An Iconic Journal’s Closure and Natural History in Ecological Restoration

The recent closure of the natural history journal American Midland Naturalist stimulated me to think more deeply about the status of natural history science and the role of natural history in ecological restoration. Natural history is the observation and description of nature or observing biota in their habitat (Tewksbury et al. 2014, Able 2016, Travis 2020).

American Midland Naturalist was one of the oldest natural history and ecology journals, publishing manuscripts from its inception in 1909 for 114 years to its last issue in 2022. I will miss the journal, one in which I have published, cited many of its articles in my research, and in which each issue seemingly contained articles I could not help but excitedly read immediately. Closure of journals often results from a combination of factors, such as increasing costs of publication, reduced institutional support under some publication models, turnover in journal editors or staff, declining manuscript submissions or readership for various reasons, or increasing challenges with finding manuscript reviewers and editorial boards. In some cases, journals have ceased publication but been resurrected in a different form. An example is Community Ecology, formed in 2000 after the closure and merger of Coenoses (published 1986–1999) and Abstracta Botanica (1971–1998).

In recent decades, American Midland Naturalist published some studies that included ecological restoration projects, or were part of them. The journal also published many natural history studies that could contribute to restoration endeavors such as understanding reference conditions, restoration needs of organisms, and appropriate indicators of restoration effectiveness. With the journal’s closure, where might future manuscripts go? There remain several North American-based natural history journals, such as but not limited to: Prairie Naturalist, Northeastern Naturalist, Southeastern Naturalist, Urban Naturalist, Western North American Naturalist, Northwest Science, and Canadian Field-Naturalist. Zoological and botanical journals also publish natural history research, such as Madroño, Castanea, and Journal of the Torrey Botanical Society to name some of many.

Outside North America, many countries and regions are also covered by natural history journals. For example, the University of the Philippines Los Baños Museum of Natural History publishes the journal Laksambuhay, which focuses on tropical forests and the biodiversity of the Philippines. Interestingly, in the last five years, several international ecological journals have established article categories dedicated to publishing natural history research. Some examples include Natural History Notes in Austral Ecology, Nature Notes in Ecology and Evolution, and Natural History Field Notes in Biotropica.

In the last 20 years, numerous authors have offered perspectives on the changing emphasis and status of natural history research and education in universities, research institutions, funding organizations, education, applied conservation and habitat management initiatives, and in society generally (e.g., Schmidly 2005, Tewksbury et al. 2014, Travis 2020). In many countries, such as the United States, there has been an apparent trend in recent decades for declining emphasis on natural history research at universities and funding agencies (Tewksbury et al. 2014). Moreover, declining emphasis at universities of classes that include field components and species taxonomy (e.g., botany, zoology, ornithology) further limits skills development in these areas and connectedness with nature in situ.

Ironically, however, many authors have stressed that the need for natural history data has never been greater, precisely because now we have computing and statistical advances enabling analysis of large databases that must be populated with natural history data to address overarching ecological questions (e.g., van der Niet 2021). Key questions in ecology, such as in plant-pollinator ecology, context-dependency and analysis of variation (e.g., among sites, species, years), and community diversity rely on local data of species and their life histories. Long-term natural history studies can also provide baseline data for understanding contemporary ecological change, a good example being observations of flowering timing over decades.

Although the decline in emphasis of natural history mentioned previously may be concerning, there are also encouraging signs for revitalizing natural history research. An example is increased availability of technological advancements for aiding natural history observations, such as automated cameras and other sensors for observing activities of biota and habitat changes (Tosa et al. 2021). Moreover, much natural history observation can still be conducted inexpensively with simple, minimal gear (e.g., binoculars) and assembled and communicated digitally in ways not widely available even 10–20 years ago.

Ecological restoration is intertwined with natural history in many ways. Long-term natural history observations can reveal changes in species abundances and habitats to aid detecting trends that could signal ecological restoration is needed in the first place. Natural history knowledge can assist identifying treatments to establish habitat beneficial for reintroducing organisms, such as the pH of restored streams required for supporting different fish species. Sustainability of restored communities is an important consideration, and natural history knowledge may assist with questions such as whether pollinators that plants require will be present at restoration sites to enable plant population persistence. In another example, natural history can aid identifying indicators of restoration effectiveness, such as the degree that restored habitats provide nesting materials and locations required by birds.

Although many natural history studies can help inform ecological restoration in some facet, publishing basic natural history research is not within the scope of Ecological Restoration, instead being the purview of natural historyrelated journals such as those mentioned earlier. However, basic natural history science is often incorporated in study area descriptions to provide ecological context in manuscripts published in Ecological Restoration. Very much within the scope of Ecological Restoration are applied natural history studies conducted at restoration sites and within the context of planning future or already implemented restoration treatments. An example of this was in Ecological Restoration’s first Status of Knowledge Review, which discussed use of natural history data of nurse plant associations to optimize species planting mixtures and arrangements to improve forest restoration in Ethiopia (Asmelash and Rannestad 2024). Also in the purview of Ecological Restoration are applied natural history studies that identify biotic responses to treatments or the utilization of habitat features by biota at restoration sites. A recent example of the latter in Ecological Restoration was Snyder et al. (2024), who examined utilization and foraging activities of bats after reforestation of coal mines. This type of investigation can simultaneously advance restoration science and natural history of the species.

We encourage incorporation of natural history in a restoration context in the pages of this journal. We also welcome ideas for how the journal may further facilitate the excitement, curiosity, and application of natural history scientific inquiry in ecological restoration.