Looking back - Looking forward: A novel multi-time slice weight-of-evidence approach for defining reference conditions to assess the impact of human activities on lake systems.
TL;DR: This paper discusses the use of sediment and other lines of evidence in providing a record of historical and current contamination in lake ecosystems and presents a novel approach to investigate impacts from human activities using chemical- Analytical, bioanalytical, ecological, paleolimnological, paleoecotoxicological, archeological and modeling techniques.
About: This article is published in Science of The Total Environment.The article was published on 2018-06-01. It has received 12 citations till now. The article focuses on the topics: Environmental monitoring & Water Framework Directive.
Citations
More filters
01 Jan 2016
282 citations
124 citations
TL;DR: The spatial distributions of the PAH concentrations show that the inflow rivers into Zhushan Bay and Meiliang Bay were the main pathway for PAHs and sediment input to the northern part of the lake, and the different perylene sources accompanied with the location distributions imply that anthropogenic activities could inhibit its biogenic formation.
26 citations
TL;DR: This study validates the use of biological assays as a rapid, sensitive, and cost-effective method to evaluate DLCs and their effects in sediment samples and provides support for the conclusion that DLCs have limited remobilization capacity in marine sediments.
15 citations
TL;DR: This study provided a new way to estimate the spatial distribution of potential ecological carrying capacity and found that spatial simulations of PNDVI, PNPP, and PECC can better quantify the difference between actual and potential ecological conditions under external pressures and can provide a trustworthy scientific basis for formulating differentiated ecological restoration strategies.
Abstract: It is urgent to explore the potential ecological carrying capacity (PECC) of regions where the study of ecological carrying capacity (ECC) is difficult to meet the real-world requirements of building an ecological civilization. In this study, classification and regression tree models were applied for estimating potential normalized difference vegetation index (PNDVI) based on climate variables and training data of actual NDVI. Then, potential net primary productivity (PNPP) was simulated by using Carnegie-Ames-Stanford Approach (CASA) model and PNDVI. On this basis, PECC of 31 provinces in China was estimated using the improved ecological footprint model and compared results with actual condition in 2015. The results showed the following: per capita PECC presented immense spatial differences, with high values in the northwest and low values in the southeast. The total PECCs of eight provinces were far greater than their actual total ECCs in 2015. Human activities in five provinces had the greatest negative impact on the ecological environment and the greatest pressure on ecological restoration. This study provided a new way to estimate the spatial distribution of potential ecological carrying capacity and found that spatial simulations of PNDVI, PNPP, and PECC can better quantify the difference between actual and potential ecological conditions under external pressures and can provide a trustworthy scientific basis for formulating differentiated ecological restoration strategies.
11 citations
References
More filters
TL;DR: The concept of resilience has evolved considerably since Holling's (1973) seminal paper as discussed by the authors and different interpretations of what is meant by resilience, however, cause confusion, and it can be counterproductive to seek definitions that are too narrow.
