In: Ecotoxicology and environmental safety: EES ; official journal of the International Society of Ecotoxicology and Environmental safety, Band 84, S. 1-8
In: Ecotoxicology and environmental safety: EES ; official journal of the International Society of Ecotoxicology and Environmental safety, Band 110, S. 1-7
Abstract Common fragranced consumer products, such as cleaning supplies and personal care products, emit chiral compounds such as limonene that have been associated with adverse effects on human health. However, those same compounds abound in nature, and at similar concentrations as in products, but without the same apparent adverse human health effects. We investigated whether different types of limonene may elicit different biological effects. In this study, we investigated the mortality rate of mosquito larvae in response to changes in their environment. Specifically, we tested different sources of naturally occurring R-limonene and chemically synthetized limonene, containing one of its enantiomeric forms (R-, S-) in mortality bioassays with Aedes aegypti mosquito larvae. We found that a natural source of limonene extracted from oranges induced lower mortality of mosquito larvae compared to synthetic sources at the same concentration. However, enantiomeric forms did not differ in their effects on mortality. Our results provide novel evidence that natural sources of a chemical can cause lower rates of mortality than synthetic sources.
[Extract] Global climate change threatens global biodiversity, ecosystem function, and human well-being, with thousands of publications demonstrating impacts across a wide diversity of taxonomic groups, ecosystems, economics, and social structure. A review by Hughes [1] identified many of the ways that organisms may be affected by and/or respond to climate change. Since then, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of case studies attesting to ecological impacts [2], prompting several recent reviews on the subject (e.g., [3–6]). Several global meta-analyses confirm the pervasiveness of the global climate change "fingerprint" across continents, ecosystems, processes, and species [7–9]. Some studies have predicted increasingly severe future impacts with potentially high extinction rates in natural systems around the world [10,11]. Responding to this threat will require a concerted, multi-disciplinary, multi-scale, multi-taxon research effort that improves our predictive capacity to identify and prioritise vulnerable species in order to inform governments of the seriousness of the threat and to facilitate conservation adaptation and management [12,13]. If we are to minimise global biodiversity loss, we need significant decreases in global emissions to be combined with environmental management that is guided by sensible prioritisation of relative vulnerability. That is, we need to determine which species, habitats, and ecosystems will be most vulnerable, exactly what aspects of their ecological and evolutionary biology determine their vulnerability, and what we can do about managing this vulnerability and minimising the realised impacts. There is an emerging literature on specific traits that promote vulnerability under climate change (e.g., thermal tolerance [14]) as well as a broad literature on the traits that influence species' vulnerability generally (e.g., review by [15]). Less is known about the various mechanisms for either ecological or evolutionary adaptation to climate change, although it is ...
In: Ecotoxicology and environmental safety: EES ; official journal of the International Society of Ecotoxicology and Environmental safety, Band 133, S. 489-500
The effects of anthropogenic climate change on biodiversity are well known for some high‐profile Australian marine systems, including coral bleaching and kelp forest devastation. Less well‐published are the impacts of climate change being observed in terrestrial ecosystems, although ecological models have predicted substantial changes are likely. Detecting and attributing terrestrial changes to anthropogenic factors is difficult due to the ecological importance of extreme conditions, the noisy nature of short‐term data collected with limited resources, and complexities introduced by biotic interactions. Here, we provide a suite of case studies that have considered possible impacts of anthropogenic climate change on Australian terrestrial systems. Our intention is to provide a diverse collection of stories illustrating how Australian flora and fauna are likely responding to direct and indirect effects of anthropogenic climate change. We aim to raise awareness rather than be comprehensive. We include case studies covering canopy dieback in forests, compositional shifts in vegetation, positive feedbacks between climate, vegetation and disturbance regimes, local extinctions in plants, size changes in birds, phenological shifts in reproduction and shifting biotic interactions that threaten communities and endangered species. Some of these changes are direct and clear cut, others are indirect and less clearly connected to climate change; however, all are important in providing insights into the future state of terrestrial ecosystems. We also highlight some of the management issues relevant to conserving terrestrial communities and ecosystems in the face of anthropogenic climate change. ; The Subantarctic research is funded by an Australian Antarctic Science Programme Grants (AAS 3095, 4192, 4312); the contributors thank Catherine Dickson for use of the photographs. The Alpine vegetation monitoring has been supported by grants from the Australian Research Council via their Linkage program and the Long Term Ecological Research Network. The Wet Tropics vertebrate biodiversity research was funded by National Environmental Research Program, Earthwatch Institute, Terrestrial Ecosystem Research Network and the National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility. Research in the southwestern Australian forests and woodlands has been supported by ARC Linkage Projects (LP0455349, LP150100936) and The Centre for Climate Change, Woodland and Forest Health, which is a partnership between private industry, community groups, Universities and the Government of Western Australia.
