The need for theories that address food web assembly and complexity over multiple spatial scales are critical to understanding their stability and persistence. In a meta-food web – an integrated network of local food webs – spatial heterogeneity in physical processes may have profound effects on food web function and energy flow. In the Arctic, surface water connectivity plays a vital role in determining fish assemblage composition, and potentially, food web structure. We examined lentic food web complexity associated with heterogeneity in surface water connectivity among Arctic lakes at the local scale, by contrasting lakes over a stream-lake connectivity gradient, and at the regional scale, by contrasting two locations with different surface water conditions (i.e., wet and dry) on the Arctic Coastal Plain of Alaska. Among lakes and across locations, increased hydrologic connectivity between streams and lakes increased the number of fish species and increased the complexity of the food web. The interaction of the region's hydrologic connectivity, local stream-lake connections, and the trophic niches of relevant fish species produced integrated, complex meta-food webs. Fully understanding mechanisms that support meta-food web stability are crucial when assessing future changes to Arctic stream-lake networks and the function and persistence of aquatic food webs.

Food, energy, and water (FEW) are basic needs for well-being and quality of life. Assessing FEW security allows residents, communities, and policy makers to make informed decisions about how to sustain and improve well-being. We have developed a FEW security assessment framework that examines four components of security: availability, access, quality, and preference. With the help of local community members, we interviewed 114 households in three rural Alaska communities to assess FEW security, drivers and outcomes of FEW security, and potential interactions among FEW components and with renewable energy (RE) developments. While FEW security was high overall, preference and quality, especially for food, was lower. Food harvested from the local environment (i.e. subsistence) was necessary to include in security assessments given that 24% of participants reported insecurity when asked about contemporary sources (i.e. purchased) versus 5% reporting insecurity for subsistence food sources (i.e., harvested). The major influences on FEW security tended to originate from outside the community, including factors such as transportation, income, fuel prices, and weather. One internal factor, health, was both a driver and an outcome of FEW security. Satisfaction with RE varied (42%–68%) with dissatisfaction due to unreliability, uncertainty of the economic benefit, desire for other types of RE, or wanting more RE (n = 6). Communication about RE projects was key to managing expectations, promoting knowledge, and identifying benefits for residents. Participants did not identify linkages between RE and FEW security. Our assessment tool can be used by communities and policy makers to contextualize FEW security into more insightful and specific components, allowing for identification of attainable actions to improve FEW security and thus individual and community well-being.

In this commentary we describe a new framework for environmental security, one that draws food, water, and energy security into a unified socio-ecological research program. While traditional uses of environmental security carry statist and militaristic undertones, we propose that this "new" environmental security provides a more comprehensive perspective for research and development. Individually, food, water, and energy security research have made great progress, and as we describe here, the three have converged upon a core set of constituent properties: availability, access, utility, and stability. Yet, tradeoffs and interactions between food, water, and energy systems, which we argue tend to be place-based and which we illustrate using some examples from Alaska, are infrequently researched and not well captured in most global frameworks for integrated assessment. We present this integrative framework for environmental security, and conclude with suggestions regarding broad research themes and priorities.

In this commentary we describe a new framework for environmental security, one that draws food, water, and energy security into a unified socio-ecological research program. While traditional uses of environmental security carry statist and militaristic undertones, we propose that this "new" environmental security provides a more comprehensive perspective for research and development. Individually, food, water, and energy security research have made great progress, and as we describe here, the three have converged upon a core set of constituent properties: availability, access, utility, and stability. Yet, tradeoffs and interactions between food, water, and energy systems, which we argue tend to be place-based and which we illustrate using some examples from Alaska, are infrequently researched and not well captured in most global frameworks for integrated assessment. We present this integrative framework for environmental security, and conclude with suggestions regarding broad research themes and priorities.

There is a gap in information in the literature regarding the energy and water embodied is seafood, especially wild catch fisheries. This work draws on primary and secondary data to assess, through a life cycle approach, the energy and water consumed to catch and process wild sockeye salmon in Bristol Bay, Alaska (USA). The Bristol Bay sockeye salmon fishery is a very remote wild catch fishery. All material inputs and labor are either barged or flown in from other parts of Alaska, and the lower U.S. states. In addition, a large monitoring and enforcement effort by the State of Alaska is conducted to sustainably manage the fishery. We therefore expanded the system boundary to include energy and water for commuting laborer's and regulators to depict the system within a wider context. Structured interviews were conducted to elicit information from fishers and processors related to their use of water and energy and to ascertain potentials for reducing energy and water demand of the fishery. The energy associated with fishing and processing sockeye ranges between 24.6 and 33.8 MJ kg⁻¹ with fishing effort accounting for 43% of the total energy embodied in products. The water embodied in final sockeye salmon products ranged between 10 and 23 L/kg, mainly the result of processing and packaging. Combined, labor transport and fishery management contributed 8% to the embodied energy in sockeye products, while contributing less that 1% of the water embodied in sockeye products. While not insignificant, the energy costs of fishery management are inconsequential and should provide adequate justification for continued sustainable management and forceful information for consumer choice. The combination of governmental regulations and the remote location results in few opportunities for lowering energy and water demand of this already efficient fishery.