Diet and habitat as determinants of intestine length in fishes

Fish biologists have long assumed a link between intestinal length and diet, and relative gut length or Zihler’s index are often used to classify species into trophic groups. This has been done for specific fish taxa or specific ecosystems, but not for a global fish dataset. Here, we assess these relationships across a dataset of 468 fish species (254 marine, 191 freshwater, and 23 occupy both habitats) in relation to body mass and fish length. Herbivores had significantly relatively stouter bodies and longer intestines than omni- and faunivores. Among faunivores, corallivores had longer intestines than invertivores, with piscivores having the shortest. There were no detectable differences between herbivore groups, possibly due to insufficient understanding of herbivorous fish diets. We propose that reasons for long intestines in fish include (i) difficult-to-digest items that require a symbiotic microbiome, and (ii) the dilution of easily digestible compounds with indigestible material (e.g., sand, wood, exoskeleton). Intestinal indices differed significantly between dietary groups, but there was substantial group overlap. Counter-intuitively, in the largest dataset, marine species had significantly shorter intestines than freshwater fish. These results put fish together with mammals as vertebrate taxa with clear convergence in intestine length in association with trophic level, in contrast to reptiles and birds, even if the peculiar feeding ecology of herbivorous fish is probably more varied than that of mammalian herbivores

Working paper analysing the economic implications of the proposed 30% target for areal protection in the draft post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framewor

58 pages, 5 figures, 3 tables- The World Economic Forum now ranks biodiversity loss as a top-five risk to the global economy, and the draft post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework proposes an expansion of conservation areas to 30% of the earth’s surface by 2030 (hereafter the “30% target”), using protected areas (PAs) and other effective area-based conservation measures (OECMs). - Two immediate concerns are how much a 30% target might cost and whether it will cause economic losses to the agriculture, forestry and fisheries sectors. - Conservation areas also generate economic benefits (e.g. revenue from nature tourism and ecosystem services), making PAs/Nature an economic sector in their own right. - If some economic sectors benefit but others experience a loss, high-level policy makers need to know the net impact on the wider economy, as well as on individual sectors. [...]A. Waldron, K. Nakamura, J. Sze, T. Vilela, A. Escobedo, P. Negret Torres, R. Button, K. Swinnerton, A. Toledo, P. Madgwick, N. Mukherjee were supported by National Geographic and the Resources Legacy Fund. V. Christensen was supported by NSERC Discovery Grant RGPIN-2019-04901. M. Coll and J. Steenbeek were supported by EU Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 817578 (TRIATLAS). D. Leclere was supported by TradeHub UKRI CGRF project. R. Heneghan was supported by Spanish Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities, Acciones de Programacion Conjunta Internacional (PCIN-2017-115). M. di Marco was supported by MIUR Rita Levi Montalcini programme. A. Fernandez-Llamazares was supported by Academy of Finland (grant nr. 311176). S. Fujimori and T. Hawegawa were supported by The Environment Research and Technology Development Fund (2-2002) of the Environmental Restoration and Conservation Agency of Japan and the Sumitomo Foundation. V. Heikinheimo was supported by Kone Foundation, Social Media for Conservation project. K. Scherrer was supported by the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 682602. U. Rashid Sumaila acknowledges the OceanCanada Partnership, which funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC). T. Toivonen was supported by Osk. Huttunen Foundation & Clare Hall college, Cambridge. W. Wu was supported by The Environment Research and Technology Development Fund (2-2002) of the Environmental Restoration and Conservation Agency of Japan. Z. Yuchen was supported by a Ministry of Education of Singapore Research Scholarship Block (RSB) Research FellowshipPeer reviewe

Protecting 30% of the planet for nature: costs, benefits and economic implications

