Methane Feedbacks to the Global Climate System in a Warmer World

Methane (CH4) is produced in many natural systems that are vulnerable to change under a warming climate, yet current CH4 budgets, as well as future shifts in CH4 emissions, have high uncertainties. Climate change has the potential to increase CH4 emissions from critical systems such as wetlands, marine and freshwater systems, permafrost, and methane hydrates, through shifts in temperature, hydrology, vegetation, landscape disturbance, and sea level rise. Increased CH4 emissions from these systems would in turn induce further climate change, resulting in a positive climate feedback. Here we synthesize biological, geochemical, and physically focused CH4 climate feedback literature, bringing together the key findings of these disciplines. We discuss environment-specific feedback processes, including the microbial, physical, and geochemical interlinkages and the timescales on which they operate, and present the current state of knowledge of CH4 climate feedbacks in the immediate and distant future. The important linkages between microbial activity and climate warming are discussed with the aim to better constrain the sensitivity of the CH4 cycle to future climate predictions. We determine that wetlands will form the majority of the CH4 climate feedback up to 2100. Beyond this timescale, CH4 emissions from marine and freshwater systems and permafrost environments could become more important. Significant CH4 emissions to the atmosphere from the dissociation of methane hydrates are not expected in the near future. Our key findings highlight the importance of quantifying whether CH4 consumption can counterbalance CH4 production under future climate scenarios

Covered stents versus Bare-metal stents in chronic atherosclerotic Gastrointestinal Ischemia (CoBaGI): Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background: Chronic mesenteric ischemia (CMI) is the result of insufficient blood supply to the gastrointestinal tract and is caused by atherosclerotic stenosis of one or more mesenteric arteries in > 90% of cases. Revascularization therapy is indicated in patients with a diagnosis of atherosclerotic CMI to relieve symptoms and to prevent acute-on-chronic mesenteric ischemia, which is associated with high morbidity and mortality. Endovascular therapy has rapidly evolved and has replaced surgery as the first choice of treatment in CMI. Bare-metal stents (BMS) are standard care currently, although retrospective studies suggested significantly highe

Tree species identity in high-latitude forests determines fire spread through fuel ladders from branches to soil and vice versa

Peat fires in boreal and tundra regions can potentially cause a high CO2 release, because of their large soil carbon stocks. Under current and future climate warming the frequency and intensity of droughts are increasing and will cause the plant community and organic soil to become more susceptible to fire. The organic soil consumption by fire is commonly used as a proxy for fire severity and is a large source of carbon release. However, the role of organic soils in both above- and belowground fire behavior has only rarely been studied. In this study we collected soil and branches from Betula pubescens, Pinus sylvestris and Picea abies/obovata from the taiga/tundra ecotone across a large spatial scale. In laboratory fire experiments we burned different fuel type combinations to examine the fire spread through fuel ladders both from branches to soil and vice versa. We found that the tree species identity influences the fire spread from branches to soil and vice versa. The combination of chemical and structural plant traits could explain the stronger interaction between soil and coniferous spruce and pine fuels in a fire ladder compared to the deciduous birch. Therefore, total carbon emission from a boreal forest fire may not only depend on burned plant fuel, but also on the species-specific potential of the trees to ignite the soil. Carbon emission models and forest management could be improved if not only the aboveground plant fuel consumption is considered, but also the interaction between fuels in a fuel ladder and the probability of soil ignition by a forest crown fire and vice versa

Data from: Fuel moisture content enhances nonadditive effects of plant mixtures on flammability and fire behavior

Fire behavior of plant mixtures includes a complex set of processes for which the interactive contributions of its drivers, such as plant identity and moisture, have not yet been unraveled fully. Plant flammability parameters of species mixtures can show substantial deviations of fire properties from those expected based on the component species when burnt alone; that is, there are nonadditive mixture effects. Here, we investigated how fuel moisture content affects nonadditive effects in fire behavior. We hypothesized that both the magnitude and variance of nonadditivity in flammability parameters are greater in moist than in dry fuel beds. We conducted a series of experimental burns in monocultures and 2‐species mixtures with two ericaceous dwarf shrubs and two bryophyte species from temperate fire‐prone heathlands. For a set of fire behavior parameters, we found that magnitude and variability of nonadditive effects are, on average, respectively 5.8 and 1.8 times larger in moist (30% MC) species mixtures compared to dry (10% MC) mixed fuel beds. In general, the moist mixtures caused negative nonadditive effects, but due to the larger variability these mixtures occasionally caused large positive nonadditive effects, while this did not occur in dry mixtures. Thus, at moister conditions, mixtures occasionally pass the moisture threshold for ignition and fire spread, which the monospecific fuel beds are unable to pass. We also show that the magnitude of nonadditivity is highly species dependent. Thus, contrary to common belief, the strong nonadditive effects in mixtures can cause higher fire occurrence at moister conditions. This new integration of surface fuel moisture and species interactions will help us to better understand fire behavior in the complexity of natural ecosystems

