海洋石油钻井平台生产性噪声慢性暴露对血清皮质醇水平的影响

采用自身对照试验,利用个体噪声剂量系统检测海洋石油钻井平台作业人员在作业期间生产性噪声个体暴露水平(40 h等效声级),采用酶联免疫吸附试验(ELISA)分别检测噪声暴露作业前后血清皮质醇水平,并分析血清皮质醇水平变化与噪声暴露水平和暴露时间的关系。结果表明:噪声暴露作业后,全部作业人员血清皮质醇水平明显升高(p0.05,α=0.05);不同噪声暴露水平作业人员血清皮质醇水平差别没有统计学意义(p0.05);噪声暴露20 d的作业人员血清皮质醇水平明显高于噪声暴露≤20 d者(p0.05)。血清皮质醇水平变化与噪声暴露水平没有显著关联性,而与噪声暴露时间呈明显的正相关(p0.05)。研究表明,生产性噪声慢性暴露使血清皮质醇水平升高,且暴露时间是主要影响因素。     

行为科学关于安全控制的研究述评与未来研究展望

从行为科学的视角,探讨人的因素在事故发生过程中的作用,取得了许多重要的进展。笔者从个体因素、群体因素、组织因素以及跨水平的多因素交互作用等4个方面总结了行为科学关于安全控制的相关研究,分析了各种因素对安全绩效的影响。在此基础上,提出一个包含个体、群体和组织因素在内的整合性事故发生路径模型,指出行为科学关于安全控制的未来研究方向,尤其是需要深入揭示一些高阶变量,如领导、组织学习等对安全生产的影响机制,以及采用跨层次的方法来探讨组织因素、群体因素和个体因素在安全生产过程中的交互作用。     

Generation of Priority Research Questions to Inform Conservation Policy and Management at a National Level

Abstract: Integrating knowledge from across the natural and social sciences is necessary to effectively address societal tradeoffs between human use of biological diversity and its preservation. Collaborative processes can change the ways decision makers think about scientific evidence, enhance levels of mutual trust and credibility, and advance the conservation policy discourse. Canada has responsibility for a large fraction of some major ecosystems, such as boreal forests, Arctic tundra, wetlands, and temperate and Arctic oceans. Stressors to biological diversity within these ecosystems arise from activities of the country's resource‐based economy, as well as external drivers of environmental change. Effective management is complicated by incongruence between ecological and political boundaries and conflicting perspectives on social and economic goals. Many knowledge gaps about stressors and their management might be reduced through targeted, timely research. We identify 40 questions that, if addressed or answered, would advance research that has a high probability of supporting development of effective policies and management strategies for species, ecosystems, and ecological processes in Canada. A total of 396 candidate questions drawn from natural and social science disciplines were contributed by individuals with diverse organizational affiliations. These were collaboratively winnowed to 40 by our team of collaborators. The questions emphasize understanding ecosystems, the effects and mitigation of climate change, coordinating governance and management efforts across multiple jurisdictions, and examining relations between conservation policy and the social and economic well‐being of Aboriginal peoples. The questions we identified provide potential links between evidence from the conservation sciences and formulation of policies for conservation and resource management. Our collaborative process of communication and engagement between scientists and decision makers for generating and prioritizing research questions at a national level could be a model for similar efforts beyond Canada.     

A Critical Assessment of the Use of Surrogate Species in Conservation Planning in the Sacramento‐San Joaquin Delta,California (U.S.A.)

