ABSTRACT
Generations of colonialism, industrialization, intensive agriculture, and anthropogenic climate change have radically altered global ecosystems and by extension, their environmental microbiomes. The environmental consequences of global change disproportionately burden racialized communities, those with lower socioeconomic status, and other systematically underserved populations. Environmental justice seeks to balance the relationships between environmental burden, beneficial ecosystem functions, and local communities. Given their direct links to human and ecosystem health, microbes are embedded within social and environmental justice. Considering scientific and technological advances is becoming an important step in developing actionable solutions to global equity challenges. Here we identify areas where inclusion of microbial knowledge and research can support planetary health goals. We offer guidelines for strengthening a reciprocal integration of environmental justice into environmental microbiology research. Microbes form intimate relationships with the environment and society, thus microbiologists have numerous and unique opportunities to incorporate equity into their research, teaching, and community engagement.
KEYWORDS: microbiome, environmental microbes, environmental justice, social equity, global change, stewardship, research ethics, microbiome stewardship
PERSPECTIVE
Microbes play monumental roles in global health. Our microbiomes are intimately linked at cellular scales to our physical and mental well-being and intrinsically linked to public health and social justice within a sociopolitical context (1, 2). Settler colonialism and neocolonialism substantially and permanently alter how humans interact with each other and with the environment (3–7). This includes land use change and dispossession, disruption of local food systems, erasure of Indigenous knowledge, forced migration and labor, and displacement of people, plants, and animals. We must not only consider how microbes magnify these anthropogenic impacts, but also how these same sociopolitical processes shape environmental microbiomes.
Environmental racism (see Historical Box), “refers to any policy, practice, or directive that differentially affects or disadvantages (whether intended or unintended) individuals, groups, or communities based on race or color” (8). Historically, the negative impacts of environmental policy disproportionately affect racialized and gendered communities and those of lower economic status (8–11). Power relationships within institutions and governments further impede equitable environmental policy (12). Environmental justice seeks to balance the relationship between environment and community, and to prioritize local communities in decisions concerning environmental laws, regulations, and policies. Definitions vary (13) but invoking environmental racism and justice has meaningful impacts and political implications. To address persistent disparities in underserved communities, solutions will vary since “people in different geographic, historical, political, and institutional contexts understand [environmental racism and environmental justice] differently (11).” Microbes are fundamentally embedded in the environment, and thus, are central to environmental justice issues. Simultaneously, microbes may also offer sustainable and effective solutions to environmental injustices.
HISTORICAL BOX.
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE AND THE EPA
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency defines environmental justice as, “the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies (epa.gov/environmentaljustice).” This definition is noteworthy primarily due to the political capital it merits, but also in historical significance. It was not until 1991 that the EPA established a working group on environmental equity, nearly a decade after the Warren County, NC protest against the placement of a PCB landfill in a predominantly Black and underserved community. This protest is widely regarded as the genesis of the Environmental Justice movement in the United States (9).
Environmental health and microbial injustice.
Environmental microbiomes (i.e., microbiomes predominately associated with soils and sediments, rivers and oceans, the built environment, and the atmosphere) sustain human life indirectly across planetary scales by supporting food systems, mediating biogeochemical cycles (14–16), and remediating waste (17). Importantly, microbes connect the health of human societies to the health of Earth’s ecosystems, underpinning the concept of planetary health (18). Human activity has unequivocally altered the global climate system, ecological dynamics, and societal structures to such an extent as to usher in the “Anthropocene” as both an epoch of geology (19) and philosophy of thought (20, 21). Certainly, there are profound asymmetries in terms of individuals and communities that create anthropogenic environmental harm, and those that experience it (22, 23). Environmental microbiomes are themselves radically shaped by anthropogenic actions too (24–26).
Increasingly, we understand that disrupting environmental microbiomes amplifies social inequities, reinforces disproportionate access to natural resources, and perpetuates historical legacies of injustice. Across the urban to rural continuum, communities that rely on the local environment, due to cultural connection or necessity, are more susceptible to environmental harm (27–29). Green space (e.g., park, garden, arboretum) proximity and accessibility across global urban areas correlates with socioeconomic status, income, age, and education but inversely correlates with pollution exposure (30–32). Important health benefits associated with access to green spaces include improved mental and physical health and long-term reduction in mortality (32–34). Environmental microbiome exposures in green spaces relate to similar health benefits (35–37), and conversely, the biodiversity hypothesis suggests that reduction of environmental microbial exposures negatively impacts human health (38).
Modern microbiology research is fundamentally interdisciplinary, expansive, and innovative. Thus, microbiologists are uniquely positioned to build equity and justice into their work, and reciprocal engagement of environmental justice and microbiomes ensures impactful research. We urge microbiologists to build a more holistic knowledge of the relationships between the environment, microbiomes, and humanity.
ENVIRONMENTAL MICROBES AND GLOBAL CHANGE
Global change significantly alters environmental microbiome composition, community resilience, and function (24, 39–41). Global change factors uncouple microbial biodiversity and ecological functions (42), which may negatively impact the resilience of these ecosystems to increasingly frequent and catastrophic disturbance events. These disturbance events, like hurricanes or fires, are also sites of environmental injustice as they disproportionately burden underserved communities (27, 43). Long-term ecosystem and societal sustainability necessitates centering environmental microbes and understanding how they both contribute to and are affected by global change (26).
Soils harbor vast microbial biodiversity on which food, fiber, and fuel systems are built upon. Overuse, erosion, and land use change threaten soil biodiversity and their important ecosystem functions. For example, intensive agriculture is the leading cause of global land use change (44). Current food production practices exhaust natural resources and generate tremendous waste, and these systems are further jeopardized by ecosystem disturbances and climate change (45). Intensive agriculture practices homogenizes soil microbiomes across the globe (46), which can lead to potential genetic “spill over” into native nonagronomic ecosystems (47).
Soil microbes and sustainable land management practices may hold the key to global change mitigation strategies and food security. Centering soil biodiversity supports global sustainability agendas (48, 49). For instance, crop productivity and nutrition is driven by complex ecological and evolutionary dynamics of soil and plant microbiomes. Interdisciplinary research focusing on agroecosystem microbiomes may unlock a tool kit of solutions for sustainable agriculture (50–54).
