Kaikki aineistot
Lisää
Image credit: Dmytro Gilitukha, from iStockphoto Forests set aside from productive forestry are often considered best conserved by non-intervention. However, biodiversity can be maintained in natural forests by a background level of disturbance, which, in some forests, takes the form of forest fires. While the effects of prescribed burning on tree regeneration and on pyrophilous and/or saproxylic species in some regions are well known, effects on other organisms are less clear and/or consistent. The primary aim of this systematic review was to clarify how biodiversity is affected by prescribed burning in temperate and boreal forests, and how it may be useful as a means of conserving or restoring biodiversity, beyond that of pyrophilous and saproxylic species. A separate review, almost complete at the time of writing, focuses on the impacts of dead wood (e.g. by prescribed burning or addition of dead wood) on forest biodiversity. This review avoids overlap by excluding saproxylic species; those most impacted by dead wood changes. Relevant studies were taken from a recent systematic map of the evidence on biodiversity impacts of active management in forests. Additional searches and a search update were undertaken using a search string targeted to identify studies focused on prescribed burning interventions. Studies were assessed for internal and external validity and data was extracted, using critical appraisal and data extraction tools, specifically developed for this review. Studies were presented in a narrative synthesis and interactive map, and those which were suitable were combined in meta-analyses. After screening for relevance, 244 studies were included in this review, 82 were included in the quantitative synthesis. We describe the geographical spread, study characteristics and heterogeneity of the evidence base. We find no evidence for a general trade-off between improving conditions for fire dependent species and the biodiversity of non-target species groups. We discuss the knowledge gaps in study scope identified by this review. We also identify evidence needs, such as appropriate and consistently applied study designs, long-term data sets and more detailed reporting by authors. Image credit: Dmytro Gilitukha, from iStockphoto
Background Agriculture is the main sector responsible for nutrient emissions in the Baltic Sea Region and there is a growing pressure to identify cost-effective solutions towards reducing nitrogen and phosphorus loads originating from farming activities. Recycling resources from agricultural waste is central to the idea of a circular economy, and has the potential to address the most urgent problems related to nutrients use in the food chain, such as depletion of natural phosphorus reserves, water pollution and waste management. This systematic map examined what evidence exists relating to the effectiveness of ecotechnologies in agriculture for the recovery and reuse of carbon and/or nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus) in the Baltic Sea region and other comparable boreo-temperate systems. Methods We searched for both academic and grey literature. English language searches were performed in 5 bibliographic databases and search platforms, and Google Scholar. Searches in 36 specialist websites were performed in English, Finnish, Polish and Swedish. The searches were restricted to the period 2013 to 2017. Eligibility screening was conducted at two levels: title and abstract (screened concurrently for efficiency) and full text. Meta-data was extracted from eligible studies including bibliographic details, study location, ecotechnology name and description, type of outcome (i.e. recovered or reused carbon and/or nutrients), type of ecotechnology in terms of recovery source, and type of reuse (in terms of the end-product). Findings are presented here narratively and in a searchable database, and are also visualised in a web-based evidence atlas (an interactive geographical information system). In addition, knowledge gaps and clusters have been identified in the evidence base and described in detail. Results We found 173 articles studying the effectiveness of 177 ecotechnologies. The majority of eligible articles were in English, originated from bibliographic databases and were published in 2016. Most studies with reported locations, and given our boreo-temperate scope, were conducted in Europe and North America. The three most prevalent ecotechnologies in the evidence base (collectively 40.7%) were; soil amendments, anaerobic digestion and (vermi)composting. Manure was the principal waste source used for recovery of nutrients or carbon, making up 55.4% of the all studies in evidence base, followed by a combination of manure and crop residues (22%). There were 51 studies with 14 ecotechnologies that reported on recovery of carbon and nutrients together, predominantly via (vermi)composting and anaerobic digestion. Only 27 studies focused on reuse of recovered nutrients and carbon through soil amendments. Conclusions This systematic map report provides an evidence base that can be useful for researchers and decision-makers in policy and practice working on transformation from linear to circular economy in the agricultural waste sector. Three potential topics for future systematic reviews are: (1) effectiveness of products recovered from different types of agricultural wastes as soil amendments or fertilizers; (2) effectiveness of anaerobic digestion as an ecotechnology used for recovery of nutrients and carbon; (3) effectiveness of composting and/or vermicomposting as ecotechnologies used for recovery of nutrients and carbon.
