Seasonal dynamics of phytoplankton in response to environmental variables in contrasting coastal ecosystems

Environmental Science and Pollution Research - Seasonal distribution of phytoplankton community and size structure was assessed in three different tropical ecosystems of the western Bay of Bengal...     

Toward harmonizing prospective effectiveness assessment for road safety: Comparing tools in standard test case simulations

Abstract

Objective: With the overall goal to harmonize prospective effectiveness assessment of active safety systems, the specific objective of this study is to identify and evaluate sources of variation in virtual precrash simulations and to suggest topics for harmonization resulting in increased comparability and thus trustworthiness of virtual simulation-based prospective effectiveness assessment.

Methods: A round-robin assessment of the effectiveness of advanced driver assistance systems was performed using an array of state-of-the-art virtual simulation tools on a set of standard test cases. The results were analyzed to examine reasons for deviations in order to identify and assess aspects that need to be harmonized and standardized. Deviations between results calculated by independent engineering teams using their own tools should be minimized if the research question is precisely formulated regarding input data, models, and postprocessing steps.

Results: Two groups of sources of variations were identified; one group (mostly related to the implementation of the system under test) can be eliminated by using a more accurately formulated research question, whereas the other group highlights further harmonization needs because it addresses specific differences in simulation tool setups. Time-to-collision calculations, vehicle dynamics, especially braking behavior, and hit-point position specification were found to be the main sources of variation.

Conclusions: The study identified variations that can arise from the use of different simulation setups in assessment of the effectiveness of active safety systems. The research presented is a first of its kind and provides significant input to the overall goal of harmonization by identifying specific items for standardization. Future activities aim at further specification of methods for prospective assessments of the effectiveness of active safety, which will enhance comparability and trustworthiness in this kind of studies and thus contribute to increased traffic safety.     

Mainstreaming human and large carnivore coexistence through institutional collaboration

Achieving coexistence between large carnivores and humans in human-dominated landscapes (HDLs) is a key challenge for societies globally. This challenge cannot be adequately met with the current sectoral approaches to HDL governance and an academic community largely dominated by disciplinary sectors. Academia (universities and other research institutions and organizations) should take a more active role in embracing societal challenges around conservation of large carnivores in HDLs by facilitating cross-sectoral cooperation to mainstream coexistence of humans and large carnivores. Drawing on lessons from populated regions of Europe, Asia, and South America with substantial densities of large carnivores, we suggest academia should better embrace the principles and methods of sustainability sciences and create institutional spaces for the implementation of transdisciplinary curricula and projects; reflect on research approaches (i.e., disciplinary, interdisciplinary, or transdisciplinary) they apply and how their outcomes could aid leveraging institutional transformations for mainstreaming; and engage with various institutions and stakeholder groups to create novel institutional structures that can respond to multiple challenges of HDL management and human–large carnivore coexistence. Success in mainstreaming this coexistence in HDL will rest on the ability to think and act cooperatively. Such a conservation achievement, if realized, stands to have far-reaching benefits for people and biodiversity.     

Fishing‐gear restrictions and biomass gains for coral reef fishes in marine protected areas

Considerable empirical evidence supports recovery of reef fish populations with fishery closures. In countries where full exclusion of people from fishing may be perceived as inequitable, fishing‐gear restrictions on nonselective and destructive gears may offer socially relevant management alternatives to build recovery of fish biomass. Even so, few researchers have statistically compared the responses of tropical reef fisheries to alternative management strategies. We tested for the effects of fishery closures and fishing gear restrictions on tropical reef fish biomass at the community and family level. We conducted 1,396 underwater surveys at 617 unique sites across a spatial hierarchy within 22 global marine ecoregions that represented 5 realms. We compared total biomass across local fish assemblages and among 20 families of reef fishes inside marine protected areas (MPAs) with different fishing restrictions: no‐take, hook‐and‐line fishing only, several fishing gears allowed, and sites open to all fishing gears. We included a further category representing remote sites, where fishing pressure is low. As expected, full fishery closures, (i.e., no‐take zones) most benefited community‐ and family‐level fish biomass in comparison with restrictions on fishing gears and openly fished sites. Although biomass responses to fishery closures were highly variable across families, some fishery targets (e.g., Carcharhinidae and Lutjanidae) responded positively to multiple restrictions on fishing gears (i.e., where gears other than hook and line were not permitted). Remoteness also positively affected the response of community‐level fish biomass and many fish families. Our findings provide strong support for the role of fishing restrictions in building recovery of fish biomass and indicate important interactions among fishing‐gear types that affect biomass of a diverse set of reef fish families.     

Traditional agriculture in transition: examining the impacts of agricultural modernization on smallholder farming in Ghana under the new Green Revolution

Following the renewed effort at achieving a new green revolution for Africa, emphasis has been placed on modernizing smallholder agriculture through the deployment of improved inputs especially mechanized technologies. In Ghana, the government has in the last decade emphasized the provision of subsidized mechanized ploughing services to farmers alongside a rapidly growing private sector tractor service market. While mechanized technology adoption rates have increased rapidly, the deployment of these technologies has been without critical analysis of the impacts on production patterns and local agrarian systems. This paper examines the distributional impacts of agriculture mechanization on cropping patterns and farm sizes of smallholder farmers in northern Ghana using Geographic Information Systems (GIS) techniques, and semi-structured interviews with smallholder farmers (n=60). Specifically, comparative analysis of the field sizes and cropping patterns of participant farmers prior to and after the adoption of mechanized technologies was conducted. In-depth interviews were used to contextualize the experiences of smallholder farmers toward understanding how mechanization may be impacting traditional agriculture. Our findings reveal a mechanization paradox in which farm sizes are expanding, while cropping patterns are shifting away from traditional staple crops (pearl millet and sorghum bicolor) to market-oriented crops (maize, rice and groundnuts). This transition we argue, has adverse implications on the cultural dimension of food security, the organization of social life, and climate change adaptation. We recommend a retooling of the current agricultural policy focus to ensure context sensitivity for a more robust battle against food insecurity.     

COVID-19 effects on municipality waste collection services for households: statistical modelling of perspectives from Guyana and Nigeria

Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management - The novel COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted the functioning of solid waste management globally as households experience an increase in their waste...     

Quantifying the impact of vegetation-based metrics on species persistence when choosing offsets for habitat destruction

Developers are often required by law to offset environmental impacts through targeted conservation actions. Most offset policies specify metrics for calculating offset requirements, usually by assessing vegetation condition. Despite widespread use, there is little evidence to support the effectiveness of vegetation-based metrics for ensuring biodiversity persistence. We compared long-term impacts of biodiversity offsetting based on area only; vegetation condition only; area × habitat suitability; and condition × habitat suitability in development and restoration simulations for the Hunter Region of New South Wales, Australia. We simulated development and subsequent offsetting through restoration within a virtual landscape, linking simulations to population viability models for 3 species. Habitat gains did not ensure species persistence. No net loss was achieved when performance of offsetting was assessed in terms of amount of habitat restored, but not when outcomes were assessed in terms of persistence. Maintenance of persistence occurred more often when impacts were avoided, giving further support to better enforce the avoidance stage of the mitigation hierarchy. When development affected areas of high habitat quality for species, persistence could not be guaranteed. Therefore, species must be more explicitly accounted for in offsets, rather than just vegetation or habitat alone. Declines due to a failure to account directly for species population dynamics and connectivity overshadowed the benefits delivered by producing large areas of high-quality habitat. Our modeling framework showed that the benefits delivered by offsets are species specific and that simple vegetation-based metrics can give misguided impressions on how well biodiversity offsets achieve no net loss.