Remote Cameras Reveal Experimental Artifact in a Study of Seed Predation in a Semi-Arid Shrubland

Granivorous animals may prefer to predate or cache seed of certain plant species over others. Multiple studies have documented preference for larger, non-native seed by granivores. To accomplish this, researchers have traditionally used indirect inference by relating patterns of seed removal to the species composition of the granivorous animal community. To measure seed removal, researchers present seed to granivorous animals in the field using equipment intended to exclude certain animal taxa while permitting access to others. This approach allows researchers to differentiate patterns of seed removal among various taxa (e.g., birds, small mammals, and insects); however, it is unclear whether the animals of interest are freely using the exclusion devices, which may be a hindrance to discovering the seed dishes. We used video observation to perform a study of seed predation using a custom-built, infrared digital camera and recording system. We presented native and non-native seed mixtures in partitioned Petri dishes both within and outside of exclusion cages. The exclusion cages were intended to allow entrance by rodent taxa while preventing entrance by rabbits and birds. We documented all seed removal visits by granivorous animals, which we identified to the genus level. Genera exhibited varying seed removal patterns based on seed type (native vs. non-native) and dish type (open vs. enclosed). We documented avoidance of the enclosed dishes by all but one rodent taxa, even though these dishes were intended to be used freely by rodents. This suggests that preference for non-native seed occurs differentially among granivorous animals in this system; however, interpretation of these nuanced results would be difficult without the benefit of video observation. When feasible, video observation should accompany studies using in situ equipment to ensure incorrect assumptions do not lead to inappropriate interpretation of results

Biotic homogenization destabilizes ecosystem functioning by decreasing spatial asynchrony

Our planet is facing significant changes of biodiversity across spatial scales. Although the negative effects of local biodiversity (α diversity) loss on ecosystem stability are well documented, the consequences of biodiversity changes at larger spatial scales, in particular biotic homogenization, that is, reduced species turnover across space (β diversity), remain poorly known. Using data from 39 grassland biodiversity experiments, we examine the effects of β diversity on the stability of simulated landscapes while controlling for potentially confounding biotic and abiotic factors. Our results show that higher β diversity generates more asynchronous dynamics among local communities and thereby contributes to the stability of ecosystem productivity at larger spatial scales. We further quantify the relative contributions of α and β diversity to ecosystem stability and find a relatively stronger effect of α diversity, possibly due to the limited spatial scale of our experiments. The stabilizing effects of both α and β diversity lead to a positive diversity–stability relationship at the landscape scale. Our findings demonstrate the destabilizing effect of biotic homogenization and suggest that biodiversity should be conserved at multiple spatial scales to maintain the stability of ecosystem functions and services

Surviving Sepsis Campaign: international guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock, 2012

