scholarly journals On the efficacy of restoration in stream networks: comments, critiques, and prospective recommendations

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Murray-Stoker
Keyword(s):  
Temporal Variability ◽  
Restoration Ecology ◽  
Headwater Streams ◽  
Statistical Tests ◽  
Secondary Analysis ◽  
Environmental Filtering ◽  
Taxonomic Richness ◽  
Stream Network ◽  
Differential Effects ◽  
Local Diversity

ABSTRACTSwan and Brown (2017) recently addressed the effects of restoration on stream communities under the meta-community framework. Using a combination of headwater and mainstem streams, Swan and Brown (2017) evaluated how position within a stream network affected the outcome of restoration on invertebrate communities. Ostensibly, their hypotheses were partially supported as restoration had stronger effects in headwater streams: invertebrate taxonomic richness was increased and temporal variability decreased in restored reaches; however, these results were not consistent upon closer scrutiny for both the original paper (Swan and Brown 2017) and the later erratum (Swan and Brown 2018). Here, I provide a secondary analysis of the data, with hypotheses and interpretations in the context of stream, meta-community, and restoration ecology. Swan and Brown (2017, 2018) evaluated the effect of restoration on sites receiving various combinations of in-channel manipulation and riparian reforestation treatments. Given the difference in the relative importance of environmental filtering and dispersal between headwaters and mainstems and the structure of river networks, I contend that different restoration treatments have differential effects between headwaters and mainstems. I hypothesized in-channel manipulations would have more consistent effects between headwaters and mainstems compared to riparian reforestation, and I used this hypothesis to guide site selection in the re-analysis. I then compared results from the re-analysis to those presented by Swan and Brown (2017, 2018). I did not find any effects of restoration on local diversity, spatial dissimilarity, or temporal variability, let alone differential effects of restoration between headwaters and mainstems; these results are contrary Swan and Brown (2017, 2018), who reported that restoration increased taxonomic richness, increased spatial dissimilarity, and decreased temporal variability in restored headwater streams. I demonstrate further that the statistical tests conducted by Swan and Brown (2017, 2018) were invalid and, therefore, recommend the use of the results presented here. More broadly, I suggest, in agreement with Swan and Brown (2017, 2018) and a growing body of research, that river and stream restoration will likely have greater success if a regional approach is taken to designing and implementing restoration projects.

scholarly journals Solutions in microbiome engineering: prioritizing barriers to organism establishment

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michaeline B. N. Albright ◽  
Stilianos Louca ◽  
Daniel E. Winkler ◽  
Kelli L. Feeser ◽  
Sarah-Jane Haig ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Microbial Community ◽  
Ecosystem Function ◽  
Restoration Ecology ◽  
Propagule Pressure ◽  
Environmental Filtering ◽  
Biotic Interactions ◽  
Invasion Biology ◽  
Engineering Research

AbstractMicrobiome engineering is increasingly being employed as a solution to challenges in health, agriculture, and climate. Often manipulation involves inoculation of new microbes designed to improve function into a preexisting microbial community. Despite, increased efforts in microbiome engineering inoculants frequently fail to establish and/or confer long-lasting modifications on ecosystem function. We posit that one underlying cause of these shortfalls is the failure to consider barriers to organism establishment. This is a key challenge and focus of macroecology research, specifically invasion biology and restoration ecology. We adopt a framework from invasion biology that summarizes establishment barriers in three categories: (1) propagule pressure, (2) environmental filtering, and (3) biotic interactions factors. We suggest that biotic interactions is the most neglected factor in microbiome engineering research, and we recommend a number of actions to accelerate engineering solutions.

