The Complementary Niches of Anthropocentric and Biocentric Conservationists

A divergence of values has become apparent in recent debates between conservationists who focus on ecosystem services that can improve human well‐being and those who focus on avoiding the extinction of species. These divergent points of view fall along a continuum from anthropocentric to biocentric values, but most conservationists are relatively closer to each other than to the ends of the spectrum. We have some concerns with both positions but emphasize that conservation for both people and all other species will be most effective if conservationists focus on articulating the values they all share, being respectful of divergent values, and collaborating on common interests. The conservation arena is large enough to accommodate many people and organizations whose diverse values lead them to different niches that can, with good will and foresight, be far more complementary than competitive. Los Nichos Complementarios de los Conservacionistas Antropocéntricos y Biocéntricos     

Why geodiversity matters in valuing nature's stage

Geodiversity—the variability of Earth's surface materials, forms, and physical processes—is an integral part of nature and crucial for sustaining ecosystems and their services. It provides the substrates, landform mosaics, and dynamic physical processes for habitat development and maintenance. By determining the heterogeneity of the physical environment in conjunction with climate interactions, geodiversity has a crucial influence on biodiversity across a wide range of scales. From a literature review, we identified the diverse values of geodiversity; examined examples of the dependencies of biodiversity on geodiversity at a site‐specific scale (for geosites <1 km² in area); and evaluated various human‐induced threats to geosites and geodiversity. We found that geosites are important to biodiversity because they often support rare or unique biota adapted to distinctive environmental conditions or create a diversity of microenvironments that enhance species richness. Conservation of geodiversity in the face of a range of threats is critical both for effective management of nature's stage and for its own particular values. This requires approaches to nature conservation that integrate climate, biodiversity, and geodiversity at all spatial scales.     

The Interstate Air Pollution Surveillance Program Effects Network

A program has been designed to meet a nationwide intelligence-gathering responsibility to obtain general and relative information on current and potential air pollution in areas where interstate transport of pollution may reasonably be expected to exist. This paper describes the field devices utilized in the program. By means of these static “effects packages,” data will be accumulated on: dustfall, particulate impingement, sulfation, corrosion, and tarnishing of metals, and deterioration of textiles, dyes, and rubber. Data accumulated during the “pilot phase” of the program will be discussed.     

Relationships among Isolated Wetland Size, Hydroperiod, and Amphibian Species Richness: Implications for Wetland Regulations

Abstract: Wetland development within the United States is regulated primarily by size. Decisions concerning wetland destruction or conservation are therefore based in part on three inherent assumptions: (1) small wetlands contain water for short portions of the year; (2) small wetlands support few species; and (3) species found in small wetlands are also found in larger wetlands. We tested these assumptions using data on wetland size, relative hydroperiod (drying scores), and relative species richness of amphibians in depression wetlands of the southeastern United States. We found a significant (p = 0.03) but weak (r² = 0.05) relationship between hydroperiod and wetland size and no relationship (p = 0.48) between amphibian species richness and wetland size. Furthermore, synthetic models of lentic communities predict that short-hydroperiod wetlands support a unique group of species. Empirical investigations support this prediction. Our results indicate that hydroperiod length should be included as a primary criterion in wetland regulations. We advocate a landscape approach to wetlands regulation, focused in part on conserving a diversity of wetlands that represent the entire hydroperiod gradient.