Low connectivity between shallow, mesophotic and rariphotic zone benthos

© 2019 Massachussetts Medical Society. All rights reserved. Worldwide coral reefs face catastrophic damage due to a series of anthropogenic stressors. Investigating how coral reefs ecosystems are connected, in particular across depth, will help us understand if deeper reefs harbour distinct communities. Here, we explore changes in benthic community structure across 15-300 m depths using technical divers and submersibles around Bermuda. We report high levels of floral and faunal differentiation across depth, with distinct assemblages occupying each depth surveyed, except 200-300 m, corresponding to the lower rariphotic zone. Community turnover was highest at the boundary depths of mesophotic coral ecosystems (30-150 m) driven largely by taxonomic turnover and to a lesser degree by ordered species loss (nestedness). Our work highlights the biologically unique nature of benthic communities in the mesophotic and rariphotic zones, and their limited connectivity to shallow reefs, thus emphasizing the need to manage and protect deeper reefs as distinct entities

Deep Reef Benthos of Bermuda: Field Identification Guide

Deep Reef Benthos of Bermuda builds on the video and imagery data collected during Nekton’s Mission – the XL Catlin Deep Ocean Survey - and provides a photographic guide for the visual identification of many of the corals, marine plants and other common invertebrates that inhabit Bermuda’s outer deep reefs.This guide is designed to aid marine biologists, divers and naturalists with the identification of organisms as seen in underwater footage or live in the field.</div

Building robust, practicable counterfactuals and scenarios to evaluate the impact of species conservation interventions using inferential approaches

Robust evaluation of the impact of biodiversity conservation actions is important not only for ensuring that conservation strategies are effective and maximise return on investment, but also to identify and celebrate successful conservation strategies. This evaluation can be retrospective (comparing the current situation to a counterfactual scenario) or forward-looking (comparing future scenarios with or without conservation). However, assessment of impact using experimental or quasi-experimental designs is typically difficult in conservation, so rigorous inferential approaches are required. Inferential assessment of impact is a key part of the new IUCN Green Status of Species, which greatly amplifies the need for standardised and practical species impact evaluation methods. Here, we use the Green Status of Species method as a base to review how inferential methods can be used to evaluate conservation impact at the species level. We identify three key components of the inferential impact evaluation process—estimation of scenario outcomes, selection of baseline scenario, and frame of reference—and explain, with examples, how to reduce the subjectivity of these steps. We propose a step-by-step guide, incorporating these principles, that can be used to infer scenario outcomes in order to evaluate past and future conservation impact in a wide range of situations, not just Green Status of Species assessments. We recommend that future non-experimental conservation interventions facilitate the process of evaluating impact by identifying the variable(s) that will be used to measure impact at the design stage, and by using conceptual models to help choose conservation actions most likely to have the desired impact

Testing a global standard for quantifying species recovery and assessing conservation impact.

Recognizing the imperative to evaluate species recovery and conservation impact, in 2012 the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) called for development of a "Green List of Species" (now the IUCN Green Status of Species). A draft Green Status framework for assessing species' progress toward recovery, published in 2018, proposed 2 separate but interlinked components: a standardized method (i.e., measurement against benchmarks of species' viability, functionality, and preimpact distribution) to determine current species recovery status (herein species recovery score) and application of that method to estimate past and potential future impacts of conservation based on 4 metrics (conservation legacy, conservation dependence, conservation gain, and recovery potential). We tested the framework with 181 species representing diverse taxa, life histories, biomes, and IUCN Red List categories (extinction risk). Based on the observed distribution of species' recovery scores, we propose the following species recovery categories: fully recovered, slightly depleted, moderately depleted, largely depleted, critically depleted, extinct in the wild, and indeterminate. Fifty-nine percent of tested species were considered largely or critically depleted. Although there was a negative relationship between extinction risk and species recovery score, variation was considerable. Some species in lower risk categories were assessed as farther from recovery than those at higher risk. This emphasizes that species recovery is conceptually different from extinction risk and reinforces the utility of the IUCN Green Status of Species to more fully understand species conservation status. Although extinction risk did not predict conservation legacy, conservation dependence, or conservation gain, it was positively correlated with recovery potential. Only 1.7% of tested species were categorized as zero across all 4 of these conservation impact metrics, indicating that conservation has, or will, play a role in improving or maintaining species status for the vast majority of these species. Based on our results, we devised an updated assessment framework that introduces the option of using a dynamic baseline to assess future impacts of conservation over the short term to avoid misleading results which were generated in a small number of cases, and redefines short term as 10 years to better align with conservation planning. These changes are reflected in the IUCN Green Status of Species Standard

Longitudinal parental perception of COVID-19 vaccines for children in a multi-site, cohort study

Pediatric COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and uptake is not well understood. Among parents of a prospective cohort of children aged 6 months-17 years, we assessed COVID-19 vaccine knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP), and uptake over 15 months. The PROTECT study collected sociodemographic characteristics of children at enrollment and COVID-19 vaccination data and parental KAPs quarterly. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression models were used to test the effect of KAPs on vaccine uptake; McNemar's test for paired samples was used to evaluate KAP change over time. A total of 2,837 children were enrolled, with more than half (61 %) vaccinated by October 2022. Positive parental beliefs about vaccine safety and effectiveness strongly predicted vaccine uptake among children aged 5-11 years (aOR 13.1, 95 % CI 8.5-20.4 and aOR 6.4, 95 % CI 4.3-9.6, respectively) and children aged 12+ years (aOR 7.0, 95 % CI 3.8-13.0 and aOR 8.9, 95 % CI 4.4-18.0). Compared to enrollment, at follow-up parents (of vaccinated and unvaccinated children) reported higher self-assessed vaccine knowledge, but more negative beliefs towards vaccine safety, effectiveness, and trust in government. Parents unlikely to vaccinate their children at enrollment reported more positive beliefs on vaccine knowledge, safety, and effectiveness at follow-up. The PROTECT cohort allows for an examination of factors driving vaccine uptake and how beliefs about COVID-19 and the COVID-19 vaccines change over time. Findings of the current analysis suggest that these beliefs change over time and policies aiming to increase vaccine uptake should focus on vaccine safety and effectiveness