Open Access

Viewing biodiversity through the lens of science…and art!

SpringerPlus20165:1174

https://doi.org/10.1186/s40064-016-2831-z

Received: 23 March 2016

Accepted: 14 July 2016

Published: 26 July 2016

Abstract

With global environmental sustainability at the crossroads, approaches are needed to build an ecologically literate culture for collective societal navigation through the intricacies of swift environmental change. This paper demonstrates a transdisciplinary approach, grounded at the intersection between the arts and sciences, to increase awareness and understanding of the current biodiversity crisis. It focuses on one aspect of biodiversity, beta diversity, which examines how sets of animal and plant species differ between habitats. Theory and real examples of beta diversity of aquatic animal and plant species from dried-out ponds in Mediterranean Spain are presented in pixelized visuals. These visuals are artistic expression of and build the prior knowledge about beta diversity, which is scrutinized subsequently with statistical analyses to support the artistic approach with an objectively identified and numerically underpinned presentation of structure in the visuals. The choice to examine beta diversity in theory and reality first through art and then through science is deliberate. Combined, these aspects examine biodiversity through an eco-centric, rather than a species- and habitat centric view, incorporate elements of surprise (how can aquatic species in dry ecosystems survive), and reduce uncertainty (by providing a common numerical yardstick for interpreting the visuals). Together they can optimize a goal-directed learning process in the viewers necessary for making judgments, inducing affective reactions, and facilitating memory and decision making. The approach presented here provides an integral qualitative and quantitative model useful for a broader inductive-deductive education process towards finding sustainable solutions as our planet moves swiftly to a future without historical analogue. Combined art-sciences approaches, as the one presented here, are useful to facilitate citizens’ comprehension of the scientific and potential policy dimensions of environmental change, including biodiversity problems, especially because it is the general public that bears the costs of transformation and adaptation measures.

Keywords

ArtScienceEcologyBiodiversityBeta diversityVisualsPixelsEducationSustainabilityStatistics

Background

With global environmental sustainability at the crossroads (Kates et al. 2011), there is increasing recognition for the need of collaborative and transdisciplinary research efforts to address the challenges arising from a degrading planet (Scheffer et al. 2015). Collaborations between the arts (e.g., EcoArt) and sciences are mounting (e.g., Huws 2000; Neff et al. 2010), focusing on communicating the nature of problems, searching for new solutions, heightening awareness of ecological concerns, and designing ecological activity to enable public action (Wilson 2002; Kagan 2014). Visual communication of environmental issues has been particularly relevant to communicating the intricacies of the inherent complexity of environmental change across disciplines (Pink 2003; Nicholson-Cole 2005; Hansen and Machin 2013).

The approaches artists use to visualize environmental change problems range from realistic (e.g., photography, film, videos, TV) (Seppänen and Väliverronen 2003; Thomsen 2015) to abstract (Freeland 2004; Yusoff and Gabrys 2011), often aiming to elicit human tensions (beauty, ugliness; risk, security); for instance, by means of the toxic sublime (Peeples 2011). A widely recognized challenge in the arts is that subjectivity both in the artistic expression and the viewers’ emotional perception and reactions can lead to a decontextualization and a false understanding of patterns of order in nature. As a result, viewers may perceive sustainability problems as distant and unlinked to personal experience and exposure (Lorenzoni et al. 2007; Moser 2010).

Scientific disciplines dealing with sustainability challenges such as ecology and the environmental sciences aim at presenting environmental problems (e.g., climate change) in the form of results from often complex statistical and modeling approaches. However, many of the visualizations based on models (e.g., climate maps) or output formats for numbers (graphs) only represent the results of a highly complex, deductive and artificial process. Abstraction and artificiality in scientific visualizations, while representing the order of nature and environmental change problems objectively, can also remove the viewer from context. Similar to the artistic approach, scientific visualizations of environmental problems can lead to a disconnect between peoples emotions to and experiences from nature (Schneider 2012).

This paper demonstrates how an ecological concept, biodiversity, which has gained center stage in the environmental sustainability debate (Novacek 2008), can be expressed artistically and made accessible to the viewer. Artistic expressions of biodiversity are deemed relevant to increase the public awareness about the current unprecedented rates of human-induced species extinctions (Bellard et al. 2012). This paper examines specifically one aspect of biodiversity: beta diversity. Rather than studying how many species of plants and animals can be present in a habitat, beta diversity quantifies how the sets of species differ among sites in a specific region (Whittaker 1960). Beta diversity, which scientist express numerically, has been valuable for studying environmental change problems; that is, how urban expansion, deforestation, increasing agriculture and other forms of landuse change have contributed to a faunal and floral homogenization across habitats in a region (e.g., Olden et al. 2006; Gámez-Virués et al. 2015). More similar faunas and floras across sites can be seen, for example, in the form of extinction of emblematic species such as charismatic, valued vertebrates or taxa of socioeconomic interests (e.g., fish game species) in selected sites or an increase of different pest or exotic species across habitats.

