Implications of Macroalgal Isolation by Distance for Networks of Marine Protected Areas

The global extent of macroalgal forests is declining, greatly affecting marine biodiversity at broad scales through the effects macroalgae have on ecosystem processes, habitat provision, and food web support. Networks of marine protected areas comprise one potential tool that may safeguard gene flow among macroalgal populations in the face of increasing population fragmentation caused by pollution, habitat modification, climate change, algal harvesting, trophic cascades, and other anthropogenic stressors. Optimal design of protected area networks requires knowledge of effective dispersal distances for a range of macroalgae. We conducted a global meta‐analysis based on data in the published literature to determine the generality of relation between genetic differentiation and geographic distance among macroalgal populations. We also examined whether spatial genetic variation differed significantly with respect to higher taxon, life history, and habitat characteristics. We found clear evidence of population isolation by distance across a multitude of macroalgal species. Genetic and geographic distance were positively correlated across 49 studies; a modal distance of 50–100 km maintained F_ST < 0.2. This relation was consistent for all algal divisions, life cycles, habitats, and molecular marker classes investigated. Incorporating knowledge of the spatial scales of gene flow into the design of marine protected area networks will help moderate anthropogenic increases in population isolation and inbreeding and contribute to the resilience of macroalgal forests. Implicaciones del Aislamiento por Distancia de Macroalgas para Redes de Áreas Marinas Protegidas     

Defining the Impact of Non‐Native Species

Non‐native species cause changes in the ecosystems to which they are introduced. These changes, or some of them, are usually termed impacts; they can be manifold and potentially damaging to ecosystems and biodiversity. However, the impacts of most non‐native species are poorly understood, and a synthesis of available information is being hindered because authors often do not clearly define impact. We argue that explicitly defining the impact of non‐native species will promote progress toward a better understanding of the implications of changes to biodiversity and ecosystems caused by non‐native species; help disentangle which aspects of scientific debates about non‐native species are due to disparate definitions and which represent true scientific discord; and improve communication between scientists from different research disciplines and between scientists, managers, and policy makers. For these reasons and based on examples from the literature, we devised seven key questions that fall into 4 categories: directionality, classification and measurement, ecological or socio‐economic changes, and scale. These questions should help in formulating clear and practical definitions of impact to suit specific scientific, stakeholder, or legislative contexts. Definiendo el Impacto de las Especies No‐Nativas     

Recovery of natural vegetation and ecological functions of pasture ecosystems in arid steppes of the Cisural region

The results are presented that have been obtained in studies on changes in the species composition, geobotanical characteristics, and productivity of natural vegetation in arid steppes of the Cisural region during the past few decades (1977–2012). Consideration is given to the significance of the soil factor in the processes of transformation of zonal vegetation. The increasing role of arid steppes as a natural barrier to desertification is demonstrated.     

Characterization and pyrolysis of Chlorella vulgaris and Arthrospira platensis: potential of bio-oil and chemical production by Py-GC/MS analysis

Environmental Science and Pollution Research - Biofuels have been seen as potential sources to meet future energy demand as a renewable and sustainable energy source. Despite the fact that the...     

Systematic Temporal Patterns in the Relationship Between Housing Development and Forest Bird Biodiversity

As people encroach increasingly on natural areas, one question is how this affects avian biodiversity. The answer to this is partly scale‐dependent. At broad scales, human populations and biodiversity concentrate in the same areas and are positively associated, but at local scales people and biodiversity are negatively associated with biodiversity. We investigated whether there is also a systematic temporal trend in the relationship between bird biodiversity and housing development. We used linear regression to examine associations between forest bird species richness and housing growth in the conterminous United States over 30 years. Our data sources were the North American Breeding Bird Survey and the 2000 decennial U.S. Census. In the 9 largest forested ecoregions, housing density increased continually over time. Across the conterminous United States, the association between bird species richness and housing density was positive for virtually all guilds except ground nesting birds. We found a systematic trajectory of declining bird species richness as housing increased through time. In more recently developed ecoregions, where housing density was still low, the association with bird species richness was neutral or positive. In ecoregions that were developed earlier and where housing density was highest, the association of housing density with bird species richness for most guilds was negative and grew stronger with advancing decades. We propose that in general the relationship between human settlement and biodiversity over time unfolds as a 2‐phase process. The first phase is apparently innocuous; associations are positive due to coincidence of low‐density housing with high biodiversity. The second phase is highly detrimental to biodiversity, and increases in housing density are associated with biodiversity losses. The long‐term effect on biodiversity depends on the final housing density. This general pattern can help unify our understanding of the relationship of human encroachment and biodiversity response. Patrones Sistemáticos Temporales en la Relación entre Desarrollos Urbanos y la Biodiversidad de Aves de Bosque     

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.     

The data not collected on community forestry

Conservation and development practitioners increasingly promote community forestry as a way to conserve ecosystem services, consolidate resource rights, and reduce poverty. However, outcomes of community forestry have been mixed; many initiatives failed to achieve intended objectives. There is a rich literature on institutional arrangements of community forestry, but there has been little effort to examine the role of socioeconomic, market, and biophysical factors in shaping both land‐cover change dynamics and individual and collective livelihood outcomes. We systematically reviewed the peer‐reviewed literature on community forestry to examine and quantify existing knowledge gaps in the community‐forestry literature relative to these factors. In examining 697 cases of community forest management (CFM), extracted from 267 peer‐reviewed publications, we found 3 key trends that limit understanding of community forestry. First, we found substantial data gaps linking population dynamics, market forces, and biophysical characteristics to both environmental and livelihood outcomes. Second, most studies focused on environmental outcomes, and the majority of studies that assessed socioeconomic outcomes relied on qualitative data, making comparisons across cases difficult. Finally, there was a heavy bias toward studies on South Asian forests, indicating that the literature on community forestry may not be representative of decentralization policies and CFM globally.     

Effects of payments for ecosystem services on wildlife habitat recovery

Conflicts between local people's livelihoods and conservation have led to many unsuccessful conservation efforts and have stimulated debates on policies that might simultaneously promote sustainable management of protected areas and improve the living conditions of local people. Many government‐sponsored payments‐for‐ecosystem‐services (PES) schemes have been implemented around the world. However, few empirical assessments of their effectiveness have been conducted, and even fewer assessments have directly measured their effects on ecosystem services. We conducted an empirical and spatially explicit assessment of the conservation effectiveness of one of the world's largest PES programs through the use of a long‐term empirical data set, a satellite‐based habitat model, and spatial autoregressive analyses on direct measures of change in an ecosystem service (i.e., the provision of wildlife species habitat). Giant panda (Ailuropoda melanoleuca) habitat improved in Wolong Nature Reserve of China after the implementation of the Natural Forest Conservation Program. The improvement was more pronounced in areas monitored by local residents than those monitored by the local government, but only when a higher payment was provided. Our results suggest that the effectiveness of a PES program depends on who receives the payment and on whether the payment provides sufficient incentives. As engagement of local residents has not been incorporated in many conservation strategies elsewhere in China or around the world, our results also suggest that using an incentive‐based strategy as a complement to command‐and‐control, community‐ and norm‐based strategies may help achieve greater conservation effectiveness and provide a potential solution for the park versus people conflict.     

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.