Closing biodiversity knowledge shortfalls

Seed ecology studies require data of distinct natures, which are often lacking for species from developing countries (Fernández-Pascual et al Reference Fernández-Pascual, Carta, Rosbakh, Guja, Phartyal, Silveira, Chen, Larson and Jiménez-Alfaro2023). More specifically, in such countries, there are clear knowledge gaps for species taxonomy, distribution, abundance, phylogenetic relationship, niche breadth, species traits and biotic interactions (the so-called biodiversity knowledge shortfalls; Hortal et al Reference Hortal, de Bello, Diniz-Filho, Lewinsohn, Lobo and Ladle2015). In many cases, community-level studies in developing countries lack species-level identification, so data for unidentified species need to be removed. Due to the colonial science culture of the past, research infrastructure in many developing countries has begun to thrive only in the last few decades (Marks et al Reference Marks, Amézquita, Percival, Rougon-Cardoso, Chibici-Revneanu, Tebele, Farrant, Chitwood and vanBuren2023). The absence of a robust foundation in seed data restricts seed ecologists from developing countries in their ability to test more elaborated hypotheses or use modelling approaches that require sophisticated climatic, edaphic and biological data. Consequently, seed ecologists from developing countries face the necessity of gathering new baseline data in their early-career stages. Gathering new data over large, unexplored areas is time-consuming and often prohibitively costly. Furthermore, investment in collecting such data is often limited given that local-scale field studies are undervalued by international journals (Geldmann et al Reference Geldmann, Alves-Pinto, Amano, Bartlett, Christie, Collas, Cooke, Correa, Cripps, Doherty, Finch, Garnett, Hua, Jones, Kasoar, MacFarlane, Martin, Mukherjee, Mumby, Payne, Petrovan, Rocha, Russell, Simmons, Wauchope, Worthington, Trevelyan, Green and Balmford2020). Consequently, fewer studies are published, fewer data are made publicly available and papers are often published in local journals. For example, seed trait and seed germination data of Mediterranean Basin plants are significantly biased towards the northern parts of the Basin where developed countries are located, whereas seed trait data in the Mediterranean parts of northern African countries are underrepresented (Tavşanoğlu and Pausas Reference Tavşanoğlu and Pausas2018). Both funders and international journals should recognize and support these priorities by introducing grants targeting baseline studies in data-deficient areas (see Section ‘Unlocking funding opportunities’) and welcoming the publication of their results (see Section ‘Shifting the notion of novelty and relevance’).

Alternative initiatives help accelerating trait data compilation and acquisition in developing countries, as exemplified by the Seed Information Database (https://ser-sid.org/). First, data papers and meta-analyses can be a useful way of mobilizing and consolidating data published in local languages and data stored in the so-called gray literature. By compiling, standardizing, harmonizing and checking the quality of unpublished data stored in theses, reports, papers published in non-indexed journals and ongoing experiments, seed ecologists can amplify the data use, reuse and rescue (Fernández-Pascual et al Reference Fernández-Pascual, Carta, Rosbakh, Guja, Phartyal, Silveira, Chen, Larson and Jiménez-Alfaro2023). Such databases are rare but are starting to emerge in developing countries (Ordóñez-Parra et al Reference Ordóñez-Parra, Dayrell, Negreiros, Andrade, Andrade, Antonini, Barreto, de V. Barros, da Cruz Carvalho, Corredor, Davide, Duarte, Feitosa, Fernandes, Fernandes, Figueiredo, Fidelis, Garcia, Garcia, Giorni, Gomes, Gonçalves-Magalhães, Kozovits, Lemos-Filho, Le Stradic, Machado, Maia, Marques, Mendes-Rodrigues, Messias, Morellato, de Moraes, Moreira, Nunes, Oliveira, Oki, Rodrigues, Pietczak, Pina, Ramos, Ranal, Ribeiro-Oliveira, Rodrigues, Santana, Santos, Senhuk, Silveira, Soares, Tonetti, da Silveira Vieira, de Sena Viana, Zanetti, Zirondi and Silveira2023). Nevertheless, increased and targeted funding is needed to support data curation, management and archiving future efforts. Identifying data-deficient countries can inform prioritization for closing knowledge gaps.

