Received: 30 December 2021; returned for review: 02 March 2022; accepted 23 June 2022.
            


 
    

     

           
        - 
             
  


Key words:  -  -   

    

et al., 
  
    
     
     
 et al.,  et al.,  
      
     
     
et al.,  
       -
    
  et
al.,    
    
      et al.,


     

     
    
      

     
      
MARÍN-CAPUZ & MENÉNDEZ-BLÁZQUEZ
82
    
 
    et al.,  
  -  et al
  et al.    

 et al.   et al., 
-  -


   
      
       
    
     

    
et al., 

- 
-  -
unpublished data     
     
      
        
 -
    

        
    
     
   
     
    
     



     
    
      
      
 
     
     
      

        
     
       
       
 
      
-
     

    
      
     (2000)
(“  ”, ”,
   
”, ”, ”,
”, “”, 
”,   
”, “”, 
”,   ”,
”,  ”,
   ”,
   
”);    
  


 
     
      
       
      

      
 
HERPETOLOGY IN SPAIN THROUGH DOCTORAL THESES
83

 
       

      
     


    
 -   
      

       


     
 
     
     

     
 



     -
  - 


-
        
      

 
    
       


        
    


     
     
     


    




   
(“

P 
 
-
      
     
     
   - 

   
    
-
  -    
-
     
-
       
      
     
     



   
 
      
     
MARÍN-CAPUZ & MENÉNDEZ-BLÁZQUEZ
84

       

    
χ
      
    

      

       
       
r    


     



      



     

     
 
      

 
 
      
     

    
φc    




    -
       
     

χ  
 

HERPETOLOGY IN SPAIN THROUGH DOCTORAL THESES
85
 



MARÍN-CAPUZ & MENÉNDEZ-BLÁZQUEZ
86

 

 r 
    -  
r
-
       
       
  
      
      

χ          
 
ρ
-
   
ρ
-
      
   

    
     
    


-φcP
HERPETOLOGY IN SPAIN THROUGH DOCTORAL THESES
87
   
- 

MARÍN-CAPUZ & MENÉNDEZ-BLÁZQUEZ
88
 
      
      
     
      
     

  

     
   
     
     

     

      

       
     

    
       

    
     
     
    

     
      
  
    

      
     
    




     

      
              

HERPETOLOGY IN SPAIN THROUGH DOCTORAL THESES
89
      
    

      
     



       
      

  
      
    
      
   
       
  
et al.,   
     
     -

 
   
      



MARÍN-CAPUZ & MENÉNDEZ-BLÁZQUEZ
90
     
     
      et al.,

    
 
     
 -  
    
    
      
    
     
      
  
     
     
     
  

  -  



   
 

 -     

      
     
    
    
 et al.,     
    
     
    
      


   
     
   
      
 -  
   

     




 -    
   


 
 
     
    et
al., 
et al.,       

et al.,  
et alet
al.     -
    
     
      
et al.,
     
     
      

       
       
     

 
     
      
 
HERPETOLOGY IN SPAIN THROUGH DOCTORAL THESES
91
    et al.
   
et al 
       
    
et al.,
      
   


       
      

     

     
     
     



    

       

     




      
     

     



      
       


     
 et al.,    
    -



     
     

      
et al.,


     

      -
    et al.,  
 
      
       
      
 e.g. -   

Acknowledgement

     
      
     
    


      
     
Annual review of Ecology and System-
atics  -  

      

 Diversity- 

MARÍN-CAPUZ & MENÉNDEZ-BLÁZQUEZ
92
        
-  
      
  Acta Herpetologica  -
-

  
     
     
 Information Research
       
     
In
  Current Trends in Wildlife Research
    - 
----
  
      
Ardeola-
     
       
Ardeola 47: 273278.
      


 Conser-
vation Biology  -  -

    
       
American Zoologist-

       

      ILAR
journal-


      
   Anais da Academia
Brasileira de Ciências  - 
-
      
  
    
     

     
      
-    
     
      
       
     
      
Cuadernos de herpetología 
--
       
    
Diversity and distributions  - 
-
   et al. 
    
