Exploring the risks and benefits of flexibility in biodiversity offset location in a case study of migratory shorebirds

Biodiversity offsets aim to counterbalance the residual impacts of development on species and ecosystems. Guidance documents explicitly recommend that biodiversity offset actions be located close to the location of impact because of higher potential for similar ecological conditions, but allowing greater spatial flexibility has been proposed. We examined the circumstances under which offsets distant from the impact location could be more likely to achieve no net loss or provide better ecological outcomes than offsets close to the impact area. We applied a graphical model for migratory shorebirds in the East Asian–Australasian Flyway as a case study to explore the problems that arise when incorporating spatial flexibility into offset planning. Spatially flexible offsets may alleviate impacts more effectively than local offsets; however, the risks involved can be substantial. For our case study, there were inadequate data to make robust conclusions about the effectiveness and equivalence of distant habitat-based offsets for migratory shorebirds. Decisions around offset placement should be driven by the potential to achieve equivalent ecological outcomes; however, when considering more distant offsets, there is a need to evaluate the likely increased risks alongside the potential benefits. Although spatially flexible offsets have the potential to provide more cost-effective biodiversity outcomes and more cobenefits, our case study showed the difficulty of demonstrating these benefits in practice and the potential risks that need to be considered to ensure effective offset placement.     

Recycling food and agriculture by-products to mitigate climate change: a review

Food loss and waste is a major issue affecting food security, environmental pollution, producer profitability, consumer prices, and climate change. About 1.3 billion tons of food products are yearly lost globally, with China producing approximately 20 million tons of soybean dregs annually. Here, we review food and agricultural byproducts with emphasis on the strategies to convert this waste into valuable materials. Byproducts can be used for animal and plant nutrition, biogas production, food, extraction of oils and bioactive substances, and production of vinegar, wine, edible coatings and organic fertilizers. For instance, bioactive compounds represent approximately 8–20% of apple pomace, 5–17% of orange peel, 10–25% of grape seeds, 3–15% of pomegranate peel, and 2–13% of date palm seeds. Similarly, the pharmaceutical industry uses approximately 6.5% of the total output of gelatin derived from fish bones and animal skin. Animals fed with pomegranate peel and olive pomace improved the concentration of deoxyribonucleic acid and protein, the litter size, the milk yield, and nest characteristics. Biogas production amounts to 57.1% using soybean residue, 53.7% using papaya peel, and 49.1% using sugarcane bagasse.

     

Considering science needs to deliver actionable science

Conservation practitioners, natural resource managers, and environmental stewards often seek out scientific contributions to inform decision-making. This body of science only becomes actionable when motivated by decision makers considering alternative courses of action. Many in the science community equate addressing stakeholder science needs with delivering actionable science. However, not all efforts to address science needs deliver actionable science, suggesting that the synonymous use of these two constructs (delivering actionable science and addressing science needs) is not trivial. This can be the case when such needs are conveyed by people who neglect decision makers responsible for articulating a priority management concern and for specifying how the anticipated scientific information will aid the decision-making process. We argue that the actors responsible for articulating these science needs and the process used to identify them are decisive factors in the ability to deliver actionable science, stressing the importance of examining the provenance and the determination of science needs. Guided by a desire to enhance communication and cross-literacy between scientists and decision makers, we identified categories of actors who may inappropriately declare science needs (e.g., applied scientists with and without regulatory affiliation, external influencers, reluctant decision makers, agents in place of decision makers, and boundary organization representatives). We also emphasize the importance of, and general approach to, undertaking needs assessments or gap analyses as a means to identify priority science needs. We conclude that basic stipulations to legitimize actionable science, such as the declaration of decisions of interest that motivate science needs and using a robust process to identify priority information gaps, are not always satisfied and require verification. To alleviate these shortcomings, we formulated practical suggestions for consideration by applied scientists, decision makers, research funding entities, and boundary organizations to help foster conditions that lead to science output being truly actionable.     

Mowers versus growers: Riparian buffer management in the Southern Blue Ridge Mountains,USA

Despite long-standing knowledge of the benefits of riparian buffers for mitigating nonpoint source pollution, many streams are unprotected by buffers. Even landowners who understand ecological values of buffers mow riparian vegetation to the streambank. Do trends in rural riparian conditions reflect the development of riparian forest science? What motivates residential riparian management actions? Using high-resolution orthoimagery, we quantified riparian conditions and trends between 1998 and 2015 in the rural upper Little Tennessee River basin in Macon County, North Carolina and explored how landowners view riparian zone management and riparian restoration programs. Buffer composition in 2015 was as follows: no buffer (32.5%), narrow (19.3%), forested (26.7%), shrub (7.2%), and intermediate (7.0%). Relative to 1998, the greatest decrease occurred in the no buffer class (−17.7%, 46 km) and the largest increases occurred in the shrub (+72.5%, 20 km) and narrow (12.6%, 14 km) classes. Forested buffer marginally increased. Semi-structured interview data suggest that landowners prioritize recreational and scenic aspects of riparian buffers over ecological functions such as filtration and bank stabilization. Riparian restoration programs might be made more enticing to non-adopters if outreach language appealed to landowner priorities, design elements demonstrated intentional management, and program managers highlighted areas where ecological goals and landowner values align.     

