Intra and interspecific competition via allelopathy among native and non-native plants

Invasive non- native species success often is attributed to their competitive superiority, potentially through allelochemical inhibition (allelopathy) of native species, as suggested by the novel weapons hypothesis. However, it is also possible that non- native species are able to be successful through decreased intraspecific competition. Decreased intraspecific competition could be attributed to a lack of genetic variation creating less variable allelopathic effects. I predict that if non- native species follow the novel weapons hypothesis, their allelochemicals will restrict more biomass and give them a competitive edge compared to native species. Additionally, I predict that if non- native species have lower intraspecific genetic variation, non- native species will have less variation of allelopathic effects than natives. Furthermore, if non- native plant invasion is driven by allelopathy, I expect greater inhibitory effects of non- native than native plants. I conducted a greenhouse experiment to compare the competitive allelopathy of the non- native and native plants. This experiment involved assessing the restricted growth of non- native and native plant pairs (shrub or tree) in both intra- and inter-specific competition, with allelochemical extracts applied. Additionally, I conducted a laboratory bioassay experiment to evaluate the variability of allelopathic effects on model seed germination and growth using field- collected non- native and native leaf samples. My results showed little evidence that non- native invasive plants in Western New York possess particular novel or stronger allelopathic effects compared to native plants. Allelopathic effects did not vary based on invasive status, and non- native allelochemicals did not inhibit model seeds more than native allelochemicals. These findings suggest that native allelochemicals could be just as prominent as those from non- native species

How Valid Are Measures of Children’s Self-Concept/ Self-Esteem? Factors and Content Validity in Three Widely Used Scales

Children’s self-esteem/self-concept, a core psychological construct, has been measured in an overwhelming number of studies, and the widespread use of such measures should indicate they have well-established content validity, internal consistency and factor structures. This study, sampling a demographically representative cohort in late childhood/early adolescence in Dublin, Ireland (total n = 651), examined three major self-esteem/self-concept scales designed for late childhood/early adolescence: Piers-Harris Self-Concept Scale for Children 2 (Piers et al. 2002), Self-Description Questionnaire I (Marsh 1992) and Self-Perception Profile for Children (Harter 1985). It also examined findings in light of the salient self factors identified by participants in a linked mixed-methods study. The factor structure of Piers-Harris Self-Concept Scale was not replicated. The Self-Description Questionnaire I and Self-Perception Profile for Children were replicated only in part although in similar ways. In all three scales, a global/ appearance self evaluation factor accounted for the largest variance in factor analyses. Sport/athletic ability, school ability, school enjoyment, maths and reading ability/enjoyment, behaviour, peer popularity, and parent factors were also identified but did not always reflect existing scale structures. Notably, the factors extracted, or items present in these scales, often did not reflect young people’s priorities, such as friendship over popularity, the importance of family and extended family members, and the significance of incremental personal mastery in activities rather than assessing oneself as comparatively good at preferred activities. The findings raise questions about how self-esteem/self-concept scales are used and interpreted in research with children and young people

Updated guidance regarding the risk of allergic reactions to COVID-19 vaccines and recommended evaluation and management:A GRADE assessment and international consensus approach

This guidance updates 2021 GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) recommendations regarding immediate allergic reactions following coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines and addresses revaccinating individuals with first-dose allergic reactions and allergy testing to determine revaccination outcomes. Recent meta-analyses assessed the incidence of severe allergic reactions to initial COVID-19 vaccination, risk of mRNA-COVID-19 revaccination after an initial reaction, and diagnostic accuracy of COVID-19 vaccine and vaccine excipient testing in predicting reactions. GRADE methods informed rating the certainty of evidence and strength of recommendations. A modified Delphi panel consisting of experts in allergy, anaphylaxis, vaccinology, infectious diseases, emergency medicine, and primary care from Australia, Canada, Europe, Japan, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States formed the recommendations. We recommend vaccination for persons without COVID-19 vaccine excipient allergy and revaccination after a prior immediate allergic reaction. We suggest against &gt;15-minute postvaccination observation. We recommend against mRNA vaccine or excipient skin testing to predict outcomes. We suggest revaccination of persons with an immediate allergic reaction to the mRNA vaccine or excipients be performed by a person with vaccine allergy expertise in a properly equipped setting. We suggest against premedication, split-dosing, or special precautions because of a comorbid allergic history.</p

