Promoting the use of non-lethal sample collection for analysing the trophic relationships of inshore flatfish populations using stable isotope analysis

Trophic studies on inshore flatfish populations usually rely on stomach content analyses and/or stable isotope analysis (SIA) of dorsal white muscle that involves the collection of samples from euthanised fishes. To promote the use of non-lethal sampling methods in inshore flatfish populations of relatively high intrinsic angling and/or ecological value, the applicability of using fin tissue and/or epidermal mucus as non-lethal alternatives to muscle in SIA studies was assessed for European flounder Platichthys flesus, plaice Pleuronectes platessa and common sole Solea solea. In all species, the results indicated that there were significant differences in the δ13C and δ15N values of dorsal muscle versus their fin and mucus samples. These significant differences were, however, predictable by linear regression, with regression coefficients produced for converting fin and mucus SI values to the equivalent muscle SI values. The use of combined data across the species also provided regression coefficients for converting fin and mucus SI to equivalent muscle values for flatfish populations more generally. These results indicated that there are tissue alternatives to dorsal muscle that can be applied to the SIA of flatfish populations, with these tissues able to be collected using non-lethal sampling methods

Inter-tissue variability in the stable isotope values of European perch (Perca fluviatilis) and pumpkinseed (Lepomis gibbosus)

Ecological studies on native and invasive populations of European perch Perca fluviatilis and pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbosus are often based on stable isotope (SI) analysis based on dorsal muscle, where samples are usually taken from sacrificed fishes. However, other tissues, such as scale and fin tissue, can be used as non-lethal alternatives, where their SI values can be standardised to dorsal muscle values for comparative purposes. In both perch and pumpkinseed, there was a pattern of δ13C enrichment and δ15N depletion from muscle to fin and scale. As comparative studies must account for these inter-tissue differences prior to analyses, conversion equations for SI data from scale and fin tissue to standardised muscle values are provided

The effect of thrombolytic therapy on QT dispersion in acute myocardial infarction and its role in the prediction of reperfusion arrhythmias

Purpose: We aimed to determine the effect of intravenous thrombolytic therapy on QT dispersion (QTd) and its role in the prediction of reperfusion arrhythmias.Materials and Methods: Twenty patients with acute myocardial infarction (MI) were enrolled in the study. Measurements of QTd were carried out  prior to thrombolytic therapy and before discharge. The patients were examined for ventricular arrhythmias with 24‑h Holter electrocardiography monitoring after treatment and the relationship between ventricular arrhythmias and the QTd values in the early phase of MI was investigated.Results: The values of QTd were significantly higher during the early phase of MI (60 ± 5.32 ms) than those in the late phase (53.35 ± 4.07 ms) (P = 0.032). There was no correlation between isolated, bigeminal, trigeminal and total ventricular premature beats, accelerated idioventricular rhythm (AIVR) with QTd values. However, the patients with sustained ventricular tachycardia (VT), prolonged VT and sustained AIVR had higher corrected QTd (92 ms1/2, 97.8 ms1/2, 81.7 ms1/2, respectively) than the patients without these arrhythmias (74 ms1/2, 56.3 ms1/2, 58.28 ms1/2,  respectively) (P = 0.022, 0.013, 0.018).Conclusion: The values of QTd may be significantly reduced in the 1st week of acute MI and measurement of QTd in the early phase of MI may have a correlation with the following reperfusion arrhythmias: Sustained VT, prolonged VT and AIVR.Key words: Arrhythmia, myocardial infarction, QT dispersion, reperfusion, thrombolytic therap

Resolving the issues of translocated species in freshwater invasions

Biological invasions, driven by human-mediated species movements, pose significant threats to global ecosystems and economies. The classification of non-native species is a complex issue intertwining ecological considerations and ethical concerns. The need for nuanced and less ambiguous terminology is emphasised, considering biogeographic, evolutionary, and ecological principles. In-country translocations of native species into ecosystems in which they do not naturally occur, are often overlooked and are the least regulated among species movements, despite being increasingly common in conservation. Our case studies, spanning various ecosystems and taxa, illustrate the diverse impacts of translocations on native species and ecosystems. The challenges associated with translocated species underscore the urgency for robust risk management strategies and rigorous monitoring. A comprehensive and adaptable management framework that considers translocated species for evidence-based management decisions is critical for navigating the complexities of translocations effectively, ensuring the conservation of biodiversity and ecosystem sustainability

High trophic similarity between non-native common carp and gibel carp in Turkish freshwaters: Implications for management

