Tree-rings,a key ecological indicator of environment and climate change

Due to wide spatial distribution, high annual resolution, calendar-exact dating, and high climate sensitivity, tree-rings play an important role in reconstructing past environment and climate change over the past millennium at regional, hemispheric or even global scales, so tree-rings can help us to better understand climate behaviour and its mechanisms in the past and then predict variation trends for the future. In this paper, we will review latest advances in tree-ring-based climate reconstructions in China and their applications in modelling past local/regional climate change, capturing historical climatic extreme events, as well as analyzing their link to large-scale climate patterns.     

RUNAWAY COEVOLUTION: ADAPTATION TO HERITABLE AND NONHERITABLE ENVIRONMENTS

Populations evolve in response to the external environment, whether abiotic (e.g., climate) or biotic (e.g., other conspecifics). We investigated how adaptation to biotic, heritable environments differs from adaptation to abiotic, nonheritable environments. We found that, for the same selection coefficients, the coadaptive process between genes and heritable environments is much faster than genetic adaptation to an abiotic nonheritable environment. The increased rate of adaptation results from the positive association generated by reciprocal selection between the heritable environment and the genes responding to it. These associations result in a runaway process of adaptive coevolution, even when the genes creating the heritable environment and genes responding to the heritable environment are unlinked. Although tightening the degree of linkage accelerates the coadaptive process, the acceleration caused by a comparable amount of inbreeding is greater, because inbreeding has a cumulative effect on reducing functional recombination over generations. Our results suggest that that adaptation to local abiotic environmental variation may result in the rapid diversification of populations and subsequent reproductive isolation not directly but rather via its effects on heritable environments and the genes responding to them.     

Preventing Ultimate Harm as the Justification for Biomoral Modification

Most advocates of biogenetic modification hope to amplify existing human traits in humans in order to increase the value of such traits as intelligence and resistance to disease. These advocates defend such enhancements as beneficial for the affected parties. By contrast, some commentators recommend certain biogenetic modifications to serve social goals. As Ingmar Persson and Julian Savulescu see things, human moral psychology is deficient relative to the most important risks facing humanity as a whole, including the prospect of Ultimate Harm, the point at which worthwhile life is forever impossible on the planet. These risks can be mitigated, they say, by enhancing moral psychology in novel ways. Persson and Savulescu argue that some parents should modify the underlying biogenetics of their children's moral psychology, if such measures were safe and effective, but they admit these interventions may not decouple humanity from Ultimate Harm. Neither are these modifications the only options, they concede, for addressing risks to humanity. Even with these concessions, saving humanity from itself is a fairly poor reason to modify the moral psychology of children. In most ways, adults would be better candidates, morally speaking, for modifications of psychology. Even then, there is no direct link between morally enhanced human beings and the hoped‐for effect of better protection from Ultimate Harm. Asserting a general duty of all to contribute to the avoidance of Ultimate Harm is a better moral strategy than intervening in the moral psychology of some, even though meeting that duty may involve substantial interference with the free exercise of one's interests.     

Reply to the first systematic response by the Global Footprint Network to criticism: A real debate finally?

We respond to a reaction of the Global Footprint Network/GFN on our 8-point criticism of the ecological footprint. We also refer to, and comment on, an associated debate in this journal between Giampietro and Saltelli, 2014a, Giampietro and Saltelli, 2014b, on the one hand, and Goldfinger et al. (2014), on the other. We conclude that criticism on the footprint is accumulating and coherent across the various studies and disciplines and among the different authors. This was the first time that Wackernagel/GFN systematically responded to our criticisms. Hence, our response contains several original elements and the resulting exchange can be seen to add value to the existing literature. It ultimately allows readers to better make up their mind about the different viewpoints on the ecological footprint.     

生态意识及其主要特点

一、生态意识产生的时代背景生态意识作为人类思想的先进观念,产生于20世纪后半叶。产业革命以来二百多年,人类依据先进科学技术武装的强大生产力,无限制地向自然进     

Ecological indicators to capture the effects of fishing on biodiversity and conservation status of marine ecosystems

