11 research outputs found

    Integrating adverse effect analysis into environmental risk assessment for exotic generalist arthropod biological control agents: a three-tiered framework

    Get PDF
    Environmental risk assessments (ERAs) are required before utilizing exotic arthropods for biological control (BC). Present ERAs focus on exposure analysis (host/prey range) and have resulted in approval of many specialist exotic biological control agents (BCA). In comparison to specialists, generalist arthropod BCAs (GABCAs) have been considered inherently risky and less used in classical biological control. To safely consider exotic GABCAs, an ERA must include methods for the analysis of potential effects. A panel of 47 experts from 14 countries discussed, in six online forums over 12 months, scientific criteria for an ERA for exotic GABCAs. Using four case studies, a three-tiered ERA comprising Scoping, Screening and Definitive Assessments was developed. The ERA is primarily based on expert consultation, with decision processes in each tier that lead to the approval of the petition or the subsequent tier. In the Scoping Assessment, likelihood of establishment (for augmentative BC), and potential effect(s) are qualitatively assessed. If risks are identified, the Screening Assessment is conducted, in which 19 categories of effects (adverse and beneficial) are quantified. If a risk exceeds the proposed risk threshold in any of these categories, the analysis moves to the Definitive Assessment to identify potential non-target species in the respective category(ies). When at least one potential non-target species is at significant risk, long-term and indirect ecosystem risks must be quantified with actual data or the petition for release can be dismissed or withdrawn. The proposed ERA should contribute to the development of safe pathways for the use of low risk GABCAs

    Impact of COVID-19 on cardiovascular testing in the United States versus the rest of the world

    Get PDF
    Objectives: This study sought to quantify and compare the decline in volumes of cardiovascular procedures between the United States and non-US institutions during the early phase of the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted the care of many non-COVID-19 illnesses. Reductions in diagnostic cardiovascular testing around the world have led to concerns over the implications of reduced testing for cardiovascular disease (CVD) morbidity and mortality. Methods: Data were submitted to the INCAPS-COVID (International Atomic Energy Agency Non-Invasive Cardiology Protocols Study of COVID-19), a multinational registry comprising 909 institutions in 108 countries (including 155 facilities in 40 U.S. states), assessing the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on volumes of diagnostic cardiovascular procedures. Data were obtained for April 2020 and compared with volumes of baseline procedures from March 2019. We compared laboratory characteristics, practices, and procedure volumes between U.S. and non-U.S. facilities and between U.S. geographic regions and identified factors associated with volume reduction in the United States. Results: Reductions in the volumes of procedures in the United States were similar to those in non-U.S. facilities (68% vs. 63%, respectively; p = 0.237), although U.S. facilities reported greater reductions in invasive coronary angiography (69% vs. 53%, respectively; p < 0.001). Significantly more U.S. facilities reported increased use of telehealth and patient screening measures than non-U.S. facilities, such as temperature checks, symptom screenings, and COVID-19 testing. Reductions in volumes of procedures differed between U.S. regions, with larger declines observed in the Northeast (76%) and Midwest (74%) than in the South (62%) and West (44%). Prevalence of COVID-19, staff redeployments, outpatient centers, and urban centers were associated with greater reductions in volume in U.S. facilities in a multivariable analysis. Conclusions: We observed marked reductions in U.S. cardiovascular testing in the early phase of the pandemic and significant variability between U.S. regions. The association between reductions of volumes and COVID-19 prevalence in the United States highlighted the need for proactive efforts to maintain access to cardiovascular testing in areas most affected by outbreaks of COVID-19 infection

    Plants for Fitness Enhancement of a Coffee Leaf Miner Parasitoid

    No full text
    The enhancement of pest control through the conservation of natural enemies in agricultural fields is called conservation biological control. One of the strategies used on this system is to introduce or manage plants that can provide food for natural enemies. We assessed the effect of feeding resources on the fitness of a coffee leaf miner parasitoid, Proacrias coffeae Ihering (Hymenoptera: Eulophidae), by evaluating the effect of different nectar resources on the survival of P. coffeae. To do so we used three flowering plants: Bidens pilosa, Galinsoga parviflora, and Varronia curassavica, and the leguminous shrub, Senna cernua Balb. H.S. Irwin & Barneby which produces extrafloral nectar. When feeding on the floral nectar of V. curassavica and on the extrafloral nectar of S. cernua the parasitoids increased their survival, however, no significant differences were found when feeding on B. pilosa and G. parviflora. We evaluated the effect of extrafloral nectar of S. cernua on the egg load of P. coffeae and found an increase in their egg load when exposed to the extrafloral nectar and with increasing age. Our results show the potential of V. curassavica and S. cernua as nutritional resources to enhance the fitness of the parasitoid P. coffeae, by increasing their survival. Based on the research study, it is evident that the introduction of feeding resources for P. coffeae in the coffee agroecosystem will increase their fitness as a potential biocontrol agent by enhancing their survival and reproductive potential

    Manipulation of Agricultural Habitats to Improve Conservation Biological Control in South America