Furthermore, emerging high-throughput methods of seed trait extraction from images offer a powerful and efficient approach to rapidly increase seed ecology knowledge and support seed identification initiatives (Dayrell et al Reference Dayrell, Ott, Horrocks and Poschlod2023). Finally, additional strategies include the production of curated field guides (https://fieldguides.fieldmuseum.org/; Acosta-Rojas et al Reference Acosta-Rojas, Barczyk, Espinosa, Gusmán, Peña, Neuschulz, Schleuning and Homeier2021), building of interactive keys (i.e. https://seedidguide.idseed.org/), creating plant taxonomy networks based on seed traits and partnering with local seed collector networks.

Enhancing and creating long-term seed ecological networks across multiple scales

The global coverage of vegetation (Bruelheide et al Reference Bruelheide, Dengler, Jiménez-Alfaro, Purschke, Hennekens, Chytrý, Pillar, Jansen, Kattge, Sandel, Aubin, Biurrun, Field, Haider, Jandt, Lenoir, Peet, Peyre, Sabatini, Schmidt, Schrodt, Winter, Aćić, Agrillo, Alvarez, Ambarlı, Angelini, Apostolova, Arfin Khan, Arnst, Attorre, Baraloto, Beckmann, Berg, Bergeron, Bergmeier, Bjorkman, Bondareva, Borchardt, Botta-Dukát, Boyle, Breen, Brisse, Byun, Cabido, Casella, Cayuela, Černý, Chepinoga, Csiky, Curran, Ćušterevska, Dajić Stevanović, De Bie, De Ruffray, De Sanctis, Dimopoulos, Dressler, Ejrnæs, El-Sheikh, Enquist, Ewald, Fagúndez, Finckh, Font, Forey, Fotiadis, García-Mijangos, de Gasper, Golub, Gutierrez, Hatim, He, Higuchi, Holubová, Hölzel, Homeier, Indreica, Işık Gürsoy, Jansen, Janssen, Jedrzejek, Jiroušek, Jürgens, Kącki, Kavgacı, Kearsley, Kessler, Knollová, Kolomiychuk, Korolyuk, Kozhevnikova, Kozub, Krstonošić, Kühl, Kühn, Kuzemko, Küzmič, Landucci, Lee, Levesley, Li, Liu, Lopez-Gonzalez, Lysenko, Macanović, Mahdavi, Manning, Marcenò, Martynenko, Mencuccini, Minden, Moeslund, Moretti, Müller, Munzinger, Niinemets, Nobis, Noroozi, Nowak, Onyshchenko, Overbeck, Ozinga, Pauchard, Pedashenko, Peñuelas, Pérez-Haase, Peterka, Petřík, Phillips, Prokhorov, Rašomavičius, Revermann, Rodwell, Ruprecht, Rūsiņa, Samimi, Schaminée, Schmiedel, Šibík, Šilc, Škvorc, Smyth, Sop, Sopotlieva, Sparrow, Stančić, Svenning, Swacha and Tang2019), species abundance (Dornelas et al Reference Dornelas, Antao, Moyes, Bates, Magurran, Adam, Akhmetzhanova, Appeltans, Arcos, Arnold, Ayyappan, Badihi, Baird, Barbosa, Barreto, Bässler, Bellgrove, Belmaker, Benedetti-Cecchi, Bett, Bjorkman, Błażewicz, Blowes, Bloch, Bonebrake, Boyd, Bradford, Brooks, Brown, Bruelheide, Budy, Carvalho, Castañeda-Moya, Chen, Chamblee, Chase, Siegwart Collier, Collinge, Condit, Cooper, Cornelissen, Cotano, Crow, Damasceno, Davies, Davis, Day, Degraer, Doherty, Dunn, Durigan, Duffy, Edelist, Edgar, Elahi, Elmendorf, Enemar, Morgan Ernest, Escribano, Estiarte, Evans, Fan, Farah, Fernandes, Farneda, Fidelis, Fitt, Fosaa, Franco, Frank, Fraser, García, Gatti, Givan, Gorgone-Barbosa, Gould, Gries, Grossman, Gutierréz, Hale, Harmon, Harte, Haskins, Henshaw, Hermanutz, Hidalgo, Higuchi, Hoey, Van Hoey, Hofgaard, Holeck, Hollister, Holmes, Hoogenboom, Hsieh, Hubbell, Huettmann, Huffard, Hurlbert, Ivanauskas, Janík, Jandt, Jażdżewska, Johannessen, Johnstone, Jones, Jones, Kang, Kartawijaya, Keeley, Kelt, Kinnear, Klanderud, Knutsen, Koenig, Kortz, Král, Kuhnz, Kuo, Kushner, Laguionie-Marchais, Lancaster, Min Lee, Lefcheck, Lévesque, Lightfoot, Lloret, Lloyd, López-Baucells, Louzao, Madin, Magnússon, Malamud, Matthews, McFarland, McGill, McKnight, McLarney, Meador, Meserve, Metcalfe, Meyer, Michelsen, Milchakova, Moens, Moland, Moore, Mathias Moreira, Müller and Murphy2018) and trait data (Kattge et al Reference Kattge2020) is biased towards Western Europe, North America and Australia, reflecting unequal sampling efforts across the globe. These biases prevent studies addressing long-term land-use changes, and specifically restrict seed ecologists from developed countries to test ecological hypotheses spanning large spatial and temporal dimensions across multiple scales.

