Search

© 2017 The Author(s) Forest-driven water and energy cycles are poorly integrated into regional, national, continental and global decision-making on climate change adaptation, mitigation, land use and water management. This constrains humanity's ability to protect our planet's climate and life-sustaining functions. The substantial body of research we review reveals that forest, water and energy interactions provide the foundations for carbon storage, for cooling terrestrial surfaces and for distributing water resources. Forests and trees must be recognized as prime regulators within the water, energy and carbon cycles. If these functions are ignored, planners will be unable to assess, adapt to or mitigate the impacts of changing land cover and climate. Our call to action targets a reversal of paradigms, from a carbon-centric model to one that treats the hydrologic and climate-cooling effects of trees and forests as the first order of priority. For reasons of sustainability, carbon storage must remain a secondary, though valuable, by-product. The effects of tree cover on climate at local, regional and continental scales offer benefits that demand wider recognition. The forest- and tree-centered research insights we review and analyze provide a knowledge-base for improving plans, policies and actions. Our understanding of how trees and forests influence water, energy and carbon cycles has important implications, both for the structure of planning, management and governance institutions, as well as for how trees and forests might be used to improve sustainability, adaptation and mitigation efforts. publisher: Elsevier articletitle: Trees, forests and water: Cool insights for a hot world journaltitle: Global Environmental Change articlelink: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2017.01.002 content_type: article copyright: © 2017 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. ispartof: Global Environmental Change vol:43 pages:51-61 status: published

Dickman et al . (2015; Front Ecol Environ 13[6] : 325–31) suggested that “moral relativism” and “misguided respect” for cultural practices impede biological conservation. They favor a world in which conservation scientists armed with universal norms will more readily implement their solutions without the consent of local stakeholders. While we acknowledge their concerns, their vision, however tentative, appears misguided. Here we highlight some objections.

This essay reviews the multidisciplinary science of bioprecipitation, using it as a lens through which to envision integrative options for land use and water resource management in a new light. Bioprecipitation is the hypothesis that microbial ice nucleators, including Pseudomonas syringae, may be highly adapted causal agents of rain and snow. To the extent that land use policies, including pathogenic eradication campaigns, may inhibit the local production of biotic ice nucleators, they may be responsible for ‘killing’ a generative source of rain. Such possibilities should invite major interest in this gathering field of research. Assuming that it contributes to a richer comprehension of the hydrological cycle's dependence on circulatory biota, these findings should help to stimulate assimilative, integrated reformulations of land use and water management policies and norms.

This article discusses critical debate about individual control over the beginnings of life that has sprawled across the fields of academic law, philosophy, politics, religion, the life sciences, and the self-christened field of bioethics from the 1960s up to the present. The subject has formed in and around a cascade of popular pressures; biomedical advances; legislative, judicial, and public policy initiatives; media attention; and the boiling politics in which, at least in the United States, the whole series of enterprises has been bathed. The present undertaking will train on the law. It covers contraception in the United States, abortion law and policy in the United States, and contraception and abortion in Europe and the United Kingdom.

The decoding of the human genome, announced with great fanfare by President Bill Clinton and Prime Minister Tony Blair in June, 2000,1 marked a hugely symbolic milestone in the progress of genetic science. Mapping the roughly three billion nucleotide pairs that comprise the human genetic profile is a monumental achievement of human ingenuity and technological sophistication.2 Yet, before the knowledge unleashed by the Human Genome Project can be widely used to improve human health and welfare, much work remains to be done.' Scientists must first locate, along the 23 paired