The changing global distribution and prevalence of canine transmissible venereal tumour.

BACKGROUND: The canine transmissible venereal tumour (CTVT) is a contagious cancer that is naturally transmitted between dogs by the allogeneic transfer of living cancer cells during coitus. CTVT first arose several thousand years ago and has been reported in dog populations worldwide; however, its precise distribution patterns and prevalence remain unclear. RESULTS: We analysed historical literature and obtained CTVT prevalence information from 645 veterinarians and animal health workers in 109 countries in order to estimate CTVT's former and current global distribution and prevalence. This analysis confirmed that CTVT is endemic in at least 90 countries worldwide across all inhabited continents. CTVT is estimated to be present at a prevalence of one percent or more in dogs in at least 13 countries in South and Central America as well as in at least 11 countries in Africa and 8 countries in Asia. In the United States and Australia, CTVT was reported to be endemic only in remote indigenous communities. Comparison of current and historical reports of CTVT indicated that its prevalence has declined in Northern Europe, possibly due to changes in dog control laws during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Analysis of factors influencing CTVT prevalence showed that presence of free-roaming dogs was associated with increased CTVT prevalence, while dog spaying and neutering were associated with reduced CTVT prevalence. Our analysis indicated no gender bias for CTVT and we found no evidence that animals with CTVT frequently harbour concurrent infectious diseases. Vincristine was widely reported to be the most effective therapy for CTVT. CONCLUSIONS: Our results provide a survey of the current global distribution of CTVT, confirming that CTVT is endemic in at least 90 countries worldwide. Additionally, our analysis highlights factors that continue to modify CTVT's prevalence around the world and implicates free-roaming dogs as a reservoir for the disease. Our analysis also documents the disappearance of the disease from the United Kingdom during the twentieth century, which appears to have been an unintentional result of the introduction of dog control policies.This is the author's accepted manuscript. The final version of this article has been published by BioMed Central: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1746-6148/10/168

Destructive fishing: An expert-driven definition and exploration of this quasi-concept

Data availability statement: Data that breaches the anonymity of responses in this study cannot be made available. Some anonymised and summary data can be found in the Supplementary Information.Data Availability Statement: Data that breaches the anonymity of responses in this study cannot be made available. Some anonymized and summary data can be found in the Supplementary Information.Code Availability Statement: Code for the figures and certain analyses used in this manuscript can be found at https://github.com/arlie-m/destructive_fishing_defintion_delphi.Supporting Information is available online at: https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/conl.13015#support-information-section .Numerous policy and international frameworks consider that “destructive fishing” hampers efforts to reach sustainability goals. Though ubiquitous, “destructive fishing” is undefined and therefore currently immeasurable. Here we propose a definition developed through expert consultation: “Destructive fishing is any fishing practice that causes irrecoverable habitat degradation, or which causes significant adverse environmental impacts, results in long-term declines in target or nontarget species beyond biologically safe limits and has negative livelihood impacts.” We show strong stakeholder support for a definition, consensus on many biological and ecological dimensions, and no clustering of respondents from different sectors. Our consensus definition is a significant step toward defining sustainable fisheries goals and will help interpret and implement global political commitments which utilize the term “destructive fishing.” Our definition and results will help reinforce the Food and Agricultural Organization's Code of Conduct and meaningfully support member countries to prohibit destructive fishing practices.Cambridge Conservation Initiative. Grant Number: CCI-05-20-009; Helmholtz Institute for Functional Marine Biodiversity (HIFMB) at the University of Oldenburg; Brunel University London; Alfred-Wegener-Institute for Polar and Marine Research; Arcadia; Rothschild Foundation; A.G. Leventis Foundation; Isaac Newton Trust; Prince Albert II of Monaco Foundation

Destructive fishing: An expert-driven definition and exploration of this quasi-concept

Publication status: PublishedFunder: Helmholtz Institute for Functional Marine Biodiversity (HIFMB) at the University of OldenburgFunder: Brunel University London; doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100007914Funder: Alfred‐Wegener‐Institute for Polar and Marine ResearchFunder: Arcadia; doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100012088Funder: Rothschild FoundationFunder: A.G. Leventis Foundation; doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100004117Funder: Isaac Newton Trust; doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100004815Funder: Prince Albert II of Monaco Foundation; doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100011592AbstractNumerous policy and international frameworks consider that “destructive fishing” hampers efforts to reach sustainability goals. Though ubiquitous, “destructive fishing” is undefined and therefore currently immeasurable. Here we propose a definition developed through expert consultation: “Destructive fishing is any fishing practice that causes irrecoverable habitat degradation, or which causes significant adverse environmental impacts, results in long‐term declines in target or nontarget species beyond biologically safe limits and has negative livelihood impacts.” We show strong stakeholder support for a definition, consensus on many biological and ecological dimensions, and no clustering of respondents from different sectors. Our consensus definition is a significant step toward defining sustainable fisheries goals and will help interpret and implement global political commitments which utilize the term “destructive fishing.” Our definition and results will help reinforce the Food and Agricultural Organization's Code of Conduct and meaningfully support member countries to prohibit destructive fishing practices.</jats:p