Human perspectives and conservation of grizzly bears in Banff National Park, Canada

Some conservation initiatives provoke intense conflict among stakeholders. The need for action, the nature of the conservation measures, and the effects of these measures on human interests may be disputed. Tools are needed to depolarize such situations, foster understanding of the perspectives of people involved, and find common ground. We used Q methodology to explore stakeholders' perspectives on conservation and management of grizzly bears (Ursus arctos horribilis) in Banff National Park and the Bow River watershed of Alberta, Canada. Twenty-nine stakeholders participated in the study, including local residents, scientists, agency employees, and representatives of nongovernmental conservation organizations and other interest groups. Participants rank ordered a set of statements to express their opinions on the problems of grizzly bear management (I-IV) and a second set of statements on possible solutions to the problems (A-C). Factor analysis revealed that participants held 4 distinct views of the problems: individuals associated with factor I emphasized deficiencies in goals and plans; those associated with factor II believed that problems had been exaggerated; those associated with factor III blamed institutional flaws such as disjointed management and inadequate resources; and individuals associated with factor IV blamed politicized decision making. There were 3 distinct views about the best solutions to the problems: individuals associated with factor A called for increased conservation efforts; those associated with factor B wanted reforms in decision-making processes; and individuals associated with factor C supported active landscape management. We connected people's definitions of the problem with their preferred solutions to form 5 overall problem narratives espoused by groups in the study: the problem is deficient goals and plans, the solution is to prioritize conservation efforts (planning-oriented conservation advocates); the problem is flawed institutions, the solution is to prioritize conservation efforts (institutionally-oriented conservation advocates); the problems have been exaggerated, but there is a need to improve decision-making processes (optimistic decision-process reformers); the problems have been exaggerated, but managers should more actively manage the landscape (optimistic landscape managers); and the problem is politicized decision making, solutions vary (democratizers). Although these 5 groups differed on many issues, they agreed that the population of grizzly bears is vulnerable to extirpation, human use of the area should be designed around ecological constraints, and more inclusive decision-making processes are needed. We used our results to inform a series of workshops in which stakeholders developed and agreed on new management strategies that were implemented by Parks Canada. Our research demonstrates the usefulness of Q method to illuminate people's perspectives and identify common ground in settings where conservation is contested.     

Challenges to interdisciplinary research in ecosystem-based management

Despite its necessity, integration of natural and social sciences to inform conservation efforts has been difficult. We examined the views of 63 scientists and practitioners involved in marine management in Mexico's Gulf of California, the central California coast, and the western Pacific on the challenges associated with integrating social science into research efforts that support ecosystem-based management (EBM) in marine systems. We used a semistructured interview format. Questions focused on how EBM was developed for these sites and how contextual factors affected its development and outcomes. Many of the traditional challenges linked with interdisciplinary research were present in the EBM projects we studied. However, a number of contextual elements affected how mandates to include social science were interpreted and implemented as well as how easily challenges could be addressed. For example, a common challenge is that conservation organizations are often dominated by natural scientists, but for some projects it was easier to address this imbalance than for others. We also found that the management and institutional histories that came before EBM in specific cases were important features of local context. Because challenges differed among cases, we believe resolving challenges to interdisciplinary research should be context specific.     

Assessing citizen contributions to butterfly monitoring in two large cities

Citizen science may be especially effective in urban landscapes due to the large pool of potential volunteers. However, there have been few evaluations of the contributions of citizen scientists to knowledge of biological communities in and around cities. To assess the effectiveness of citizen scientists' monitoring of species in urban areas, we compared butterfly data collected over 10 years in Chicago, Illinois (U.S.A.), and New York City, New York (U.S.A.). The dates, locations, and methods of data collection in Chicago were standardized, whereas data from New York were collected at any location at any time. For each city, we evaluated whether the number of observers, observation days (days on which observations were reported), and sampling locations were associated with the reported proportion of the estimated regional pool of butterfly species. We also compared the number of volunteers, duration of volunteer involvement, and consistency of sampling efforts at individual locations within each city over time. From 2001 to 2010, there were 73 volunteers in Chicago and 89 in New York. During this period, volunteers observed 86% and 89% of the estimated number of butterfly species present in Chicago and New York, respectively. Volunteers in New York reported a greater proportion of the estimated pool of butterfly species per year. In addition, more species were observed per volunteer and observation day in New York, largely due to the unrestricted sampling season in New York. Chicago volunteers were active for more years and monitored individual locations more consistently over time than volunteers in New York. Differences in monitoring protocol--especially length of sampling season and selection protocol for monitoring locations--influenced the relationship between species accrual and sampling effort, which suggests these factors are important in volunteer-based species-monitoring programs.     

