There is a need for and interest in research scientists participating more in the politicoscientific community, and there are several places on the policy continuum where specialist scientific knowledge and perspective can be useful for governance and policy. Science policy is diverse and complicated; involving different branches, departments, agencies, and committees in the Federal government and within state and local government. Advocating, as scientists, on matters of science policy, is challenging, and scientists who do so must engage thoughtfully and deliberately. One consideration is whether the scientist communicates only facts, advocates for a position based on their values, or positions themselves somewhere along a facts-to-values continuum. Another consideration is whether engaging in science advocacy undermines credibility of the scientist and science, more generally. Science itself is a complex enterprise and it is difficult to communicate such complexity in a short period of time, even for any one issue, therefore, engagement in science policy will entail trade-offs in communicating detail and complexity particularly on issues that challenge individual or societal values. There is a growing body of resources and perspectives, including those in this special collection of papers, to encourage and assist scientists in the politicoscientific community and help them develop the skills to be effective members of this community.

After years of not engaging in policy affecting entomology and entomologists, the Entomological Society of America (ESA) has developed a set of coordinated initiatives to have the Society and its members become engaged in science policy activities. From its beginnings as a mere commitment to development of a program, the ESA's science policy program has become robust and active, including engaging an advocacy firm to represent ESA and guide Society initiatives and training, and developing a Science Policy Fellows program with selected fellows representing all parts of the membership, to creating a ‘tiered agenda’, with priorities stated for key issues. Here, we recount some of the history of ESA's advocacy efforts and highlight the value of the ESA as an advocate, providing policy makers with timely and reputable evidence-based information, while developing engaged members to become future Society leaders.

Scientists are often reluctant to engage with members of Congress and their staff because it can be challenging to bridge the cultural differences between Capitol Hill and academia and perhaps because there is understandable concern about objective data being manipulated for political purposes. However, science and politics have arguably been interrelated since the establishment of this country and need each other as we strive to make breakthroughs and advances to address the grand challenges facing society in an increasingly complex and global world. Consequently, policymakers need input from the scientific community to help make informed decisions and create rational and effective policy.

Much of the scientific research in the United States is conducted in the public interest and funded through tax dollars, with exact funding allocations controlled through a variety of high-level processes, including through legislation. Scientists can provide expert opinions to government officials and their staff in this and other processes of establishing and enforcing governmental legislation, policies, and regulations, although such expertise is often underutilized. This is partly due to the paucity of scientists who have training to engage policymakers.To address this deficit, many scientific societies now provide organized training in science policy, including how to seek out opportunities to engage with policymakers. One such example is the Entomological Society of America's Science Policy Fellowship (ESA SPF) program. This article is written by ESA SPF members and discusses the importance of interfacing with policymakers, some challenges this group encountered, and lessons learned through our experiences in the program. Through efforts like this, we hope to inspire other scientists to engage their societies in advocacy work and make their voice heard.

Grassroots advocacy is accessible for all scientists and can be an important component to shape local, state, and even federal science policy. Those best positioned to advocate for science are scientists themselves, especially if they have training on how to effectively shape science-informed policy. Entomologists that take an active role in policy can help shape public perception, regulations, and legislation related to entomology. In this paper, we show, through advocacy case studies, that grassroots advocacy by individuals or members of a professional society, rather than top-down edicts, has a successful track record leading to positive outcomes. By focusing on the local level, entomologists can successfully develop personal relationships with policymakers, stakeholders, and the public to better define their shared interests regarding entomological issues. We provide tips for success in science advocacy at local and state levels. Policy advocacy at the local level may suit many Entomological Society of America's (ESA) members who have a desire to personally promote the science of entomology and ensure adequate funding but are not able or interested to be involved at the federal level. Local science advocacy can, thus, complement and personalize the engagement ESA is concurrently pursuing at the federal level.

In a media environment saturated with information, simply providing facts, no matter how well researched, will not be enough to persuade and inform citizens. Adopting the techniques of interpretation and engagement will help entomologists create more compelling messaging.

