Predicting the Impact of Climate Change on Threatened Species in UK Waters

Global climate change is affecting the distribution of marine species and is thought to represent a threat to biodiversity. Previous studies project expansion of species range for some species and local extinction elsewhere under climate change. Such range shifts raise concern for species whose long-term persistence is already threatened by other human disturbances such as fishing. However, few studies have attempted to assess the effects of future climate change on threatened vertebrate marine species using a multi-model approach. There has also been a recent surge of interest in climate change impacts on protected areas. This study applies three species distribution models and two sets of climate model projections to explore the potential impacts of climate change on marine species by 2050. A set of species in the North Sea, including seven threatened and ten major commercial species were used as a case study. Changes in habitat suitability in selected candidate protected areas around the UK under future climatic scenarios were assessed for these species. Moreover, change in the degree of overlap between commercial and threatened species ranges was calculated as a proxy of the potential threat posed by overfishing through bycatch. The ensemble projections suggest northward shifts in species at an average rate of 27 km per decade, resulting in small average changes in range overlap between threatened and commercially exploited species. Furthermore, the adverse consequences of climate change on the habitat suitability of protected areas were projected to be small. Although the models show large variation in the predicted consequences of climate change, the multi-model approach helps identify the potential risk of increased exposure to human stressors of critically endangered species such as common skate (Dipturus batis) and angelshark (Squatina squatina)

Why alternative teenagers self-harm: exploring the link between non-suicidal self-injury, attempted suicide and adolescent identity

Background: The term ‘self-harm’ encompasses both attempted suicide and non-suicidal self-injury (NSSI). Specific adolescent subpopulations such as ethnic or sexual minorities, and more controversially, those who identify as ‘Alternative’ (Goth, Emo) have been proposed as being more likely to self-harm, while other groups such as ‘Jocks’ are linked with protective coping behaviours (for example exercise). NSSI has autonomic (it reduces negative emotions) and social (it communicates distress or facilitates group ‘bonding’) functions. This study explores the links between such aspects of self-harm, primarily NSSI, and youth subculture.<p></p> Methods: An anonymous survey was carried out of 452 15 year old German school students. Measures included: identification with different youth cultures, i.e. Alternative (Goth, Emo, Punk), Nerd (academic) or Jock (athletic); social background, e.g. socioeconomic status; and experience of victimisation. Self-harm (suicide and NSSI) was assessed using Self-harm Behavior Questionnaire and the Functional Assessment of Self-Mutilation (FASM).<p></p> Results: An “Alternative” identity was directly (r ≈ 0.3) and a “Jock” identity inversely (r ≈ -0.1) correlated with self-harm. “Alternative” teenagers self-injured more frequently (NSSI 45.5% vs. 18.8%), repeatedly self-injured, and were 4–8 times more likely to attempt suicide (even after adjusting for social background) than their non-Alternative peers. They were also more likely to self-injure for autonomic, communicative and social reasons than other adolescents.<p></p> Conclusions: About half of ‘Alternative’ adolescents’ self-injure, primarily to regulate emotions and communicate distress. However, a minority self-injure to reinforce their group identity, i.e. ‘To feel more a part of a group’

Does publication bias inflate the apparent efficacy of psychological treatment for major depressive disorder? A systematic review and meta-analysis of US national institutes of health-funded trials

Background The efficacy of antidepressant medication has been shown empirically to be overestimated due to publication bias, but this has only been inferred statistically with regard to psychological treatment for depression. We assessed directly the extent of study publication bias in trials examining the efficacy of psychological treatment for depression. Methods and Findings We identified US National Institutes of Health grants awarded to fund randomized clinical trials comparing psychological treatment to control conditions or other treatments in patients diagnosed with major depressive disorder for the period 1972–2008, and we determined whether those grants led to publications. For studies that were not published, data were requested from investigators and included in the meta-analyses. Thirteen (23.6%) of the 55 funded grants that began trials did not result in publications, and two others never started. Among comparisons to control conditions, adding unpublished studies (Hedges’ g = 0.20; CI95% -0.11~0.51; k = 6) to published studies (g = 0.52; 0.37~0.68; k = 20) reduced the psychotherapy effect size point estimate (g = 0.39; 0.08~0.70) by 25%. Moreover, these findings may overestimate the "true" effect of psychological treatment for depression as outcome reporting bias could not be examined quantitatively. Conclusion The efficacy of psychological interventions for depression has been overestimated in the published literature, just as it has been for pharmacotherapy. Both are efficacious but not to the extent that the published literature would suggest. Funding agencies and journals should archive both original protocols and raw data from treatment trials to allow the detection and correction of outcome reporting bias. Clinicians, guidelines developers, and decision makers should be aware that the published literature overestimates the effects of the predominant treatments for depression

Genetic parameters and selection strategies for soybean genotypes resistant to the stink bug-complex

Soybean genotypes resistant to stink bugs are derived from complex breeding processes obtained through indirect selection. The aim of the present work was to estimate genetic parameters for guiding selection strategies towards resistant genotypes, based on those traits associated with responses to pod-attacking stink bugs, such as the grain filling period (GFP), leaf retention (LR), percentage index of pod damage (PIPD) and percentage of spotted seeds (PSS). We assessed the parental lines IAC-100 (resistant) and FT-Estrela (susceptible), the progenies F2 and F 4 , 30 progenies F 2:3 , 30 progenies BC 1 F 2:3 and 30 progenies BC 2 F 2:3 , besides the cultivars BRS Celeste and MGBR-46 (Conquista). Three field experiments, using randomized complete block design with three replications, were installed in Goiânia-GO, in the 2002/03 season. Each experiment consisted of 36 treatments (6 common and 30 regular). Heritability estimates were: 74.6 and 36.1 (GFP); 51.9 and 19.9 (LR); 49.6 and 49.6 (PIPD) and 55.8 and 20.3 (PSS), in both the broad and narrow senses, respectively. Based on these results, we concluded that the best strategy for obtaining stink bug-resistant genotypes consists of selecting the PIPD trait in early generations (F 3 or F 4 ), followed by selection for the GFP, LR and PSS traits in generations with higher endogamy levels