Spatial cost–benefit analysis of blue restoration and factors driving net benefits globally

Marine coastal ecosystems, commonly referred to as blue ecosystems, provide valuable services to society but are under increasing threat worldwide due to a variety of drivers, including eutrophication, development, land-use change, land reclamation, and climate change. Ecological restoration is sometimes necessary to facilitate recovery in coastal ecosystems. Blue restoration (i.e., in marine coastal systems) is a developing field, and projects to date have been small scale and expensive, leading to the perception that restoration may not be economically viable. We conducted a global cost–benefit analysis to determine the net benefits of restoring coral reef, mangrove, saltmarsh, and seagrass ecosystems, where the benefit is defined as the monetary value of ecosystem services. We estimated costs from published restoration case studies and used an adjusted-value-transfer method to assign benefit values to these case studies. Benefit values were estimated as the monetary value provided by ecosystem services of the restored habitats. Benefits outweighed costs (i.e., there were positive net benefits) for restoration of all blue ecosystems. Mean benefit:cost ratios for ecosystem restoration were eight to 10 times higher than prior studies of coral reef and seagrass restoration, most likely due to the more recent lower cost estimates we used. Among ecosystems, saltmarsh had the greatest net benefits followed by mangrove; coral reef and seagrass ecosystems had lower net benefits. In general, restoration in nations with middle incomes had higher (eight times higher in coral reefs and 40 times higher in mangroves) net benefits than those with high incomes. Within an ecosystem type, net benefit varied with restoration technique (coral reef and saltmarsh), ecosystem service produced (mangrove and saltmarsh), and project duration (seagrass). These results challenge the perceptions of the low economic viability of blue restoration and should encourage further targeted investment in this field.     

Hexabromocyclododecane diastereomers in fish and suspended particulate matter from selected European waters—trend monitoring and environmental quality standard compliance

The brominated flame retardant hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD) was monitored in fish and sediment (from one lake) or suspended particulate matter (SPM; from five rivers) at European freshwater sites to study the effects of reduction measures implemented by HBCD producers and users in recent years. Bream (Abramis brama) were sampled annually between 2007 and 2013 in the rivers Götaälv/SE, Rhône/FR, Western Scheldt/NL, Mersey/UK, and Tees/UK and in Lake Belau/DE. Sediment/SPM was taken every second year between 2008 and 2014. HBCD was analyzed by LC/MS/MS allowing the determination of the alpha-, beta-, and gamma-diastereomers. For most sites, a decrease in ∑HBCD was observed in fish (e.g., in the Rhône and Western Scheldt by about 80 and 60%, respectively, with significantly decreasing trends, p < 0.01). In the Rhône, HBCD also decreased in SPM. At the sampling site in the Tees which was impacted by a former HBCD point source, fish HBCD levels decreased only after a major flood event in 2013. While fish data indicate a decline in environmental HBCD concentrations at most sites with diffuse emissions, SPM data were less conclusive. The European environmental quality standard for HBCD in fish of 167 μg kg^?1 wet weight was met by all fish samples in 2013.     

Monitoring of hexabromocyclododecane diastereomers in fish from European freshwaters and estuaries

Background and aims  

Hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD) is a brominated flame retardant used mainly in polystyrene foam as well as in textile applications. In recent years, measures were taken to reduce HBCD emissions during its production and use. To evaluate the efficacy of these measures, a monitoring project was initiated with fish as bioaccumulation indicators.     

Biochemical and Physiological Detection of Sulfur Dioxide Injury to Pea Plants (Pisum sativum)

Biochemical and physiological experiments were conducted on pea plants (Pisum sativum) continuously exposed in growth chambers to SO₂ gas for 18 days. S0₂ gas concentrations were 0.1, 0.15, and 0.25 ppm. In plants exposed to 0.1 and 0.15 ppm it was clearly demonstrated that there was a greater accumulation of inorganic sulfur, a reduced buffer capacity of the cells relative to H-ions, and a stimulation of glutamate dehydrogenase activity. The only macroscopic symptom seen was slight chlorosis of the older leaves. There was only a slight decrease in fresh and dry weights of these plants compared to the control plants whereas in the group of plants exposed to 0.25 ppm SO₂ foliage necrosis was considerable. In addition, there was a marked reduction in the fresh and dry weights of the latter plants. However, the relationship among accumulated inorganic sulfur, reduced buffer capacity, and increased glutamate dehydrogenase activity as seen for the lower S0₂ concentrations was close. Accordingly, if might be possible to use these three parameters to diagnose S0₂ injury before any significant symptoms appear. In the case of severe SO₂ injury there was a marked increase in glutamine and ammonia concentrations suggesting that these factors in addition to the above could be used in diagnosing severe SO₂ injury. There was no significant difference between plants treated with 0.1 or 0.15 ppm SO₂ and control plants in the contents of K, Ca, P, and N fractions. Therefore, these factors would not be useful in the early detection of SO₂ injury.     

Contributions to ecological chemistry CXII balance of conversion of buturon‐14C in wheat under outdoor conditions 1

Abstract

The urea herbicide buturon (N‐[p‐chlorophenyl] ‐N’ ‐methyl‐N’ ‐isobutinyl‐urea), ¹⁴C‐labeled, was sprayed on winter wheat as an aqueous formulation (2.98 kg/ha) under outdoor conditions. Upon harvest (three months after application), a total of 49. 2% of the applied radiocarbon was recovered: 2.0% in the plants, 46.9% in the soil, and 0.3% in the leaching water (depth > 50 cm); less than 0.1% was in the grains (0.464 ppm). Only about half of the radioactivity present in plants could be recovered under mild extraction conditions; about half of this was unchanged buturon. In straw and husk extracts, the following metabolites were identified by gaschromatography/mass spectrometry: N‐(p‐chlorophenyl)‐N‐methyl‐O‐methyl‐carbamate (metabolite I), N‐phenyl‐N’ ‐formyl‐urea (metabolite II), two unstable metabolites giving (p‐chlorophenyl)‐isocyanate upon purification (metabolites III and IV), N‐(p‐chlorophenyl)‐N’ ‐methyl‐N’ ‐isobutenylol‐urea (metabolite V), p‐chloroformanilide (metabolite VI) and biologically bound p‐chloroaniline (metabolite VII). In the root and basal stem extract, the following metabolites were identified by gas chromatography/mass spectrometry: N‐(p‐chlorophenyl)‐O‐methyl‐carbamate (metabolite VIII) and N‐(p‐chlorophenyl)‐N’ ‐methyl‐urea (metabolite IX).     

Critical perspectives of sustainable development research and practice

Sustainable development has been intensely debated for more than twenty years, but real progress of our societies to become more sustainable is very slow. Therefore this special issue provides a forum for critical perspectives of Sustainable Development Research and Practice. The papers are grouped into three clusters: a. Sustainability Science, b. Economic Problems and c. Corporate Contributions to Sustainable Development.Although a single special issue cannot address the entire array of issues pertaining to progress of sustainability related research, the selected papers highlight special aspects of sustainability research either due to their theoretical contributions or because they report on valuable empirical evidence. The main goal of sustainability research should be to contribute to our understanding of sustainability problems and to develop and help to implement solutions to solve them. This can be described as the relevance of sustainability research. A precondition to gain relevance is the rigor of sustainability science: it has to be based on solid scientific principles and methods. Additionally it has to be regarded that Sustainable Development is dynamic and that it has both normative and practical aspects. It is concluded that sustainability science and practice should be based upon these four central aspects: rigor, relevance, normative aspects and dynamic