Singh G.,Wildlife Institute of India |
Rawat M.S.,National Medicinal Plants Board |
Pandey D.,DFO |
Rawat G.S.,Wildlife Institute of India
Medicinal Plants | Year: 2011
The medicinal plants in traditional healthcare practices are providing clues to new areas of research and are well recognized in biodiversity conservation. Traditional knowledge has been the driving force for many basic scientific developments. However, the information on the uses of various plants for medicine is lacking from many interior areas of western Himalaya. Keeping this in view, a survey was conducted to explore the diversity of medicinal plants, their status in the wild and uses by the local communities for curing various ailments, situated in the fringes of Kedarnath Wildlife Sanctuary, Uttarakhand. Study revealed that more than 46 plant species out of 137 species of medicinal values recorded from the region are commonly used by the local people for their traditional health care system viz., skin diseases, dysentery, cough, fever, wounds, female disorders, joint pain, gastric problems, nasal bleeding, cold, piles, anti poison, ear problems, eye problems, stones and rheumatism. Source
Peck M.A.,University of Hamburg |
Neuenfeldt S.,Technical University of Denmark |
Essington T.E.,University of Washington |
Trenkel V.M.,French Research Institute for Exploitation of the Sea |
And 9 more authors.
ICES Journal of Marine Science | Year: 2014
Forage fish (FF) have a unique position within marine foodwebs and the development of sustainable harvest strategies for FF will be a critical step in advancing and implementing the broader, ecosystem-based management of marine systems. In all, 70 scientists from 16 nations gathered for a symposium on 12-14 November 2012 that was designed to address three key questions regarding the effective management of FF and their ecosystems: (i) how do environmental factors and predator-prey interactions drive the productivity and distribution of FF stocks across ecosystems worldwide, (ii) what are the economic and ecological costs and benefits of different FF management strategies, and (iii) do commonalities exist across ecosystems in terms of the effective management of FF exploitation? © 2013 International Council for the Exploration of the Sea. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. Source
News Article | March 25, 2016
The environmental community has been watching Justin Trudeau’s Liberals closely, to see how they live up to their promise to give Canada a low carbon, climate resistant economy. The new government’s performance at COP 21 was nothing less than stellar. While the Federal government’s meeting with the provinces in Vancouver failed to achieve much beyond an agreement that carbon will be priced, the herd is now moving. News from the environmental assessment front is less encouraging: the National energy Board’s flawed Trans Mountain Pipline Expansion hearings are continuing and Catherine McKenna appears to have just rubber stamped the Woodfibre LNG project. So what does Canada’s budget say about the environment? Erin Flanagan, of the Pembina Institute, described the allocations to the National Energy Board and Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA) “something to be optimistic about.” “That’s really important because we need our regulators to have the financial means to be able to interact directly with Canadians who have an opinion on projects and make sure they are tracking these project proponents and living up to the environmental assessment standards and environmental laws of the country.” “I think this government has heard the message that the existing regulatory structures are not serving the public interest and so they have injected some money into both of those structures so they can do their jobs,” she said. Elizabeth May pointed out that this is not enough. The CEAA’s $14.2 million allotment is to carry out the directives that former Prime Minister Harper brought in when he gutted Canada’s Environmental Assessment Act: Ms May described the new government’s environmental approach as a vast improvement over Harper’s, but does not match up to the standards former Liberal Finance Minister Ralph Goodale set in 2005: “The 2005 budget offered a fully formed climate action plan, including eco-energy rebates for homeowners, substantial funding for provinces to act to address the climate challenge, rebates for the purchase of energy efficient vehicles, and a carbon pricing scheme through a complicated carbon credit approach. The 2016 budget contains none of these measures. “Disturbingly, the budget cites the target of the Paris Agreement as avoiding 2 degrees Celsius global average temperature increase, when it was Canadian leadership that helped drive the world to the more ambitious goal of striving to hold temperature to no more than 1.5 degrees C,” Ms. May said. “The Liberal platform promised carbon pricing, which we did not expect to see today given the negotiations with the premiers. It also promised to reduce subsidies to fossil fuels by $125 million in 2017-18. No changes have yet been made to fossil fuel subsidies and subsidies to LNG are specifically continued until the end of 2024,” said Ms. May.” Kai Chan, an associate professor at