Drought‐mediated extinction of an arid‐land amphibian: insights from a spatially explicit dynamic occupancy model

Drawing from the substantial body of literature on life cycle assessment / analysis (LCA), the article summarizes the methodology’s limitations and failings, discusses some proposed improvements and suggests an additional improvement. After describing the LCA methodology within the context of ISO guidelines, the article summaries the limitations and failings inherent in the method’s life cycle inventory and impact assessment phases. The article then discusses improvements meant to overcome problems related to lumped parameter, static, site-independent modeling. Finally, the article suggests a remedy for some of the problems with LCA. Linking industrial models with spatially explicit, dynamic and site-specific ecosystem models is suggested as a means of improving the impact assessment phase of LCA.

Download Full-text

Integrating scientific guidance into marine spatial planning

Proceedings of The Royal Society B Biological Sciences ◽

10.1098/rspb.2013.2252 ◽

2014 ◽

Vol 281 (1781) ◽

pp. 20132252 ◽

Cited By ~ 38

Author(s):

Andrew Rassweiler ◽

Christopher Costello ◽

Ray Hilborn ◽

David A. Siegel

Keyword(s):

Spatial Planning ◽

Dynamic Models ◽

Recent Literature ◽

Spatially Explicit ◽

Marine Resources ◽

Marine Spatial Planning ◽

Alternative Approach ◽

Rules Of Thumb ◽

Planning Processes ◽

Explicit Dynamic

Marine spatial planning (MSP), whereby areas of the ocean are zoned for different uses, has great potential to reduce or eliminate conflicts between competing management goals, but only if strategically applied. The recent literature overwhelmingly agrees that including stakeholders in these planning processes is critical to success; but, given the countless alternative ways even simple spatial regulations can be configured, how likely is it that a stakeholder-driven process will generate plans that deliver on the promise of MSP? Here, we use a spatially explicit, dynamic bioeconomic model to show that stakeholder-generated plans are doomed to fail in the absence of strong scientific guidance. While strategically placed spatial regulations can improve outcomes remarkably, the vast majority of possible plans fail to achieve this potential. Surprisingly, existing scientific rules of thumb do little to improve outcomes. Here, we develop an alternative approach in which models are used to identify efficient plans, which are then modified by stakeholders. Even if stakeholders alter these initial proposals considerably, results hugely outperform plans guided by scientific rules of thumb. Our results underscore the importance of spatially explicit dynamic models for the management of marine resources and illustrate how such models can be harmoniously integrated into a stakeholder-driven MSP process.

Download Full-text

Managing mobile species with MPAs: the effects of mobility, larval dispersal, and fishing mortality on closure size

ICES Journal of Marine Science ◽

10.1093/icesjms/fsn202 ◽

2008 ◽

Vol 66 (1) ◽

pp. 122-131 ◽

Cited By ~ 54

Author(s):

W. J. F. Le Quesne ◽

Edward A. Codling

Keyword(s):

Protected Areas ◽

Marine Protected Areas ◽

Larval Dispersal ◽

Population Model ◽

Marine Reserves ◽

Spatially Explicit ◽

Fishing Mortality ◽

Mobile Species ◽

Explicit Dynamic ◽

Dynamic Population

Abstract Le Quesne, W. J. F., and Codling, E. A. 2009. Managing mobile species with MPAs: the effects of mobility, larval dispersal, and fishing mortality on closure size. – ICES Journal of Marine Science, 66: 122–131. The use of closed areas (marine protected areas, marine reserves, no-take zones) has been suggested as a possible solution to the perceived global fisheries crisis. However, to optimize the design and evaluate the effectiveness of closed areas, we need to understand the interaction between larval dispersal, adult mobility, and fishing mortality. In this paper, a simple, spatially explicit dynamic population model was developed to examine the effects of these interacting factors on optimal closure size and resulting yields. The effect of using one large or several smaller closed areas was also examined. Our model confirmed previous results: closed areas do not improve the yield of populations that are optimally managed or underexploited and, as mobility increases, optimum closure size increases. The model also predicted some interesting counter-intuitive results; for overexploited stocks, the greatest benefit from closed areas can be obtained for stocks with highest mobility, although this may require closure of 85% of the total area. For the tested parameter settings, adult spillover had greater potential to improve yield than larval export, and using several small closed areas rather than a single larger one had the same effect as increasing the mobility of the population.

Download Full-text