Impacto ambiental de la extracción de minerales no metálicos en cuatro concesiones del distrito de Lucre, Quispicanchi - Cusco

La presente investigación sobre “Impacto Ambiental de la extracción de minerales no metálicos en cuatro concesiones del distrito de Lucre, Quispicanchi - Cusco” se realizó entre los meses de octubre del 2017 a octubre del 2018 con la finalidad de realizar el estudio de línea base ambiental, identificar y valorar los impactos ambientales por extracción de minerales no metálicos, así como proponer acciones de mitigación para los impactos negativos. Para lo cual se aplicó la metodología que corresponde al enfoque cuantitativo y diseño experimental, siendo el alcance descriptivo, explicativo. En la evaluación del medio físico se utilizó una metodología específica para cada componente e información secundaria. En relación al medio biológico el uso de transectos fue una herramienta útil en la evaluación de la flora y fauna. Para la obtención de las características socioeconómicas se emplearon encuestas estructuradas. En cuanto a la identificación, análisis y evaluación de impactos se utilizó la metodología de la matriz de Leopold adaptada al estudio. Llegando a las siguientes conclusiones, en las concesiones Tres de Mayo Urpi y Expedito XI el proceso erosivo es significativo. En las concesiones Carmen bonita V y Carmen Bonita VI la extracción no altera significativamente los parámetros evaluados para el agua. El paisaje es alterado en áreas de extracción. En las áreas de influencia se mantiene la diversidad de flora y fauna mientras que disminuye en las áreas de extracción. Respecto a los impactos ambientales en la concesión Tres de Mayo Urpi, se identifica como impacto negativo al desempleo. En Expedito XI, Carmen Bonita V y Carmen Bonita VI se identificó que el componente empleo genera un impacto positivo, y un valor negativo para los demás componentes. La acción de mitigación fuero para los componentes ambientales, erosión, flora, fauna y calidad del agua. Las concesiones que mayor impacto ambiental negativo presentaron son Expedito XI, Carmen bonita V y Carmen bonita VI. En tanto que la concesión Tres de mayo Urpi los efectos están siendo controlados en forma natural debido a que la concesión está en abandono.Tesi

Bibliometric analysis of academic journal recommendations and requirements for surgical and anesthesiologic adverse events reporting.

BACKGROUND Standards for reporting surgical adverse events vary widely within the scientific literature. Failure to adequately capture adverse events hinders efforts to measure the safety of healthcare delivery and improve the quality of care. The aim of the present study is to assess the prevalence and typology of perioperative adverse event reporting guidelines among surgery and anesthesiology journals. MATERIALS AND METHODS In November 2021, three independent reviewers queried journal lists from the SCImago Journal & Country Rank (SJR) portal (www.scimagojr.com), a bibliometric indicator database for surgery and anesthesiology academic journals. Journal characteristics were summarized using SCImago, a bibliometric indicator database extracted from Scopus journal data. Quartile 1 (Q1) was considered the top quartile and Q4 bottom quartile based on the journal impact factor. Journal author guidelines were collected to determine whether adverse event reporting recommendations were included and, if so, the preferred reporting procedures. RESULTS Of 1,409 journals queried, 655 (46.5%) recommended surgical adverse event reporting. Journals most likely to recommend adverse event reporting were: 1) by category surgery (59.1%), urology (53.3%), and anesthesia (52.3%); 2) in top SJR quartiles (i.e. more influential); 3) by region, based in Western Europe (49.8%), North America (49.3%), and the Middle East (48.3%). CONCLUSIONS Surgery and anesthesiology journals do not consistently require or provide recommendations on perioperative adverse event reporting. Journal guidelines regarding adverse event reporting should be standardized and are needed to improve the quality of surgical adverse event reporting with the ultimate goal of improving patient morbidity and mortality

Bibliometric Analysis of Academic Journal Recommendations and Requirements for Surgical and Anesthesiologic Adverse Events Reporting

