Island Invasion by a Threatened Tree Species: Evidence for Natural Enemy Release of Mahogany (Swietenia macrophylla) on Dominica, Lesser Antilles

Despite its appeal to explain plant invasions, the enemy release hypothesis (ERH) remains largely unexplored for tropical forest trees. Even scarcer are ERH studies conducted on the same host species at both the community and biogeographical scale, irrespective of the system or plant life form. In Cabrits National Park, Dominica, we observed patterns consistent with enemy release of two introduced, congeneric mahogany species, Swietenia macrophylla and S. mahagoni, planted almost 50 years ago. Swietenia populations at Cabrits have reproduced, with S. macrophylla juveniles established in and out of plantation areas at densities much higher than observed in its native range. Swietenia macrophylla juveniles also experienced significantly lower leaf-level herbivory (∼3.0%) than nine co-occurring species native to Dominica (8.4–21.8%), and far lower than conspecific herbivory observed in its native range (11%–43%, on average). These complimentary findings at multiple scales support ERH, and confirm that Swietenia has naturalized at Cabrits. However, Swietenia abundance was positively correlated with native plant diversity at the seedling stage, and only marginally negatively correlated with native plant abundance for stems ≥1-cm dbh. Taken together, these descriptive patterns point to relaxed enemy pressure from specialized enemies, specifically the defoliator Steniscadia poliophaea and the shoot-borer Hypsipyla grandella, as a leading explanation for the enhanced recruitment of Swietenia trees documented at Cabrits

State of nature 2023

This is the fourth State of Nature Report. It provides a comprehensive overview of species trends across the UK, including specific assessments for England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, and for the UK’s Overseas Territories

Dimethyl fumarate in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial

Dimethyl fumarate (DMF) inhibits inflammasome-mediated inflammation and has been proposed as a treatment for patients hospitalised with COVID-19. This randomised, controlled, open-label platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]), is assessing multiple treatments in patients hospitalised for COVID-19 (NCT04381936, ISRCTN50189673). In this assessment of DMF performed at 27 UK hospitals, adults were randomly allocated (1:1) to either usual standard of care alone or usual standard of care plus DMF. The primary outcome was clinical status on day 5 measured on a seven-point ordinal scale. Secondary outcomes were time to sustained improvement in clinical status, time to discharge, day 5 peripheral blood oxygenation, day 5 C-reactive protein, and improvement in day 10 clinical status. Between 2 March 2021 and 18 November 2021, 713 patients were enroled in the DMF evaluation, of whom 356 were randomly allocated to receive usual care plus DMF, and 357 to usual care alone. 95% of patients received corticosteroids as part of routine care. There was no evidence of a beneficial effect of DMF on clinical status at day 5 (common odds ratio of unfavourable outcome 1.12; 95% CI 0.86-1.47; p = 0.40). There was no significant effect of DMF on any secondary outcome

Dimethyl fumarate in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial

Dimethyl fumarate (DMF) inhibits inflammasome-mediated inflammation and has been proposed as a treatment for patients hospitalised with COVID-19. This randomised, controlled, open-label platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]), is assessing multiple treatments in patients hospitalised for COVID-19 (NCT04381936, ISRCTN50189673). In this assessment of DMF performed at 27 UK hospitals, adults were randomly allocated (1:1) to either usual standard of care alone or usual standard of care plus DMF. The primary outcome was clinical status on day 5 measured on a seven-point ordinal scale. Secondary outcomes were time to sustained improvement in clinical status, time to discharge, day 5 peripheral blood oxygenation, day 5 C-reactive protein, and improvement in day 10 clinical status. Between 2 March 2021 and 18 November 2021, 713 patients were enroled in the DMF evaluation, of whom 356 were randomly allocated to receive usual care plus DMF, and 357 to usual care alone. 95% of patients received corticosteroids as part of routine care. There was no evidence of a beneficial effect of DMF on clinical status at day 5 (common odds ratio of unfavourable outcome 1.12; 95% CI 0.86-1.47; p = 0.40). There was no significant effect of DMF on any secondary outcome

Environmental evaluation of agri-environment schemes using participatory approaches: experiences of testing the Agri-Environmental Footprint Index

The Agri-Environment Footprint Index (AFI) has been developed as a generic methodology to assess changes in the overall environmental impacts from agriculture at the farm level and to assist in the evaluation of European agri-environmental schemes (AES). The methodology is based on multicriteria analysis (MCA) and involves stakeholder participation to provide a locally customised evaluation based on weighted environmental indicators. The methodology was subjected to a feasibility assessment in a series of case studies across the EU. The AFI approach was able to measure significant differences in environmental status between farms that participated in an AES and nonparticipants. Wider environmental concerns, beyond the scheme objectives, were also considered in some case studies and the benefits for identification of unintentional (and often beneficial) impacts of AESs are presented. The participatory approach to AES valuation proved efficient in different environments and administrative contexts. The approach proved to be appropriate for environmental evaluation of complex agri-environment systems and can complement any evaluation conducted under the Common Monitoring and Evaluation Framework. The applicability of the AFI in routine monitoring of AES impacts and in providing feedback to improve policy design is discussed