Sage‐Grouse Breeding and Late Brood‐Rearing Habitat Guidelines in Utah

Delineation, protection, and restoration of habitats provide the basis for endangered and threatened species recovery plans. Species recovery plans typically contain guidelines that provide managers with a scientific basis to designate and manage critical habitats. As such, habitat guidelines are best developed using data that capture the full diversity of ecological and environmental conditions that provide habitat across the species’ range. However, when baseline information, which fails to capture habitat diversity, is used to develop guidelines, inconsistencies and problems arise when applying those guidelines to habitats within an ecologically diverse landscape. Greater sage‐grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus; sage‐ grouse) populations in Utah, USA, reflect this scenario—published range‐wide habitat guidelines developed through a literature synthesis did not include data from the full range of the species. Although all sage‐ grouse are considered sagebrush obligates (Artemisia spp.), the species occupies a diversity of sagebrush communities from shrub‐dominated semideserts in the southwest to more perennial grass‐dominated sagebrush‐steppe in the northeast portions of their distribution. Concomitantly, local ecological site and environmental conditions may limit the ability of managers to achieve broader range‐wide habitat guidelines. We combined microsite habitat vegetation parameters from radiomarked sage‐grouse nest and brood locations with state‐wide spatially continuous vegetation, climatic, and elevation data in a cluster analysis to develop empirically based sage‐grouse habitat guidelines that encompass the range of ecological and environmental variation across Utah. Using this novel approach, we identified 3 distinct clusters of sage‐grouse breeding (i.e., nesting and early brood‐rearing) and late brood‐rearing habitats in Utah. For each cluster, we identified specific vegetation recommendations that managers can use to assess sage‐grouse breeding and late brood‐rearing habitat. Our results provide relevant guidelines to Utah’s sage‐grouse populations and are feasible given the unique ecological variation found therein. This approach may have application to other species that occupy diverse habitats and physiographic regions

Potential for Post-Fire Recovery of Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat

In the western United States, fire has become a significant concern in the management of big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata Nutt.) ecosystems. This is due to large‐scale increases in cover of the fire‐prone invasive annual cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum L.) and, concurrently, concerns about declining quantity and quality of habitat for Greater Sage‐grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus). The prevailing paradigm is that fire results in a loss of sage‐grouse habitat on timescales relevant to conservation planning (i.e., 1–20 yr), since sagebrush cover can take many more years to recover post‐fire. However, fire can have effects that improve sage‐grouse habitat, including stimulating perennial grass and forb production. The conditions under which fire results in the permanent loss or enhancement of sage‐grouse habitat are not well understood. We used long‐term data from the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources Range Trend Project to assess short‐term (1–4 yr post‐treatment) and long‐term (6–10 yr post‐treatment) effects of fire on vegetation cover at 16 sites relative to sage‐grouse habitat vegetation guidelines. Sagebrush cover remained low post‐fire at sites considered historically unsuitable for sage‐grouse (10%) pre‐fire sagebrush cover, sagebrush cover decreased to10% cover. Post‐fire sagebrush cover was positively related to elevation. Across all sites, perennial grasses and forbs increased in cover to approximately meet the habitat vegetation guidelines for sage‐grouse. Cheatgrass cover did not change in response to fire, and increased perennial grass cover appears to have played an important role in suppressing cheatgrass. Our results indicate that, while fire poses a potential risk for sage‐grouse habitat loss and degradation, burned sites do not necessarily need to be considered permanently altered, especially if they are located at higher elevation, have high sagebrush cover pre‐fire, and are reseeded with perennial grasses and forbs post‐fire. However, our results confirm that fire at more degraded sites, for example, those wit

Case report of MR perfusion imaging in Sinking Skin Flap Syndrome: growing evidence for hemodynamic impairment