In the context of beta diversity, crucial theoretical building blocks are nestedness, which emphasizes species extinctions across sites (e.g., the loss of valued game and fish in the above example) and turnover, which focuses on how the sets of species change across sites (exemplified by pest species above) (Baselga 2012). In theory, nestedness or turnover take a basic expression in the form of a perfect structure, but these perfect representations do not exist in nature. There is a plethora of studies in terrestrial and aquatic environments that show that it is always a mixture of both. An obvious dilemma arises that has intrigued philosophers incessantly: perfect nestedness and turnover are unobservable; they cannot be deduced scientifically from observations of nature. As heuristics existing in theory, they provide the inductive basis for seeking scientific representation of knowledge. This further complicates the laypeople’s understanding of ecological concepts necessary for comprehending sustainability problems. Without training in science, laypeople perceive theory as conforming to the monolithic logic and perception of science associated with rationalization. This further increases the risk of impoverished views and understanding of scientific representations of nature, and especially sustainability challenges (Locke 2001). Ultimately, this may reinforce peoples emotional disconnect from environmental problems.

This paper aims at reconciling artistic and scientific approaches in an attempt to communicate biodiversity in general, and beta diversity in particular to the public. Using pixel art to visualize species and ecosystems in the form of simple geometric shapes, this paper will present the theoretical constructs (perfect nestedness and turnover) of beta diversity, and the beta diversity of real assemblages of animals and plants from dried-out pond ecosystems, in a semiarid environment where the impacts of climate change are substantial (Gibelin and Déqué 2003). These visuals as artistic expression of beta diversity are subsequently scrutinized with statistical analyses to support the artistic approach with an objectively identified and numerically underpinned presentation of structure in the visuals. The combined art-science approach presented here shall offer several benefits for environmental education: (1) Focusing on biodiversity through an eco-centric, rather than a species- and habitat centric view, and by examining beta diversity as one aspect of biodiversity. (2) Provide opportunities to make abstract ecological theory tangible to laypeople. Combined with the real examples, envisioning of the broader hypothetical-deductive process, which is considered important for engaging the public with learning and understanding of environmental problems, can be improved (Miller 2001). (3) Incorporate elements of surprise by purposefully choosing habitats from a semiarid environment that, despite being dry, still harbor a wealth of animal and plant diversity. (4) Reduce uncertainty in learning by providing a common numerical yardstick for interpreting the visuals. These aspects combined shall facilitate the goal-directed nature of information processing that are necessary for making social judgments, inducing affective reactions, and facilitating memory and behavioral decision making (Wyer and Srull 1986).

Methods

Data for real examples

The real examples for this study were purposefully chosen to maximize the surprise component to boost the learning process (Lisman and Grace 2005). The examples build on dried-out pond ecosystems that are apparently lifeless, but which harbor a great amount of biodiversity in the form of seeds and resting stages in the dry sediments. That is, there is a latent biodiversity that manifests itself once the ponds refill with water. Many of the animal and plant species that emerge from these dry sediments are microscopic and thus not visible to the human eye. Visualizing this “unseen” diversity can further reinforce the surprise element for the viewer.

The data used for representing beta diversity artistically were obtained from The Campo de Calatrava area in central Spain (39°00N, 4°25W; 38°30N, 3°23W), which covers 12 227 ha. Despite historical degradation by agriculture practices, the area contains a unique wetland fauna and flora, highlighting the value of the remaining wetlands for regional biodiversity (Velayos et al. 1989; Alonso 1996; Sánchez and Angeler 2007), and which can be visualized artistically. For the present study, eleven wetlands were chosen that represented abiotic variability, landscape characteristics and anthropogenic stress conditions among wetlands in the region (García-Canseco 2000) (Table 1; Fig. 1). In 2005, sediments were collected in these ponds when they were dried out as a result of a prolonged drought event. These sediments harbor a significant amount of dormant propagules and seeds of animals and plants. The sediments were rewetted in plastic containers, inducing experimental hatching of these resting stages. The plants and animals hatched from these sediments were sampled and taxonomically identified following the protocol by Angeler et al. (2008). A list of these species is presented in Appendix 1.
Table 1

Overview of ponds sampled for invertebrates and macrophytes

Wetland

Geographic location (UTM coordinates)

Municipality

Altitude (m)

Wetland size (ha)

Distance to nearest pond (km)