Abstract: The concept of resilience has evolved considerably since Holling’s (1973) seminal paper. Different interpretations of what is meant by resilience, however, cause confusion. Resilience of a system needs to be considered in terms of the attributes that govern the system’s dynamics. Three related attributes of social– ecological systems (SESs) determine their future trajectories: resilience, adaptability, and transformability. Resilience (the capacity of a system to absorb disturbance and reorganize while undergoing change so as to still retain essentially the same function, structure, identity, and feedbacks) has four components—latitude, resistance, precariousness, and panarchy—most readily portrayed using the metaphor of a stability landscape. Adaptability is the capacity of actors in the system to influence resilience (in a SES, essentially to manage it). There are four general ways in which this can be done, corresponding to the four aspects of resilience. Transformability is the capacity to create a fundamentally new system when ecological, economic, or social structures make the existing system untenable. The implications of this interpretation of SES dynamics for sustainability science include changing the focus from seeking optimal states and the determinants of maximum sustainable yield (the MSY paradigm), to resilience analysis, adaptive resource management, and adaptive governance. INTRODUCTION An inherent difficulty in the application of these concepts is that, by their nature, they are rather imprecise. They fall into the same sort of category as “justice” or “wellbeing,” and it can be counterproductive to seek definitions that are too narrow. Because different groups adopt different interpretations to fit their understanding and purpose, however, there is confusion in their use. The confusion then extends to how a resilience approach (Holling 1973, Gunderson and Holling 2002) can contribute to the goals of sustainable development. In what follows, we provide an interpretation and an explanation of how these concepts are reflected in the adaptive cycles of complex, multi-scalar SESs. We need a better scientific basis for sustainable development than is generally applied (e.g., a new “sustainability science”). The “Consortium for Sustainable Development” (of the International Council for Science, the Initiative on Science and Technology for Sustainability, and the Third World Academy of Science), the US National Research Council (1999, 2002), and the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2003), have all focused increasing attention on such notions as robustness, vulnerability, and risk. There is good reason for this, as it is these characteristics of social–ecological systems (SESs) that will determine their ability to adapt to and benefit from change. In particular, the stability dynamics of all linked systems of humans and nature emerge from three complementary attributes: resilience, adaptability, and transformability. The purpose of this paper is to examine these three attributes; what they mean, how they interact, and their implications for our future well-being. There is little fundamentally new theory in this paper. What is new is that it uses established theory of nonlinear stability (Levin 1999, Scheffer et al. 2001, Gunderson and Holling 2002, Berkes et al. 2003) to clarify, explain, and diagnose known examples of regional development, regional poverty, and regional CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems; University of Wisconsin-Madison; Arizona State University Ecology and Society 9(2): 5. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss2/art5 sustainability. These include, among others, the Everglades and the Wisconsin Northern Highlands Lake District in the USA, rangelands and an agricultural catchment in southeastern Australia, the semi-arid savanna in southeastern Zimbabwe, the Kristianstad “Water Kingdom” in southern Sweden, and the Mae Ping valley in northern Thailand. These regions provide examples of both successes and failures of development. Some from rich countries have generated several pulses of solutions over a span of a hundred years and have generated huge costs of recovery (the Everglades). Some from poor countries have emerged in a transformed way but then, in some cases, have been dragged back by higher-level autocratic regimes (Zimbabwe). Some began as localscale solutions and then developed as transformations across scales from local to regional (Kristianstad and northern Wisconsin). In all of them, the outcomes were determined by the interplay of their resilience, adaptability, and transformability. There is a major distinction between resilience and adaptability, on the one hand, and transformability on the other. Resilience and adaptability have to do with the dynamics of a particular system, or a closely related set of systems. Transformability refers to fundamentally altering the nature of a system. As with many terms under the resilience rubric, the dividing line between “closely related” and “fundamentally altered” can be fuzzy, and subject to interpretation. So we begin by first offering the most general, qualitative set of definitions, without reference to conceptual frameworks, that can be used to describe these terms. We then use some examples and the literature on “basins of attraction” and “stability landscapes” to further refine our definitions. Before giving the definitions, however, we need to briefly introduce the concept of adaptive cycles. Adaptive Cycles and Cross-scale Effects The dynamics of SESs can be usefully described and analyzed in terms of a cycle, known as an adaptive cycle, that passes through four phases. Two of them— a growth and exploitation phase (r) merging into a conservation phase (K)—comprise a slow, cumulative forward loop of the cycle, during which the dynamics of the system are reasonably predictable. As the K phase continues, resources become increasingly locked up and the system becomes progressively less flexible and responsive to external shocks. It is eventually, inevitably, followed by a chaotic collapse and release phase (Ω) that rapidly gives way to a phase of reorganization (α), which may be rapid or slow, and during which, innovation and new opportunities are possible. The Ω and α phases together comprise an unpredictable backloop. The α phase leads into a subsequent r phase, which may resemble the previous r phase or be significantly different. This metaphor of the adaptive cycle is based on observed system changes, and does not imply fixed, regular cycling. Systems can move back from K toward r, or from r directly into Ω, or back from α to Ω. Finally (and importantly), the cycles occur at a number of scales and SESs exist as “panarchies”— adaptive cycles interacting across multiple scales. These cross-scale effects are of great significance in the dynamics of SESs.