Boosting large-scale river connectivity restoration by planning for the presence of unrecorded barriers

Conservation decisions are invariably made with incomplete data on species’ distributions, habitats, and threats, but frameworks for allocating conservation investments rarely account for missing data. We examined how explicit consideration of missing data can boost return on investment in ecosystem restoration, focusing on the challenge of restoring aquatic ecosystem connectivity by removing dams and road crossings from rivers. A novel way of integrating the presence of unmapped barriers into a barrier optimization model was developed and applied to the U.S. state of Maine to maximize expected habitat gain for migratory fish. Failing to account for unmapped barriers during prioritization led to nearly 50% lower habitat gain than was anticipated using a conventional barrier optimization approach. Explicitly acknowledging that data are incomplete during project selection, however, boosted expected habitat gains by 20–273% on average, depending on the true number of unmapped barriers. Importantly, these gains occurred without additional data. Simply acknowledging that some barriers were unmapped, regardless of their precise number and location, improved conservation outcomes. Given incomplete data on ecosystems worldwide, our results demonstrate the value of accounting for data shortcomings during project selection.     

Materials,fuels, upgrading,economy, and life cycle assessment of the pyrolysis of algal and lignocellulosic biomass: a review

Climate change issues are calling for advanced methods to produce materials and fuels in a carbon–neutral and circular way. For instance, biomass pyrolysis has been intensely investigated during the last years. Here we review the pyrolysis of algal and lignocellulosic biomass with focus on pyrolysis products and mechanisms, oil upgrading, combining pyrolysis and anaerobic digestion, economy, and life cycle assessment. Products include oil, gas, and biochar. Upgrading techniques comprise hot vapor filtration, solvent addition, emulsification, esterification and transesterification, hydrotreatment, steam reforming, and the use of supercritical fluids. We examined the economic viability in terms of profitability, internal rate of return, return on investment, carbon removal service, product pricing, and net present value. We also reviewed 20 recent studies of life cycle assessment. We found that the pyrolysis method highly influenced product yield, ranging from 9.07 to 40.59% for oil, from 10.1 to 41.25% for biochar, and from 11.93 to 28.16% for syngas. Feedstock type, pyrolytic temperature, heating rate, and reaction retention time were the main factors controlling the distribution of pyrolysis products. Pyrolysis mechanisms include bond breaking, cracking, polymerization and re-polymerization, and fragmentation. Biochar from residual forestry could sequester 2.74 tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per ton biochar when applied to the soil and has thus the potential to remove 0.2–2.75 gigatons of atmospheric carbon dioxide annually. The generation of biochar and bio-oil from the pyrolysis process is estimated to be economically feasible.

     

Water,sanitation, hygiene and waste disposal practices as COVID-19 response strategy: insights from Bangladesh

Environment, Development and Sustainability - The COVID-19 pandemic has caused a global emergence, and the absence of a proven vaccine or medicine has led to the implementation of measures to...     

The Anthropogenic Impact on the True Seals (Carnivora: Phocidae) at the Mouth of Piltun Bay (Sakhalin Island,Russia)

Russian Journal of Ecology - A study of the anthropogenic impacts on the on-shore aggregation of true seals was carried out at a haul-out located at the mouth of Piltun Bay (the northeastern part...     

The deflectors influence on flow complexity,bed morphology,sediment transport and water quality of urban lotic waters - A laboratory study

In this laboratory study different combinations of bed (sand, pebble gravel [gravel], and a mix of sand and gravel) and flow (typical and overtopping) were experimented with to investigate the impact of porous deflectors in flow diversity, water quality, and fish performance in prismatic open channels. Deflectors changed the gradually varied flow to a rapidly varied flow, as a sudden change in the water depth was observed at the deflectors, and this change was large for smooth beds. With the presence of gravel, the scouring near the downstream deflector was almost twice that of the sand bed, and with the scouring at its own upstream deflector, irrespective of whether the flow was typical or overtopping. This behavior was a result of sand mobilization due to shear stress and sand mobilization aided gravel transport. The mixed bed showed less gravel movement compared to the gravel-only bed. The percentage of sediment washed out was minor for all bed scenarios, indicating that sediment transport was local. Relative to the sand bed without deflectors (representing a typical urban canal), deflectors resulted in reduced and improved water quality (in terms of sediment load) for sand, and mixed bed, respectively. The fishes found refuge and were comfortable in the pool areas created by deflectors unlike in channels without deflectors where they showed exhaustion.     

Factors influencing property selection for conservation revolving funds

Finding sustainable ways to increase the amount of private land protected for biodiversity is challenging for many conservation organizations. In some countries, organizations use revolving‐fund programs, whereby land is purchased and then sold to conservation‐minded owners under condition they enter into a conservation covenant or easement. The sale proceeds are used to purchase, protect, and sell additional properties, incrementally increasing the amount of protected private land. Because the effectiveness of this approach relies on selecting appropriate properties, we explored factors currently considered by practitioners and how these are integrated into decision making. We conducted exploratory, semistructured interviews with managers from each of the 5 major revolving funds in Australia. Responses indicated although conservation factors are important, financial and social factors are also highly influential. A major determinant was whether the property could be resold within a reasonable period at a price that replenishes the fund. To facilitate resale, often selected properties include the potential for the construction of a dwelling. Practitioners face with clear trade‐offs between conservation, financial, amenity, and other factors in selecting properties and 3 main challenges: recovering the costs of acquisition, protection, and resale; reselling the property; and meeting conservation goals. Our findings suggest the complexity of these decisions may constrain revolving‐fund effectiveness. Drawing from participant responses, we identified potential strategies to mitigate these risks, such as providing adequate recreational space without jeopardizing ecological assets. We suggest managers could benefit from a shared‐learning and adaptive approach to property selection given the commonalities between programs. Understanding how practitioners deal with complex decisions in the implementation of revolving funds helps identify future research to improve the performance of this conservation tool.