Constraints to implementing the food-energy-water nexus concept: Governance in the Lower Colorado River Basin

Huckleberry, Justyn K.; Potts, Matthew D.

doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2018.11.027

Cited by 34 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As an example, the Lower Colorado River basin supplies approximately half of the total municipal and agricultural water requirements of the state of Arizona, and nearly two-thirds of its total gross state product (GSP) ( Bureau of Reclamation 2012 ; James et al 2014 ). This disproportionate regional reliance creates tension between the governance of a resource and its usage (e.g., Huckleberry and Potts 2019 ) which in turn magnifies the stakes involved in conservation policy ( Minckley 1979 ; Carlson and Muth 1989 ; Minckley et al 2003 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Taxonomic Uncertainty and the Anomaly Zone: Phylogenomics Disentangle a Rapid Radiation to Resolve Contentious Species (Gila robustaComplex) in the Colorado River

Chafin

Douglas

Bangs

et al. 2021

Genome Biology and Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Species are indisputable units for biodiversity conservation, yet their delimitation is fraught with both conceptual and methodological difficulties. A classic example is the taxonomic controversy surrounding the Gila robusta complex in the lower Colorado River of southwestern North America. Nominal species designations were originally defined according to weakly diagnostic morphological differences, but these conflicted with subsequent genetic analyses. Given this ambiguity, the complex was re-defined as a single polytypic unit, with the proposed ‘threatened’ status under the U.S. Endangered Species Act of two elements being withdrawn. Here we re-evaluated the status of the complex by utilizing dense spatial and genomic sampling (N = 387 and >22k loci), coupled with SNP-based coalescent and polymorphism-aware phylogenetic models. In doing so, we found that all three species were indeed supported as evolutionarily independent lineages, despite widespread phylogenetic discordance. To juxtapose this discrepancy with previous studies, we first categorized those evolutionary mechanisms driving discordance, then tested (and subsequently rejected) prior hypotheses which argued phylogenetic discord in the complex was driven by the hybrid origin of Gila nigra. The inconsistent patterns of diversity we found within G. robusta were instead associated with rapid Plio-Pleistocene drainage evolution, with subsequent divergence within the ‘anomaly zone’ of tree space producing ambiguities that served to confound prior studies. Our results not only support resurrection of the three species as distinct entities, but also offer an empirical example of how phylogenetic discordance can be categorized within other recalcitrant taxa, particularly when variation is primarily partitioned at the species-level.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Taxonomic Uncertainty and the Anomaly Zone: Phylogenomics Disentangle a Rapid Radiation to Resolve Contentious Species (Gila robustaComplex) in the Colorado River

Chafin

Douglas

Bangs

et al. 2021

Genome Biology and Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The main topics found in the reviewed papers included "politics" [75,[122][123][124][125], "economics" [118], "climate change" [125][126][127][128][129][130], "water, energy and food security" [5,131], "crises and risks" [55,61,132], "sustainable development" [20,133], and "governance" [16,38,41,57,134].…”

Section: Methods Type and Assessment Toolsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[5,131], "crises and risks" [55,61,132], "sustainable development"[20,133], and "governance"[16,38,41,57,134].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

A Literature Review to Propose a Systematic Procedure to Develop “Nexus Thinking” Considering the Water–Energy–Food Nexus

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is a growing interest in the literature on the theme of the water–energy–food nexus, as there is growing recognition that sectors that share natural resources have interdependent and interconnected systems. Despite the widespread popularity of nexus thinking, it still lacks standardized procedures and methodologies to assist in its development. Therefore, this paper proposes, from a literature review, a systematic procedure to assist in the development of management models based on nexus thinking. To this end, 304 papers were analyzed using the following criteria: nexus concept, type of approach, geographic scale, elements in the nexus system, application context, and types of assessment methods and tools. The results of the review served as the basis for determining the procedure, which consisted of four steps: (a) understanding nexus thinking, (b) identification of composing variables, (c) evaluation (diagnosis and prognosis), and (d) decision-making. In addition to the standardization of these steps, the main information used to compose the procedure was organized and synthesized with a mind map.

show abstract

“…Installation of large-scale hydroelectric schemes has the potential to disrupt water flow over the course of the year: stockpiling water for release during times of need for power, which might be out of phase with the downstream demand for irrigation. Likewise, there are situations in which the competing demands upon water, energy and food resources are concurrent, such as in the Colorado River Basin (Huckleberry and Potts, 2019). Balance must be sought in such situations, and modeling can provide insight into how to achieve this, recognizing the water-energy-food nexus (Hurford and Harou, 2014), and transdisciplinary research on how to achieve this between social groups, especially under circumstances of climate stress (Gerlak et al, 2021).…”

Section: Knowable and Unavoidablementioning

confidence: 99%

Unintended Consequences: Unknowable and Unavoidable, or Knowable and Unforgivable?

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recognizing that there are multiple environmental limits within which humanity can safely operate, it is essential that potential negative outcomes of seemingly positive actions are accounted for. This alertness to unintended consequences underscores the importance of so called “nexus” research, which recognizes the integrated and interactive nature of water, energy and food systems, and aims to understand the broader implications of developments in any one of these systems. This article presents a novel framework for categorizing such detrimental unintended consequences, based upon how much is known about the system in question and the scope for avoiding any such unintended consequences. The framework comprises four categories (Knowable and Avoidable; Knowable and Unavoidable; Unknowable and Avoidable, and Unknowable and Unavoidable). The categories are explored with reference to examples in both the water-energy-food nexus and planetary boundary frameworks. The examples highlight the potential for the unexpected to happen and explore dynamic nature of the situations that give rise to the unexpected. The article concludes with guidance on how the framework can be used to increase confidence that best efforts have been made to navigate our way toward secure and sustainable water, energy and food systems, avoiding and/or managing unintended consequences along the way.

show abstract

Constraints to implementing the food-energy-water nexus concept: Governance in the Lower Colorado River Basin

Cited by 34 publications

References 28 publications

Taxonomic Uncertainty and the Anomaly Zone: Phylogenomics Disentangle a Rapid Radiation to Resolve Contentious Species (Gila robustaComplex) in the Colorado River

Taxonomic Uncertainty and the Anomaly Zone: Phylogenomics Disentangle a Rapid Radiation to Resolve Contentious Species (Gila robustaComplex) in the Colorado River

A Literature Review to Propose a Systematic Procedure to Develop “Nexus Thinking” Considering the Water–Energy–Food Nexus

Unintended Consequences: Unknowable and Unavoidable, or Knowable and Unforgivable?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About