Geomorphic type

Alberquilla

Z30, E410731, N4272899

Mestanza

833

6.5

16.98

Crater

Almodovar

Z30, E398387, N4285646

Almodóvar de Calatrava

640

22.6

5.49

Crater

Cañada

Z30, E409333, N4298926

Cañada de Calatrava

607

60.2

2.81

Piedmont

Caracuel

Z30, E407498, N4297226

Caracuel de Calatrava

627

61.4

2.82

Piedmont

Carrizosa

Z30, E392261, N4299942

Cabezarados

654

21.1

3.24

Piedmont

Cucharas

Z30, E399958, N4289407

Villamayor de Calatrava

609

106.8

2.95

Depression

Garbanzos

Z30, E389009, N4299957

Cabezarados

638

21.6

3.24

Depression

Nava Enmedio

Z30, E4214444, N4336323

Malagón

586

36.2

2.63

Piedmont

Nava Grande

Z30, E418069, N4337275

Malagón

578

110.2

2.63

Piedmont

Posadilla

Z30, E408938, N4310859

Ciudad Real

633

13.4

19.05

Crater

Saladilla

Z30, E399913, N4292226

Villamayor de Calatrava

609

39.3

2.95

Depression

Fig. 1

Location of study sites in the Campo de Calatrava area (central Spain). Geographical coordinates are given as UTM positions (north and east coordinates in zone 30)

Matrix construction for analysis and visual representation

The approach to express beta diversity artistically is based on pixelation, allowing for a simple expression of sets of species within and across the eleven ponds, whereby every species comprises a pixel. The pixels are stacked in columns, which represent the ponds. The representation of the perfect fractions of beta diversity (nestedness and turnover) follows the same approach. The resulting visuals take specific geometric shapes that make the scientific information tangible (Figs. 2, 3). The use of pixel elements in this study builds on visual expressions used in different modern and contemporary art movements, including, for instance, color field, Bauhaus, De Stijl, New Media art, and VJing. Also, pixels comprise the basic building blocks that characterize the video gaming art movement, a specialized form of computer art employing video games as the artistic medium (Parker 2013).
Fig. 2

Pixel visuals showing perfect nestedness (a), turnover (b). Each column presents a hypothetical habitat/ecosystems (n = 11), and each color pixel represents a hypothetical species

Fig. 3

Real examples of beta diversity represented through pixel art; a invertebrates, b macrophytes in a pond complex (n = 11 for invertebrates; n = 10 for macrophytes due to the lack of species in one pond) in Spain

Matrices for the visualization and statistical analyses of real examples and pure nestedness and turnover were constructed in Microsoft® Excel® for MAC v. 14.4.7. Each square in the matrices (pixel) was 1 × 1 cm and symbolized a species. The habitats are represented as columns. To better discern between habitats in the visuals blank columns were included. The real invertebrate examples contained 11 habitats/ponds (columns) and a total of 1875 pixels to represent the species across ponds in these visuals. The pond with the highest richness contained 21 species. The real macrophyte example contained less species (pond with highest richness, n = 13) and only 10 habitats due to the lack of plant occurrence in one pond compared to the invertebrate example; therefore, its visual expression and data analysis is based on a smaller matrix (1012 pixels). The matrices of the perfect representation of nestedness and turnover were sized to fit the real example of invertebrates (1875 pixels); that is, there were 11 columns expressing hypothetical habitats and species richness as in the real example of invertebrates.

Statistical analyses of visuals

To inform the viewer about how nestedness and turnover are related in expressing beta diversity, I first examined how much these fractions explain numerically beta diversity in the visuals. The statistical approach is based on Baselga and Orme (2012). It first calculates an overall metric of beta diversity, which allows assessing the degree of compositional differences in the set of species across sites; i.e., whether or not sites share many species. Next, the algorithm partitions the beta diversity metric into its nestedness and turnover components, allowing to assess which fraction dominates in the real examples. Details about this approach are summarized in Appendix 2.

In the next analysis I assessed the structure that is present in the geometric shapes of the visuals derived from each matrix (perfect nestedness, perfect turnover, invertebrates, macrophytes). This analysis aimed at reducing uncertainty in the interpretation of the visuals through an objective identification of structure that can be expressed numerically in a simple way. I used a spatial modeling technique commonly applied in ecology (Dray et al. 2006). A detailed description of each step in the modeling is given in Appendix 2. In short, the modeling can identify hierarchical and orthogonal (statistically independent) patterns present in paintings and other visual artistic expressions. Revealing these hierarchical and/or orthogonal structures provides insight into the complexity and order inherent in visual art. Moreover, the modeling allows for a numerical quantification of this structural complexity, using the amount of adjusted variance explained, a metric of model performance. That is, it permits discerning objectively patterns (spatial structure or order present) from noise (absent structure) in the geometrical structures of art works; i.e., a lower variance explained indicates a higher degree of noise relative to order and vice versa. This modeling approach is thus a valuable scientific tool for objectively analyzing structure in visual art works; it overcomes bias that can arise based on the subjective interpretations. Details about the approach are given in Appendix 2.

