Visual onset expands subjective time

We report a distortion of subjective time perception in which the duration of a first interval is perceived to be longer than the succeeding interval of the same duration. The amount of time expansion depends on the onset type defining the first interval. When a stimulus appears abruptly, its duration is perceived to be longer than when it appears following a stationary array. The difference in the processing time for the stimulus onset and motion onset, measured as reaction times, agrees with the difference in time expansion. Our results suggest that initial transient responses for a visual onset serve as a temporal marker for time estimation, and a systematic change in the processing time for onsets affects perceived time

Proposed approaches for indicator integration. ECAPRHA Deliverable Wp 4.1

<p>Cross-tabulation of cough and the modified Valsalva maneuver (m-VM) for determining the degree of right-to-left shunt.</p

Diagnostico del Impacto del Palangre de Fondo en los Hábitats Bentónicos en los LICs de la RN20000

En prens

Assessing the state of marine biodiversity in the Northeast Atlantic

The Northeast Atlantic, a highly productive maritime area, has been exposed to a wide range of direct human pressures, such as fishing, shipping, coastal development, pollution, and non-indigenous species (NIS) introductions, in addition to anthropogenically-driven global climate change. Nonetheless, this regional sea supports a high diversity of species and habitats, whose functioning provides a variety of ecosystem services, essential for human welfare. In 2017, OSPAR, the Northeast Atlantic Regional Seas Commission, delivered an assessment of marine biodiversity for the Northeast Atlantic. This assessment examined biodiversity indicators separately to identify changes in Northeast Atlantic biodiversity, but stopped short of determining the status of biodiversity for many species and habitats. Here, we expand on this work and for the first time, a semi-quantitative approach is applied to evaluate holistically the state of Northeast Atlantic marine biodiversity across marine food webs, from plankton to top predators, via fish, pelagic and benthic habitats, including xeno-biodiversity (i.e. NIS). Our analysis reveals widespread degradation in marine ecosystems and biodiversity, particularly for marine birds and coastal bottlenose dolphins, as well as for benthic habitats and fish in some regions. The poor biodiversity status of these ecosystem components is likely the result of cumulative effects of human activities, such as habitat destruction or disturbance, overexploitation, eutrophication, the introduction of NIS, and climate change. Bright spots are also revealed, such as recent signs of recovery in some fish and marine bird communities and recovery in harbour and grey seal populations and the condition of coastal benthic communities in some regions. The status of many indicators across all ecosystem components, but particularly for the novel pelagic habitats, food webs and NIS indicators, however, remains uncertain due to gaps in data, unclear pressure-state relationships, and the non-linear influence of some pressures on biodiversity indicators. Improving monitoring and data access and increasing understanding of pressure-state relationships, including those that are non-linear, is therefore a priority for enabling future assessments, as is consistent and stable resourcing for expert involvement

Proposed approaches for indicator integration. EcApRHA Deliverable WP 4.1

Executive SummaryThe Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) aims to achieve Good Environmental Status (GES) withinEuropean Commission waters through an ecosystem‐based approach. The MSFD requires Member Statessharing a marine region or sub‐region to cooperate to ensure that the Directive’s objectives are achievedWorking towards an ecosystem perspective: Proposals for the integration of pelagic, benthic and food web indicatorsand to coordinate their actions through Regional Seas Conventions e.g. the OSPAR Commission for theNorth‐East Atlantic. As part of the ‘applying an Ecosystem Approach to (sub) Regional Habitat Assessments’(EcApRHA) project, integration of indicators under Descriptor 1 (biodiversity), 4 (food webs) and 6 (seafloorintegrity), relating to pelagic and benthic habitats and food webs have been forwarded to work towards anecosystem’s approach in assessing habitats regionally. The content of this report covers differentapproaches developed to integrate indicators forwarded within the project.Five methods are described, four of which were developed to integrate indicators developed under theEcApRHA project. The fifth, OSPAR’s cumulative effect approach has also been summarised as an additionalapproach to integrate indicators. For each method, management implications; the advantages anddisadvantages in relation to being able to work toward assessment of GES; and the confidence in theassessments, are highlighted. The time it would take for the approach to become fully operational, itsfeasibility and costs are also discussed.From the five methods described, three main approaches are discussed:I. A quantitative method to draw links between indicators to assess pressures that have effectson the different aspects of the marine ecosystem (Chapters 3‐4).II. Use of the Nested Environmental status Assessment Tool (NEAT) to integrate differentindicators to provide an overall assessment (Chapters 5 and 6).III. Use of an industry led risk assessment tool (Bow‐Ties) to assess cumulative effects (Chapter 7).The integration approaches outlined within this document demonstrate the developments made within theEcApRHA project to ensure the various indicators under the different descriptors are not only operational,but also integrated in a way which permits a more holistic assessment of the marine environment. Usingsuch a two‐tiered approach of individual indicator and integrated analysis, will enable an understanding ofwhy certain aspects of the marine environment may not be in good condition, and thereby recommendspecific management measures to ameliorate them. Although the approaches forwarded have been initiallytrialled in the North‐East Atlantic, they are able to be applied to other MSFD Regional seas areas. Eachmethod addresses different levels of integration (indicator, habitat or ecosystem) and requires furtherdevelopment and testing. They should be thus considered as complementary and gaps should beprogressed in parallel to ensure coherent progress towards an overall ecosystem approach. In addition,with some further comparative testing between the different methods outlined within this document,options to continue forwarding integrated assessment of OSPAR indicators could be proposed. Themethods outlined within this document are a first step in applying an ecosystem’s approach to assessingthe state of our seas