Wild Bee Conservation within Urban Gardens and Nurseries: Effects of Local and Landscape Management

Across urban environments, vegetated habitats provide refuge for biodiversity. Gardens (designed for food crop production) and nurseries (designed for ornamental plant production) are both urban agricultural habitats characterized by high plant species richness but may vary in their ability to support wild pollinators, particularly bees. In gardens, pollinators are valued for crop production. In nurseries, ornamental plants rarely require pollination; thus, the potential of nurseries to support pollinators has not been examined. We asked how these habitats vary in their ability to support wild bees, and what habitat features relate to this variability. In 19 gardens and 11 nurseries in California, USA, we compared how local habitat and landscape features affected wild bee species abundance and richness. To assess local features, we estimated floral richness and measured ground cover as proxies for food and nesting resources, respectively. To assess landscape features, we measured impervious land cover surrounding each site. Our analyses showed that differences in floral richness, local habitat size, and the amount of urban land cover impacted garden wild bee species richness. In nurseries, floral richness and the proportion of native plant species impacted wild bee abundance and richness. We suggest management guidelines for supporting wild pollinators in both habitats.DFG, 414044773, Open Access Publizieren 2019 - 2020 / Technische Universität Berli

Nontarget impacts of neonicotinoids on nectar‐inhabiting microbes

Plant-systemic neonicotinoid (NN) insecticides can exert non-target impacts on organisms like beneficial insects and soil microbes. NNs can affect plant microbiomes, but we know little about their effects on microbial communities that mediate plant-insect interactions, including nectar-inhabiting microbes (NIMs). Here we employed two approaches to assess the impacts of NN exposure on several NIM taxa. First, we assayed the in vitro effects of six NN compounds on NIM growth using plate assays. Second, we inoculated a standardised NIM community into the nectar of NN-treated canola (Brassica napus) and assessed microbial survival and growth after 24 h. With few exceptions, in vitro NN exposure tended to decrease bacterial growth metrics. However, the magnitude of the decrease and the NN concentrations at which effects were observed varied substantially across bacteria. Yeasts showed no consistent in vitro response to NNs. In nectar, we saw no effects of NN treatment on NIM community metrics. Rather, NIM abundance and diversity responded to inherent plant qualities like nectar volume. In conclusion, we found no evidence that NIMs respond to field-relevant NN levels in nectar within 24 h, but our study suggests that context, specifically assay methods, time and plant traits, is important in assaying the effects of NNs on microbial communities

Words matter: how ecologists discuss managed and non-managed bees and birds

Abstract: Effectively promoting the stability and quality of ecosystem services involves the successful management of domesticated species and the control of introduced species. In the pollinator literature, interest and concern regarding pollinator species and pollinator health dramatically increased in recent years. Concurrently, the use of loaded terms when discussing domesticated and non-native species may have increased. As a result, pollinator ecology has inherited both the confusion associated with invasion biology’s lack of a standardized terminology to describe native, managed, or introduced species as well as loaded terms with very strong positive or negative connotations. The recent explosion of research on native bees and alternative pollinators, coupled with the use of loaded language, has led to a perceived divide between native bee and managed bee researchers. In comparison, the bird literature discusses the study of managed (poultry) and non-managed (all other birds) species without an apparent conflict with regard to the use of terms with strong connotations or sentiment. Here, we analyze word usage when discussing non-managed and managed bee and bird species in 3614 ecological and evolutionary biology papers published between 1990 and 2019. Using time series analyses, we demonstrate how the use of specific descriptor terms (such as wild, introduced, and exotic) changed over time. We then conducted co-citation network analyses to determine whether papers that share references have similar terminology and sentiment. We predicted a negative language bias towards introduced species and positive language bias towards native species. We found an association between the term invasive and bumble bees and we observed significant increases in the usage of more ambiguous terms to describe non-managed species, such as wild. We detected a negative sentiment associated with the research area of pathogen spillover in bumble bees, which corroborates the subjectivity that language carries. We recommend using terms that acknowledge the role of human activities on pathogen spillover and biological invasions. Avoiding the usage of loaded terms when discussing managed and non-managed species will advance our understanding and promote effective and productive communication across scientists, general public, policy makers and other stake holders in our society

Antibiotic treatment of infections caused by carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative bacilli: an international ESCMID cross-sectional survey among infectious diseases specialists practicing in large hospitals

