Rachel White

Dr. Rachel White


Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

15Years (2012-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
6 March 2018 in PLOS ONE
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
RWRachel White
Rachel White
KEKatie Eberstein
Katie Eberstein
DSDawn Scott
Dawn Scott
Children nowadays, particularly in urban areas, are more disconnected from nature than ever before, leading to a large-scale “extinction of experience” with the natural world. Yet there are many potential benefits from children interacting with nature first-hand, including via outdoor learning opportunities. Urban environmental education programmes typically aim to increase awareness and knowledge of local biodiversity and to promote positive attitudes and behaviour towards the environment. However, limited research has been conducted evaluating to what extent these interventions achieve their goals. Here, we explore and assess the influence of a six-week bird-feeding and monitoring project conducted within school grounds (“Bird Buddies”) on individual awareness, knowledge and attitudes towards birds by primary school children. This initiative was conducted across eight (sub-)urban primary schools within Brighton and Hove (UK), with 220 participating children (aged 7 to 10). Via pre- and post-project questionnaires, we found evidence for enhanced awareness of local biodiversity, alongside significant gains in both bird identification knowledge and attitudes, which were greatest for children with little prior exposure to nature. Many children expressed a keenness to continue improving the environmental value of their school grounds and to apply elements of the project at home. Student project evaluation scores were consistently positive. Mirroring this, participating teachers endorsed the project as a positive learning experience for their students. One year after the project, several schools were continuing to feed and watch birds. Collectively, the findings from this study highlight the multiple benefits that can be derived from engagement with a relatively short outdoor environmental activity. We therefore believe that such interventions, if repeated locally/longer term, could enhance children’s experience with nature in urban settings with combined positive environmental impact.

6 February 2025 in BMC Biology
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
EGElliot Gould
Elliot Gould
HFHannah S. Fraser
Hannah S. Fraser
TPTimothy H. Parker
Timothy H. Parker
SNShinichi Nakagawa
Shinichi Nakagawa
SGSimon C. Griffith
Simon C. Griffith
RZRachel A. Zitomer
Rachel A. Zitomer
Although variation in effect sizes and predicted values among studies of similar phenomena is inevitable, such variation far exceeds what might be produced by sampling error alone. One possible explanation for variation among results is differences among researchers in the decisions they make regarding statistical analyses. A growing array of studies has explored this analytical variability in different fields and has found substantial variability among results despite analysts having the same data and research question. Many of these studies have been in the social sciences, but one small “many analyst” study found similar variability in ecology. We expanded the scope of this prior work by implementing a large-scale empirical exploration of the variation in effect sizes and model predictions generated by the analytical decisions of different researchers in ecology and evolutionary biology. We used two unpublished datasets, one from evolutionary ecology (blue tit, Cyanistes caeruleus, to compare sibling number and nestling growth) and one from conservation ecology (Eucalyptus, to compare grass cover and tree seedling recruitment). The project leaders recruited 174 analyst teams, comprising 246 analysts, to investigate the answers to prespecified research questions. Analyses conducted by these teams yielded 141 usable effects (compatible with our meta-analyses and with all necessary information provided) for the blue tit dataset, and 85 usable effects for the Eucalyptus dataset. We found substantial heterogeneity among results for both datasets, although the patterns of variation differed between them. For the blue tit analyses, the average effect was convincingly negative, with less growth for nestlings living with more siblings, but there was near continuous variation in effect size from large negative effects to effects near zero, and even effects crossing the traditional threshold of statistical significance in the opposite direction. In contrast, the average relationship between grass cover and Eucalyptus seedling number was only slightly negative and not convincingly different from zero, and most effects ranged from weakly negative to weakly positive, with about a third of effects crossing the traditional threshold of significance in one direction or the other. However, there were also several striking outliers in the Eucalyptus dataset, with effects far from zero. For both datasets, we found substantial variation in the variable selection and random effects structures among analyses, as well as in the ratings of the analytical methods by peer reviewers, but we found no strong relationship between any of these and deviation from the meta-analytic mean. In other words, analyses with results that were far from the mean were no more or less likely to have dissimilar variable sets, use random effects in their models, or receive poor peer reviews than those analyses that found results that were close to the mean. The existence of substantial variability among analysis outcomes raises important questions about how ecologists and evolutionary biologists should interpret published results, and how they should conduct analyses in the future.

