a b s t r a c tThe challenges that face humanity today differ from the past because as the scale of human influence has increased, our biggest challenges have become global in nature, and formerly local problems that could be addressed by shifting populations or switching resources, now aggregate (i.e., "scale up") limiting potential management options. Adaptive management is an approach to natural resource management that emphasizes learning through management based on the philosophy that knowledge is incomplete and much of what we think we know is actually wrong. Adaptive management has explicit structure, including careful elucidation of goals, identification of alternative management objectives and hypotheses of causation, and procedures for the collection of data followed by evaluation and reiteration. It is evident that adaptive management has matured, but it has also reached a crossroads. Practitioners and scientists have developed adaptive management and structured decision making techniques, and mathematicians have developed methods to reduce the uncertainties encountered in resource management, yet there continues to be misapplication of the method and misunderstanding of its purpose. Ironically, the confusion over the term "adaptive management" may stem from the flexibility inherent in the approach, which has resulted in multiple interpretations of "adaptive management" that fall along a continuum of complexity and a priori design. Adaptive management is not a panacea for the navigation of 'wicked problems' as it does not produce easy answers, and is only appropriate in a subset of natural resource management problems where both uncertainty and controllability are high. Nonetheless, the conceptual underpinnings of adaptive management are simple; there will always be inherent uncertainty and unpredictability in the dynamics and behavior of complex social-ecological systems, but management decisions must still be made, and whenever possible, we should incorporate learning into management.Published by Elsevier Ltd.

The concept of panarchy provides a framework that characterizes complex systems of people and nature as dynamically organized and structured within and across scales of space and time. It has been more than a decade since the introduction of panarchy. Over this period, its invocation in peer-reviewed literature has been steadily increasing, but its use remains primarily descriptive and abstract. Here, we discuss the use of the concept in the literature to date, highlight where the concept may be useful, and discuss limitations to the broader applicability of panarchy theory for research in the ecological and social sciences. Finally, we forward a set of testable hypotheses to evaluate key propositions that follow from panarchy theory.

Transformative governance is an approach to environmental governance that has the capacity to respond to, manage, and trigger regime shifts in coupled social-ecological systems (SESs) at multiple scales. The goal of transformative governance is to actively shift degraded SESs to alternative, more desirable, or more functional regimes by altering the structures and processes that define the system. Transformative governance is rooted in ecological theories to explain cross-scale dynamics in complex systems, as well as social theories of change, innovation, and technological transformation. Similar to adaptive governance, transformative governance involves a broad set of 399 U.S. government works are not subject to copyright. governance components, but requires additional capacity to foster new social-ecological regimes including increased risk tolerance, significant systemic investment, and restructured economies and power relations. Transformative governance has the potential to actively respond to regime shifts triggered by climate change, and thus future research should focus on identifying system drivers and leading indicators associated with social-ecological thresholds.

Urban impervious surfaces convert precipitation to stormwater runoff, which causes water quality and quantity problems. While traditional stormwater management has relied on gray infrastructure such as piped conveyances to collect and convey stormwater to wastewater treatment facilities or into surface waters, cities are exploring green infrastructure to manage stormwater at its source. Decentralized green infrastructure leverages the capabilities of soil and vegetation to infiltrate, redistribute, and otherwise store stormwater volume, with the potential to realize ancillary environmental, social, and economic benefits. To date, green infrastructure science and practice have largely focused on infiltration-based technologies that include rain gardens, bioswales, and permeable pavements. However, a narrow focus on infiltration overlooks other losses from the hydrologic cycle, and we propose that arboriculturethe cultivation of trees and other woody plantsdeserves additional consideration as a stormwater control measure. Trees interact with the urban hydrologic cycle by intercepting incoming precipitation, removing water from the soil via transpiration, enhancing infiltration, and bolstering the performance of other green infrastructure technologies. However, many of these interactions are inadequately understood, particularly at spatial and temporal scales relevant to stormwater management. As such, the reliable use of trees for stormwater control depends on improved understanding of how and to what extent trees interact with stormwater, and the context-specific consideration of optimal arboricultural practices and institutional frameworks to maximize the stormwater benefits trees can provide.

Understanding how animals interact with their environment is critical for evaluating, mitigating and coping with anthropogenic alteration of Earth's biosphere. Researchers have attempted to understand some aspects of these interactions by examining patterns in animal body mass distributions. Energetic, phylogenetic, biogeographical, textural discontinuity and community interaction hypotheses have been advanced to explain observed patterns. Energetic and textural discontinuity hypotheses focus upon the allometry of resource use. The community interaction hypothesis contends that biotic interactions within assemblages of species are of primary importance. Biogeographical and phylogenetic hypotheses focus on the role of constraints on the organization of communities. This paper examines and organizes these various propositions about species body mass distributions and discusses the multiple competing hypotheses, how their predictions vary, and possible methods by which the hypotheses can be distinguished and tested. Each of the hypotheses is partial, and explains some elements of pattern in body mass distributions. The scale of appropriate application, relevance and interpretation varies among the hypotheses, and the mechanisms underlying observed patterns are likely to be multicausal and vary with scale.