28 research outputs found
Recommended from our members
Regional Invasive Species & Climate Change Management Challenge: Out of Control? The Effects of Climate Change on Biological Control Agents and their Target Hosts
Biocontrol is an important management tool that utilizes one species (a biocontrol agent) to control another (a target host) and can be an effective approach for controlling populations of invasive species across broad spatial scales. Most strategies of biocontrol involve introducing or supplementing natural predator, herbivore, parasitoid, or pathogen populations to reduce populations of target hosts. A successful biocontrol program results in the suppression (but not eradication) of target host populations across the landscape by reducing host abundance, reproductive output, or vigor. Climate change is complicating biocontrol. Biocontrol agents must have a clear ecological and/or evolutionary relationship with their target host in order to control populations effectively and avoid impacting non-target species. Climate-induced changes in phenology (timing of life events), morphology (form/structure), movement/behavior, physiology, and reproduction/development may differently affect the survival, reproduction, and performance/efficacy of both biocontrol agents and their hosts. There are growing concerns that mismatches between how biocontrol agents and their hosts respond to climate change could alter the efficacy of current and future biocontrol programs
Recommended from our members
Regional Invasive Species & Climate Change Management Challenge: Embracing the Future. Promoting adaptation and resilience to invasive species and climate change
Climate change and invasive species can interact to increase disturbances and magnify changes in ecosystem form and function (Double Trouble). Increasing resilience is one of several management approaches for enabling healthy ecosystems to persist despite these changes. While resilience can be complicated and take many forms, it can generally be thought of as the âability [of an ecosystem] to experience disturbances or environmental change without changing to a fundamentally different stateâ [Holling, 1973]. The accumulating effects of climate change, invasive species, or interacting effects of multiple disturbances can push an ecosystem past a tipping point and into a new ecological state. These alternative states are characterized by a different suite of species or functions, which are difficult or impossible to recover from (e.g. a shift from a closed-canopy to an open-canopy forested wetland). Actions to increase resilience help an ecosystem to maintain or return to its fundamental structure or function after a disturbance. Resilience falls in the middle of a spectrum of management goals ranging from preventing change (resistance) to promoting change (transformation) in the species composition, structure, or functions provided by an ecosystem. Clear management goals (See Table) and an understanding of the range of disturbances affecting focal ecosystems are necessary for deciding between managing for resistance, resilience, or transformation and what actions are required for successful management outcomes
Recommended from our members
Breaking down barriers to consistent, climate-smart regulation of invasive plants - a case study of northeast states
Efforts to prevent the introduction and spread of new invasive plants are most effective when regulated species are consistent across jurisdictional boundaries and proactively prohibit species before they arrive or in the earliest stages of invasion. Consistent and proactive regulation is particularly important in the northeast U.S. which is susceptible to many new invasive plants due to climate change. Unfortunately, recent analyses of state regulated plant lists show that regulated species are neither consistent nor proactive. To understand why, we focus on two steps leading to invasive plant regulation across six northeast states (Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, and Vermont): which sets of species are evaluated and how risk is assessed. Our analysis confirms previous findings that invasive plant regulations are inconsistent and reactive. Of the 128 plants regulated by one or more states, 54 were regulated by a single state and only 16 were regulated by all six states; regulated species tended to be widespread across the region (not proactive). These outcomes are largely driven by different sets of evaluated species. For example, neighboring states Vermont and New Hampshire evaluated 92 species in total, but only 26 overlapped. In addition, states rarely evaluated species that were absent from the state. Risk assessment protocols varied considerably across states, but consistently included criteria related to ecological impact, potential to establish, dispersal mechanisms, and life history traits. While none of the assessments explicitly consider climate change, they also did not contain language that would preclude regulating species that have not yet arrived in the state. To increase consistency and proactivity, states would benefit from 1) evaluating species identified as high risk by neighboring states as well as high risk, range-shifting invasives, both of which we compiled here and 2) explicitly considering climate change when assessing âpotential distributionâ or âpotential impactâ of target species. Additionally, a mechanism for sharing knowledge and risk assessments regionally would benefit states with fewer resources to address invasive species threats. Presenting a unified defense against current and future threats is critical for reducing impacts from invasive species and is achievable with better state-to-state coordination