Long-term ecological studies are critical for providing key insights in ecology, environmental change, natural resource management and biodiversity conservation. In this paper, we briefly discuss five key values of such studies. These are: (1) quantifying ecological responses to drivers of ecosystem change; (2) understanding complex ecosystem processes that occur over prolonged periods; (3) providing core ecological data that may be used to develop theoretical ecological models and to parameterize and validate simulation models; (4) acting as platforms for collaborative studies, thus promoting multidisciplinary research; and (5) providing data and understanding at scales relevant to management, and hence critically supporting evidence-based policy, decision making and the management of ecosystems. We suggest that the ecological research community needs to put higher priority on communicating the benefits of long-term ecological studies to resource managers, policy makers and the general public. Long-term research will be especially important for tackling large-scale emerging problems confronting humanity such as resource management for a rapidly increasing human population, mass species extinction, and climate change detection, mitigation and adaptation. While some ecologically relevant, long-term data sets are now becoming more generally available, these are exceptions. This deficiency occurs because ecological studies can be difficult to maintain for long periods as they exceed the length of government administrations and funding cycles. We argue that the ecological research community will need to coordinate ongoing efforts in an open and collaborative way, to ensure that discoverable long-term ecological studies do not become a long-term deficiency. It is important to maintain publishing outlets for empirical field-based ecology, while simultaneously developing new systems of recognition that reward ecologists for the use and collaborative sharing of their long-term data sets. Funding schemes must be re-crafted to emphasize collaborative partnerships between field-based ecologists, theoreticians and modellers, and to provide financial support that is committed over commensurate time frames.
Long-term ecological studies are critical for providing key insights in ecology, environmental change, natural resource management and biodiversity conservation. In this paper, we briefly discuss five key values of such studies. These are: (1) quantifying ecological responses to drivers of ecosystem change; (2) understanding complex ecosystem processes that occur over prolonged periods; (3) providing core ecological data that may be used to develop theoretical ecological models and to parameterize and validate simulation models; (4) acting as platforms for collaborative studies, thus promoting multidisciplinary research; and (5) providing data and understanding at scales relevant to management, and hence critically supporting evidence-based policy, decision making and the management of ecosystems. We suggest that the ecological research community needs to put higher priority on communicating the benefits of long-term ecological studies to resource managers, policy makers and the general public. Long-term research will be especially important for tackling large-scale emerging problems confronting humanity such as resource management for a rapidly increasing human population, mass species extinction, and climate change detection, mitigation and adaptation. While some ecologically relevant, long-term data sets are now becoming more generally available, these are exceptions. This deficiency occurs because ecological studies can be difficult to maintain for long periods as they exceed the length of government administrations and funding cycles. We argue that the ecological research community will need to coordinate ongoing efforts in an open and collaborative way, to ensure that discoverable long-term ecological studies do not become a long-term deficiency. It is important to maintain publishing outlets for empirical field-based ecology, while simultaneously developing new systems of recognition that reward ecologists for the use and collaborative sharing of their long-term data sets. Funding schemes must be re-crafted to emphasize collaborative partnerships between field-based ecologists, theoreticians and modellers, and to provide financial support that is committed over commensurate time frames.