Anthropogenic climate and land-use change drive short- and long-term biodiversity shifts across taxa.

Climate change and habitat loss present serious threats to nature. Yet, due to a lack of historical land-use data, the potential for land-use change and baseline land-use conditions to interact with a changing climate to affect biodiversity remains largely unknown. Here, we use historical land use, climate data and species observation data to investigate the patterns and causes of biodiversity change in Great Britain. We show that anthropogenic climate change and land conversion have broadly led to increased richness, biotic homogenization and warmer-adapted communities of British birds, butterflies and plants over the long term (50+ years) and short term (20 years). Biodiversity change was found to be largely determined by baseline environmental conditions of land use and climate, especially over shorter timescales, suggesting that biodiversity change in recent periods could reflect an inertia derived from past environmental changes. Climate-land-use interactions were mostly related to long-term change in species richness and beta diversity across taxa. Semi-natural grasslands (in a broad sense, including meadows, pastures, lowland and upland heathlands and open wetlands) were associated with lower rates of biodiversity change, while their contribution to national-level biodiversity doubled over the long term. Our findings highlight the need to protect and restore natural and semi-natural habitats, alongside a fuller consideration of individual species' requirements beyond simple measures of species richness in biodiversity management and policy.

Linking climate warming and land conversion to species' range changes across Great Britain.

Although increased temperatures are known to reinforce the effects of habitat destruction at local to landscape scales, evidence of their additive or interactive effects is limited, particularly over larger spatial extents and longer timescales. To address these deficiencies, we created a dataset of land-use changes over 75 years, documenting the loss of over half (>3000 km2) the semi-natural grassland of Great Britain. Pairing this dataset with climate change data, we tested for relationships to distribution changes in birds, butterflies, macromoths, and plants (n = 1192 species total). We show that individual or additive effects of climate warming and land conversion unambiguously increased persistence probability for 40% of species, and decreased it for 12%, and these effects were reflected in both range contractions and expansions. Interactive effects were relatively rare, being detected in less than 1 in 5 species, and their overall effect on extinction risk was often weak. Such individualistic responses emphasise the importance of including species-level information in policies targeting biodiversity and climate adaptation.

A taxonomic, genetic and ecological data resource for the vascular plants of Britain and Ireland.

The vascular flora of Britain and Ireland is among the most extensively studied in the world, but the current knowledge base is fragmentary, with taxonomic, ecological and genetic information scattered across different resources. Here we present the first comprehensive data repository of native and alien species optimized for fast and easy online access for ecological, evolutionary and conservation analyses. The inventory is based on the most recent reference flora of Britain and Ireland, with taxon names linked to unique Kew taxon identifiers and DNA barcode data. Our data resource for 3,227 species and 26 traits includes existing and unpublished genome sizes, chromosome numbers and life strategy and life-form assessments, along with existing data on functional traits, species distribution metrics, hybrid propensity, associated biomes, realized niche description, native status and geographic origin of alien species. This resource will facilitate both fundamental and applied research and enhance our understanding of the flora's composition and temporal changes to inform conservation efforts in the face of ongoing climate change and biodiversity loss.

The design, launch and assessment of a new volunteer-based plant monitoring scheme for the United Kingdom.

Volunteer-based plant monitoring in the UK has focused mainly on distribution mapping; there has been less emphasis on the collection of data on plant communities and habitats. Abundance data provide different insights into ecological pattern and allow for more powerful inference when considering environmental change. Abundance monitoring for other groups of organisms is well-established in the UK, e.g. for birds and butterflies, and conservation agencies have long desired comparable schemes for plants. We describe a new citizen science scheme for the UK (the 'National Plant Monitoring Scheme'; NPMS), with the primary aim of monitoring the abundance of plants at small scales. Scheme development emphasised volunteer flexibility through scheme co-creation and feedback, whilst retaining a rigorous approach to design. Sampling frameworks, target habitats and species, field methods and power are all described. We also evaluate several outcomes of the scheme design process, including: (i) landscape-context bias in the first two years of the scheme; (ii) the ability of different sets of indicator species to capture the main ecological gradients of UK vegetation; and, (iii) species richness bias in returns relative to a professional survey. Survey rates have been promising (over 60% of squares released have been surveyed), although upland squares are under-represented. Ecological gradients present in an ordination of an independent, unbiased, national survey were well-represented by NPMS indicator species, although further filtering to an entry-level set of easily identifiable species degraded signal in an ordination axis representing succession and disturbance. Comparison with another professional survey indicated that different biases might be present at different levels of participation within the scheme. Understanding the strengths and limitations of the NPMS will guide development, increase trust in outputs, and direct efforts for maintaining volunteer interest, as well as providing a set of ideas for other countries to experiment with.

Ultrasound guidance for upper and lower limb blocks.

