SELECTING TREND TESTS FOR WATER QUALITY SERIES WITH SERIAL CORRELATION AND MISSING VALUES1

ABSTRACT: The use of nonparametric tests for monotonic trend has flourished in recent years to support routine water quality data analyses. The validity of an assumption of independent, identically distributed error terms is an important concern in selecting the appropriate nonparametric test, as is the presence of missing values. Decision rules are needed for choosing between alternative tests and for deciding whether and how to pre-process data before trend testing. Several data pre-processing procedures in conjunction with the Mann-Kendall tau and the Seasonal Kendall test (with and without serial correlation correction) are evaluated using synthetic time series with generated serial correlation and missing data. A composite test (pre-testing for serial correlation followed by one of two trend tests) is evaluated and was found to perform satisfactorily.     

湖北省2008年初低温雨雪冰冻过程气候特征分析

2008年初，湖北省出现了严重的低温雨雪冰冻灾害，直接经济损失高达110亿元以上，有必要对灾害期间的气候特征进行系统、科学的分析和总结。对湖北省76个气象站2008年1月12日～2月3日气温、降水（雪）、日照以及低温持续日数等要素进行时空间差异分析及历史与同期比较，并选取10个代表站历史上所有低温雨雪天气过程，对其过程持续低温日数、最长连续雨雪日数、过程极端低温进行比较分析。结果表明：（1）此次过程的平均气温异常偏低，该省大部为-1～-2℃，比常年同期偏低4～6℃，为各站历史同期最低，其中主要是最高气温异常偏低所致，但极端低温并不低；（2）降雪过程频繁，雨雪量异常偏多；（3）低温冰冻持续时间长，该省大部在16～22 d，位于历史第一；（4）日照异常偏少。持续而稳定的大气环流异常形势是湖北省大范围低温雨雪天气的直接原因。     

水质监测频率与极端气候对高原湖泊入湖河流氮磷通量估算的影响

河流是流域氮磷营养盐的主要输出途径之一,准确掌握其通量变化和驱动因素对流域营养盐管理具有重要意义.本研究以滇池主要入湖河流宝象河为例,基于周水质观测数据和逐日水量数据,构建了河流氮磷通量LOADSET模型.估算了宝象河不同时间尺度（日、季、年）TN和TP的通量,评估了4种低频水质采样和极端气候指数对河流氮磷通量计算的影响.结果表明：①2018年宝象河的TN和TP年通量分别为270.49 t和11.19 t,存在显著的年内差异,夏季是通量最高的季节,分别占TN和TP年通量的40.78%和41.96%.②基于LOADEST模型的低频水质采样的氮磷估算结果与高频采样差异较小,宝象河TN、TP通量估算受采样频率影响较小.③宝象河的TN和TP通量变化受连续5日最大降水量、平均最低气温、平均最高气温、最低气温、最低气温极大值、最高气温极小值和平均温差7种极端气候指数的显著影响.     

Selecting Socio-Economic Metrics for Watershed Management

The selection of social and economic metrics to document baseline conditions and analyze the dynamic relationships between ecosystems and human communities are important decisions for scientists, managers, and watershed citizens. A large variety of social and economic data is available but these have limited use without theoretical frameworks. In this paper, several frameworks for reviewing social-ecosystem relations are offered, namely social sanctions, sense of place, civic structure, and cultural differences. Underlying all of these frameworks are attitudes, beliefs, values, and norms that affect which questions are asked and which indicators are chosen. Much work and significant challenges remain in developing a standard set of spatially based socio-economic metrics for watershed management.     

环境价值的循环模式初探

环境污染对环境产生的负价值与环境保护对环境产生的正价值相互作用、相互抵消的运动过程，体现了环境整体价值在人类经济社会活动影响下的具体演化模式。文章探讨了环境价值的循环途径、环境资源价值的模型，并对模型进行了具体分析，以期帮助人们提高对环境价值的认识。     

Specific Contributions of Politics,Economics, and Toxicology in Setting Socially Consensual Limit Values

/ Limit values are legal limits for the concentrations of substances in the environment. They must be agreed upon in a consensual procedure between science, economics/technology, and political forces. This is a crucial political precondition for their social acceptance. The arguments put forward to justify their expediency and numerical level are based not only on risk-benefit considerations but also on the aspect of the technical avoidability of direct and indirect exposure. The critical assessment of the direct benefit of specified exposures falls within the responsibility of economics/technology, whereas criteria for their potential adverse effects (direct and indirect) are provided by medicine/biochemistry and/or ecology. Within this concept, the avoidance of nonbeneficial-even if not openly adverse-exposure is the essential aim of environmental hygiene and should be promoted by politics/science. In general, society or segments thereof reject adverse, accept beneficial, and tolerate unavoidable exposure. Conflicts of interest arise when different groups of society simultaneously define a given exposure as being adverse, beneficial, and unavoidable. Therefore, from the viewpoint of society as a whole, an optimal exposure lies as far as reasonably achievable at a level lower than known or plausible adverse effect thresholds (as defined by toxicology or ecology). This optimal level of exposure must be determined using a transparent and, hence, public procedure.KEY WORDS: Legal limit values; Benefit threshold; Social acceptance; Social tolerability; Adverse effect threshold; Avoidable exposure; Tolerance threshold; Environmental hygiene     

Threshold values for domino effects caused by blast wave interaction with process equipment

The present study focuses on the definition and assessment of overpressure threshold values for the damage to equipment caused by blast waves originated by primary accidental scenarios. A revision of literature data and of the available damage probability models was carried out. Threshold values were proposed for different categories of process equipment, taking into account either damage levels or release intensities following the loss of containment. Specific threshold values for domino effect were also proposed.     

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.     

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.     

The Ethics of Reviving Long Extinct Species

There now appears to be a plausible pathway for reviving species that have been extinct for several decades, centuries, or even millennia. I conducted an ethical analysis of de‐extinction of long extinct species. I assessed several possible ethical considerations in favor of pursuing de‐extinction: that it is a matter of justice; that it would reestablish lost value; that it would create new value; and that society needs it as a conservation last resort. I also assessed several possible ethical arguments against pursuing de‐extinction: that it is unnatural; that it could cause animal suffering; that it could be ecologically problematic or detrimental to human health; and that it is hubristic. There are reasons in favor of reviving long extinct species, and it can be ethically acceptable to do so. However, the reasons in favor of pursuing de‐extinction do not have to do with its usefulness in species conservation; rather, they concern the status of revived species as scientific and technological achievements, and it would be ethically problematic to promote de‐extinction as a significant conservation strategy, because it does not prevent species extinctions, does not address the causes of extinction, and could be detrimental to some species conservation efforts. Moreover, humanity does not have a responsibility or obligation to pursue de‐extinction of long extinct species, and reviving them does not address any urgent problem. Therefore, legitimate ecological, political, animal welfare, legal, or human health concerns associated with a de‐extinction (and reintroduction) must be thoroughly addressed for it to be ethically acceptable. La Ética de Revivir Especies Extintas Hace Mucho Tiempo Sandler