    Nature
---
      
       
  Nature  - 

    
      
    
  Boletim do Mu-
seu de Biologia Mello Leitão -
     
      
  

  


  

     
    
  Biodiversity
Conservation  -  
---
       

     
     
HERPETOLOGY IN SPAIN THROUGH DOCTORAL THESES
93
 Ecology and evolution  -

     
    
      
       
     
      
 
     
   
    
   BioScience  -
  

        
 
Health information
& libraries journal  -  
-
  -    

   PLoS
biology    


    International
Journal of Biodiversity and Conservation -


   - 

   
 



     
Avocea  -  

     
 Animal conservation  - 
-

   - 


    
    The
Condor  -  

      
   
 
    Herpetological
Conservation and Biology-
-   - 

      Basic and ap-
plied herpetology-

      
   Herpetological Con-
servation and Biology-
-  
    El Hornero
35: 7786.  

-     
     

Revista Catalana dOrnitologia 
-
  

 
Perspectives on Politics-

      
-

 Journal of Documentation 
-
     
  

        
     
    
-
  
     
MARÍN-CAPUZ & MENÉNDEZ-BLÁZQUEZ
94

 
    
  
     
     
Herpetologica  -  -
-
    
      

 Trends in Ecology and Evolution 
-
  -  
      
    
  PLoS ONE
   

     
Nature News
  
  Ethology Ecology and
Evolution  - 


     
      
   
 Science  - 

      
    






     

     
  - 

 Research policy  - 


 Science-
     
     Disappearing
Jewels: The Status of NewWorld Amphibians.

ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Article
Full-text available
Comprehensive assessments of species’ extinction risks have documented the extinction crisis and underpinned strategies for reducing those risks. Global assessments reveal that, among tetrapods, 40.7% of amphibians, 25.4% of mammals and 13.6% of birds are threatened with extinction. Because global assessments have been lacking, reptiles have been omitted from conservation-prioritization analyses that encompass other tetrapods. Reptiles are unusually diverse in arid regions, suggesting that they may have different conservation needs. Here we provide a comprehensive extinction-risk assessment of reptiles and show that at least 1,829 out of 10,196 species (21.1%) are threatened—confirming a previous extrapolation and representing 15.6 billion years of phylogenetic diversity. Reptiles are threatened by the same major factors that threaten other tetrapods—agriculture, logging, urban development and invasive species—although the threat posed by climate change remains uncertain. Reptiles inhabiting forests, where these threats are strongest, are more threatened than those in arid habitats, contrary to our prediction. Birds, mammals and amphibians are unexpectedly good surrogates for the conservation of reptiles, although threatened reptiles with the smallest ranges tend to be isolated from other threatened tetrapods. Although some reptiles—including most species of crocodiles and turtles—require urgent, targeted action to prevent extinctions, efforts to protect other tetrapods, such as habitat preservation and control of trade and invasive species, will probably also benefit many reptiles.
Article
Full-text available
This work summarizes variation over time in the 317 doctoral theses on ornithology defended in Spain between 2000 and 2019 whose abstracts have been published in the section Reviews of doctoral theses in Ornithology in the scientific journal Ardeola. These were analyzed in terms of (i) the relative contribution by each university, (ii) the research topics tackled, (iii) the taxonomic groups studied and (iv) differences in author gender. The number of theses defended annually is around 15, but there is an upward trend. Complutense and Barcelona universities hosted the highest number of theses, followed by the Autonomous University of Madrid and the University of Granada. The most selected topics were conservation and reproduction biology, followed by habitat selection, population dynamics and physiology, while the most studied groups of birds were Passeriformes (and within this order, the Paridae), followed by Charadriiformes and diurnal raptors. The number of PhD theses defended by males is higher than those read by females; both genders, however, show a similar positive upward trend in the number of theses read. Our results are an indication of how trends and subject-matters in ornithological research in Spain have progressed in recent years. Key words: bibliometric analysis, birds, early-career researcher, gender-gap, research topic, PhD dissertation
Article
Full-text available
Sea turtles constitute a threatened group of fauna, thus to know caveats in their knowledge it is crucial to lead research efforts. The present study aims to analyse the scientific literature published on marine turtles in Cabo Verde by means of bibliometric analysis. We analysed the temporal and geographical variation in the publications, the number of authors and nationalities involved, and the extent of study of different research topics by species. The number of publications grew through the analysed time period (1979-2020), as well as the number of authors. The countries with the highest number of publications were Spain followed by Cabo Verde. Research areas of greater investigation effort were "Breeding and reproductive success", followed by "Conservation and management" and "Population dynamics". However, there were differences between species and islands. Most of the studies were conducted at Boa Vista, followed by Sal and Maio Islands. The most studied species was Caretta caretta. This analysis contributes to understanding trends and caveats in sea turtle knowledge that could help guide future research lines in areas of particular concern.
Article
Full-text available
The understanding that motherhood impacts career paths is so pervasive among early-career scientists that some feel they must choose parenthood or a career. The penalties associated with motherhood can contribute to the “leaky pipeline,” which equates to the high attrition rate of women due to social, economical, or temporal factors as they proceed through their career and exacerbates persistent gender gaps at mid- and late-career stages. Here, we review the literature and summarize common challenges faced by ornithologist mothers and nonbinary parents, and we adopt a full lifecycle approach to recommend evidence-based strategies for overcoming those challenges. The American Ornithological Society (AOS) is well positioned to support and celebrate women and nonbinary ornithologists who choose parenthood, and we highlight progress made by the AOS to improve gender diversity, equity, and inclusion within the Society. For example, AOS caregiver grants allow more parents to attend and participate in conferences. We suggest additional initiatives (e.g., elevating role models, hosting mentoring networks, and disseminating best practices) that could further support women who want to become or already are parents while also achieving rewarding careers in ornithology. AOS leadership can take steps to close the gender gap in ornithology and other Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics fields. With a larger, more diverse, and talented community, the Society will be better equipped to achieve its mission: conserving and understanding bird life on earth, enriching ornithology as a profession, and mentoring young professionals.
Article
Full-text available
This study analyzes the scientific literature published on penguins in Argentina between 1985 and 2019. It examines the characteristics and the temporal variation in the number of publications, the total number of authors, the percentage of participation of Argentine researchers, the species and region of study, as well as the research topics they address. The results show a tendency towards an increase in papers and studies of these birds, the total number of authors, and the participation of researchers belonging to Argentine research centers during the period analyzed. The most studied penguin species was the Magellanic Penguin (Sphenis-cus magellanicus), followed by the Southern Rockhopper Penguin (Eudyptes chrysocome) and the Gentoo Penguin (Pygoscelis papua). The most addressed research topics were foraging and diet, followed by reproduction and reproductive success, conservation and wildlife management, population dynamics and physiology and histo-logy, which were carried out mainly in the Patagonian region and in the Malvinas Islands. The results help to understand the past, present and future state of scientific literature, which will strengthen decision-making on future research on penguins. PINGÜINOS DE ARGENTINA: UN ANÁLISIS BIBLIOMÉTRICO. En este trabajo se analiza la literatura científica publicada sobre pingüinos en Argentina entre 1985 y 2019. Se examinaron las características y la va-riación temporal en el número de publicaciones, el número de autores totales, el porcentaje de participación de investigadores argentinos, las especies y región de estudio, así como la temática de investigación que abordan. Los resultados muestran una tendencia al incremento en la producción científica sobre este grupo de aves, el número de autores y la participación de investigadores pertenecientes a centros de investigación argentinos en el periodo de estudio. Las especies más estudiadas fueron el Pingüino de Magallanes (Spheniscus magellani-cus), seguido del Pingüino Penacho Amarillo (Eudyptes chrysocome) y el Pingüino de Vincha (Pygoscelis papua). Los temas de investigación más abordados fueron alimentación y dieta, reproducción y éxito reproductivo, conser-vación y manejo de fauna, dinámica poblacional y fisiología e histología, los cuales se llevaron a cabo princi-palmente en la región patagónica y en el archipiélago de las Malvinas. Los resultados permiten comprender el estado pasado, presente y futuro de la literatura científica que fortalecerá la toma de decisiones sobre futuras investigaciones acerca de los pingüinos.
