Saproxylic species are linked to the amount and isolation of dead wood across spatial scales in a beech forest

ContextDead wood is a key habitat for saproxylicspecies, which are often used as indicators of habitatquality in forests. Understanding how the amount andspatial distribution of dead wood in the landscapeaffects saproxylic communities is therefore importantfor maintaining high forest biodiversity.ObjectivesWe investigated effects of the amountand isolation of dead wood on the alpha and betadiversity of four saproxylic species groups, with afocus on how the spatial scale influences results.MethodsWe inventoried saproxylic beetles, wood-inhabiting fungi, and epixylic bryophytes and lichenson 62 plots in the Sihlwald forest reserve in Switzer-land. We used GLMs to relate plot-level speciesrichness to dead wood amount and isolation on spatialscales of 20–200 m radius. Further, we used GDMs todetermine how dead wood amount and isolationaffected beta diversity.ResultsA larger amount of dead wood increasedbeetle richness on all spatial scales, while isolation hadno effect. For fungi, bryophytes and lichens this wasonly true on small spatial scales. On larger scales ofour study, dead wood amount had no effect, whilegreater isolation decreased species richness. Further,we found no strong consistent patterns explaining betadiversity

Differences Between Centers in Psychosocial Evaluations for Living Kidney Donors Do Not Influence Outcome: Results From an Observational Multicenter Study

Rather little is known about how psychosocial evaluations for living kidney donation (LKD) are performed. We aimed to explore whether Swiss transplant centers (STCs) vary regarding the rate of living kidney donors refused for psychosocial reasons, the psychosocial evaluation process, and the characteristics of the donors. Methods: We investigated 310 consecutive candidates for LKD in 4 of 6 existing STC during mandatory psychosocial evaluations. We registered (i) sociodemographic data, (ii) the type of the decision-making process regarding LKD (ie, snap decision, postponed, deliberate, other), (iii) the evaluator's perception of the donor's emotional bonding and his/her conflicts with the recipient, (iv) the donor's prognosis from a psychosocial perspective, (v) time taken for the psychosocial evaluation, and (vi) its result (eligible, eligible with additional requirements, not eligible). Results: Centers had comparable proportions of noneligible donors (2.9%-6.0%) but differed significantly in the percentage of donors accepted with additional requirements (3.4%-66%, P < 0.001). Significant differences emerged between centers regarding the time needed for evaluation (75-160 min [interquartile range (IQR) 75-180 min] per single exploration, P < 0.001), the perception of the donor's emotional bonding (visual analogue scale [VAS] 8-9 [IQR 6-10], P < 0.001), his/her conflicts with the recipient (VAS 1.5-2 [IQR 0-3], P = 0.006), the donor's psychosocial prognosis (VAS 8-9 [IQR 7-10], P < 0.001), and the type of decision concerning LKD (59%-82% with snap decision "yes," P = 0.008). However, despite differences in the psychosocial evaluation process, the rates of patients accepted for transplantation (eligible and eligible with additional requirements versus noneligible) were comparable across STC (P = 0.72). Conclusions: Our results emphasize that it is more important to establish clear guidelines to identify potential psychosocial risks than to stringently standardize the procedure for psychosocial evaluation of living kidney donors