Progressive belowground soil development associated with sustainable plant establishment during copper mine waste revegetation.

Critical to the environmental sustainability of hard rock mining is the reclamation of disturbed lands following mine closure through revegetation. Improved understanding of associations between above- and belowground processes that characterize successful plant establishment is critical to the implementation of more efficient revegetation strategies for nutrient-poor mine waste materials. The specific objective of this five-year temporal study was to identify progressive biotic and abiotic indicators of primary soil development on mine waste rock (WR) on a slope hydroseeded with native plant species and to quantify comparative effects of plant lifeform on soil development. Aboveground plant diversity and belowground substrate properties were measured annually at 67 m intervals along transects following the slope contour. Seeded WR was compared to unseeded WR and the adjacent native ecosystem. A temporal increase in WR microbial biomass was observed in seeded WR relative to unseeded areas. Microbial community analysis found the unseeded WR to be defined by oligotrophic microbes, whereas targeted grass and shrub root zones samples demonstrated significant increases in specific cellulose and lignin degrading and N-cycling phylotypes. More extensive chemical and biological fertility development was observed in shrub root zones relative to grass. Ten chemical and biological indicators increased significantly in shrub WR relative to unseeded WR, whereas grass WR was only enriched in bacterial 16S rRNA gene copy number/g substrate and bacterial/archaeal and fungal diversity. In addition, the shrub root zone had significantly higher nitrogen-cycling potential than grass root zones or unseeded WR. Thus, both grasses and shrubs improve belowground WR development; however, shrub establishment had greater fertility outcomes. Concurrent belowground fertility development is critical to sustainable plant establishment. Coupled evaluation of above- and belowground metrics provides an improved quantitative assessment of revegetation progress and a valuable tool to guide management decisions.

Indigenous Peoples and research: self-determination in research governance.

Indigenous Peoples are reimagining their relationship with research and researchers through greater self-determination and involvement in research governance. The emerging discourse around Indigenous Data Sovereignty has provoked discussions about decolonizing data practices and highlighted the importance of Indigenous Data Governance to support Indigenous decision-making and control of data. Given that much data are generated from research, Indigenous research governance and Indigenous Data Governance overlap. In this paper, we broaden the concept of Indigenous Data Sovereignty by using the CARE Principles for Indigenous Data Governance to discuss how research legislation and policy adopted by Indigenous Peoples in the US set expectations around recognizing sovereign relationships, acknowledging rights and interests in data, and enabling Indigenous Peoples' participation in research governance.

Indigenous Peoples' Rights in Data: a contribution toward Indigenous Research Sovereignty.

Indigenous Peoples' right to sovereignty forms the foundation for advocacy and actions toward greater Indigenous self-determination and control across a range of domains that impact Indigenous Peoples' communities and cultures. Declarations for sovereignty are rising throughout Indigenous communities and across diverse fields, including Network Sovereignty, Food Sovereignty, Energy Sovereignty, and Data Sovereignty. Indigenous Research Sovereignty draws in the sovereignty discourse of these initiatives to consider their applications to the broader research ecosystem. Our exploration of Indigenous Research Sovereignty, or Indigenous self-determination in the context of research activities, has been focused on the relationship between Indigenous Data Sovereignty and efforts to describe Indigenous Peoples' Rights in data.

Extending the CARE Principles from tribal research policies to benefit sharing in genomic research.

Indigenous Peoples have historically been targets of extractive research that has led to little to no benefit. In genomics, such research not only exposes communities to harms and risks of misuse, but also deprives such communities of potential benefits. Tribes in the US have been exercising their sovereignty to limit this extractive practice by adopting laws and policies to govern research on their territories and with their citizens. Federally and state recognized tribes are in the strongest position to assert research oversight. Other tribes lack the same authority, given that federal and state governments do not recognize their rights to regulate research, resulting in varying levels of oversight by tribes. These governance measures establish collective protections absent from the US federal government's research oversight infrastructure, while setting expectations regarding benefits to tribes as political collectives. Using a legal epidemiology approach, the paper discusses findings from a review of Tribal research legislation, policy, and administrative materials from 26 tribes in the US. The discussion specifies issues viewed by tribes as facilitators and barriers to securing benefits from research for their nations and members/citizens, and describes preemptive and mitigating strategies pursued by tribes in response. These strategies are set within the framing of the CARE Principles for Indigenous Data Governance (Collective Benefit, Authority to Control, Responsibility, Ethics), a set of standards developed to ensure that decisions made about data pertaining to Indigenous communities at the individual and tribal levels are responsive to their values and collective interests. Our findings illustrate gaps to address for benefit sharing and a need to strengthen Responsibility and Ethics in tribal research governance.

Relative toxicity of bifenthrin to Hyalella azteca in 10 day versus 28 day exposures.

Many watersheds in the Central Valley region of California are listed as impaired due to pyrethroid-associated sediment toxicity. The Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board is developing numeric sediment quality criteria for pyrethroids, beginning with bifenthrin. Criteria are being developed using existing data, along with data from 10 d and 28 d toxicity tests with Hyalella azteca conducted as part of the current study. A single range-finder and 2 definitive tests were conducted for each test duration. Median lethal concentrations (LC50s), as well as LC20s and inhibition concentrations (IC20s) were calculated based on measured whole sediment bifenthrin concentrations and interstitial water concentrations. Sediment LC50s were also corrected for organic C content. Average LC50s were not significantly different in 10 d versus 28 d tests with H. azteca: 9.1 and 9.6 ng/g bifenthrin for 10 d and 28 d tests, respectively. Average LC20 values were also similar with concentrations at 7.1 and 7.0 for 10 d and 28 d tests, respectively. Bifenthrin inhibition concentrations (IC20s) based on amphipod growth were variable, particularly in the 28 d tests, where a clear dose-response relationship was observed in only 1 of the definitive experiments. Average amphipod growth IC20s were 3.9 and 9.0 ng/g for 10 d and 28 d tests, respectively. Amphipod growth calculated as biomass resulted in IC20s of 4.1 and 6.3 ng/g for the 10 d and 28 d tests, respectively. Lack of a clear growth effect in the longer term test may be related to the lack of food adjustment to account for amphipod mortality in whole sediment exposures. The average C-corrected LC50s were 1.03 and 1.09 µg/g OC for the 10 d and 28 d tests, respectively. Interstitial water LC50s were determined as the measured dissolved concentration of bifenthrin relative to interstitial water dissolved organic carbon. The average LC50s for dissolved interstitial water bifenthrin were 4.23 and 4.28 ng/L for the 10 d and 28 d tests, respectively. In addition, a set of 10 d and 28 d tests were conducted at 15 °C to assess the relative toxicity of bifenthrin at a lower temperature than the standard 23 °C test temperature. These results showed that bifenthrin was more toxic at the lower temperature, with LC50s of 5.1 and 3.4 ng/g bifenthrin in 10 d and 28 d tests, respectively. Amphipod growth at 15 °C after a 28 d exposure resulted in the lowest effect concentration of all experiments conducted (IC20 = 0.61 ng/g). This article discusses how bifenthrin dose-response data from 10 d and 28 d exposures inform development of sediment quality criteria for this pesticide for California Central Valley watersheds.