Do cage fish farms interfere with the food aspects of the wild species Metynnis lippincottianus (Characiformes, Serrasalmidae)?

We evaluated the differences in the diet and trophic guild of Metynnis lippincottianus under the influence of cage fish farms in the Neotropical reservoir. We collected samples from two areas (cage farm and control) in March and June 2019. Stomach contents were examined, and food items were identified and quantified using the volumetric method. Differences in diet composition were evaluated using PERMANOVA and SIMPER analyses, while trophic niche breadth was determined using PERMDISP. The trophic guild for each area was also determined. Significant differences in diet between cage farm and control areas were observed, due to consumption of pelleted feed, microcrustaceans, Egeria sp., and filamentous algae. In both sampling areas, M. lippincottianus was classified as algivorous. Despite the pelleted feed consumption in the cage farm area, no differences were observed in trophic niche breadth and the trophic guild. In addition, algae and macrophytes still accounted for the majority of this species' diet in both areas, indicating partitioning of resources. This resource partitioning may favor coexistence, but it is worth mentioning that pelleted feed consumption still indicates the influence of cage fish farms on the diet of wild fish

Reducing the environmental impact of surgery on a global scale: systematic review and co-prioritization with healthcare workers in 132 countries

Abstract Background Healthcare cannot achieve net-zero carbon without addressing operating theatres. The aim of this study was to prioritize feasible interventions to reduce the environmental impact of operating theatres. Methods This study adopted a four-phase Delphi consensus co-prioritization methodology. In phase 1, a systematic review of published interventions and global consultation of perioperative healthcare professionals were used to longlist interventions. In phase 2, iterative thematic analysis consolidated comparable interventions into a shortlist. In phase 3, the shortlist was co-prioritized based on patient and clinician views on acceptability, feasibility, and safety. In phase 4, ranked lists of interventions were presented by their relevance to high-income countries and low–middle-income countries. Results In phase 1, 43 interventions were identified, which had low uptake in practice according to 3042 professionals globally. In phase 2, a shortlist of 15 intervention domains was generated. In phase 3, interventions were deemed acceptable for more than 90 per cent of patients except for reducing general anaesthesia (84 per cent) and re-sterilization of ‘single-use’ consumables (86 per cent). In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for high-income countries were: introducing recycling; reducing use of anaesthetic gases; and appropriate clinical waste processing. In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for low–middle-income countries were: introducing reusable surgical devices; reducing use of consumables; and reducing the use of general anaesthesia. Conclusion This is a step toward environmentally sustainable operating environments with actionable interventions applicable to both high– and low–middle–income countries