Anthropogenic coastal processes (e.g., coastal mining and pollution) linked to food systems and industrialization are pervasive global injustices (55–57). Further, the marine carbon cycle is changing in response to ocean warming and acidification. To illustrate, microbial responses to these stressors result in shifts from cell growth to cell maintenance and other physiological stress adaptations, ultimately impacting global carbon fluxes due to decreased growth efficiency and altered carbon metabolism (26, 58).
Coral reef ecosystems are biodiversity hot spots linked to the carbon cycle through photosynthesis and their calcium carbonate structures (59). They are critical locally in place-based human ‘reciprocal relationships’ (60). Regionally, these ecosystems offer tourism and recreation opportunities, culture and identity, protection from storm events, and economic and food security linked to fisheries (61). Ocean warming and acidification impacts coral reef microbial communities both directly and indirectly (62, 63). Temperature change and other human disturbances disrupt the critical relationship between corals and their symbiotic photosynthetic microalgae and microbiomes (64, 65), leaving them susceptible to diseases (66). While human communities likely have short-term resilience and adaptability to these symptoms of climate change, more chronic long-term changes are predicted to exceed this resilience, impacting food security from local to global scales (67, 68).
FRAMESHIFT TOWARD ENVIRONMENTAL MICROBIAL JUSTICE
Humanity is approaching a narrowing window of opportunity to adapt to anthropogenic global change impacts. Recently, a scientific cohort spanning diverse disciplines called for urgent, transformative, and equitable action to confront the climate crisis (69). Microbiologists are uniquely positioned to engage in collaborative thinking across fields to tackle knowledge gaps in environmental microbiology (70) and to address climate change (71). A paradigm shift advocates for direct integration of microbiology and social equity work (1, 2), as there are many axes along which microbiologists can broaden our research collaborations to more fully engage with social and environmental justice (72–75). We’ve compiled guidelines and resources (Table 1) to support progressive change within ourselves and within our communities to shift the field of microbiome science toward more environmentally just research. Below, we further contextualize ways in which we can prioritize equity and justice within environmental microbiome research.
TABLE 1.
Guidelines and resources for building more equitable environmental microbiome research practices targeted at individual, community, and institutional-level change
| Action Level | Action Step |
|---|---|
| Individual reflection | • Re-examine your own thinking around the connections between microbes and environmental, animal, human, and plant health. Recalibrate your relationship to microbes. |
| • Reframe our thinking around biological connections, from molecular to microbial to planetary scales (96). | |
| • Critically reflect on who has the expertise and who is considered expert. Challenge the notions of what makes someone a scientist (82), or an environmental justice advocate, and uplift these individuals or communities. | |
| Individual action | • Create and contribute to antiracist STEM communities (research groups, programs, departments, and beyond). |
| • Actively build anti-oppressive academic research groups (106). Set goals to build inclusivity and equity into microbiome research, collaborations, and training (107, 108). | |
| • Contribute your expertise to social or environmental justice activism. How can you inform local, regional, national, or global scale policy change? With whom might you partner to advocate for and implement these changes? | |
| • Exercise equitable citational practices. Who are you citing in your manuscripts (109, 110)? Gender balance (111)? Are you citing BIPOC scholars? How can you cite Indigenous knowledge (112)? | |
| • Prioritize physical and mental safety when conducting field work for yourself, your colleagues, and any students or trainees with whom you work. Engage in inclusive, accessible, and safe field work (113, 114). | |
| Community & research group | • Move beyond ethical research guidelines and towards dismantling colonial legacies in research institutions, projects, and within ourselves as scholars (115). |
| • Support, collaborate with, and hire BIPOC scholars. Invite BIPOC scholars to meetings and talks to share their research expertise. Representation matters in conference, departmental, keynote, panelist, and seminar speaker series. | |
| • Practice ethical publication. Where are you publishing? Is your research open access? Are your data and code available and reproducible? How are you sharing your research with diverse audiences and stakeholders? Information access in environmental microbial ecology is still predominantly academic and privileged (116). Commit to basic, applied, and translational research that addresses power structures and broadens the scope and standards of our scholarship communication (117–119). This is especially important in communities historically excluded from this work. | |
| Microbiome stewardship | • Consider how your personal, professional, and recreational activities alter microbial ecosystems. |
| • How do your individual and collective consumer behaviors relate to environmental microbiomes within built and managed environments? To the public health of your local communities? | |
| • Engage in community-based research. Accept that there is a different timeline for this. Advocate for institutional and structural changes that prioritize engagement with and funding of this work. | |
| • Build relationships with diverse stakeholders to more effectively generate questions, and to promote research that meaningfully engages with local and regional communities. | |
| • Translating principles of community-based participatory research across disciplines offers guidance for research carried out with communities to effect change (120–123) in environmental microbiome research. |
Guidelines for environmentally just microbiology.
Extractive research perpetuates colonial capitalist systems. “Helicopter research” is the harmful practice of scientists, usually from wealthier institutions, collecting samples from lower-income regions or countries, processing, and analyzing data with little impact in local communities, and this dynamic is often experienced between the Global North and Global South (76, 77). Since microbes are small and numerous, environmental microbiome sampling trips may appear minimally invasive. However, field work has social, ecological, and intellectual implications beyond the collection site, including travel and lodging, ecological impacts of sampling, and extraction of local biogeochemical, molecular, or environmental data.
To shift our work toward a more community-minded ethos, microbial ecologists must critically examine the theoretical basis of our research questions, study designs, institutional legacies (78), and field sites. Decolonizing science seeks to deconstruct the political, social, and institutional colonialist foundations that continue to shape scientific practices (79, 80) while aspiring to expand ways of knowing and knowledge creation (81, 82). Anticolonial approaches for a more ethical field of ecology work to radically decolonize our minds, approaches to scientific practice, access to scientific resources, and expertise (83).