Article
Full-text available
Early Career Researchers (ECRs) represent the next generation of ornithologists. In order to maximise the potential of ECRs to science, it is important to understand their perceptions of the opportunities and constraints that they face. We undertook a pilot study based on a questionnaire survey to gauge attitudes of ECRs in ornithology towards the current research environment, future career prospects, and gender bias. ECRs were defined as having less than five years' post-doctoral experience. The ECRs surveyed included BSc and MSc students, PhD students and post-doctoral researchers. The goal of the majority of ECRs was a career in academia, but there was also interest in working for non-governmental organisations (NGOs). Career prospects were perceived as increasingly negative from BSc/MSc students through to postdocs, likely reflecting a career bottleneck at the post-doctoral level. The influence of Twitter, open access publishing, open access data and journal Impact Factors were generally perceived as positive, although many BSc/MSc students had apparently little awareness of these initiatives. Female, but not male, ECRs perceived their gender to have a negative influence on their job prospects, and also were less likely to agree that a research career was compatible with having a family/partner. Our findings could be used to help ECRs to fulfil their ambitions in terms of establishing a career in ornithology. We suggest that provision of better support, communication and training to ECRs, as well as continuing initiatives to address gender bias, will improve the research environment for the next generation of ornithologists. These goals could be achieved through targeted events at national and international conferences and through enhanced communication on social media platforms.
Article
Full-text available
Representation of women in science drops substantially at each career stage, from early student to senior investigator. Disparities in opportunities for women to contribute to research metrics, such as distinguished speaker events and authorship, have been reported in many fields in the U.S.A. and Europe. However, whether female representation in scientific contributions differs in other regions, such as Latin America, is not well understood. In this study, in order to determine whether female authorship is influenced by gender or institutional location of the last (senior) author or by subfield within ecology, we gathered author information from 6849 articles in ten ecological and zoological journals that publish research articles either in or out of Latin America. We found that female authorship has risen marginally since 2002 (27 to 31%), and varies among Latin American countries, but not between Latin America and other regions. Last author gender predicted female co-authorship across all journals and regions, as research groups led by women published with over 60% female co-authors whereas those led by men published with less than 20% female co-authors. Our findings suggest that implicit biases and stereotype threats that women face in male-led laboratories could be sources of female withdrawal and leaky pipelines in ecology and zoology. Accordingly, we encourage every PI to self-evaluate their lifetime percentage of female co-authors. Female role models and cultural shifts–especially by male senior authors–are crucial for female retention and unbiased participation in science.
Article
Full-text available
The position of an author on the byline of a paper affects the inferences readers make about their contributions to the research. We examine gender differences in authorship in the ecology literature using two datasets: submissions to six journals between 2010 and 2015 (regardless of whether they were accepted), and manuscripts published by 151 journals between 2009 and 2015. Women were less likely to be last (i.e., “senior”) authors (averaging ~23% across journals, years, and datasets) and sole authors (~24%), but more likely to be first author (~38%), relative to their overall frequency of authorship (~31%). However, the proportion of women in all authorship roles, except sole authorship, has increased year‐on‐year. Women were less likely to be authors on papers with male last authors, and all‐male papers were more abundant than expected given the overall gender ratio. Women were equally well represented on papers published in higher versus lower impact factor journals at all authorship positions. Female first authors were less likely to serve as corresponding author of their papers; this difference increased with the degree of gender inequality in the author's home country, but did not depend on the gender of the last author. First authors from non‐English‐speaking countries were less likely to serve as corresponding author of their papers, especially if the last author was from an English‐speaking country. That women more often delegate corresponding authorship to one of their coauthors may increase the likelihood that readers undervalue their role in the research by shifting credit for their contributions to coauthors. We suggest that author contribution statements be more universally adopted and that these statements declare how and/or why the corresponding author was selected for this role.
Article
Full-text available
Women comprise a minority of the Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics, and Medicine (STEMM) workforce. Quantifying the gender gap may identify fields that will not reach parity without intervention, reveal underappreciated biases, and inform benchmarks for gender balance among conference speakers, editors, and hiring committees. Using the PubMed and arXiv databases, we estimated the gender of 36 million authors from >100 countries publishing in >6000 journals, covering most STEMM disciplines over the last 15 years, and made a web app allowing easy access to the data (https://lukeholman.github.io/genderGap/). Despite recent progress, the gender gap appears likely to persist for generations, particularly in surgery, computer science, physics, and maths. The gap is especially large in authorship positions associated with seniority, and prestigious journals have fewer women authors. Additionally, we estimate that men are invited by journals to submit papers at approximately double the rate of women. Wealthy countries, notably Japan, Germany, and Switzerland, had fewer women authors than poorer ones. We conclude that the STEMM gender gap will not close without further reforms in education, mentoring, and academic publishing.
Book
A historical review of the most important scientific controversies that have shaped our knowledge of dinosaurs since the discovery of important fossils in the 1820s. InThe Great Dinosaur Controversy: A Guide to the Debates, the major scientific disputes that have contributed to the understanding of dinosaurs come to light. Each chapter presents a major controversy then ponders the lessons learned and their impact on the scientific field. Colorful characters such as "anti-evolutionist" Robert Owen, "Darwin's bulldog," T.H. Huxley, and "dinosaur heretic" Robert Bakker, enliven the debates, which range from the origin of dinosaurs and their posture to their evolution or retrogression and whether they were warm- or cold-blooded. Two of the most recent debates concern how dinosaurs became extinct and whether or not birds are their descendents.