Current research, pressing issues, and lingering questions in marine invasion science: lessons from the Tenth International Conference on Marine Bioinvasions (ICMB-X)

© The Author(s), 2020. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License. The definitive version was published in Fowler, A. E., Blakeslee, A. M. H., Bortolus, A., Dias, J., Tepolt, C. K., & Schwindt, E. Current research, pressing issues, and lingering questions in marine invasion science: lessons from the Tenth International Conference on Marine Bioinvasions (ICMB-X). Aquatic Invasions, 15(1), (2020): 1-10, doi:10.3391/ai.2020.15.1.01.Research on marine bioinvasions is an inherently international collaboration. Species range boundaries have become more fluid in recent decades as a result of enhanced human globalization, leading to species translocations across international boundaries through high profile vectors (e.g., shipping, hull fouling, aquaculture, etc.) (Ruiz et al. 2000; Seebens et al. 2013). Global trade and anthropogenic activities that promote invasive species spread continue to increase, rising by an average of 70% since 1970, with no sign of saturation (Pagad et al. 2015; Seebens et al. 2017). Even though these numbers are primarily based on terrestrial systems, recent work has demonstrated that marine ecosystems are as severely impacted by invasive species as by other human activities including overfishing, pollution (including plastics), climate change, and ocean acidification (Diaz et al. 2019). Species introductions to seas, coasts, and estuaries are therefore a global threat to human and non-human populations alike. As such, scientists and managers are increasingly focused on prevention and management, risk analysis and prioritization, and innovative technologies to detect novel species.The ICMB-X was supported by CONICET, MINCyT, SCTeIP Chubut, Consejo Federal de Inversiones, Biodiversity Heritage Library, Administración Portuaria de Puerto Madryn (APPM), Office of Naval Research Global, Aluar Aluminio Argentino, Madryn Bureau, Ente Mixto Puerto Madryn, Municipalidad de Puerto Madryn, and FAO-GEF-SAyDS

Why women do not ask for information on preconception health? A qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Preconception care involves health promotion to reduce risk factors that might affect women and couples of childbearing age. The risk factors of adverse reproductive outcomes include recognized genetic diseases in the family or the individual, previous congenital diseases, miscarriage, prematurity, fetal growth restriction, infertility, chronic maternal diseases, lifestyle, and occupational or environmental factors. Effective preconception care involves a range of preventive, therapeutic and behavioural interventions. Although in Italy there are national preconception care recommendations concerning the general population, they are usually encouraged informally and only for single risk factors. At present there is increasing interest in offering a global intervention in this field. The aim of this study was to investigate attitudes and behaviours of Italian women of childbearing age and healthcare professionals regarding preconception health. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative study among women of childbearing age and healthcare professionals between February 2014 and February 2015. Five focus groups were held: 2 with non-pregnant women aged 22 to 44 years and 3 with healthcare professionals. Discussion topics included women's questions about preconception health, worries and barriers regarding preconception care interventions, attitudes and behaviours of women and healthcare professionals towards preconception health, women's information sources. In the analysis of the focus groups priority was given to what was said by the women, supplemented by information from the healthcare professionals' focus groups. RESULTS: Fourteen women of childbearing age (8 nulliparae and 6 multiparae) and 12 healthcare professionals (3 nurses, 4 midwives, 5 doctors) participated in the focus groups. The results indicate the presence of many barriers and a lack of awareness of preconception health relating to women, healthcare professionals and policies. Women's knowledge and attitudes towards primary preconception care information are described. The main reference source of information in this field for Italian women seems to be their obstetric-gynaecologist. CONCLUSIONS: The study indicates that several barriers influence preconception care in Italy. Moreover, a lack of awareness of preconception health and care among Italian women of childbearing age and healthcare professionals emerges. The findings might contribute to strategies for the implementation of preconception care guidelines

Why women do not ask for information on preconception health? A qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Preconception care involves health promotion to reduce risk factors that might affect women and couples of childbearing age. The risk factors of adverse reproductive outcomes include recognized genetic diseases in the family or the individual, previous congenital diseases, miscarriage, prematurity, fetal growth restriction, infertility, chronic maternal diseases, lifestyle, and occupational or environmental factors. Effective preconception care involves a range of preventive, therapeutic and behavioural interventions. Although in Italy there are national preconception care recommendations concerning the general population, they are usually encouraged informally and only for single risk factors. At present there is increasing interest in offering a global intervention in this field. The aim of this study was to investigate attitudes and behaviours of Italian women of childbearing age and healthcare professionals regarding preconception health. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative study among women of childbearing age and healthcare professionals between February 2014 and February 2015. Five focus groups were held: 2 with non-pregnant women aged 22 to 44 years and 3 with healthcare professionals. Discussion topics included women's questions about preconception health, worries and barriers regarding preconception care interventions, attitudes and behaviours of women and healthcare professionals towards preconception health, women's information sources. In the analysis of the focus groups priority was given to what was said by the women, supplemented by information from the healthcare professionals' focus groups. RESULTS: Fourteen women of childbearing age (8 nulliparae and 6 multiparae) and 12 healthcare professionals (3 nurses, 4 midwives, 5 doctors) participated in the focus groups. The results indicate the presence of many barriers and a lack of awareness of preconception health relating to women, healthcare professionals and policies. Women's knowledge and attitudes towards primary preconception care information are described. The main reference source of information in this field for Italian women seems to be their obstetric-gynaecologist. CONCLUSIONS: The study indicates that several barriers influence preconception care in Italy. Moreover, a lack of awareness of preconception health and care among Italian women of childbearing age and healthcare professionals emerges. The findings might contribute to strategies for the implementation of preconception care guidelines

Central nervous system metastases from castration-resistant prostate cancer in the docetaxel era.

