Adaptive management for ecosystem services

Management of natural resources for the production of ecosystem services, which are vital for human well-being, is necessary even when there is uncertainty regarding system response to management action. This uncertainty is the result of incomplete controllability, complex internal feedbacks, and nonlinearity that often interferes with desired management outcomes, and insufficient understanding of nature and people. Adaptive management was developed to reduce such uncertainty. We present a framework for the application of adaptive management for ecosystem services that explicitly accounts for cross-scale tradeoffs in the production of ecosystem services. Our framework focuses on identifying key spatiotemporal scales (plot, patch, ecosystem, landscape, and region) that encompass dominant structures and processes in the system, and includes within- and cross-scale dynamics, ecosystem service tradeoffs, and management controllability within and across scales. Resilience theory recognizes that a limited set of ecological processes in a given system regulate ecosystem services, yet our understanding of these processes is poorly understood. If management actions erode or remove these processes, the system may shift into an alternative state unlikely to support the production of desired services. Adaptive management provides a process to assess the underlying within and cross-scale tradeoffs associated with production of ecosystem services while proceeding with management designed to meet the demands of a growing human population

Adaptive management for ecosystem services

Management of natural resources for the production of ecosystem services, which are vital for human well-being, is necessary even when there is uncertainty regarding system response to management action. This uncertainty is the result of incomplete controllability, complex internal feedbacks, and nonlinearity that often interferes with desired management outcomes, and insufficient understanding of nature and people. Adaptive management was developed to reduce such uncertainty. We present a framework for the application of adaptive management for ecosystem services that explicitly accounts for cross-scale tradeoffs in the production of ecosystem services. Our framework focuses on identifying key spatiotemporal scales (plot, patch, ecosystem, landscape, and region) that encompass dominant structures and processes in the system, and includes within- and cross-scale dynamics, ecosystem service tradeoffs, and management controllability within and across scales. Resilience theory recognizes that a limited set of ecological processes in a given system regulate ecosystem services, yet our understanding of these processes is poorly understood. If management actions erode or remove these processes, the system may shift into an alternative state unlikely to support the production of desired services. Adaptive management provides a process to assess the underlying within and cross-scale tradeoffs associated with production of ecosystem services while proceeding with management designed to meet the demands of a growing human population

Balancing stability and flexibility in adaptive governance: an analysis of tools available in U.S. environmental law

Adaptive governance must work “on the ground,” that is, it must operate through structures and procedures that the people it governs perceive to be legitimate and fair, as well as incorporating processes and substantive goals that are effective in allowing social-ecological systems (SESs) to adapt to climate change and other impacts. To address the continuing and accelerating alterations that climate change is bringing to SESs, adaptive governance generally will require more flexibility than prior governance institutions have often allowed. However, to function as good governance, adaptive governance must pay real attention to the problem of how to balance this increased need for flexibility with continuing governance stability so that it can foster adaptation to change without being perceived or experienced as perpetually destabilizing, disruptive, and unfair. Flexibility and stability serve different purposes in governance, and a variety of tools exist to strike different balances between them while still preserving the governance institution’s legitimacy among the people governed. After reviewing those purposes and the implications of climate change for environmental governance, we examine psychological insights into the structuring of adaptive governance and the variety of legal tools available to incorporate those insights into adaptive governance regimes. Because the substantive goals of governance systems will differ among specific systems, we do not purport to comment on what the normative or substantive goals of law should be. Instead, we conclude that attention to process and procedure (including participation), as well as increased use of substantive standards (instead of rules), may allow an increased level of substantive flexibility to operate with legitimacy and fairness, providing the requisite levels of psychological, social, and economic stability needed for communities to adapt successfully to the Anthropocene

Balancing stability and flexibility in adaptive governance: an analysis of tools available in U.S. environmental law

