天然花岗岩夹杂云母中核径迹腐蚀坑成因探讨

采用地表采集到的天然云母样品(不做蚀刻),直接用光学显微镜进行观察,观察到与传统方法同样的微米数量级腐蚀坑.并分析了腐蚀坑的成因,指出了这些新发现的腐蚀坑的环境意义.     

Identifying taxonomic and functional surrogates for spring biodiversity conservation

Surrogate approaches are widely used to estimate overall taxonomic diversity for conservation planning. Surrogate taxa are frequently selected based on rarity or charisma, whereas selection through statistical modeling has been applied rarely. We used boosted‐regression‐tree models (BRT) fitted to biological data from 165 springs to identify bryophyte and invertebrate surrogates for taxonomic and functional diversity of boreal springs. We focused on these 2 groups because they are well known and abundant in most boreal springs. The best indicators of taxonomic versus functional diversity differed. The bryophyte Bryum weigelii and the chironomid larva Paratrichocladius skirwithensis best indicated taxonomic diversity, whereas the isopod Asellus aquaticus and the chironomid Macropelopia spp. were the best surrogates of functional diversity. In a scoring algorithm for priority‐site selection, taxonomic surrogates performed only slightly better than random selection for all spring‐dwelling taxa, but they were very effective in representing spring specialists, providing a distinct improvement over random solutions. However, the surrogates for taxonomic diversity represented functional diversity poorly and vice versa. When combined with cross‐taxon complementarity analyses, surrogate selection based on statistical modeling provides a promising approach for identifying groundwater‐dependent ecosystems of special conservation value, a key requirement of the EU Water Framework Directive.     

Reallocating budgets among ongoing and emerging conservation projects

Conserving biodiversity and combating ecological hazards require cost-effective allocation of limited resources among potential management projects. Project priorities, however, can change over time as underlying social-ecological systems progress, novel priorities emerge, and management capabilities evolve. Thus, reallocation of ongoing investments in response to shifting priorities could improve management outcomes and address urgent demands, especially when additional funding is not available immediately. Resource reallocation, however, could incur transaction costs, require additional monitoring and reassessment, and be constrained by ongoing project commitments. Such complexities may prevent managers from considering potentially beneficial reallocation strategies, reducing long-term effectiveness. We propose an iterative project prioritization approach, based on marginal return-on-investment estimation and portfolio optimization, that guides resource reallocation among ongoing and new projects. Using simulation experiments in 2 case studies, we explored how this approach can improve efficacy under varying reallocation constraints, frequencies, costs, and rates of project portfolio change. Periodic budget reallocation could enhance the management of stochastically emerging invasive weeds in Australia and thus reduce the overall risk by up to 50% compared with a static budget. Reallocation frequency and the rate of new weed incursion synergistically increased the conservation gains achieved by allowing unconstrained reallocation. Conversely, budget reallocation would not improve the International Union for Conservation of Nature conservation status of threatened Australian birds due to slow rates of transition among conservation states; extinction risk could increase if portfolio reassessment is costly. Although other project prioritization studies may recommend periodic reassessment and reallocation, our findings revealed conditions when reallocation is valuable and demonstrated a structured approach that can help conservation agencies schedule and implement iterative budget-allocation decisions cost-effectively.     

Shared ways of thinking in Brazil about the science–practice interface in ecology and conservation