Likewise, existing microclimatic data (i.e. environmental conditions experienced by seeds), as exemplified by in situ measurements of soil temperature, are also biased towards developed countries (Lembrechts et al Reference Lembrechts2022). Under these conditions, seed ecologists should rely on biased global models (not suitably calibrated for their local conditions), national meteorological data (which are less useful for seed ecology) or whenever possible, invest time and money on generating the necessary microclimate data.

Implementing long-term environmental and biological data gathering is becoming increasingly important in some developing countries (Wohner et al Reference Wohner, Ohnemus, Zacharias SMollenhauer, Ellis, Klug, Shibata and Mirtl2021). However, environmental data and technology-sharing agreements underpin and help sustain research networks, but are virtually non-existent in the seed ecology community. For such data to become meaningful in seed ecology, environmental data gathering should operate at the microclimatic level. For instance, novel soil temperature and moisture sensor technologies are available at relatively low cost (Lembrechts et al Reference Lembrechts2022). Another powerful way of advancing seed ecology in developing countries is the establishment of globally distributed research networks, which need not be prohibitively expensive or time-consuming on a per capita basis and are not limited to senior scientists or countries where science is well-funded (Borer et al Reference Borer, Harpole, Adler, Lind, Orrock, Seabloom and Smith2014).

Supporting better infrastructure

New techniques such as omics and molecular ecology are being used to analyse how genes modulate seed interactions with the environment (Colville et al Reference Colville, Hilhorst and Pritchard2022; Simonin et al Reference Simonin, Briand, Chesneau, Rochefort, Marais, Sarniguet and Barret2022). However, molecular seed ecology is rare in developing countries owing to a lack of basic equipment like incubators, stable power supplies to conduct germination experiments under controlled conditions and bureaucratic reagent importing. Indeed, many seed ecologists from developing countries have experienced multiple collapses of germination chambers due to unpredictable power failures. Laboratory infrastructure and equipment in developing countries are also often obsolete. For example, owing to different equipment precision settings, measuring the seed carbon and nitrogen content in a developing country may require 12 g, whereas the same chemical analysis in a European laboratory requires only 0.05 g of dry seeds (Acosta-Rojas, personal communication). Given the limited funding available for field studies in developing countries (see Section ‘Unlocking funding opportunities’), waste of time and resources is likely if sampling additional material is needed to achieve the required seed material.

Another pervasive issue is infrastructure needed for the ex situ seed conservation in developing countries. Many tropical species have recalcitrant seeds (Wyse and Dickie Reference Wyse and Dickie2017), and conservation of such genetic material requires expensive infrastructure and complex processing techniques such as in vitro preservation or cryopreservation (Pence et al Reference Pence, Meyer, Linsky, Gratzfeld, Pritchard, Westwood and Bruns2022). Despite the high prevalence of recalcitrant species in tropical and subtropical biomes, there are few national facilities and research programmes focused on germplasm conservation. A few developing countries have national seed gene bank facilities for agricultural crops or their wild relatives, but native and threatened seeds are not on their priority list for gene banking (Teixido et al Reference Teixido, Toorop, Liu, Ribeiro, Fuzessy, Guerra and Silveira2017; ICAR-NBPGR 2023).

