Introduction

Forestry sector decentralization policies are a widespread phenomenon across the Global South [1]. Officially, these policies have been driven by a belief that situating decision making closer to where forest management and use actually occurs — where its direct effects are felt most immediately — and in the hands of representative local authorities, will result in more ecologically and socially sustainable outcomes [2]. These are broadly the same official rationales underlying the support to various community-based forest management approaches. Research on forestry decentralization policies has proliferated and grown in widely different directions through contributions from different disciplines. Therefore, in this paper, we attempt a synthesis of recent contributions to this literature aiming to identify strands within it and illustrate differences, overlaps, and gaps among these. We believe this will assist scholars in situating their own work within this burgeoning literature. We also believe it is relevant to ongoing efforts at forestry decentralization as well as to more recent carbon forestry initiatives that in different ways articulate with and (re)shape existing forestry decentralization policies [3–5]. Our review focuses on research that examines forestry decentralization processes by which decision-making powers over forests are handed down, or devolved, to lower levels in a jurisdictional hierarchy of the state [6]. This implies transfers to subnational bodies, such as provinces, districts, wards, villages, or user groups. In the following we present and discuss four strands within the literature assess how decentralization impacts forests and livelihoods; studies that examine whether decentralization empowers public and democratic local institutions; studies focusing on power and elite interests in decentralization, and; studies that historicize and contextualize decentralization as reflective of broader societal phenomena. We argue that these strands reflect disciplinary differences in values, epistemologies, and methods preferences, and that they present partial representations of forestry decentralization policies (see Figure 1). Although we try to provide both depth and coverage, our review should be seen as representative of studies within the four strands we identify, and not as an attempt at fully covering the existing literature.

The plasma membrane (PM) H+ -ATPase is an important ion pump in the plant cell membrane. By extruding protons from the cell and generating a membrane potential, this pump energizes the PM, which is a prerequisite for growth. Modification of the autoinhibitory terminal domains activates PM H+ -ATPase activity, and on this basis it has been hypothesized that these regulatory termini are targets for physiological factors that activate or inhibit proton pumping. In this review, we focus on the posttranslational regulation of the PM H+ -ATPase and place regulation of the pump in an evolutionary and physiological context. The emerging picture is that multiple signals regulating plant growth interfere with the posttranslational regulation of the PM H+ -ATPase.

INTRODUCTION

The plasma membrane (PM) H+ -ATPase is an electrogenic pump that exports cellular protons. In addition to generating a transmembrane chemical gradient of H+ (DpH; acidic on the outside), it also establishes an electrical gradient (the membrane potential; negative on the inside). As almost all other transport proteins in the plant PM are energized by this combined electrochemical gradient of protons, it has been a long-standing hypothesis in plant physiology that the PM H+ – ATPase is a powerhouse for plant growth (reviewed in Palmgren, 2001; Arango et al., 2003; Sondergaard et al., 2004; Duby and Boutry, 2009). However, although the biochemistry of the pump is known in great detail and its structure has been determined (reviewed in Morth et al., 2011), strong evidence for its role in plant growth has remained sparse until recently, when strong links between posttranslational regulation of PM H+ -ATPase and essential physiological functions of plants have emerged. The aim of this review is to provide an overview of this exciting and rapidly developing field.

Abstract

Nanotechnology is a multidisciplinary field that has gained significant momentum in recent years. Nanoparticles are the key players that have promised many benefits through their nano-enabled applications in multiple sectors. This review summarizes the use of nanomaterials such as zero valent iron (nZVI) and carbon nanotubes (CNT) in environmental cleanup like ground water remediation for drinking and reuse. There are, however, concerns regarding the potential risks associated with the use of nanomaterials to the environment and human health. An understanding of the relationship between the properties of nanoparticles and their in vivo effects would provide an effective strategy to tackle the deleterious effects.

Introduction

In recent years, nanoscience and technology has introduced a new dimension to scientific disciplines and technology sectors due to its ability to exhibit superfunctional properties of materials at nano-dimensions. There is a remarkable rise in research and development in all developed countries and many developing countries pertaining to this field. Organizations such as Universities, public research institutes and industrial R&D laboratories 1focus strongly on this new technology to benefit from its scientific and technological advantages [1]. Nanotechnology is a multidisciplinary field that applies engineering and manufacturing principles at molecular level [2]. In broad terms, nanotechnology is the development and use of techniques to study physical phenomena and construct structures in the physical size range of 1–100 nanometers (nm) as well as the incorporation of these structures into applications [3]. The past couple of decades have been dedicated to the synthesis, characterization, and application of nanomaterials

Human impact on the environment has reached unprecedented levels. The planet’s biological–ecological, physical and chemical systems are threatened and with it our livelihoods (Stern and Treasury 2006; Rockstro¨m et al. 2009; Watson et al. 2016). On entering the Anthropocene (Crutzen 2002; Steffen et al. 2007) at least three of nine planetary boundaries have exceeded safe levels: climate change, global nitrogen cycle and integrity of biodiversity (Rockstro¨m et al. 2009; Newbold et al. 2016). Based on a conservative estimate, a total of 477 vertebrates have vanished since 1900, over three-quarters of the 617 vertebrates that have become extinct since 1500 (Ceballos et al. 2015). Nonetheless, according to the most recent IUCN Red List of Threatened Species more than 7978 species of fishes, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals are globally threatened (IUCN 2016). Given these numbers, distinguishing which of these taxa to attend to first, and what resources to mobilize to ensure their survival, has never been so pressing (Wilson et al. 2011, 2016). Despite this urgency, progress has been slow. During the last two decades global strategies focussing on biodiversity and species conservation have concentrated on large-scale prioritization approaches (Redford et al. 2003; Brooks et al. 2015). But, these exercises have done little in terms of identifying the actual sites where conservation needs to occur (Brooks et al. 2006; Howes et al. 2009; Funk and Fa 2010). Likewise, high-level declarations of intent, epitomized by nation states signing international conventions, routinely confirm the need to ensure the longterm survival of the world’s biological diversity, while the biodiversity crisis continues. Since the early 1990’s, a number of worldwide treaties have been signed. Major international agreements such as the Kyoto Protocol linked to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change committed its Parties by setting internationally binding emission reduction targets. The detailed rules for the implementation of the Protocol were adopted in Marrakesh, Morocco, in 2001. However, international initiatives promoting the conser vation of biodiversity at the highest level, in particular the COP-6’s (the sixth Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity) declaration have fallen short of their intended targets. COP-6 committed countries ‘‘to achieve by 2010 a significant reduction of the current rate of biodiversity loss’’ but because of a lack of significant improvements in the state of biodiversity (Butchart et al. 2010; Adenle et al. 2015), new targets were developed during COP-10 in Nagoya, Aichi Prefecture, Japan. These, referred to as the Aichi Biodiversity Targets, are a set of 20 objectives (subsequently abbreviated as T1, T2, …, T20), to be achieved by 2020 (SCBD 2010). There are three targets of direct relevance for the conservation of biodiversity: T11 (protected areas), T12 (species) and T13 (genetic diversity of plant and animal domesticates) (Table 1). For this review, we excluded T13 as it focuses on domesticated and cultivated plants and animals.