The anatomy of the fruit in relation to the propensity of citrus species to split

The anatomy of the fruit has been compared in three prone-to-split mandarin hybrids (Nova, Ellendale and Murcott), several cultivars of clementine mandarin (Fino, Clementina de Nules and Orogrande), and in Owari satsuma mandarin. The fruit of the hybrids is oblate to subglobose and usually presents an open stylar end disrupted by a navel formed by the floral meristem, which is conserved near the apex of the fruit. In the non-prone-to-split clementines as well as in Owari satsuma, the floral axis protrudes inside the style, and the flower meristem is lost through abscission shortly after petal fall. The abaxial side of the carpels fuses with the flower axis forming at the stylar end of the fruit a solid tissue which externally has a small scar at the place of style abscission. Most of the fruits in these cultivars have no navel. In addition, the fruit of clementine is slightly oblate or globose. The relevance of these anatomical characteristics as regards to splitting is supported by the differences between the split and non-split fruits in Nova, the split fruit being more oblate in shape and having a bigger navel than non-split fruit. However, the effect of applied growth regulators on fruit splitting could not be correlated with their effect on the anatomy of the fruit. Additional factors not contemplated in the study also influence fruit splitting

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

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