Microbial evolutionary and ecological intrinsic properties (e.g., beneficial plant-microbe interactions, microbial antibiotics and natural products, molecular biotechnology) are often harnessed and commodified without conversations surrounding data sovereignty. Microbial solutions to global health challenges should be developed and applied within an equitable framework. Productive conversations around human genomic ancestry, settler colonial concepts of people’s origin, and Indigenous knowledge and reclamation has shifted the discussion around native DNA and kinship with social, cultural, and political implications (84–88). These efforts provide a roadmap for necessary conversations about cultural, traditional, and scientific practices and data sovereignty regarding environmental samples and microbial culture collections on unceded Indigenous lands.
We acknowledge that these goals are impeded by systematic and structural barriers challenging to overcome. Beyond the inequity, racism, and sexism built into our academic institutions, current funding timelines discourage establishing strong meaningful relationships and compensating community members for their time and or expertise. However, by better understanding the history of microbiology and its legacy of colonialism, we can build anti-oppressive teams that support and uplift systematically underserved identities in knowledge building, experimental design and data collection, data sharing, and co-production. This type of research empowers not only the scientists, but the communities with whom we work (83).
Environmental microbiome stewardship.
Environmental stewardship is the responsible use and protection of nature through conservation and sustainable practices that enhance ecosystem resilience and human well-being (89). As a parallel, the practice of antimicrobial (90, 91) and human gut microbiome (92) stewardship extends these principles to microbial life. We are not only intrinsically connected to our personal microbiomes, but also to the environmental microbiomes of our shared natural, engineered, and built habitats. Similarly, we should foster the stewardship of environmental microbiomes since preserving and maintaining our collective microbiomes is beneficial to all (92, 93).
Local and traditional knowledge applied in ecosystem and adaptive management strategies by Indigenous groups emphasizes the importance of stewardship for resilient ecosystems (94) and offers conservation strategies for curtailing macrobe biodiversity loss (95). These same strategies can extend to microbial conservation. Microbiome science is embedded within Indigenous knowledge systems, and environmental stewardship supports ecosystem resilience and establishes connections between humans and the planet (96). Indigenous sovereignty through land restitution (i.e., Land Back movement) not only has the potential to benefit human community health, but also minimizes cultural losses that parallel biodiversity loss (97–99).
Microbiome stewardship benefits human and non-human entities. For example, incorporating beneficial microbial exposure as a feature of urban landscape design supports community health (35–37). In agroecosystems, intensive agriculture and land management practices that contribute to soil erosion and nutrient loss are linked to detrimental human health outcomes (100). Soil degradation and anthropogenic climate change amplify global threats through positive feedback mechanisms (101). Within the past few decades in the southwestern United States, a massive increase in “Valley fever” outbreaks correlates to more frequent and intense dust storms (102, 103). Valley fever is a potentially life-threatening pulmonary infection caused by the inhalation of airborne spores of the fungus Coccidiodes immitis (104). A 2018 study reported elevated occupational health risks and Valley fever cases in women and Hispanic agricultural workers (105). Stewardship and agronomic practices that minimize soil erosion (e.g., crop rotations, cover crops, low tillage, and land contouring) also shape soil and atmospheric microbiomes with cascading human health impacts. This illustrates how inclusion of microbiome science relates to both global issues, such as food security, and also local social equity conditions and agricultural worker’s rights.
CONCLUSION
As we advance our understanding of the evolutionary and ecological dynamics of environmental microbiomes in a world continuously shaped by global change, we must foreground environmental justice. It is an important and exciting time to be a microbiologist. Our work must ensure equity from the development and design of projects to effective and inclusive communication, and finally to implementation of applications and policies derived from our research. By centering environmental microbiomes at the root of global change and environmental justice, we can shift our collective experiences to one based upon microbial justice.
Supplementary Material
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We appreciate the Microbes and Social Equity (MSE) working group (2) for community and collaboration. We thank Drs. Lesley-Ann Giddings, Hemangini Gupta, Sheila Saia, Daniel Suarez, and Kristen DeAngelis, as well as three anonymous reviewers, for their constructive feedback on this manuscript. M.J.C. and E.M.E. are a team of two white women, academic microbiologists in the United States who strive to further align our research with environmental justice. Our identities are important to note, as we are privileged beneficiaries of historical practices that continue to support white scientists. We acknowledge that our work is conducted on unceded Indigenous lands. We honor the long history of stewardship that shapes these ecosystems, and we commit to relationship building and research that works toward a sustainable and equitable future. M.J.C. is supported by the National Science Foundation Division of Environmental Biology under grant 1749206.
Contributor Information
Erin M. Eggleston, Email: eeggleston@middlebury.edu.
Suzanne Lynn Ishaq, University of Maine.
Kelly Ramirez, UT El Paso.
María Rebolleda Gómez, University of California, Irvine.
Samiksha Raut, The University of Alabama at Birmingham.