It is clear that disparities among countries in access to novel methods, and cutting-edge techniques largely affect researcher's capacity to produce, publish and receive credit for their research (Culley et al Reference Culley, Philpott, Tunison, Merritt, Barreiro-Sanchez, Wafer and Holdren2021). Solving these issues is not trivial, but a major step forward is the establishment of meaningful and collaborative partnerships between developed and developing countries (Armenteras Reference Armenteras2021). The key is to include researchers from developing countries from the start in setting up the project goals and design. Crucial for a healthy ‘global science’ community is that individuals and institutions in developing countries acquire, improve and retain skills, knowledge, equipment and resources (Haelewaters et al Reference Haelewaters, Hofmann and Romero-Olivares2021). Whenever possible and appropriate, allocation of financial resources to the purchase, installation or maintenance of infrastructure of research labs in developing countries can boost future research. Using local infrastructure to keep samples, data and results on site can be useful if samples are temperature- or time-sensitive, and especially important if samples were extracted from protected species or sites. This is overall good practice and a good way to implement the Nagoya Protocol by recognizing the sovereign rights of nations over their own genetic resources and preventing biopiracy.

Making fieldwork easier and safer

Seed collection in developing countries is often characterized by large territories that require travelling over long distances, with limited resources, poor logistics, bureaucratic restrictions and safety issues. Logistics and lack of funding restrict seed collection close to research institutions (Ribeiro et al Reference Ribeiro, Teixido, Barbosa and Silveira2016), thus resulting in widespread geographic, ecological and taxonomic biases. In addition, tropical seed ecologists are faced with markedly asynchronous fruit production (Connell and Green Reference Connell and Green2000), which implies multiple field excursions year-round to monitor fruiting phenology and collect a minimum number of seeds from different individual plants. Seed collection in tropical rainforest trees growing up to 60–70 m high requires appropriate, often expensive equipment (Lowman et al Reference Lowman, Moffett and Rinker1993).

Many developing countries have international or domestic military conflicts (Rodriguez et al Reference Rodriguez, Binda, Quintero, Garcia, Gómez, Soto, Martínez and Clerici2020) making seed collections from the field harder and unsafe. In such regions, a major limitation is gaining access to the field due to military or governmental restrictions, while personal safety is commonly the major issue. Even in areas free of conflict, it may be unsafe for conducting fieldwork alone and for underrepresented groups (Pettorelli et al Reference Pettorelli, Barlow, Cadotte, Lucas, Newton, Nuñez and Stephens2019), which can be another shortcoming for collecting seeds from wild species in the field.

An essential step in making fieldwork easier and safer is to build partnerships with local individuals, communities, organizations or governments. Partnerships can act as a support network and allow researchers to gain valuable information and a better understanding of local dynamics, which can ultimately make fieldwork safer and easier. Involving local stakeholders can also increase the relevance of research, improve knowledge sharing and lead to greater conservation success (Kainer et al Reference Kainer, DiGiano, Duchell, Wadt, Bruna and Dain2009). Importantly, with appropriate training, local partners can participate in the research process (e.g. monitoring reproductive phenology or collecting seeds in remote areas), allowing researchers to use funds more efficiently. Securing assistance from local guides during fieldwork will not only enhance safety but also reduce the time spent travelling in the field, as they could provide shortcuts and recommend better routes. In parallel, establishing long-term phenological databases to help predicting and identifying fruiting stages of habitats would enable better planning of fieldwork and avoid wasting resources (Chapman et al Reference Chapman, Valenta, Bonnell, Brown and Chapman2018).

In addition, researchers in developing countries with violent conflict need to develop and follow a comprehensive fieldwork strategy to ensure their safety (some useful guidelines: Daniels and Lavallee Reference Daniels and Lavallee2014; Rudizki et al Reference Rudzki, Kuebbing, Clark, Gharaibeh, Janecka, Kramp, Kohl, Mastalski, Ohmer, Turcotte and Richards-Zawacki2022). This strategy should address critical aspects, such as (i) conducting a risk assessment and formulating a safety plan to mitigate hazards; (ii) establishing emergency protocols to deal with unexpected circumstances; (iii) implementing effective communication strategies with local partners and universities and (iv) receiving adequate training in first aid, conflict resolution, personal safety and awareness, among others. The preparation and implementation of this programme involves costs that ultimately reduce the direct investment in research activities. International collaborators are encouraged that those costs in their projects.