5,745 citations
"Looking back - Looking forward: A n..." refers background in this paper
...Since the connection between human activity and climate change became evident, it has become clear that social-ecological systems are complex adaptive entitieswhich are tightly connected to human society (Leuteritz and Ekbia, 2008; Muradian, 2001; Walker et al., 2004)....
[...]
Book•
01 Apr 2008
TL;DR: In this paper, the role of local ecological knowledge in ecosystem management is explored, and the strategy of the commons is used to build resilience in local management systems in a lagoon fishery.
Abstract: 1. Introduction Fikret Berkes, Johan Colding and Carl Folke Part I. Perspectives on Resilience: 2. Adaptive dancing Lance Gunderson 3. Nature and society through the lens of resilience Iain J. Davidson-Hunt and Fikret Berkes 4. Redundancy and diversity Bobbi Low, Elinor Ostrom, Carl Simon and James Wilson Part II. Building Resilience in Local Management Systems: 5. The strategy of the commons Lars Carlsson 6. Management practices for building adaptive capacity Maria Tengo and Monica Hammer 7. Living with disturbance Johan Colding, Per Olsson and Thomas Elmqvist Part III. Social-ecological Learning and Adaption: 8. Exploring the role of local ecological knowledge in ecosystem management Madhav Gadgil, Per Olsson, Fikret Berkes and Carl Folke 9. Facing the adaptive challenge Kristen Blann, Steve Light and Jo Ann Musumeci 10. Caribou co-management in northern Canada Anne Kendrick Part IV. Cross-scale Institutional Response to Change: 11. Dynamics of social-ecological changes in a lagoon fishery in southern Brazil Cristiana Seixas and Fikret Berkes 12. Keeping ecological resilience afloat in cross-scale turbulence Janis Alcorn, John Bamba, Stefanus Masiun, Ita Natalia and Antoinette Royo 13. Policy transformations in the US Forest Sector, 1970-2000 Ronald L. Trosper 14. Synthesis Carl Folke, Johan Colding and Fikret Berkes.
3,208 citations
"Looking back - Looking forward: A n..." refers background in this paper
...The process of adaptive co-management (Folke et al., 2002; Olsson et al., 2004) provides a possibility to react to such environmental feedback and direct these coupled socialecological systems into sustainable trajectories thereby enhancing their resilience (Berkes et al., 2008; Gunderson, 2003)....
[...]
..., 2004) provides a possibility to react to such environmental feedback and direct these coupled socialecological systems into sustainable trajectories thereby enhancing their resilience (Berkes et al., 2008; Gunderson, 2003)....
[...]
TL;DR: The concept of resilience—the capacity to buffer change, learn and develop—is used as a framework for understanding how to sustain and enhance adaptive capacity in a complex world of rapid transformations.
Abstract: Emerging recognition of two fundamental errors under-pinning past polices for natural resource issues heralds awareness of the need for a worldwide fundamental change in thinking and in practice of environmental management. The first error has been an implicit assumption that ecosystem responses to human use are linear, predictable and controllable. The second has been an assumption that human and natural systems can be treated independently. However, evidence that has been accumulating in diverse regions all over the world suggests that natural and social systems behave in nonlinear ways, exhibit marked thresholds in their dynamics, and that social-ecological systems act as strongly coupled, complex and evolving integrated systems. This article is a summary of a report prepared on behalf of the Environmental Advisory Council to the Swedish Government, as input to the process of the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) in Johannesburg, South Africa in 26 August 4 September 2002. We use the concept of resilience—the capacity to buffer change, learn and develop—as a framework for understanding how to sustain and enhance adaptive capacity in a complex world of rapid transformations. Two useful tools for resilience-building in social-ecological systems are structured scenarios and active adaptive management. These tools require and facilitate a social context with flexible and open institutions and multi-level governance systems that allow for learning and increase adaptive capacity without foreclosing future development options.
