Shedding light on typical species : implications for habitat monitoring

Habitat monitoring in Europe is regulated by Article 17 of the Habitats Directive, which suggests the use of typical species to assess habitat conservation status. Yet, the Directive uses the term “typical” species but does not provide a definition, either for its use in reporting or for its use in impact assessments. To address the issue, an online workshop was organized by the Italian Society for Vegetation Science (SISV) to shed light on the diversity of perspectives regarding the different concepts of typical species, and to discuss the possible implications for habitat monitoring. To this aim, we inquired 73 people with a very different degree of expertise in the field of vegetation science by means of a tailored survey composed of six questions. We analysed the data using Pearson's Chi-squared test to verify that the answers diverged from a random distribution and checked the effect of the degree of experience of the surveyees on the results. We found that most of the surveyees agreed on the use of the phytosociological method for habitat monitoring and of the diagnostic and characteristic species to evaluate the structural and functional conservation status of habitats. With this contribution, we shed light on the meaning of “typical” species in the context of habitat monitoring

An overview of the Italian forest biodiversity and its conservation level, based on the first outcomes of the 4th Habitat Report ex-Art. 17

In 2019 the 4th Report ex-Art. 17 on the conservation status (CS) of Annex I Habitats of the 92/43/EEC Directive was expected by every EU/28 country, with reference to the period 2013-18. In Italy, the process was in charge to the Italian Institute for Environmental Protection and Research (ISPRA), on behalf of the Ministry for Environment, Land and Sea Protection (MATTM), with the scientific support of the Italian Botanical Society (SBI). A large group of thematic and territorial experts elaborated the available data concerning the 124 types of terrestrial and inland water Habitats present in Italy, 39 of which are represented by Forest Habitats (Group 9),. The main aim of the work was the evaluation of the overall CS of each Habitat by Biogeographic Region (Mediterranean, Continental and Alpine), for a total amount of 294 assessments. A high proportion of these (92, corresponding to 31% of the total) referred to Forest Habitats, including 20 marginal types for which the CS was not requested. The analysis was carried out at different scales: a) administrative territory, through the data contained in the ISPRA database, whose compilation was in charge to the Regions and Autonomous Provinces; b) Natura 2000 site, with the latest updates available (Standard Data Forms updated to 2018); c) national scale, implementing the distribution maps for each Habitat based on the European grid ETRS89-LAEA5210 (10x10 km2 mesh); d) Biogeographic Region, scale of the final assessment. Cartographic outcomes, associated databases and additional data used for the assessments will be available online on the ISPRA Portal as soon as the validation process by the European Commission will be completed. A dedicated archive named "HAB_IT" has been created in the national database "VegItaly" (1), managed by the Italian Society of Vegetation Science, where the phytosociological relevés representative of the various Annex I Habitats in Italy will be archived and freely accessible. An overview of the results regarding the Forest habitats is here provided, including a comparison with the outcomes of the former reporting cycle, the 3rd Report ex-Art. 17 (2). In several cases (e.g. 9120, 91L0), the distribution maps have been remarkably improved due to better knowledge and more fitful interpretation. The conservation status resulted as Favourable (FV) for 6,7%, Inadequate (U1) for 58,7% and Bad (U1) for 32,0% of the 72 assessed forest Habitat types. In no case there was an improvement of the conservation status, while in 6 cases a worsening of the conditions resulted from the data analysis, pointing out the Habitats types with a higher need of action. Similarly to other projects carried out as a team by the network of Annex I Habitat experts of the Italian Botanical Society and the Italian Society for Vegetation Science (e.g. 3, 4), this is another step in the direction of supporting the implementation of the 92/43/EEC "Habitat" Directive in Italy and Europe. On this ground, the high biodiversity of the Italian forest Habitats could be emphasized, however results pointed out that some rare or endemic types (e.g. Alnus cordata or Betula aetnensis-dominated forests) are still scarcely acknowledged by the most prominent EU conservation tools such as the Annex I to the "Habitat" Directive. 1) F. Landucci et al. (2012) Plant Biosyst., 146(4), 756-763 2) P. Genovesi et al. (2014) ISPRA, Serie Rapporti, 194/2014 3) E. Biondi et al. (2009) Società Botanica Italiana, MATTM, D.P.N., http://vnr.unipg.it/habitat/ 4) D. Gigante et al. (2016) Plant Sociology, 53(2), 77-8

Ultrasound versus Magnetic Resonance Imaging in common fibular neuropathy

We prospectively compared US and MRI in patients with common fibular neuropathy

Comparison of intracortical inhibition and facilitation in distal and proximal arm muscles in humans

Cortico-cortical inhibition and facilitation induced by paired transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) of the human motor cortex were investigated in the distal muscle opponens pollicis (OP) and the proximal muscle biceps brachii (BB) of normal subjects.The test response evoked by TMS (125 % of motor threshold, MTh) in the relaxed OP and BB muscles was inhibited by a conditioning TMS (80 % of MTh) at short interstimulus intervals (ISIs; 2-5 ms) and facilitated at longer ISIs (10-25 ms). The test response was significantly less inhibited at short ISIs and more facilitated at long ISIs in the BB than OP.The MTh at rest was significantly lower for the OP than for the BB, indicating a greater excitability of OP cortical area. However, the above pattern of inhibition and facilitation was preserved both when the stimulus intensity was adjusted to evoke test responses of matched size in the two muscles and within an ample range of conditioning stimulus intensities.The use of a circular coil or a focal figure-of-eight coil produced no qualitative differences in the pattern of inhibition and facilitation in either muscle.The significant difference in MTh between muscles was lost during voluntary activation. In both muscles, pre-innervation abolished the cortico-cortical facilitation and reduced the cortico-cortical inhibition. However, the latter remained larger in the OP than BB muscle.We suggest that the different potency of intracortical inhibitory and facilitatory circuits directed towards distal and proximal arm muscles is related to their diverse prevalent functions

Comparing the Impact of COVID-19 on Vaccinated and Unvaccinated Patients Affected by Myasthenia Gravis

We evaluated 13 patients affected by myasthenia gravis (MG) who had coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) before vaccination and 14 myasthenic patients who contracted severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection after vaccination to evaluate factors related to different COVID-19 outcomes. We compared the two groups’ previous stability of MG and the severity of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Vaccinated and non-vaccinated patients were comparable in terms of severity of the previous MG course (mean maximum myasthenia gravis Foundation of America–MGFA–Class III) and during SARS-CoV-2 infection (mean MGFA Class II). In non-vaccinated patients, the hospitalization and severe course percentages were 61.5%, while the mortality reached 30.8%. The hospitalization, severe course, and mortality percentages in vaccinated patients were 7.1%. In deceased, non-vaccinated patients, greater myasthenia severity in the past clinical history, but not at the time of infection, was observed. Similarly, older age at MG onset and at the time of infection correlated with a more severe COVID-19 course in non-vaccinated patients (p = 0.03 and p = 0.04), but not in the group of vaccinated patients. In summary, our data support a protective role of vaccination in myasthenic patients, even if anti-CD20 therapy might be associated with a poor immune response to vaccines