Eliciting expert knowledge in conservation science

Expert knowledge is used widely in the science and practice of conservation because of the complexity of problems, relative lack of data, and the imminent nature of many conservation decisions. Expert knowledge is substantive information on a particular topic that is not widely known by others. An expert is someone who holds this knowledge and who is often deferred to in its interpretation. We refer to predictions by experts of what may happen in a particular context as expert judgments. In general, an expert-elicitation approach consists of five steps: deciding how information will be used, determining what to elicit, designing the elicitation process, performing the elicitation, and translating the elicited information into quantitative statements that can be used in a model or directly to make decisions. This last step is known as encoding. Some of the considerations in eliciting expert knowledge include determining how to work with multiple experts and how to combine multiple judgments, minimizing bias in the elicited information, and verifying the accuracy of expert information. We highlight structured elicitation techniques that, if adopted, will improve the accuracy and information content of expert judgment and ensure uncertainty is captured accurately. We suggest four aspects of an expert elicitation exercise be examined to determine its comprehensiveness and effectiveness: study design and context, elicitation design, elicitation method, and elicitation output. Just as the reliability of empirical data depends on the rigor with which it was acquired so too does that of expert knowledge.     

Acoustically detected year-round presence of right whales in an urbanized migration corridor

Species' conservation relies on understanding their seasonal habitats and migration routes. North Atlantic right whales (Eubalaena glacialis), listed as endangered under the U.S. Endangered Species Act, migrate from the southeastern U.S. coast to Cape Cod Bay, Massachusetts, a federally designated critical habitat, from February through May to feed. The whales then continue north across the Gulf of Maine to northern waters (e.g., Bay of Fundy). To enter Cape Cod Bay, right whales must traverse an area of dense shipping and fishing activity in Massachusetts Bay, where there are no mandatory regulations for the protection of right whales or management of their habitat. We used passive acoustic recordings of right whales collected in Massachusetts Bay from May 2007 through October 2010 to determine the annual spatial and temporal distribution of the whales and their calling activity. We detected right whales in the bay throughout the year, in contrast to results from visual surveys. Right whales were detected on at least 24% of days in each month, with the exception of June 2007, in which there were no detections. Averaged over all years, right whale calls were most abundant from February through May. During this period, calls were most frequent between 17:00 and 20:00 local time; no diel pattern was apparent in other months. The spatial distribution of the approximate locations of calling whales suggests they may use Massachusetts Bay as a conduit to Cape Cod Bay in the spring and as they move between the Gulf of Maine and waters to the south in September through December. Although it is unclear how dependent right whales are on the bay, the discovery of their widespread presence in Massachusetts Bay throughout the year suggests this region may need to be managed to reduce the probability of collisions with ships and entanglement in fishing gear.     

Inadvertent advocacy

Policy advocacy is an issue regularly debated among conservation scientists. These debates have focused on intentional policy advocacy by scientists, but advocacy can also be unintentional. I define inadvertent policy advocacy as the act of unintentionally expressing personal policy preferences or ethical judgments in a way that is nearly indistinguishable from scientific judgments. A scientist may be well intentioned and intellectually honest but still inadvertently engage in policy advocacy. There are two ways to inadvertently engage in policy advocacy. First, a scientist expresses an opinion that she or he believes is a scientific judgment but it is actually an ethical judgment or personal policy preference. Second, a scientist expresses an opinion that he or she knows is an ethical judgment or personal policy preference but inadvertently fails to effectively communicate the nature of the opinion to policy makers or the public. I illustrate inadvertent advocacy with three examples: recovery criteria in recovery plans for species listed under the U.S. Endangered Species Act, a scientific peer review of a recovery plan for the Northern Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis caurina), and the International Union for Conservation of Nature's definition of threatened. In each example, scientists expressed ethical judgments or policy preferences, but their value judgments were not identified as such, and, hence, their value judgments were opaque to policy makers and the public. Circumstances suggest their advocacy was inadvertent. I believe conservation scientists must become acutely aware of the line between science and policy and avoid inadvertent policy advocacy because it is professional negligence, erodes trust in scientists and science, and perpetuates an ethical vacuum that undermines the rational political discourse necessary for the evolution of society's values. The principal remedy for inadvertent advocacy is education of conservation scientists in an effort to help them understand how science and values interact to fulfill the mission of conservation science.     