University of British Columbia and one of the 130 scientists who recently condemned the flawed review process for Pacifc Northwest’s proposed LNG terminal on Lelu Island, said Elizabeth May raised some important points. “I don’t know if CEAA ever had the capacity to do their own analysis. I think they have relied on their own proponents the whole time, but their ability to critique and ensure the rigor of the analysis handed to them by the proponent has been curtailed. It has been getting worse and worse because of the cuts. They are very understaffed,” he said. “My biggest concern, and I can’t find and details on this yet, is all the major science-based guidance within the Federal agencies (CEAA, the DFO, Canada Parks) have all been hit quite hard because of budget restrictions. They have been short staffed for years (and have suffered from) reduced research funding; slashed travel budgets; travel restrictions. I don’t know where to see if those have been restored. I think that’s really important.” Chan described the funding for parks as “important initiatives, it’s not huge but more than we saw with the previous government.” Clare Demerse, of Clean Energy Canada, [5. Roy L Hales Interview with Clare Demerse, of Clean Energy Canada] found it encouraging to see that the Government was providing funding to write environmental regulations and update building codes etc. “We have a lot of catching up to do because this was not a priority under the previous Government. So it is a really important signal to say okay the budget is there, people can get down to work in Environment Canada and Natural Resources Canada, and other parts of the government, and really focus on climate action and clean energy as a priority,” she said. One of the brightest sections of this budget is the attention given to the clean tech sector, which is a key component of building a more environmentally friendly future. “We were quite pleased with the way the budget treats clean energy more broadly. We thought that it makes some smart investments, and the government made it clear it sees it as an economic opportunity for Canada,” said Demerse. “You can see that in a couple of ways, one being the Finance Ministers speech to the House. He talked about it as ‘the future the World is tending to and we want Canada to lead in that future.’ And then also the fact clean energy is really sprinkled throughout the budget. It wasn’t just a few pages in an environmental section. You can read about it in all kinds of parts of the budget. whether you were talking about infrastructure, government procurement, or space for people in overseas missions for people trying to promote exports of clean technology.” Kai Chan agreed, “Clean energy is a major component of the budget and certainly a major component of how they are representing it.” Some of the specifics include: Chan pointed to the breakdown of investments in public transit on page 92 of the budget, and noted it was based on the province’s existing share of public ridership. “Basically, where public transit is already helping many people, they will help it help more people,” he said. “Overall, we were thinking of this as a downpayment,” said Demerse. “We know that if all goes well, next year the Prime Minster and Premiers will have an agreement on a National Climate Plan, and in Vancouver they agreed it will be ready to implement in 2017. So next year’s budget is probably going to be one where the federal government is probably going to have to play a very important role. So in next year’s budget we will be looking for things like a national carbon pricing, or support for low carbon infrastructure.” Based on the comments above, I would give this budget an “A” for effort but a barely passing overall grade because of its failure to address the damages the previous administration made to Canada’s environmental protections (specifically, Bill C-38). That said, this budget shows a marked improvement over those we have seen in the past decade. If the “interim measures” are replaced by more socially and environmentally sensitive legislation, there is good reason to be optimistic about the future. Photo Credits: Parliament, Ottawa by mark.watmough via Flickr (CC BY SA, 2.0 License); Erin Flanagan – Courtesy Pembina Institute; Elizabeth May, MP Saanich-Gulf Islands – Courtesy B.C. Green Party; Kai Chan, Associate Professor in the Institute for Resources, Environment and Sustainability, UBC; graph from Budget; Clare Demerse of Clean Tech Canada; Two graphs from the Budget Get CleanTechnica’s 1st (completely free) electric car report → “Electric Cars: What Early Adopters & First Followers Want.” Come attend CleanTechnica’s 1st “Cleantech Revolution Tour” event → in Berlin, Germany, April 9–10. Keep up to date with all the hottest cleantech news by subscribing to our (free) cleantech newsletter, or keep an eye on sector-specific news by getting our (also free) solar energy newsletter, electric vehicle newsletter, or wind energy newsletter.
Trenkel V.M.,French Research Institute for Exploitation of the Sea |
Huse G.,Norwegian Institute of Marine Research |
MacKenzie B.R.,National Institute of Aquatic Resources DTU Aqua |
MacKenzie B.R.,Technical University of Denmark |
And 19 more authors.
