Enhancing Working Posture Comparability in Forest Operations by the Use of Similarity Metrics

Forest operations are well known in exposing their workers to many risk factors, and they often require ergonomic interventions for improvement. In this regard, evaluation of biomechanical exposure has gained a lot of interest due to the concerning scientific results repeatedly showing the association between poor working postures and the development of work-related musculoskeletal disorders. Due to its simplicity, easy understanding, cost affordability, and the capability to evaluate the whole body, the OWAS method has been commonly used in postural evaluation of forestry work, being able to map the experimental observations in a final action category, in the form of a postural risk index (PRI), which helps designing or taking actions for ergonomic improvement. However, postural comparability is both relevant and important when, for instance, one tries to improve a work method or to introduce a new technology. Unfortunately, the PRI metric holds a rather low capability to characterize the changes brought by such factors in terms of postural dissimilarity or similarity, making it difficult to accurately follow the changes. For this reason, we introduce in the postural analysis, test and discuss herein two commonly used similarity metrics as specific to plant sociology and other ecology-related sciences, namely the Sørensen’s quotient of similarity (hereafter QS) and the Canberra metric (hereafter CM); their selection was based on their mathematical capabilities of dealing with data at two resolutions, namely species and individuals. Three case studies were setup to show the differences between QS, CM, and PRI and their usefulness for postural analysis while, for a better understanding, the results were described and discussed by analogy to the living world. As the technology of automating data collection and processing for postural analysis is in progress, the utility of similarity metrics in postural assessment and comparison could be further expanded so as to map a given work sequence in the time domain against best-fit postural profiles. The main conclusion of this study is that the PRI is useful for action-taking while the similarity metrics are useful for pairwise postural change evaluations and comparison.

Does an open access journal about vegetation still make sense in 2020?

The current issue is the first one of the new version of Plant Sociology, the international peer-reviewed journal of the "Società Italiana di Scienza della Vegetazione" (SISV). The technical management of the journal has been entrusted to the editorial platform Pensoft, the Editorial Board has been largely reshaped, now including also a dedicated Social media team. Plant Sociology is focused on all aspects of vegetation from phytocoenosis to landscape level, through time and space, at different geographic and ecological scales; the journal contributes to spread around the issues related to management and conservation of plant communities and plant diversity. All the articles are freely available in Open Access (OA) with affordable article processing charge (APC). In the present Editorial, we briefly discuss the importance of opening the access to knowledge and data about vegetation. We believe that disseminating plant science might be a precious tool for understanding ecological processes, modelling future trends and supporting decision makers. The introduced technological improvement will hopefully allow a larger visibility and circulation for the papers published on Plant Sociology.

The Visual Grasp of the Fragmented Landscape

Between 1925 and 1980, landscape ecology underwent important changes through the gradual imposition of the view from above, through the uses of aerial photography. A new concept emerged, “the smallest unit of landscape,” also called ecotope and land unit, expressing a direct visual grasp of the landscape. This article compares the view from above as introduced and promoted by geographers Carl Troll and Isaak Zonneveld, with its (problematic) history vis-à-vis a school of ecology, i.e., plant sociology, led by Josias Braun-Blanquet and Reinhold Tüxen. This school’s internal struggles with balancing the physiognomic gaze (at the ground) and numerical methods are discussed. In comparison, the geographers based themselves on the mechanical objectivity of standardized aerial surveys, whereas the plant sociologists relied on their subjective expert judgment of plant recognition together with the structural objectivity of their numerical methods. An important communality of both schools was their inductive building of a landscape from its constituent landscape fragments. Landscape fragments were identified through abstraction and categorization, emanating from a taxonomical style of science.