The Filtration Rate, Oxygen Consumption and Biomass of the Introduced Polychaete Sabella Spallanzanii Gmelin Within Cockburn Sound : Can it Control Phytoplankton Levels and is it an Efficient Filter Feeder?

Sabella spallanzanii, a filter feeding, sabellid polychaete worm which is common in the Mediterranean Sea, was recently discovered in Cockburn Sound, Western Australia. The species has been in Port Phillip Bay, Victoria for about 10 years, where it has spread widely, competes with native species and has economic impacts on the local scallop fishery. In Cockburn Sound, S. spallanzanii has colonised a shallow, sandy area known as the Southern Flats, reaching a mean biomass of 258 gDW m2 , as well as almost all artificial structures such as jetties and navigational marker pylons. A large biomass of this introduced filter feeder may have a considerable filtration capacity which could control levels of phytoplankton in the Sound. This study measured the biomass and filtration rate of S. spallanzanii to determine its potential to effect phytoplankton levels in Cockburn Sound through filter feeding. The results suggest that these polychaetes have a substantial filtering capacity, capable of filtering the water-column above them at the Southern Flats (5m depth) 4.6 times daily. To determine the feeding efficiency of S. spallanzanii (volume of water filtered per metabolic demand), the oxygen consumption and filtration rate were measured. Feeding efficiency, which may provide an indication of the potential spread of S. spallanzanii to less eutrophic waters, increased with temperature from 13°C, reaching an optimum at 22°C. Between 22 - 27°C the feeding efficiency decreased sharply, indicating that its upper temperature limit is approached. To meet its metabolic requirements, S. spallanzanii requires a phytoplankton concentration with a chlorophyll a level of 1.42 µg L1 in winter (17°C) and 0.73 µg L1 in summer (22°C). It was concluded that the feeding efficiency of S. spallanzanii may limit it to eutrophic harbours with a high level of phytoplankton

Marine benthic flora and fauna of Gourdon Bay and the Dampier Peninsula in the Kimberley region of North-Western Australia

Surveys undertaken to characterise the marine benthic habitats along the Dampier Peninsula and further south at Gourdon Bay in the Kimberley region of Western Australia were augmented with epibenthic sled sampling of soft and hard bottom habitats. This paper describes the species collected, their biomass and relative abundance for the main groups of marine macrophytes and invertebrates. Five localities were surveyed; Gourdon Bay, Quondong Point to Coulomb Point, Carnot Bay to Beagle Bay, Perpendicular Head and Packer Island. Sampling was limited to fifteen epibenthic dredge operations from a range of habitat types and was designed to target the most common habitat types and to obtain species identifications of the most important species and those which typified different habitat types. Surveys covered a total of 1,350 m 2 of seabed in depths between 11 and 23m. We identified 415 taxa comprising: 1 seagrass, 43 algae, 52 sponges, 30 ascidians, 10 hydroids, 14 scleractinian corals, 52 other cnidarians, 69 crustaceans, 73 molluscs and 71 echinoderms. Despite the limited nature of the sampling, a significant number of new species, range extensions and new records for Western Australia and Australia were recorded. Within the algae, one range extension (Halimeda cf. cuneata f. digitata not previously recorded in Western Australia) and one possible new species of Areschougia were recorded. Two range extensions were present in the ascidians; the solitary ascidian Polycarpa cf. intonata has previously only been recorded in Queensland and Cnemidocarpa cf. radicosa only in temperate Australian waters. There were several range extensions for the crustacea, for example, the sponge crab, Tumidodromia dormia, has only been recorded in Queensland. One species of holothurian of the genus Phyllophorus could not be identified from the literature available and may represent a new species. Similarly, a small species of the echinoid Gymnechinus could possibly be a new species. The collections of hydroids, hard corals, crinoids and molluscs contained no new species or range extensions. There was difficulty in identification of some groups to species level due to the status of the current taxonomic literature (e.g. Cnidaria, Porifera and ascidians) and there may be a number of new species among the material collected. Among the anthozoa, there is at least one new species of Chromonephthea and potentially 10 range extensions to Western Australia. Sinularia cf. acuta and Chromonephthea curvata are both new records for Australia with both previously recorded in Indonesia only. Among the better known taxa (e.g. molluscs, echinoderms, corals), most of the taxa identified to species level have been recorded to occur throughout north-western Australia, however the diversity recorded in this study is less than other parts of the Kimberley and this is almost certainly a result of the small overall area sampled and the single method of collection utilised. The most important species on soft bottom habitats in terms of biomass was the heart urchin Breynia desorii (up to 326 g.m -2). Sponges were the dominant fauna by biomass (up to 620 g.m -2) on hard bottom habitats and biomass was dominated a by a few large cup and massive sponge species (e.g. Pione velans and two unidentified Spheciospongia). The biomass of other filter feeders, especially ascidians (e.g. Aplidium cf. crateriferum), soft corals (e.g. Chromonephthea spp.), gorgonians (e.g. Junceella fragilis and Dichotella gemmacea) was also high, indicating the importance of these groups in characterising hard bottom habitats. Although low in biomass, crinoids such as Comaster multifidus and Comatula pectinata were abundant in samples that included a high biomass of other filter feeders

Socioeconomic status and diabetes technology use in youth with type 1 diabetes: a comparison of two funding models