Results

The perfect nature of nestedness and turnover were expressed artistically using pixel images (Fig. 2). In this artistic expression the color columns represent different hypothetical habitats or ecosystems. Within each column the pixels of different colors express the sets of hypothetical species present within each ecosystem. In the perfect nestedness example there is a gradual decrease in the sets of pixels/species from left to right, highlighting the nested structure of habitats and the associated extinction of species. The perfect turnover example shows how the set of squares changes between the columns; no set of species overlaps between habitats. A high degree of spatial geometry characterizes nestedness and turnover in their perfect expression. The former takes a triangular and the latter a diagonal shape (Fig. 2).

Figure 3 shows beta diversity in real examples, based on the mixture between turnover and nestedness components in invertebrate and plant assemblages in the pond complex. These are expressed artistically in the same way as perfect nestedness and turnover. Examining the distribution of species (pixels) within ponds (columns) reveals a clear break up of geometry in the artistic expression of beta diversity in these real examples, relative to perfect representations. The emergent structure resulting from the symmetry break up during the structural “metamorphosis” from theory to reality becomes reminiscent of stickmen (the authors own subjective interpretation).

The statistical approach to quantify beta diversity shows overall high beta diversity in the visuals of real examples (Table 2): 0.87, invertebrates; 0.84 macrophytes [on a scale between 0 (lowest) to 1 (highest)], indicating a high degree of compositional distinctness in the sets of species across the ponds. In both visuals of organism groups the break of symmetry could be attributed to a dominance of turnover (0.84, invertebrates; 0.79, macrophytes), relative to nestedness (0.03, invertebrates; 0.05, macrophytes) (Table 2). In the visual of the perfect turnover, beta diversity has a value of 1 (no shared species across habitats). When partitioned statistically, turnover logically becomes 1 and nestedness 0. In the visual of perfect nestedness beta diversity has a value of 0, and it partitions into equal parts (0.68 for nestedness and turnover) (Table 2). Methodologically, this indicates that beta diversity in its mathematical expression is entirely explained by nestedness (A. Baselga, personal communication).
Table 2

Results from the beta diversity partitioning analyses that assessed the relative importance of nestedness and turnover components in the visuals

Analysis/fraction

Invertebrates

Plants

Perfect turnover

Perfect nestedness

Partitioning analysis

Overall beta diversity

0.87

0.84

1

0

Turnover

0.84

0.79

1

0.68

Nestedness

0.03

0.05

0

0.68

Modeling analysis

Structure

0.26

0.14

0.80

0.84

Noise

0.74

0.86

0.20

0.16

Also shown art the results from the spatial modeling analyses that assessed the amount of structure versus noise in the visuals. Numbers show the amount of variation explained

The second statistical exploration that quantified the degree of structure present in the geometric shapes revealed high structure in the visuals of perfect turnover and nestedness [explanatory power of the minimum model (i.e., the adjusted variance explained): turnover, 0.80; macrophytes, 0.84] (Table 2). Noise, which comprised the difference of these values to 1 (the highest possible variance), was comparatively low (0.20, invertebrates; 0.16 macrophytes) (Table 2). These values changed drastically in the real examples, coinciding with the break up of geometry observed in the visuals: invertebrates, 0.26 structure/0.74 noise; macrophytes, 0.14 structure/0.86 noise (Table 2). This analysis also revealed that the patterns of order were structurally simple. That is, no orthogonal or hierarchical patterns indicating complexity of orderly structure were present in the visuals.

Discussion

The environmental challenges ahead are complex and multidimensional (Angeler et al. 2016a, b). Scientists, artists and educators play an important role in bringing about an ecologically literate culture necessary for environmentally responsibility (Hicks and King 2007). This paper aimed at reconciling artistic and scientific approaches to engage people with biodiversity issues. Visuals based on simple pixelized geometric shapes were used to demonstrate an approach that could elicit emotional reactions in people, increase awareness, facilitate learning and understanding, and ultimately critical thinking about biodiversity with an improved knowledge grounded in the ecological sciences. The approach follows Thomsen (2015) that reconceptualizes “seeing” as “questioning”, rather than believing. In this process a chain of questioning—for instance, what is biodiversity and why the need to study it? What is beta diversity and how does it relate to biodiversity? What are elements of uncertainty and surprise, and how do they manifest?—can improve the learning process and connect people more closely with biodiversity and sustainability issues (e.g., Ryan 2001).

Recognizing that current biodiversity loss resembles a 6th mass extinction in Earth’s history (Bellard et al. 2012), there is critical need to engage people with biodiversity issues (Novacek 2008). Given that with the publication of the first landmark book “The Diversity of Life” (Wilson 1992) biodiversity became the subject of school and academic courses, public journalism, television specials, and major museum exhibits, most people may have acquired basic understanding of the meaning of the word biodiversity (Novacek 2008); however, specifics of biodiversity may go unnoticed. In ecology, biodiversity is a portmanteau that encompasses many different meanings and facets of biological diversity (Magurran 2003). It includes not only the richness of plant and animal species within and across habitats and entire regions, but also variation in their abundances, their genetic diversity and variability of functional traits. These traits allow them carry out important processes like production of food and timber, decomposition of dead material, pollution and erosion control, to list a few, and these provide important ecological, aesthetic and economic values for humans (Truchy et al. 2015). This multifaceted character of biodiversity may be only known to a limited number of scientists (ecologists and environmental scientists). Scientists working in other fields (e.g., technology, economy, politics), let alone the broader public without scientific training, may be unaware of this varied meanings of biodiversity. This unawareness, together with the media and public prioritizing other problems (economy, health, terrorism) than biodiversity loss, results in a failure to recognize the implications of biodiversity issues in exacerbating many problems more familiar and more important to people (Novacek 2008).

