Evaluation of Terrestrial and Streamside Salamander Monitoring Techniques at Shenandoah National Park

In response to concerns about amphibian declines, a study evaluating and validating amphibian monitoring techniques was initiated in Shenandoah and Big Bend National Parks in the spring of 1998. We evaluate precision, bias, and efficiency of several sampling methods for terrestrial and streamside salamanders in Shenandoah National Park and assess salamander abundance in relation to environmental variables, notably soil and water pH. Terrestrial salamanders, primarily redback salamanders (Plethodon cinereus), were sampled by searching under cover objects during the day in square plots (10 to 35 m²). We compared population indices (mean daily and total counts) with adjusted population estimates from capture-recapture. Analyses suggested that the proportion of salamanders detected (p) during sampling varied among plots, necessitating the use of adjusted population estimates. However, adjusted population estimates were less precise than population indices, and may not be efficient in relating salamander populations to environmental variables. In future sampling, strategic use of capture-recapture to verify consistency of p's among sites may be a reasonable compromise between the possibility of bias in estimation of population size and deficiencies due to inefficiency associated with the estimation of p. The streamside two-lined salamander (Eurycea bislineata) was surveyed using four methods: leaf litter refugia bags, 1 m² quadrats, 50 × 1 m visual encounter transects, and electric shocking. Comparison of survey methods at nine streams revealed congruent patterns of abundance among sites, suggesting that relative bias among the methods is similar, and that choice of survey method should be based on precision and logistical efficiency. Redback and two-lined salamander abundance were not significantly related to soil or water pH, respectively.     

Knowledge coproduction on the impact of decisions for waterbird habitat in a changing climate

Scientists, resource managers, and decision makers increasingly use knowledge coproduction to guide the stewardship of future landscapes under climate change. This process was applied in the California Central Valley (USA) to solve complex conservation problems, where managed wetlands and croplands are flooded between fall and spring to support some of the largest concentrations of shorebirds and waterfowl in the world. We coproduced scenario narratives, spatially explicit flooded waterbird habitat models, data products, and new knowledge about climate adaptation potential. We documented our coproduction process, and using the coproduced models, we determined when and where management actions make a difference and when climate overrides these actions. The outcomes of this process provide lessons learned on how to cocreate usable information and how to increase climate adaptive capacity in a highly managed landscape. Actions to restore wetlands and prioritize their water supply created habitat outcomes resilient to climate change impacts particularly in March, when habitat was most limited; land protection combined with management can increase the ecosystem's resilience to climate change; and uptake and use of this information was influenced by the roles of different stakeholders, rapidly changing water policies, discrepancies in decision-making time frames, and immediate crises of extreme drought. Although a broad stakeholder group contributed knowledge to scenario narratives and model development, to coproduce usable information, data products were tailored to a small set of decision contexts, leading to fewer stakeholder participants over time. A boundary organization convened stakeholders across a large landscape, and early adopters helped build legitimacy. Yet, broadscale use of climate adaptation knowledge depends on state and local policies, engagement with decision makers that have legislative and budgetary authority, and the capacity to fit data products to specific decision needs.     

Impact of proposed changes in IESTI equations for short-term dietary exposure to pesticides from Australian and Codex perspective

ABSTRACT

In 2015 a scientific workshop was held in Geneva, where updating the four equations for estimating the short-term dietary exposure (International Estimated Short Term Intake, IESTI) to pesticides was suggested. The impact of these proposed changes on the exposure was studied by using residue data and large portion consumption data from Codex and Australia. For the Codex data, the exposure increased by a median factor of 2.5 per commodity when changing to the proposed IESTI equations. The increase in exposure was highest for bulked and blended food commodities (case 3 equations), followed by medium-sized food commodities (case 2a equations) and small- and large-sized food commodities (case 1 and case 2b equations). For the Australian data, out of 184 maximum residue limit (MRL) large portion combinations showing acute exposures below the acute reference dose (ARfD) with the current IESTI equations, 23 exceeded the ARfD with the proposed IESTI equations (12%). The percentage exceeding the ARfD was higher for the Australian MRL large portion combinations (12% of 184) than for those of Codex (1.3% of 8,366). However, the percentage MRL loss in the Australian dataset may not be representative of all pesticide MRLs since it concerns six pesticides only, specifically selected to elucidate the potential effects of the use of the proposed IESTI equations. For the Codex data, the increase in exposure using the proposed equations resulted in a small increased loss of 2.6% of the 1,110 MRLs estimated by the Joint FAO/WHO Meeting on Pesticide Residues (JMPR): 1.4% of the MRLs were already not acceptable with the current equations, 4.0% of the MRLs were not acceptable with the newly proposed equations. Our study revealed that case 3 commodities may be impacted more by the proposed changes than other commodities. This substantiates one of the conclusions of the Geneva workshop to gather information on bulking and blending practices in order to refine MRL setting and dietary risk assessment for case 3 commodities where possible.     

Making a case for the consideration of trust,justice, and power in conservation relationships

In conservation, trust and justice are increasingly recognized as both intrinsically valuable and critical for successful socioecological outcomes. However, the interdependence between these concepts has not been explored. The conservation trust literature provides examples of efforts to build trust between conservationists and local actors; yet, these interventions are often conceived to incentivize local cooperation within dominant paradigms. We argue that when trust building is promoted as a technical fix that does not plan in advance to address power asymmetries in conservation practice, inequities may inadvertently be re-embedded. Therefore, we conceptualized a framework that joins trust, justice, and power so that critical analyses of conservation partnerships can be more effectively undertaken. We drew on environmental justice theory to better calibrate the trust literature for the historical-political settings of conservation, especially in the Global South. Justice and trust share strong theoretical links where perceptions of justice shape a willingness to trust, and, equally, trust is a precondition for justice to be perceived. Different forms of trust connect to varied domains of justice and power in different ways, which mediates the outcomes of interventions. We applied our framework to case studies to explore how these interdependences play out in practice. Failure of agencies to attend to issues of maldistribution, misrecognition of cultural values and knowledge, and exclusion from participation strongly compromised trust. Moreover, the ways in which nature-dependent communities and marginalized conservation workers are trusted, or the conditions under which they give trust, can lead to partnerships being perceived as just or unjust. Focusing on trust and justice can help identify power dynamics so they can be addressed more readily and create space for alternative understandings of partnerships.