OBJECTIVES: To explore contemporary antibiotic management of infections caused by carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative bacteria in hospitals. METHODS: Cross-sectional, internet-based questionnaire survey. We contacted representatives of all hospitals with more than 800 acute-care hospital beds in France, Greece, Israel, Italy, Kosovo, Slovenia, Spain and selected hospitals in the USA. We asked respondents to describe the most common actual practice at their hospital regarding management of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae, Acinetobacter baumannii and Pseudomonas aeruginosa through close-ended questions. RESULTS: Between January and June 2017, 115 of 141 eligible hospitals participated (overall response rate 81.6%, country-specific rates 66.7%-100%). Most were tertiary-care (99/114, 86.8%), university-affiliated (110/115, 89.1%) hospitals and most representatives were infectious disease specialists (99/115, 86.1%). Combination therapy was prescribed in 114/115 (99.1%) hospitals at least occasionally. Respondents were more likely to consider combination therapy when treating bacteraemia, pneumonia and central nervous system infections and for Enterobacteriaceae, P. aeruginosa and A. baumannii similarly. Combination of a polymyxin with a carbapenem was used in most cases, whereas combinations of a polymyxin with tigecycline, an aminoglycoside, fosfomycin or rifampicin were also common. Monotherapy was used for treatment of complicated urinary tract infections, usually with an aminoglycoside or a polymyxin. The intended goal of combination therapy was to improve the effectiveness of the treatment and to prevent development of resistance. In general, respondents shared the misconception that combination therapy is supported by strong scientific evidence. CONCLUSIONS: Combination therapy was the preferred treatment strategy for infections caused by carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative bacteria among hospital representatives, even though high-quality evidence for carbapenem-based combination therapy is lacking

Antibiotic treatment of infections caused by carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative bacilli: an international ESCMID cross-sectional survey among infectious diseases specialists practicing in large hospitals

Objectives: To explore contemporary antibiotic management of infections caused by carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative bacteria in hospitals. Methods: Cross-sectional, internet-based questionnaire survey. We contacted representatives of all hospitals with more than 800 acute-care hospital beds in France, Greece, Israel, Italy, Kosovo, Slovenia, Spain and selected hospitals in the USA. We asked respondents to describe the most common actual practice at their hospital regarding management of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae, Acinetobacter baumannii and Pseudomonas aeruginosa through close-ended questions. Results: Between January and June 2017, 115 of 141 eligible hospitals participated (overall response rate 81.6%, country-specific rates 66.7%–100%). Most were tertiary-care (99/114, 86.8%), university-affiliated (110/115, 89.1%) hospitals and most representatives were infectious disease specialists (99/115, 86.1%). Combination therapy was prescribed in 114/115 (99.1%) hospitals at least occasionally. Respondents were more likely to consider combination therapy when treating bacteraemia, pneumonia and central nervous system infections and for Enterobacteriaceae, P. aeruginosa and A. baumannii similarly. Combination of a polymyxin with a carbapenem was used in most cases, whereas combinations of a polymyxin with tigecycline, an aminoglycoside, fosfomycin or rifampicin were also common. Monotherapy was used for treatment of complicated urinary tract infections, usually with an aminoglycoside or a polymyxin. The intended goal of combination therapy was to improve the effectiveness of the treatment and to prevent development of resistance. In general, respondents shared the misconception that combination therapy is supported by strong scientific evidence. Conclusions: Combination therapy was the preferred treatment strategy for infections caused by carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative bacteria among hospital representatives, even though high-quality evidence for carbapenem-based combination therapy is lacking. © 2018 European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Disease

Antibiotic treatment of infections caused by carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative bacilli: an international ESCMID cross-sectional survey among infectious diseases specialists practicing in large hospitals

