Quantum dots (QDs), an important class of emerging nanomaterial, are widely anticipated to find application in many consumer and clinical products in the near future. Premarket regulatory scrutiny is, thus, an issue gaining considerable attention. Previous review papers have focused primarily on the toxicity of QDs. From the point of view of product regulation, however, parameters that determine exposure (e.g., dosage, transformation, transportation, and persistence) are just as important as inherent toxicity. We have structured our review paper according to regulatory risk assessment practices, in order to improve the utility of existing knowledge in a regulatory context. Herein, we summarize the state of academic knowledge on QDs pertaining not only to toxicity, but also their physicochemical properties, and their biological and environmental fate. We conclude this review with recommendations on how to tailor future research efforts to address the specific needs of regulators.

No abstract

Assisted migration has been proposed as one tool to reduce some of the negative ecological consequences of climate change. The idea is to move species to locations that could better suit them climatically in the future. Although humanmediated movements are not a recent phenomenon, assisted migration has lately been the source of debate, in particular within conservation biology circles. In this paper, we outline the major perspectives that help define differing views on assisted migration and shed some light on the ethical roots of the debate in the context of Canadian forests. We emphasize that there are many different forms of assisted migration, each responding to different (often unstated) objectives and involving unique risks and benefits, thus making the debate more nuanced than often portrayed. We point out certain seeming contradictions whereby the same argument may be used to both support and oppose assisted migration. The current debate on assisted migration primarily focuses on ecological risks and benefits; however, numerous uncertainties reduce our capacity to quantitatively assess these outcomes. In fact, much of the debate can be traced back to fundamental perspectives on nature, particularly to the ethical question of whether to deliberately manage natural systems or allow them to adapt on their own. To facilitate discussion, we suggest that the focus should move towards a clearer identification of values and objectives for assisted migration.Keywords: assisted colonization, climate change, environmental ethics, species conservation, forest management RÉSUMÉ La migration assistée a récemment été suggérée comme outil permettant de réduire les conséquences écologiques néga-tives des changements climatiques. L'idée est de déplacer des espèces vers des sites qui leur conviendraient mieux dans le futur. Le déplacement d' espèces par l'homme n' est pas un phénomène nouveau. Cependant, la migration assistée a soulevé des débats récemment, particulièrement dans la sphère de la biologie de la conservation. Cet article a pour objectif de souligner les racines éthiques du débat en clarifiant les principales perspectives et visions sur la migration assistée au Canada. Le terme migration assistée s'applique à plusieurs types d'intervention, chacune correspondant à des objectifs différents (souvent non mentionnés) et impliquant des risques et bénéfices qui lui sont propres. Le débat serait en fait beaucoup plus nuancé que souvent décrit. Nous soulignons certaines contradictions où un même argument est utilisé pour supporter ou s' opposer à la migration assistée. Le débat actuel sur la migration assistée se concentre principalement sur la détermination scientifique des risques et bénéfices écologiques. Cependant, de nombreuses incertitudes réduisent notre capacité à évaluer de façon quantitative les résultats de ces interventions. Une grande partie du débat est en fait liée à notre perspective fondamentale sur la nature, particulièrement à la question éthique de la prise en charge des processus naturels...

For ecosystem measurement frameworks to be accepted, operationalised and implemented by diverse international communities, clear and agreeable concepts and classifications are essential. This paper analyses and develops two foundational typology challenges within ecosystem measurement: the classification of ecosystems and the classification of their services. Our aim is to determine if there is sufficient consensus to ascertain “Which ecosystems provide which services?” for standardised ecosystem accounting. This paper first compares classifications used in nine selected ecosystem assessments as input studies that make value statements about multiple ecosystems providing multiple ecosystem services. Given that these nine studies do not use identical concepts, classifications and terminologies, we develop “supersets” that can accommodate the diversity of classifications used in these input studies. Each input study is then corresponded to these new supersets. On the basis of this analysis, substantial consensus was found that some ecosystems are more likely to provide certain services than others are. However, for several ecosystem types, there was little or no consensus on which services they provide. Linkages for which there is consensus can serve as a checklist for future ecosystem services assessments. Both the framework of the supersets and the correspondence and visual methods developed will be useful for integrating information at different scales (for example, linkages from local, ecosystem-specific and ecosystem services-specific studies). This paper also provides guidance to future ecosystem services assessments to use, test and extend the current classifications of ecosystems and ecosystem services.

Experiments with potted plants of the weed Linaria vulgaris Mill. (Scrophulariaceae) were carried out to evaluate the effects of root mining by Eteobalea (syn. Stagmatophora) spp. (Lep. Cosmopterigidae). Attacked plants had a shorter flowering season and produced seeds of lower weight. Continuous mining during winter resulted in a doubling of the number of stems in spring, but the total plant biomass remained unaffected. This may have been caused by disrupted apical dominance due to root-crown damage. The observed effects are expected to complement those of other agents used in the biological control of L. vulgarLt in North America.