Monitoring of the three organophosphate esters TBP,TCEP and TBEP in river water and ground water (Oder,Germany)

The behaviour of the three organophosphate esters tributyl phosphate (TBP), tris(2-chloroethyl)phosphate (TCEP) and tris(2-butoxyethyl)phosphate (TBEP) during infiltration of river water to ground water has been investigated. The monitoring site is the Oder River and the adjacent Oderbruch aquifer. From March 2000 to July 2001, 76 ground water samples from monitoring wells located close to the Oder River and nine river water samples were collected. Additionally, influent and effluent samples from local waste water treatment plants, one sample of rain water and samples of roof runoff were collected. All samples were analysed by solid-phase-extraction followed by gas chromatography/mass spectrometry. TBP, TCEP and TBEP were detected at mean values of 622 ng l(-1), 352 ng l(-1), and 2955 ng l(-1), respectively in municipal waste water effluents. This points to a major input of these compounds into the Oder River by municipal waste water discharge. The concentrations of TBP and TBEP decreased downstream the Oder River possibly due to aerobic degradation. TBP, TCEP and TBEP were detected in ground water influenced predominantly by bank-filtered water. This demonstrates a transport of organic compounds by river water infiltration to ground water. TBP, TCEP and TBEP were also detected in rain water precipitation, roof runoff and ground water predominantly influenced by rain water infiltration. This hints to an input of these compounds to ground water by dry and wet deposition after atmospheric transport. Organophosphate esters were also detected in parts of the aquifer at 21 m depth. This demonstrates low anaerobic degradation rates of TBP, TCEP and TBEP.     

Direct measurement of negative pressure in artificial-biological systems

We are very grateful to A. Gessner for his great help in the construction of the apparatus and A. Meyer for performance of some pressure bomb experiments. This work was supported by grants of the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (Forschergruppe Ökophysiologie) to U.Z. and O.L.L.     

An interdisciplinary review of current and future approaches to improving human–predator relations

In a world of shrinking habitats and increasing competition for natural resources, potentially dangerous predators bring the challenges of coexisting with wildlife sharply into focus. Through interdisciplinary collaboration among authors trained in the humanities, social sciences, and natural sciences, we reviewed current approaches to mitigating adverse human–predator encounters and devised a vision for future approaches to understanding and mitigating such encounters. Limitations to current approaches to mitigation include too much focus on negative impacts; oversimplified equating of levels of damage with levels of conflict; and unsuccessful technical fixes resulting from failure to engage locals, address hidden costs, or understand cultural (nonscientific) explanations of the causality of attacks. An emerging interdisciplinary literature suggests that to better frame and successfully mitigate negative human–predator relations conservation professionals need to consider dispensing with conflict as the dominant framework for thinking about human–predator encounters; work out what conflicts are really about (they may be human–human conflicts); unravel the historical contexts of particular conflicts; and explore different cultural ways of thinking about animals. The idea of cosmopolitan natures may help conservation professionals think more clearly about human–predator relations in both local and global context. These new perspectives for future research practice include a recommendation for focused interdisciplinary research and the use of new approaches, including human‐animal geography, multispecies ethnography, and approaches from the environmental humanities notably environmental history. Managers should think carefully about how they engage with local cultural beliefs about wildlife, work with all parties to agree on what constitutes good evidence, develop processes and methods to mitigate conflicts, and decide how to monitor and evaluate these. Demand for immediate solutions that benefit both conservation and development favors dispute resolution and technical fixes, which obscures important underlying drivers of conflicts. If these drivers are not considered, well‐intentioned efforts focused on human–wildlife conflicts will fail.     

Long-term change in drivers of forest cover expansion: an analysis for Switzerland (1850-2000)

Regional Environmental Change - The spatial distribution of forests in Europe represents the legacy of centuries of human land use decisions. Due to the limited availability of historical data,...     

Microplastic abundance in beach sediments of the Kiel Fjord,Western Baltic Sea

Environmental Science and Pollution Research - We assessed the abundance of microplastics (0.2–5 mm) in drift line sediments from three sites in Kiel Fjord, Western Baltic...     

Our future in the Anthropocene biosphere

The COVID-19 pandemic has exposed an interconnected and tightly coupled globalized world in rapid change. This article sets the scientific stage for understanding and responding to such change for global sustainability and resilient societies. We provide a systemic overview of the current situation where people and nature are dynamically intertwined and embedded in the biosphere, placing shocks and extreme events as part of this dynamic; humanity has become the major force in shaping the future of the Earth system as a whole; and the scale and pace of the human dimension have caused climate change, rapid loss of biodiversity, growing inequalities, and loss of resilience to deal with uncertainty and surprise. Taken together, human actions are challenging the biosphere foundation for a prosperous development of civilizations. The Anthropocene reality—of rising system-wide turbulence—calls for transformative change towards sustainable futures. Emerging technologies, social innovations, broader shifts in cultural repertoires, as well as a diverse portfolio of active stewardship of human actions in support of a resilient biosphere are highlighted as essential parts of such transformations.