Background Technology use, including continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) and insulin pump therapy, is associated with improved outcomes in youth with type 1 diabetes (T1D). In 2017 CGM was universally funded for youth with T1D in Australia. In contrast, pump access is primarily accessed through private health insurance, self-funding or philanthropy. The study aim was to investigate the use of diabetes technology across different socioeconomic groups in Australian youth with T1D, in the setting of two contrasting funding models. Methods A cross-sectional evaluation of 4957 youth with T1D aged <18 years in the national registry was performed to determine technology use. The Index of Relative Socio-Economic Disadvantage (IRSD) derived from Australian census data is an area-based measure of socioeconomic status (SES). Lower quintiles represent greater disadvantage. IRSD based on most recent postcode of residence was used as a marker of SES. A multivariable generalised linear model adjusting for age, diabetes duration, sex, remoteness classification, and location within Australia was used to determine the association between SES and device use. Results CGM use was lower in IRSD quintile 1 in comparison to quintiles 2 to 5 (p<0.001) where uptake across the quintiles was similar. A higher percentage of pump use was observed in the least disadvantaged IRSD quintiles. Compared to the most disadvantaged quintile 1, pump use progressively increased by 16% (95% CI: 4% to 31%) in quintile 2, 19% (6% to 33%) in quintile 3, 35% (21% to 50%) in quintile 4 and 51% (36% to 67%) in the least disadvantaged quintile 5. Conclusion In this large national dataset, use of diabetes technologies was found to differ across socioeconomic groups. For nationally subsidised CGM, use was similar across socioeconomic groups with the exception of the most disadvantaged quintile, an important finding requiring further investigation into barriers to CGM use within a nationally subsidised model. User pays funding models for pump therapy result in lower use with socioeconomic disadvantage, highlighting inequities in this funding approach. For the full benefits of diabetes technology to be realised, equitable access to pump therapy needs to be a health policy priority.Kate E. Lomax, Craig E. Taplin, Mary B. Abraham, Grant J. Smith, Aveni Haynes, Ella Zomer, Katrina L. Ellis, Helen Clapin, Sophia Zoungas, Alicia J. Jenkins, Jenny Harrington, Martin I. de Bock, Timothy W. Jones, and Elizabeth A. Davis, on behalf of the Australasian Diabetes Data Network, ADDN, study grou

Smoking, Alcohol, Diabetes, Obesity, Socioeconomic Status, and the Risk of Colorectal Cancer in a Population-Based Case–Control Study

Purpose: Although previous research has identified factors that may determine willingness to participate in research, relatively few studies have attempted to quantify the impact non-participation may have on exposure–disease associations. The aims of this study were to (a) investigate the associations between smoking, alcohol, diabetes, obesity, and socioeconomic status and the risk of colorectal cancer in a case–control study (59.7 and 47.2 % response fractions among cases and controls, respectively); and (b) perform sensitivity analyses to examine the possible influence of non-participation. Methods: Logistic regression was used to estimate the exposure–disease associations. We then investigated the associations between various demographic and health factors and the likelihood that an individual would participate in the case–control study and then performed two sensitivity analyses (sampling weights and multiple imputation) to examine whether non-participation bias may have influenced the exposure–disease associations. Results: The exposures alcohol, smoking, and diabetes were associated with an increased risk of colorectal cancer. We found some differences between cases and controls when examining the factors associated with the participation in the study, and in the sensitivity analyses, the exposure–disease associations were slightly attenuated when compared with those from the original analysis. Conclusion: Non-participation may have biased the risk estimates away from the null, but generally not enough to change the conclusions of the study

Socioeconomic status and diabetes technology use in youth with type 1 diabetes: a comparison of two funding models

BackgroundTechnology use, including continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) and insulin pump therapy, is associated with improved outcomes in youth with type 1 diabetes (T1D). In 2017 CGM was universally funded for youth with T1D in Australia. In contrast, pump access is primarily accessed through private health insurance, self-funding or philanthropy. The study aim was to investigate the use of diabetes technology across different socioeconomic groups in Australian youth with T1D, in the setting of two contrasting funding models.MethodsA cross-sectional evaluation of 4957 youth with T1D aged &lt;18 years in the national registry was performed to determine technology use. The Index of Relative Socio-Economic Disadvantage (IRSD) derived from Australian census data is an area-based measure of socioeconomic status (SES). Lower quintiles represent greater disadvantage. IRSD based on most recent postcode of residence was used as a marker of SES. A multivariable generalised linear model adjusting for age, diabetes duration, sex, remoteness classification, and location within Australia was used to determine the association between SES and device use.ResultsCGM use was lower in IRSD quintile 1 in comparison to quintiles 2 to 5 (p&lt;0.001) where uptake across the quintiles was similar. A higher percentage of pump use was observed in the least disadvantaged IRSD quintiles. Compared to the most disadvantaged quintile 1, pump use progressively increased by 16% (95% CI: 4% to 31%) in quintile 2, 19% (6% to 33%) in quintile 3, 35% (21% to 50%) in quintile 4 and 51% (36% to 67%) in the least disadvantaged quintile 5.ConclusionIn this large national dataset, use of diabetes technologies was found to differ across socioeconomic groups. For nationally subsidised CGM, use was similar across socioeconomic groups with the exception of the most disadvantaged quintile, an important finding requiring further investigation into barriers to CGM use within a nationally subsidised model. User pays funding models for pump therapy result in lower use with socioeconomic disadvantage, highlighting inequities in this funding approach. For the full benefits of diabetes technology to be realised, equitable access to pump therapy needs to be a health policy priority