A framework for prioritising present and potentially invasive mammal species for a national list

The European Union (EU) has recently adopted a regulation on invasive alien species that foresees the possibility of developing lists of species of National Concern. We developed a prioritisation process for alien mammals already established in Italy, but not yet included in the EU list (n = 6 species) and a systematic horizon-scanning procedure to obtain ranked lists for those species that are already introduced worldwide or traded in Italy (n = 213). Experts were asked to score these species, by evaluating their likelihood of establishment and spread and the magnitude of their potential impacts on biodiversity, economy, human-health and society. The manageability of each species was also evaluated, both for the proritisation and the horizon-scanning processes. We produced five lists that ranked species according to their potential spread and impacts and their manageability. These will allow policy-makers to select outputs according to a balance between risk assessment and risk management, establishing priorities for alien species management at the national level

Ranking alien species based on their risks of causing environmental impacts: A global assessment of alien ungulates

For an efficient allocation of the limited resources to alien species management, the most damaging species should be prioritized. Comparing alien species based on their impacts is not straightforward, as the same species can cause different types and magnitudes of impacts when introduced to different contexts, making it difficult to summarize its overall impact. The Environmental Impact Classification of Alien Taxa (EICAT) systematically summarizes and compares detrimental impacts caused by alien populations to native biota and has been adopted by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). For each alien species, all reported impacts to native populations within the introduced range are classified into five levels of severity, from negligible impact to irreversible local extinction. Currently, EICAT only compares alien species based on their highest impact, thereby ignoring variation in impact magnitudes. Here, we used information on the variation in impact magnitudes of alien species to estimate their risks to cause high impacts if introduced to a novel environment. We demonstrate the usefulness of this approach by classifying the global impacts of alien ungulates. We found impact reports for 27 of the 66 alien ungulate species established worldwide, highlighting substantial knowledge gaps in invasion science. We classified a total of 441 impacts to native fauna and flora caused by these 27 species. Twenty-six of the species were found to cause harmful impacts (native population declines or local extinctions). Mouflon (Ovis orientalis, Gmelin, 1774) and dromedary (Camelus dromedarius, Linnaeus, 1758) had a higher risk of causing local extinctions if introduced to a novel environment than sika deer (Cervus nippon, Temminck, 1838) and goats (Capra hircus, Linnaeus, 1758). Including risk of high impacts allows to discriminate among species with the same EICAT classification and improves alien species prioritization for management

Factors affecting home range size of male Alpine ibex (Capra ibex ibex) in the Marmolada massif

In this study we investigated on the effects of different land cover types, meteorological conditions and age on the seasonal home range size of male Alpine ibex (Capra ibex ibex). The study was conducted in the Marmolada massif (Eastern Italian Alps). From September 2003 to the end of August 2009, 28 different male ibexes were regularly located by sightings and VHF radiotracking. We first analysed habitat selection performing a compositional analysis of log ratios and found that males positively selected grasslands all year long, likely for forage availability. We then estimated the cluster seasonal home ranges and modelled the logarithmic home range size with mixed linear models. We tested the effects of the individual and research year as random variables, season and age class as classification variables, and different combinations of percentage of grassland in the home ranges, slope, elevation and aspect as covariates. Model selection was based on the Akaike criterion. Inter-individual variability, research year and age class had no significant effects. The percentage of grassland within the home range and the slope of grasslands within the home range were the main determinants of home range size, explaining also the differences between seasons. Home range size in winter and spring was inversely correlated with the amount of snow depth. These results suggest that in winter spatial behaviour of male Alpine ibex is mostly influenced by snow while in the other seasons it is linked to resource exploitation: when forage is easily available ibexes did not need to seek out it by moving important distances

AME position statement: primary hyperparathyroidism in clinical practice

non

Non-consumptive use of wolves in tourism: guidelines for responsible practices [Large Carnivore Initiative for Europe IUCN/SSC Specialist Group] Specialist Group

In many early European cultures, humans shared an overall positive view of the wolf (Boitani, 1995; Boitani and Ciucci, 2009). But this changed with the anthropocentric view of nature brought about by Christianity as well as with the process of domestication and the advent of extensive animal husbandry (Boitani, 1995). Wolves were then strongly persecuted, leading to their extirpation in almost all their former range across the continent. In the last few decades, however, wolves have returned to many parts of Europe from which they had been absent for centuries. Their recovery impacts a range of human activities and interests and is accompanied by a variety of social conflicts and diverging points of view on how wolves should be managed (Boitani and Linnell, 2015; Linnell and Cretois, 2018). Conflicts and the negative economic impacts of wolf damage to livestock are the most pressing problems for wolf management today. Public debate and academic research on wolf–human relations tend to focus on these issues (Rode et al., 2021). The ecological roles of wolves in ecosystem structure and functioning are increasingly recognized (Hebbelwhite et al., 2005; Kuijper et al., 2013). However, although predator-prey interactions are highly contextdependent, most studies on this topic have been undertaken in large, natural landscapes. In most of Europe, human actions attenuate the ecological effects of large carnivores (Kuijper et al., 2016). Nevertheless, new values and the potential social benefits of human–wolf coexistence are underappreciated. Wolves are an important generator of culture, ethnography and tradition (Álvares et al., 2011) and their presence brings educational and research benefits, income from regional and product marketing, as well as socio-economic benefits from wildlife tourism (Rode et al., 2021). Different forms of tourism associated with wolves, such as wolf watching, photographing, or observing signs of their presence have already been practiced for a couple of decades in North America (Wilson and Heberlein, 1996) and to a lesser extent in Europe (Koščová and Koščová, 2016; Bavo and Villar Lama, 2020; Notaro and Grilli, 2021). Although tourism can increase the value of the species locally, such activities can also have negative impacts on wolves and their habitat, especially with the growing demand for wildlife tourism (Curtin and Kragh, 2014). The following guidelines were prepared by members of the LIFE WOLFALPS EU project group and the Large Carnivore Initiative for Europe expert group of the IUCN/SSC to set specific recommendations for responsible non-consumptive use of wolves in tourism which has as little impact on wolves as possible. The aim of these guidelines is to promote tourism activities that go beyond direct sightings of wildlife by focusing on wolf presence and wolf-related cultural heritage, creating economic opportunities for local communities in areas with wolves and consequently leading to increased tolerance towards this species