A. Waldron, K. Nakamura, J. Sze, T. Vilela, A. Escobedo, P. Negret Torres, R. Button, K. Swinnerton, A. Toledo, P. Madgwick, N. Mukherjee were supported by National Geographic and the Resources Legacy Fund. V. Christensen was supported by NSERC Discovery Grant RGPIN-2019-04901. M. Coll and J. Steenbeek were supported by EU Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 817578 (TRIATLAS). D. Leclere was supported by TradeHub UKRI CGRF project. R. Heneghan was supported by Spanish Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities, Acciones de Programacion Conjunta Internacional (PCIN-2017-115). M. di Marco was supported by MIUR Rita Levi Montalcini programme. A. Fernandez-Llamazares was supported by Academy of Finland (grant nr. 31176). S. Fujimori and T. Hawegawa were supported by The Environment Research and Technology Development Fund (2-2002) of the Environmental Restoration and Conservation Agency of Japan and the Sumitomo Foundation. V. Heikinheimo was supported by Kone Foundation, Social Media for Conservation project. K. Scherrer was supported by the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 682602. U. Rashid Sumaila acknowledges the OceanCanada Partnership, which funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC). T. Toivonen was supported by Osk. Huttunen Foundation & Clare Hall college, Cambridge. W. Wu was supported by The Environment Research and Technology Development Fund (2-2002) of the Environmental Restoration and Conservation Agency of Japan. Z. Yuchen was supported by a Ministry of Education of Singapore Research Scholarship Block (RSB) Research Fellowship

The Cholecystectomy As A Day Case (CAAD) Score: A Validated Score of Preoperative Predictors of Successful Day-Case Cholecystectomy Using the CholeS Data Set

Background Day-case surgery is associated with significant patient and cost benefits. However, only 43% of cholecystectomy patients are discharged home the same day. One hypothesis is day-case cholecystectomy rates, defined as patients discharged the same day as their operation, may be improved by better assessment of patients using standard preoperative variables. Methods Data were extracted from a prospectively collected data set of cholecystectomy patients from 166 UK and Irish hospitals (CholeS). Cholecystectomies performed as elective procedures were divided into main (75%) and validation (25%) data sets. Preoperative predictors were identified, and a risk score of failed day case was devised using multivariate logistic regression. Receiver operating curve analysis was used to validate the score in the validation data set. Results Of the 7426 elective cholecystectomies performed, 49% of these were discharged home the same day. Same-day discharge following cholecystectomy was less likely with older patients (OR 0.18, 95% CI 0.15–0.23), higher ASA scores (OR 0.19, 95% CI 0.15–0.23), complicated cholelithiasis (OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.48), male gender (OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.58–0.74), previous acute gallstone-related admissions (OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.48–0.60) and preoperative endoscopic intervention (OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.34–0.47). The CAAD score was developed using these variables. When applied to the validation subgroup, a CAAD score of ≤5 was associated with 80.8% successful day-case cholecystectomy compared with 19.2% associated with a CAAD score >5 (p < 0.001). Conclusions The CAAD score which utilises data readily available from clinic letters and electronic sources can predict same-day discharges following cholecystectomy

Morphological re-examination and taxonomy of the genus Macropodus (Perciformes, Osphronemidae)

Winstanley, Tom, Clements, Kendall D. (2008): Morphological re-examination and taxonomy of the genus Macropodus (Perciformes, Osphronemidae). Zootaxa 1908 (1): 1-27, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.1908.1.1, URL: https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.1908.1.

Kyphosus cornelii

Kyphosus cornelii (Whitley, 1944) (Common name: buffalo bream) (Figure 1, 3, 4, Table 3, 8–18) Segutilum cornelii Whitley 1944: p. 27, fig. 3 (type locality: Pelsart Island, Houtman Abrolhos, Western Australia), type specimen whereabouts unknown; Whitley 1964: p. 47. Kyphosus cornelii Scott 1971: p. 134; Hutchins and Swainston 1986: p. 68, fig. 345 (Cape Leeuwin to Coral Bay, Western Australia); Rimmer 1986: p. 443; Rimmer and Wiebe 1987: p. 230; Allen and Swainston 1988: p. 92, fig. 596 (Cape Leeuwin to Coral Bay, Western Australia); Masuda and Allen 1993: p. 176; Kuiter 1997: p. 202, fig. p. 203 (endemic to Western Australia); Hutchins 2001a: p. 252, table 5 (South west to North West coast off Australia); Hutchins 2001b: p. 36; Allen et al. 2003: p. 133; Hoese and Bray 2006: p. 1322 (Cape Leeuwin to Ningaloo Reef in West Australia); Knudsen and Clements 2013: p. 1.Published as part of Knudsen, Steen Wilhelm & Clements, Kendall D., 2013, Revision of the fish family Kyphosidae (Teleostei: Perciformes), pp. 1-101 in Zootaxa 3751 (1) on page 35, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3751.1.1, http://zenodo.org/record/527213