Seppänen and Väliverronen (2003) advocated using case-by-case studies to allow the viewer deduce causes, consequences and potential remedies of environmental change. It is clear that the presentation of biodiversity can benefit from such an approach, given that the multiple meanings and components of biodiversity may overwhelm people and reinforce a decontextualization and disconnect of them with these issues. In this paper, beta diversity has been chosen as one aspect of biodiversity, which specifically assesses the difference in assemblage structure of plant and animals between habitats in a region. As is the case with the broader concept of biodiversity, beta diversity has become an umbrella term in the ecological sciences, mainly because of the different approaches ecologists have developed for quantifying compositional heterogeneity between habitats (Tuomisto 2010). Many of these approaches not only allow for analyzing species presence-absences across sites, but also explicitly account for the abundances of these species for research questions where community evenness is relevant (Anderson et al. 2011). The use of beta diversity as an umbrella concept is deemed suitable for communicating the concept because the specifics of scientific quantification approaches are irrelevant for the purpose to increase laypeople’s awareness and knowledge about its meaning. For simplicity, and to facilitate the layman’s learning process, this study has focused on how the sets of species vary across sites.

The choice of beta diversity is grounded in the fact that public environmental discourse and funding for biodiversity conservation often focuses on single species, such as charismatic megafauna (e.g., elephants, pandas, tigers), and specific habitat (rainforests) protection (Vandermeer and Perfecto 1995; Bowen-Jones and Entwistle 2002). However, species and habitat-centered views may cause substantial misunderstanding of extinction processes, and ultimately suboptimal biodiversity management because the broader interacting ecological factors (abiotic and biotic) are ignored (Hunter and Brehm 2003; Failing and Gregory 2003). For instance, by focusing only on charismatic species the role of smaller organisms that are the most specialized and the most vulnerable to extinction from human disruption are ignored (Vandermeer and Perfecto 1995).

Beta diversity focuses the meaning on regional biodiversity from an eco-centric, rather than a species- or habitat centric view, allowing people to envision and understand spatial aspects of extinctions. The visual of perfect nestedness, despite being a theoretical construct that cannot be seen in nature, has the educational value of communicating to people the ecological phenomenon of species extinctions in a spatially implicit approach. The way the loss of pixels (or species) between adjacent ecosystems (columns) is arranged comprises one among multiple ways to demonstrate and communicate extinctions associated with beta diversity (i.e., loss of species across sites). Notwithstanding, the use of pixels and their purposeful arrangement in the visuals allows giving equal weight to species. This presentation achieves neutrality regarding the perceived socio-economic value of taxa by people. That is, by down-emphasizing value-laden connotations of animals and plants, thinking about biodiversity from an eco-centric rather than species-centered perspective can be spurred.

Presenting turnover, another aspect of beta diversity, concomitantly to extinctions, further facilitates the presentation of beta diversity as an eco-centric concept. It essentially shows that other processes than only extinctions are relevant for envisioning and understanding biodiversity. The change of the sets of pixels between habitats in the visual of perfect turnover differs drastically from that of perfect nestedness, leading to the emergence of geometric shapes, a triangle (nestedness) and diagonal (turnover) respectively, that allows distinguishing both concepts instantaneously without the need of previous knowledge in the viewer. These distinct shapes provide a rapid means to demonstrate, communicate and let the viewer assimilate the multiple facets of biodiversity at large, and beta diversity in particular.

There is also added value to the visual presentations of the perfect patterns of extinctions and turnover. Visuals provide opportunities to make abstract ecological theory tangible to laypeople and potentially contribute to break with their notions that theory conforms to a monolithic logic and perception of science associated with rationalization (Locke 2001). Furthermore, the clear geometries of shapes associated with these theoretical constructs has potential to induce critical thinking not only about biodiversity per se, but about the order and structure of nature in general. Contrasted with the visuals of real animal and plant communities, the viewer can contemplate how order changes between theory and empiricism. The “metamorphosis” of shapes from theory to reality has potential to let the viewer benchmark the realistically observed order in nature against those that would exist in a hypothetically perfectly structured but unrealistic world. This metamorphosis becomes allegorical to the broader hypothetical-deductive process, the raison d’être of scientific endeavor, which is considered important for engaging the public with learning and understanding of environmental problems (Miller 2001).

