The value of information for integrated assessment models of climate change

We estimate the value of information (VOI) for three key parameters of climate integrated assessment models (IAMs): marginal damages at low temperature anomalies, marginal damages at high temperature anomalies, and equilibrium climate sensitivity. Most empirical studies of climate damages have examined temperature anomalies up to 3 °C, while some recent theoretical studies emphasize the risks of “climate catastrophes,” which depend on climate sensitivity and on marginal damages at higher temperature anomalies. We use a new IAM to estimate the VOI for each parameter over a range of assumed levels of study precision based on prior probability distributions calibrated using results from previous studies. We measure the VOI as the maximum fixed fraction of consumption that a social planner would be willing to pay to conduct a new study before setting a carbon tax. Our central results suggest that the VOI is greatest for marginal damages at high temperature anomalies.     

全氟辛烷磺化物(PFOS)诱导斑马鱼胚胎p53基因的点突变

将斑马鱼胚胎于0μg·l-1(空白对照),5μg·l-1,16μg·l-1和50μg·l-1全氟辛烷磺化物(PFOS)溶液中暴露染毒5h,采用变性高效液相色谱方法对PCR扩增的含斑马鱼胚胎p53基因外显子7的173 bp的目标片段进行突变分析.结果显示,16μg·l-1和50μg·l-1两个处理组与对照组相比均有显著性差异,表明PFOS可以诱导斑马鱼胚胎p53基因外显子7的点突变.     

不同海拔高寒放牧草甸的生态系统呼吸与环境因子的关系

在全球变化的背景下,为了研究藏北高寒放牧草甸的生态系统呼吸和土壤呼吸特征,沿着3个海拔高度（4 300、4 500和4 700 m）观测了2010年7-9月白天的呼吸通量。同时,观测了同期的土壤温度、土壤水分含量、空气温度和相对湿度,在定性分析土壤水分含量和呼吸通量关系的基础上,将其分成低、中和高3个水平,在此基础上,分析生态系统呼吸、土壤呼吸与土壤温度、土壤水分含量、空气温度以及相对湿度的关系。结果表明,空气温度是决定生态系统呼吸和土壤呼吸变异的主导因子;生态系统呼吸、土壤呼吸以及裸地的土壤呼吸的Q10值分别为1.83～3.07、1.54～4.13和1.29～2.89;总体而言,生态系统呼吸和土壤呼吸Q10值随着海拔的升高和土壤水分含量的增加而增大。     

Shared ways of thinking in Brazil about the science–practice interface in ecology and conservation

The debate in the literature on the science–practice interface suggests a diversity of opinions on how to link science and practice to improve conservation. Understanding this diversity is key to addressing unequal power relations, avoiding the consideration of only dominant views, and identifying strategies to link science and practice. In turn, linking science and practice should promote conservation decisions that are socially robust and scientifically informed. To identify and describe the viewpoints of scientists and decision makers on how the science–practice interface should work in order to improve conservation decisions, we interviewed Brazilian scientists (ecologists and conservation scientists, n = 11) and decision makers (n = 11). We used Q methodology and asked participants to rank their agreement with 48 statements on how the science–practice interface should work in order to improve conservation decisions. We used principal component analysis to identify shared viewpoints. The predominant viewpoint, shared by scientists and decision makers, was characterized by valuing the integration of scientific and strategic knowledge to address environmental problems. The second viewpoint, held mostly by decision makers, was distinguished by assigning great importance to science in the decision-making process and calling for problem-relevant research. The third viewpoint, shared only by scientists, was characterized by an unwillingness to collaborate and a perception of scientists as producers of knowledge that may help decision makers. Most participants agreed organizations should promote collaboration and that actors and knowledge from both science and practice are relevant. Disagreements concerned specific roles assigned to actors, willingness to collaborate, and organizational and institutional arrangements considered effective to link science and practice. Our results suggest there is ample room for collaborations and that impediments lie mainly in existing organizations and formal institutional arrangements rather than in negative attitudes between scientists and decision makers.