重金属离子存在下腐植酸和芘之间的相互作用

建立并验证了腐植酸(HA)和芘结合常数(Koc)测定的荧光猝灭法,进而研究了重金属离子对HA和芘相互作用的影响,测定了重金属离子存在下HA和芘之间的Koc.结果表明:纯化后的HA是分子质量较小的部分,水溶性较高,具有羟基、羧基和碳氧键等极性基团;HA利用其分子中的羟基、羧基、碳氧键等基团和重金属离子产生络合作用,这种络合作用影响了HA的结构;随着重金属离子浓度的增大,Koc遵循先增大,再减小,最后趋于不变的趋势.     

Understanding conservationists’ perspectives on the new‐conservation debate

A vibrant debate about the future direction of biodiversity conservation centers on the merits of the so‐called new conservation. Proponents of the new conservation advocate a series of positions on key conservation ideas, such as the importance of human‐dominated landscapes and conservation's engagement with capitalism. These have been fiercely contested in a debate dominated by a few high‐profile individuals, and so far there has been no empirical exploration of existing perspectives on these issues among a wider community of conservationists. We used Q methodology to examine empirically perspectives on the new conservation held by attendees at the 2015 International Congress for Conservation Biology (ICCB). Although we identified a consensus on several key issues, 3 distinct positions emerged: in favor of conservation to benefit people but opposed to links with capitalism and corporations, in favor of biocentric approaches but with less emphasis on wilderness protection than prominent opponents of new conservation, and in favor of the published new conservation perspective but with less emphasis on increasing human well‐being as a goal of conservation. Our results revealed differences between the debate on the new conservation in the literature and views held within a wider, but still limited, conservation community and demonstrated the existence of at least one viewpoint (in favor of conservation to benefit people but opposed to links with capitalism and corporations) that is almost absent from the published debate. We hope the fuller understanding we present of the variety of views that exist but have not yet been heard, will improve the quality and tone of debates on the subject.     

Considering the needs of indigenous and local populations in conservation programs

Local rural and indigenous communities have assumed increasing responsibility for conservation within and between areas buffering the impacts of agricultural or resource‐extraction zones and protected areas. Empowering local communities as central partners in conservation and climate‐change mitigation has allowed many people to gain access to land and citizenship rights but has provided limited improvements in access to social services and economic opportunities even as expectation about their role as environmental stewards grows. These expectations, however, are inconsistent with reality. We conducted multiple field studies in Brazil since the mid‐1980s to illustrate the discrepancies between conservation programs and local conditions and expectations. We suggest that public policies and conservation programs should not delegate responsibility for managing protected areas to local and indigenous communities without considering local needs and expectations and locals’ attitudes toward conservation. In other words, behavior that maintains or improves the environment should not be treated as traditional based on the expectations of outsiders. Framing local populations as traditional environmentalists creates contradictions and frustrations for local populations and for conservation professionals and policy makers.     

Integrating Paleobiology,Archeology, and History to Inform Biological Conservation

The search for novel approaches to establishing ecological baselines (reference conditions) is constrained by the fact that most ecological studies span the past few decades, at most, and investigate ecosystems that have been substantially altered by human activities for decades, centuries, or more. Paleobiology, archeology, and history provide historical ecological context for biological conservation, remediation, and restoration. We argue that linking historical ecology explicitly with conservation can help unify related disciplines of conservation paleobiology, conservation archeobiology, and environmental history. Differences in the spatial and temporal resolution and extent (scale) of prehistoric, historic, and modern ecological data remain obstacles to integrating historical ecology and conservation biology, but the prolonged temporal extents of historical ecological data can help establish more complete baselines for restoration, document a historical range of ecological variability, and assist in determining desired future conditions. We used the eastern oyster (Crassostrea virginica) fishery of the Chesapeake Bay (U.S.A.) to demonstrate the utility of historical ecological data for elucidating oyster conservation and the need for an approach to conservation that transcends disciplinary boundaries. Historical ecological studies from the Chesapeake have documented dramatic declines (as much as 99%) in oyster abundance since the early to mid‐1800s, changes in oyster size in response to different nutrient levels from the sixteenth to nineteenth centuries, and substantial reductions in oyster accretion rates (from 10 mm/year to effectively 0 mm/year) from the Late Holocene to modern times. Better integration of different historical ecological data sets and increased collaboration between paleobiologists, geologists, archeologists, environmental historians, and ecologists to create standardized research designs and methodologies will help unify prehistoric, historic, and modern time perspectives on biological conservation. Integración de Paleobiología, Arqueología e Historia para Informar a la Biología de la Conservación     

When and how to use Q methodology to understand perspectives in conservation research

Understanding human perspectives is critical in a range of conservation contexts, for example, in overcoming conflicts or developing projects that are acceptable to relevant stakeholders. The Q methodology is a unique semiquantitative technique used to explore human perspectives. It has been applied for decades in other disciplines and recently gained traction in conservation. This paper helps researchers assess when Q is useful for a given conservation question and what its use involves. To do so, we explained the steps necessary to conduct a Q study, from the research design to the interpretation of results. We provided recommendations to minimize biases in conducting a Q study, which can affect mostly when designing the study and collecting the data. We conducted a structured literature review of 52 studies to examine in what empirical conservation contexts Q has been used. Most studies were subnational or national cases, but some also address multinational or global questions. We found that Q has been applied to 4 broad types of conservation goals: addressing conflict, devising management alternatives, understanding policy acceptability, and critically reflecting on the values that implicitly influence research and practice. Through these applications, researchers found hidden views, understood opinions in depth and discovered points of consensus that facilitated unlocking difficult disagreements. The Q methodology has a clear procedure but is also flexible, allowing researchers explore long‐term views, or views about items other than statements, such as landscape images. We also found some inconsistencies in applying and, mainly, in reporting Q studies, whereby it was not possible to fully understand how the research was conducted or why some atypical research decisions had been taken in some studies. Accordingly, we suggest a reporting checklist.