The Production of Ring-necked Pheasants in Winnebago County, lowa

In the fall of 1935, the Iowa Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit inaugurated field investigations on the ring-necked pheasant, Phasianus colchicus, on the Winnebago Research Area, sections 9-12, 13-16, and 21-24, Eden Township, Winnebago County. Early investigations (Green, 1938) were centered around winter mortality of pheasants and the improvement of habitat to alleviate winter losses. In 1939-41 intensive investigations were shifted to the nesting and production of the ring-necked pheasant on a 1520-acre plot lying within sections 13, 14, 15, 23 and 24 (Baskett, 1947). Although the pheasants were increasing in numbers during 1939 and 1940, in 1941 and accelerated rate of summer production was noted. Instead of the usual 150-175 percent rate of summer increase over the spring population, production jumped to 220 percent in spite of the largest observed spring density - 125 birds per section. A parallel rise in the 1941 rate of production was also recorded in North Dakota (Bach, 1944)

A Proposed Comparison of Fall Roadside Pheasant Counts and Flushing Rates

Although the fall roadside pheasant census (Bennett and Hendrickson, 1938) has reflected the fall pheasant population from an administrative standpoint for the past 17 years within the primary range in Iowa (Kozicky, et al., 1952), there still exist the problems of correlating these roadside counts to actual populations or flushing rates. Inasmuch as we do not have any known method of obtaining exact numbers of birds for a given ·section of land at the present time, we cannot develop a method of interpreting the roadside count as reflecting a mean number of birds per acre in the primary pheasant range within a, specified confidence limits. However, it may be possible to relate the index obtained from the roadside count to birds flushed per hour on a section of land. The evaluation would be of assistance to administrators and sportsmen alike. The sportsmen are interested in knowing just how many birds they can expect to flush in an hour of hunting, based on roadside counts, and the administrator would like confirmation on the correlation, if any, between the roadside count and flushing rates

IVIg and LPS Co-stimulation Induces IL-10 Production by Human Monocytes, Which Is Compromised by an FcγRIIA Disease-Associated Gene Variant

Intravenous Immunoglobulin (IVIg) is used to treat autoimmune or inflammatory diseases, but its mechanism of action is not completely understood. We asked whether IVIg can induce interleukin-10 (IL-10) and reduce pro-inflammatory cytokine production in human monocytes, and whether this response is reduced in monocytes from people with an Fcγ receptor IIA (FcγRIIA) gene variant, which is associated with increased risk of inflammatory diseases and poor response to antibody-based biological therapy. IVIg increased IL-10 production and reduced pro-inflammatory cytokine production in response to bacterial lipopolysaccharide (LPS), which required FcγRI and FcγRIIB and activation of MAPKs, extracellular signal-regulated kinase 1/2 (ERK1/2), and p38. IL-10 production was lower and pro-inflammatory cytokine production was higher in monocytes from people with the FcγRIIA risk variant and the risk variant prevented IL-10 production in response to (IVIg+LPS). Finally, we show that IVIg did not induce MAPK activation in monocytes from people with the risk variant. Our results demonstrate that IVIg can skew human monocytes to an anti-inflammatory, IL-10-producing activation state, which is compromised in monocytes from people with the FcγRIIA risk variant. This research has profound implications for the use of IVIg because 25% of the population is homozygous for the FcγRIIA risk variant and its efficacy may be reduced in those individuals. In addition, this research may be useful to develop new therapeutic strategies to replace IVIg by cross-linking FcγRIs and FcγRIIBs to promote anti-inflammatory macrophage activation, independent of the FcγRIIA genotype

Community paramedic point of care testing: validity and usability of two commercially available devices

Abstract Background Community Paramedics (CPs) require access to timely blood analysis in the field to guide treatment and transport decisions. Point of care testing (POCT), as opposed to laboratory analysis, may offer a solution, but limited research exists on CP POCT. The purpose of this study was to compare the validity of two devices (Abbott i-STAT® and Alere epoc®) by CPs in the community. Methods In a CP programme responding to 6000 annual patient care events, a split sample validation of POCT against traditional laboratory analysis for seven analytes (sodium, potassium, chloride, creatinine, hemoglobin, hematocrit, and glucose) was conducted on a consecutive sample of patients. The difference of proportion of discrepant results between POCT and laboratory was compared using a two sample proportion test. Usability was analysed by survey of CP experience, a linear mixed effects model of Systems Usability Scale (SUS) adjusted for CP clinical and POCT experience, an expert heuristic evaluation of devices, a review of device-logged errors, and coded observations of POCT use during quality control testing. Results Of 1649 episodes of care screened for enrollment, 174 required a blood draw, with 108 episodes (62.1%) enrolled from 73 participants. Participants had a mean age of 58.7 years (SD16.3); 49% were female. In 4 of 646 (0.6%) comparisons, POCT reported a critical value but the laboratory did not; with no statistically significant (p = 0.323) difference between i-STAT® (0.9%;95%CI:0.0,1.9%) compared with epoc® (0.3%;95%CI:0.0,0.9%). There were no instances of the laboratory reporting a critical value when POCT did not. In 88 of 1046 (8.4%) comparisons the a priori defined acceptable difference between POCT and the laboratory was exceeded; occurring more often in epoc® (10.7%;95%CI:8.1,13.3%) compared with i-STAT® (6.1%;95%CI:4.1,8.2%)(p = 0.007). Eighteen of 19 CP surveys were returned, with 11/18 (61.1%) preferring i-STAT® over epoc®. The i-STAT® had a higher mean SUS score (higher usability) compared with epoc® (84.0/100 vs. 59.6/100; p = 0.011). There were no statistically significant differences in device logged errors between i-STAT® and epoc® (p = 0.063). Conclusions CP programmes can expect clinically valid results from POCT. Device usability assessments should be considered with any local implementation as the two POCT systems have different strengths