Search bioRxiv⌕ Search

bioRxiv · 10.1101/2021.07.01.450737

Understanding hydropower impacts on Amazonian wildlife is limited by a lack of robust evidence: results from a systematic review

Abstract

Background and Research AimsAlthough hydropower provides energy to fuel economic development across Amazonia, strategies to minimize or mitigate impacts in highly biodiverse Amazonian environments remain unclear. The growing number of operational and planned hydroelectrics requires robust scientific evidence to evaluate impacts of these projects on Amazonian vertebrates. Here we investigated the existing scientific knowledge base documenting impacts of hydropower developments on vertebrates across Brazilian Amazonia. MethodsWe reviewed the scientific literature from 1945 to 2020 published in English, Spanish and Portuguese to assess the temporal and spatial patterns in publications and the types of study design adopted as well as scientific evidence presented. ResultsA total of 24 published articles documented impacts on fish (n = 20), mammals (n = 3) and freshwater turtles (n = 1). Most study designs (87.5%) lacked appropriate controls and only three studies adopted more robust Before-After-Control-Impact designs. The published evidence did not generally support causal inference with only two studies (8.3%) including appropriate controls and/or confounding variables. ConclusionDecades of published assessments (54.2% of which were funded by hydropower developers or their subsidiaries) do not appear to have established robust evidence of impacts of hydropower developments on Amazonian vertebrates. This lack of robust evidence could limit the development of effective minimization and mitigation actions for the diverse vertebrate groups impacted by hydroelectrics across Brazilian Amazonia. Implications for ConservationTo avoid misleading inferences there is a need to integrate more robust study designs into impact assessments of hydropower developments in the Brazilian Amazon.

Source connections

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Rodrigues dos Santos, E., Michalski, F., Norris, D.. 2021-07-02. Understanding hydropower impacts on Amazonian wildlife is limited by a lack of robust evidence: results from a systematic review. https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.07.01.450737

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related preprints

Auditing Biomedical Literature with Blinded AI Peer Review: Where Peer Review Works, Where It Fails, and How to Strengthen It

Biomedical publishing has grown more than elevenfold since 1991, outstripping human peer review. Unblinded language models cannot audit this literature objectively because they recognize famous authors and journals from training memory. We built BARS (Blinded AI Review System), an automated referee that strips titles, author names, institutions, journal headers, and dates before grading full-text manuscripts on a 10-point scale covering methods, evidence, biology, and reproducibility. We used BARS to generate 1,874 blind reviews across 1,714 unique papers. BARS passed 100% of verified sound controls, caught 77% to 91% of internally flawed papers, eliminated a +0.35-point prestige boost, and more than doubled human referee consistency. Across 320 recent open-access articles (2020-2025) from eight fields, 54% failed on core scientific rigor (<5.0/10; 41% excluding megajournals). Revision at selective journals improved preprints more than twice as much as revision at commercial megajournals (+0.62 vs. +0.30 points; baseline-adjusted p = 0.033), and BARS recalled 98% of unresolved human referee critiques across 100 open-review papers. Across 915 date-blinded papers from 1991 to 2025, average scores fell from 7.6/10 to 5.8/10 as megajournals and template database studies expanded. Blinded self-audits of 238 papers by two senior authors -- and of this manuscript itself -- caught real statistical, control, and table errors in our own work. At four cents per paper, BARS offers a practical quality check for authors, journals, and readers (https://veg.github.io/BARS/).

scientific communication and education↗

From Problems to Solutions: How Self-Questions Drive Strong Scientific Reasoning

Metacognition, or awareness and control of thinking, is essential for problem solving because it helps solvers select strategies for learning and decide when to enact them (planning), check their understanding in the moment (monitoring), and assess effectiveness of solutions and learning strategies (evaluating). Most studies that examine metacognition do so retrospectively, leaving a critical gap in how metacognition is used in-the-moment for problem solving. In this study, we utilized a think-aloud interview approach to capture and characterize the metacognitive skills that senior undergraduate life science students at three institution types in the United States used spontaneously while solving challenging biology problems. We found that the students (n = 39) displayed a wide variety and quantity of monitoring, some evaluating, and nearly no planning skills while creating a solution backed with high-quality reasoning. Students frequently used self-questions to monitor and evaluate their thinking. We found that self-questioning is a critical skill for generating solutions, but it only moves problem solving forward if the student asks and correctly answers the self-question out loud. This study illustrates how self-questioning and other metacognitive regulation skills provide links to bridge the gap between a student's prior knowledge and specific features of a challenging problem. Based on our student data, we conceptualized a model of metacognitive phases during problem solving with high-quality reasoning. Finally, we present a self-question scaffold to facilitate the proposed phases (planning, monitoring, reasoning, and evaluating) so educators can equip students with metacognitive and scientific reasoning tools for effective problem solving.

scientific communication and education↗

Preprint solicitation as a natural experiment in scholarly publishing

Preprinting is a growing and increasingly recognized mechanism for scientific communication and productivity and a way to facilitate global access to science. The interplay of preprinting practices with formal peer-reviewed publication is an open question that is now tractable to targeted analysis. Here, we take advantage of nearly a decade of preprint solicitation at Proceedings B to address this question, which offers a quasi-experimental setting for comparing outcomes for solicited preprints and traditionally submitted manuscripts. We used submission records from 15,368 manuscripts from 2018-2024 to assess whether preprint solicitation affects acceptance rates, journal scope, author geographic diversity, and post-publication uptake. Solicited manuscripts were accepted at nearly twice the rate of traditional submissions and received more downloads and citations after publication. Submission topics were broadly similar between the two routes, though solicited manuscripts showed marginally greater subject diversity. Geographic disparities favoring the Global North persisted, but acceptance rates for solicited manuscripts converged across regions, narrowing the gap seen in traditional submissions. These findings extend earlier work on this initiative and indicate that editor-driven solicitation can identify high-quality preprints, broaden geographic representation, and increase research visibility, offering a replicable model for journals seeking to diversify authorship while maintaining editorial standards.

scientific communication and education↗