Progress in Oceanography | Year: 2014
This paper reviews the current knowledge on the ecology of widely distributed pelagic fish stocks in the North Atlantic basin with emphasis on their role in the food web and the factors determining their relationship with the environment. We consider herring (Clupea harengus), mackerel (Scomber scombrus), capelin (Mallotus villosus), blue whiting (Micromesistius poutassou), and horse mackerel (Trachurus trachurus), which have distributions extending beyond the continental shelf and predominantly occur on both sides of the North Atlantic. We also include albacore (Thunnus alalunga), bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus), swordfish (Xiphias gladius), and blue marlin (Makaira nigricans), which, by contrast, show large-scale migrations at the basin scale. We focus on the links between life history processes and the environment, horizontal and vertical distribution, spatial structure and trophic role. Many of these species carry out extensive migrations from spawning grounds to nursery and feeding areas. Large oceanographic features such as the North Atlantic subpolar gyre play an important role in determining spatial distributions and driving variations in stock size. Given the large biomasses of especially the smaller species considered here, these stocks can exert significant top-down pressures on the food web and are important in supporting higher trophic levels. The review reveals commonalities and differences between the ecology of widely distributed pelagic fish in the NE and NW Atlantic basins, identifies knowledge gaps and modelling needs that the EURO-BASIN project attempts to address. © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. Source
News Article | March 11, 2016
They come from the West Coast, as far south as California, as north as Alaska, and as east as the Atlantic coast. Their joint letter refers to “Misrepresentation,” “lack of information,” and “Disregard for science that was not funded by the proponent.” Scientists condemn the flawed review process for Lelu Island, at the mouth of British Columbia’s Skeena River, as “a symbol of what is wrong with environmental decision-making in Canada.” More than 130 scientists signed on to this letter. “This letter is not about being for or against LNG, the letter is about scientific integrity in decision-making,” said Dr. Jonathan Moore, Liber Ero Chair of Coastal Science and Management, Simon Fraser University. One of the other signatories is Otto Langer, former Chief of Habitat Assessment at Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO), who wrote: These are tough words for a Federal government that promised to put teeth back in the gutted environmental review process. In Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s defense, this is yet another problem he inherited from the previous administration, and the task of cleaning up this mess seems enormous. That said, this government was aware the environmental review process was broken before it was elected and has not intervened to at least stop the process from moving forward until it is prepared to take action. The Liberal Government appears to be facing a tough decision. So far, it has attempted to work with the provinces. On Lelu Island, as well as the equally controversial proposed Kinder Morgan Pipeline expansion and Site C Dam project, continuing to support Premier Clak’s policies in this manner would appear to necessitate betraying the trust of the Canadian people. Here are a few choice excerpts from the public letter that more than 130 scientists sent to Catherine McKenna and Prime Minister Trudeau: ” … The CEAA draft report has not accurately characterized the importance of the project area, the Flora Bank region, for fish. The draft CEAA report1 states that the “…marine habitats around Lelu Island are representative of marine ecosystems throughout the north coast of B.C.”. In contrast, five decades of science has repeatedly documented that this habitat is NOT representative of other areas along the north coast or in the greater Skeena River estuary, but rather that it is exceptional nursery habitat for salmon2-6 that support commercial, recreational, and First Nation fisheries from throughout the Skeena River watershed and beyond7. A worse location is unlikely to be found for PNW LNG with regards to potential risks to fish and fisheries….” ” … CEAA’s draft report concluded that the project is not likely to cause adverse effects on fish in the estuarine environment, even when their only evidence for some species was an absence of information. For example, eulachon, a fish of paramount importance to First Nations and a Species of Special Concern8, likely use the Skeena River estuary and project area during their larval, juvenile, and adult life-stages. There has been no systematic study of eulachon in the project area. Yet CEAA concluded that the project posed minimal risks to this fish…” ” … CEAA’s draft report is not a balanced consideration of the best-available science. On the contrary, CEAA relied upon conclusions presented in proponent-funded studies which have not been subjected to independent peer-review and disregarded a large and growing body of relevant independent scientific research, much of it peer-reviewed and published…” ” …The PNW LNG project presents many different potential risks to the Skeena River estuary and its fish, including, but not limited to, destruction of shoreline habitat, acid rain, accidental spills of fuel and other contaminants, dispersal of contaminated sediments, chronic and acute sound, seafloor destruction by dredging the gas pipeline into the ocean floor, and the erosion and food-web disruption from the trestle structure. Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) and Natural Resources Canada provided detailed reviews12 on only one risk pathway – habitat erosion – while no such detailed reviews were conducted on other potential impacts or their cumulative effects…” ” … CEAA’s draft report concluded that the project posed moderate risks to marine fish but that these risks could be mitigated. However, the proponent has not fully developed their mitigation plans and the plans that they have outlined are scientifically dubious. For example, the draft assessment states that destroyed salmon habitat will be mitigated; the “proponent identified 90 000 m2 of lower productivity habitats within five potential offsetting sites that could be modified to increase the productivity of fisheries”, when in fact, the proponent did not present data on productivity of Skeena Estuary habitats for fish at any point in the CEAA process. Without understanding relationships between fish and habitat, the proposed mitigation could actually cause additional damage to fishes of the Skeena River estuary…” British Columbia Institute of Technology 1. Marvin Rosenau, Ph.D., Professor, British Columbia Institute of Technology. 2. Eric M. Anderson, Ph.D., Faculty, British Columbia Institute of Technology. British Columbia Ministry of Environment 1. R. S. Hooton, M.Sc., Former Senior Fisheries Management Authority for British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Skeena Region. California Academy of Sciences 1. John E. McCosker, Ph.D., Chair of Aquatic Biology, Emeritus, California Academy of Sciences. Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada 1. Otto E. Langer, M.Sc., R.P.Bio., Fisheries Biologist, Former Chief of Habitat Assessment, Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada Memorial University of Newfoundland 1. Ian A. Fleming, Ph.D., Professor, Memorial University of Newfoundland. 2. Brett Favaro, Ph.D., Liber Ero conservation fellow, Memorial University of Newfoundland. Norwegian Institute for Nature Research 1. Rachel Malison, Ph.D., Marie Curie Fellow and Research Ecologist, The Norwegian Institute for Nature Research. Russian Academy of Science 1. Alexander I. Vedenev, Ph.D., Head of Ocean Noise Laboratory, Russian Academy of Science 2. Victor Afanasiev, Ph.D., Russian Academy of Sciences. Sakhalin Research Institute of Fisheries and Oceanography 1. Alexander Shubin, M.Sc. Fisheries Biologist, Sakhalin Research Institute of Fisheries and Oceanography. Simon Fraser University, BC 1. Jonathan W. Moore, Ph.D., Liber Ero Chair of Coastal Science and Management, Associate Professor, Simon Fraser University. 2. Randall M. Peterman, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus and Former Canada Research Chair in Fisheries Risk Assessment and Management, Simon Fraser University. 3. John D. Reynolds, Ph.D., Tom Buell BC Leadership Chair in Salmon Conservation, Professor, Simon Fraser University 4. Richard D. Routledge, Ph.D., Professor, Simon Fraser University. 5. Evelyn Pinkerton, Ph.D., School of Resource and Environmental Management, Professor, Simon Fraser University. 6. Dana Lepofsky, Ph.D., Professor, Simon Fraser University 7. Nicholas Dulvy, Ph.D., Canada Research Chair in Marine Biodiversity and Conservation, Professor, Simon Fraser University. 8. Ken Lertzman, Ph.D., Professor, Simon Fraser University. 9. Isabelle M. Côté, Ph.D., Professor, Simon Fraser University. 10. Brendan Connors, Ph.D., Senior Systems Ecologist, ESSA Technologies Ltd., Adjunct Professor, Simon Fraser University. 11. Lawrence Dill, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus, Simon Fraser University. 12. Patricia Gallaugher, Ph.D., Adjunct Professor, Simon Fraser University. 13. Anne Salomon, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Simon Fraser University. 14. Arne Mooers, Ph.D., Professor, Simon Fraser University. 15. Lynne M. Quarmby, Ph.D., Professor, Simon Fraser University. 16. Wendy J. Palen, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Simon Fraser University. University of Alaska 1. Peter Westley, Ph.D., Assistant Professor of Fisheries, University of Alaska Fairbanks. 2. Anne Beaudreau, Ph.D., Assistant Professor of Fisheries, University of Alaska Fairbanks. 3. Megan V. McPhee, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, University of Alaska Fairbanks. University of Alberta 1. David.W. Schindler, Ph.D., Killam Memorial Professor of Ecology Emeritus, University of Alberta. 2. Suzanne Bayley, Ph.D., Emeritus Professor, University of Alberta. University of British Columbia 1. John G. Stockner, Ph.D., Emeritus Senior Scientist DFO, West Vancouver Laboratory, Adjuct Professor, University of British Columbia. 