Although the detrimental ecological and economic effects of introducing freshwater fish species have been extensively documented, non-native freshwater fishes continue to be introduced in large numbers globally to enhance fisheries and aquaculture. In Turkey, stocking of common carp Cyprinus carpio is practised to provide food security for people and job security for artisanal fishers, resulting in a country-wide distribution. These stockings, however, increase the risk of accidental introductions and have led to introductions and subsequent invasions of gibel carp Carassius gibelio, a globally invasive and highly detrimental fish species. Here, we assessed the growth types, body conditions and trophic interactions via bulk carbon and nitrogen stable isotope analysis of common and gibel carp in both natural and artificial water bodies in Turkey. The results indicated that common and gibel carp express similar growth types and body conditions in all waters and have similar trophic ecologies. This leads to substantial trophic niche overlaps in waters where they co-occur, with the potential for strong interspecific competition. Considering the ongoing stocking of common carp for fishery enhancement, we recommend to specifically target these stockings in waters where gibel carp has already become invasive. Our findings, indeed, suggest that common carp releases have the potential to hamper invasive gibel carp populations by increasing the competitive interactions between the two species

The diagnostic and prognostic value of red cell distribution width in cardiovascular disease, current status and prospective

The red blood cell distribution width (RDW) is an index of the heterogeneity of circulating red blood cell size, which along with other standard complete blood count (CBC) parameters are used to identify hematological system diseases. Besides hematological disorders, several clinical studies have shown that an increased in the RDW may be associated with other diseases including acute pancreatitis, chronic kidney disease, gastrointestinal disorders, cancer, and of special interest in this review, cardiovascular disease (CVD). The diagnostic and prognostic value of RDW in different CVD (acute coronary syndrome, ischemic cerebrovascular disease, peripheral artery disease, atrial fibrillation, heart failure, and acute ischemic stroke) has been reviewed in this article, to provide an understanding how its measurement may be applied to improve the management of these conditions.Keywords: RDW, Biomarker, Cardiovascular disease

Taming the terminological tempest in invasion science

\ua9 2024 The Authors. Biological Reviews published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Cambridge Philosophical Society. Standardised terminology in science is important for clarity of interpretation and communication. In invasion science – a dynamic and rapidly evolving discipline – the proliferation of technical terminology has lacked a standardised framework for its development. The result is a convoluted and inconsistent usage of terminology, with various discrepancies in descriptions of damage and interventions. A standardised framework is therefore needed for a clear, universally applicable, and consistent terminology to promote more effective communication across researchers, stakeholders, and policymakers. Inconsistencies in terminology stem from the exponential increase in scientific publications on the patterns and processes of biological invasions authored by experts from various disciplines and countries since the 1990s, as well as publications by legislators and policymakers focusing on practical applications, regulations, and management of resources. Aligning and standardising terminology across stakeholders remains a challenge in invasion science. Here, we review and evaluate the multiple terms used in invasion science (e.g. ‘non-native’, ‘alien’, ‘invasive’ or ‘invader’, ‘exotic’, ‘non-indigenous’, ‘naturalised’, ‘pest’) to propose a more simplified and standardised terminology. The streamlined framework we propose and translate into 28 other languages is based on the terms (i) ‘non-native’, denoting species transported beyond their natural biogeographic range, (ii) ‘established non-native’, i.e. those non-native species that have established self-sustaining populations in their new location(s) in the wild, and (iii) ‘invasive non-native’ – populations of established non-native species that have recently spread or are spreading rapidly in their invaded range actively or passively with or without human mediation. We also highlight the importance of conceptualising ‘spread’ for classifying invasiveness and ‘impact’ for management. Finally, we propose a protocol for classifying populations based on (i) dispersal mechanism, (ii) species origin, (iii) population status, and (iv) impact. Collectively and without introducing new terminology, the framework that we present aims to facilitate effective communication and collaboration in invasion science and management of non-native species

Biological invasions are a population-level rather than a species-level phenomenon.

