Rethinking the contribution of drained and undrained grasslands to sediment-related water quality problems

Grass vegetation has been recommended for use in the prevention and control of soil erosion because of its dense sward characteristics and stabilizing effect on the soil. A general assumption is that grassland environments suffer from minimal soil erosion and therefore present little threat to the water quality of surface waters in terms of sediment and sorbed contaminant pollution. Our data question this assumption, reporting results from one hydrological year of observations on a field-experiment monitoring overland flow, drain flow, fluxes of suspended solids, total phosphorus (TP), and molybdate-reactive phosphorus (<0.45 mum) in response to natural rainfall events. During individual rainfall events, 1-ha grassland lysimeters yield up to 15 kg of suspended solids, with concentrations in runoff waters of up to 400 mg L(-1). These concentrations exceed the water quality standards recommended by the European Freshwater Fisheries Directive (25 mg L(-1)) and the USEPA (80 mg L(-1)) and are beyond those reported to have caused chronic effects on freshwater aquatic organisms. Furthermore, TP concentrations in runoff waters from these field lysimeters exceeded 800 mug L(-1). These concentrations are in excess of those reported to cause eutrophication problems in rivers and lakes and contravene the ecoregional nutrient criteria in all of the USA ecoregions. This paper also examines how subsurface drainage, a common agricultural practice in intensively managed grasslands, influences the hydrology and export of sediment and nutrients from grasslands. This dataset suggests that we need to rethink the conceptual understanding of grasslands as non-erosive landscapes. Failure to acknowledge this will result in the noncompliance of surface waters to water quality standards.     

Addressing climate change: Determinants of consumers' willingness to act and to support policy measures

Consumers influence climate change through their consumption patterns and their support or dismissal of climate mitigation policy measures. Both climate-friendly actions and policy support comprise a broad range of options, which vary in manifold ways and, therefore, might be influenced by different factors. The aims of the study were, therefore, two-fold: first, we intended to find a meaningful way to classify different ways of addressing climate change. Second, we aimed to examine which determinants influence people's willingness to engage in these behaviors. We conducted a large-scale mail survey in Switzerland in which respondents rated, among other items, their willingness to act or support a range of possible actions and mitigations measures. A principal component analysis indicated that a distinction in terms of a behavior's directness as well as a differentiation according to perceived costs seem to be appropriate to classify climate-friendly actions. Multiple regression analyses showed that perceived costs and perceived climate benefit turned out to be the strongest predictors for willingness to act or to support climate policy measures. The strong influence of perceived climate benefit might reflect a strategy of reducing cognitive dissonance. As high-cost behaviors are more difficult to adopt, consumers may reduce dissonance by dismissing high-cost behaviors as not effective in terms of climate mitigation. Political affiliation proved to be another strong determinant of willingness to act or support. Participants on the right wing were less willing to show indirect climate-friendly behaviors, change their mobility behaviors, and to support any type of climate mitigation policy measures. Climate-friendly low-cost behaviors, however, were not influenced by political affiliation.     

Living with Wildlife and Mitigating Conflicts Around Three Indian Protected Areas

Crop and livestock losses to wildlife are a concern for people neighboring many protected areas (PAs) and can generate opposition to conservation. Examining patterns of conflict and associated tolerance is important to devise policies to reduce conflict impacts on people and wildlife. We surveyed 398 households from 178 villages within 10 km of Ranthambore, Kanha, and Nagarahole parks in India. We compared different attitudes toward wildlife, and presented hypothetical response scenarios, including killing the problem animal(s). Eighty percent of households reported crop losses to wildlife and 13 % livestock losses. Higher crop loss was associated with more cropping months per year, greater crop variety, and more harvest seasons per year but did not vary with proximity to the PA, suggesting that PAs are not necessarily “sources” for crop raiders. By contrast, complaints of “depredating carnivores” were associated with people-grazing animals and collecting resources from PAs. Many households (83 %) engaged in mitigation efforts. We found that only fencing and guard animals reduce crop losses, and no efforts to lower livestock losses. Contrary to our expectations, carnivores were not viewed with more hostility than crop-raiding wildlife. Households reported greater inclination to kill herbivores destroying crops or carnivores harming people, but not carnivores preying on livestock. Our model estimated crop loss was 82 % across surveyed households (highest in Kanha), while the livestock loss experienced was 27 % (highest in Ranthambore). Our comparative study provides insights into factors associated with conflict loss and tolerance, and aids in improving ongoing conservation and compensation efforts.     

SEASONAL OCCURRENCE OF ANNUAL FLOODS ON SMALL PENNSYLVANIA WATERSHEDS1

A study is presented of the months in which the instantaneous annual maximum discharges from 66 watersheds occurred. The 2,052 flood values were measured on areas ranging from 2.4 through 214 square miles. The longest record was 60 years; the three shortest were 20. Pictorial results show both the number of floods for each month and individual discharges relative to the mean flood. A parameter which is weighted in this manner accounts for both the incidence and the magnitude of floods. Peculiarities of flood-timing charts, based on this parameter, are discussed with respect to watershed size, soils, geology, and land use. After anomolous watersheds had been assigned to special categories, flood-timing charts from most records exhibit a regional dichotomy dividing eastern from western Pennsylvania.