| 1. |
- Arndt, D. S., et al.
(författare)
-
STATE OF THE CLIMATE IN 2017
- 2018
-
Ingår i: Bulletin of The American Meteorological Society - (BAMS). - : American Meteorological Society. - 0003-0007 .- 1520-0477. ; 99:8, s. S1-S310
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)
|
|
| 2. |
- Lakens, Daniel, et al.
(författare)
-
Justify your alpha
- 2018
-
Ingår i: Nature Human Behaviour. - : Nature Publishing Group. - 2397-3374. ; 2:3, s. 168-171
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- In response to recommendations to redefine statistical significance to P ≤ 0.005, we propose that researchers should transparently report and justify all choices they make when designing a study, including the alpha level.
|
|
| 3. |
- Metcalfe, Daniel B., et al.
(författare)
-
Patchy field sampling biases understanding of climate change impacts across the Arctic
- 2018
-
Ingår i: Nature Ecology and Evolution. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 2397-334X. ; 2:9, s. 1443-1448
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Effective societal responses to rapid climate change in the Arctic rely on an accurate representation of region-specific ecosystem properties and processes. However, this is limited by the scarcity and patchy distribution of field measurements. Here, we use a comprehensive, geo-referenced database of primary field measurements in 1,840 published studies across the Arctic to identify statistically significant spatial biases in field sampling and study citation across this globally important region. We find that 31% of all study citations are derived from sites located within 50 km of just two research sites: Toolik Lake in the USA and Abisko in Sweden. Furthermore, relatively colder, more rapidly warming and sparsely vegetated sites are under-sampled and under-recognized in terms of citations, particularly among microbiology-related studies. The poorly sampled and cited areas, mainly in the Canadian high-Arctic archipelago and the Arctic coastline of Russia, constitute a large fraction of the Arctic ice-free land area. Our results suggest that the current pattern of sampling and citation may bias the scientific consensuses that underpin attempts to accurately predict and effectively mitigate climate change in the region. Further work is required to increase both the quality and quantity of sampling, and incorporate existing literature from poorly cited areas to generate a more representative picture of Arctic climate change and its environmental impacts.
|
|
| 4. |
- de Zwart, Dick, et al.
(författare)
-
Toward Harmonizing Ecotoxicity Characterization in Life Cycle Impact Assessment
- 2018
-
Ingår i: Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. - : Wiley. - 0730-7268 .- 1552-8618. ; 37:12, s. 2955-2971
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Ecosystem quality is an important area of protection in life cycle impact assessment (LCIA). Chemical pollution has adverse impacts on ecosystems on a global scale. To improve methods for assessing ecosystem impacts, the Life Cycle Initiative hosted by the United Nations Environment Programme established a task force to evaluate the state-of-the-science in modeling chemical exposure of organisms and the resulting ecotoxicological effects for use in LCIA. The outcome of the task force work will be global guidance and harmonization by recommending changes to the existing practice of exposure and effect modeling in ecotoxicity characterization. These changes will reflect the current science and ensure the stability of recommended practice. Recommendations must work within the needs of LCIA in terms of 1) operating on information from any inventory reporting chemical emissions with limited spatiotemporal information, 2) applying best estimates rather than conservative assumptions to ensure unbiased comparison with results for other impact categories, and 3) yielding results that are additive across substances and life cycle stages and that will allow a quantitative expression of damage to the exposed ecosystem. We describe the current framework and discuss research questions identified in a roadmap. Primary research questions relate to the approach toward ecotoxicological effect assessment, the need to clarify the method's scope and interpretation of its results, the need to consider additional environmental compartments and impact pathways, and the relevance of effect metrics other than the currently applied geometric mean of toxicity effect data across species. Because they often dominate ecotoxicity results in LCIA, we give metals a special focus, including consideration of their possible essentiality and changes in environmental bioavailability. We conclude with a summary of key questions along with preliminary recommendations to address them as well as open questions that require additional research efforts.
|
|