Blauw et al 2015 Non additivity and moisture

The columns show what data it contains. This is the data calculated based on the raw data. Please contact [email protected] for raw data or details

Data from: Fuel moisture content enhances nonadditive effects of plant mixtures on flammability and fire behavior

Fire behavior of plant mixtures includes a complex set of processes for which the interactive contributions of its drivers, such as plant identity and moisture, have not yet been unraveled fully. Plant flammability parameters of species mixtures can show substantial deviations of fire properties from those expected based on the component species when burnt alone; that is, there are nonadditive mixture effects. Here, we investigated how fuel moisture content affects nonadditive effects in fire behavior. We hypothesized that both the magnitude and variance of nonadditivity in flammability parameters are greater in moist than in dry fuel beds. We conducted a series of experimental burns in monocultures and 2‐species mixtures with two ericaceous dwarf shrubs and two bryophyte species from temperate fire‐prone heathlands. For a set of fire behavior parameters, we found that magnitude and variability of nonadditive effects are, on average, respectively 5.8 and 1.8 times larger in moist (30% MC) species mixtures compared to dry (10% MC) mixed fuel beds. In general, the moist mixtures caused negative nonadditive effects, but due to the larger variability these mixtures occasionally caused large positive nonadditive effects, while this did not occur in dry mixtures. Thus, at moister conditions, mixtures occasionally pass the moisture threshold for ignition and fire spread, which the monospecific fuel beds are unable to pass. We also show that the magnitude of nonadditivity is highly species dependent. Thus, contrary to common belief, the strong nonadditive effects in mixtures can cause higher fire occurrence at moister conditions. This new integration of surface fuel moisture and species interactions will help us to better understand fire behavior in the complexity of natural ecosystems

Covered versus bare-metal stenting of the mesenteric arteries in patients with chronic mesenteric ischaemia (CoBaGI):a multicentre, patient-blinded and investigator-blinded, randomised controlled trial

Background: Mesenteric artery stenting with a bare-metal stent is the current treatment for atherosclerotic chronic mesenteric ischaemia. Long-term patency of bare-metal stents is unsatisfactory due to in-stent intimal hyperplasia. Use of covered stents might improve long-term patency. We aimed to compare the patency of covered stents and bare-metal stents in patients with chronic mesenteric ischaemia. Methods: We conducted a multicentre, patient-blinded and investigator-blinded, randomised controlled trial including patients with chronic mesenteric ischaemia undergoing mesenteric artery stenting. Six centres in the Netherlands participated in this study, including two national chronic mesenteric ischaemia expert centres. Patients aged 18 years or older were eligible for inclusion when an endovascular mesenteric artery revascularisation was scheduled and a consensus diagnosis of chronic mesenteric ischaemia was made by a multidisciplinary team of gastroenterologists, interventional radiologists, and vascular surgeons. Exclusion criteria were stenosis length of 25 mm or greater, stenosis caused by median arcuate ligament syndrome or vasculitis, contraindication for CT angiography, or previous target vessel revascularisation. Digital 1:1 block randomisation with block sizes of four or six and stratification by inclusion centre was used to allocate patients to undergo stenting with bare-metal stents or covered stents at the start of the procedure. Patients, physicians performing follow-up, investigators, and radiologists were masked to treatment allocation. Interventionalists performing the procedure were not masked. The primary study outcome was the primary patency of covered stents and bare-metal stents at 24 months of follow-up, evaluated in the modified intention-to-treat population, in which stents with missing data for the outcome were excluded. Loss of primary patency was defined as the performance of a re-intervention to preserve patency, or 75% or greater luminal surface area reduction of the target vessel. CT angiography was performed at 6 months, 12 months, and 24 months post intervention to assess patency. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02428582) and is complete. Findings: Between April 6, 2015, and March 11, 2019, 158 eligible patients underwent mesenteric artery stenting procedures, of whom 94 patients (with 128 stents) provided consent and were included in the study. 47 patients (62 stents) were assigned to the covered stents group (median age 69·0 years [IQR 63·0–76·5], 28 [60%] female) and 47 patients (66 stents) were assigned to the bare-metal stents group (median age 70·0 years [63·5–76·5], 33 [70%] female). At 24 months, the primary patency of covered stents (42 [81%] of 52 stents) was superior to that of bare-metal stents (26 [49%] of 53; odds ratio [OR] 4·4 [95% CI 1·8–10·5]; p&lt;0·0001). A procedure-related adverse event occurred in 17 (36%) of 47 patients in the covered stents group versus nine (19%) of 47 in the bare-metal stent group (OR 2·4 [95% CI 0·9–6·3]; p=0·065). Most adverse events were related to the access site, including haematoma (five [11%] in the covered stents group vs six [13%] in the bare-metal stents group), pseudoaneurysm (five [11%] vs two [4%]), radial artery thrombosis (one [2%] vs none), and intravascular closure device (none vs one [2%]). Six (13%) patients in the covered stent group versus one (2%) in the bare-metal stent group had procedure-related adverse events not related to the access site, including stent luxation (three [6%] vs none), major bleeding (two (4%) vs none), mesenteric artery perforation (one [2%] vs one [2%]), mesenteric artery dissection (one [2%] vs one [2%]), and death (one [2%] vs none). Interpretation: The findings of this trial support the use of covered stents for mesenteric artery stenting in patients with chronic mesenteric ischaemia. Funding: Atrium Maquet Getinge Group.</p