Unlocking funding opportunities

Sustained funding is needed to support fieldwork, maintain equipment, acquire reagents, and, above all, cover scholarships and salaries. Limited resources for research prevent seed ecologists from being at the forefront of science. For example, annual research output, measured in terms of the total number of indexed papers across all fields of science, is <100 for many developing countries (van Noorden Reference van Noorden2014). When resources are available, they are largely concentrated on model study species (e.g. Arabidopsis thaliana), crop species (Marks et al Reference Marks, Amézquita, Percival, Rougon-Cardoso, Chibici-Revneanu, Tebele, Farrant, Chitwood and vanBuren2023) or are allocated based on priorities determined by researchers in developed countries (Asase et al Reference Asase, Mzumara-Gawa, Owino, Peterson and Saupe2022).

In terms of publication, many developing countries cannot pay subscription fees to allow access to paywall-protected scientific articles written by their own scientific communities. Therefore, many seed ecologists from developing countries are often left with few options, but to request PDFs directly from authors or use alternative methods to gain access to full texts (Bohannon Reference Bohannon2016). Moreover, open-access policies of leading publishing companies based on article processing charges (APCs) are a growing concern for scientists in developing countries. Some scientific journals waive APC for low-income developing countries, but other developing countries remain excluded. Consequently, they are excluded from publishing in leading journals with broader scientific scope, reducing the exposure and attention of their research.

Strengthening international collaboration can also be a powerful way of overcoming limited funding. Higher investments in research and development do not necessarily lead to high-impact publishing. Nevertheless, countries with low investments can choose alternative paths, including enhancing international collaboration leading to greater impact and recognition of the research in the country (McManus et al Reference McManus, Baeta Neves, Diniz-Filho and Pimentel2023). When properly incorporated, capacity building and student exchange, international partnerships benefit researchers from both developing and developed countries (Haelewaters et al Reference Haelewaters, Hofmann and Romero-Olivares2021). Given similar challenges, we encourage international collaboration among developing countries. Finally, one unorthodox strategy is to financially reward reviewers from developing countries in fully OA journals. This would be a more just and effective way of using APCs. In summary, establishing meaningful and more fruitful collaboration is a win-win game with positive outcomes for all involved partners (Armenteras Reference Armenteras2021).

Promoting inclusive scientific meetings

A good conference experience can make a difference in the professional development of the attendees and create long-lasting collaborations and opportunities (Joo et al Reference Joo, Sánchez-Tapia, Mortara, Bellini Saibene, Turner, Hug Peter, Morandeira, Bannert, Almazrouq, Hare, Ación, Narváez-Gómez, Alfaro Córdoba, Marini, Giordano, Canelón, Ebou, Upadhya, Chávez and Ravi2022). The number of conference attendees from developing countries is less than 15% across Seed Ecology Meetings, but when the conference venue was held in a developing country the percentage of attendees from developing countries increased up to 70% (Fig. 1). High travelling costs, visa requirements, unrealistic deadlines (those ignoring long visa requirements and those coinciding with vacation time in the southern hemisphere), language barriers and cultural contrasts constitute possible reasons for the underrepresentation of seed ecologists from developing countries.

Fig. 1. Percentage of attendees from developing and developed countries in Seed Ecology Meetings since 2004. Data for Seed Ecology Meeting II in Australia, 2007 was not available.

Practical solutions to increase attendance by seed ecologists from developing countries include organizing in-person meetings on different continents, informing decisions on abstract acceptance in advance to allow visa requirements, considering the schedule of developing countries when defining deadlines and promoting hybrid meetings to decrease the travelling and accommodation costs (Joo et al Reference Joo, Sánchez-Tapia, Mortara, Bellini Saibene, Turner, Hug Peter, Morandeira, Bannert, Almazrouq, Hare, Ación, Narváez-Gómez, Alfaro Córdoba, Marini, Giordano, Canelón, Ebou, Upadhya, Chávez and Ravi2022). Developing open and inclusive meetings means working harder to support people from underrepresented regions of the world as attendees, but also developing local research networks in these regions to better connect seed ecologists.

A positive initiative is the recent implementation of membership waiving fees by the International Society for Seed Science (ISSS) for residents in low and lower-middle-income countries (https://seedscisoc.org/register/individual-resident-in-low-and-lower-middle-income-country/), meaning that high membership costs of international societies no longer discourages early-career seed ecologists to engage with their peers. An additional approach to addressing this issue could involve implementing a differential pricing system, where registration fees are reduced for participants from developing countries, with a particular focus on student delegates. This strategy would significantly alleviate the financial burden on young seed ecologists attendance. Furthermore, expanding the availability of conference scholarships specifically targeted towards students from these regions could provide an invaluable opportunity for their professional growth and engagement within the global seed ecology community.

