Global Warming-Related Dynamics of Infection by Eubothrium rugosum (Plathelminthes,Cestoda) in the Burbot from the Rybinsk Reservoir

Russian Journal of Ecology - Abstract—Long-term observations (1968–2019) on the dynamics of infection by the cestode Eubothrium rugosum in the burbot (Lota lota) have been performed in...     

Determinants of household fuel choices among Nigerian family heads: are there gender-differentiated impacts?

The consensus in the literature holds that female-headed households (FHHs) are more vulnerable to social and economic exclusion than male-headed households (MHHs). This paper investigates the socioeconomic determinants of household cooking fuel choices across MHHs and FHHs, using the rich Nigerian Demographic Health Survey data. Using the exogenous switching treatment effect regression (ESTER) technique, the study is able to unravel differences in socioeconomic effects of gender inequality on cooking fuel choices in Nigeria. The results validate the energy ladder hypothesis in the Nigerian case and show that the choices of dirty fuel (biomass) is more prevalent among the de-jure FHH when compared with the de-facto FHH and MHHs. Also, the probability of biomass-use among MHHs would have fallen by 1.3% if MHHs had similar socioeconomic attributes as the FHHs. In the same vain for FHHs, the probability of kerosene-use would have increased by 2%. The study observed no gender gap in kerosene-use. Thus, the established gender gap in biomass- and kerosene-use would have reduced to 6.7% and 2.8%, respectively, if the de-facto FHHs had same socioeconomic attributes as the de-jures. Considering the traditional gendered household division of labor within the households, de-jure FHHs’ energy choices may be due to limited economic opportunities that guarantees cleaner energy options.

     

Cost‐effectiveness of conservation payment schemes for species with different range sizes

Payments to compensate landowners for carrying out costly land‐use measures that benefit endangered biodiversity have become an important policy instrument. When designing such payments, it is important to take into account that spatially connected habitats are more valuable for many species than isolated ones. One way to incentivize provision of connected habitats is to offer landowners an agglomeration bonus, that is, a bonus on top of payments they are receiving to conserve land if the land is spatially connected. Researchers have compared the cost‐effectiveness of the agglomeration bonus with 2 alternatives: an all‐or‐nothing, agglomeration payment, where landowners receive a payment only if the conserved land parcels have a certain level of spatial connectivity, and a spatially homogeneous payment, where landowners receive a payment for conserved land parcels irrespective of their location. Their results show the agglomeration bonus is rarely the most cost‐effective option, and when it is, it is only slightly better than one of the alternatives. This suggests that the agglomeration bonus should not be given priority as a policy design option. However, this finding is based on consideration of only 1 species. We examined whether the same applied to 2 species, one for which the homogeneous payment is best and the other for which the agglomeration payment is most cost‐effective. We modified a published conceptual model so that we were able to assess the cost‐effectiveness of payment schemes for 2 species and applied it to a grassland bird and a grassland butterfly in Germany that require the same habitat but have different spatial‐connectivity needs. When conserving both species, the agglomeration bonus was more cost‐effective than the agglomeration and the homogeneous payment; thus, we showed that as a policy the agglomeration bonus is a useful conservation‐payment option.     

Integration of ecological–biological thresholds in conservation decision making

In the Anthropocene, coupled human and natural systems dominate and only a few natural systems remain relatively unaffected by human influence. On the one hand, conservation criteria based on areas of minimal human impact are not relevant to much of the biosphere. On the other hand, conservation criteria based on economic factors are problematic with respect to their ability to arrive at operational indicators of well‐being that can be applied in practice over multiple generations. Coupled human and natural systems are subject to economic development which, under current management structures, tends to affect natural systems and cross planetary boundaries. Hence, designing and applying conservation criteria applicable in real‐world systems where human and natural systems need to interact and sustainably coexist is essential. By recognizing the criticality of satisfying basic needs as well as the great uncertainty over the needs and preferences of future generations, we sought to incorporate conservation criteria based on minimal human impact into economic evaluation. These criteria require the conservation of environmental conditions such that the opportunity for intergenerational welfare optimization is maintained. Toward this end, we propose the integration of ecological–biological thresholds into decision making and use as an example the planetary‐boundaries approach. Both conservation scientists and economists must be involved in defining operational ecological–biological thresholds that can be incorporated into economic thinking and reflect the objectives of conservation, sustainability, and intergenerational welfare optimization.     

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.

     

Diminution of migration of phthalic acid esters in tequila beverage by the year of production

Abstract

The presence of diethyl-phthalate (DEP), dibutyl-phthalate (DBP), butylbenzyl-phthalate (BBP), diethylhexyl-phthalate (DEHP) and diisononyl-phthalate (DINP) was determined in 295 tequila samples. They were grouped by age of maturation (white, aged, extra aged or ultra aged) and year of production (between 2013 and 2018). Gas Chromatography coupled with Mass Spectrometry was used for identification and quantification. The results showed that 65 samples (22% of the total) were phthalate free. DEP (0.13-0.27?mg/kg), BBP (0.05–2.91?mg/kg) and DINP (1.64–3.43?mg/kg) were detected in 11 (3.73%), 37 (12.54%) and 5 (1.69%) samples, respectively. But, these concentrations did not exceed the maximum permitted limits (MPL) of phthalates for alcoholic beverages. DBP (0.01–2.20?mg/kg) and DEHP (0.03–4.64?mg/kg) were detected in 96 (32.54%) and 224 (75.93%) samples, from them only 10 (3.39%) and 15 (5.08%) samples, respectively, exceeded the MPL for alcoholic beverages and they were few tequilas produced in the year 2014 or before. DEHP was the most frequent phthalate found in tequila and observed DEHP concentrations were 2-times higher in ultra aged tequilas compared to those in white tequilas. We concluded that all tequilas produced in 2015 and after, satisfied the international standards for these compounds.