Change search
Link to record
Permanent link

Direct link
BETA
Alternative names
Publications (10 of 108) Show all publications
Lafage, D., Bergman, E., Eckstein, R. L., Österling, M., Sadler, J. P. & Piccolo, J. (2019). Local and landscape drivers of aquatic-to-terrestrial subsidies in riparian ecosystems: a worldwide meta-analysis. Ecosphere, 10(4), Article ID e02697.
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Local and landscape drivers of aquatic-to-terrestrial subsidies in riparian ecosystems: a worldwide meta-analysis
Show others...
2019 (English)In: Ecosphere, ISSN 2150-8925, E-ISSN 2150-8925, Vol. 10, no 4, article id e02697Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Cross-boundary fluxes of organisms and matter, termed “subsidies,” are now recognized to be reciprocal and of roughly equal importance for both aquatic and terrestrial systems, even if terrestrial input to aquatic ecosystems has received most attention. The magnitude of aquatic-to-terrestrial subsidies is well documented, but the drivers behind these subsidies and their utilization by terrestrial consumers are characteristically local-scale studies, limiting the inferences that can be drawn for broader geographic scales. We therefore built and analyzed a database of stable isotope data extracted from 21 studies worldwide, to identify both landscape-scale (catchment) and local-scale (100-m riparian zone) variables that may affect the diet of terrestrial predators in riparian ecosystems. Our meta-analysis revealed a greater magnitude of aquatic-to-terrestrial subsidies (>50%) than previously reported, albeit with large geographic and inter-annual variations. Moreover, we demonstrated a large effect of landscape-scale factors on aquatic-to-terrestrial subsidies, particularly anthropogenic land use and tree cover. Local human population was the only relevant factor at the local scale. We also found that studies on landscape-scale and anthropogenic land use effects on aquatic-to-terrestrial subsidies are strongly under-represented in the ecological literature, which limits the general inferences that can currently be drawn about landscape effects. We suggest that landscape-scale studies could improve our understanding of how land use and environmental change might influence future patterns of biodiversity and ecosystem function.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Wiley-Blackwell, 2019
Keywords
anthropogenic land use, aquatic subsidies, diet, human population, stable isotopes, terrestrial predators
National Category
Ecology Biological Sciences
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:kau:diva-72496 (URN)10.1002/ecs2.2697 (DOI)2-s2.0-85065024924 (Scopus ID)
Available from: 2019-06-13 Created: 2019-06-13 Last updated: 2019-06-13Bibliographically approved
Kopnina, H., Washington, H., Taylor, B. & Piccolo, J. (2018). Anthropocentrism: More than just a misunderstood problem. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 31(1), 109-127
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Anthropocentrism: More than just a misunderstood problem
2018 (English)In: Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, ISSN 1187-7863, E-ISSN 1573-322X, Vol. 31, no 1, p. 109-127Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Anthropocentrism, in its original connotation in environmental ethics, is the belief that value is human-centred and that all other beings are means to human ends. Environmentally -concerned authors have argued that anthropocentrism is ethically wrong and at the root of ecological crises. Some environmental ethicists argue, however, that critics of anthropocentrism are misguided or even misanthropic. They contend: first that criticism of anthropocentrism can be counterproductive and misleading by failing to distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate human interests. Second, that humans differ greatly in their environmental impacts, and consequently, addressing human inequalities should be a precondition for environmental protection. Third, since ecosystems constitute the "life-support system" for humans, anthropocentrism can and should be a powerful motivation for environmental protection. Fourth, human self-love is not only natural but helpful as a starting point for loving others, including nonhumans. Herein we analyze such arguments, agreeing with parts of them while advancing four counter-arguments. First, redefining the term anthropocentrism seems to be an attempt to ignore behavior in which humans focus on themselves at the risk of the planet. Second, if addressing human inequalities is a precondition for environmental protection, biodiversity protection will remain out of the scope of ethical consideration for an indefinite period of time. Third, anthropocentric motivations can only make a positive contribution to the environment in situations where humans are conscious of a direct benefit to themselves. Fourth, 'self-love' alone is an inadequate basis for environmental concern and action. We also explore the question of agency, shared responsibility, and a fair attribution of blame for our environmental predicaments.