2. Kai M.A. Chan, Ph.D., Canada Research Chair in Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, Associate Professor, University of British Columbia 3. Hadi Dowlatabadi, Ph.D., Canada Research Chair in Applied Mathematics and Integrated Assessment of Global Change, Professor, University of British Columbia 4. Sarah P. Otto, Ph.D., Professor and Director, Biodiversity Research Centre, University of British Columbia. 5. Michael Doebeli, Ph.D., Professor, University of British Columbia. 6. Charles J. Krebs, Ph.D., Professor, University of British Columbia. 7. Amanda Vincent, Ph.D., Professor, University of British Columbia. 8. Michael Healey, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus, University of British Columbia. University of California (various campuses) 1. Mary E. Power, Ph.D., Professor, University of California, Berkeley 2. Peter B. Moyle, Ph.D., Professor, University of California. 3. Heather Tallis, Ph.D., Chief Scientist, The Nature Conservancy, Adjunct Professor, University of California, Santa Cruz. 4. James A. Estes, Ph.D., Professor, University of California. 5. Eric P. Palkovacs, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, University of California-Santa Cruz. 6. Justin D. Yeakel, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, University of California. 7. John L. Largier, Ph.D., Professor, University of California Davis. University of Montana 1. Jack A. Stanford, Ph.D., Professor of Ecology, University of Montana. 2. Andrew Whiteley, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, University of Montana. 3. F. Richard Hauer, Ph.D., Professor and Director, Center for Integrated Research on the Environment, University of Montana. University of New Brunswick 1. Richard A. Cunjak, Ph.D., Professor, University of New Brunswick. University of Ontario Institute of Technology 1. Douglas A. Holdway, Ph.D., Canada Research Chair in Aquatic Toxicology, Professor, University of Ontario Institute of Technology. University of Ottawa 1. Jeremy Kerr, Ph.D., University Research Chair in Macroecology and Conservation, Professor, University of Ottawa University of Toronto 1. Martin Krkosek, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, University of Toronto. Gail McCabe, Ph.D., University of Toronto. University of Victoria 1. Chris T. Darimont, Ph.D., Associate Professor, University of Victoria 2. John Volpe, Ph.D., Associate Professor, University of Victoria. 3. Aerin Jacob, Ph.D., Postdoctoral Fellow, University of Victoria. 4. Briony E.H. Penn, Ph.D., Adjunct Professor, University of Victoria. 5. Natalie Ban, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, School of Environmental Studies, University of Victoria. 6. Travis G. Gerwing, Ph.D., Postdoctoral Fellow, University of Victoria. 7. Eric Higgs, Ph.D., Professor, University of Victoria. 8. Paul C. Paquet, Ph.D., Senior Scientist, Raincoast Conservation Foundation, Adjunct Professor, University of Victoria. 9. James K. Rowe, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, University of Victoria. University of Washington 1. Charles Simenstad, Ph.D., Professor, University of Washington. 2. Daniel Schindler, Ph.D., Harriet Bullitt Endowed Chair in Conservation, Professor, University of Washington. 3. Julian D. Olden, Ph.D., Associate Professor, University of Washington. 4. P. Sean McDonald, Ph.D., Research Scientist, University of Washington. 5. Tessa Francis, Ph.D., Research Scientist, University of Washington. University of Windsor 1. Hugh MacIsaac, Ph.D., Canada Research Chair Great Lakes Institute for Environmental Research, Professor, University of Windsor. Photo Credits: 9 of the scientist condemning the CEAA review are professors at the University of Victoria. Photo shows U Vic students listening to a UN official in 2012 by Herb Neufeld via Flickr (CC BY SA, 2.0 License); Screen shot from a Liberal campaign video in which Trudeau promised to bring real change to Ottawa;8 of the scientist condemning the CEAA review are professors at the University of British Columbia. Photo of UBC by abdallahh via Flickr (CC BY SA, 2.0 License);5 of the scientists condemning the CEAA review are from the University of Washington. Photo is Mary Gates Hall, in the University of Washington by PRONam-ho Park Follow via Flickr (CC BY SA, 2.0 License);5 of the scientists condemning the CEAA review are from the Skeena Fisheries Commission. Photo is Coast mountains near the mouth of the Skeena River by Roy Luck via Flickr (CC BY SA, 2.0 License);16 of the scientists condemning the CEAA review were professors at Simon Fraser University. Photo shows SFU’s Reflective Pool by Jon the Happy Web Creative via Flickr (CC BY SA, 2.0 License) Get CleanTechnica’s 1st (completely free) electric car report → “Electric Cars: What Early Adopters & First Followers Want.” Come attend CleanTechnica’s 1st “Cleantech Revolution Tour” event → in Berlin, Germany, April 9–10. Keep up to date with all the hottest cleantech news by subscribing to our (free) cleantech newsletter, or keep an eye on sector-specific news by getting our (also free) solar energy newsletter, electric vehicle newsletter, or wind energy newsletter.