    No full text
    International audienceStable and diversified agroecosystems provide farmers with important ecosystem services, which are unfortunately being lost at an alarming rate under the current conventional agriculture framework. Nevertheless, this concern can be tackled by using ecological intensification as an alternative strategy to recuperate ecosystem services (e.g., biological control of pests). To this end, the manipulation of agricultural habitats to enhance natural enemy conservation has been widely explored and reported in Western Europe and North America, whereas in other parts of the world, the investigation of such topic is lagging behind (e.g., South America). In this forum, we gathered published and unpublished information on the different ecological habitat management strategies that have been implemented in South America and their effects on pest control. Additionally, we identify the various challenges and analyze the outlook for the science of conservation biological control in South America. More specifically, we reviewed how different agricultural practices and habitat manipulation in South America have influenced pest management through natural enemy conservation. The main habitat manipulations reported include plant diversification (intercropping, insectary plants, agroforestry), conservation and management of non-crop vegetation, and application of artificial foods. Overall, we noticed that there is a significant discrepancy in the amount of research on conservation biological control among South American countries, and we found that, although intercropping, polycultures, and crop rotation have been reported in agroecosystems since pre-Inca times, more systematic studies are required to evaluate the true effects of habitat management to implement conservation biological control for pest control in South America

    Manipulation of Agricultural Habitats to Improve Conservation Biological Control in South America

    No full text

    International Impact of COVID-19 on the Diagnosis of Heart Disease

    No full text
    Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has adversely affected diagnosis and treatment of noncommunicable diseases. Its effects on delivery of diagnostic care for cardiovascular disease, which remains the leading cause of death worldwide, have not been quantified. Objectives: The study sought to assess COVID-19's impact on global cardiovascular diagnostic procedural volumes and safety practices. Methods: The International Atomic Energy Agency conducted a worldwide survey assessing alterations in cardiovascular procedure volumes and safety practices resulting from COVID-19. Noninvasive and invasive cardiac testing volumes were obtained from participating sites for March and April 2020 and compared with those from March 2019. Availability of personal protective equipment and pandemic-related testing practice changes were ascertained. Results: Surveys were submitted from 909 inpatient and outpatient centers performing cardiac diagnostic procedures, in 108 countries. Procedure volumes decreased 42% from March 2019 to March 2020, and 64% from March 2019 to April 2020. Transthoracic echocardiography decreased by 59%, transesophageal echocardiography 76%, and stress tests 78%, which varied between stress modalities. Coronary angiography (invasive or computed tomography) decreased 55% (p &lt; 0.001 for each procedure). In multivariable regression, significantly greater reduction in procedures occurred for centers in countries with lower gross domestic product. Location in a low-income and lower–middle-income country was associated with an additional 22% reduction in cardiac procedures and less availability of personal protective equipment and telehealth. Conclusions: COVID-19 was associated with a significant and abrupt reduction in cardiovascular diagnostic testing across the globe, especially affecting the world's economically challenged. Further study of cardiovascular outcomes and COVID-19–related changes in care delivery is warranted

    Impact of COVID-19 on Diagnostic Cardiac Procedural Volume in Oceania: The IAEA Non-Invasive Cardiology Protocol Survey on COVID-19 (INCAPS COVID)

    No full text
    Objectives: The INCAPS COVID Oceania study aimed to assess the impact caused by the COVID-19 pandemic on cardiac procedure volume provided in the Oceania region. Methods: A retrospective survey was performed comparing procedure volumes within March 2019 (pre-COVID-19) with April 2020 (during first wave of COVID-19 pandemic). Sixty-three (63) health care facilities within Oceania that perform cardiac diagnostic procedures were surveyed, including a mixture of metropolitan and regional, hospital and outpatient, public and private sites, and 846 facilities outside of Oceania. The percentage change in procedure volume was measured between March 2019 and April 2020, compared by test type and by facility. Results: In Oceania, the total cardiac diagnostic procedure volume was reduced by 52.2% from March 2019 to April 2020, compared to a reduction of 75.9% seen in the rest of the world (p&lt;0.001). Within Oceania sites, this reduction varied significantly between procedure types, but not between types of health care facility. All procedure types (other than stress cardiac magnetic resonance [CMR] and positron emission tomography [PET]) saw significant reductions in volume over this time period (p&lt;0.001). In Oceania, transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) decreased by 51.6%, transoesophageal echocardiography (TOE) by 74.0%, and stress tests by 65% overall, which was more pronounced for stress electrocardiograph (ECG) (81.8%) and stress echocardiography (76.7%) compared to stress single-photon emission computerised tomography (SPECT) (44.3%). Invasive coronary angiography decreased by 36.7% in Oceania. Conclusion: A significant reduction in cardiac diagnostic procedure volume was seen across all facility types in Oceania and was likely a function of recommendations from cardiac societies and directives from government to minimise spread of COVID-19 amongst patients and staff. Longer term evaluation is important to assess for negative patient outcomes which may relate to deferral of usual models of care within cardiology
    corecore