When misconceptions impede best practices: evidence supports biological control of invasive Phragmites
Development of a biological control program for invasive Phagmites australis australis in North America required 20 years of careful research, and consideration of management alternatives. A recent paper by Kiviat et al. (Biol Invasions 21:2529â2541, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-019-02014-9) articulates opposition to this biocontrol program and questions the ethics and thoroughness of the researchers. Here we address inaccuracies and misleading statements presented in Kiviat et al. (2019), followed by a brief overview of why biological control targeting Phragmites in North America can be implemented safely with little risk to native species. Similar to our colleagues, we are very concerned about the risks invasive Phragmites represent to North American habitats. But to protect those habitats and the species, including P. australis americanus, we come to a different decision regarding biological control. Current management techniques have not been able to reverse the invasiveness of P. australis australis, threats to native rare and endangered species continue, and large-scale herbicide campaigns are not only costly, but also represent threats to non-target species. We see implementation of biocontrol as the best hope for managing one of the most problematic invasive plants in North America. After extensive review, our petition to release two host specific stem miners was approved by The Technical Advisory Group for the Release of Biological Control Agents in the US and Canadian federal authorities
Recommended from our members
Regional Invasive Species & Climate Change Management Challenge: Taking Action. Managing invasive species in the context of climate change
Climate change is likely to alter the timing and effect of invasive species management, as well as the suite of species we are managing. Despite concern about the effects of climate change, lack of information about how and when to take action is a barrier to climate-smart invasive species management. Here, we outline strategies for incorporating climate change into management along with examples of tools that can inform proactive decision-making
Recommended from our members
Regional Invasive Species & Climate Change Management Challenge: Gardening with climate-smart native plants in the Northeast
An estimated 80% of ornamental plants for sale are non-native. This means that the average yard does a poor job of supporting native flora and fauna. By shifting our plantings towards natives, we can dramatically increase the diversity of bees, butterflies, birds and other animals. In contrast, non-native plants do not support local food webs and can become invasive. Native plants increase biodiversity and reduce risks associated with invasive species, which supports resilient ecosystems in the face of climate change
Recommended from our members
Translational invasion ecology: bridging research and practice to address one of the greatest threats to biodiversity
Effective natural resource management and policy is contingent on information generated by research. Conversely, the applicability of research depends on whether it is responsive to the needs and constraints of resource managers and policy makers. However, many scientific fields including invasion ecology suffer from a disconnect between research and practice. Despite strong socio-political imperatives, evidenced by extensive funding dedicated to addressing invasive species, the pairing of invasion ecology with stakeholder needs to support effective management and policy is lacking. As a potential solution, we propose translational invasion ecology (TIE). As an extension of translational ecology, as a framework to increase collaboration among scientists, practitioners, and policy makers to reduce negative impacts of invasive species. As an extension of translational ecology, TIE is an approach that embodies an intentional and inclusive process in which researchers, stakeholders, and decision makers collaborate to develop and implement ecological research via joint consideration of the ecological, sociological, economic, and/or political contexts in order to improve invasive species management. TIE ideally results in improved outcomes as well as shared benefits between researchers and managers. We delineate the steps of our proposed TIE approach and describe successful examples of ongoing TIE projects from the US and internationally. We suggest practical ways to begin incorporating TIE into research and management practices, including supporting boundary-spanning organizations and activities, expanding networks, sharing translational experiences, and measuring outcomes. We find that there is a need for strengthened boundary spanning, as well as funding and recognition for advancing translational approaches. As climate change and globalization exacerbate invasive species impacts, TIE provides a promising approach to generate actionable ecological research while improving outcomes of invasive species management and policy decisions
Recommended from our members
Effect of Hydrocortisone on Mortality and Organ Support in Patients With Severe COVID-19: The REMAP-CAP COVID-19 Corticosteroid Domain Randomized Clinical Trial.