REFERENCES
- 1.Ishaq SL, Rapp M, Byerly R, McClellan LS, O'Boyle MR, Nykanen A, Fuller PJ, Aas C, Stone JM, Killpatrick S, Uptegrove MM, Vischer A, Wolf H, Smallman F, Eymann H, Narode S, Stapleton E, Cioffi CC, Tavalire HF. 2019. Framing the discussion of microorganisms as a facet of social equity in human health. PLoS Biol 17:e3000536. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3000536. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Ishaq SL, Parada FJ, Wolf PG, Bonilla CY, Carney MA, Benezra A, Wissel E, Friedman M, DeAngelis KM, Robinson JM, Fahimipour AK, Manus MB, Grieneisen L, Dietz LG, Pathak A, Chauhan A, Kuthyar S, Stewart JD, Dasari MR, Nonnamaker E, Choudoir M, Horve PF, Zimmerman NB, Kozik AJ, Darling KW, Romero-Olivares AL, Hariharan J, Farmer N, Maki KA, Collier JL, O'Doherty KC, Letourneau J, Kline J, Moses PL, Morar N. 2021. Introducing the Microbes and Social Equity Working Group: considering the microbial components of social, environmental, and health justice. mSystems 6:e0047121. doi: 10.1128/mSystems.00471-21. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Wallman D, Wells EC, Rivera-Collazo IC. 2018. The environmental legacies of colonialism in the northern neotropics: introduction to the special issue. Environ Archaeol 23:1–3. doi: 10.1080/14614103.2017.1370857. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Maragia B. 2005. The indigenous sustainability paradox and the quest for sustainability in post-colonial societies: Is indigenous knowledge all that is needed. Geo Int’l Envtl L Rev 18:197. [Google Scholar]
- 5.Erickson B. 2020. Anthropocene futures: Linking colonialism and environmentalism in an age of crisis. Environ Plan D 38:111–128. doi: 10.1177/0263775818806514. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Dhillon J. 2018. Introduction. Environ Soc 9:1–5. doi: 10.3167/ares.2018.090101. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Whyte K. 2017. Indigenous climate change studies: indigenizing futures, decolonizing the anthropocene. Engl Lang Notes 55:153–162. doi: 10.1215/00138282-55.1-2.153. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Bullard RD. 1993. The threat of environmental racism. Nat Resour Environ 7:23–56. [Google Scholar]
- 9.Bullard RD. 1993. Race and environmental justice in the United States. Yale J Int’l L 18:319. [Google Scholar]
- 10.Jarratt-Snider K, Nielsen MO. 2020. Indigenous environmental justice. University of Arizona Press, Tucson, AZ. [Google Scholar]
- 11.Holifield R. 2001. Defining environmental justice and environmental racism. Urban Geogr 22:78–90. doi: 10.2747/0272-3638.22.1.78. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Berbés-Blázquez M, González JA, Pascual U. 2016. Towards an ecosystem services approach that addresses social power relations. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 19:134–143. doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2016.02.003. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Shlosburg D. 2007. Defining environmental justice: theories, movements, and nature. Oxford University Press, Oxford, England. [Google Scholar]
- 14.Falkowski PG, Fenchel T, Delong EF. 2008. The microbial engines that drive Earth’s biogeochemical cycles. Science 320:1034–1039. doi: 10.1126/science.1153213. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Liang C, Amelung W, Lehmann J, Kästner M. 2019. Quantitative assessment of microbial necromass contribution to soil organic matter. Glob Chang Biol 25:3578–3590. doi: 10.1111/gcb.14781. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Kallenbach CM, Frey SD, Stuart Grandy A. 2016. Direct evidence for microbial-derived soil organic matter formation and its ecophysiological controls. Nat Commun 7. doi: 10.1038/ncomms13630. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Rani N, Sangwan P, Joshi M, Sagar A, Bala K. 2019. Microbes: a key player in industrial wastewater treatment, p 83–102. In Shah MP, Rodriguez-Couto S (ed), Microbial wastewater treatment. Elsevier, Amsterdam, Netherlands. [Google Scholar]
- 18.Prescott SL, Wegienka G, Logan AC, Katz DL. 2018. Dysbiotic drift and biopsychosocial medicine: how the microbiome links personal, public and planetary health. Biopsychosoc Med 12:7. doi: 10.1186/s13030-018-0126-z. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Waters CN, Zalasiewicz J, Summerhayes C, Barnosky AD, Poirier C, Gałuszka A, Cearreta A, Edgeworth M, Ellis EC, Ellis M, Jeandel C, Leinfelder R, McNeill JR, Richter DD, Steffen W, Syvitski J, Vidas D, Wagreich M, Williams M, Zhisheng A, Grinevald J, Odada E, Oreskes N, Wolfe AP. 2016. The Anthropocene is functionally and stratigraphically distinct from the Holocene. Science 351:aad2622. doi: 10.1126/science.aad2622. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Yusoff K. 2016. Anthropogenesis: origins and endings in the Anthropocene. Theory, Culture & Society 33:3–28. doi: 10.1177/0263276415581021. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Malm A, Hornborg A. 2014. The geology of mankind? A critique of the Anthropocene narrative. The Anthropocene Rev 1:62–69. doi: 10.1177/2053019613516291. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Althor G, Watson JEM, Fuller RA. 2016. Global mismatch between greenhouse gas emissions and the burden of climate change. Sci Rep 6:20281. doi: 10.1038/srep20281. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Wiedmann T, Lenzen M, Keyßer LT, Steinberger JK. 2020. Scientists’ warning on affluence. Nat Commun 11:3107. doi: 10.1038/s41467-020-16941-y. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Gillings MR, Paulsen IT. 2014. Microbiology of the Anthropocene. Anthropocene 5:1–8. doi: 10.1016/j.ancene.2014.06.004. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Zhu Y-G, Penuelas J. 2020. Changes in the environmental microbiome in the Anthropocene. Glob Chang Biol 26:3175–3177. doi: 10.1111/gcb.15086. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Cavicchioli R, Ripple WJ, Timmis KN, Azam F, Bakken LR, Baylis M, Behrenfeld MJ, Boetius A, Boyd PW, Classen AT, Crowther TW, Danovaro R, Foreman CM, Huisman J, Hutchins DA, Jansson JK, Karl DM, Koskella B, Mark Welch DB, Martiny JBH, Moran MA, Orphan VJ, Reay DS, Remais JV, Rich VI, Singh BK, Stein LY, Stewart FJ, Sullivan MB, van Oppen MJH, Weaver SC, Webb EA, Webster NS. 2019. Scientists’ warning to humanity: microorganisms and climate change. Nat Rev Microbiol 17:569–586. doi: 10.1038/s41579-019-0222-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Emanuel RE. 2018. Climate change in the lumbee river watershed and potential impacts on the lumbee tribe of North Carolina. J Contemp Water Res Educ 163:79–93. doi: 10.1111/j.1936-704X.2018.03271.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Welfinger-Smith G, Minholz JL, Byrne S, Waghiyi V, Gologergen J, Kava J, Apatiki M, Ungott E, Miller PK, Arnason JG, Carpenter DO. 2011. Organochlorine and metal contaminants in traditional foods from St. Lawrence Island, Alaska. J Toxicol Environ Health A 74:1195–1214. doi: 10.1080/15287394.2011.590099. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Kimmerer RW. 2013. Braiding sweetgrass: Indigenous wisdom, scientific knowledge and the teachings of plants. Milkweed Editions. [Google Scholar]