The 2017 and 2018 Marches for Science were landmark events that brought together people around the world in support of science.The March for Science built a coalition between scientists and the science-supporting public that helped to expand the voices and perspectives in the science advocacy movement. That collaboration that has continued to power science advocacy long past a 1-d event. In this paper, organizers of the Washington, DC; San Francisco, CA; and Madison, WI marches and staff of the March for Science organization reflect on the collaborative nature of science advocacy and the March for Science movement and its role and future in the science advocacy space.

We compared insect visitors to 10 different flower species filmed simultaneously at two sites to assess whether insect taxa visiting at the two locations differed on a fine scale (<400 m apart). Although each of the 10 flower species had some insect taxa that were shared between sites, each also had unique visitors that appeared at a single site. Both the flowers and their insect visitors were generalists. Flowers were visited by an average of 16 different insect taxa. Insect taxa were observed visiting an average of three to four different flower species. The heterogeneity of floral visitors between sites is consistent with our proposed neighborhood model of pollination where flowers draw on insects in their area for pollination services and insects forage for nectar and pollen from flower species in their home ranges. Temporal heterogeneity can be dramatic. We recorded an influx of painted lady butterflies, which arrived in abundance on 12 June and were absent prior to then. Painted ladies dominated visits to flowers with hidden nectar sources (e.g., pale corydalis, blueberry, and bearberry). Spatial and temporal differences in insect visitors suggest ecological flexibility in pollination systems and may be important in insuring the persistence of flowers and insect visitors. Heterogeneity of insect visitors on a fine scale may structure gene flow among flowers and set the stage for local speciation in the angiosperms. The variation in the visitor community between sites highlights the importance of preserving multiple sites to insure the conservation of flowers and their insect visitors.

Little is known about insect and plant diversity in the regions of origin of many cultivated plants. Maize (Zea mays subsp. mays) was originally domesticated in Mexico from the wild annual teosinte Zea mays subsp. parviglumis.The first objective of this study was to compare the diversity of herbivore leafhoppers (Hemiptera: Cicadellidae) in annual teosinte and maize habitats. The second was to characterize plant species diversity in the annual teosinte habitat and its possible influence on the diversity of leafhoppers. Leafhopper adults were collected within the region of origin of maize from teosinte and maize plants during the wet season of 2016 and 2017, whereas teosinte and teosinte-associated plants were collected during the wet season of 2017 only. A higher level of leafhopper diversity was observed in the teosinte habitats (H′ = 2.33 ± 0.12) than in the maize fields (H′= 0.62 ± 0.16), with a 50% reduction in leafhopper species diversity seen in the maize sites compared with the teosinte sites. Within the maize fields, Dalbulus maidis (DeLong) (Hemiptera: Cicadellidae), which is the most important leafhopper pest in maize throughout the Americas, was the most abundant leafhopper species. Plant diversity in the teosinte sites was high, ranging between H′ = 2.16 ± 0.34 and H′= 2.45 ± 0.14. In total, we registered 174 species of vascular plants, belonging to herbs, shrubs, and trees into the teosinte sites. In addition, a significant correlation was found between some leafhopper subfamilies and plant families in these teosinte sites.

Successfully eradicated invasions are ideal opportunities for understanding the factors governing biological invasions and developing robust management strategies should the same, or similar, organisms again invade. We used geospatial analyses and habitat suitability modeling to reconstruct the spatiotemporal dynamics of an invasive vineyard pest, the European grapevine moth (Lobesia botrana [Denis & Schiffermüller]), in northern California. L. botrana detections were most strongly autocorrelated at local spatial scales (≤250 m) and remained clustered up to ~10 km. Generalized linear model, boosted regression tree, and random forest modeling methods performed well in predicting habitat suitability for L. botrana; annual mean temperature, elevation, and distance to the nearest road were identified as important predictors. Hotspots in L. botrana occurrence were spatiotemporally dynamic, yet habitat suitability was less important than purely spatial effects in explaining hotspot persistence. Our results indicate that local regulatory response to novel L. botrana detections was appropriate; 500 m treatment zones around detections are sufficient given the apparent propensity for very local movement by L. botrana. Our results also confirm the role of anthropogenic effects in L. botrana spread and support the establishment of quarantine procedures to limit human-mediated dispersal. Lastly, ensemble predictions provide a fine-scale measure of relative risk for a portion of northern California in the event of future L. botrana introductions.