Covered versus bare-metal stenting of the mesenteric arteries in patients with chronic mesenteric ischaemia (CoBaGI):a multicentre, patient-blinded and investigator-blinded, randomised controlled trial

Background: Mesenteric artery stenting with a bare-metal stent is the current treatment for atherosclerotic chronic mesenteric ischaemia. Long-term patency of bare-metal stents is unsatisfactory due to in-stent intimal hyperplasia. Use of covered stents might improve long-term patency. We aimed to compare the patency of covered stents and bare-metal stents in patients with chronic mesenteric ischaemia. Methods: We conducted a multicentre, patient-blinded and investigator-blinded, randomised controlled trial including patients with chronic mesenteric ischaemia undergoing mesenteric artery stenting. Six centres in the Netherlands participated in this study, including two national chronic mesenteric ischaemia expert centres. Patients aged 18 years or older were eligible for inclusion when an endovascular mesenteric artery revascularisation was scheduled and a consensus diagnosis of chronic mesenteric ischaemia was made by a multidisciplinary team of gastroenterologists, interventional radiologists, and vascular surgeons. Exclusion criteria were stenosis length of 25 mm or greater, stenosis caused by median arcuate ligament syndrome or vasculitis, contraindication for CT angiography, or previous target vessel revascularisation. Digital 1:1 block randomisation with block sizes of four or six and stratification by inclusion centre was used to allocate patients to undergo stenting with bare-metal stents or covered stents at the start of the procedure. Patients, physicians performing follow-up, investigators, and radiologists were masked to treatment allocation. Interventionalists performing the procedure were not masked. The primary study outcome was the primary patency of covered stents and bare-metal stents at 24 months of follow-up, evaluated in the modified intention-to-treat population, in which stents with missing data for the outcome were excluded. Loss of primary patency was defined as the performance of a re-intervention to preserve patency, or 75% or greater luminal surface area reduction of the target vessel. CT angiography was performed at 6 months, 12 months, and 24 months post intervention to assess patency. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02428582) and is complete. Findings: Between April 6, 2015, and March 11, 2019, 158 eligible patients underwent mesenteric artery stenting procedures, of whom 94 patients (with 128 stents) provided consent and were included in the study. 47 patients (62 stents) were assigned to the covered stents group (median age 69·0 years [IQR 63·0–76·5], 28 [60%] female) and 47 patients (66 stents) were assigned to the bare-metal stents group (median age 70·0 years [63·5–76·5], 33 [70%] female). At 24 months, the primary patency of covered stents (42 [81%] of 52 stents) was superior to that of bare-metal stents (26 [49%] of 53; odds ratio [OR] 4·4 [95% CI 1·8–10·5]; p&lt;0·0001). A procedure-related adverse event occurred in 17 (36%) of 47 patients in the covered stents group versus nine (19%) of 47 in the bare-metal stent group (OR 2·4 [95% CI 0·9–6·3]; p=0·065). Most adverse events were related to the access site, including haematoma (five [11%] in the covered stents group vs six [13%] in the bare-metal stents group), pseudoaneurysm (five [11%] vs two [4%]), radial artery thrombosis (one [2%] vs none), and intravascular closure device (none vs one [2%]). Six (13%) patients in the covered stent group versus one (2%) in the bare-metal stent group had procedure-related adverse events not related to the access site, including stent luxation (three [6%] vs none), major bleeding (two (4%) vs none), mesenteric artery perforation (one [2%] vs one [2%]), mesenteric artery dissection (one [2%] vs one [2%]), and death (one [2%] vs none). Interpretation: The findings of this trial support the use of covered stents for mesenteric artery stenting in patients with chronic mesenteric ischaemia. Funding: Atrium Maquet Getinge Group.</p