Enhanced science–stakeholder communication to improve ecosystem model performances for climate change impact assessments

In recent years, climate impact assessments of relevance to the agricultural and forestry sectors have received considerable attention. Current ecosystem models commonly capture the effect of a warmer climate on biomass production, but they rarely sufficiently capture potential losses caused by pests, pathogens and extreme weather events. In addition, alternative management regimes may not be integrated in the models. A way to improve the quality of climate impact assessments is to increase the science–stakeholder collaboration, and in a two-way dialog link empirical experience and impact modelling with policy and strategies for sustainable management. In this paper we give a brief overview of different ecosystem modelling methods, discuss how to include ecological and management aspects, and highlight the importance of science–stakeholder communication. By this, we hope to stimulate a discussion among the science–stakeholder communities on how to quantify the potential for climate change adaptation by improving the realism in the models.     

Decline and diversity in Swedish seas: Environmental narratives in marine history,science and policy

Ambio - Before the mid-twentieth century, there was no comprehensive narrative about empirical conditions in Swedish seas. Around 1970, this view changed profoundly. In line with growing research...     

Mobility control: How injected surfactants and biostimulants may be forced into low‐permeability units

Recovering dense nonaqueous‐phase liquid (DNAPL) remains one of the most difficult problems facing the remediation industry. Still, the most common method of recovering DNAPL is to physically remove the contaminants using common technologies such as total fluids recovery pumps, vacuum systems, and “pump‐and‐treat.” Increased DNAPL removal can be attained using surfactants to mobilize and/or solubilize the pollutants. However, very little is understood of the methods developed by petroleum engineers beginning in the 1960s to overcome by‐passed, low‐permeability zones in heterogeneous oil reservoirs. By injecting or causing the formation of viscous fluids in the subsurface, petroleum engineers caused increased in‐situ pressures that forced fluid flow into low permeability units as well as the higher permeability thief zones. Polymer flooding involves injecting a viscous aqueous polymer solution into the contaminated aquifer. Foam flooding involves injecting surfactant to decontaminate the high‐permeability zones and then periodic pulses of air to cause a temporary viscous foam to form in the high‐permeable zones after all DNAPL is removed. Later surfactant pulses are directed by the foam into unswept low‐permeable units. These methods have been applied to DNAPL removal using surfactants but they can also be applied to the injection of bio‐amendments into low‐permeability zones still requiring continued remediation. Here we discuss the principles of mobility control as practiced in an alluvial aquifer contaminated with chlorinated solvent and coal tar DNAPLs as well as some field results. © 2003 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.