The Impact of Primary Care Providers’ Bias on Depression Screening for Lesbian Women

2021 ◽  
pp. 152483992110660
Author(s):  
Shuying Sha ◽  
Mollie Aleshire
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Statistical Tests ◽  
Secondary Analysis ◽  
Primary Care Providers ◽  
Depression Screening ◽  
Lesbian Women ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Explicit Bias ◽  
Implicit And Explicit ◽  
The Impact

Primary care providers’ (PCPs) implicit and explicit bias can adversely affect health outcomes of lesbian women including their mental health. Practice guidelines recommend universal screening for depression in primary care settings, yet the guidelines often are not followed. The intersection of PCPs’ implicit and explicit bias toward lesbian women may lead to even lower screening and diagnosis of depression in the lesbian population than in the general population. The purpose of this secondary analysis was to examine the relationship between PCPs’ implicit and explicit bias toward lesbian women and their recommendations for depression screening in this population. PCPs ( n = 195) in Kentucky completed a survey that included bias measures and screening recommendations for a simulated lesbian patient. Bivariate inferential statistical tests were conducted to compare the implicit and explicit bias scores of PCPs who recommended depression screening and those who did not. PCPs who recommended depression screening demonstrated more positive explicit attitudes toward lesbian women ( p < .05) and their implicit bias scores were marginally lower than the providers who did not recommend depression screening (p = .068). Implications for practice: Depression screening rates may be even lower for lesbian women due to implicit and explicit bias toward this population. Training to increase providers’ awareness of bias and its harm is the first step to improve primary care for lesbian women. Policies must protect against discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity.

scholarly journals Health Coaching Has Differential Effects on Veterans with Limited Health Literacy and Numeracy: a Secondary Analysis of ACTIVATE

2019 ◽  
Vol 34 (4) ◽  
pp. 552-558
Author(s):  
Sarah S. Nouri ◽  
Laura J. Damschroder ◽  
Maren K. Olsen ◽  
Jennifer M. Gierisch ◽  
Angela Fagerlin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Literacy ◽  
Secondary Analysis ◽  
Health Coaching ◽  
Limited Health Literacy ◽  
Differential Effects ◽  
Limited Health

The Differential Effects of an Opt-Out HIV Testing Policy for Pregnant Women in Ethiopia When Accounting for Stigma: Secondary Analysis of DHS Data

2016 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 245-252
Author(s):  
Michelle R. Kaufman ◽  
Alyssa Mooney ◽  
Lakew Abebe Gebretsadik ◽  
Morankar N. Sudhakar ◽  
Rachel Rieder ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pregnant Women ◽  
Hiv Testing ◽  
Secondary Analysis ◽  
Differential Effects ◽  
Opt Out

Mass Effects

Ecology ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jani Heino ◽  
Luis Mauricio Bini
Keyword(s):  
Environmental Filtering ◽  
Biotic Interactions ◽  
Alpha Diversity ◽  
Suitable Habitat ◽  
Habitat Patches ◽  
Mass Effects ◽  
Local Diversity ◽  
Complex Interactions ◽  
High Dispersal ◽  
Local And Regional Processes

In the last two decades, community ecology has matured to consider biotic communities as a product of both local and regional processes. Therefore, local communities are currently thought to be connected by the dispersal of organisms, thereby forming a metacommunity. A metacommunity is organized by multiple processes, including environmental filtering, biotic interactions, dispersal, and ecological drift. Thus, spatial variations in local diversity (i.e., alpha diversity) and community composition (i.e., beta diversity) result from the relative roles of these major processes. In turn, these processes are mediated by organisms’ characteristics, environmental heterogeneity, and the connectivity between localities in a metacommunity. For a given environmental gradient, the role of environmental filtering is likely to be dependent on the dispersal rates shown by organisms. Unsuitable habitat patches (i.e., sinks), in terms of biotic and abiotic characteristics, may be occupied by different species due to high dispersal rates from suitable habitat patches (i.e., sources). Thus, mass effects occur when species are established at localities where their populations cannot be self-maintained. Even though it may be difficult to prove the action of mass effects per se, given the complex interactions between different mechanisms shaping biotic communities, there is some empirical evidence supporting their importance in nature. In addition, high dispersal rates that lead to mass effects may have important implications for biomonitoring and biodiversity conservation. This is because species occurring at sites beyond their niche requirements may provide false information about a site’s ecological quality or result in misleading plans to conserve species at sites where they cannot persist in the absence of continuous influx of propagules.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document