Abstract: Conservation biology has provided wildlife managers with a wealth of concepts and tools for use in conservation planning; among them is the surrogate species concept. Over the past 20 years, a growing body of empirical literature has demonstrated the limited effectiveness of surrogates as management tools, unless it is first established that the target species and surrogate will respond similarly to a given set of environmental conditions. Wildlife managers and policy makers have adopted the surrogate species concept, reflecting the limited information available on most species at risk of extirpation or extinction and constraints on resources available to support conservation efforts. We examined the use of surrogate species, in the form of cross‐taxon response‐indicator species (that is, one species from which data are used to guide management planning for another, distinct species) in the Sacramento‐San Joaquin Delta, California (U.S.A.). In that system there has been increasing reliance on surrogates in conservation planning for species listed under federal or state endangered species acts, although the agencies applying the surrogate species concept did not first validate that the surrogate and target species respond similarly to relevant environmental conditions. During the same period, conservation biologists demonstrated that the surrogate concept is generally unsupported by ecological theory and empirical evidence. Recently developed validation procedures may allow for the productive use of surrogates in conservation planning, but, used without validation, the surrogate species concept is not a reliable planning tool.     

鲤体内芳香烃受体的分离纯化及其与葸的相互作用

从暴露于污染物蒽的鲤肝脏中提取出芳香烃受体,并采用紫外可见分光光度计进行最大吸收波长扫描,再通过离子交换层析法分离纯化鲤体内的芳香烃受体,并采用聚丙烯酰胺凝胶电泳对受体进行鉴定,最后通过傅里叶变换红外光谱探讨芳香烃受体与蒽结合后的结构变化.结果表明,提取的芳香烃受体在280 nm处有特征吸收峰,测得质量浓度为27.3 mg/mL.通过离子交换层析法纯化了单一组分的受体蛋白质,其相对分子质量约为110 kD.测定了芳香烃受体的红外光谱,与蒽结合后其在一定波段的谱峰发生了明显位移,表明污染物配体蒽能与芳香烃受体结合,并对其蛋白二级结构产生明显影响.     

Hybridization,agency discretion,and implementation of the U.S. Endangered Species Act

The U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires that the “best available scientific and commercial data” be used to protect imperiled species from extinction and preserve biodiversity. However, it does not provide specific guidance on how to apply this mandate. Scientific data can be uncertain and controversial, particularly regarding species delineation and hybridization issues. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) had an evolving hybrid policy to guide protection decisions for individuals of hybrid origin. Currently, this policy is in limbo because it resulted in several controversial conservation decisions in the past. Biologists from FWS must interpret and apply the best available science to their recommendations and likely use considerable discretion in making recommendations for what species to list, how to define those species, and how to recover them. We used semistructured interviews to collect data on FWS biologists’ use of discretion to make recommendations for listed species with hybridization issues. These biologists had a large amount of discretion to determine the best available science and how to interpret it but generally deferred to the scientific consensus on the taxonomic status of an organism. Respondents viewed hybridization primarily as a problem in the context of the ESA, although biologists who had experience with hybridization issues were more likely to describe it in more nuanced terms. Many interviewees expressed a desire to continue the current case‐by‐case approach for handling hybridization issues, but some wanted more guidance on procedures (i.e., a “flexible” hybrid policy). Field‐level information can provide critical insight into which policies are working (or not working) and why. The FWS biologists’ we interviewed had a high level of discretion, which greatly influenced ESA implementation, particularly in the context of hybridization.     

我国安全生产科学技术研究与应用最新进展

从安全生产科研队伍和中介机构、人才培养、实验室建设、科技成果产出、科研成果转化及其产业化等方面全面总结了近年来我国安全科技方面取得的成绩;同时从安全科技体制机制、基础条件、基础理论研究、投入等方面探讨和分析了存在的主要问题及严重不足;提出了安全生产科学技术在安全基础理论、关键技术、推广应用、资源整合、科研机制等方面的对策建议。研究表明,近年来我国安全生产科技工作成绩突出,问题也很多,应该用创新和改革的思路及勇气进一步推动安全生产科技的快速发展。     