National Category
Ecology
Research subject
Environmental Science
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:kau:diva-66459 (URN)10.1007/s10806-018-9711-1 (DOI)000424023600008 ()
Available from: 2018-02-22 Created: 2018-02-22 Last updated: 2019-06-17Bibliographically approved
Washington, H., Chapron, G., Kopnina, H., Curry, P., Gray, J. & Piccolo, J. (2018). Foregrounding ecojustice in conservation. Biological Conservation, 228, 367-374
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Foregrounding ecojustice in conservation
Show others...
2018 (English)In: Biological Conservation, ISSN 0006-3207, E-ISSN 1873-2917, Vol. 228, p. 367-374Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Justice for nature remains a confused term. In recent decades justice has predominantly been limited to humanity, with a strong focus on social justice, and its spin-off – environmental justice for people. We first examine the formal rationale for ecocentrism and ecological ethics, as this underpins attitudes towards justice for nature, and show how justice for nature has been affected by concerns about dualisms and by strong anthropocentric bias. We next consider the traditional meaning of social justice, alongside the recent move by some scholars to push justice for nature into social justice, effectively weakening any move to place ecojustice centre-stage. This, we argue, is both unethical and doomed to failure as a strategy to protect life on Earth. The dominant meaning of ‘environmental justice’ – in essence, justice for humans in regard to environmental issues – is also explored. We next discuss what ecological justice (ecojustice) is, and how academia has ignored it for many decades. The charge of ecojustice being ‘antihuman’ is refuted. We argue that distributive justice can also apply to nature, including an ethic of bio-proportionality, and also consider how to reconcile social justice and ecojustice, arguing that ecojustice must now be foregrounded to ensure effective conservation. After suggesting a ‘Framework for implementing ecojustice’ for conservation practitioners, we conclude by urging academia to foreground ecojustice. © 2018

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Elsevier, 2018
Keywords
Ecological ethics, Ecological justice, Environmental justice, Intrinsic value, Social justice
National Category
Ethics Ecology
Research subject
Biology
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:kau:diva-70264 (URN)10.1016/j.biocon.2018.09.011 (DOI)000452815200039 ()
Available from: 2018-11-22 Created: 2018-11-22 Last updated: 2019-02-18Bibliographically approved
Filipsson, K., Petersson, T., Hojesjo, J., Piccolo, J., Naslund, J., Wengstrom, N. & Österling, M. (2018). Heavy loads of parasitic freshwater pearl mussel (Margaritifera margaritifera L.) larvae impair foraging, activity and dominance performance in juvenile brown trout (Salmo trutta L.). Ecology of Freshwater Fish, 27(1), 70-77
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Heavy loads of parasitic freshwater pearl mussel (Margaritifera margaritifera L.) larvae impair foraging, activity and dominance performance in juvenile brown trout (Salmo trutta L.)
Show others...
2018 (English)In: Ecology of Freshwater Fish, ISSN 0906-6691, E-ISSN 1600-0633, Vol. 27, no 1, p. 70-77Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