- 30.Flies EJ, Skelly C, Negi SS, Prabhakaran P, Liu Q, Liu K, Goldizen FC, Lease C, Weinstein P. 2017. Biodiverse green spaces: a prescription for global urban health. Front Ecol Environ 15:510–516. doi: 10.1002/fee.1630. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Wolch JR, Byrne J, Newell JP. 2014. Urban green space, public health, and environmental justice: The challenge of making cities “just green enough.” Landsc Urban Plan 125:234–244. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.01.017. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Wüstemann H, Kalisch D, Kolbe J. 2017. Access to urban green space and environmental inequalities in Germany. Landsc Urban Plan 164:124–131. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2017.04.002. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Wendelboe-Nelson C, Kelly S, Kennedy M, Cherrie JW. 2019. A scoping review mapping research on green space and associated mental health benefits. Int J Environ Res Public Health 16. doi: 10.3390/ijerph16122081. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Richardson EA, Pearce J, Mitchell R, Kingham S. 2013. Role of physical activity in the relationship between urban green space and health. Public Health 127:318–324. doi: 10.1016/j.puhe.2013.01.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Robinson JM, Cando-Dumancela C, Antwis RE, Cameron R, Liddicoat C, Poudel R, Weinstein P, Breed MF. 2021. Exposure to airborne bacteria depends upon vertical stratification and vegetation complexity. Sci Rep 11:9516. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-89065-y. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Watkins H, Robinson JM, Breed MF, Parker B, Weinstein P. 2020. Microbiome-inspired green infrastructure: a toolkit for multidisciplinary landscape design. Trends Biotechnol 38:1305–1308. doi: 10.1016/j.tibtech.2020.04.009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Robinson JM, Jorgensen A. 2020. Rekindling old friendships in new landscapes: the environment–microbiome–health axis in the realms of landscape research. People and Nature 2:339–349. doi: 10.1002/pan3.10082. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Haahtela T. 2019. A biodiversity hypothesis. Allergy 74:1445–1456. doi: 10.1111/all.13763. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39.Rocca JD, Simonin M, Blaszczak JR, Ernakovich JG, Gibbons SM, Midani FS, Washburne AD. 2018. The Microbiome Stress Project: toward a global meta-analysis of environmental stressors and their effects on microbial communities. Front Microbiol 9:3272. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40.Wagg C, Bender SF, Widmer F, van der Heijden MGA. 2014. Soil biodiversity and soil community composition determine ecosystem multifunctionality. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 111:5266–5270. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1320054111. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41.Jansson JK, Hofmockel KS. 2020. Soil microbiomes and climate change. Nat Rev Microbiol 18:35–46. doi: 10.1038/s41579-019-0265-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42.Zhou Z, Wang C, Luo Y. 2020. Meta-analysis of the impacts of global change factors on soil microbial diversity and functionality. Nat Commun 11:3072. doi: 10.1038/s41467-020-16881-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43.Harris AR, Fidan EN, Nelson NG, Emanuel RE, Jass T, Kathariou S, Niedermeyer J, Sharara M, de los Reyes FL, Riveros-Iregui DA, Stewart JR. 2021. Microbial contamination in environmental waters of rural and agriculturally-dominated landscapes following Hurricane Florence. ACS Est Water 1:2012–2019. doi: 10.1021/acsestwater.1c00103. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 44.Foley JA, Defries R, Asner GP, Barford C, Bonan G, Carpenter SR, Chapin FS, Coe MT, Daily GC, Gibbs HK, Helkowski JH, Holloway T, Howard EA, Kucharik CJ, Monfreda C, Patz JA, Prentice IC, Ramankutty N, Snyder PK. 2005. Global consequences of land use. Science 309:570–574. doi: 10.1126/science.1111772. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45.2021. Population, food security, nutrition and sustainable development. United Nations Publications, New York, NY. https://www.un.org/development/desa/dpad/publication/un-desa-policy-brief-102-population-food-security-nutrition-and-sustainable-development/. [Google Scholar]
- 46.Guerra CA, Delgado-Baquerizo M, Duarte E, Marigliano O, Görgen C, Maestre FT, Eisenhauer N. 2021. Global projections of the soil microbiome in the Anthropocene. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 30:987–999. doi: 10.1111/geb.13273. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 47.Bell T, Tylianakis JM. 2016. Microbes in the Anthropocene: spillover of agriculturally selected bacteria and their impact on natural ecosystems. Proc Biol Sci 283. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 48.Bach EM, Ramirez KS, Fraser TD, Wall DH. 2020. Soil biodiversity integrates solutions for a sustainable future. Sustain Sci Pract Policy 12:2662. doi: 10.3390/su12072662. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 49.D’Hondt K, Kostic T, McDowell R, Eudes F, Singh BK, Sarkar S, Markakis M, Schelkle B, Maguin E, Sessitsch A. 2021. Microbiome innovations for a sustainable future. Nat Microbiol 6:138–142. doi: 10.1038/s41564-020-00857-w. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 50.Singh BK, Trivedi P, Egidi E, Macdonald CA, Delgado-Baquerizo M. 2020. Crop microbiome and sustainable agriculture. Nat Rev Microbiol 18:601–602. doi: 10.1038/s41579-020-00446-y. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 51.Chen Q-L, Hu H-W, He Z-Y, Cui L, Zhu Y-G, He J-Z. 2021. Potential of indigenous crop microbiomes for sustainable agriculture. Nat Food 2:233–240. doi: 10.1038/s43016-021-00253-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 52.Busby PE, Soman C, Wagner MR, Friesen ML, Kremer J, Bennett A, Morsy M, Eisen JA, Leach JE, Dangl JL. 2017. Research priorities for harnessing plant microbiomes in sustainable agriculture. PLoS Biol 15:e2001793. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.2001793. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 53.Ray P, Lakshmanan V, Labbé JL, Craven KD. 2020. Microbe to microbiome: a paradigm shift in the application of microorganisms for sustainable agriculture. Front Microbiol 11:622926. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2020.622926. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 54.Saia SM, Carrick HJ, Buda AR, Regan JM, Walter MT. 2021. Critical review of polyphosphate and polyphosphate accumulating organisms for agricultural water quality management. Environ Sci Technol 55:2722–2742. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.0c03566. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 55.Page J. 2007. Salmon farming in First Nations’ territories: A case of environmental injustice on Canada's West Coast. Local Environ 12:613–626. doi: 10.1080/13549830701657349. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 56.Wing S, Cole D, Grant G. 2000. Environmental injustice in North Carolina’s hog industry. Environ Health Perspect 108:225–231. doi: 10.1289/ehp.00108225. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 57.Jonah FE, Adu-Boahen K. 2016. Coastal environmental injustice in Ghana: the activities of coastal sediment miners in the Elmina, Cape Coast and Moree area. GeoJournal 81:185–196. doi: 10.1007/s10708-014-9612-4. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 58.Abirami B, Radhakrishnan M, Kumaran S, Wilson A. 2021. Impacts of global warming on marine microbial communities. Sci Total Environ 791:147905. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.147905. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 59.Lønborg C, Calleja ML, Fabricius KE, Smith JN, Achterberg EP. 2019. The Great Barrier Reef: a source of CO2 to the atmosphere. Mar Chem 210:24–33. doi: 10.1016/j.marchem.2019.02.003. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 60.Diver S, Vaughan M, Baker-Médard M, Lukacs H. 2019. Recognizing “reciprocal relations” to restore community access to land and water. Int J Commons 13:400. doi: 10.18352/ijc.881. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 61.Woodhead AJ, Hicks CC, Norström AV, Williams GJ, Graham NAJ. 2019. Coral reef ecosystem services in the Anthropocene. Funct Ecol doi: 10.1111/1365-2435.13331. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 62.Hughes TP, Anderson KD, Connolly SR, Heron SF, Kerry JT, Lough JM, Baird AH, Baum JK, Berumen ML, Bridge TC, Claar DC, Eakin CM, Gilmour JP, Graham NAJ, Harrison H, Hobbs J-PA, Hoey AS, Hoogenboom M, Lowe RJ, McCulloch MT, Pandolfi JM, Pratchett M, Schoepf V, Torda G, Wilson SK. 2018. Spatial and temporal patterns of mass bleaching of corals in the Anthropocene. Science 359:80–83. doi: 10.1126/science.aan8048. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 63.Hoegh-Guldberg O, Mumby PJ, Hooten AJ, Steneck RS, Greenfield P, Gomez E, Harvell CD, Sale PF, Edwards AJ, Caldeira K, Knowlton N, Eakin CM, Iglesias-Prieto R, Muthiga N, Bradbury RH, Dubi A, Hatziolos ME. 2007. Coral reefs under rapid climate change and ocean acidification. Science 318:1737–1742. doi: 10.1126/science.1152509. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 64.Camp EF, Kahlke T, Nitschke MR, Varkey D, Fisher NL, Fujise L, Goyen S, Hughes DJ, Lawson CA, Ros M, Woodcock S, Xiao K, Leggat W, Suggett DJ. 2020. Revealing changes in the microbiome of Symbiodiniaceae under thermal stress. Environ Microbiol 22:1294–1309. doi: 10.1111/1462-2920.14935. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 65.Claar DC, McDevitt-Irwin JM, Garren M, Vega Thurber R, Gates RD, Baum JK. 2020. Increased diversity and concordant shifts in community structure of coral-associated Symbiodiniaceae and bacteria subjected to chronic human disturbance. Mol Ecol 29:2477–2491. doi: 10.1111/mec.15494. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 66.Tout J, Siboni N, Messer LF, Garren M, Stocker R, Webster NS, Ralph PJ, Seymour JR. 2015. Increased seawater temperature increases the abundance and alters the structure of natural Vibrio populations associated with the coral Pocillopora damicornis. Front Microbiol 6:432. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2015.00432. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 67.Cruz-Trinidad A, Aliño PM, Geronimo RC, Cabral RB. 2014. Linking food security with coral reefs and fisheries in the coral triangle. Coast Manage 42:160–182. doi: 10.1080/08920753.2014.877761. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 68.Hoegh-Guldberg O, Pendleton L, Kaup A. 2019. People and the changing nature of coral reefs. Regional Studies in Marine Science 30:100699. doi: 10.1016/j.rsma.2019.100699. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 69.Atwoli L, Baqui AH, Benfield T, Bosurgi R, Godlee F, Hancocks S, Horton R, Laybourn-Langton L, Monteiro CA, Norman I, Patrick K, Praities N, Olde Rikkert MGM, Rubin EJ, Sahni P, Smith R, Talley N, Turale S, Vázquez D. 2021. Call for emergency action to limit global temperature increases, restore biodiversity, and protect health. mBio 12:e0249121. doi: 10.1128/mBio.02491-21. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 70.Kolter R, Chimileski S. 2018. The end of microbiology. Environ Microbiol 20:1955–1959. doi: 10.1111/1462-2920.14240. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 71.Nguyen Nguyen K, Casadevall A. 2021. Our health, our action, our planet—a call to action for microbiologists to engage in climate research. mBio 12:e02502–21. doi: 10.1128/mBio.02502-21. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 72.Benezra A, DeStefano J, Gordon JI. 2012. Anthropology of microbes. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 109:6378–6381. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1200515109. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 73.Redvers N. 2019. The science of the sacred: bridging global indigenous medicine systems and modern scientific principles. North Atlantic Books, Berkeley, California. [Google Scholar]
