No abstract

No abstract

Aim Many conservation efforts now focus on mitigating biodiversity loss due to climate change. While a focus on impacts from mean, long‐term changes in climate is warranted, the vast majority of conservation plans largely ignore another key factor of climate change—changes in the frequency and intensity of extreme weather and climate events. A typology of the full range and severity of ecological responses to extreme events would help underpin tracking of their impacts. Location Global. Methods Here, we review 519 observational studies of ecological responses to extreme events between 1941 and 2015. We include responses from amphibians, birds, fish, invertebrates, mammals, plants and reptiles to cyclones, drought, flood, cold waves and heat waves. Results Negative ecological responses were the most commonly reported, accounting for 57% of all documented responses. There were over 100 cases of a >25% population decline and 31 cases of local extirpation. Sixty per cent of the studies in our review observed ecological responses for more than 1 year, and of the studies that monitored species or ecosystem recovery following exposure to an extreme event, 38% showed species or ecosystems did not recover to pre‐disturbance levels. Main conclusions Extreme weather and climate events have profound implications for species and ecosystem management. We discuss current conceptual challenges associated with incorporating extreme events into conservation planning efforts, which include how to quantify species sensitivity and adaptive capacity to extreme events, how to account for interactions between extreme events and other stressors, and how to maximize adaptive capacity to more frequent and intense extreme events.

Over the past twelve years the number of papers that explore the impacts of climate change on biodiversity in the conservation literature has grown on average by 20% annually. By categorising these papers on their primary research questions, we show that the vast majority of these articles (88.6%) focus only on those impacts that arise directly as a result of climate change, ignoring the potentially significant indirect threats that arise from human adaptation responses. This pattern has remained fairly consistent throughout the review period (2000)(2001)(2002)(2003)(2004)(2005)(2006)(2007)(2008)(2009)(2010)(2011)(2012), with a trend towards more articles considering both direct and indirect impacts towards the end of the period. We also find a bias in the time-frames considered by published articles that project future impacts of climate change on biodiversity, with more than three-quarters (77.9%) of papers only considering impacts after 2031, and almost half (49.1%) only considering impacts after 2051. This focus on long-term, direct impacts creates a mismatch, not only with the life-cycles of species and timescales of many ecological processes, but also with most management and policy timelines and the short-term nature of human decision making processes. The focus on studying the long-term, direct impacts of climate change on biodiversity is likely a function of the lack of availability of climate projections on shorter temporal scales; a perception that short-term impacts will be minor; and, insufficient integration with the social and political sciences. While the direct impact of changes in mean climatic conditions will significantly change the biosphere by the end of the century, near term changes in seasonality and extreme events coupled with human adaptation responses are likely to have substantial impacts much sooner, threatening the survival of species and ecosystems. It is therefore essential that we balance our research efforts to facilitate a better understanding of these more imminent threats.

OBJECTIVEDiabetes increases mortality in patients with chronic heart failure (CHF) and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction. Studies have questioned the safety of b-adrenoceptor blockers (b-blockers) in some patients with diabetes and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction. We examined whether b-blockers and ACE inhibitors (ACEIs) are associated with differential effects on mortality in CHF patients with and without diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODSWe conducted a prospective cohort study of 1,797 patients with CHF recruited between 2006 and 2014, with mean follow-up of 4 years. b-Blocker dose was expressed as the equivalent dose of bisoprolol (mg/day) and ACEI dose as the equivalent dose of ramipril (mg/day). Cox regression analysis was used to examine the interaction between diabetes and drug dose on all-cause mortality. RESULTSPatients with diabetes were prescribed larger doses of b-blockers and ACEIs than were patients without diabetes. Increasing b-blocker dose was associated with lower mortality in patients with diabetes (8.9% per mg/day; 95% CI 5-12.6) and without diabetes (3.5% per mg/day; 95% CI 0.7-6.3), although the effect was larger in people with diabetes (interaction P = 0.027). Increasing ACEI dose was associated with lower mortality in patients with diabetes (5.9% per mg/day; 95% CI 2.5-9.2) and without diabetes (5.1% per mg/day; 95% CI 2.6-7.6), with similar effect size in these groups (interaction P = 0.76). CONCLUSIONSIncreasing b-blocker dose is associated with a greater prognostic advantage in CHF patients with diabetes than in CHF patients without diabetes.Chronic heart failure (CHF) associated with left ventricular systolic dysfunction is a global health care problem affecting more than 26 million individuals (1,2). More than one-third of these people will also suffer from diabetes (3,4). A recent study of 1.9 million individuals demonstrated that CHF was second only to peripheral artery disease as a cardiovascular complication of type 2 diabetes (5). In addition to being an important risk factor for the development of CHF, diabetes also imparts a significant prognostic disadvantage to patients with established CHF (6-8). In a large prospective cohort study specifically designed to examine prognostic factors in CHF associated with

No abstract

Background: Systematic conservation planning is a discipline concerned with the prioritisation of resources for biodiversity conservation and is often used in the design or assessment of terrestrial and marine protected area networks. Despite being an evidence-based discipline, to date there has been no comprehensive review of the outcomes of systematic conservation plans and assessments of the relative effectiveness of applications in different contexts. To address this fundamental gap in knowledge, our primary research question was: what is the extent, distribution and robustness of evidence on conservation outcomes of systematic conservation planning around the globe?Methods: A systematic mapping exercise was undertaken using standardised search terms across 29 sources, including publication databases, online repositories and a wide range of grey literature sources. The review team screened articles recursively, first by title only, then abstract and finally by full-text, using inclusion criteria related to systematic conservation plans conducted at sub-global scales and reported on since 1983. We sought studies that reported outcomes relating to natural, human, social, financial or institutional outcomes and which employed robust evaluation study designs. The following information was extracted from included studies: bibliographic details, background information including location of study and broad objectives of the plan, study design, reported outcomes and context. Results:Of the approximately 10,000 unique articles returned through our searches, 1209 were included for full-text screening and 43 studies reported outcomes of conservation planning interventions. However, only three studies involved the use of evaluation study designs which are suitably rigorous for inclusion, according to best-practice guidelines. The three included studies were undertaken in the Gulf of California (Mexico), Réunion Island, and The Nature Conservancy's landholdings across the USA. The studies varied widely in context, purpose and outcomes. Study designs were non-experimental or qualitative, and involved use of spatial landholdings over time, stakeholder surveys and modelling of alternative planning scenarios. Conclusion:Rigorous evaluations of systematic conservation plans are currently not published in academic journals or made publicly available elsewhere. Despite frequent claims relating to positive implications and outcomes of these planning activities, we show that evaluations are probably rarely conducted. This finding does not imply systematic conservation planning is not effective but highlights a significant gap in our understanding of how, when and why it may or may not be effective. Our results also corroborate claims that the literature on systematic conservation planning is dominated by methodological studies, rather than those that focus on implementation and outcomes, and support the case that this is a problematic imbalance in the literature. We emphasise the need for academics and practitioners to publish the...

No abstract