2,905 citations
"Looking back - Looking forward: A n..." refers background in this paper
...The process of adaptive co-management (Folke et al., 2002; Olsson et al., 2004) provides a possibility to react to such environmental feedback and direct these coupled socialecological systems into sustainable trajectories thereby enhancing their resilience (Berkes et al., 2008; Gunderson, 2003)....
[...]
...The process of adaptive co-management (Folke et al., 2002; Olsson et al., 2004) provides a possibility to react to such environmental feedback and direct these coupled socialecological systems into sustainable trajectories thereby enhancing their resilience (Berkes et al....
[...]
Book•
26 Mar 1986
TL;DR: A review of the key palaeoecological methods applied to primarily organic lake and mire deposits can be found in this article, with particular attention paid to Holocene environmental changes in the temperate zone.
Abstract: This handbook reviews the key palaeoecological methods applied to primarily organic lake and mire deposits. Particular attention is paid to Holocene environmental changes in the temperate zone, but most methods can be applied to older Quaternary deposits and to areas outside the temperate zone. The need for uniform methods of correlating stratigraphical data on a continental scale is emphasized. The first part of the book concentrates upon the theoretical background to environmental change, examining relationships between physical and biological environments and how they are affected by changes in climate, hydrology and human impact. The research strategy applied to palaeoecological studies of lakes and mires is then considered, introducing the concept of 'reference sites' for stratigraphical correlations. Recommended methods for dealing with these sites are described in subsequent sections. These include sampling and mapping techniques, stratigraphical methods, dating methods, and physical, chemical and biological methods. The numerical treatment of biostratigraphical data is discussed in the final section. The content is based upon the work of the International Geological Correlation Programme Project 158B.
1,772 citations
"Looking back - Looking forward: A n..." refers background in this paper
...Soil erosion is recorded in sediments by an increasing amount of minerogenic material and by changes in the chemical composition (e.g., by an increase of Ti; Berglund, 1987; Cohen, 2003; Lehmkuhl et al., 2014)....
[...]
TL;DR: It is proposed that the self-organizing process of adaptive comanagement development, facilitated by rules and incentives of higher levels, has the potential to expand desirable stability domains of a region and make social–ecological systems more robust to change.
Abstract: Ecosystems are complex adaptive systems that require flexible governance with the ability to respond to environmental feedback. We present, through examples from Sweden and Canada, the development of adaptive comanagement systems, showing how local groups self-organize, learn, and actively adapt to and shape change with social networks that connect institutions and organizations across levels and scales and that facilitate information flows. The development took place through a sequence of responses to environmental events that widened the scope of local management from a particular issue or resource to a broad set of issues related to ecosystem processes across scales and from individual actors, to group of actors to multiple-actor processes. The results suggest that the institutional and organizational landscapes should be approached as carefully as the ecological in order to clarify features that contribute to the resilience of social-ecological systems. These include the following: vision, leadership, and trust; enabling legislation that creates social space for ecosystem management; funds for responding to environmental change and for remedial action; capacity for monitoring and responding to environmental feedback; information flow through social networks; the combination of various sources of information and knowledge; and sense-making and arenas of collaborative learning for ecosystem management. We propose that the self-organizing process of adaptive comanagement development, facilitated by rules and incentives of higher levels, has the potential to expand desirable stability domains of a region and make social-ecological systems more robust to change.
1,705 citations
"Looking back - Looking forward: A n..." refers background in this paper
...The process of adaptive co-management (Folke et al., 2002; Olsson et al., 2004) provides a possibility to react to such environmental feedback and direct these coupled socialecological systems into sustainable trajectories thereby enhancing their resilience (Berkes et al., 2008; Gunderson, 2003)....
[...]
...The process of adaptive co-management (Folke et al., 2002; Olsson et al., 2004) provides a possibility to react to such environmental feedback and direct these coupled socialecological systems into sustainable trajectories thereby enhancing their resilience (Berkes et al....
[...]