Reviewing the use of resilience concepts in forest sciences

Purpose of the review Resilience is a key concept to deal with an uncertain future in forestry. In recent years, it has received increasing attention from both research and practice. However, a common understanding of what resilience means in a forestry context, and how to operationalise it is lacking. Here, we conducted a systematic review of the recent forest science literature on resilience in the forestry context, synthesising how resilience is defined and assessed. Recent findings Based on a detailed review of 255 studies, we analysed how the concepts of engineering resilience, ecological resilience, and social-ecological resilience are used in forest sciences. A clear majority of the studies applied the concept of engineering resilience, quantifying resilience as the recovery time after a disturbance. The two most used indicators for engineering resilience were basal area increment and vegetation cover, whereas ecological resilience studies frequently focus on vegetation cover and tree density. In contrast, important social-ecological resilience indicators used in the literature are socio-economic diversity and stock of natural resources. In the context of global change, we expected an increase in studies adopting the more holistic social-ecological resilience concept, but this was not the observed trend. Summary Our analysis points to the nestedness of these three resilience concepts, suggesting that they are complementary rather than contradictory. It also means that the variety of resilience approaches does not need to be an obstacle for operationalisation of the concept. We provide guidance for choosing the most suitable resilience concept and indicators based on the management, disturbance and application context

Extended-criteria donors in liver transplantation Part II: reviewing the impact of extended-criteria donors on the complications and outcomes of liver transplantation

Extended-criteria donors (ECDs) have an impact on early allograft dysfunction (EAD), biliary complications, relapse of hepatitis C virus (HCV), and survivals. Early allograft dysfunction was frequently seen in grafts with moderate and severe steatosis. Donors after cardiac death (DCD) have been associated with higher rates of graft failure and biliary complications compared to donors after brain death. Extended warm ischemia, reperfusion injury and endothelial activation trigger a cascade, leading to microvascular thrombosis, resulting in biliary necrosis, cholangitis, and graft failure. The risk of HCV recurrence increased by donor age, and associated with usingmoderately and severely steatotic grafts. With the administration of protease inhibitors sustained virological response was achieved in majority of the patients. Donor risk index and EC donor scores (DS) are reported to be useful, to assess the outcome. The 1-year survival rates were 87% and 40% respectively, for donors with a DS of 0 and 3. Graft survival was excellent up to a DS of 2, however a DS > 2 should be avoided in higher-risk recipients. The 1, 3 and 5-year survival of DCD recipients was comparable to optimal donors. However ECDs had minor survival means of 85%, 78.6%, and 72.3%. The graft survival of split liver transplantation (SLT) was comparable to that of whole liver orthotopic liver transplantation. SLT was not regarded as an ECD factor in the MELD era any more. Full-right-full-left split liver transplantation has a significant advantage to extend the high quality donor pool. Hypothermic oxygenated machine perfusion can be applied clinically in DCD liver grafts. Feasibility and safety were confirmed. Reperfusion injury was also rare in machine perfused DCD livers