We call for Seed Ecology Meetings to be a place for interdisciplinary research paradigms, integrating insights and methods from related disciplines to address complex research questions. This collaborative approach must bring together experts from multiple fields to create a more comprehensive understanding of seed ecology. This paradigm will benefit from researchers coming from different disciplines, different backgrounds and different places of the world.

Alleviating language barriers

Language barriers still hinder access to scientific knowledge during the training of students, but also during the research and publication processes. Currently, 98% of publications in science are written in English, including researchers from English as foreign language countries, which also results in increased costs for translation (Ramírez-Castañeda Reference Ramírez-Castañeda2020). Using a large, randomized trial with real manuscript submissions to evaluate the various consequences of shifting to double-blind peer review, Fox et al (Reference Fox, Meyer and Aimé2023) provide strong evidence that authors from higher income and/or English-speaking countries receive significant benefits (a large positive bias) to being identified to reviewers during the peer-review process.

While the use of automatic translation and artificial intelligence apps may help alleviate these problems, student training crucially depends on resources in native, local languages (Steigerwald et al Reference Steigerwald, Ramírez-Castañeda, Brandt, Báldi, Shapiro, Bowker and Tarvin2022). Scientific papers published in English that are relevant to local communities and decision-makers may remain inaccessible, hence non-English-language articles play an important role in improving the understanding of biodiversity and its conservation in developing countries, which in turn, may be inaccessible to readers screening the literature using English keywords (Chowdhury et al Reference Chowdhury, Gonzalez, Aytekin, Baek, Bertolino, Duijns, Han, Jantke, Katayose, Lin, Nourani, Ramos, Rouyer, Sidemo-Holm, Vozykova, Zamora-Gutierrez and Amano2022; Amano et al Reference Amano, Berdejo-Espinola, Akasaka, de Andrade Junior, Blaise, Checco, Çilingir, Citegetse, Tor, Drobniak, Giakoumi, Golivets, Ion, Jara-Díaz, Katayose, Lasmana, Lin, Lopez, Mikula, Morales-Barquero, Mupepele, Narváez-Gómez, Nguyen, Lisboa, Nuñez, Pavón-Jordán, Pottier, Prescott, Samad, Šćiban, Seo, Shinoda, Vajna, Vozykova, Walsh, Wee, Xiao and Zamora-Gutierrez2023).

Language barriers can be alleviated by publishing in local languages. Some journals encourage publications to include non-English abstracts and summaries especially when research has consequences for local communities, decision-makers and practitioners, thus extending the scientific impact beyond the restricted scientific community. In developing countries, many journals are published in national languages other than English. Despite the fact that our current academic promotion systems may not reward such efforts, one can submit a translated version of the manuscript in the Supplementary material. This would foster engagement with researchers and stakeholders who may not have a strong understanding of English.

Recently, Amano et al (Reference Amano, Berdejo-Espinola, Christie, Willott, Akasaka, Báldi, Berthinussen, Bertolino, Bladon, Chen, Choi, Kharrat, de Oliveira, Farhat, Golivets, Aranzamendi, Jantke, Kajzer-Bonk, Aytekin, Khorozyan, Kito, Konno, Lin, Littlewood, Liu, Liu, Loretto, Marconi, Martin, Morgan, Narváez-Gómez, Negret, Nourani, Quintero, Ockendon, Ying Oh, Petrovan, Piovezan-Borges, Pollet, Ramos, Segovia, Rivera-Villanueva, Rocha, Rouyer, Sainsbury, Schuster, Schwab, Şekercioğlu, Seo, Shackelford, Shinoda, Smith, Tao, Tsai, Tyler, Vajna, Valdebenito, Vozykova, Waryszak, Zamora-Gutierrez, Zenni, Zhou and Sutherland2021) proposed ten tips for overcoming language barriers in science, which we endorse. The list includes dissemination of research in multiple languages, sourcing knowledge from multiple languages, increasing the visibility of non-English-language science, translating scientific terms, providing genuine support to non-native speakers, distinguishing language skills from scientific quality, considering language balance in scientific activities, acknowledging efforts to overcome language barriers and make use of existing resources and opportunities. In addition to this list, providing English translation and polishing services at no additional charge for seed ecologists in developing countries may benefit the whole scientific community with better quality science available (Ramírez-Castañeda Reference Ramírez-Castañeda2020).