Proceedings of the 3rd Biennial Conference of the Society for Implementation Research Collaboration (SIRC) 2015: advancing efficient methodologies through community partnerships and team science

It is well documented that the majority of adults, children and families in need of evidence-based behavioral health interventionsi do not receive them [1, 2] and that few robust empirically supported methods for implementing evidence-based practices (EBPs) exist. The Society for Implementation Research Collaboration (SIRC) represents a burgeoning effort to advance the innovation and rigor of implementation research and is uniquely focused on bringing together researchers and stakeholders committed to evaluating the implementation of complex evidence-based behavioral health interventions. Through its diverse activities and membership, SIRC aims to foster the promise of implementation research to better serve the behavioral health needs of the population by identifying rigorous, relevant, and efficient strategies that successfully transfer scientific evidence to clinical knowledge for use in real world settings [3]. SIRC began as a National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH)-funded conference series in 2010 (previously titled the “Seattle Implementation Research Conference”; $150,000 USD for 3 conferences in 2011, 2013, and 2015) with the recognition that there were multiple researchers and stakeholdersi working in parallel on innovative implementation science projects in behavioral health, but that formal channels for communicating and collaborating with one another were relatively unavailable. There was a significant need for a forum within which implementation researchers and stakeholders could learn from one another, refine approaches to science and practice, and develop an implementation research agenda using common measures, methods, and research principles to improve both the frequency and quality with which behavioral health treatment implementation is evaluated. SIRC’s membership growth is a testament to this identified need with more than 1000 members from 2011 to the present.ii SIRC’s primary objectives are to: (1) foster communication and collaboration across diverse groups, including implementation researchers, intermediariesi, as well as community stakeholders (SIRC uses the term “EBP champions” for these groups) – and to do so across multiple career levels (e.g., students, early career faculty, established investigators); and (2) enhance and disseminate rigorous measures and methodologies for implementing EBPs and evaluating EBP implementation efforts. These objectives are well aligned with Glasgow and colleagues’ [4] five core tenets deemed critical for advancing implementation science: collaboration, efficiency and speed, rigor and relevance, improved capacity, and cumulative knowledge. SIRC advances these objectives and tenets through in-person conferences, which bring together multidisciplinary implementation researchers and those implementing evidence-based behavioral health interventions in the community to share their work and create professional connections and collaborations

Determinants of rapid infant weight gain: A pooled analysis of seven cohorts

OBJECTIVE: Rapid weight gain (RWG) in infancy is strongly associated with subsequent obesity risk, but little is known about the factors driving RWG. This study explored the child and maternal factors associated with infant RWG.METHODS: Data from seven Australian and New Zealand cohorts were used (n = 4542). Infant RWG was defined as a change in weight z-score ≥0.67 from birth to age 1 year. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression assessed the association between child and maternal factors and infant RWG in each cohort. Meta-analysis was conducted to obtain pooled effect sizes.RESULTS: Multivariable analyses revealed boys were more likely to experience RWG (OR 1.42 95% CI 1.22, 1.66) than girls. Higher birth weight in kg (OR 0.09, 95% CI 0.04, 0.20) and gestational age in weeks (OR 0.69, 95% CI 0.48, 0.98) were associated with lower RWG risk. Children who were breastfed for ≥6 months showed lower RWG risk (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.38, 0.53). Children of native-born versus overseas-born women appeared to have higher RWG risk (OR 1.37, 95% CI 0.99, 1.90). Maternal smoking during pregnancy increased RWG risk (OR 1.60, 95% CI 1.28, 2.01), whereas children who started solids ≥6 months (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.63, 0.93) and children with siblings (OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.57, 0.81) showed lower RWG risk in univariable analysis, but these associations were attenuated in multivariable analysis. No association was found for maternal age, education, marital status and pre-pregnancy BMI.CONCLUSION: Maternal country of birth, smoking status, child sex, birth weight, gestational age, infant feeding and parity were potential determinants of infant RWG.</p