Marine legislation is becoming more complex and marine ecosystem-based management is specified in national and regional legislative frameworks. Shelf-seas community and ecosystem models (hereafter termed ecosystem models) are central to the delivery of ecosystem-based management, but there is limited uptake and use of model products by decision makers in Europe and the UK in comparison with other countries. In this study, the challenges to the uptake and use of ecosystem models in support of marine environmental management are assessed using the UK capability as an example. The UK has a broad capability in marine ecosystem modelling, with at least 14 different models that support management, but few examples exist of ecosystem modelling that underpin policy or management decisions. To improve understanding of policy and management issues that can be addressed using ecosystem models, a workshop was convened that brought together advisors, assessors, biologists, social scientists, economists, modellers, statisticians, policy makers, and funders. Some policy requirements were identified that can be addressed without further model development including: attribution of environmental change to underlying drivers, integration of models and observations to develop more efficient monitoring programmes, assessment of indicator performance for different management goals, and the costs and benefit of legislation. Multi-model ensembles are being developed in cases where many models exist, but model structures are very diverse making a standardised approach of combining outputs a significant challenge, and there is a need for new methodologies for describing, analysing, and visualising uncertainties. A stronger link to social and economic systems is needed to increase the range of policy-related questions that can be addressed. It is also important to improve communication between policy and modelling communities so that there is a shared understanding of the strengths and limitations of ecosystem models

No abstract

Objectives Up-to-date information on the current practices and attitudes of veterinarians in Australia to acute pain management in cats was sought in 2017–2018 in the first nationwide survey in over 20 years. Methods An online survey was created, consisting of 54 questions in four sections, with 18 feline-specific questions. Veterinarians throughout Australia were invited to participate in the survey through advertisements in the veterinary press, electronic and regular mail, and through in-clinic visits and promotional materials. Results A total of 614 veterinarians completed the survey, with 513 (83.6%) completing the feline-specific section. The demographics of the respondents of this survey were an accurate representation of the registered veterinarians in Australia at the time. Multiple different opioids and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) were widely available in practices to manage pain, with analgesic efficacy reported as the primary factor influencing drug selection. Opioids were most commonly used in the preoperative period and NSAIDs were most commonly used postoperatively. Despite the wide availability in clinic (>99%), only 55% of respondents reported regularly using local anaesthetic techniques in cats. Pain assessment of hospitalised patients was primarily performed by veterinarians (91.1%); however, 84.7% of respondents did not routinely use a validated pain scale. Conclusions and relevance Veterinary practitioners in Australia are adequately equipped with analgesic medication to treat pain in their patients. In the management of acute pain in cats, they frequently use a multimodal approach and practice a variety of analgesic protocols. Based on the results of this survey, potential areas for improvement in feline pain management include an increase in duration of postoperative analgesia and more routine use of validated pain scales, performed by nurses and veterinarians alike, to assess individual analgesic needs.

Measuring body composition in dogs using multifrequency bioelectrical impedance analysis and dual energy x-ray absorptiometry, The Veterinary Journal (2016), http://dx.doi.org/doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2016.04.007. This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain. 17 Reference body composition was measured by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry..

No abstract