The Muller F element (4.2 Mb, ~80 protein-coding genes) is an unusual autosome of Drosophila melanogaster; it is mostly heterochromatic with a low recombination rate. To investigate how these properties impact the evolution of repeats and genes, we manually improved the sequence and annotated the genes on the D. erecta, D. mojavensis, and D. grimshawi F elements and euchromatic domains from the Muller D element. We find that F elements have greater transposon density (25–50%) than euchromatic reference regions (3–11%). Among the F elements, D. grimshawi has the lowest transposon density (particularly DINE-1: 2% vs. 11–27%). F element genes have larger coding spans, more coding exons, larger introns, and lower codon bias. Comparison of the Effective Number of Codons with the Codon Adaptation Index shows that, in contrast to the other species, codon bias in D. grimshawi F element genes can be attributed primarily to selection instead of mutational biases, suggesting that density and types of transposons affect the degree of local heterochromatin formation. F element genes have lower estimated DNA melting temperatures than D element genes, potentially facilitating transcription through heterochromatin. Most F element genes (~90%) have remained on that element, but the F element has smaller syntenic blocks than genome averages (3.4–3.6 vs. 8.4–8.8 genes per block), indicating greater rates of inversion despite lower rates of recombination. Overall, the F element has maintained characteristics that are distinct from other autosomes in the Drosophila lineage, illuminating the constraints imposed by a heterochromatic milieu.

Ecosystem-based management (EBM) has emerged as a basic approach for managing human activities in marine ecosystems, with the aim of recovering and conserving marine ecosystems and the services they deliver. Integrated ecosystem assessments (IEAs) further the transition of EBM from principle to practice by providing an efficient, transparent means of summarizing the status of ecosystem components, screening and prioritizing potential risks, and evaluating alternative management strategies against a backdrop of environmental variability. In this paper, we draw upon lessons learned from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's IEA programme to outline steps required for IEA implementation. We provide an overview of the conceptual framework for IEAs, the practical constraints that shape the structure of individual IEAs, and the uses and outcomes of IEAs in support of EBM.

Borne out of a collective movement towards ecosystem-based management (EBM), multispecies and multi-sector scientific assessments of the ocean are emerging around the world. In the USA, integrated ecosystem assessments (IEAs) were formally defined 5 years ago to serve as a scientific foundation for marine EBM. As outlined by the US National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration in 2008, an IEA is a cyclical process consisting of setting goals and targets, defining indicators, analysing status, trends, and risk, and evaluating alternative potential future management and environmental scenarios to enhance information needed for effective EBM. These steps should be hierarchical, iterative, non-prescriptive about technical implementation, and adaptable to existing information for any ecosystem. Despite these strengths and some initial successes, IEAs and EBM have yet to be fully realized in the USA. We propose eight tenets that can be adopted by scientists, policy-makers, and managers to enhance the use of IEAs in implementing EBM. These tenets include (i) engage with stakeholders, managers, and policy-makers early, often, and continually; (ii) conduct rigorous human dimensions research; (iii) recognize the importance of transparently selecting indicators; (iv) set ecosystem targets to create a system of EBM accountability; (v) establish a formal mechanism(s) for the review of IEA science; (vi) serve current management needs, but not at the expense of more integrative ocean management; (vii) provide a venue for EBM decision-making that takes full advantage of IEA products; and (viii) embrace realistic expectations about IEA science and its implementation. These tenets are framed in a way that builds on domestic and international experiences with ocean management. With patience, persistence, political will, funding, and augmented capacity, IEAs will provide a general approach for allowing progressive science to lead conventional ocean management to new waters.

Background:Music listening may reduce the physiological, emotional, and mental effects of distress and anxiety. It is unclear whether music listening may reduce the amount of opioids used for pain management in critical care, postoperative patients or whether music may improve patient experience in the intensive care unit (ICU).Methods:A total of 41 surgical patients were randomized to either music listening or controlled non-music listening groups on ICU admission. Approximately 50-minute music listening interventions were offered 4 times per day (every 4-6 hours) during the 48 hours of patients’ ICU stays. Pain, distress, and anxiety scores were measured immediately before and after music listening or controlled resting periods. Total opioid intake was recorded every 24 hours and during each intervention.Results:There was no significant difference in pain, opioid intake, distress, or anxiety scores between the control and music listening groups during the first 4 time points of the study. However, a mixed modeling analysis examining the pre- and post-intervention scores at the first time point revealed a significant interaction in the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) for pain between the music and the control groups (P = .037). The Numeric Rating Score decreased in the music group but remained stable in the control group. Following discharge from the ICU, the music group’s interviews were analyzed for themes.Conclusions:Despite the limited sample size, this study identified music listening as an appropriate intervention that improved patients’ post-intervention experience, according to patients’ self-report. Future mixed methods studies are needed to examine both qualitative patient perspectives and methodology to improve music listening in critical care units.

