Metrics of progress in the understanding and management of threats to Australian birds

Although evidence-based approaches have become commonplace for determining the success of conservation measures for the management of threatened taxa, there are no standard metrics for assessing progress in research or management. We developed 5 metrics to meet this need for threatened taxa and to quantify the need for further action and effective alleviation of threats. These metrics (research need, research achievement, management need, management achievement, and percent threat reduction) can be aggregated to examine trends for an individual taxon or for threats across multiple taxa. We tested the utility of these metrics by applying them to Australian threatened birds, which appears to be the first time that progress in research and management of threats has been assessed for all threatened taxa in a faunal group at a continental scale. Some research has been conducted on nearly three-quarters of known threats to taxa, and there is a clear understanding of how to alleviate nearly half of the threats with the highest impact. Some management has been attempted on nearly half the threats. Management outcomes ranged from successful trials to complete mitigation of the threat, including for one-third of high-impact threats. Progress in both research and management tended to be greater for taxa that were monitored or occurred on oceanic islands. Predation by cats had the highest potential threat score. However, there has been some success reducing the impact of cat predation, so climate change (particularly drought), now poses the greatest threat to Australian threatened birds. Our results demonstrate the potential for the proposed metrics to encapsulate the major trends in research and management of both threats and threatened taxa and provide a basis for international comparisons of evidence-based conservation science.     

A landscape ecology assessment of land-use change on the Great Plains-Denver (CO,USA) metropolitan edge

Regional Environmental Change - For better or worse, in those parts of the world with a widespread farming, livestock rising, and urban expansion, the maintenance of species richness and ecosystem...     

LCA comparison of container systems in municipal solid waste management

The planning and design of integrated municipal solid waste management (MSWM) systems requires accurate environmental impact evaluation of the systems and their components. This research assessed, quantified and compared the environmental impact of the first stage of the most used MSW container systems. The comparison was based on factors such as the volume of the containers, from small bins of 60–80 l to containers of 2400 l, and on the manufactured materials, steel and high-density polyethylene (HDPE). Also, some parameters such as frequency of collections, waste generation, filling percentage and waste container contents, were established to obtain comparable systems. The methodological framework of the analysis was the life cycle assessment (LCA), and the impact assessment method was based on CML 2 baseline 2000. Results indicated that, for the same volume, the collection systems that use HDPE waste containers had more of an impact than those using steel waste containers, in terms of abiotic depletion, global warming, ozone layer depletion, acidification, eutrophication, photochemical oxidation, human toxicity and terrestrial ecotoxicity. Besides, the collection systems using small HDPE bins (60 l or 80 l) had most impact while systems using big steel containers (2400 l) had less impact. Subsequent sensitivity analysis about the parameters established demonstrated that they could change the ultimate environmental impact of each waste container collection system, but that the comparative relationship between systems was similar.     

Environmental assessment of different advanced oxidation processes applied to a bleaching Kraft mill effluent

Basic research on remediation of polluted sediment by leaching has, to date, been carried out exclusively with suspended material. For economic reasons, only solid-bed leaching is applicable to large-scale processes. Abiotic and microbial solid-bed leaching were comparatively studied in a percolator system using ripened and therefore permeable heavy metal polluted river sediment. In the case of abiotic leaching, sulfuric acid was supplied to the sediment by circulating water; the lower the pH of the percolating water, the higher the percolation flow, and the lower the solid-bed height was, the faster the heavy metals were solubilized. However, the pH and percolation flow are subjected to restrictions: strongly acidic conditions result in dissolution of mineral components, and the percolation flow must not exceed the bed permeability. And a high solid bed is an economic requirement. In the case of bioleaching, elemental sulfur added to the sediment was oxidized to sulfuric acid within the package which, in turn, solubilized the heavy metals. Here, the percolation flow and the solid-bed height did not affect the rate of metal solubilization. Solid-bed leaching on a larger scale will thus be much more efficient applying bioleaching with sulfur as the leaching agent than abiotic leaching with sulfuric acid.