- 74.Taylor K. 2020. mSphere of influence: that’s racist-COVID-19, biological determinism, and the limits of hypotheses. mSphere 5. doi: 10.1128/mSphere.00945-20. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 75.Robinson JM, Redvers N, Camargo A, Bosch CA, Breed MF, Brenner LA, Carney MA, Chauhan A, Dasari M, Dietz LG, Friedman M, Grieneisen L, Hoisington AJ, Horve PF, Hunter A, Jech S, Jorgensen A, Lowry CA, Man I, Mhuireach G, Navarro-Pérez E, Ritchie EG, Stewart JD, Watkins H, Weinstein P, Ishaq SL. 2022. Twenty important research questions in microbial exposure and social equity. mSystems 7:e0124021. doi: 10.1128/msystems.01240-21. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 76.Minasny B, Fiantis D, Mulyanto B, Sulaeman Y, Widyatmanti W. 2020. Global soil science research collaboration in the 21st century: time to end helicopter research. Geoderma 373:114299. doi: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2020.114299. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 77.Haelewaters D, Hofmann TA, Romero-Olivares AL. 2021. Ten simple rules for Global North researchers to stop perpetuating helicopter research in the Global South. PLoS Comput Biol 17:e1009277. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1009277. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 78.McCoy M, Risam R, Guiliano J. 2021. The future of land-grab universities. Native American and Indigenous Studies 8:169–175. doi: 10.5749/natiindistudj.8.1.0169. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 79.Boisselle LN. 2016. Decolonizing science and science education in a postcolonial space (Trinidad, a seveloping Caribbean Nation, illustrates). SAGE Open 6:215824401663525. 2158244016635257. doi: 10.1177/2158244016635257. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 80.Lyons K, Parreñas JS, Tamarkin N, Subramaniam B, Green L, Pérez-Bustos T. 2017. Engagements with decolonization and decoloniality in and at the interfaces of STS. Catalyst 3:1–47. doi: 10.28968/cftt.v3i1.28794. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 81.Myers N. 2017. Ungrid-able ecologies: decolonizing the ecological sensorium in a 10,000 year-old natural cultural happening. Catalyst 3:1–24. doi: 10.28968/cftt.v3i2.28848. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 82.Bang M, Marin A, Medin D. 2018. If Indigenous peoples stand with the sciences, will scientists stand with us?. Daedalus 147:148–159. doi: 10.1162/DAED_a_00498. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 83.Trisos CH, Auerbach J, Katti M. 2021. Decoloniality and anti-oppressive practices for a more ethical ecology. Nat Ecol Evol 5:1205–1212. doi: 10.1038/s41559-021-01460-w. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 84.TallBear K. 2013. Genomic articulations of indigeneity. Soc Stud Sci 43:509–533. doi: 10.1177/0306312713483893. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 85.Reardon J, TallBear K. 2012. Your DNA is our history: genomics, anthropology, and the construction of whiteness as property. Curr Anthropol 53:S233–S245. doi: 10.1086/662629. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 86.Lee SS-J, Soo-Jin Lee S, Bolnick DA, Duster T, Ossorio P, Tallbear K. 2009. Genetics: the illusive gold standard in genetic ancestry testing. Science 325:38–39. doi: 10.1126/science.1173038. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 87.Bolnick DA, Fullwiley D, Duster T, Cooper RS, Fujimura JH, Kahn J, Kaufman JS, Marks J, Morning A, Nelson A, Ossorio P, Reardon J, Reverby SM, TallBear K. 2007. Genetics: the science and business of genetic ancestry testing. Science 318:399–400. doi: 10.1126/science.1150098. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 88.TallBear K. 2013. Native American DNA: Tribal Belonging and the False Promise of Genetic Science. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, Minnesota. [Google Scholar]
- 89.Chapin FS, 3rd, Carpenter SR, Kofinas GP, Folke C, Abel N, Clark WC, Olsson P, Smith DMS, Walker B, Young OR, Berkes F, Biggs R, Grove JM, Naylor RL, Pinkerton E, Steffen W, Swanson FJ. 2010. Ecosystem stewardship: sustainability strategies for a rapidly changing planet. Trends Ecol Evol 25:241–249. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2009.10.008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 90.Fishman N. 2006. Antimicrobial stewardship. Am J Infect Control 34:S55–S63. discussion S64–S73. doi: 10.1016/j.ajic.2006.05.237. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 91.Dyar OJ, Huttner B, Schouten J, Pulcini C, ESGAP (ESCMID Study Group for Antimicrobial stewardshiP) . 2017. What is antimicrobial stewardship?. Clin Microbiol Infect 23:793–798. doi: 10.1016/j.cmi.2017.08.026. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 92.O'Doherty KC, Neufeld JD, Brinkman FSL, Gardner H, Guttman DS, Beiko RG. 2014. Opinion: Conservation and stewardship of the human microbiome. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 111:14312–14313. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1413200111. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 93.Trinh P, Zaneveld JR, Safranek S, Rabinowitz PM. 2018. One health relationships between human, animal, and environmental microbiomes: a mini-review. Front Public Health 6:235. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2018.00235. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 94.Berkes F, Colding J, Folke C. 2000. Rediscovery of traditional ecological knowledge as adaptive management. Ecol Appl 10:1251–1262. doi: 10.1890/1051-0761(2000)010[1251:ROTEKA]2.0.CO;2. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 95.Schuster R, Germain RR, Bennett JR, Reo NJ, Arcese P. 2019. Vertebrate biodiversity on indigenous-managed lands in Australia, Brazil, and Canada equals that in protected areas. Environ Sci Policy 101:1–6. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2019.07.002. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 96.Redvers N, Yellow BM, Quinn D, Yunkaporta T, Arabena K. 2020. Molecular decolonization: an indigenous microcosm perspective of planetary health. Int J Environ Res Public Health 17. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17124586. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 97.Wu T, Petriello MA. 2011. Culture and biodiversity losses linked. Science 331:30–31; author reply 31. doi: 10.1126/science.331.6013.30-b. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 98.Clark NE, Lovell R, Wheeler BW, Higgins SL, Depledge MH, Norris K. 2014. Biodiversity, cultural pathways, and human health: a framework. Trends Ecol Evol 29:198–204. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2014.01.009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 99.IPBES. 2019. Summary for Policymakers of the Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. IPBES. [Google Scholar]