27 April 2016 in The Open Ornithology Journal
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
LPLiviu Parau
Liviu Parau
DSDiederik Strubbe
Diederik Strubbe
EMEmiliano Mori
Emiliano Mori
MMMattia Menchetti
Mattia Menchetti
LALeonardo Ancillotto
Leonardo Ancillotto
Michael WinkMichael Wink
Michael Wink
Background: Alien species are one of the major causes contributing to biodiversity loss. In Europe, over 340 alien bird species have been recorded in the wild, of which 74 are established. Among 12 established alien parrot species in Europe, the Rose-ringed Parakeet (RRP) Psittacula krameri is the most abundant and widespread. Objective: Although one of the best documented alien vertebrates in Europe, historical and current datasets on RRP invasion success and demography have not been systematically collated and analysed. This paper therefore aims to bring together, verify and make available this information. Method: Existing distribution and demographic data for the RRP in Europe were collated from the following sources: (a) literature search; (b) bird sighting databases; (c) regional bird experts; (d) RRP roost counts. With this data, we evaluated population size and growth per population, country and the whole of Europe in the period 1965-2015. Results: The RRP is well established in Europe with at least 90 breeding populations in 10 countries, and a total population size of at least 85,000 birds as of 2015. For Western Europe, long-term demographic data indicate the species has grown considerably in number, although some populations have failed to persist. Data is scarce for countries in Central, Eastern and Northern Europe. Conclusion: Our synthesis reveals a positive demographic trend across Europe, although locally, some populations appear to have reached carrying capacity. Further research is needed to understand the mechanisms underlying RRP population growth in Europe, and methods amenable to citizen-scientists are urgently required to monitor population and range dynamics.

7 April 2015 in PLOS ONE
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
RWRachel White
Rachel White
PBPeter M. Bennett
Peter M. Bennett
Mountainous regions are hotspots of terrestrial biodiversity. Unlike islands, which have been the focus of extensive research on extinction dynamics, fewer studies have examined mountain ranges even though they face increasing threats from human pressures – notably habitat conversion and climate change. Limits to the taxonomic and geographical extent and resolution of previously available information have precluded an explicit assessment of the relative role of elevational distribution in determining extinction risk. We use a new global species-level avian database to quantify the influence of elevational distribution (range, maximum and midpoint) on extinction risk in birds at the global scale. We also tested this relationship within biogeographic realms, higher taxonomic levels, and across phylogenetic contrasts. Potential confounding variables (i.e. phylogenetic, distributional, morphological, life history and niche breadth) were also tested and controlled for. We show that the three measures of elevational distribution are strong negative predictors of avian extinction risk, with elevational range comparable and complementary to that of geographical range size. Extinction risk was also found to be positively associated with body weight, development and adult survival, but negatively associated with reproduction and niche breadth. The robust and consistent findings from this study demonstrate the importance of elevational distribution as a key driver of variation in extinction dynamics in birds. Our results also highlight elevational distribution as a missing criterion in current schemes for quantifying extinction risk and setting species conservation priorities in birds. Further research is recommended to test for generality across non-avian taxa, which will require an advance in our knowledge of species’ current elevational ranges and increased efforts to digitise and centralise such data.

15 July 2019 in NeoBiota
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
RWRachel White
Rachel White
DSDiederik Strubbe
Diederik Strubbe
MDMartin Dallimer
Martin Dallimer
ZDZoe G. Davies
Zoe G. Davies
ADAmy J.S. Davis
Amy J.S. Davis
ASAssaf Shwartz
Assaf Shwartz
Globally, the number of invasive alien species (IAS) continues to increase and management and policy responses typically need to be adopted before conclusive empirical evidence on their environmental and socioeconomic impacts are available. Consequently, numerous protocols exist for assessing IAS impacts and differ considerably in which evidence they include. However, inclusive strategies for building a transparent evidence base underlying IAS impact assessments are lacking, potentially affecting our ability to reliably identify priority IAS. Using alien parrots in Europe as a case study, here we apply an evidence-mapping scheme to classify impact evidence and evaluate the consequences of accepting different subsets of available evidence on impact assessment outcomes. We collected environmental and socioeconomic impact data in multiple languages using a “wiki-review” process, comprising a systematic evidence search and an online editing and consultation phase. Evidence was classified by parrot species, impact category (e.g. infrastructure), geographical area (e.g. native range), source type (e.g. peer-review), study design (e.g. experimental) and impact direction (deleterious, beneficial and no impact). Our comprehensive database comprised 386 impact entries from 233 sources. Most evidence was anecdotal (50%). A total of 42% of entries reported damage to agriculture (mainly in native ranges), while within Europe most entries concerned interspecific competition (39%). We demonstrate that the types of evidence included in assessments can strongly influence impact severity scores. For example, including evidence from the native range or anecdotal evidence resulted in an overall switch from minimal-moderate to moderate-major overall impact scores. We advise using such an evidence-mapping approach to create an inclusive and updatable database as the foundation for more transparent IAS impact assessments. When openly shared, such evidence-mapping can help better inform IAS research, management and policy.

15 September 2020 in Oikos
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
JCJulia Cooke
Julia Cooke
YAYoseph Araya
Yoseph Araya
KBKaren L. Bacon
Karen L. Bacon
JBJoanna M. Bagniewska
Joanna M. Bagniewska
LBLesley C. Batty
Lesley C. Batty
ZLZenobia Lewis
Zenobia Lewis