Importance: Evidence regarding corticosteroid use for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is limited. Objective: To determine whether hydrocortisone improves outcome for patients with severe COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: An ongoing adaptive platform trial testing multiple interventions within multiple therapeutic domains, for example, antiviral agents, corticosteroids, or immunoglobulin. Between March 9 and June 17, 2020, 614 adult patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 were enrolled and randomized within at least 1 domain following admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) for respiratory or cardiovascular organ support at 121 sites in 8 countries. Of these, 403 were randomized to open-label interventions within the corticosteroid domain. The domain was halted after results from another trial were released. Follow-up ended August 12, 2020. Interventions: The corticosteroid domain randomized participants to a fixed 7-day course of intravenous hydrocortisone (50 mg or 100 mg every 6 hours) (nâ=â143), a shock-dependent course (50 mg every 6 hours when shock was clinically evident) (nâ=â152), or no hydrocortisone (nâ=â108). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was organ support-free days (days alive and free of ICU-based respiratory or cardiovascular support) within 21 days, where patients who died were assigned -1 day. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model that included all patients enrolled with severe COVID-19, adjusting for age, sex, site, region, time, assignment to interventions within other domains, and domain and intervention eligibility. Superiority was defined as the posterior probability of an odds ratio greater than 1 (threshold for trial conclusion of superiority >99%). Results: After excluding 19 participants who withdrew consent, there were 384 patients (mean age, 60 years; 29% female) randomized to the fixed-dose (nâ=â137), shock-dependent (nâ=â146), and no (nâ=â101) hydrocortisone groups; 379 (99%) completed the study and were included in the analysis. The mean age for the 3 groups ranged between 59.5 and 60.4 years; most patients were male (range, 70.6%-71.5%); mean body mass index ranged between 29.7 and 30.9; and patients receiving mechanical ventilation ranged between 50.0% and 63.5%. For the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively, the median organ support-free days were 0 (IQR, -1 to 15), 0 (IQR, -1 to 13), and 0 (-1 to 11) days (composed of 30%, 26%, and 33% mortality rates and 11.5, 9.5, and 6 median organ support-free days among survivors). The median adjusted odds ratio and bayesian probability of superiority were 1.43 (95% credible interval, 0.91-2.27) and 93% for fixed-dose hydrocortisone, respectively, and were 1.22 (95% credible interval, 0.76-1.94) and 80% for shock-dependent hydrocortisone compared with no hydrocortisone. Serious adverse events were reported in 4 (3%), 5 (3%), and 1 (1%) patients in the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with severe COVID-19, treatment with a 7-day fixed-dose course of hydrocortisone or shock-dependent dosing of hydrocortisone, compared with no hydrocortisone, resulted in 93% and 80% probabilities of superiority with regard to the odds of improvement in organ support-free days within 21 days. However, the trial was stopped early and no treatment strategy met prespecified criteria for statistical superiority, precluding definitive conclusions. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02735707
2012 ACCF/AHA/ACP/AATS/PCNA/SCAI/STS guideline for the diagnosis and management of patients with stable ischemic heart disease
The recommendations listed in this document are, whenever possible, evidence based. An extensive evidence review was conducted as the document was compiled through December 2008. Repeated literature searches were performed by the guideline development staff and writing committee members as new issues were considered. New clinical trials published in peer-reviewed journals and articles through December 2011 were also reviewed and incorporated when relevant. Furthermore, because of the extended development time period for this guideline, peer review comments indicated that the sections focused on imaging technologies required additional updating, which occurred during 2011. Therefore, the evidence review for the imaging sections includes published literature through December 2011
Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker initiation on organ support-free days in patients hospitalized with COVID-19
IMPORTANCE Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19.
Objective To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 nonâcritically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022).
INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (nâ=â257), ARB (nâ=â248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; nâ=â10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; nâ=â264) for up to 10 days.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was organ supportâfree days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes.
RESULTS On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ supportâfree days among critically ill patients was 10 (â1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (nâ=â231), 8 (â1 to 17) in the ARB group (nâ=â217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (nâ=â231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ supportâfree days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes.
TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0273570