Biological invasions pose a rapidly expanding threat to the persistence, functioning and service provisioning of ecosystems globally, and to socio-economic interests. The stages of successful invasions are driven by the same mechanism that underlies adaptive changes across species in general-via natural selection on intraspecific variation in traits that influence survival and reproductive performance (i.e., fitness). Surprisingly, however, the rapid progress in the field of invasion science has resulted in a predominance of species-level approaches (such as deny lists), often irrespective of natural selection theory, local adaptation and other population-level processes that govern successful invasions. To address these issues, we analyse non-native species dynamics at the population level by employing a database of European freshwater macroinvertebrate time series, to investigate spreading speed, abundance dynamics and impact assessments among populations. Our findings reveal substantial variability in spreading speed and abundance trends within and between macroinvertebrate species across biogeographic regions, indicating that levels of invasiveness and impact differ markedly. Discrepancies and inconsistencies among species-level risk screenings and real population-level data were also identified, highlighting the inherent challenges in accurately assessing population-level effects through species-level assessments. In recognition of the importance of population-level assessments, we urge a shift in invasive species management frameworks, which should account for the dynamics of different populations and their environmental context. Adopting an adaptive, region-specific and population-focused approach is imperative, considering the diverse ecological contexts and varying degrees of susceptibility. Such an approach could improve and refine risk assessments while promoting mechanistic understandings of risks and impacts, thereby enabling the development of more effective conservation and management strategies

Taming the terminological tempest in invasion science

Standardized terminology in science is important for clarity of interpretation and communication. In invasion science — a dynamic and quickly evolving discipline — the rapid proliferation of technical terminology has lacked a standardized framework for its language development. The result is a convoluted and inconsistent usage of terminology, with various discrepancies in descriptions of damages and interventions. A standardized framework is therefore needed for a clear, universally applicable, and consistent terminology to promote more effective communication across researchers, stakeholders, and policymakers. Inconsistencies in terminology stem from the exponential increase in scientific publications on the patterns and processes of biological invasions authored by experts from various disciplines and countries since the 1990s, as well as publications by legislators and policymakers focusing on practical applications, regulations, and management of resources. Aligning and standardizing terminology across stakeholders remains a prevailing challenge in invasion science. Here, we review and evaluate the multiple terms used in invasion science (e.g. 'non-native', 'alien', 'invasive' or 'invader', 'exotic', 'non-indigenous', 'naturalized, 'pest') to propose a more simplified and standardized terminology. The streamlined framework we propose and translate into 28 other languages is based on the terms (i) 'non-native', denoting species transported beyond their natural biogeographic range, (ii) 'established non-native', i.e. those non-native species that have established self-sustaining populations in their new location(s) in the wild, and (iii) 'invasive non-native' — populations of established non-native species that have recently spread or are spreading rapidly in their invaded range actively or passively with or without human mediation. We also highlight the importance of conceptualizing 'spread' for classifying invasiveness and 'impact' for management. Finally, we propose a protocol for classifying populations based on (1) dispersal mechanism, (2) species origin, (3) population status, and (4) impact. Collectively and without introducing new terminology, the framework that we present aims to facilitate effective communication and collaboration in invasion science and management of non-native species

Taming the terminological tempest in invasion science

Standardised terminology in science is important for clarity of interpretation and communication. In invasion science – a dynamic and rapidly evolving discipline – the proliferation of technical terminology has lacked a standardised framework for its development. The result is a convoluted and inconsistent usage of terminology, with various discrepancies in descriptions of damage and interventions. A standardised framework is therefore needed for a clear, universally applicable, and consistent terminology to promote more effective communication across researchers, stakeholders, and policymakers. Inconsistencies in terminology stem from the exponential increase in scientific publications on the patterns and processes of biological invasions authored by experts from various disciplines and countries since the 1990s, as well as publications by legislators and policymakers focusing on practical applications, regulations, and management of resources. Aligning and standardising terminology across stakeholders remains a challenge in invasion science. Here, we review and evaluate the multiple terms used in invasion science (e.g. ‘non-native’, ‘alien’, ‘invasive’ or ‘invader’, ‘exotic’, ‘non-indigenous’, ‘naturalised’, ‘pest’) to propose a more simplified and standardised terminology. The streamlined framework we propose and translate into 28 other languages is based on the terms (i) ‘non-native’, denoting species transported beyond their natural biogeographic range, (ii) ‘established non-native’, i.e. those non-native species that have established self-sustaining populations in their new location(s) in the wild, and (iii) ‘invasive non-native’ – populations of established non-native species that have recently spread or are spreading rapidly in their invaded range actively or passively with or without human mediation. We also highlight the importance of conceptualising ‘spread’ for classifying invasiveness and ‘impact’ for management. Finally, we propose a protocol for classifying populations based on (i) dispersal mechanism, (ii) species origin, (iii) population status, and (iv) impact. Collectively and without introducing new terminology, the framework that we present aims to facilitate effective communication and collaboration in invasion science and management of non-native species