Quantifying fish range shifts across poorly defined management boundaries.

Management regimes of marine resources that rely on spatial boundaries might be poorly adapted to climate change shifts in species distributions. This is of specific concern for the management of fish stocks that cross management jurisdictions, known as shared stocks. Transitioning to dynamic rules in spatial management has been suggested as a solution for mismatches between species distributions and the spatial boundaries. However, in many cases spatial boundaries are not clearly drawn, hampering such transitions. Here, we use black sea bass (Centropristis striata), summer flounder (Paralichthys dentatus) and scup (Stenotomus chrysops) as case studies to explore different approaches to designing spatial regulatory units to facilitate the adaptation of fisheries management to shifting distributions of shared stocks. First, we determine the yearly distribution of each stock within the United States Exclusive Economic Zone from 1951 to 2019 during Fall and Spring sampling seasons. Second, we explore two approaches for drawing regulatory units based on state waters and historical landings. Finally, we estimate each state's proportion of the stock's distribution and compare historical and recent values. We show that the distribution of all three stocks has changed relative to the years used to determine the current quota allocation across states, with an overall gain for central-northern states at the expense of the southernmost states. In terms of the distribution of allocation, we find that, while seasonal differences exist, the biggest differences in the proportion of the stock spatial distribution attributed to each state come from the method for designing regulatory units. Here, we show that the method used to define allocation units can have meaningful impacts on resulting adaptive policy. As climate change-driven conflicts in fishing resource allocation are expected to increase and deepen around the world, we provide a replicable approach to make an informed and transparent choice to support data-driven decision-making.

Climate adaptation in the market squid fishery: fishermen responses to past variability associated with El Niño Southern Oscillation cycles inform our understanding of adaptive capacity in the face of future climate change.

Evaluating the strategies fishermen have used to respond to short-term climate variability in the past can help inform our understanding of the adaptive capacity of a fishery in the face of anticipated future change. Using historic fishery landings, climate records, and fishermen surveys, we document how market squid fishermen respond to high seasonal and interannual climate variability associated with the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and responses to hypothetical future scenarios of low abundance and range shift. Overall, fishermen have been able to adapt to dramatic shifts in the geographic range of the fishery given their high mobility, with fishermen with larger vessels expressing a willingness to travel greater distances than those with smaller vessels. Nearly half of fishermen stated that they would switch fisheries if market squid decreased dramatically in abundance, although fishermen who were older, had been in the fishery longer, were highly dependent on squid for income, and held only squid and/or coastal pelagic finfish permits were less likely to switch to another fishery in a scenario of lower abundance. While market squid fishermen have exhibited highly adaptive behavior in the face of past climate variability, recent (and likely future) range shifts across state boundaries, as well as closures of other fisheries, constrain fishermen's choices and emphasize the need for flexibility in management systems. Our study highlights the importance of considering connectivity between fisheries and monitoring and anticipating trans-jurisdictional range shifts to facilitate adaptive fishery management. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10584-022-03394-z.

Household composition after resettlement and emotional health in adolescent migrants.

Background: Migration during adolescence constitutes an important stressor that particularly impacts unaccompanied minors (UAM). Adolescent UAM in the United States (U.S.) are relatively understudied, especially regarding their resilience and emotional well-being after resettlement. Small school-based studies have documented the mental health status of UAM who resettled reuniting with their parents. However, many do not resettle with parents and less is known about the degree to which post-resettlement household composition impacts resilience and emotional well-being. Methods: Our goal was to examine how migration characteristics, supports, resilience, and emotional well-being vary by UAM resettlement household composition (reunification with parents, reunification with a non-parental family member, or living in a household not containing any family members). Using a mixed-methods (quantitative-qualitative) cross-sectional approach, we assessed 46 Latin American adolescent UAM to the U.S. who resettled into these three household types. Results: Youth experienced support differently by household type, influencing their strategies for adapting and coping post-resettlement, impacting their resilience (Kruskal Wallis-H 4.8; p<0.09) and emotional well-being (Kruskal Wallis 5.3; p<0.07). Youth living in households without relatives (n = 9) had lower resilience (Fisher's exact test p<0.002) and positive affect (Fisher's exact test p<0.003) and needed to expend greater efforts to mobilize social supports than youth living with parents (n = 22) or with non-parental family members (n = 15). Conclusion: The needs and coping abilities of UAM migrants vary with the composition of their immediate receiving environment, their post-resettlement household. Understanding differences associated with these household characteristics can guide interventions to maximize emotional health and resilience.

