The clinical course of actinic keratosis correlates with underlying molecular mechanisms

Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/154608/1/bjd18338_am.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/154608/2/bjd18338.pd

Can forest management based on natural disturbances maintain ecological resilience?

Given the increasingly global stresses on forests, many ecologists argue that managers must maintain ecological resilience: the capacity of ecosystems to absorb disturbances without undergoing fundamental change. In this review we ask: Can the emerging paradigm of natural-disturbance-based management (NDBM) maintain ecological resilience in managed forests? Applying resilience theory requires careful articulation of the ecosystem state under consideration, the disturbances and stresses that affect the persistence of possible alternative states, and the spatial and temporal scales of management relevance. Implementing NDBM while maintaining resilience means recognizing that (i) biodiversity is important for long-term ecosystem persistence, (ii) natural disturbances play a critical role as a generator of structural and compositional heterogeneity at multiple scales, and (iii) traditional management tends to produce forests more homogeneous than those disturbed naturally and increases the likelihood of unexpected catastrophic change by constraining variation of key environmental processes. NDBM may maintain resilience if silvicultural strategies retain the structures and processes that perpetuate desired states while reducing those that enhance resilience of undesirable states. Such strategies require an understanding of harvesting impacts on slow ecosystem processes, such as seed-bank or nutrient dynamics, which in the long term can lead to ecological surprises by altering the forest's capacity to reorganize after disturbance

The False Consensus Bias as Applied to Psychologically Disturbed Adolescents

In order to examine whether the false consensus bias applied to psychologically disturbed adolescents, outpatients at a rural mental health center who described themselves as very depressed or suicidal, and nondisturbed teenagers (who had no history of psychological treatment and were not at that time seeking psychological treatment), were asked to read a newspaper article about either a child\u27s suicidal or viral illness death. Both groups of adolescents, like adults in previous research, viewed the suicidal child and the surviving family more negatively than they did the child and survivors of a viral illness death. Further, consistent with the false consensus hypothesis, adolescent clients viewed either child as more psychologically disturbed than did nonclients. Also, clients, as compared to nonclients, viewed both parents as more psychologically disturbed prior to either child\u27s death. Results somewhat support the hypothesis of a false consensus bias which operates for depressed, suicidal adolescents when they view the tragedy of a child\u27s death, but not when they are making recommendations about psychological help for the surviving family. Results are interpreted as suggesting that adolescent outpatients either view therapy as not particularly beneficial or as not particularly appropriate for bereaved individuals. Research by Ross and his associates (Ross, 1977; Ross, Greene, & House, 1977) on the false consensus bias shows that people perceive their own choices, judgments, and attributes as relatively common, more so than they perceive choices, judgments, and attributes that are not their own. This hypothesis, applied to psychologically disturbed individuals, would predict that these people would expect others to be more psychologically disturbed than would nondisturbed persons. Several researchers (Calhoun, Selby, & Faulstich, 1980; Range, Bright, & Ginn, 1985; Rudestam & Imbroll, 1983) have found that people in general react differently to the child and the family in the case of a child\u27s suicidal death than in the case of a nonsuicidal death. Further, differences in reactions to suicidal and nonsuicidal deaths have been partially replicated with adolescents (Gordon, Range, & Edwards, 1987). However, no one has attempted to determine if psychologically disturbed persons in general, or psychologically disturbed adolescents in particular, react differently from nondisturbed persons to information about suicidal and nonsuicidal deaths, or if they react differently to these two types of deaths. The present investigation attempted to assess differences, if any, between reactions of psychologically disturbed adolescents and reactions of nondisturbed adolescents to information about suicidal and nonsuicidal deaths. Consistent with previous research, reactions to suicidal deaths were expected to be more negative. In addition, however, and consistent with the false consensus bias, psychologically disturbed individuals were expected to react more negatively than were nondisturbed individuals to news about a child\u27s death. A negative reaction in this case was defined as viewing the child who died as psychologically disturbed, viewing the parents as psychologically disturbed prior to the child\u27s death, expecting not to like the parents, blaming the parents, expecting the parents to remain sad and depressed a long time after the incident, feeling that the newspaper should not have described the cause of death, expecting to feel a great deal of tension while visiting the surviving family, believing that the parents should have been able to predict the incident, expecting the family to be ashamed after the incident, thinking that the family should remain isolated for a while after the incident, and thinking that the matter should remain within the family. Further, since these adolescents were in psychological treatment themselves, they were expected to be more likely to recommend professional mental health treatment than were nonclient