Risk management to prioritise the eradication of new and emerging invasive non-native species

Robust tools are needed to prioritise the management of invasive non-native species (INNS). Risk assessment is commonly used to prioritise INNS, but fails to take into account the feasibility of management. Risk management provides a structured evaluation of management options, but has received little attention to date. We present a risk management scheme to assess the feasibility of eradicating INNS that can be used, in conjunction with existing risk assessment schemes, to support prioritisation. The Non-Native Risk Management scheme (NNRM) can be applied to any predefined area and any taxa. It uses semi-quantitative response and confidence scores to assess seven key criteria: Effectiveness, Practicality, Cost, Impact, Acceptability, Window of opportunity and Likelihood of re-invasion. Scores are elicited using expert judgement, supported by available evidence, and consensus-building methods. We applied the NNRM to forty-one INNS that threaten Great Britain (GB). Thirty-three experts provided scores, with overall feasibility of eradication assessed as ‘very high’ (8 species), ‘high’ (6), ‘medium’ (8), ‘low’ (10) and ‘very low’ (9). The feasibility of eradicating terrestrial species was higher than aquatic species. Lotic freshwater and marine species scored particularly low. Combining risk management and existing risk assessment scores identified six established species as priorities for eradication. A further six species that are not yet established were identified as priorities for eradication on arrival as part of contingency planning. The NNRM is one of the first INNS risk management schemes that can be used with existing risk assessments to prioritise INNS eradication in any area

A Vulnerability Assessment of Fish and Invertebrates to Climate Change on the Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf

Climate change and decadal variability are impacting marine fish and invertebrate species worldwide and these impacts will continue for the foreseeable future. Quantitative approaches have been developed to examine climate impacts on productivity, abundance, and distribution of various marine fish and invertebrate species. However, it is difficult to apply these approaches to large numbers of species owing to the lack of mechanistic understanding sufficient for quantitative analyses, as well as the lack of scientific infrastructure to support these more detailed studies. Vulnerability assessments provide a framework for evaluating climate impacts over a broad range of species with existing information. These methods combine the exposure of a species to a stressor (climate change and decadal variability) and the sensitivity of species to the stressor. These two components are then combined to estimate an overall vulnerability. Quantitative data are used when available, but qualitative information and expert opinion are used when quantitative data is lacking. Here we conduct a climate vulnerability assessment on 82 fish and invertebrate species in the Northeast U.S. Shelf including exploited, forage, and protected species. We define climate vulnerability as the extent to which abundance or productivity of a species in the region could be impacted by climate change and decadal variability. We find that the overall climate vulnerability is high to very high for approximately half the species assessed; diadromous and benthic invertebrate species exhibit the greatest vulnerability. In addition, the majority of species included in the assessment have a high potential for a change in distribution in response to projected changes in climate. Negative effects of climate change are expected for approximately half of the species assessed, but some species are expected to be positively affected (e.g., increase in productivity or move into the region). These results will inform research and management activities related to understanding and adapting marine fisheries management and conservation to climate change and decadal variability

Integration of oncology and palliative care : a Lancet Oncology Commission

Full integration of oncology and palliative care relies on the specific knowledge and skills of two modes of care: the tumour-directed approach, the main focus of which is on treating the disease; and the host-directed approach, which focuses on the patient with the disease. This Commission addresses how to combine these two paradigms to achieve the best outcome of patient care. Randomised clinical trials on integration of oncology and palliative care point to health gains: improved survival and symptom control, less anxiety and depression, reduced use of futile chemotherapy at the end of life, improved family satisfaction and quality of life, and improved use of health-care resources. Early delivery of patient-directed care by specialist palliative care teams alongside tumour-directed treatment promotes patient-centred care. Systematic assessment and use of patient-reported outcomes and active patient involvement in the decisions about cancer care result in better symptom control, improved physical and mental health, and better use of health-care resources. The absence of international agreements on the content and standards of the organisation, education, and research of palliative care in oncology are major barriers to successful integration. Other barriers include the common misconception that palliative care is end-of-life care only, stigmatisation of death and dying, and insufficient infrastructure and funding. The absence of established priorities might also hinder integration more widely. This Commission proposes the use of standardised care pathways and multidisciplinary teams to promote integration of oncology and palliative care, and calls for changes at the system level to coordinate the activities of professionals, and for the development and implementation of new and improved education programmes, with the overall goal of improving patient care. Integration raises new research questions, all of which contribute to improved clinical care. When and how should palliative care be delivered? What is the optimal model for integrated care? What is the biological and clinical effect of living with advanced cancer for years after diagnosis? Successful integration must challenge the dualistic perspective of either the tumour or the host, and instead focus on a merged approach that places the patient's perspective at the centre. To succeed, integration must be anchored by management and policy makers at all levels of health care, followed by adequate resource allocation, a willingness to prioritise goals and needs, and sustained enthusiasm to help generate support for better integration. This integrated model must be reflected in international and national cancer plans, and be followed by developments of new care models, education and research programmes, all of which should be adapted to the specific cultural contexts within which they are situated. Patient-centred care should be an integrated part of oncology care independent of patient prognosis and treatment intention. To achieve this goal it must be based on changes in professional cultures and priorities in health care

Logic rule for calculating overall species’ climate exposure and biological sensitivity.

<p>The scoring rubric is based on a logic model where a certain number of individual scores above a certain threshold are used to determine the overall climate exposure and overall biological sensitivity.</p

Climate exposure factors.

<p>Average climate exposure scores across all species (A) and results of sensitivity analysis for the effect of individual exposure factors on overall climate vulnerability (B).</p

Directional effect of climate change.

<p>Colors represent expected negative (red), neutral (tan), and positive (green) effects. Certainty in score is denoted by text font and text color: very high certainty (>95%, black, bold font), high certainty (90–95%, black, italic font), moderate certainty (66–90%, white or gray, bold font), low certainty (<66%, white or gray, italic font).</p

Map of Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem.

<p>Map of Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem.</p

Overall climate vulnerability score.

<p>For species names and functional groups see <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0146756#pone.0146756.t001" target="_blank">Table 1</a>. Overall climate vulnerability is denoted by color: low (green), moderate (yellow), high (orange), and very high (red). Certainty in score is denoted by text font and text color: very high certainty (>95%, black, bold font), high certainty (90–95%, black, italic font), moderate certainty (66–90%, white or gray, bold font), low certainty (<66%, white or gray, italic font).</p