球形陶粒滤池对城市尾水净化效果研究

为明确以陶粒为填料生物滤池对尾水中主要营养物处理效果,选择球形陶粒滤池对城市尾水进行净化效果研究。试验在室温条件下采用水力停留时间约2 h,曝气量为0.4 L.min-1的陶粒曝气生物滤池装置对洛阳市某污水处理厂的尾水进行深度处理。研究结果表明：球形陶粒生物滤池对尾水中NH3-N去除效果良好,去除率达76%以上;同时该装置对TN,TP和COD具有同时去除作用。进一步研究陶粒对NH3-N吸附去除特征表明,其等温线吸附符合Freundlich Model,表明陶粒对NH3-N的吸附为多层吸附,且对NH3-N的吸附在5 h基本达到饱和吸附。     

不同硝/铵比值对小麦幼苗根系释放氢氧根的影响

为研发酸化土壤的生物修复技术,采用水培试验和自动电位滴定装置研究酸性条件下氮素形态对小麦幼苗根系释放氢氧根及培养液pH变化的影响。结果表明,小麦幼苗在初始pH值为4.0,n(NO3-)∶n(NH4+)比值(以下简称硝/铵比)分别为15∶1、3∶1和1∶1的营养液中培养6 d后营养液pH升高,且增幅随硝/铵比的增加而增大,小麦对硝态氮的吸收量和氢氧根释放量呈相同的变化趋势,说明小麦对硝态氮的吸收偏好导致根系释放氢氧根,进而使得培养液pH升高。小麦幼苗在硝/铵比为3∶1,初始pH值分别为4.0、4.5和5.0的营养液中培养6d后,培养液pH和氢氧根释放量的增幅随初始pH的升高而降低,说明低pH条件有利于小麦幼苗对硝态氮的吸收,可促进小麦根系释放更多的氢氧根。10 h的恒定pH试验结果表明,恒定pH条件下小麦根系释放的氢氧根数量大于非恒定pH条件,且硝态氮比例越大,差值越大。因此,可以根据小麦在酸性条件下对硝态氮的吸收偏好建立酸化土壤的生物修复方法,即调节硝态氮含量以加大小麦根系的氢氧根释放量,进而提高土壤pH。     

纳米Fe3O4对小鼠肺细胞的氧化损伤

纳米Fe3O4作为一种功能材料,在生物医药、生物靶向材料、微波吸收材料和高梯度磁分离器等方面应用前景广阔,其潜在的生物毒性也备受关注。为研究纳米Fe3O4对生物体可能造成的氧化损伤,以昆明小鼠为受试体,设置5、10、20和40mg·kg-14个染毒组,腹腔注射染毒7d后,测定小鼠肺组织中活性氧(reactive oxygen species,ROS)、还原型谷胱甘肽(glutathione,GSH)和丙二醛(malondialdehyde,MDA)的含量。结果显示,随着纳米Fe3O4染毒剂量的升高,肺组织ROS和MDA含量逐渐上升,GSH含量逐渐降低,各指标均呈一定的剂量-效应关系。剂量≥10mg·kg-1,肺组织ROS含量与对照组相比有显著差异(p<0.05);剂量≥20mg·kg-1,肺组织MDA含量与对照组相比有显著差异(p<0.05);剂量≥40mg·kg-1,肺组织GSH含量与对照组相比有显著差异(p<0.05)。研究表明,较高剂量(≥20mg·kg-1)的纳米Fe3O4颗粒材料会引起小鼠肺细胞的氧化损伤。     

Municipal solid waste management in Dalian: practices and challenges

The fast growing of urban areas in developing countries has brought serious problems on municipal solid waste (MSW) management. It will be rational to adopt an integrated approach to deal with such a challenge so that the overall eco-efficiency of MSW management could be improved. To better examine how attributes of integrated MSW management are being interpreted and put into practice, and to explore what changes should be made to improve the application of integrated MSW management, we employ a case study method so that lessons learned could be used to inform initiatives in other cities and the potential solution may offer feasible strategies. The case study city is Dalian, a typical seaport city with fast growing rate in economy. The outcomes of this case study show us that fragmented management structure, ineffective and inefficient enforcement of relevant regulations, backward technologies, limited financial resources and lack of public participation are main barriers for the implementation of integrated MSW management. Consequently, in order to overcome these barriers, we propose an integrated management framework on MSW management, aiming to maximize the overall eco-efficiency of MSW management.