Kate A. Schofield’s research while affiliated with Pakistan Environmental Protection Agency and other places

Evidence assessment—identifying, evaluating, and synthesizing data and findings from previous studies—is important to inform environmental decision-making but can be slow and resource intensive. Users seeking more efficient approaches have developed a wide range of definitions and methods for Rapid Evidence Assessment (REA), raising concerns about consistency and rigor. To improve consistency and confidence in REA, we convened an international group of evidence users and researchers to define REA for environmental applications. Our iteratively developed consensus definition of REA highlights it as an efficient, structured process that is suitable for decisions with moderate to high risk profiles; transparent regarding the trade-offs required and potential bias; able to integrate multiple types of evidence; and reflective of the decision-making context. Having a standardized definition of REA, which improves transparency and facilitates decisions about the appropriate levels of required rigor, will be helpful to those who commission, carry out, and use REAs.

The internal validity of conclusions about effectiveness or impact in systematic reviews, and of decisions based on them, depends on risk of bias assessments being conducted appropriately. However, a random sample of 50 recently-published articles claiming to be quantitative environmental systematic reviews found 64% did not include any risk of bias assessment, whilst nearly all that did omitted key sources of bias. Other limitations included lack of transparency, conflation of quality constructs, and incomplete application of risk of bias assessments to the data synthesis. This paper addresses deficiencies in risk of bias assessments by highlighting core principles that are required for risk of bias assessments to be fit-for-purpose, and presenting a framework based on these principles to guide review teams on conducting risk of bias assessments appropriately and consistently. The core principles require that risk of bias assessments be Focused, Extensive, Applied and Transparent (FEAT). These principles support risk of bias assessments, appraisal of risk of bias tools, and the development of new tools. The framework follows a Plan-Conduct-Apply-Report approach covering all stages of risk of bias assessment. The scope of this paper is comparative quantitative environmental systematic reviews which address PICO or PECO-type questions including, but not limited to, topic areas such as environmental management, conservation, ecosystem restoration, and analyses of environmental interventions, exposures, impacts and risks.

Background Eutrophication of freshwater ecosystems resulting from nitrogen and phosphorus pollution is a major environmental stressor across the globe. In this systematic review, we compiled and synthesized literature on sestonic and benthic chlorophyll a (chl-a) responses to total nitrogen (TN) and total phosphorus (TP) concentrations in the water column in streams and rivers to provide a state-of-the-science summary of nutrient impacts on these endpoints. This review was motivated by the need for comprehensive information on stressor-response relationships for the most common nutrient and biotic response measures used by state-level environmental managers in the United States to assess eutrophication of lotic ecosystems and support environmental decision making. Methods Searches for peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed articles were conducted using bibliographic databases, specialist websites, and search engines. These returns were supplemented with citation mapping and requests for material from experts. Articles were screened for relevance using pre-determined eligibility criteria, and risk of bias was evaluated for each included article based on study type-specific criteria. Narrative summaries and meta-analysis were used to evaluate four primary stressor-response relationships: TN-benthic chl-a, TP-benthic chl-a, TN-sestonic chl-a, and TP-sestonic chl-a. Potential effects of modifying factors and study validity on review conclusions were assessed via sensitivity and sub-group analysis and meta-regression. Results Meta-analysis of 105 articles, representing 439 cause-effect pairs, showed that mean effect sizes of both benthic and sestonic chl-a responses to TN and TP were positive. Of the four stressor-response relationships examined, TP-sestonic chl-a had the most positive relationship, followed by TN-benthic chl-a, TN-sestonic chl-a, and TP-benthic chl-a. For individual U.S. states, mean effect sizes for the four stressor-response relationships were mostly positive, with a few exceptions. Chlorophyll measurement method had a moderately significant influence on mean effect size for TP-sestonic chl-a, with chl-a responding more strongly to TP if fluorometry versus spectrophotometry was used. Year of publication had a significant negative effect on mean effect size, as did mean nutrient concentration for both sestonic chl-a nutrient relationships. When the same study measured both TN and TP, chl-a tended to respond similarly to both nutrients. Sensitivity analysis indicated that conclusions are robust to studies with high risk of bias. Conclusions This systematic review confirms that nutrients consistently impact primary producer biomass in streams and rivers worldwide. It builds on previous literature syntheses evaluating chl-a responses to nutrient concentrations and confirms that benthic and sestonic chl-a respond positively to nutrients across a range of stream and river conditions, but also points to limits on these relationships (e.g., potential saturation at high nutrient concentrations). Lack of consistent reporting of contextual data limited our ability to examine how moderating factors influenced these stressor-response relationships. Overall, we provide nutrient managers responsible for protecting the quality of lotic ecosystems with a comprehensive evidence base for chl-a responses to TN and TP concentrations in the water column.