Adaptive governance must work “on the ground,” that is, it must operate through structures and procedures that the people it governs perceive to be legitimate and fair, as well as incorporating processes and substantive goals that are effective in allowing social-ecological systems (SESs) to adapt to climate change and other impacts. To address the continuing and accelerating alterations that climate change is bringing to SESs, adaptive governance generally will require more flexibility than prior governance institutions have often allowed. However, to function as good governance, adaptive governance must pay real attention to the problem of how to balance this increased need for flexibility with continuing governance stability so that it can foster adaptation to change without being perceived or experienced as perpetually destabilizing, disruptive, and unfair. Flexibility and stability serve different purposes in governance, and a variety of tools exist to strike different balances between them while still preserving the governance institution’s legitimacy among the people governed. After reviewing those purposes and the implications of climate change for environmental governance, we examine psychological insights into the structuring of adaptive governance and the variety of legal tools available to incorporate those insights into adaptive governance regimes. Because the substantive goals of governance systems will differ among specific systems, we do not purport to comment on what the normative or substantive goals of law should be. Instead, we conclude that attention to process and procedure (including participation), as well as increased use of substantive standards (instead of rules), may allow an increased level of substantive flexibility to operate with legitimacy and fairness, providing the requisite levels of psychological, social, and economic stability needed for communities to adapt successfully to the Anthropocene

Gene expression profiling to study racial differences after heart transplantation.

BackgroundThe basis for increased mortality after heart transplantation in African Americans and other non-Caucasian racial groups is poorly defined. We hypothesized that increased risk of adverse events is driven by biologic factors. To test this hypothesis in the Invasive Monitoring Attenuation through Gene Expression (IMAGE) study, we determined whether the event rate of the primary outcome of acute rejection, graft dysfunction, death, or retransplantation varied by race as a function of calcineurin inhibitor (CNI) levels and gene expression profile (GEP) scores.MethodsWe determined the event rate of the primary outcome, comparing racial groups, stratified by time after transplant. Logistic regression was used to compute the relative risk across racial groups, and linear modeling was used to measure the dependence of CNI levels and GEP score on race.ResultsIn 580 patients monitored for a median of 19 months, the incidence of the primary end point was 18.3% in African Americans, 22.2% in other non-Caucasians, and 8.5% in Caucasians (p < 0.001). There were small but significant correlations of race and tacrolimus trough levels to the GEP score. Tacrolimus levels were similar among the races. Of patients receiving tacrolimus, other non-Caucasians had higher GEP scores than the other racial groups. African American recipients demonstrated a unique decrease in expression of the FLT3 gene in response to higher tacrolimus levels.ConclusionsAfrican Americans and other non-Caucasian heart transplant recipients were 2.5-times to 3-times more likely than Caucasians to experience outcome events in the Invasive Monitoring Attenuation through Gene Expression study. The increased risk of adverse outcomes may be partly due to the biology of the alloimmune response, which is less effectively inhibited at similar tacrolimus levels in minority racial groups

Quantifying Uncertainty and Trade-offs in Resilience Assessments

Several frameworks have been developed to assess the resilience of social-ecological systems, but most require substantial data inputs, time, and technical expertise. Stakeholders and practitioners often lack the resources for such intensive efforts. Furthermore, most end with problem framing and fail to explicitly address trade-offs and uncertainty. To remedy this gap, we developed a rapid survey assessment that compares the relative resilience of social-ecological systems with respect to a number of resilience properties. This approach generates large amounts of information relative to stakeholder inputs. We targeted four stakeholder categories: government (policy, regulation, management), end users (farmers, ranchers, landowners, industry), agency/public science (research, university, extension), and NGOs (environmental, citizen, social justice) in four North American watersheds, to assess social-ecological resilience through surveys. Conceptually, social-ecological systems are comprised of components ranging from strictly human to strictly ecological, but that relate directly or indirectly to one another. They have soft boundaries and several important dimensions or axes that together describe the nature of social-ecological interactions, e.g., variability, diversity, modularity, slow variables, feedbacks, capital, innovation, redundancy, and ecosystem services. There is no absolute measure of resilience, so our design takes advantage of cross-watershed comparisons and therefore focuses on relative resilience. Our approach quantifies and compares the relative resilience across watershed systems and potential trade-offs among different aspects of the social-ecological system, e.g., between social, economic, and ecological contributions. This approach permits explicit assessment of several types of uncertainty (e.g., self-assigned uncertainty for stakeholders; uncertainty across respondents, watersheds, and subsystems), and subjectivity in perceptions of resilience among key actors and decision makers and provides an efficient way to develop the mental models that inform our stakeholders and stakeholder categories

For common community phylogenetic analyses, go ahead and use synthesis phylogenies