OBJECTIVE: To provide an update to the "Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for Management of Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock," last published in 2008. DESIGN: A consensus committee of 68 international experts representing 30 international organizations was convened. Nominal groups were assembled at key international meetings (for those committee members attending the conference). A formal conflict of interest policy was developed at the onset of the process and enforced throughout. The entire guidelines process was conducted independent of any industry funding. A stand-alone meeting was held for all subgroup heads, co- and vice-chairs, and selected individuals. Teleconferences and electronic-based discussion among subgroups and among the entire committee served as an integral part of the development. METHODS: The authors were advised to follow the principles of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system to guide assessment of quality of evidence from high (A) to very low (D) and to determine the strength of recommendations as strong (1) or weak (2). The potential drawbacks of making strong recommendations in the presence of low-quality evidence were emphasized. Recommendations were classified into three groups: (1) those directly targeting severe sepsis; (2) those targeting general care of the critically ill patient and considered high priority in severe sepsis; and (3) pediatric considerations. RESULTS: Key recommendations and suggestions, listed by category, include: early quantitative resuscitation of the septic patient during the first 6 h after recognition (1C); blood cultures before antibiotic therapy (1C); imaging studies performed promptly to confirm a potential source of infection (UG); administration of broad-spectrum antimicrobials therapy within 1 h of the recognition of septic shock (1B) and severe sepsis without septic shock (1C) as the goal of therapy; reassessment of antimicrobial therapy daily for de-escalation, when appropriate (1B); infection source control with attention to the balance of risks and benefits of the chosen method within 12 h of diagnosis (1C); initial fluid resuscitation with crystalloid (1B) and consideration of the addition of albumin in patients who continue to require substantial amounts of crystalloid to maintain adequate mean arterial pressure (2C) and the avoidance of hetastarch formulations (1B); initial fluid challenge in patients with sepsis-induced tissue hypoperfusion and suspicion of hypovolemia to achieve a minimum of 30 mL/kg of crystalloids (more rapid administration and greater amounts of fluid may be needed in some patients (1C); fluid challenge technique continued as long as hemodynamic improvement is based on either dynamic or static variables (UG); norepinephrine as the first-choice vasopressor to maintain mean arterial pressure ≥65 mmHg (1B); epinephrine when an additional agent is needed to maintain adequate blood pressure (2B); vasopressin (0.03 U/min) can be added to norepinephrine to either raise mean arterial pressure to target or to decrease norepinephrine dose but should not be used as the initial vasopressor (UG); dopamine is not recommended except in highly selected circumstances (2C); dobutamine infusion administered or added to vasopressor in the presence of (a) myocardial dysfunction as suggested by elevated cardiac filling pressures and low cardiac output, or (b) ongoing signs of hypoperfusion despite achieving adequate intravascular volume and adequate mean arterial pressure (1C); avoiding use of intravenous hydrocortisone in adult septic shock patients if adequate fluid resuscitation and vasopressor therapy are able to restore hemodynamic stability (2C); hemoglobin target of 7-9 g/dL in the absence of tissue hypoperfusion, ischemic coronary artery disease, or acute hemorrhage (1B); low tidal volume (1A) and limitation of inspiratory plateau pressure (1B) for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS); application of at least a minimal amount of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) in ARDS (1B); higher rather than lower level of PEEP for patients with sepsis-induced moderate or severe ARDS (2C); recruitment maneuvers in sepsis patients with severe refractory hypoxemia due to ARDS (2C); prone positioning in sepsis-induced ARDS patients with a PaO (2)/FiO (2) ratio of ≤100 mm Hg in facilities that have experience with such practices (2C); head-of-bed elevation in mechanically ventilated patients unless contraindicated (1B); a conservative fluid strategy for patients with established ARDS who do not have evidence of tissue hypoperfusion (1C); protocols for weaning and sedation (1A); minimizing use of either intermittent bolus sedation or continuous infusion sedation targeting specific titration endpoints (1B); avoidance of neuromuscular blockers if possible in the septic patient without ARDS (1C); a short course of neuromuscular blocker (no longer than 48 h) for patients with early ARDS and a PaO (2)/FI O (2) 180 mg/dL, targeting an upper blood glucose ≤180 mg/dL (1A); equivalency of continuous veno-venous hemofiltration or intermittent hemodialysis (2B); prophylaxis for deep vein thrombosis (1B); use of stress ulcer prophylaxis to prevent upper gastrointestinal bleeding in patients with bleeding risk factors (1B); oral or enteral (if necessary) feedings, as tolerated, rather than either complete fasting or provision of only intravenous glucose within the first 48 h after a diagnosis of severe sepsis/septic shock (2C); and addressing goals of care, including treatment plans and end-of-life planning (as appropriate) (1B), as early as feasible, but within 72 h of intensive care unit admission (2C). Recommendations specific to pediatric severe sepsis include: therapy with face mask oxygen, high flow nasal cannula oxygen, or nasopharyngeal continuous PEEP in the presence of respiratory distress and hypoxemia (2C), use of physical examination therapeutic endpoints such as capillary refill (2C); for septic shock associated with hypovolemia, the use of crystalloids or albumin to deliver a bolus of 20 mL/kg of crystalloids (or albumin equivalent) over 5-10 min (2C); more common use of inotropes and vasodilators for low cardiac output septic shock associated with elevated systemic vascular resistance (2C); and use of hydrocortisone only in children with suspected or proven "absolute"' adrenal insufficiency (2C). CONCLUSIONS: Strong agreement existed among a large cohort of international experts regarding many level 1 recommendations for the best care of patients with severe sepsis. Although a significant number of aspects of care have relatively weak support, evidence-based recommendations regarding the acute management of sepsis and septic shock are the foundation of improved outcomes for this important group of critically ill patients