Slides about our nutrients systematic review presented at the National Monitoring Conference in Denver, CO, USA March 2019

To support sound decision-making in environmental management, we need rigorous, defensible, and transparent synthesis of scientific evidence. The Association for the Sciences of Limnology and Oceanography (ASLO) and associated aquatic science societies are leaders in applying science to decision-making, and yet many environmental decisions are still at risk of having to be made without a comprehensive, well-synthesized evidence base to support them. In this presentation, we discuss two synergistic approaches that can help science inform decision-making: systematic review and evidence banking. Our aim is to promote the use of these approaches, and to enlist support and action from the aquatic science community. We propose that scientists can improve the use and uptake of science in decision-making by making their research more compatible with synthesis efforts by: considering risk of bias when designing studies and reporting results; reporting all relevant contextual information; analyzing data using standard effect size approaches; and publishing raw data. Awareness of how primary research feeds into informing decisions can help broaden the impact of scientific research, making it more directly relevant to decision-making and more likely to contribute to the protection of aquatic ecosystems.

To support sound decision-making in environmental management, we need rigorous, defensible, and transparent synthesis of scientific evidence. The Association for the Sciences of Limnology and Oceanography and associated aquatic science societies are leaders in applying science to decision-making , and yet many environmental decisions are still at risk of having to be made without a comprehensive, well-synthesized evidence base to support them. In this article, we discuss two synergistic approaches that can help science inform decision-making: systematic review and evidence banking. Our aim is to promote the use of these approaches, and to enlist support and action from you, the aquatic science community. We propose that you can improve the use and uptake of science in decision-making by making your research more compatible with synthesis efforts by: considering risk of bias when designing your study and reporting results; reporting all relevant contextual information; analyzing your data using standard effect size approaches; and publishing your raw data. Awareness of how primary research feeds into informing policies can help you broaden the impact of your research, making it more directly relevant to decision-making and more likely to contribute to the protection of aquatic ecosystems.

Research Impact Statement: Fully including aquatic, wetland, and terrestrial habitats facilitates adoption of next-generation, individual-based, models that integrate principles of population, community, and ecosystem ecology. ABSTRACT: We describe a collection of aquatic and wetland habitats in an inland landscape, and their occurrence within a terrestrial matrix, as a "freshwater ecosystem mosaic" (FEM). Aquatic and wetland habitats in any FEM can vary widely, from permanently ponded lakes, to ephemerally ponded wetlands, to groundwater-fed springs, to flowing rivers and streams. The terrestrial matrix can also vary, including in its influence on flows of energy, materials, and organisms among ecosystems. Biota occurring in a specific region are adapted to the unique opportunities and challenges presented by spatial and temporal patterns of habitat types inherent to each FEM. To persist in any given landscape, most species move to recolonize habitats and maintain mixtures of genetic materials. Species also connect habitats through time if they possess needed morphological, physiological , or behavioral traits to persist in a habitat through periods of unfavorable environmental conditions. By examining key spatial and temporal patterns underlying FEMs, and species-specific adaptations to these patterns , a better understanding of the structural and functional connectivity of a landscape can be obtained. Fully including aquatic, wetland, and terrestrial habitats in FEMs facilitates adoption of the next generation of individual based models that integrate the principles of population, community, and ecosystem ecology. (

Streams, riparian areas, floodplains, alluvial aquifers, and downstream waters (e.g., large rivers, lakes, and oceans) are interconnected by longitudinal, lateral, and vertical fluxes of water, other materials, and energy. Collectively, these interconnected waters are called fluvial hydrosystems. Physical and chemical connectivity within fluvial hydrosystems is created by the transport of nonliving materials (e.g., water, sediment, nutrients, and contaminants) which either do or do not chemically change (chemical and physical connections, respectively). A substantial body of evidence unequivocally demonstrates physical and chemical connectivity between streams and riparian wetlands and downstream waters. Streams and riparian wetlands are structurally connected to downstream waters through the network of continuous channels and floodplain form that make these systems physically contiguous, and the very existence of these structures provides strong geomorphologic evidence for connectivity. Functional connections between streams and riparian wetlands and their downstream waters vary geographically and over time, based on proximity, relative size, environmental setting, material disparity, and intervening units. Because of the complexity and dynamic nature of connections among fluvial hydrosystem units, a complete accounting of the physical and chemical connections and their consequences to downstream waters should aggregate over multiple years to decades.