Should we build our own phylogenetic trees based on gene sequence data, or can we simply use available synthesis phylogenies? This is a fundamental question that any study involving a phylogenetic framework must face at the beginning of the project. Building a phylogeny from gene sequence data (purpose‐built phylogeny) requires more effort, expertise, and cost than subsetting an already available phylogeny (synthesis‐based phylogeny). However, we still lack a comparison of how these two approaches to building phylogenetic trees influence common community phylogenetic analyses such as comparing community phylogenetic diversity and estimating trait phylogenetic signal. Here, we generated three purpose‐built phylogenies and their corresponding synthesis‐based trees (two from Phylomatic and one from the Open Tree of Life, OTL). We simulated 1,000 communities and 12,000 continuous traits along each purpose‐built phylogeny. We then compared the effects of different trees on estimates of phylogenetic diversity (alpha and beta) and phylogenetic signal (Pagel’s λ and Blomberg’s K). Synthesis‐based phylogenies generally yielded higher estimates of phylogenetic diversity when compared to purpose‐built phylogenies. However, resulting measures of phylogenetic diversity from both types of phylogenies were highly correlated (Spearman’s ρ > 0.8 in most cases). Mean pairwise distance (both alpha and beta) is the index that is most robust to the differences in tree construction that we tested. Measures of phylogenetic diversity based on the OTL showed the highest correlation with measures based on the purpose‐built phylogenies. Trait phylogenetic signal estimated with synthesis‐based phylogenies, especially from the OTL, was also highly correlated with estimates of Blomberg’s K or close to Pagel’s λ from purpose‐built phylogenies when traits were simulated under Brownian motion. For commonly employed community phylogenetic analyses, our results justify taking advantage of recently developed and continuously improving synthesis trees, especially the Open Tree of Life.Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/151322/1/ecy2788_am.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/151322/2/ecy2788.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/151322/3/ecy2788-sup-0001-AppendixS1.pd

Female-perpetrated sexual abuse: a review of victim and professional perspectives

Professional attitudes towards female-perpetrated sexual abuse (FPSA) reportedly reflect he gender-role expectations found in broader society, which cast males almost exclusively as sexual aggressors or willing sexual recipients, females as sexually non-coercive or victims and male-perpetrated sexual abuse as particularly significant or injurious. Such views, however, appear to stand in contrast to the perspectives of individuals who have experienced FPSA. This paper details a systematic review of peer-reviewed quantitative and qualitative literature examining these different (professional and victim) perspectives. Although the methodological shortcomings of primary papers limit the conclusions that can be drawn, the findings suggest that victim and professional perspectives of FPSA remain discrepant; professionals generally considered FPSA as less serious, less harmful and less deserving of investigation than male-perpetrated abuse; while victims of FPSA felt their experiences influenced significantly their psychological wellbeing and abilities to form and maintain interpersonal relationships. These findings are discussed in relation to professional practice and suggestions for future research

Regime shifts and panarchies in regional scale social-ecological water systems

In this article we summarize histories of nonlinear, complex interactions among societal, legal, and ecosystem dynamics in six North American water basins, as they respond to changing climate. These case studies were chosen to explore the conditions for emergence of adaptive governance in heavily regulated and developed social-ecological systems nested within a hierarchical governmental system. We summarize resilience assessments conducted in each system to provide a synthesis and reference by the other articles in this special feature. We also present a general framework used to evaluate the interactions between society and ecosystem regimes and the governance regimes chosen to mediate those interactions. The case studies show different ways that adaptive governance may be triggered, facilitated, or constrained by ecological and/or legal processes. The resilience assessments indicate that complex interactions among the governance and ecosystem components of these systems can produce different trajectories, which include patterns of (a) development and stabilization, (b) cycles of crisis and recovery, which includes lurches in adaptation and learning, and (3) periods of innovation, novelty, and transformation. Exploration of cross scale (Panarchy) interactions among levels and sectors of government and society illustrate that they may constrain development trajectories, but may also provide stability during crisis or innovation at smaller scales; create crises, but may also facilitate recovery; and constrain system transformation, but may also provide windows of opportunity in which transformation, and the resources to accomplish it, may occur. The framework is the starting point for our exploration of how law might play a role in enhancing the capacity of social-ecological systems to adapt to climate change