Altogether, this set of actions is expected to result in better outcomes not only for researchers in developing countries but also for peers in developed nations. English-speaking scholars would have access to global knowledge and contribute to making science more inclusive (Nolde-Lopez et al Reference Nolde-Lopez, Bundus, Arenas-Castro, Román, Chowdhury, Amano, Berdejo-Espinola and Wadgymar2023). An excellent example of recent access to non-English literature is the impressive effort by Rosbakh et al (Reference Rosbakh, Baskin and Baskin2020) to translate and digitize a huge data set on seed dormancy and germination from Nikolaeva et al (Reference Nikolaeva, Razumova, Gladkova and Danilova1985) originally published in Russian and previously mostly inaccessible to the vast majority of seed ecologists.

Another type of language barrier is the thousands of indigenous languages that are still spoken in developing countries. Translators are often required in order to communicate with communities in remote areas to ask their permission to collect seeds/plants on their land. Finding creative ways to communicate seed ecology knowledge to local communities remains a challenge.

Improving education

Training the next generation of seed ecologists is a multi-step challenge, but primarily requires enrolment in specific courses. However, seed ecology is hardly touched upon in ecology courses, and even more so in developing countries. Most plant science courses offered by universities in developing countries consist of limited lectures on seed germination and dormancy. In contrast, many agriculture universities offer full course training in seed technology with a prime focus on producing and sustaining the supply of quality crop seeds.

Dedicated training on seed ecology may alleviate several key challenges in seed ecological research in developing countries. First, the plant science course curriculum is recommended to cover all aspects of seed ecology, from seed production to dispersal to seedling establishment (Fenner Reference Fenner1985). Applied courses could include contemporary topics such as climate change, defaunation, biodiversity conservation and restoration, preferably using interdisciplinary approaches. We encourage seed ecologists from developed countries to engage in teaching courses in developing countries.

Both theoretical and practical field courses hold a large potential to improve education. Plant Functional Traits Courses are becoming common in many places offering hands-on training in applications of plant functional trait ecology within a real-life field research project setting in different parts of the world including developing countries (https://plantfunctionaltraitscourses.w.uib.no/). A similar successful example of a theoretical course is the Winter School on Functional Seed Ecology at the University of Pavia, Italy (http://seedschool.unipv.it/). Such online courses are offered at low costs to early-career researchers from developing countries, providing world-class lectures to the next generation of seed ecologists. Future international courses are expected to provide additional training to researchers to help building a more representative global network of seed ecologists.

Field courses have long been powerful and transformative in the tropics (https://tropicalstudies.org/). Intensive field-based programmes help students develop basic research abilities and create/extend a network of early-career colleagues. Field-based courses span all steps of the scientific process from the definition of hypotheses, developing and implementing sampling, analysing data, rehearsing formal oral presentations and preparing complete manuscript drafts. In many cases, such courses result in publications that can benefit both participants and instructors alike (Putz and Ruslandi Reference Putz and Ruslandi2018). To date, we are unaware of field courses entirely focused on seed ecology, but we encourage local courses to be developed given the low cost:benefit ratio of such activities.

Shifting the notion of novelty and relevance

Acceptance of scientific papers is largely determined by assessments of novelty and relevance by journal editors and reviewers. Editors have the responsibility of evaluating whether submitted papers have enough novelty and are relevant enough before deciding to invite reviewers that will provide recommendations that ultimately determine manuscript fate. A profound geographical mismatch exists among editors of leading ecological and conservation science journals, with journals having few or sometimes no editors from many of the most biodiverse, developing countries (Espin et al Reference Espin, Palmas, Carrasco-Rueda, Riemer, Allen, Berkebile, Kastner-Wilcox and Núñez-Regueiro2017). This geographic bias strongly influences acceptance rates and shapes the scientific publishing landscape, with detrimental consequences for scientists in developing countries who have their papers deemed as ‘of local relevance’ (Geldmann et al Reference Geldmann, Alves-Pinto, Amano, Bartlett, Christie, Collas, Cooke, Correa, Cripps, Doherty, Finch, Garnett, Hua, Jones, Kasoar, MacFarlane, Martin, Mukherjee, Mumby, Payne, Petrovan, Rocha, Russell, Simmons, Wauchope, Worthington, Trevelyan, Green and Balmford2020). Recently, Smith et al (Reference Smith, Davis, Pizza, Waterman, Dobson, Foster, Jarvey, Jones, Leuenberger, Nourn, Conway, Fiser, Hansen, Hristova, Mack, Saunders, Utley, Young and Davis2023) found notably worse review outcomes for authors whose institutional affiliations were in Asia, for authors whose country's primary language is not English and based in countries with relatively low Human Development Indices. As a result, there are substantial biases in the geographic representation in the ecological and plant science literature (Marks et al Reference Marks, Amézquita, Percival, Rougon-Cardoso, Chibici-Revneanu, Tebele, Farrant, Chitwood and vanBuren2023), with some developing countries being underrepresented, despite being home to the world's most diverse floras.