The life cycle of the endangered freshwater pearl mussel (Margaritifera margaritifera) includes a parasitic larval phase (glochidia) on the gills of a salmonid host. Glochidia encystment has been shown to affect both swimming ability and prey capture success of brown trout (Salmo trutta), which suggests possible fitness consequences for host fish. To further investigate the relationship between glochidia encystment and behavioural parameters in brown trout, pairs (n = 14) of wild-caught trout (infested vs. uninfested) were allowed to drift feed in large stream aquaria and foraging success, activity, agonistic behaviour and fish coloration were observed. No differences were found between infested and uninfested fish except for in coloration, where infested fish were significantly darker than uninfested fish. Glochidia load per fish varied from one to several hundred glochidia, however, and high loads had significant effects on foraging, activity and behaviour. Trout with high glochidia loads captured less prey, were less active and showed more subordinate behaviour than did fish with lower loads. Heavy glochidia loads therefore may negatively influence host fitness due to reduced competitive ability. These findings have implications not only for management of mussel populations in the streams, but also for captive breeding programmes which perhaps should avoid high infestation rates. Thus, low levels of infestation on host fish which do not affect trout behaviour but maintains mussel populations may be optimal in these cases.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
John Wiley & Sons, 2018
National Category
Biological Sciences
Research subject
Biology
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:kau:diva-65930 (URN)10.1111/eff.12324 (DOI)000417191100006 ()
Available from: 2018-01-25 Created: 2018-01-25 Last updated: 2019-07-11Bibliographically approved
Obregón, C., Lyndon, A. R., Barker, J., Christiansen, H., Godley, B. J., Kurland, S., . . . Mariani, S. (2018). Valuing and understanding fish populations in the Anthropocene: Key questions to address. Journal of Fish Biology, 92(3), 828-845
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Valuing and understanding fish populations in the Anthropocene: Key questions to address
Show others...
2018 (English)In: Journal of Fish Biology, ISSN 0022-1112, E-ISSN 1095-8649, Vol. 92, no 3, p. 828-845Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Research on the values of fish populations and fisheries has primarily focused on bio-economic aspects; a more nuanced and multidimensional perspective is mostly neglected. Although a range of social aspects is increasingly being considered in fisheries research, there is still no clear understanding as to how to include these additional values within management policies nor is there a cogent appreciation of the major knowledge gaps that should be tackled by future research. This paper results from a workshop held during the 50th anniversary symposium of the Fisheries Society of the British Isles at the University of Exeter, UK, in July 2017. Here, we aim to highlight the current knowledge gaps on the values of fish populations and fisheries thus directing future research. To this end, we present eight questions that are deeply relevant to understanding the values of fish populations and fisheries. These can be applied to all habitats and fisheries, including freshwater, estuarine and marine.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2018
Keywords
Biodiversity, Conservation, Fisheries economics, Fisheries management, Human societies, Sustainability
National Category
Biological Sciences
Research subject
Biology
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:kau:diva-66536 (URN)10.1111/jfb.13536 (DOI)000427477600017 ()2-s2.0-85041680516 (Scopus ID)
Available from: 2018-03-02 Created: 2018-03-02 Last updated: 2018-06-12Bibliographically approved
Piccolo, J., Washington, H., Kopnina, H. & Taylor, B. (2018). Why conservation scientists should re-embrace their ecocentric roots. Conservation Biology, 32(4), 959-961
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Why conservation scientists should re-embrace their ecocentric roots
2018 (English)In: Conservation Biology, ISSN 0888-8892, E-ISSN 1523-1739, Vol. 32, no 4, p. 959-961Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Ecocentrism, the recognition of intrinsic natural value, is and should continue to be a vital element of biodiversity conservation