BACKGROUND: Peripheral nerve blocks can be performed using ultrasound guidance. It is not yet clear whether this method of nerve location has benefits over other existing methods. This review was originally published in 2009 and was updated in 2014. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review was to assess whether the use of ultrasound to guide peripheral nerve blockade has any advantages over other methods of peripheral nerve location. Specifically, we have asked whether the use of ultrasound guidance:1. improves success rates and effectiveness of regional anaesthetic blocks, by increasing the number of blocks that are assessed as adequate2. reduces the complications, such as cardiorespiratory arrest, pneumothorax or vascular puncture, associated with the performance of regional anaesthetic blocks SEARCH METHODS: In the 2014 update we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2014, Issue 8); MEDLINE (July 2008 to August 2014); EMBASE (July 2008 to August 2014); ISI Web of Science (2008 to April 2013); CINAHL (July 2014); and LILACS (July 2008 to August 2014). We completed forward and backward citation and clinical trials register searches.The original search was to July 2008. We reran the search in May 2015. We have added 11 potential new studies of interest to the list of 'Studies awaiting classification' and will incorporate them into the formal review findings during future review updates. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing ultrasound-guided peripheral nerve block of the upper and lower limbs, alone or combined, with at least one other method of nerve location. In the 2014 update, we excluded studies that had given general anaesthetic, spinal, epidural or other nerve blocks to all participants, as well as those measuring the minimum effective dose of anaesthetic drug. This resulted in the exclusion of five studies from the original review. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures, including an assessment of risk of bias and degree of practitioner experience for all studies. MAIN RESULTS: We included 32 RCTs with 2844 adult participants. Twenty-six assessed upper-limb and six assessed lower-limb blocks. Seventeen compared ultrasound with peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS), and nine compared ultrasound combined with nerve stimulation (US + NS) against PNS alone. Two studies compared ultrasound with anatomical landmark technique, one with a transarterial approach, and three were three-arm designs that included US, US + PNS and PNS.There were variations in the quality of evidence, with a lack of detail in many of the studies to judge whether randomization, allocation concealment and blinding of outcome assessors was sufficient. It was not possible to blind practitioners and there was therefore a high risk of performance bias across all studies, leading us to downgrade the evidence for study limitations using GRADE. There was insufficient detail on the experience and expertise of practitioners and whether experience was equivalent between intervention and control.We performed meta-analysis for our main outcomes. We found that ultrasound guidance produces superior peripheral nerve block success rates, with more blocks being assessed as sufficient for surgery following sensory or motor testing (Mantel-Haenszel (M-H) odds ratio (OR), fixed-effect 2.94 (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.14 to 4.04); 1346 participants), and fewer blocks requiring supplementation or conversion to general anaesthetic (M-H OR, fixed-effect 0.28 (95% CI 0.20 to 0.39); 1807 participants) compared with the use of PNS, anatomical landmark techniques or a transarterial approach. We were not concerned by risks of indirectness, imprecision or inconsistency for these outcomes and used GRADE to assess these outcomes as being of moderate quality. Results were similarly advantageous for studies comparing US + PNS with NS alone for the above outcomes (M-H OR, fixed-effect 3.33 (95% CI 2.13 to 5.20); 719 participants, and M-H OR, fixed-effect 0.34 (95% CI 0.21 to 0.56); 712 participants respectively). There were lower incidences of paraesthesia in both the ultrasound comparison groups (M-H OR, fixed-effect 0.42 (95% CI 0.23 to 0.76); 471 participants, and M-H OR, fixed-effect 0.97 (95% CI 0.30 to 3.12); 178 participants respectively) and lower incidences of vascular puncture in both groups (M-H OR, fixed-effect 0.19 (95% CI 0.07 to 0.57); 387 participants, and M-H OR, fixed-effect 0.22 (95% CI 0.05 to 0.90); 143 participants). There were fewer studies for these outcomes and we therefore downgraded both for imprecision and paraesthesia for potential publication bias. This gave an overall GRADE assessment of very low and low for these two outcomes respectively. Our analysis showed that it took less time to perform nerve blocks in the ultrasound group (mean difference (MD), IV, fixed-effect -1.06 (95% CI -1.41 to -0.72); 690 participants) but more time to perform the block when ultrasound was combined with a PNS technique (MD, IV, fixed-effect 0.76 (95% CI 0.55 to 0.98); 587 participants). With high levels of unexplained statistical heterogeneity, we graded this outcome as very low quality. We did not combine data for other outcomes as study results had been reported using differing scales or with a combination of mean and median data, but our interpretation of individual study data favoured ultrasound for a reduction in other minor complications and reduction in onset time of block and number of attempts to perform block. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is evidence that peripheral nerve blocks performed by ultrasound guidance alone, or in combination with PNS, are superior in terms of improved sensory and motor block, reduced need for supplementation and fewer minor complications reported. Using ultrasound alone shortens performance time when compared with nerve stimulation, but when used in combination with PNS it increases performance time.We were unable to determine whether these findings reflect the use of ultrasound in experienced hands and it was beyond the scope of this review to consider the learning curve associated with peripheral nerve blocks by ultrasound technique compared with other methods.