This paper summarizes key findings from a series of systematic reviews and comprehensive efforts to collate evidence and expert opinions on circular solutions for recovery and reuse of nutrients and carbon from different waste streams in the agriculture and wastewater sectors. We identify established and emerging approaches for transformation towards a more circular nutrient economy with relevance to SDGs 6 and 14. The paper cites the example of the Baltic Sea Region which has experienced decades of fertilizer overuse (1950s–1990s) and concomitant urban sources of excessive nutrients. Regulations and incentive policies combining the nitrogen, phosphorus and carbon cycles are necessary if circular nutrient technologies and practices are to be scaled up. Pricing chemical fertilizer at levels to reflect society’s call for circularity is a central challenge. Highlights • Development of a circular nutrient economy in the EU is reviewed. • The socio-economic value of organic waste products from agriculture & municipalities needs to increase. • Opportunities are found in the new EU Circular Economy Package & Fertilizing Products Regulations. • Further implementation is possible with the Common Agriculture Policy (nutrient management tool) and Waste Framework Directive for recycling. • The Baltic Sea Region case is explored being sensitive to eutrophication with ongoing international efforts to introduce nutrient circularity.
Effective, unbiased and transparent methods of knowledge synthesis are a crucial element of science-policy-society interactions. A vast and rapidly expanding body of knowledge is relevant to many policy decisions. This includes scientific knowledge, technical know-how and experiential knowledge held by experts, and indigenous and local knowledge. Synthesizing knowledge within timescales relevant to policy makers is a real challenge, but many methods are now available to do so. We have identified 21 knowledge synthesis methods that could be used to answer questions from policymakers or other stakeholders [1]. It is not an exhaustive list, but those we consider most useful for current science-policy-society interfaces in environment and natural resource management. The methods range from focus groups, which can be done in just a few days and gather local place-based knowledge, including opinions and values from small groups; to structured systematic reviews, which follow an a priori protocol, can take a year or more, require substantial scientific expertise to complete and address a narrow, well-defined scientific question. The methods can draw on different sources of tacit or codified knowledge: scientific, indigenous and local knowledge, technical know-how, and anecdotal evidence. We have developed concise guidance on each method, providing information on how it works, what it can achieve, what type of questions can be tackled, how much it costs, and what specialist resources are required. The guidance also summarises the relative strengths and weaknesses of each method. We have collected example case studies to illustrate the use of each of the different methods to inform design or implementation of environmental policies across Europe. Building on previous work [2,3], and in partnership with policymakers, we have devised a process for structured dialogue between knowledge-holders and knowledge requesters, to select an appropriate knowledge synthesis methods or set of methods. This talk provides an overview of the methods and describes the method selection process, using recent examples from the EKLIPSE project (www.eklipse-mechanism.eu/). References [1] Dicks, L. V., Haddaway, N., Hernández-Morcillo, M., Mattsson, B., Randall, N., Failler, P., . . . Wittmer, H. (2017). Knowledge synthesis for environmental decisions: an evaluation of existing methods, and guidance for their selection, use and development – a report from the EKLIPSE project. [2] Pullin, A., Frampton, G., Jongman, R. et al. (2016) Selecting appropriate methods of knowledge synthesis to inform biodiversity policy. Biodiversity and Conservation 25: 1285. [3] Cook, C. N., Nichols, S. J., Webb, J. A., Fuller, R. A., & Richards, R. M. (2017). Simplifying the selection of evidence synthesis methods to inform environmental decisions: A guide for decision makers and scientists. Biological Conservation, 213, Part A, 135-145.