The epipsammic diatom community of a small river in northern Michigan.

http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/53651/1/2086.pdfDescription of 2086.pdf : Access restricted to on-site users at the U-M Biological Station

Remote Cameras Reveal Experimental Artifact in a Study of Seed Predation in a Semi-Arid Shrubland.

Granivorous animals may prefer to predate or cache seed of certain plant species over others. Multiple studies have documented preference for larger, non-native seed by granivores. To accomplish this, researchers have traditionally used indirect inference by relating patterns of seed removal to the species composition of the granivorous animal community. To measure seed removal, researchers present seed to granivorous animals in the field using equipment intended to exclude certain animal taxa while permitting access to others. This approach allows researchers to differentiate patterns of seed removal among various taxa (e.g., birds, small mammals, and insects); however, it is unclear whether the animals of interest are freely using the exclusion devices, which may be a hindrance to discovering the seed dishes. We used video observation to perform a study of seed predation using a custom-built, infrared digital camera and recording system. We presented native and non-native seed mixtures in partitioned Petri dishes both within and outside of exclusion cages. The exclusion cages were intended to allow entrance by rodent taxa while preventing entrance by rabbits and birds. We documented all seed removal visits by granivorous animals, which we identified to the genus level. Genera exhibited varying seed removal patterns based on seed type (native vs. non-native) and dish type (open vs. enclosed). We documented avoidance of the enclosed dishes by all but one rodent taxa, even though these dishes were intended to be used freely by rodents. This suggests that preference for non-native seed occurs differentially among granivorous animals in this system; however, interpretation of these nuanced results would be difficult without the benefit of video observation. When feasible, video observation should accompany studies using in situ equipment to ensure incorrect assumptions do not lead to inappropriate interpretation of results

Number of visits and elapsed time by seed type.

<p>Model-fitted number of seed removal visits (panel A) and elapsed time per visit (panel B) for each of three possible seed "preference" scenarios: for each visit, the granivorous animal may visit "both" sides of a partitioned Petri dish; the "non-native" side only; or the "native" side only. Although animals remove non-native seeds more than native seeds, they spend more time per visit removing native than non-native seeds.</p

Digital camera system.

<p>The surveillance camera (A) is connected to a padded Pelican^™ case, which contains a battery supply (B) and a mini-DVR (C). The monitor (D) can be connected to the system during setup in the field to ensure the seed station is properly focused within the camera’s field of view.</p

Mass of seed removal by genus and dish type.

<p>Model-fitted seed removal (in grams) for open and enclosed dish types based on the presence of certain genera of seed predators. Although all seed predators remove more seed from open dishes, only <i>Dipodomys</i> and <i>Chaetodipus</i> visit the open dish significantly more than the enclosed dish.</p

Mass of seed removal by genus and seed type.

<p>Model-fitted seed removal (in grams) for native and non-native seed mixtures based on the presence of certain genera of seed predators. Although all seed predators remove more non-native than native seed, only <i>Peromyscus</i> and <i>Chaetodipus</i> exhibit significant preference for the non-native seed mixture.</p

Seed dish visitation.

<p>A nighttime picture of a visit by <i>Dipodomys</i> sp. to a seed dish. The arrow indicates the location of the partition, which separates the native and non-native seed mixtures. The rodent is visiting the open dish, and an enclosed dish is visible inside the wire mesh cage. The PVC tube, bent at a 90-degree angle, is the only entrance to the enclosed seed dish. This is meant to prohibit entrance by rabbits and birds while permitting access to rodents.</p