- 100.Wall DH, Nielsen UN, Six J. 2015. Soil biodiversity and human health. Nature 528:69–76. doi: 10.1038/nature15744. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 101.Kraamwinkel CT, Beaulieu A, Dias T, Howison RA. 2021. Planetary limits to soil degradation. Commun Earth Environ 2:249. doi: 10.1038/s43247-021-00323-3. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 102.Sprigg WA, Nickovic S, Galgiani JN, Pejanovic G, Petkovic S, Vujadinovic M, Vukovic A, Dacic M, DiBiase S, Prasad A, El-Askary H. 2014. Regional dust storm modeling for health services: The case of valley fever. Aeolian Res 14:53–73. doi: 10.1016/j.aeolia.2014.03.001. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 103.Tong DQ, Wang JXL, Gill TE, Lei H, Wang B. 2017. Intensified dust storm activity and Valley fever infection in the southwestern United States. Geophys Res Lett 44:4304–4312. doi: 10.1002/2017GL073524. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 104.Nguyen C, Barker BM, Hoover S, Nix DE, Ampel NM, Frelinger JA, Orbach MJ, Galgiani JN. 2013. Recent advances in our understanding of the environmental, epidemiological, immunological, and clinical dimensions of coccidioidomycosis. Clin Microbiol Rev 26:505–525. doi: 10.1128/CMR.00005-13. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 105.McCurdy SA, Portillo-Silva C, Sipan CL, Bang H, Emery KW. 2020. Risk for Coccidioidomycosis among Hispanic Farm Workers, California, USA, 2018. Emerg Infect Dis 26:1430–1437. doi: 10.3201/eid2607.200024. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 106.Chaudhary B, Berhe AA. 2020. Ten simple rules for building an anti-racist lab. EcoEvoRxiv [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 107.Foxx AJ, Franco Meléndez KP, Hariharan J, Kozik AJ, Wattenburger CJ, Godoy-Vitorino F, Rivers AR. 2021. Advancing equity and inclusion in microbiome research and training. mSystems 6. doi: 10.1128/mSystems.01151-21. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 108.Montgomery BL. 2020. Lessons from Microbes: What Can We Learn about Equity from Unculturable Bacteria? mSphere 5. doi: 10.1128/mSphere.01046-20. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 109.Ballard D, Allen B, Ashcraft K, Ganesh S, McLeod P, Zoller H. 2020. When words do not matter: identifying actions to effect diversity, equity, and inclusion in the academy. Manage Commun Q 34:590–616. doi: 10.1177/0893318920951643. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 110.Liboiron M, Ammendolia J, Winsor K, Zahara A, Bradshaw H, Melvin J, Mather C, Dawe N, Wells E, Liboiron F, Fürst B, Coyle C, Saturno J, Novacefski M, Westscott S, Liboiron G. 2017. Equity in author order: a feminist laboratory’s approach. Catalyst 3:1–17. doi: 10.28968/cftt.v3i2.28850. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 111.Kwon D. 2022. The rise of citational justice: how scholars are making references fairer. Nature 603:568–571. doi: 10.1038/d41586-022-00793-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 112.MacLeod L. 2021. More than personal communication. Kulak Burun Bogaz Ihtis Derg 5. [Google Scholar]
- 113.Demery A-JC, Pipkin MA. 2021. Safe fieldwork strategies for at-risk individuals, their supervisors and institutions. Nat Ecol Evol 5:5–9. doi: 10.1038/s41559-020-01328-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 114.McGill BM, Foster MJ, Pruitt AN, Thomas SG, Arsenault ER, Hanschu J, Wahwahsuck K, Cortez E, Zarek K, Loecke TD, Burgin AJ. 2021. You are welcome here: A practical guide to diversity, equity, and inclusion for undergraduates embarking on an ecological research experience. Ecol Evol 11:3636–3645. doi: 10.1002/ece3.7321. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 115.McAlvay AC, Armstrong CG, Baker J, Elk LB, Bosco S, Hanazaki N, Joseph L, Martínez-Cruz TE, Nesbitt M, Palmer MA, Priprá de Almeida WC, Anderson J, Asfaw Z, Borokini IT, Cano-Contreras EJ, Hoyte S, Hudson M, Ladio AH, Odonne G, Peter S, Rashford J, Wall J, Wolverton S, Vandebroek I. 2021. Ethnobiology phase VI: decolonizing institutions, projects, and scholarship. J Ethnobiol 41. doi: 10.2993/0278-0771-41.2.170. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 116.Cheng SJ, Zaringhalam M, Carvalho APS, Barnes R, Goldman G, Simonis J, Caballero-Gill RP, Creary MS, Guatame-Garcia A, Porras AM, Sanchez-Rios A, Bodison SC, Bohon W, Chakraborty P, Edwards L, Leath S, Marklein A, Williams NA, Ramirez KS, Zelikova J. 2020. A call to action: Moving the scientific publication process toward social justice. OSF Preprints. doi: 10.31219/osf.io/kna3h. [DOI]
- 117.Philip TM, Bang M, Jackson K. 2018. Articulating the “how,” the “for what,” the “for whom,” and the “with whom” in concert: a call to broaden the benchmarks of our scholarship. Cogn Instr 36:83–88. doi: 10.1080/07370008.2018.1413530. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 118.Lorenz L. 2020. Addressing diversity in science communication through citizen social science. JCOM 19:A04. doi: 10.22323/2.19040204. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 119.Halpern M, O'Rourke M. 2020. Power in science communication collaborations. JCOM 19:C02. doi: 10.22323/2.19040302. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 120.Bush PL, Hamzeh J, Macaulay AC, Macaulay AC, Sirett E, Bush PL, Bush PL, Hamzeh J, Macaulay AC. 2011. Community-based participatory research. Oxford Bibliographies Online Datasets. Oxford University Press, Oxford, England. [Google Scholar]
- 121.Tremblay M-C, Martin DH, McComber AM, McGregor A, Macaulay AC. 2018. Understanding community-based participatory research through a social movement framework: a case study of the Kahnawake Schools Diabetes Prevention Project. BMC Public Health 18:487. doi: 10.1186/s12889-018-5412-y. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 122.Barnhill-Dilling SK, Delborne JA. 2019. The genetically engineered American chestnut tree as opportunity for reciprocal restoration in Haudenosaunee communities. Biol Conserv 232:1–7. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2019.01.018. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 123.TallBear K. 2014. Standing with and speaking as faith: a feminist-indigenous approach to inquiry. J Res Practice 10:N17. [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
