Piecing together the data of the U.S. marine aquaculture puzzle

Aquaculture recently became the main source of global seafood production and many countries, including the United States, see potential in marine aquaculture to sustainably fill growing demand. The U.S. supports the majority of its seafood consumption through imports, and therefore identifying bottlenecks to domestic aquaculture growth is a priority at the federal and state level. Yet, one critical aspect that appears not yet addressed is the quality and accessibility of marine aquaculture data. In this study we conducted the first multi-state synthesis and comparison of the most comprehensive suite of species, volume, and value information on U.S. marine aquaculture over time, across the 23 marine coastal states. Using publicly available data sources from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), state-level solicited data that we aggregated, and data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), we found strong evidence that marine aquaculture has played an increasingly important role in marine coastal states, but also uncovered numerous data gaps and discrepancies between and within these sources. In particular, we found a dearth of volumetric data and millions in missing value (USD$). We found U.S. marine aquaculture is likely much more diverse, abundant and valuable than is currently reported, but the main sources of error in any given state remain unclear. We recommend U.S. state governments adopt a standardized, digital and annual data collection program, such as the NOAA Fisheries Information Networks. Better strategic aquaculture planning, management, and research depend on accurate data, and existing digital data infrastructures provide strong opportunities for improvement

Research Priorities for Achieving Healthy Marine Ecosystems and Human Communities in a Changing Climate

ABSTRACT: The health of coastal human communities and marine ecosystems are at risk from a host of anthropogenic stressors, in particular, climate change. Because ecological health and human well-being are inextricably connected, effective and positive responses to current risks require multidisciplinary solutions. Yet, the complexity of coupled social-ecological systems has left many potential solutions unidentified or insufficiently explored. The urgent need to achieve positive social and ecological outcomes across local and global scales necessitates rapid and targeted multidisciplinary research to identify solutions that have the greatest chance of promoting benefits for both people and nature. To address these challenges, we conducted a forecasting exercise with a diverse, multidisciplinary team to identify priority research questions needed to promote sustainable and just marine social-ecological systems now and into the future, within the context of climate change and population growth. In contrast to the traditional reactive cycle of science and management, we aimed to generate questions that focus on what we need to know, before we need to know it. Participants were presented with the question, "If we were managing oceans in 2050 and looking back, what research, primary or synthetic, would wish we had invested in today?" We first identified major social and ecological events over the past 60 years that shaped current human relationships with coasts and oceans. We then used a modified Delphi approach to identify nine priority research areas and 46 questions focused on increasing sustainability and well-being in marine social-ecological systems. The research areas we identified include relationships between ecological and human health, access to resources, equity, governance, economics, resilience, and technology. Most questions require increased collaboration across traditionally distinct disciplines and sectors for successful study and implementation. By identifying these questions, we hope to facilitate the discourse, research, and policies needed to rapidly promote healthy marine ecosystems and the human communities that depend upon them

Cost-effectiveness of non-invasive methods for assessment and monitoring of liver fibrosis and cirrhosis in patients with chronic liver disease: systematic review and economic evaluation

BACKGROUND: Liver biopsy is the reference standard for diagnosing the extent of fibrosis in chronic liver disease; however, it is invasive, with the potential for serious complications. Alternatives to biopsy include non-invasive liver tests (NILTs); however, the cost-effectiveness of these needs to be established. OBJECTIVE: To assess the diagnostic accuracy and cost-effectiveness of NILTs in patients with chronic liver disease. DATA SOURCES: We searched various databases from 1998 to April 2012, recent conference proceedings and reference lists. METHODS: We included studies that assessed the diagnostic accuracy of NILTs using liver biopsy as the reference standard. Diagnostic studies were assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool. Meta-analysis was conducted using the bivariate random-effects model with correlation between sensitivity and specificity (whenever possible). Decision models were used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the NILTs. Expected costs were estimated using a NHS perspective and health outcomes were measured as quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Markov models were developed to estimate long-term costs and QALYs following testing, and antiviral treatment where indicated, for chronic hepatitis B (HBV) and chronic hepatitis C (HCV). NILTs were compared with each other, sequential testing strategies, biopsy and strategies including no testing. For alcoholic liver disease (ALD), we assessed the cost-effectiveness of NILTs in the context of potentially increasing abstinence from alcohol. Owing to a lack of data and treatments specifically for fibrosis in patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), the analysis was limited to an incremental cost per correct diagnosis. An analysis of NILTs to identify patients with cirrhosis for increased monitoring was also conducted. RESULTS: Given a cost-effectiveness threshold of £20,000 per QALY, treating everyone with HCV without prior testing was cost-effective with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £9204. This was robust in most sensitivity analyses but sensitive to the extent of treatment benefit for patients with mild fibrosis. For HBV [hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg)-negative)] this strategy had an ICER of £28,137, which was cost-effective only if the upper bound of the standard UK cost-effectiveness threshold range (£30,000) is acceptable. For HBeAg-positive disease, two NILTs applied sequentially (hyaluronic acid and magnetic resonance elastography) were cost-effective at a £20,000 threshold (ICER: £19,612); however, the results were highly uncertain, with several test strategies having similar expected outcomes and costs. For patients with ALD, liver biopsy was the cost-effective strategy, with an ICER of £822. LIMITATIONS: A substantial number of tests had only one study from which diagnostic accuracy was derived; therefore, there is a high risk of bias. Most NILTs did not have validated cut-offs for diagnosis of specific fibrosis stages. The findings of the ALD model were dependent on assuptions about abstinence rates assumptions and the modelling approach for NAFLD was hindered by the lack of evidence on clinically effective treatments. CONCLUSIONS: Treating everyone without NILTs is cost-effective for patients with HCV, but only for HBeAg-negative if the higher cost-effectiveness threshold is appropriate. For HBeAg-positive, two NILTs applied sequentially were cost-effective but highly uncertain. Further evidence for treatment effectiveness is required for ALD and NAFLD. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42011001561. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme

Generic and specific facets of vulnerability for analysing trade‐offs and synergies in natural resource management

International audienceThe concept of vulnerability as the combination of exposure, sensitivity and adaptive capacity to a stressor is gaining traction outside of the climate realm, opening new avenues to address contemporary sustainability issues more holistically. Yet, critical notions that underpin vulnerability have yet to be integrated into its application to natural resource management and non-climatic stressors. In particular, the way generic and stressor-specific facets of vulnerability interact and can inform decision-makers about Here, we investigate the salience of the generic/specific framing in the context of Chilean artisanal fishing communities engaged in rights-based co-management and experiencing pressures from two stressors: poaching and market volatility. Specifically, we draw on market data combined with socio-economic surveys conducted with 446 members and leaders from 42 fisher unions to quantitatively investigate potential trade-offs and synergies between facets of vulnerability to poaching and markets.Generic adaptive capacity (i.e. flexibility, assets, learning, organization and agency) likely facilitated stressor-specific adaptive capacities to both stressors. High levels of specific adaptive capacity to one stressor neither increased exposure nor undermined specific adaptive capacity to the other stressor. However, adaptive capacity did not translate into exposure reduction as expected, suggesting that adaptation barriers may prevent fishers from mobilizing adaptive capacity into effective adaptive action.This study illustrates how breaking down vulnerability into generic and specific facets can help us better anticipate important trade-offs and synergies in management interventions. More generally, it highlights the potential of the climate adaptation and vulnerability literatures in informing place-based management of natural resources