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The syndrome of the sinking skin flap (SSSF) with delayed sensorimotor deficits after craniectomy is not well known and often neglected. Among various postulated causes, there is evidence that disturbed brain perfusion may be related to the observed symptoms, and that cranioplasty reliably alleviates these symptoms. We report a case of sinking skin flap syndrome (SSFS) with recovery from neurological sensorimotor deficits after cranioplasty correlated with pre- and postsurgical MR brain perfusion studies.</p> <p>Case Presentation</p> <p>A 42-year-old woman presented with slowly progressive sensorimotor paresis of her left arm after decompressive extensive craniectomy due to subarachnoid hemorrhage four months ago. Her right cranium showed a "sinking skin flap". After cranioplastic repair of her skull defect, the patient fully recovered from her symptoms. Before cranioplasty, reduced brain perfusion in the right central cortical region was observed in MR-perfusion images. After cranioplasty, a marked increase in brain perfusion was observed which correlated with objective clinical recovery.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>There is increasing evidence that impaired blood flow is responsible for delayed motor deficits in patients with sinking skin flap syndrome in the area of compressed brain regions. Symptoms should be evaluated by brain perfusion imaging complementing surgical decision-making.</p

Importance of regional variation in conservation planning: a rangewide example of the Greater Sage‐Grouse

Abstract We developed rangewide population and habitat models for Greater Sage?Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) that account for regional variation in habitat selection and relative densities of birds for use in conservation planning and risk assessments. We developed a probabilistic model of occupied breeding habitat by statistically linking habitat characteristics within 4 miles of an occupied lek using a nonlinear machine learning technique (Random Forests). Habitat characteristics used were quantified in GIS and represent standard abiotic and biotic variables related to sage?grouse biology. Statistical model fit was high (mean correctly classified = 82.0%, range = 75.4?88.0%) as were cross?validation statistics (mean = 80.9%, range = 75.1?85.8%). We also developed a spatially explicit model to quantify the relative density of breeding birds across each Greater Sage?Grouse management zone. The models demonstrate distinct clustering of relative abundance of sage?grouse populations across all management zones. On average, approximately half of the breeding population is predicted to be within 10% of the occupied range. We also found that 80% of sage?grouse populations were contained in 25?34% of the occupied range within each management zone. Our rangewide population and habitat models account for regional variation in habitat selection and the relative densities of birds, and thus, they can serve as a consistent and common currency to assess how sage?grouse habitat and populations overlap with conservation actions or threats over the entire sage?grouse range. We also quantified differences in functional habitat responses and disturbance thresholds across the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA) management zones using statistical relationships identified during habitat modeling. Even for a species as specialized as Greater Sage?Grouse, our results show that ecological context matters in both the strength of habitat selection (i.e., functional response curves) and response to disturbance

Crowdfunding in Africa: Opportunities and Challenges

publishedVersio

Helper Response to Experimentally Manipulated Predation Risk in the Cooperatively Breeding Cichlid Neolamprologus pulcher

Background We manipulated predation risk in a field experiment with the cooperatively breeding cichlid Neolamprologus pulcher by releasing no predator, a medium- or a large-sized fish predator inside underwater cages enclosing two to three natural groups. We assessed whether helpers changed their helping behaviour, and whether within-group conflict changed, depending on these treatments, testing three hypotheses: ‘pay-to-stay’ PS, ‘risk avoidance’ RA, or (future) reproductive benefits RB. We also assessed whether helper food intake was reduced under risk, because this might reduce investments in other behaviours to save energy. Methodology/Principal Findings Medium and large helpers fed less under predation risk. Despite this effect helpers invested more in territory defence, but not territory maintenance, under the risk of predation (supporting PS). Experimentally covering only the breeding shelter with sand induced more helper digging under predation risk compared to the control treatment (supporting PS). Aggression towards the introduced predator did not differ between the two predator treatments and increased with group member size and group size (supporting PS and RA). Large helpers increased their help ratio (helping effort/breeder aggression received, ‘punishment’ by the dominant pair in the group) in the predation treatments compared to the control treatment, suggesting they were more willing to PS. Medium helpers did not show such effects. Large helpers also showed a higher submission ratio (submission/ breeder aggression received) in all treatments, compared to the medium helpers (supporting PS). Conclusions/Significance We conclude that predation risk reduces helper food intake, but despite this effect, helpers were more willing to support the breeders, supporting PS. Effects of breeder punishment suggests that PS might be more important for large compared to the medium helpers. Evidence for RA was also detected. Finally, the results were inconsistent with RB

Why are tumour blood vessels abnormal and why is it important to know?

Tumour blood vessels differ from their normal counterparts for reasons that have received little attention. We report here that they are of at least six distinct types, we describe how each forms, and, looking forward, encourage the targeting of tumour vessel subsets that have lost their vascular endothelial growth factor-A (VEGF-A) dependency and so are likely unresponsive to anti-VEGF-A therapies