Integrating Nonindigenous Aquatic Plant Control with Protection of Snail Kite Nests in Florida

The endangered snail kite (Rostrhamus sociabilis) feeds primarily on the freshwater apple snail (Pomacea paludosa) in Florida. The nonindigenous, floating water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) and water lettuce (Pistia stratiotes) impede kites from finding snails. Effective control of these aquatic plants in the littoral zone of central and south Florida lakes benefits kites by maintaining open foraging habitat. However, incidental herbicide spraying of nesting substrates result in nest collapse when kites breed in nonwoody, emergent plants [cattail (Typha spp.) and giant bulrush (Scirpus validus)] in the outer littoral zone during lower lake levels. Many endangered species recovery plans and their implementation have experienced problems due to inaction and/or noncooperation by various governmental agencies and their personnel. Herein, we describe the development and implementation of a buffer zone strategy to prevent secondary impacts from an aquatic plant control program to snail kites nesting on lakes in central and south Florida. A strategy was jointly developed by personnel of five state and federal agencies to control herbicide application near kite nesting areas during the normal breeding season. Although requiring various modifications during its implementation, this cooperative effort successfully integrated aquatic plant control objectives with snail kite conservation on Lake Okeechobee during 1988. The program was expanded the following year to lakes Kissimmee and Tohopekaliga. Since the implementation of the snail kite impact preclusion program, no nest loss was attributed to incidental herbicide applications on lakes Okeechobee, Kissimmee, and Tohopekaliga.     

IVE机动车排放模型应用研究

对IVE模型进行了系统分析和介绍,以北京市为研究对象给出了模型的主要输入参数的确定方法和思路,运用IVE模型对北京市不同车型车队的排放进行计算。结果显示：公交车和卡车的排放因子明显较高,特别是颗粒物排放因子,分别为普通轻型车的14和44倍。北京市机动车的CO、VOC、NOx和PM的平均日排放总量分别为2767.4、182.5、353.8和7.1t。对于CO和VOC,普通轻型车的分担率分别为42.0%和34.7%;对于NOx和PM而言,卡车的贡献率最高,分别达到66.3%和83.0%。此外,比较了IVE模型与MOBILE6模型的方法和计算结果,讨论了IVE模型在我国的主要应用优势。     

Motivations for the Restoration of Ecosystems

Abstract:  The reasons ecosystems should be restored are numerous, disparate, generally understated, and commonly underappreciated. We offer a typology in which these reasons—or motivations—are ordered among five rationales: technocratic, biotic, heuristic, idealistic, and pragmatic. The technocratic rationale encompasses restoration that is conducted by government agencies or other large organizations to satisfy specific institutional missions and mandates. The biotic rationale for restoration is to recover lost aspects of local biodiversity. The heuristic rationale attempts to elicit or demonstrate ecological principles and biotic expressions. The idealistic rationale consists of personal and cultural expressions of concern or atonement for environmental degradation, reengagement with nature, and/or spiritual fulfillment. The pragmatic rationale seeks to recover or repair ecosystems for their capacity to provide a broad array of natural services and products upon which human economies depend and to counteract extremes in climate caused by ecosystem loss. We propose that technocratic restoration, as currently conceived and practiced, is too narrow in scope and should be broadened to include the pragmatic rationale whose overarching importance is just beginning to be recognized. We suggest that technocratic restoration is too authoritarian, that idealistic restoration is overly restricted by lack of administrative strengths, and that a melding of the two approaches would benefit both. Three recent examples are given of restoration that blends the technocratic, idealistic, and pragmatic rationales and demonstrates the potential for a more unified approach. The biotic and heuristic rationales can be satisfied within the contexts of the other rationales.     

Assessing the Risk of Introducing Exotic Species via the Live Marine Species Trade

Abstract:  Although the shipping industry has received considerable attention as a dispersal mechanism for aquatic nuisance species, many invasions have been linked to other mechanisms of transfer. The threat posed to coastal ecosystems by these alternative mechanisms, however, remains largely unquantified. We assessed the potential risks of introducing marine and estuarine species associated with seven mechanisms of transfer: seafood companies, aquaculture operations, bait shops, stores that sell marine ornamental species, research and educational organizations, public aquariums, and coastal restoration projects. For each, we compiled a comprehensive database of organizations in coastal Massachusetts. We then designed and administered a survey to a subset of organizations that inquired about (1) their proximity to saltwater and methods of handling live imports; (2) the type and quantity of marine species being imported; and (3) the organization's familiarity with marine invasions. Respondents in five of the seven categories acknowledged importing nonlocal live marine species to the area. Seafood companies handled the majority of individuals but relatively few taxa. This mechanism of transfer also had the most complex trade patterns and the greatest number of operations located near saltwater. In contrast, the other transfer mechanisms each had simpler trade pathways and fewer operations but varied in the quantity and taxonomic diversity of their imports. Significantly, no single mechanism of transfer stood out as presenting a primary risk. Rather, each had characteristics or used handling practices at different points in the importation process that could facilitate introductions. To prevent future marine invasions, better reporting requirements for live species imports are needed, and best-management practices and outreach strategies specific to the transfer mechanism should be developed and implemented.     