107noneObjectives: To explore contemporary antibiotic management of infections caused by carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative bacteria in hospitals.Methods: Cross-sectional, internet-based questionnaire survey. We contacted representatives of all hospitals with more than 800 acute-care hospital beds in France, Greece, Israel, Italy, Kosovo, Slovenia, Spain and selected hospitals in the USA. We asked respondents to describe the most common actual practice at their hospital regarding management of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae, Acinetobacter baumannii and Pseudomonas aeruginosa through close-ended questions.Results: Between January and June 2017, 115 of 141 eligible hospitals participated (overall response rate 81.6%, country-specific rates 66.7%-100%). Most were tertiary-care (99/114, 86.8%), university-affiliated (110/115, 89.1%) hospitals and most representatives were infectious disease specialists (99/115, 86.1%). Combination therapy was prescribed in 114/115 (99.1%) hospitals at least occasionally. Respondents were more likely to consider combination therapy when treating bacteraemia, pneumonia and central nervous system infections and for Enterobacteriaceae, P. aeruginosa and A. baumannii similarly. Combination of a polymyxin with a carbapenem was used in most cases, whereas combinations of a polymyxin with tigecycline, an aminoglycoside, fosfomycin or rifampicin were also common. Monotherapy was used for treatment of complicated urinary tract infections, usually with an aminoglycoside or a polymyxin. The intended goal of combination therapy was to improve the effectiveness of the treatment and to prevent development of resistance. In general, respondents shared the misconception that combination therapy is supported by strong scientific evidence.Conclusions: Combination therapy was the preferred treatment strategy for infections caused by carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative bacteria among hospital representatives, even though high-quality evidence for carbapenem-based combination therapy is lacking. (c) 2018 European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.nonePapst, L.*; Beović, B.; Pulcini, C.; Durante-Mangoni, E.; Rodríguez-Baño, J.; Kaye, K.S.; Daikos, G.L.; Raka, L.; Paul, M.; Abbo, L.; Abgueguen, P.; Almirante, B.; Azzini, A.M.; Bani-Sadr, F.; Bassetti, M.; Ben-Ami, R.; Beović, B.; Béraud, G.; Botelho-Nevers, E.; Bou, G.; Boutoille, D.; Cabié, A.; Cacopardo, B.; Cascio, A.; Cassir, N.; Castelli, F.; Cecala, M.; Charmillon, A.; Chirouze, C.; Cisneros, J.M.; Colmenero, J.D.; Coppola, N.; Corcione, S.; Daikos, G.L.; Dalla Gasperina, D.; De la Calle Cabrera, C.; Delobel, P.; Di Caprio, D.; Durante Mangoni, E.; Dupon, M.; Ettahar, N.; Falagas, M.E.; Falcone, M.; Fariñas, M.C.; Faure, E.; Forestier, E.; Foti, G.; Gallagher, J.; Gattuso, G.; Gendrin, V.; Gentile, I.; Giacobbe, D.R.; Gogos, C.A.; Grandiere Perez, L.; Hansmann, Y.; Horcajada, J.P.; Iacobello, C.; Jacob, J.T.; Justo, J.A.; Kernéis, S.; Komnos, A.; Kotnik Kevorkijan, B.; Lebeaux, D.; Le Berre, R.; Lechiche, C.; Le Moxing, V.; Lescure, F.X.; Libanore, M.; Martinot, M.; Merino de Lucas, E.; Mondain, V.; Mondello, P.; Montejo, M.; Mootien, J.; Muñoz, P.; Nir-Paz, R.; Pan, A.; Paño-Pardo, J.R.; Patel, G.; Paul, M.; Pérez Rodríguez, M.T.; Piroth, L.; Pogue, J.; Potoski, B.A.; Pourcher, V.; Pyrpasopoulou, A.; Rahav, G.; Rizzi, M.; Rodríguez-Baño, J.; Salavert, M.; Scheetz, M.; Sims, M.; Spahija, G.; Stefani, S.; Stefos, A.; Tamma, P.D.; Tattevin, P.; Tedesco, A.; Torre-Cisneros, J.; Tripolitsioti, P.; Tsiodras, S.; Uomo, G.; Verdon, R.; Viale, P.; Vitrat, V.; Weinberger, M.; Wiener-Well, Y.Papst, L.; Beović, B.; Pulcini, C.; Durante-Mangoni, E.; Rodríguez-Baño, J.; Kaye, K. S.; Daikos, G. L.; Raka, L.; Paul, M.; Abbo, L.; Abgueguen, P.; Almirante, B.; Azzini, A. M.; Bani-Sadr, F.; Bassetti, M.; Ben-Ami, R.; Beović, B.; Béraud, G.; Botelho-Nevers, E.; Bou, G.; Boutoille, D.; Cabié, A.; Cacopardo, B.; Cascio, A.; Cassir, N.; Castelli, F.; Cecala, M.; Charmillon, A.; Chirouze, C.; Cisneros, J. M.; Colmenero, J. D.; Coppola, N.; Corcione, S.; Daikos, G. L.; Dalla Gasperina, D.; De la Calle Cabrera, C.; Delobel, P.; Di Caprio, D.; Durante Mangoni, E.; Dupon, M.; Ettahar, N.; Falagas, M. E.; Falcone, M.; Fariñas, M. C.; Faure, E.; Forestier, E.; Foti, G.; Gallagher, J.; Gattuso, G.; Gendrin, V.; Gentile, I.; Giacobbe, D. R.; Gogos, C. A.; Grandiere Perez, L.; Hansmann, Y.; Horcajada, J. P.; Iacobello, C.; Jacob, J. T.; Justo, J. A.; Kernéis, S.; Komnos, A.; Kotnik Kevorkijan, B.; Lebeaux, D.; Le Berre, R.; Lechiche, C.; Le Moxing, V.; Lescure, F. X.; Libanore, M.; Martinot, M.; Merino de Lucas, E.; Mondain, V.; Mondello, P.; Montejo, M.; Mootien, J.; Muñoz, P.; Nir-Paz, R.; Pan, A.; Paño-Pardo, J. R.; Patel, G.; Paul, M.; Pérez Rodríguez, M. T.; Piroth, L.; Pogue, J.; Potoski, B. A.; Pourcher, V.; Pyrpasopoulou, A.; Rahav, G.; Rizzi, M.; Rodríguez-Baño, J.; Salavert, M.; Scheetz, M.; Sims, M.; Spahija, G.; Stefani, S.; Stefos, A.; Tamma, P. D.; Tattevin, P.; Tedesco, A.; Torre-Cisneros, J.; Tripolitsioti, P.; Tsiodras, S.; Uomo, G.; Verdon, R.; Viale, P.; Vitrat, V.; Weinberger, M.; Wiener-Well, Y