Is palaeoecology a ‘special branch’ of ecology?

Abstract

Palaeoecology and ecology have a lot in common. However, the two disciplines have evolved almost separately, leading to an ongoing debate on how to link them better, as both would undoubtedly benefit from a higher degree of cross-fertilisation of ideas, research insights and questions. In this paper, we explore similarities and differences in the two branches of ecology over the past 40 years by assessing the publication output from an unusually large cohort of ‘academic siblings’ – researchers in ecology and palaeoecology who all share one of the strongest career-shaping influences on researchers; their supervisor. This was made possible by John Birks’ long and active career within ecology and palaeoecology, and his supervision of a large number of students in both fields ( n = 12 and 21, respectively). Among them, John Birks’ academic progeny has published 934 papers in the international peer-reviewed literature. We collected information on the year, titles, keywords and journals of all these publications and used these data to assess the extent of, and find potential explanations for, the historical and present-day separation of ecology and palaeoecology. Despite considerable thematic overlap, there is a real and possibly widening division between the two branches that is visible both at the scale of individual research careers, journals and papers. We argue that rather than being unique to the relationship between palaeoecology and ecology, this reflects trends for thematic and methodological specialisation evident across the research landscape. We propose that both individual researchers and journals would benefit from, and can contribute to, closing the gaps developing between various ‘special branches’ in science. A good title, an informative abstract, a careful and thought-through selection of keywords and a focus on readability and avoidance of jargon will likely improve readership and impact both within one’s own ‘special branch’ and beyond.