Non-consumptive use of wolves in tourism: guidelines for responsible practices [Large Carnivore Initiative for Europe IUCN/SSC Specialist Group] Specialist Group

In many early European cultures, humans shared an overall positive view of the wolf (Boitani, 1995; Boitani and Ciucci, 2009). But this changed with the anthropocentric view of nature brought about by Christianity as well as with the process of domestication and the advent of extensive animal husbandry (Boitani, 1995). Wolves were then strongly persecuted, leading to their extirpation in almost all their former range across the continent. In the last few decades, however, wolves have returned to many parts of Europe from which they had been absent for centuries. Their recovery impacts a range of human activities and interests and is accompanied by a variety of social conflicts and diverging points of view on how wolves should be managed (Boitani and Linnell, 2015; Linnell and Cretois, 2018). Conflicts and the negative economic impacts of wolf damage to livestock are the most pressing problems for wolf management today. Public debate and academic research on wolf–human relations tend to focus on these issues (Rode et al., 2021). The ecological roles of wolves in ecosystem structure and functioning are increasingly recognized (Hebbelwhite et al., 2005; Kuijper et al., 2013). However, although predator-prey interactions are highly contextdependent, most studies on this topic have been undertaken in large, natural landscapes. In most of Europe, human actions attenuate the ecological effects of large carnivores (Kuijper et al., 2016). Nevertheless, new values and the potential social benefits of human–wolf coexistence are underappreciated. Wolves are an important generator of culture, ethnography and tradition (Álvares et al., 2011) and their presence brings educational and research benefits, income from regional and product marketing, as well as socio-economic benefits from wildlife tourism (Rode et al., 2021). Different forms of tourism associated with wolves, such as wolf watching, photographing, or observing signs of their presence have already been practiced for a couple of decades in North America (Wilson and Heberlein, 1996) and to a lesser extent in Europe (Koščová and Koščová, 2016; Bavo and Villar Lama, 2020; Notaro and Grilli, 2021). Although tourism can increase the value of the species locally, such activities can also have negative impacts on wolves and their habitat, especially with the growing demand for wildlife tourism (Curtin and Kragh, 2014). The following guidelines were prepared by members of the LIFE WOLFALPS EU project group and the Large Carnivore Initiative for Europe expert group of the IUCN/SSC to set specific recommendations for responsible non-consumptive use of wolves in tourism which has as little impact on wolves as possible. The aim of these guidelines is to promote tourism activities that go beyond direct sightings of wildlife by focusing on wolf presence and wolf-related cultural heritage, creating economic opportunities for local communities in areas with wolves and consequently leading to increased tolerance towards this species.publishedVersio

Multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 1: institution, management, and data analysis of a nationwide multicenter patient database

Objective: The aim of this study was to integrate European epidemiological data on patients with multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1 by creating an Italian registry of this syndrome, including clinical and genetic characteristics and therapeutic management. Methods: Clinical, familial and genetic data of patients with multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1, diagnosed, treated, and followed-up for a mean time of 11.3 years, in 14 Italian referral endocrinological centers, were collected, over a 3-year course (2011â\u80\u932013), to build a national electronic database. Results: The Italian multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1 database includes 475 patients (271 women and 204 men), of whom 383 patients (80.6%) were classified as familial cases (from 136 different pedigrees), and 92 (19.4%) patients were sporadic cases. A MEN1 mutation was identified in 92.6% of familial cases and in 48.9% of sporadic cases. Four hundred thirty-six patients were symptomatic, presenting primary hyperparathyroidism, gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors and pituitary tumors in 93, 53, and 41% of cases, respectively. Thirty-nine subjects, belonging to affected pedigrees positive for a MEN1 mutation, were asymptomatic at clinical and biochemical screening. Age at diagnosis of multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1 probands was similar for both familial and simplex cases (mean age 47.2 ± 15.3 years). In familial cases, diagnosis of multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1 in relatives of affected probands was made more than 10 years in advance (mean age at diagnosis 36.5 ± 17.6 years). Conclusions: The analysis of Italian registry of multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1 patients revealed that clinical features of Italian multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1 patients are similar to those of other western countries, and confirmed that the genetic test allowed multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1 diagnosis 10 years earlier than biochemical or clinical diagnosis