There are multiple ways in which the community of seed ecologists can address the underrepresentation of developing countries in both plant science and ecological literature. The emphasis on novelty is at the odds of replication of studies suggesting the process of getting new field data that are otherwise important to support quantitative syntheses and meta-analyses is disfavoured. A number of concrete actions by journal editors includes encouraging submissions from all countries, reaching out to international authors, recruiting international reviewers, publishing more open-access papers and diversifying journal editorial boards to represent our global audience (only two editors of SSR are currently affiliated with institutions in developing countries), personalize the review process with sensitivity to international authors with English as an additional language, emphasize and value low-cost methods, and waive APCs for developing countries (Culley et al Reference Culley, Philpott, Tunison, Merritt, Barreiro-Sanchez, Wafer and Holdren2021; Smith et al Reference Smith, Merz, Borden, Gulick, Kshirsagar and Bruna2021). In addition to that, compulsory anonymization of author identities (e.g. double-blind review) can help mitigating biases in the peer-review process (Fox et al Reference Fox, Meyer and Aimé2023).

Given the paucity of basic data on the ecology of seeds in developing countries, creating manuscript categories dedicated to seed ecology data from data-deficient regions in international journals would incentivize the filling of knowledge gaps and provide recognition to researchers dedicated to these areas. A few journals (e.g. Journal of Ecology, Biotropica and Ecology) have recently created a manuscript category of ‘Natural History’ to accommodate studies showing the wonders of our natural world (e.g. Suetsugu and Hashiwaki Reference Suetsugu and Hashiwaki2023). We suggest that including Research Notes into the scope of Seed Science Research would reinvigorate the role of natural history and basic native seed biology as powerful knowledge-building methods. Studies focusing on natural history and basic seed ecology should, however, emphasize relevance beyond the local scales to attract the attention of a broad audience.

Supporting native seed markets

As signatories of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity, most developing countries operate under very strict biodiversity acts and laws, some of which hamper the exchange and transport of biological material overseas. Frequently, local legislation hampers the use of native species seeds that could be otherwise used to train students, generate knowledge and restore degraded ecosystems (Urzedo et al Reference Urzedo, Fisher, Piña-Rodrigues, Freire and Junqueira2019). The national application of the Nagoya protocol is a great challenge for biodiversity research and especially for seed ecology, given that seeds consistently fall under this protocol (Prathapan et al Reference Prathapan, Pethiyagoda, Bawa, Raven and Rajan2018). While far-reaching exceptions in the Nagoya protocol enable an agro-industrial exploitation of biological resources across national borders, the application of rules suggested in Nagoya makes it very difficult for both local research teams as well as international consortia to work on seed ecology.

Native seed supply for restoration is essentially a community-based activity that faces broad barriers to operating within regulations because of requirements for excessive and costly technical documentation, scarcity of seed laboratories and lack of instructions for native seed quality testing. Therefore, easing the laboratory accreditation process for native seed quality assurance is recommended (Urzedo et al Reference Urzedo, Fisher, Piña-Rodrigues, Freire and Junqueira2019). Future regulations should facilitate the exchange of seed material for seed ecological research not addressing genetic issues through simplified authorization procedures, pending the public availability of research results and following open standards on storage and further use of seeds. Relaxing the level of the international and national limitations over seed transport may also enhance banking threatened species in ex situ collections (Teixido et al Reference Teixido, Toorop, Liu, Ribeiro, Fuzessy, Guerra and Silveira2017).