Achieving Conservation Science that Bridges the Knowledge–Action Boundary

There are many barriers to using science to inform conservation policy and practice. Conservation scientists wishing to produce management‐relevant science must balance this goal with the imperative of demonstrating novelty and rigor in their science. Decision makers seeking to make evidence‐based decisions must balance a desire for knowledge with the need to act despite uncertainty. Generating science that will effectively inform management decisions requires that the production of information (the components of knowledge) be salient (relevant and timely), credible (authoritative, believable, and trusted), and legitimate (developed via a process that considers the values and perspectives of all relevant actors) in the eyes of both researchers and decision makers. We perceive 3 key challenges for those hoping to generate conservation science that achieves all 3 of these information characteristics. First, scientific and management audiences can have contrasting perceptions about the salience of research. Second, the pursuit of scientific credibility can come at the cost of salience and legitimacy in the eyes of decision makers, and, third, different actors can have conflicting views about what constitutes legitimate information. We highlight 4 institutional frameworks that can facilitate science that will inform management: boundary organizations (environmental organizations that span the boundary between science and management), research scientists embedded in resource management agencies, formal links between decision makers and scientists at research‐focused institutions, and training programs for conservation professionals. Although these are not the only approaches to generating boundary‐spanning science, nor are they mutually exclusive, they provide mechanisms for promoting communication, translation, and mediation across the knowledge–action boundary. We believe that despite the challenges, conservation science should strive to be a boundary science, which both advances scientific understanding and contributes to decision making. Logrando que la Ciencia de la Conservación Trasponga la Frontera Conocimiento‐Acción     

Use of Large‐Scale Acoustic Monitoring to Assess Anthropogenic Pressures on Orthoptera Communities

Biodiversity monitoring at large spatial and temporal scales is greatly needed in the context of global changes. Although insects are a species‐rich group and are important for ecosystem functioning, they have been largely neglected in conservation studies and policies, mainly due to technical and methodological constraints. Sound detection, a nondestructive method, is easily applied within a citizen‐science framework and could be an interesting solution for insect monitoring. However, it has not yet been tested at a large scale. We assessed the value of a citizen‐science program in which Orthoptera species (Tettigoniidae) were monitored acoustically along roads. We used Bayesian model‐averaging analyses to test whether we could detect widely known patterns of anthropogenic effects on insects, such as the negative effects of urbanization or intensive agriculture on Orthoptera populations and communities. We also examined site‐abundance correlations between years and estimated the biases in species detection to evaluate and improve the protocol. Urbanization and intensive agricultural landscapes negatively affected Orthoptera species richness, diversity, and abundance. This finding is consistent with results of previous studies of Orthoptera, vertebrates, carabids, and butterflies. The average mass of communities decreased as urbanization increased. The dispersal ability of communities increased as the percentage of agricultural land and, to a lesser extent, urban area increased. Despite changes in abundances over time, we found significant correlations between yearly abundances. We identified biases linked to the protocol (e.g., car speed or temperature) that can be accounted for ease in analyses. We argue that acoustic monitoring of Orthoptera along roads offers several advantages for assessing Orthoptera biodiversity at large spatial and temporal extents, particularly in a citizen science framework. El Uso de Monitoreos Acústicos a Gran Escala para Estudiar las Presiones Antropogénicas sobre Comunidades de Orthoptera     

Six Common Mistakes in Conservation Priority Setting

A vast number of prioritization schemes have been developed to help conservation navigate tough decisions about the allocation of finite resources. However, the application of quantitative approaches to setting priorities in conservation frequently includes mistakes that can undermine their authors’ intention to be more rigorous and scientific in the way priorities are established and resources allocated. Drawing on well‐established principles of decision science, we highlight 6 mistakes commonly associated with setting priorities for conservation: not acknowledging conservation plans are prioritizations; trying to solve an ill‐defined problem; not prioritizing actions; arbitrariness; hidden value judgments; and not acknowledging risk of failure. We explain these mistakes and offer a path to help conservation planners avoid making the same mistakes in future prioritizations. Seis Errores Comunes en la Definición de Prioridades de Conservación