Central nervous system (brain or leptomeningeal) metastases (BLm) are considered rare in castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) patients. Now that docetaxel has become the reference drug for first-line treatment of CRPC, patients whose disease is not controlled by hormonal manipulations may live much longer than before and have higher risk of developing BLm. We retrospectively reviewed the records of all patients with CRPC attending our centres from 2002 to 2010, and identified all of those who were diagnosed as having BLm and received (or were considered to have been eligible to receive) docetaxel-based treatment. We identified 31 cases of BLm (22 brain metastases and 9 leptomeningeal metastases) with an incidence of 3.3%. BLm-free survival was 43.5 months, and survival after BLm discovery was 4 months. With six patients surviving for more than 1 year after developing BLm, the projected 1-year BL-S rate was 25.8%. The findings of our study may be relevant in clinical practice as they indicate that incidence of BLm in CRPC patients in the docetaxel era seems to be higher than in historical reports, meaning that special attention should be paid to the appearance of neurological symptoms in long-term CRPC survivors because they may be related to BLm

Supporting Spartina: Interdisciplinary Perspective Shows Spartina As A Distinct Solid Genus

In 2014, a DNA-based phylogenetic study confirming the paraphyly of the grass subtribe Sporobolinae proposed the creation of a large monophyletic genus Sporobolus, including (among others) species previously included in the genera Spartina, Calamovilfa, and Sporobolus. Spartina species have contributed substantially (and continue contributing) to our knowledge in multiple disciplines, including ecology, evolutionary biology, molecular biology, biogeography, experimental ecology, biological invasions, environmental management, restoration ecology, history, economics, and sociology. There is no rationale so compelling to subsume the name Spartina as a subgenus that could rival the striking, global iconic history and use of the name Spartina for over 200 yr. We do not agree with the subjective arguments underlying the proposal to change Spartina to Sporobolus. We understand the importance of both the objective phylogenetic insights and of the subjective formalized nomenclature and hope that by opening this debate we will encourage positive feedback that will strengthen taxonomic decisions with an interdisciplinary perspective. We consider that the strongly distinct, monophyletic clade Spartina should simply and efficiently be treated as the genus Spartina

Twinning across the Developing World

Contains fulltext : 95481.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)5 p

DNA Barcoding for Community Ecology - How to Tackle a Hyperdiverse, Mostly Undescribed Melanesian Fauna

Trigonopterus weevils are widely distributed throughout Melanesia and hyperdiverse in New Guinea. They are a dominant feature in natural forests, with narrow altitudinal zonation. Their use in community ecology has been precluded by the "taxonomic impediment". We sampled >6,500 specimens from seven areas across New Guinea; 1,002 specimens assigned to 270 morphospecies were DNA sequenced. Objective clustering of a refined dataset (excluding nine cryptic species) at 3% threshold revealed 324 genetic clusters (DNA group count relative to number of morphospecies = 20.0% overestimation of species diversity, or 120.0% agreement) and 85.6% taxonomic accuracy (the proportion of DNA groups that "perfectly" agree with morphology-based species hypotheses). Agreement and accuracy were best at an 8% threshold. GMYC analysis revealed 328 entities (21.5% overestimation) with 227 perfect GMYC entities (84.1% taxonomic accuracy). Both methods outperform the parataxonomist (19% underestimation; 31.6% taxonomic accuracy). The number of species found in more than one sampling area was highest in the Eastern Highlands and Huon (Sørensen similarity index 0.07, 4 shared species); ⅓ of all areas had no species overlap. Success rates of DNA barcoding methods were lowest when species showed a pronounced geographical structure. In general, Trigonopterus show high α and β-diversity across New Guinea. DNA barcoding is an excellent tool for biodiversity surveys but success rates might drop when closer localities are included. Hyperdiverse Trigonopterus are a useful taxon for evaluating forest remnants in Melanesia, allowing finer-grained analyses than would be possible with vertebrate taxa commonly used to date. Our protocol should help establish other groups of hyperdiverse fauna as target taxa for community ecology. Sequencing delivers objective data on taxa of incredible diversity but mostly without a solid taxonomic foundation and should help pave the road for the eventual formal naming of new species

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

Supporting Spartina: Interdisciplinary perspective shows Spartina as a distinct solid genus

In 2014 a DNA-based phylogenetic study confirming the paraphyly of the grass subtribe Sporobolinae proposed the creation of a large monophyletic genus Sporobolus, including (among others) species previously included in the genera Spartina, Calamovilfa, and Sporobolus. Spartina species have contributed substantially (and continue contributing) to our knowledge in multiple disciplines, including ecology, evolutionary biology, molecular biology, biogeography, experimental ecology, environmental management, restoration ecology, history, economics, and sociology. There is no rationale so compelling to subsume the name Spartina as a subgenus that could rival the striking, global iconic history and use of the name Spartina for over 200 years. We do not agree with the arguments underlying the proposal to change Spartina to Sporobolus. We understand the importance of taxonomy and of formalized nomenclature and hope that by opening this debate we will encourage positive feedback that will strengthen taxonomic decisions with an interdisciplinary perspective. We consider the strongly distinct, monophyletic clade Spartina should simply and efficiently be treated as the genus Spartina