The purpose of contemplating such a metamorphosis can also be scrutinized from an uncertainty viewpoint. Uncertainty is arguably a major obstacle for comprehending considerable barriers to the acceptance and understanding of environmental problems (Thomsen 2015). At first glance, the visuals of beta diversity may not be exempt from such uncertainty. The transforming geometries resulting from the metamorphosing shapes turned from clear structure embodied in perfect turnover and nestedness to forms that have been interpreted as stickman in the real examples of animals and plants in ponds. The reference to the author’s own subjective interpretation of the real examples is deliberate. It shall demonstrate that the loss of clarity of patterns of the visuals during the metamorphosis opens up for the possibility of multiple competing associations in viewers contemplating these visuals. Different ways of individual interpretation increases a deductive uncertainty and therefore ambiguity among people collectively in comprehending and envisioning ecological phenomena, exemplified by beta diversity here. While this subjectivity may hardly be entirely overcome, this study uses the resulting uncertainty as an opportunity to build common ground for further examination and comprehension by the viewer by means of a subsequent statistical analysis. In this context, uncertainty can be used to stimulate public reactions to and discourses with environmental issues (Hansen 2010).

In this study, uncertainty arising from visual examination is considered to build the prior knowledge upon which further learning can be constructed. Statistical analysis was used to integrate the prior knowledge obtained from the visualization of beta diversity with aspects of the learning process. Specifically, it can help the goal-directed nature of information processing necessary for making judgments, inducing affective reactions, and facilitating memory formation and decision making (Wyer and Srull 1986). The statistical analysis sets a common interpretational yardstick for viewers by presenting objectively identified patterns of structure in the visuals that is expressed objectively through numbers from the modeling. The approach allows deducing why structure is higher in one visual (0.26 of variance explained in visuals of animals) relative to the other (0.14 in visual of plants), and why structure in these real examples is generally low. There is a wide range of implications following from this for envisioning biodiversity that deserve closer scrutiny but this is beyond the scope of this study which targets uncertainty. The advantage of numbers infallibly reflecting structure and order in the visuals can address, and potentially partly overcome, subjective interpretation obtained from prior knowledge deduced from the examination of visuals. It can contribute to homogenize a subsequent thought processes across viewers that eventually reduces uncertainty (Poole 2009). Reducing uncertainty is a major goal for navigating through the complexities of environmental change affecting many of the intricacies of sustainability (Berkes et al. 2008). Reduced uncertainty in public understanding of biodiversity should be one way towards comprehending these complexities.

A further advantage of underpinning visual expressions of beta diversity with statistical analyses is the possibility to bolster learning by including elements of curiosity and surprise. In the example of perfect turnover, the partitioning of the entire variance to this component (that is, 1 for turnover, 0 for nestedness) seems logic. However, in the perfect nestedness example the partitioning of the variance in equal fractions may be a priori a surprise for most viewers without knowledge in mathematical calculus. This element of surprise, achieved through a scientific approach, has great value in environmental communication because surprise and novelty stimulate learning and long-term memory formation (Lisman and Grace 2005).

To further bolster the surprise effect the examples of plants and animal communities in ponds in a semiarid climate have been chosen on purpose. The impacts of climate change in dryland countries may be substantial (Alvarez-Cobelas et al. 2005). The duration, frequency and magnitude of droughts is increasing, threatening water resources, and boosting a desertification process (Reynolds et al. 2007). Ultimately this can augment the biodiversity crisis in such areas. People experience and emotionally react to heat waves, failing crops, dying cattle and water shortages for human consumption and agricultural irrigation with a sense of desperation (Thomas et al. 2007). In fact, the ponds used in this study were dry when sampled during a prolonged drought period in Spain. The dry state of ponds for several years, evident in cracked soils and lack of life, potentially reinforces people’s negative emotions through a sense of doom. However, dry and apparent lifeless ponds store a wealth of seeds, eggs and other propagules that give birth to new life, ranging from microscopic to macroscopic organisms, once harsh environmental periods are overcome; that is, when the ponds refill after drought. Therein consists the surprise element. It may foster peoples learning about the resilience of nature, and the ecological strategies of organisms and ecosystems to buffer against harsh environmental conditions. The bottom line is that the choice of examples, like ponds in a dryland country used in this study, can be used to maximally exploit the surprise element in education about biodiversity and other environmental aspects.

Conclusions

Since the costs of both prevention of and adaptation to environmental change, including biodiversity issues, must be borne by the general public, the comprehension of the scientific and policy issues by citizens is crucial to political decision making (Kempton 1991). This paper shows how a combined art-science approach can serve as an education tool for the public, by letting the viewers engage emotionally with complex ecological theory and its application to environmental studies. The example showcased here highlight this potential from a potentially vast spectrum of application to communicate environmental sustainability challenges in general and biodiversity in particular. It provides an integral qualitative and quantitative model useful for a broader inductive-deductive learning process. It expands on qualitative approaches in transdisciplinary arts and sciences research (Parkinson 2008; Österblom et al. 2015; Angeler et al. 2016a, b) striving for finding sustainable solutions as our planet moves swiftly towards a future without historical analogue.