Emulsifiers and Intestinal Health: An Introduction.

ABSTRACT: Food additives in general, and emulsifiers in particular, are considered to be important dietary components with a potential to harm the intestine, in part by promoting intestinal inflammation. There is inadequate objective information about the specific nature and the magnitude of the problem.The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has recognized approximately 450 items added to our foods as being generally regarded as safe and has placed them on a generally regarded as safe (GRAS) list. Additionally, it has also approved approximately 3000 "food additives." There is a general lack of transparency as to how either of these selections were and continue to be made. Once items are officially designated by the FDA as "food additives" or placed on the GRAS list, there is no regulatory mechanism for the ongoing monitoring of their safety.The most widely used emulsifier is "lecithin," which is biochemically identified as phosphatidylcholine (PC). Regulatory guidelines allow manufacturers to use the label "lecithin" to be applied to emulsifiers that contain PC plus other phospholipids in a variety of unspecified concentrations. The PC used in experiments cited in the literature, is unlikely to be the same thing as the "lecithin" in our diets.The objective of this introduction to emulsifiers is to raise awareness of the current state of food additives in the USA and to encourage thoughtful approaches to the study of all additives found in our diets. The overriding goal should be to assure the safety of what we eat. As examples we discuss eight widely distributed food additives; four "natural" emulsifiers that are classified as GRAS as well as an additional emulsifier-associated food additive that is also on the GRAS list, and three synthetic emulsifying agents that are FDA approved as "food additives."

Reducing the prevalence of chemical UV filters from sunscreen in aquatic environments: Regulatory, public awareness, and other considerations.

Given increasing concerns about the persistence and toxic effects of some sunscreen ingredients in aquatic ecosystems, several states, territories, and nations have banned the sale and/or possession of sunscreens containing chemicals of concern. Little is known, however, about the outcomes or effectiveness of these efforts to reduce the prevalence of toxic chemicals in coastal waters. This article reviews the state of knowledge relating to regulatory and other efforts to reduce the impact of chemical ingredients in sunscreens on aquatic ecosystems, focusing on the following questions: To what extent will local legislative restrictions on ingredients actually reduce the concentrations of chemicals in coastal waters and protect aquatic health? Do these legislative measures effectively decrease overall public use of sunscreens containing potentially harmful ingredients, or would other measures, such as local outreach programs, consumer education, or broad-scale ingredient regulation, be more effective? How might restrictions on chemical UV filters impact human health? Although it is still early to assess the outcomes of recent ingredient bans, their effectiveness is limited by the fact that legislation generally applies only to sunscreens sold within the legislating jurisdiction. Public awareness campaigns can be locally effective, but they are hindered by the absence of clear environmental labeling standards for sunscreen. Although retail and industry groups, and many dermatologists, cite concerns that sunscreen ingredient bans might lead to increased incidences of skin cancer, consumer preferences are influenced by a wide range of factors and no studies clearly document whether restrictions on chemical ingredients will cause people to use sun protection less frequently or less effectively. Until more information is available, many consider it prudent to take a precautionary approach to sunscreen regulation supported by broad-scale, consistent regulatory policies and labeling standards that limit chemical ingredients to those considered safe for human use and ecosystem health. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2021;17:982-988. © 2021 SETAC.

A framework for evaluating and designing citizen science programs for natural resources monitoring.

We present a framework of resource characteristics critical to the design and assessment of citizen science programs that monitor natural resources. To develop the framework we reviewed 52 citizen science programs that monitored a wide range of resources and provided insights into what resource characteristics are most conducive to developing citizen science programs and how resource characteristics may constrain the use or growth of these programs. We focused on 4 types of resource characteristics: biophysical and geographical, management and monitoring, public awareness and knowledge, and social and cultural characteristics. We applied the framework to 2 programs, the Tucson (U.S.A.) Bird Count and the Maui (U.S.A.) Great Whale Count. We found that resource characteristics such as accessibility, diverse institutional involvement in resource management, and social or cultural importance of the resource affected program endurance and success. However, the relative influence of each characteristic was in turn affected by goals of the citizen science programs. Although the goals of public engagement and education sometimes complimented the goal of collecting reliable data, in many cases trade-offs must be made between these 2 goals. Program goals and priorities ultimately dictate the design of citizen science programs, but for a program to endure and successfully meet its goals, program managers must consider the diverse ways that the nature of the resource being monitored influences public participation in monitoring.