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
John Wiley & Sons, 2018
National Category
Biological Sciences
Research subject
Biology
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:kau:diva-66730 (URN)10.1111/cobi.13067 (DOI)
Available from: 2018-03-16 Created: 2018-03-16 Last updated: 2018-08-15Bibliographically approved
Piccolo, J. & Watz, J. (2017). Foraging Behaviour of Brown Trout: A Model Species For Linking Individual Ecology to Population Dynamics? (1ed.). In: Javier Lobón-Cerviá and Nuria Sanz (Ed.), Brown Trout: Biology, Ecology and Management: (pp. 369-382). John Wiley & Sons
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Foraging Behaviour of Brown Trout: A Model Species For Linking Individual Ecology to Population Dynamics?
2017 (English)In: Brown Trout: Biology, Ecology and Management / [ed] Javier Lobón-Cerviá and Nuria Sanz, John Wiley & Sons, 2017, 1, p. 369-382Chapter in book (Refereed)
Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
John Wiley & Sons, 2017 Edition: 1
National Category
Ecology
Research subject
Biology
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:kau:diva-65011 (URN)10.1002/9781119268352.ch15 (DOI)978-1-119-26831-4 (ISBN)
Available from: 2017-10-30 Created: 2017-10-30 Last updated: 2019-06-17Bibliographically approved
Cafaro, P., Butler, T., Crist, E., Cryer, P., Dinerstein, E., Kopnina, H., . . . Washington, H. (2017). If we want a whole Earth, Nature Needs Half: a response to Buscher et al. [Letter to the editor]. Oryx, 51(3), 400-400
Open this publication in new window or tab >>If we want a whole Earth, Nature Needs Half: a response to Buscher et al.
Show others...
2017 (English)In: Oryx, ISSN 0030-6053, E-ISSN 1365-3008, Vol. 51, no 3, p. 400-400Article in journal, Letter (Refereed) Published
Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Cambridge University Press, 2017
National Category
Ecology Botany Zoology Environmental Sciences Other Earth and Related Environmental Sciences
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:kau:diva-65661 (URN)10.1017/S0030605317000072 (DOI)000403791000013 ()
Available from: 2018-01-18 Created: 2018-01-18 Last updated: 2018-07-04Bibliographically approved
Piccolo, J. (2017). Intrinsic values in nature: Objective good or simply half of an unhelpful dichotomy?. Journal for Nature Conservation, 37, 8-11
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Intrinsic values in nature: Objective good or simply half of an unhelpful dichotomy?
2017 (English)In: Journal for Nature Conservation, ISSN 1617-1381, E-ISSN 1618-1093, Vol. 37, p. 8-11Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Two generations of conservationists and philosophers have built a strong case for intrinsic values in nature; they are the basis of the normative postulates of conservation biology. I argue that the recognition of intrinsic natural value is a fundamental and non-negotiable aspect of an eco-evolutionary worldview. Recently, relational values, "preferences, principles, and virtues associated with relationships", have been proposed as a third category of values in nature, which may help to resolve the debate between instrumental and intrinsic valuation. By depicting intrinsic values as part of an unhelpful dichotomy between anthropocentric and ecocentric values, the current assessment of relational values fails to adequately account for the modern philosophical view of intrinsic natural value. The recognition of intrinsic natural value is not merely an academic exercise, but rather a vital aspect of conservation of the biosphere; recognition of value entails the obligation to do what is right, i.e., protect the good. Any attempt to reframe the discussion about values and environmental protection through more formal recognition of relational values will need to more clearly address how relational and intrinsic values coexist and how they can jointly form the basis for nature conservation. (C) 2017 The Author. Published by Elsevier GmbH.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Elsevier, 2017
National Category
Biological Sciences
Research subject
Biology
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:kau:diva-65681 (URN)10.1016/j.jnc.2017.02.007 (DOI)000404558600002 ()
Available from: 2018-01-18 Created: 2018-01-18 Last updated: 2018-06-11Bibliographically approved
Piccolo, J. (2017). The Land Ethic and conservation of native salmonids. Ecology of Freshwater Fish, 26, 160-164
Open this publication in new window or tab >>The Land Ethic and conservation of native salmonids
2017 (English)In: Ecology of Freshwater Fish, ISSN 0906-6691, E-ISSN 1600-0633, Vol. 26, p. 160-164Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
John Wiley & Sons, 2017
National Category
Biological Sciences
Research subject
Biology
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:kau:diva-43294 (URN)10.1111/eff.12263 (DOI)000390137700015 ()
Available from: 2016-06-17 Created: 2016-06-17 Last updated: 2017-08-10Bibliographically approved
Organisations
Identifiers
ORCID iD: ORCID iD iconorcid.org/0000-0002-2633-4178

Search in DiVA

Show all publications