Ecosystem-based management (EBM) in marine ecosystems considers impacts caused by complex interactions between environmental and anthropogenic pressures (i.e., oceanographic, climatic, socio-economic) and marine communities. EBM depends, in part, on ecological indicators that facilitate understanding of inherent properties and the dynamics of pressures within marine communities. Thresholds of ecological indicators delineate ecosystem status because they represent points at which a small increase in one or many pressure variables results in an abrupt change of ecosystem responses. The difficulty in developing appropriate thresholds and reference points for EBM lies in the multidimensionality of both the ecosystem responses and the pressures impacting the ecosystem. Here, we develop thresholds using gradient forest for a suite of ecological indicators in response to multiple pressures that convey ecosystem status for large marine ecosystems from the US Pacific, Atlantic, sub-Arctic, and Gulf of Mexico. We detected these thresholds of ecological indicators based on multiple pressures. Commercial fisheries landings above approximately 2-4.5 t km −2 and fisheries exploitation above 20-40% of the total estimated biomass (of invertebrates and fish) of the ecosystem resulted in a change in the direction of ecosystem structure and functioning in the ecosystems examined. Our comparative findings reveal common trends in ecosystem thresholds along pressure gradients and also indicate that thresholds of ecological indicators are useful tools for comparing the impacts of environmental and anthropogenic pressures across multiple ecosystems. These critical points can be used to inform the development of EBM decision criteria.

The Ecosystem Approach to Management (EAM) has emerged over the past decades, largely to promote biodiversity conservation, and more recently sectoral tradeoffs in the management of marine ecosystems. To ascertain the state of practice of EAM operationalization, a workshop was held, which included a pre-workshop online survey. The survey gauged international participants’ perspectives regarding capacity, knowledge, and application of EAM. When asked about the subject, most survey respondents had a general understanding of EAM, and provided a clear definition. Major perceived challenges to EAM objectives by those surveyed included limited knowledge, conflicting interests, insufficient communication, and limited organizational legal frameworks or governance structures. Of those directly involved in an ecosystem approach, the majority responded that processes were in place or developed for application of integrated knowledge toward assessing key issues within their respective sectors (i.e. fisheries, conservation, energy), and that capacity was generally high. Our results show that most respondents, irrespective of sector or geography, see value in considering an integrated, broader ecosystem approach as they manage their sector. Although many participants were from the North Atlantic region, our results suggest that much of the international community is converging toward continued understanding of broad-scale, integrated approaches to marine resource management.

Communication of knowledge between the scientific and management communities is a difficult process complicated by the distinctive nature of professional career goals of scientists and decision-makers. This article provides a case history highlighting a collaboration between the science and management communities that resulted from a response to a 2004 hypoxia, or low dissolved oxygen, event in Long Bay, off Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. A working group of scientists and decision-makers was established at the time of the event and has continued to interact to develop a firm understanding of the drivers responsible for hypoxia formation in Long Bay. Several factors were found to be important to ensure that these collaborative efforts were productive: (1) genuine interest in collaboratively working across disciplines to examine a problem; (2) commitment by agency leadership, decision-makers, and researchers to create successful communication mechanisms; (3) respect for each others' perspectives and an understanding how science and management are performed and that they are not mutually exclusive; (4) networking among researchers and decision-makers to ensure appropriate team members are involved in the process; (5) use of decision-maker input in the formulation of research and monitoring projects; and (6) commitment of resources for facilitation to ensure that researchers and decision-makers are communicating effectively.

In response to calls for marine ecosystem-based management (EBM), the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) developed a multidisciplinary science support framework called integrated ecosystem assessment (IEA). The IEA framework and a national NOAA program for implementing that framework were the culmination of many efforts in the 2000s. At a recent workshop, five leaders from the early days of NOAA IEA development participated in a panel to discuss the history of the framework and program, and to provide recommendations for future work. Panelists intended IEA to be a call to action for scientists and agencies to support EBM, and they designed the framework to be adaptable, scalable, and non-prescriptive so that it could be applied to a range of issues. Panelists emphasized the complementary nature of the processes, tools, and products that make up IEA efforts, and also stressed the need to adapt the IEA approach to shifting management and governance structures. Finally, panelists offered a range of recommendations for future development of the IEA approach, including: (1) broadening the stakeholder base; (2) developing objectives and reference points in partnership with end-users; (3) increasing diversity of IEA practitioners to better reflect the communities that IEA serves; (4) increasing development of readily updatable, real-time products; (5)