A National Status Report on United States Coral Reefs Based on 2012-2018 Data From National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Coral Reef Monitoring Program

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Coral Reef Conservation Program supports the National Coral Reef Monitoring Program (NCRMP) in the United States Pacific, Atlantic, Caribbean, and Gulf of Mexico. NCRMP conducts standardized observations of biological, climatic, and socioeconomic indicators across American Samoa, Guam, the Main Hawaiian Islands, the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands, the Northern Mariana Islands, the Pacific Remote Islands, Florida, the Flower Garden Banks, Puerto Rico, and the United States Virgin Islands. NCRMP provides periodic, national-level assessments of the status of United States coral reef ecosystems and communities connected to them. In 2014, NCRMP partnered with the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science on an unprecedented collaboration between federal and jurisdictional/state agencies, academia, and non-governmental organizations to synthesize NCRMP data into a reporting format designed to be accessible and relevant to the public and policy makers. The process involved multi-year data analyses of key benthic, fish, and climate indicators. In populated jurisdictions, socioeconomic data were integrated to assess public support for management actions, participation in pro-environmental behaviors, and awareness of threats to coral reefs. Jurisdictions were scored using a report-card scale (0-100%) by establishing references for each indicator using best-available historical data or expert opinion where historical data did not exist or were not statistically comparable. Despite overall ecosystem scores of Fair for all combined Atlantic (70%) and Pacific (74%) jurisdictions, the current trend is downward with a majority of United States coral reefs declining and vulnerable to further degradation. Remote, uninhabited reefs had an advantage with respect to reef fish population scores, i.e., Flower Garden Banks (85%) and Pacific Remote Islands (93%), when compared to populated location scores, i.e., Puerto Rico (63%) and Main Hawaiian Islands (66%). All coral reefs are highly impacted by climate change, and climate impacts were more pronounced than expected on remote reefs, i.e., the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (58%). Presenting results in a report-card style facilitates communication to the public and policy makers, and provides a useful mechanism to garner support for management actions such as expanding protected areas; enforcing existing regulations; increasing climate change education; reducing land-based sources of pollution; and other actions to improve the trajectory of coral reef ecosystem conditions

A transdisciplinary approach to the economic analysis of the European Water Framework Directive

The European Water Framework Directive (WFD) prescribes economic principles to achieve its ecological targets. The aim is to establish cost-effective measures to attain good ecological status and assess whether the costs of these measures are justifiable in view of the benefits they provide. The complex nature of water problems requires flexible decision-making embracing a diversity of 'knowledges'. Here, natural and social scientist worked together in an integrated approach 'ground-tested' through local stakeholders' knowledge and views. The aims were to: (1) develop a set of steps for implementing this transdisciplinary approach, and (2) critically reflect on the challenges of integrating different strands of knowledge to the specific context of the economics of the WFD. This was tested at a sub-catchment in Scotland. Hydro-chemical models were used to simulate effectiveness of phosphorous pollution mitigation measures, which was then incorporated into a cost-optimization model. Costs were compared with benefits resulting from water quality improvements. This analysis was accompanied by an iterative local stakeholder consultation process. The research further analysed whether selected measures are 'future-proof' in view of climate and land-use changes. Results are used to help set the research agenda for more practical specification of economically sound and socially acceptable ways to deliver the WFD

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy

In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy

In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field