IndiSeas (“Indicators for the Seas”) is a collaborative international working group that was established in 2005 to evaluate the status of exploited marine ecosystems using a suite of indicators in a comparative framework. An initial shortlist of seven ecological indicators was selected to quantify the effects of fishing on the broader ecosystem using several criteria (i.e., ecological meaning, sensitivity to fishing, data availability, management objectives and public awareness). The suite comprised: (i) the inverse coefficient of variation of total biomass of surveyed species, (ii) mean fish length in the surveyed community, (iii) mean maximum life span of surveyed fish species, (iv) proportion of predatory fish in the surveyed community, (v) proportion of under and moderately exploited stocks, (vi) total biomass of surveyed species, and (vii) mean trophic level of the landed catch. In line with the Nagoya Strategic Plan of the Convention on Biological Diversity (2011–2020), we extended this suite to emphasize the broader biodiversity and conservation risks in exploited marine ecosystems. We selected a subset of indicators from a list of empirically based candidate biodiversity indicators initially established based on ecological significance to complement the original IndiSeas indicators. The additional selected indicators were: (viii) mean intrinsic vulnerability index of the fish landed catch, (ix) proportion of non-declining exploited species in the surveyed community, (x) catch-based marine trophic index, and (xi) mean trophic level of the surveyed community. Despite the lack of data in some ecosystems, we also selected (xii) mean trophic level of the modelled community, and (xiii) proportion of discards in the fishery as extra indicators. These additional indicators were examined, along with the initial set of IndiSeas ecological indicators, to evaluate whether adding new biodiversity indicators provided useful additional information to refine our understanding of the status evaluation of 29 exploited marine ecosystems. We used state and trend analyses, and we performed correlation, redundancy and multivariate tests. Existing developments in ecosystem-based fisheries management have largely focused on exploited species. Our study, using mostly fisheries independent survey-based indicators, highlights that biodiversity and conservation-based indicators are complementary to ecological indicators of fishing pressure. Thus, they should be used to provide additional information to evaluate the overall impact of fishing on exploited marine ecosystems.     

Bird sensitivity to disturbance as an indicator of forest patch conditions: An issue in environmental assessments

An Environmental Assessment (EA) is one of the steps within the Environmental Impact Assessment process. Birds are often used in EA to help decision makers evaluate potential human impacts from proposed development activities. A “sensitivity to human disturbance” index, created by Parker III et al. (1996) for all Neotropical species, is commonly considered an ecological indicator. However, this parameter was created subjectively and, for most species, there have been no rigorous field test to validate its effectiveness as such. Therefore, in this study, we aim to: (1) evaluate if, at the local scale, birds from forest patches in a human-modified landscape (HML) may differ in sensitivity from Parker's sensitivity classification; (2) evaluate the effectiveness of the species richness value at each sensitivity level as an ecological indicator; (3) gather information on how often and in which manner Parker's classification has been used in EA. To do so, bird sampling was performed in eight forest patches in a HML over one year. Then, we created a local sensitivity to disturbance using information about threat, endemism, spatial distribution and relative abundance of all species in the study area. We found that 37% of the forest birds showed different local sensitivity levels when compared with Parker's classification. Our results show that only the richness of high-sensitivity species from our local classification fitted the ecological indicator assumptions helping the environmental conditions evaluation of the studied patches. We conclude that species richness of each Parker's bird sensitivity levels do not necessarily perform as an ecological indicator at the local scale, and particularly in HML. Nevertheless, Parker's Neotropical bird sensitivity classification was used in 50% of EA we reviewed. In these, 76% assumed that it was an accurate ecological indicator of the local forest conditions for birds. The lack of clear criteria used in Parker's classification allows diverse interpretations by ornithologists, and there is no agreement about the ecological meaning of each sensitivity level and what environmental conditions each level may indicate of. Therefore, the use of Parker's classification in EA may jeopardize accurate interpretations of proposed anthropogenic impacts. Furthermore, because a bird species’ sensitivity often varies between locations, we argue that Parker's generalized classification of bird sensitivity should not be used as an indicator of forest environmental conditions in EA throughout HMLs in Neotropics. Rather, local bird ecological indices should be explored, otherwise, erroneous predictions of the anthropogenic impacts will continue to be common.     

The effects of environment and ownership on children's innovation of tools and tool material selection

Research indicates that in experimental settings, young children of 3–7 years old are unlikely to devise a simple tool to solve a problem. This series of exploratory studies done in museums in the US and UK explores how environment and ownership of materials may improve children''s ability and inclination for (i) tool material selection and (ii) innovation. The first study takes place in a children''s museum, an environment where children can use tools and materials freely. We replicated a tool innovation task in this environment and found that while 3–4 year olds showed the predicted low levels of innovation rates, 4–7 year olds showed higher rates of innovation than the younger children and than reported in prior studies. The second study explores the effect of whether the experimental materials are owned by the experimenter or the child on tool selection and innovation. Results showed that 5–6 year olds and 6–7 year olds were more likely to select tool material they owned compared to tool material owned by the experimenter, although ownership had no effect on tool innovation. We argue that learning environments supporting tool exploration and invention and conveying ownership over materials may encourage successful tool innovation at earlier ages.