Management of semi-natural grasslands benefiting both plant and insect diversity: The importance of heterogeneity and tradition

Biodiversity of semi-natural grasslands depends on the management practices used. However, management systems suitable for one taxon, such as plants, can be detrimental to other taxa, such as insects, and vice versa. This study attempts to support conservation management planning by clarifying the effects of different grassland management practices on species richness and species composition of vascular plants, butterflies, moths, orthopterans and ground beetles, also taking into account the effects of climate and the landscape context. The study was performed in the White Carpathians Protected Landcape Area and UNESCO Biosphere Reserve (Czech Republic), which is famous for its grasslands with the globally highest fine-scale plant species richness. Different management practices (mowing, grazing, abandonment and mixed management; the latter including the previous three) were applied for at least five consecutive years at 34 sites, where plants and different insect groups were subsequently sampled. Effects of management on species richness of different taxonomic groups were assessed using generalised linear models, whereas the effects on species composition were assessed using redundancy analysis. Management influenced plant, butterfly and moth species richness, but the effects of particular management practices on all species and species of regional conservation importance differed between these taxonomic groups. Plant and moth species richness increased with mowing, but moth species richness decreased with grazing. Mixed management favoured plant and butterfly richness. Plant species composition was infuenced by mowing, grazing and mixed management while that of moths by mowing and grazing. Orthopterans and ground beetles did not respond significantly to management. Our results indicate that conservation management should comprise the traditional practices that have historically contributed to the formation of the biological diversity of the semi-natural grasslands in the study area. In particular, grazing may not be optimal for traditional hay-meadows and mowing should be carried out similarly as in pre-intensive farmland, creating spatio-temporal heterogeneity rather than uniformly cutting large grassland areas during a short period. In general, the optimal management should be heterogeneous, applying different practices in a mosaic or at different times during the season

Ezetimibe added to statin therapy after acute coronary syndromes

BACKGROUND: Statin therapy reduces low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels and the risk of cardiovascular events, but whether the addition of ezetimibe, a nonstatin drug that reduces intestinal cholesterol absorption, can reduce the rate of cardiovascular events further is not known. METHODS: We conducted a double-blind, randomized trial involving 18,144 patients who had been hospitalized for an acute coronary syndrome within the preceding 10 days and had LDL cholesterol levels of 50 to 100 mg per deciliter (1.3 to 2.6 mmol per liter) if they were receiving lipid-lowering therapy or 50 to 125 mg per deciliter (1.3 to 3.2 mmol per liter) if they were not receiving lipid-lowering therapy. The combination of simvastatin (40 mg) and ezetimibe (10 mg) (simvastatin-ezetimibe) was compared with simvastatin (40 mg) and placebo (simvastatin monotherapy). The primary end point was a composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, unstable angina requiring rehospitalization, coronary revascularization ( 6530 days after randomization), or nonfatal stroke. The median follow-up was 6 years. RESULTS: The median time-weighted average LDL cholesterol level during the study was 53.7 mg per deciliter (1.4 mmol per liter) in the simvastatin-ezetimibe group, as compared with 69.5 mg per deciliter (1.8 mmol per liter) in the simvastatin-monotherapy group (P<0.001). The Kaplan-Meier event rate for the primary end point at 7 years was 32.7% in the simvastatin-ezetimibe group, as compared with 34.7% in the simvastatin-monotherapy group (absolute risk difference, 2.0 percentage points; hazard ratio, 0.936; 95% confidence interval, 0.89 to 0.99; P = 0.016). Rates of pre-specified muscle, gallbladder, and hepatic adverse effects and cancer were similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: When added to statin therapy, ezetimibe resulted in incremental lowering of LDL cholesterol levels and improved cardiovascular outcomes. Moreover, lowering LDL cholesterol to levels below previous targets provided additional benefit