BACKGROUND: Standards for reporting surgical adverse events (AEs) vary widely within the scientific literature. Failure to adequately capture AEs hinders efforts to measure the safety of healthcare delivery and improve the quality of care. The aim of the present study is to assess the prevalence and typology of perioperative AE reporting guidelines among surgery and anesthesiology journals. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In November 2021, three independent reviewers queried journal lists from the SCImago Journal & Country Rank (SJR) portal (www.scimagojr.com), a bibliometric indicator database for surgery and anesthesiology academic journals. Journal characteristics were summarized using SCImago, a bibliometric indicator database extracted from Scopus journal data. Quartile 1 (Q1) was considered the top quartile and Q4 bottom quartile based on the journal impact factor. Journal author guidelines were collected to determine whether AE reporting recommendations were included and, if so, the preferred reporting procedures. RESULTS: Of 1409 journals queried, 655 (46.5%) recommended surgical AE reporting. Journals most likely to recommend AE reporting were: by category surgery (59.1%), urology (53.3%), and anesthesia (52.3%); in top SJR quartiles (i.e. more influential); by region, based in Western Europe (49.8%), North America (49.3%), and the Middle East (48.3%). CONCLUSIONS: Surgery and anesthesiology journals do not consistently require or provide recommendations on perioperative AE reporting. Journal guidelines regarding AE reporting should be standardized and are needed to improve the quality of surgical AE reporting with the ultimate goal of improving patient morbidity and mortality

5. Sample x ESV matrix

The matrix represents number of reads of each fungal ESV (columns) in each seed lot (rows). The information about the taxonomy and origin of each seed lot is provided in last three columns ("Species", "Group" and "Continent")

2. Seed size of selected seed lots and corresponding fungal infestation and richness

The average size of the seeds in a seed lot is calculated as a mean surface of the intersection area of 100 measured seeds per seed lot (column “Ø Area [mm2]”). Columns “Species”, “Group” and “Continent” indicate taxonomy of tree species to which seed lots belong and continent of origin of each seed lot. Fungal infestation of each seed lot is indicated by the column “Number of isolates” and fungal richness of each seed lot is indicated by columns “Number of morphotypes” and “Number of ESVs”

1. Taxonomy and origin of study seed lots

Column “Seed lot ID” represents the unique identifier of each seed lot included in the study. Taxonomy of tree species to which each seed lot belongs is specified in columns “Species”, “Family” and “Group”. Origin of each seed lot is indicated in columns “Continent” and “Location”. Column “Range” specifies if seeds were collected in their native or non-native range

4. Sequenced fungal cultures and corresponding ESVs.

Each row in the table corresponds to one out of 473 representative fungal cultures that were sequenced. Seed lot and seed number from which the culture was obtained are indicated in the first two columns, and the assigned morphotype in the third column. Column “ESV” indicates the ESV sequence with which the ITS2 region of sequenced fungal culture mapped and the column “Identity (%)” indicates the percentage of the overlap between two sequences. Last six columns indicate the taxonomical assignment ("Division", "Phylum", "Class", "Order", "Family", "Genus", "Species") of each sequenced culture

3. Morphotype assignments of fungal cultures obtained in the study

Each row corresponds to one out of the 4202 fungal cultures obtained in the study. Column “Seed lot ID” specifies the unique identifier of a seed lot, and column “Seed number” specifies from which of 100 assessed seed from a seed lot the culture was obtained. Columns “Species”, “Group” and “Continent” indicate taxonomy of tree species to which seed lots from which the culture was obtained belong and continent of origin of these seed lots. Grouping of obtained cultures was done on a tree species level and each letter-number combination indicates different morphotype. No cultures were obtained from seed lots SL 22 and SL 24 so they are not listed here

7. Infestation of seeds with insects

The table contains the information about presence ("Exit holes PA" and "Larvae PA") and number of exit holes and insect larvae ("Exit holes" and "Larvae") in each of 100 assessed seeds per seed lot. Column "Infestation" indicates combined presence of exit holes and/or larvae in a seed. Columns "Group" and "Species" indicate the taxonomy and column "Continent" the origin of a seed lot