Restriction-site-associated DNA sequencing (RADseq) has become an accessible way to obtain genome-wide data in the form of single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) for phylogenetic inference. Nonetheless, how differences in RADseq methods influence phylogenetic estimation is poorly understood because most comparisons have largely relied on conceptual predictions rather than empirical tests. We examine how differences in ddRAD and 2bRAD data influence phylogenetic estimation in two non-model frog groups. We compare the impact of method choice on phylogenetic information, missing data, and allelic dropout, considering different sequencing depths. Given that researchers must balance input (funding, time) with output (amount and quality of data), we also provide comparisons of laboratory effort, computational time, monetary costs, and the repeatability of library preparation and sequencing. Both 2bRAD and ddRAD methods estimated well-supported trees, even at low sequencing depths, and had comparable amounts of missing data, patterns of allelic dropout, and phylogenetic signal. Compared to ddRAD, 2bRAD produced more repeatable datasets, had simpler laboratory protocols, and had an overall faster bioinformatics assembly. However, many fewer parsimony-informative sites per SNP were obtained from 2bRAD data when using native pipelines, highlighting a need for further investigation into the effects of each pipeline on resulting datasets. Our study underscores the importance of comparing RADseq methods, such as expected results and theoretical performance using empirical datasets, before undertaking costly experiments.

Amphibians are a clade of over 8,400 species that provide unique research opportunities and challenges. With amphibians undergoing severe global declines, we posit that assessing our current understanding of amphibians is imperative. Focusing on the past five years (2016-2020), we examine trends in amphibian research, data, and systematics. New species of amphibians continue to be described at a pace of â 150 per year. Phylogenomic studies are increasing, fueling a growing consensus in the amphibian tree of life. Over 3,000 species of amphibians are now represented by expert-curated accounts or data in AmphibiaWeb, AmphibiaChina, BIOWEB, or the Amphibian Disease Portal. Nevertheless, many species lack basic natural history data (e.g., diet records, morphological measurements, call recordings) and major gaps exist for entire amphibian clades. Genomic resources appear on the cusp of a rapid expansion, but large, repetitive amphibian genomes still pose significant challenges. Conservation continues to be a major focus for amphibian research, and threats cataloged on AmphibiaWeb for 1,261 species highlight the need to address land use change and disease using adaptive management strategies. To further promote amphibian research and conservation, we underscore the importance of database integration and suggest that other understudied or imperiled clades would benefit from similar assessments of existing data.

Field biology is an area of research that involves working directly with living organisms in situ through a practice known as "fieldwork." Conducting fieldwork often requires complex logistical planning within multiregional or multinational teams, interacting with local communities at field sites, and collaborative research led by one or a few of the core team members. However, existing power imbalances stemming from geopolitical history, discrimination, and professional position, among other factors, perpetuate inequities when conducting these research endeavors. After reflecting on our own research programs, we propose four general principles to guide equitable, inclusive, ethical, and safe practices in field biology: be collaborative, be respectful, be legal, and be safe. Although many biologists already structure their field programs around these principles or similar values, executing equitable research practices can prove challenging and requires careful consideration, especially by those in positions with relatively greater privilege. Based on experiences and input from a diverse group of global collaborators, we provide suggestions for action-oriented approaches to make field biology more equitable, with particular attention to how those with greater privilege can contribute. While we acknowledge that not all suggestions will be applicable to every institution or program, we hope that they will generate discussions and provide a baseline for training in proactive, equitable fieldwork practices.