Recent concerns about the viability of zoo populations have motivated studies on the historic and current status of animal populations in North American and European zoos.However, these evaluations may not accurately reflect the populations' long-term viability in the decades to come. Here, we assessed the projected future status of North American zoo populations by conducting standardized population viability analyses (PVAs) for 137 cooperative breeding programs. We summarized PVA results to describe patterns in viability across populations, and examined whether viability can be predicted by biological or management-based factors. Under recent management practices and without imports or exports of animals, 64% of populations will decline in size over the next 25 years, and only 18% would retain ≥90% of the founding gene diversity (GD) in 100 years. However, viability would improve if programs can implement management changes (e.g., increasing reproduction, increasing holding space, and importing genetically unique individuals, as appropriate): only 16% of populations would still decline in 25 years, and 49% would retain ≥90% GD in 100 years. Programs with more participating institutions and a "green" Association of Zoos and Aquariums animal program designation were projected to have higher metrics of demographic viability, and those with longer lifespans and lower recent death rates were projected to have higher metrics of genetic viability. Due to the large variation in species life history, management goals, and constraints across programs, our findings suggest there is unlikely to be a single path to long-term viability that would be appropriate for all zoo populations. K E Y W O R D S demography, extinction risk, genetic diversity, population viability analysis, sustainability
Military personnel working in high noise environments can be exposed to continuous noise levels up to 150 dB. United States (US) Department of Defense (DoD) Hearing Conservation Programs (HCPs) [1–3] set safe noise exposure limits to reduce the risk for noise induced hearing loss. These daily noise exposure limits were based on ambient noise levels and the duration of time spent in that noise environment. Current dosimeters, worn on the lapel of personnel and at least one system worn under a hearing protector, were designed to measure noise levels and calculate noise dose, but do not provide a validated measure of noise dose external to or under a hearing protector. Noise dose under hearing protectors can be estimated by subtracting the real ear attenuation (REAT) data, collected in accordance with the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) S12.6 [4], at each octave band from the ambient octave band noise. This procedure gives accurate results for group data, but does not account for individual variations in effective attenuation. To address this issue, the US Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) led the development of ship suitable in-ear dosimetry integrated into a hearing protector, and co-sponsored an effort executed by the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) to calibrate in-ear noise dose readings. This was accomplished by conducting human noise exposure experiments, with and without hearing protection, which calculated noise dose from temporary threshold shifts (TTS) in hearing. Ten subjects participated in the study. Noise levels were 91, 94, and 97 dB for up to 2 hrs, 1 hr, and 30 minutes respectively. These exposure levels were well within US DoD safe noise exposure guidelines (DoD HCP) [1–3]. Data will be presented describing the open and occluded (protected) ear TTS response to noise dose achieved by subjects in the experiment. Preliminary findings indicate that human subject data is extremely important in developing and validating calibration factors for any type of noise dosimeter but is especially important for in-ear dosimetry. Results from this study demonstrated that the REAT noise dose estimations and the in-ear dosimetry earplugs consistently overestimated the effective noise dose received by subjects. However, more than 10 subjects are required to improve the confidence level of the estimated calibration factor.
Level dependent hearing protectors, earplugs and earmuffs, have advanced in technology due to the needs of military personnel and others to reduce the risk of hearing damage from impulsive noise. These hearing protectors were developed to preserve ambient listening capabilities therefore improving situational awareness while reducing the risk of noise induced hearing loss by attenuating both continuous and impulsive noise. Four commercially available passive level dependent earplugs were assessed for both continuous noise attenuation and impulsive insertion loss performance. The continuous noise attenuation results were collected using American National Standard Institute (ANSI) S12.6-2008 Methods for Measuring the Real-Ear Attenuation of Hearing Protectors while the impulsive insertion loss results were collected using ANSI S12.42-2010 Methods for the Measurement of Insertion Loss of Hearing Protection Devices in Continuous or Impulsive Noise Using Microphone-in-Real-Ear (MIRE) or Acoustic Test Fixture Procedures. The presentation will include the passive noise attenuation performance of level dependent earplugs for both continuous and impulsive noise. The impulsive insertion loss results for these particular hearing protectors will be applied to impulsive noise damage risk criteria for an estimate of allowable impulsive noise exposure.
ANSI S12.6-2008 describes the methods for measuring the real-ear attenuation of hearing protectors. Method A, trained-subject fit, was intended to describe the capabilities of the devices fitted by thoroughly trained users while Method B, inexperienced-subject fit, was intended to approximate the protection that can be attained by groups of informed users in workplace hearing conservation programs. Inexperienced subjects are no longer considered “naïve” according to ANSI S12.6 after 12 or more sessions measuring the attenuation of earplugs or semi-insert devices. However, an inexperienced subject that has received high quality video instructions may no longer be considered “naïve” or “inexperienced” even after just one session. AFRL conducted an ANSI S12.6-2008 Method B study to determine what effect, if any, high quality instructions had on the performance of naïve or inexperienced subjects and the number of trials where the subject could still be considered naïve or inexperienced. This experiment used ten subjects who completed three ANSI S12.6 measurements using the A-B-A training order and another 10 subjects completed the study using the B-A-B training order (A = high quality video instructions, B = short “earplug pillow-pack” written instructions). The attenuation results will be discussed and the implications for ANSI S12.6.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.