The debate in the literature on the science–practice interface suggests a diversity of opinions on how to link science and practice to improve conservation. Understanding this diversity is key to addressing unequal power relations, avoiding the consideration of only dominant views, and identifying strategies to link science and practice. In turn, linking science and practice should promote conservation decisions that are socially robust and scientifically informed. To identify and describe the viewpoints of scientists and decision makers on how the science–practice interface should work in order to improve conservation decisions, we interviewed Brazilian scientists (ecologists and conservation scientists, n = 11) and decision makers (n = 11). We used Q methodology and asked participants to rank their agreement with 48 statements on how the science–practice interface should work in order to improve conservation decisions. We used principal component analysis to identify shared viewpoints. The predominant viewpoint, shared by scientists and decision makers, was characterized by valuing the integration of scientific and strategic knowledge to address environmental problems. The second viewpoint, held mostly by decision makers, was distinguished by assigning great importance to science in the decision-making process and calling for problem-relevant research. The third viewpoint, shared only by scientists, was characterized by an unwillingness to collaborate and a perception of scientists as producers of knowledge that may help decision makers. Most participants agreed organizations should promote collaboration and that actors and knowledge from both science and practice are relevant. Disagreements concerned specific roles assigned to actors, willingness to collaborate, and organizational and institutional arrangements considered effective to link science and practice. Our results suggest there is ample room for collaborations and that impediments lie mainly in existing organizations and formal institutional arrangements rather than in negative attitudes between scientists and decision makers.     

Environmental solutions sparked by environmental history

Environmental solutions require a decision-making process that is ultimately political, in that they involve decisions with uncertain outcomes and stakeholders with conflicting viewpoints. If this process seeks broad alignment between the government and public, then reconciling conflicting viewpoints is a key to the legitimacy of these decisions. We show that ecological baselines can be particularly powerful tools for creating a common understanding for public support (legitimacy) and conformity to new rules or regulations (legality) that enable the solution. They are powerful because they move the discussion of solutions from the abstract to the concrete by providing a conceptual model for a common expectation (e.g., restoring habitat). They provide narratives of the past (ecological histories) that readjust the future expectations of individuals on how to perceive and respond to new policy. While ecological baselines offer scientists benchmarks for reinstating ecological functions, they also normalize public and government discussion of solutions. This social normalization of public issues may assist government policy and influence social views, practices, and behaviors that adopt the policy. For science to more effectively inform conservation, we encourage interdisciplinary thinking (science- and human-centered) because it can provide public support and government legitimacy for investing in environmental solutions.     

Evaluating the outcomes of genetic rescue attempts

Augmenting gene flow is a powerful tool for the conservation of small, isolated populations. However, genetic rescue attempts have largely been limited to populations at the brink of extinction, in part due to concerns over negative outcomes (e.g., outbreeding depression). Increasing habitat fragmentation may necessitate more proactive genetic management. Broader application of augmented gene flow will, in turn, require rigorous evaluation to increase confidence and identify pitfalls in this approach. To date, there has been no assessment of best monitoring practices for genetic rescue attempts. We used genomically explicit, individual-based simulations to examine the effectiveness of common approaches (i.e., tests for increases in fitness, migrant ancestry, heterozygosity, and abundance) for determining whether genetic rescue or outbreeding depression occurred. Statistical power to detect the effects of gene flow on fitness was high (≥0.8) when effect sizes were large, a finding consistent with those from previous studies on severely inbred populations. However, smaller effects of gene flow on fitness can appreciably affect persistence probability but current evaluation approaches fail to provide results from which reliable inferences can be drawn. The power of the metrics we examined to evaluate genetic rescue attempts depended on the time since gene flow and whether gene flow was beneficial or deleterious. Encouragingly, the use of multiple metrics provided nonredundant information and improved inference reliability, highlighting the importance of intensive monitoring efforts. Further development of best practices for evaluating genetic rescue attempts will be crucial for a responsible transition to increased use of translocations to decrease extinction risk.     

