Ecotoxicology,where do you come from and where do you go? (2 pp)

-

Does ecotoxicology really contribute to our knowledge about the function of an ecosystem or environment? Is ecotoxicology really a science of its own? The answers to these questions must be NO. The reasons lie in the origin and past of ecotoxicology.Like medicine, ecotoxicology does not have its own scientific theory, but rather borrows from other disciplines: the scientific theory of medicine is biology, and that of ecotoxicology is ecology and pharmacology. Neither medicine nor ecotoxicology see the normal status and routine function of their objects under study. Ecotoxicology regards the environment as being adversely impacted by anthropogenic noxes, mainly chemicals, perhaps based on a paradigm of permanent guilt.

     

Strategic investment in reputation

Although collective efforts are common in both animal and human societies, many human and probably animal social dilemmas have no obvious cooperative solution, which is a challenge for evolutionary biologists. In public goods games, i.e. the experimental paradigm for studying the sustainability of a public resource with human subjects, initial cooperation usually declines quickly. Recently, it has been shown that the interaction with another social game in which good reputation attracts help, can maintain a high level of cooperation in the public goods game. Here we show experimentally that humans use different strategies in the public goods game conditional on whether the player knows that his decisions will be either known or unknown in another social game. The knowledge of being recognized as the same individual in both scenarios motivates players to invest in their reputation and thus sustain the public resource. However, cooperation declines immediately when individual identities switch from being recognizable to being unrecognizable between the two interacting games.Communicated by M. Borgerhoff-Mulder     

The poison gland of the antMyrmicaria eumenoides and its role in recruitment communication

Summary The antMyrmicaria eumenoides is a significant arthropod predator. For rapid attraction of large numbers of nestmates to newly discovered food sources the ants use an efficient recruitment communication system based on the poison gland secretion. Workers exhibit age-based division of labour. Young workers perform brood-care; their poison gland reservoir develops and reaches its final size of 0.5 µl at an age of 6 weeks, when they become foragers. The secretion deposited during combat with enemies or prey is composed of equal amounts of both a high volatile and a low volatile fraction. Within the high volatile fraction (+)—limonene is the main component (97%) and is the only olfactory trigger to alert ants in the vicinity and to recruit them to places of combat, where they assemble. Ants respond to synthetic (+)—limonene in exactly the same way as to the poison gland secretion when applied at the same airborne concentrations. Further components of the high volatile fraction are four additional monoterpene hydrocarbons and hexanoic nitrile. The high volatile and the low volatile fraction of the poison gland secretion each have dual functions: The low volatiles, of which the main component is an alkaloid, serve as a fixative and extend the effective period of the limonene signal by modifying its evaporation kinetics. On the other hand the high volatile recruitment signal (+)—limonene is also the solvent for the alkaloid and enhances its spreading on the surface of the cuticle of arthropod enemies or prey.     

Exposure of juvenile Danio rerio to aged TiO2 nanomaterial from sunscreen

The toxicity of dietary exposure to artificially aged TiO₂ nanomaterial (T-Lite?) used in sunscreen cream was studied on Danio rerio. Embryolarval assays were conducted to assess the effects of TiO₂ residues of nanomaterial (RNM) on fish early life stages. Juvenile fishes were exposed by the trophic route in two experiments. During the first experiment, juvenile fishes were exposed to TiO₂ RNM for 14 days by adding RNM to commercial fish food. The second one consisted in producing a trophic food chain. Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata algae, previously contaminated with TiO₂ RNM in growth medium, was used to feed Daphnia magna neonates over a 48-h period. Daphnia were used next to feed juvenile fishes for 7 days. Accumulation of Ti, life traits (survival and growth) and biochemical parameters such as energy reserves, digestive (trypsin, esterase, cellulose and amylase) and antioxidant (superoxide dismutase and catalase) enzyme activity were measured at the end of exposures. As expected in the receiving aquatic system, TiO₂ RNM at low concentrations caused a low impact on juvenile zebrafish. A slight impact on the early life stage of zebrafish with premature hatching was observed, and this effect appeared mainly indirect, due to possible embryo hypoxia. When juvenile fish are exposed to contaminated food, digestive enzyme activity indicated a negative effect of TiO₂ RNM. Digestive physiology was altered after 14 days of exposure and seemed to be an indirect target of TiO₂ RNM when provided by food.     

“Just Another Hoop to Jump Through?” Using Environmental Laws and Processes to Protect Indigenous Rights

Protection of culturally important indigenous landscapes has become an increasingly important component of environmental management processes, for both companies and individuals striving to comply with environmental regulations, and for indigenous groups seeking stronger laws to support site protection and cultural/human rights. Given that indigenous stewardship of culturally important sites, species, and practices continues to be threatened or prohibited on lands out of indigenous ownership, this paper examines whether or not indigenous people can meaningfully apply mainstream environmental management laws and processes to achieve protection of traditional sites and associated stewardship activities. While environmental laws can provide a “back door” to protect traditional sites and practices, they are not made for this purpose, and, as such, require specific amendments to become more useful for indigenous practitioners. Acknowledging thoughtful critiques of the cultural incommensurability of environmental law with indigenous environmental stewardship of sacred sites, I interrogate the ability of four specific environmental laws and processes—the Uniform Conservation Easement Act; the National Environmental Policy Act and the California Environmental Quality Act; the Pacific Stewardship Council land divestiture process; and Senate Bill 18 (CA-2004)—to protect culturally important landscapes and practices. I offer suggestions for improving these laws and processes to make them more applicable to indigenous stewardship of traditional landscapes.