No abstract

The nal publication is available at Springer via http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10661-016-5228-0Additional information: Use policyThe full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that:• a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in DRO • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.Please consult the full DRO policy for further details.

Abstract:War is an ever-present force that has the potential to alter the biosphere. Here we review the potential consequences of modern war and military activities on ecosystem structure and function. We focus on the effects of direct conflict, nuclear weapons, military training, and military produced contaminants. Overall, the aforementioned activities were found to have overwhelmingly negative effects on ecosystem structure and function. Dramatic habitat alteration, environmental pollution, and disturbance contributed to population declines and biodiversity losses arising from both acute and chronic effects in both terrestrial and aquatic systems. In some instances, even in the face of massive alterations to ecosystem structure, recovery was possible. Interestingly, military activity was beneficial under specific conditions, such as when an exclusion zone was generated that generally resulted in population increases and (or) population recovery; an observation noted in both terrestrial and aquatic systems. Additionally, military technological advances (e.g., GPS technology, drone technology, biotelemetry) have provided conservation scientists with novel tools for research. Because of the challenges associated with conducting research in areas with military activities (e.g., restricted access, hazardous conditions), information pertaining to military impacts on the environment are relatively scarce and are often studied years after military activities have ceased and with no knowledge of baseline conditions. Additional research would help to elucidate the environmental consequences (positive and negative) and thus reveal opportunities for mitigating negative effects while informing the development of optimal strategies for rehabilitation and recovery.Key words: war, biodiversity, ecosystem structure, conflict, military activities, environment, conservation biology.Résumé : La guerre est une force omniprésente ayant le potentiel d'altérer l'atmosphère. Les auteurs passent en revue les conséquences potentielles des activités guerrières et militaires modernes sur la structure et le fonctionnement des écosystèmes. On met l'accent sur les effets directs et indirects des conflits, des armes nucléaires, des entrainements militaires et des contaminants des produits militaires. Dans l'ensemble, on constate que les activités préalablement mentionnées ont des effets négatifs écrasants sur la structure et le fonctionnement des écosystèmes. Avec des altérations dramatiques des habitats, la pollution et les perturbations environnementales contribuent au déclin des populations et aux pertes de biodiversité provenant des effets aigus et chroniques sur les systèmes terrestres aussi bien qu'aquatiques. Tout de même dans certains cas, en présence d'altérations massives de la structure des écosystèmes, la récupération s'est avérée possible. Il est intéressant de noter qu'une activité militaire fut bénéfique sous des conditions spécifiques telles que la création d'une zone d'exclusion, en générant des augmentations générales des p...

No abstract

Digital action cameras (ACs) are increasingly being utilized for aquatic research purposes due to their cost effectiveness, versatility, high‐resolution imagery, and durability. Here we review the advantages of AC technology in research, with particular emphases on (a) research videography (both in the field and the laboratory), (b) animal‐borne studies, and (c) outreach and education purposes. We also review some of the limitations of this technology as represented by environmental factors (e.g., depth, turbidity) and deployment considerations (e.g., lens choices, imaging settings, battery life). As AC technologies evolve in response to growing public interest in their application versatility, researchers are indirectly reaping the rewards, with technological advances that are innovative, cost‐effective, and can withstand frequent use in dynamic and rugged field conditions. With such a diversity of options available, future usefulness of ACs in research will only be limited by the creativity of the scientists using them.