Effects of ecotourism on forest loss in the Himalayan biodiversity hotspot based on counterfactual analyses

Ecotourism is developing rapidly in biodiversity hotspots worldwide, but there is limited and mixed empirical evidence that ecotourism achieves positive biodiversity outcomes. We assessed whether ecotourism influenced forest loss rates and trajectories from 2000 to 2017 in Himalayan temperate forests. We compared forest loss in 15 ecotourism hubs with nonecotourism areas in 4 Himalayan countries. We used matching statistics to control for local-level determinants of forest loss, for example, population density, market access, and topography. None of the ecotourism hubs was free of forest loss, and we found limited evidence that forest-loss trajectories in ecotourism hubs were different from those in nonecotourism areas. In Nepal and Bhutan, differences in forest loss rates between ecotourism hubs and matched nonecotourism areas did not differ significantly, and the magnitude of the estimated effect was small. In India, where overall forest loss rates were the lowest of any country in our analysis, forest loss rates were higher in ecotourism hubs than in matched nonecotourism areas. In contrast, in China, where overall forest loss rates were highest, forest loss rates were lower in ecotourism hubs than where there was no ecotourism. Our results suggest that the success of ecotourism as a forest conservation strategy, as it is currently practiced in the Himalaya, is context dependent. In a region with high deforestation pressures, ecotourism may be a relatively environmentally friendly form of economic development relative to other development strategies. However, ecotourism may stimulate forest loss in regions where deforestation rates are low.     

Environmental impacts and implications of tropical carrageenophyte seaweed farming

Field-based cultivation of Kappaphycus and Eucheuma seaweeds is widespread across the tropics and is largely done to extract the polysaccharide carrageenan, which is used in commercial applications. Although such seaweed farming has been cited as a sustainable alternative livelihood to destructive fishing, there has not been a comprehensive review of its environmental impacts to assess its potential conservation benefit. We reviewed the peer-reviewed and industry gray literature to determine what is known about seaweed farming techniques and their impacts on local ecosystems, organisms, and ecosystem services. We identified 43 tropical or subtropical countries that are currently cultivating or have cultivated carrageenophytes. Ecosystem impacts of seaweed farming were measured directly in 33 publications with variable results. Placement of seaweed farms above seagrass beds led to reduced productivity and shoot density in 5 studies and reduced or altered meiofaunal abundance and diversity in 6 studies. On coral reefs, overgrowth of corals by farmed seaweed species was documented in 8 cases. Two studies showed changes to herbivorous fish communities in adjacent areas because seaweed farms changed the environment, whereas in 2 studies measures of overall abundance or diversity did not change. The impacts of seaweed farming may not be as destructive as some other human activities, but they should still be considered when establishing new farms or managing existing farm sites. Our findings are consistent with suggestions to mitigate impact on local ecosystems by shifting seaweed farms to deeper, sandy-bottom areas. However, some of these changes may adversely affect farmers and associated communities.     

Mapping social–ecological vulnerability to inform local decision making

An overarching challenge of natural resource management and biodiversity conservation is that relationships between people and nature are difficult to integrate into tools that can effectively guide decision making. Social–ecological vulnerability offers a valuable framework for identifying and understanding important social–ecological linkages, and the implications of dependencies and other feedback loops in the system. Unfortunately, its implementation at local scales has hitherto been limited due at least in part to the lack of operational tools for spatial representation of social–ecological vulnerability. We developed a method to map social–ecological vulnerability based on information on human–nature dependencies and ecosystem services at local scales. We applied our method to the small‐scale fishery of Moorea, French Polynesia, by combining spatially explicit indicators of exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity of both the resource (i.e., vulnerability of reef fish assemblages to fishing) and resource users (i.e., vulnerability of fishing households to the loss of fishing opportunity). Our results revealed that both social and ecological vulnerabilities varied considerably through space and highlighted areas where sources of vulnerability were high for both social and ecological subsystems (i.e., social–ecological vulnerability hotspots) and thus of high priority for management intervention. Our approach can be used to inform decisions about where biodiversity conservation strategies are likely to be more effective and how social impacts from policy decisions can be minimized. It provides a new perspective on human–nature linkages that can help guide sustainability management at local scales; delivers insights distinct from those provided by emphasis on a single vulnerability component (e.g., exposure); and demonstrates the feasibility and value of operationalizing the social–ecological vulnerability framework for policy, planning, and participatory management decisions.