Kyphosus elegans

Kyphosus elegans (Peters, 1869) (Common name: Cortez sea chub) (Figure 8, 9, 11, Table 3, 8–18) Pimelepterus elegans Peters 1869: p. 707, (type locality: Central East Pacific, Mazatlan, Mexico), holotype: ZMB-7071; Fowler 1933: p. 207 (erroneously regarded as synonym of K. bigibbus); Castro-Aguirre 1978: p. 273 (Laguna de Chacahua). Pimelepterus sandwicensis Sauvage 1880: p. 221 (type-locality: Hawaiian Islands), assumed but unconfirmed holotype: MNHN 0000-9818 (not matching description by Sauvage 1880); Fowler 1933: p. 207 (erroneously regarded as synonym of K. bigibbus); Bauchot 1963: p. 174. Kyphosus sandwicensis: (non Sauvage 1880), (non Jordan and Evermann 1905): Randall 2005: p. 305, (non K. elegans), the photo is of a yellow variant of K. sectatrix (Linnaeus 1766); Sakai and Nakabo 2004: p. 25 (non K. elegans). Kyphosus elegans Jordan 1885a: p. 380 (erroneously regarded as synonym of K. analogus); Bryan and Herre 1903: p. 131 (Marcus Island); Jenkins 1903: p. 453 (Honolulu); Snyder 1904: p. 527 (Laysan Island); Meek and Hildebrand 1925: p. 607, pl. lxiv; Fowler 1933: p. 207 (erroneously regarded as synonym of K. bigibbus); Thomson et al. 1979: p. 121, fig. 61, pl. 10b, 11 (Californian Gulf to Panama to Galápagos); Lopez and Bussing 1982: p. 19; Robins et al. 1991: p. 120; Allen and Robertson 1994: p. 177; Bussing and López 1994: p. 136 –137; Sommer 1995: p. 1200; Franke and Acero 1996: p. 767; De La Cruz Agüero et al. 1997: p. 195 (Baha Magdalena, Ecuador, Sea of Cortez, Galápagos); Grove and Lavenberg 1997: p. 430, fig. 240, 242; Gotshall 1998: p. 47, fig. 103; Castro-Aguirre et al. 1999: p. 390, (Californian Gulf to Panama); Thomson et al. 2001: p. 139, (Californian Gulf to Panama to Galápagos); Humann and DeLoach 2004: p. 60 (Gulf of California to Panama); Nelson et al. 2004: p. 150 (Pacific Mexico); Dominici-Arosemena and Wolff 2006: p. 301, table 5; Cruz-Escalona et al. 2009: p. 55; McCosker and Rosenblatt 2010: p. 193 (Eastern Pacific); Near et al. 2012: p. 390; Near et al. 2013: fig. S1E and S2E.Published as part of Knudsen, Steen Wilhelm & Clements, Kendall D., 2013, Revision of the fish family Kyphosidae (Teleostei: Perciformes), pp. 1-101 in Zootaxa 3751 (1) on page 40, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3751.1.1, http://zenodo.org/record/527213

Revision of the fish family Kyphosidae (Teleostei: Perciformes)

Knudsen, Steen Wilhelm, Clements, Kendall D. (2013): Revision of the fish family Kyphosidae (Teleostei: Perciformes). Zootaxa 3751 (1): 1-101, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.3751.1.1, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.3751.1.