Statistical Issues for Monitoring Ecological and Natural Resources in the United States

The United States funds a number of national monitoring programs to measure the status and trends of ecological and natural resources. Each of these programs has a unique focus; the scientific objectives are different as are the sample designs. However, individuals and committees, all well aware of the cost of ecological monitoring, have called for more effective monitoring programs. The objective of this paper is to summarize existing programs' statistical designs and discuss potential alternatives for improvement in national monitoring. Can we improve the current situation by providing an overall framework for the design or analysis of data from these disparate surveys? First, the paper summarizes the objectives of these surveys, compares and contrasts their survey designs as currently implemented, and determines what variables they collect. Through this process we identify commonalities and issues that impact our ability to combine information across one or more of the surveys. Three potential alternatives are presented, leading to comprehensive monitoring in the United States.     

Screening for abnormal placentation and adverse pregnancy outcomes with maternal serum biomarkers in the second trimester

Second trimester biomarkers were initially introduced with the intent of screening for neural tube defects and then subsequently for Down syndrome. It was soon realized that these markers can be indirect evidence of abnormal placentation and, therefore, can be used for screening for adverse pregnancy outcomes. Several new biomarkers have subsequently been described with conflicting findings regarding their efficiency for screening for adverse pregnancy outcomes. Although a biologically feasible mechanism has been proposed for the role of these biomarkers, they still fall short of an ideal screening test to be clinically useful. © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Impediments and Solutions to Sustainable,Watershed-Scale Urban Stormwater Management: Lessons from Australia and the United States

In urban and suburban areas, stormwater runoff is a primary stressor on surface waters. Conventional urban stormwater drainage systems often route runoff directly to streams and rivers, thus exacerbating pollutant inputs and hydrologic disturbance, and resulting in the degradation of ecosystem structure and function. Decentralized stormwater management tools, such as low impact development (LID) or water sensitive urban design (WSUD), may offer a more sustainable solution to stormwater management if implemented at a watershed scale. These tools are designed to pond, infiltrate, and harvest water at the source, encouraging evaporation, evapotranspiration, groundwater recharge, and re-use of stormwater. While there are numerous demonstrations of WSUD practices, there are few examples of widespread implementation at a watershed scale with the explicit objective of protecting or restoring a receiving stream. This article identifies seven major impediments to sustainable urban stormwater management: (1) uncertainties in performance and cost, (2) insufficient engineering standards and guidelines, (3) fragmented responsibilities, (4) lack of institutional capacity, (5) lack of legislative mandate, (6) lack of funding and effective market incentives, and (7) resistance to change. By comparing experiences from Australia and the United States, two developed countries with existing conventional stormwater infrastructure and escalating stream ecosystem degradation, we highlight challenges facing sustainable urban stormwater management and offer several examples of successful, regional WSUD implementation. We conclude by identifying solutions to each of the seven impediments that, when employed separately or in combination, should encourage widespread implementation of WSUD with watershed-based goals to protect human health and safety, and stream ecosystems.