Declarations

Acknowledgements

Andrés Baselga helped clarify the mathematical underpinnings of beta diversity partitioning. Two anonymous reviewers provided helpful comments on a previous manuscript draft.

Competing interests

The author declare that he has no competing interests.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Aquatic Sciences and Assessment, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences

References

  1. Alonso M (1996) Fauna Ibérica-Crustacea, Branchiopoda, vol 7. Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, MadridGoogle Scholar
  2. Alvarez-Cobelas M, Rojo C, Angeler DG (2005) Mediterranean limnology: current status, gaps and the future. J Limnol 64(1):13–29View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson MJ, Crist TO, Chase JM et al (2011) Navigating the multiple meanings of β diversity: a roadmap for the practicing ecologist. Ecol Lett 14:19–28View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  4. Angeler DG, Viedma O, Cirujano S et al (2008) Microinvertebrate and plant beta diversity in dry soils of a semiarid agricultural wetland complex. Mar Freshwat Res 59(5):418–428View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  5. Angeler DG, Sundstrom SM, Allen CR (2016a) Deathcore, creativity and scientific thinking. Res Ideas Outcomes 2:e8796. doi:10.3897/rio.2.e8796 View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  6. Angeler DG, Allen CR, Barichievy C et al (2016b) Management applications of discontinuity theory. J Appl Ecol 53:688–698View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  7. Baselga A (2012) The relationship between species replacement, dissimilarity derived from nestedness, and nestedness. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 21:1223–1232View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. Baselga A, Orme CDL (2012) betapart: an R package for the study of beta diversity. Methods Ecol Evol 3:808–812View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  9. Bellard C, Bertelsmeier C, Leadley P et al (2012) Impacts of climate change on the future of biodiversity. Ecol Lett 15:365–377View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  10. Berkes F, Colding J, Folke C (2008) Navigating social-ecological systems: building resilience for complexity and change. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  11. Blanchet FG, Legendre P, Borcard D (2008) Modelling directional spatial processes in ecological data. Ecol Model 215:325–336View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  12. Bowen-Jones E, Entwistle A (2002) Identifying appropriate flagship species: the importance of culture and local contexts. Oryx 36(2):189–195View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  13. Dray S, Legendre P, Peres-Neto PR (2006) Spatial modelling: a comprehensive framework for principal coordinate analysis of neighbor matrices (PCNM). Ecol Model 196:483–493View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  14. Failing L, Gregory R (2003) Ten common mistakes in designing biodiversity indicators for forest policy. J Environ Manag 68(2):121–132View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  15. Freeland C (2004) Art theory. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  16. Gámez-Virués S, Perović DJ, Gossner M et al (2015) Landscape simplification filters species traits and drives biotic homogenization. Nat Commun. doi:10.1038/ncomms9568 Google Scholar
  17. García-Canseco V (2000) Humedales de Ciudad Real. Ediciones Esfangos, Talavera de la ReinaGoogle Scholar
  18. Gibelin A-L, Déqué M (2003) Anthropogenic climate change over the Mediterranean region simulated by a global variable resolution model. Clim Dyn 20:327–339Google Scholar
  19. Göthe E, Angeler DG, Sandin L (2013) Metacommunity structure in a small boreal stream network. J Anim Ecol 82:449–458View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  20. Hansen A (2010) Environment, media and communication. Routledge, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  21. Hansen A, Machin D (2013) Researching visual environmental communication. Environ Commun 7:151–168View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  22. Hicks LE, King RJH (2007) Confronting environmental collapse: visual culture, art education, and environmental responsibility. Stud Art Educ 48:332–335Google Scholar
  23. Hunter LM, Brehm J (2003) Qualitative insight into public knowledge of, and concern with, biodiversity. Hum Ecol 31:309–320View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  24. Huws U (2000) Nature, technology and art: the emergence of a new relationship? Leonardo 33(1):33–40View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  25. Kagan S (2014) The practice of ecological art. Plastic—art and science 4. http://art-science.univ-paris1.fr/plastik/document.php?id=866. ISSN 2101-0323
  26. Kates RW, Clark WC, Corell R et al (2011) Sustainability science. Science 292:641–642View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  27. Kempton W (1991) Lay perspectives on global climate change. Global Environ Change 1(3):183–209View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  28. Legendre P, Gallagher ED (2001) Ecologically meaningful transformations for ordination of species data. Oecologia 129:271–280View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  29. Lisman JE, Grace AA (2005) The hippocampal-VTA loop: controlling the entry of information into long-term memory. Neuron 46(5):703–713View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  30. Locke S (2001) Sociology and the public understanding of science: from rationalization to rhetoric. Brit J Sociol 52:1–18View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  31. Lorenzoni I, Nicholson-Cole S, Whitmarsh L (2007) Barriers perceived to engaging with climate change among the UK public and their policy implications. Glob Environ Change 17:445–459View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  32. Magurran A (2003) Measuring biological diversity. Wiley, LondonGoogle Scholar
