Identifying and quantifying the effects of climate change that alter the habitat overlap of marine predators and their prey population distributions is of great importance for the sustainable management of populations. This study uses Bayesian joint models with integrated nested Laplace approximation (INLA) to predict future spatial density distributions in the form of common spatial trends of predator–prey overlap in 2050 under the “business-as-usual, worst-case” climate change scenario. This was done for combinations of six mobile marine predator species (gray seal, harbor seal, harbor porpoise, common guillemot, black-legged kittiwake, and northern gannet) and two of their common prey species (herring and sandeels). A range of five explanatory variables that cover both physical and biological aspects of critical marine habitat were used as follows: bottom temperature, stratification, depth-averaged speed, net primary production, and maximum subsurface chlorophyll. Four different methods were explored to quantify relative ecological cost/benefits of climate change to the common spatial trends of predator–prey density distributions. All but one future joint model showed significant decreases in overall spatial percentage change. The most dramatic loss in predator–prey population overlap was shown by harbor seals with large declines in the common spatial trend for both prey species. On the positive side, both gannets and guillemots are projected to have localized regions with increased overlap with sandeels. Most joint predator–prey models showed large changes in centroid location, however the direction of change in centroids was not simply northwards, but mostly ranged from northwest to northeast. This approach can be very useful in informing the design of spatial management policies under climate change by using the potential differences in ecological costs to weigh up the trade-offs in decisions involving issues of large-scale spatial use of our oceans, such as marine protected areas, commercial fishing, and large-scale marine renewable developments.
To consider the catastrophic situation of our environment, this environment sends lot of alarming events for us, not limited to the following: global warming, climate change, and pollution. Green purchasing behavior is one of the behaviors recommended to help sustain the environment. Three factors (social influence, environmental attitude, and environmental concern) are tested to see how they affect green purchasing behavior. A significant result was indicated between Social influence, Environmental concern and green purchasing behavior. The results provided empirical support to previous studies. Future research and limitation were discussed as well.
We argue that “ecological integrity” is a bad fit as a value for conservation biology and restoration ecology. Both fields are organized around shared values, but it is important to be clear about the specific values and reasons motivating protection of or interventions in specific ecosystems. In practice, appeals to ecological integrity often fail to account for losses in value when ecosystems change. Ultimately, we do not believe ecosystems are the kinds of things that have integrity. Ecosystems are simply too dynamic in space and time, their complex interconnections, including coevolved relationships, ultimately fleeting at the geological scale. Any impression of “wholeness” is an artifact of the brevity of human lives and the shallowness of our historical records. We believe “ecological integrity” as it is currently used is typically a proxy for the values of diversity, complexity, and cultural connections with beloved ecosystem states. We should simply say what we mean and retire the concept of “ecological integrity.”
Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas, and atmospheric concentrations have risen 2.5 times since the beginning of the Industrial age. While much of this increase is attributed to anthropogenic sources, natural sources, which contribute between 35% and 50% of global methane emissions, are thought to have a role in the atmospheric methane increase, in part due to human influences. Methane emissions from many natural sources are sensitive to climate, and positive feedbacks from climate change and cultural eutrophication may promote increased emissions to the atmosphere. These natural sources include aquatic environments such as wetlands, freshwater lakes, streams and rivers, and estuarine, coastal, and marine systems. Furthermore, there are significant marine sediment stores of methane in the form of clathrates that are vulnerable to mobilization and release to the atmosphere from climate feedbacks, and subsurface thermogenic gas which in exceptional cases may be released following accidents and disasters (North Sea blowout and Deepwater Horizon Spill respectively). Understanding of natural sources, key processes, and controls on emission is continually evolving as new measurement and modeling capabilities develop, and different sources and processes are revealed. This special issue of Limnology and Oceanography gathers together diverse studies on methane production, consumption, and emissions from freshwater, estuarine, and marine systems, and provides a broad view of the current science on methane dynamics of aquatic ecosystems. Here, we provide a general overview of aquatic methane sources, their contribution to the global methane budget, and key uncertainties. We then briefly summarize the contributions to and highlights of this special issue.