Importance of the National Petroleum Reserve–Alaska for Aquatic Birds

We used data from aerial surveys (1992–2010) of >100,000 km² and ground surveys (1998–2004) of >150 km² to estimate the density and abundance of birds on the North Slope of Alaska (U.S.A.). In the ground surveys, we used double sampling to estimate detection ratios. We used the aerial survey data to compare densities of birds and Arctic fox (Vulpes lagopus), the major nest predator of birds, on the North Slope, in Prudhoe Bay, and in nearby areas. We partitioned the Prudhoe Bay oil field into 2 × 2 km plots and determined the relation between density of aquatic birds and density of roads, buildings, and other infrastructure in these plots. Abundance and density (birds per square kilometer) of 3 groups of aquatic birds—waterfowl, loons, and grebes; shorebirds; and gulls, terns, and jaegers—were highest in the National Petroleum Reserve–Alaska (NPRA) and lowest in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Six other major wetlands occur in the Arctic regions of Canada and Russia, but the largest population of aquatic birds was in the NPRA. Aquatic birds were concentrated in the northern part of the NPRA. For example, an area that covered 18% of the NPRA included 53% of its aquatic birds. The aerial surveys showed that bird density was not lower and fox density was not higher in Prudhoe Bay than in surrounding areas. Density of infrastructure did not significantly affect bird density for any group of species. Our results establish that the NPRA is one of the most important areas for aquatic birds in the Arctic. Our results and those of others also indicate that oil production, as practiced in Prudhoe Bay, does not necessarily lead to substantial declines in bird density or productivity in or near the developed areas. Prioridades para la Conservación de Aves en el Norte de Alaska     

A Strategy for Monitoring and Managing Declines in an Amphibian Community

Although many taxa have declined globally, conservation actions are inherently local. Ecosystems degrade even in protected areas, and maintaining natural systems in a desired condition may require active management. Implementing management decisions under uncertainty requires a logical and transparent process to identify objectives, develop management actions, formulate system models to link actions with objectives, monitor to reduce uncertainty and identify system state (i.e., resource condition), and determine an optimal management strategy. We applied one such structured decision‐making approach that incorporates these critical elements to inform management of amphibian populations in a protected area managed by the U.S. National Park Service. Climate change is expected to affect amphibian occupancy of wetlands and to increase uncertainty in management decision making. We used the tools of structured decision making to identify short‐term management solutions that incorporate our current understanding of the effect of climate change on amphibians, emphasizing how management can be undertaken even with incomplete information. Estrategia para Monitorear y Manejar Disminuciones en una Comunidad de Anfibios     

The Capacity of Australia's Protected‐Area System to Represent Threatened Species

Abstract: The acquisition or designation of new protected areas is usually based on criteria for representation of different ecosystems or land‐cover classes, and it is unclear how well‐threatened species are conserved within protected‐area networks. Here, we assessed how Australia's terrestrial protected‐area system (89 million ha, 11.6% of the continent) overlaps with the geographic distributions of threatened species and compared this overlap against a model that randomly placed protected areas across the continent and a spatially efficient model that placed protected areas across the continent to maximize threatened species’ representation within the protected‐area estate. We defined the minimum area needed to conserve each species on the basis of the species’ range size. We found that although the current configuration of protected areas met targets for representation of a given percentage of species’ ranges better than a random selection of areas, 166 (12.6%) threatened species occurred entirely outside protected areas and target levels of protection were met for only 259 (19.6%) species. Critically endangered species were among those with the least protection; 12 (21.1%) species occurred entirely outside protected areas. Reptiles and plants were the most poorly represented taxonomic groups, and amphibians the best represented. Spatial prioritization analyses revealed that an efficient protected‐area system of the same size as the current protected‐area system (11.6% of the area of Australia) could meet representation targets for 1272 (93.3%) threatened species. Moreover, the results of these prioritization analyses showed that by protecting 17.8% of Australia, all threatened species could reach target levels of representation, assuming all current protected areas are retained. Although this amount of area theoretically could be protected, existing land uses and the finite resources available for conservation mean land acquisition may not be possible or even effective for the recovery of threatened species. The optimal use of resources must balance acquisition of new protected areas, where processes that threaten native species are mitigated by the change in ownership or on‐ground management jurisdiction, and management of threatened species inside and outside the existing protected‐area system.