  33. Miller S (2001) Public understanding of science at the crossroads. Public Underst Sci 10(1):115–120View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  34. Moser SC (2010) Communicating climate change: history, challenges, process and future directions. WIRE Clim Change 1:31–53View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  35. Neff M, Sumner D, Bawden GW et al (2010) Blending Art and Science: collapse (suddenly falling down). Leonardo 43:274–281View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  36. Nicholson-Cole SA (2005) Representing climate change futures: a critique on the use of images for visual communication. Comput Environ Urb Syst 29:255–273View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  37. Novacek MJ (2008) Engaging the public in biodiversity issues. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105(Suppl 1):11571–11578View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  38. Olden JD, Poff NL, McKinner ML (2006) Forecasting faunal and floral homogenization associated with human population geography in North America. Biol Conserv 127:261–271View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  39. Österblom H, Scheffer M, Westley FR et al (2015) A message from magic to science: seeing how the brain can be tricked may strengthen our thinking. Ecol Soc 20(4):16. doi:10.5751/ES-07943-200416 View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  40. Parker F (2013) An art world for artgames. Load J Can Game Stud Assoc 7(11):41–60Google Scholar
  41. Parkinson G (2008) Surrealism, art and modern science. Yale University Press, New HavenGoogle Scholar
  42. Peeples J (2011) Toxic sublime: imaging contaminated landscapes. Environ Commun 5:373–392View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  43. Pink S (2003) Interdisciplinary agendas in visual research: resituating visual anthropology. Vis Stud 18:179–192View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  44. Poole G (2009) Academic disciplines: Homes or Barricades. In: Kreber C (ed) The university and its disciplines: teaching and learning within and beyond disciplinary boundaries. Routledge, New York, pp 50–57Google Scholar
  45. R Development Core Team (2012) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-07-0. http://cran.r-project.org
  46. Reynolds JF, Smith DMS, Lambin EF et al (2007) Global desertification: building a science for dryland development. Science 316(5826):847–851View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  47. Ryan VL (2001) The physiological sublime: Burke’s critique of reason. J Hist Ideas 62:265–279View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  48. Sánchez B, Angeler DG (2007) Can fairy shrimps (Crustacea: Anostraca) structure zooplankton communities in temporary ponds? Mar Freshwat Res 58(9):827–834View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  49. Scheffer M, Bascompte J, Bjordam TK et al (2015) Dual thinking for scientists. Ecol Soc 20(2):3. doi:10.5751/ES-07434-200203 View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  50. Schneider B (2012) Climate model simulation visualization from a visual studies perspective. WIRE Clim Change 3:185–193View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  51. Seppänen J, Väliverronen E (2003) Visualizing biodiversity: the role of photographs in environmental discourse. Sci Cult 12:59–85View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  52. Thomas DSG, Twyman C, Osbahr H et al (2007) Adaptation to climate change and variability: farmer responses to intra-seasonal precipitation trends in South Africa. Clim Change 83:301–322View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  53. Thomsen DC (2015) Seeing is questioning: prompting sustainability discourses through an evocative visual agenda. Ecol Soc 20(4):9. doi:10.5751/ES-07925-200409 View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  54. Truchy A, Angeler DG, Sponseller RA et al (2015) Linking biodiversity, ecosystem functioning and services, and ecological resilience: towards an integrative framework for improved management. Adv Ecol Res 53(1):55–96View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  55. Tuomisto H (2010) A diversity of beta diversities: straightening up a concept gone awry. Part 1. Defining beta diversity as a function of alpha and gamma diversity. Ecography 33:2–22View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  56. Vandermeer J, Perfecto I (1995) Breakfast of biodiversity: the truth about rain forest destruction. Institute for Food and Development Policy, OaklandGoogle Scholar
  57. Velayos M, Carrasco MA, Cirujano S (1989) Las lagunas del Campo de Calatrava. Bot Complut 14:9–50Google Scholar
  58. Whittaker RH (1960) Vegetation of the Siskiyou Mountains, Oregon and California. Ecol Monogr 30:279–338View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  59. Wilson EO (1992) The diversity of life. Belknap Press of Harvard Univ Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  60. Wilson S (2002) Information arts: intersections of art, science, and technology. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  61. Wyer RS, Srull TK (1986) Human cognition in its social context. Psychol Rev 93:322–359View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  62. Yusoff K, Gabrys J (2011) Climate change and the imagination. WIREs Clim Change 2:516–534View ArticleGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s) 2016