Horizon scanning for invasive alien species with the potential to threaten biodiversity in Great Britain.

Invasive alien species (IAS) are considered one of the greatest threats to biodiversity, particularly through their interactions with other drivers of change. Horizon scanning, the systematic examination of future potential threats and opportunities, leading to prioritization of IAS threats is seen as an essential component of IAS management. Our aim was to consider IAS that were likely to impact on native biodiversity but were not yet established in the wild in Great Britain. To achieve this, we developed an approach which coupled consensus methods (which have previously been used for collaboratively identifying priorities in other contexts) with rapid risk assessment. The process involved two distinct phases: Preliminary consultation with experts within five groups (plants, terrestrial invertebrates, freshwater invertebrates, vertebrates and marine species) to derive ranked lists of potential IAS. Consensus-building across expert groups to compile and rank the entire list of potential IAS. Five hundred and ninety-one species not native to Great Britain were considered. Ninety-three of these species were agreed to constitute at least a medium risk (based on score and consensus) with respect to them arriving, establishing and posing a threat to native biodiversity. The quagga mussel, Dreissena rostriformis bugensis, received maximum scores for risk of arrival, establishment and impact; following discussions the unanimous consensus was to rank it in the top position. A further 29 species were considered to constitute a high risk and were grouped according to their ranked risk. The remaining 63 species were considered as medium risk, and included in an unranked long list. The information collated through this novel extension of the consensus method for horizon scanning provides evidence for underpinning and prioritizing management both for the species and, perhaps more importantly, their pathways of arrival. Although our study focused on Great Britain, we suggest that the methods adopted are applicable globally.

Protected areas facilitate species' range expansions.

The benefits of protected areas (PAs) for biodiversity have been questioned in the context of climate change because PAs are static, whereas the distributions of species are dynamic. Current PAs may, however, continue to be important if they provide suitable locations for species to colonize at their leading-edge range boundaries, thereby enabling spread into new regions. Here, we present an empirical assessment of the role of PAs as targets for colonization during recent range expansions. Records from intensive surveys revealed that seven bird and butterfly species have colonized PAs 4.2 (median) times more frequently than expected from the availability of PAs in the landscapes colonized. Records of an additional 256 invertebrate species with less-intensive surveys supported these findings and showed that 98% of species are disproportionately associated with PAs in newly colonized parts of their ranges. Although colonizing species favor PAs in general, species vary greatly in their reliance on PAs, reflecting differences in the dependence of individual species on particular habitats and other conditions that are available only in PAs. These findings highlight the importance of current PAs for facilitating range expansions and show that a small subset of the landscape receives a high proportion of colonizations by range-expanding species.

Wildlife-friendly farming benefits rare birds, bees and plants.

Agricultural intensification is a leading cause of global biodiversity loss, especially for threatened and near-threatened species. One widely implemented response is 'wildlife-friendly farming', involving the close integration of conservation and extensive farming practices within agricultural landscapes. However, the putative benefits from this controversial policy are currently either unknown or thought unlikely to extend to rare and declining species. Here, we show that new, evidence-based approaches to habitat creation on intensively managed farmland in England can achieve large increases in plant, bee and bird species. In particular, we found that habitat enhancement methods designed to provide the requirements of sensitive target biota consistently increased the richness and abundance of both rare and common species, with 10-fold to greater than 100-fold more rare species per sample area than generalized conventional conservation measures. Furthermore, targeting landscapes of high species richness amplified beneficial effects on the least mobile taxa: plants and bees. Our results provide the first unequivocal support for a national wildlife-friendly farming policy and suggest that this approach should be implemented much more extensively to address global biodiversity loss. However, to be effective, these conservation measures must be evidence-based, and developed using sound knowledge of the ecological requirements of key species.

Premedication for anxiety in adult day surgery.

BACKGROUND: Since the early 1980s, it has become more and more common to carry out surgical procedures on a day case basis. Many patients are anxious before surgery yet there is sometimes a reluctance to provide sedative medication because it is believed to delay discharge from hospital.This is an updated version of the review first published in 2000 (previous updates 2003; 2006). OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of anxiolytic premedication on time to discharge in adult patients undergoing day case surgery under general anaesthesia. SEARCH STRATEGY: We identified trials by computerized searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, 2009 Issue 1 ); MEDLINE (1980 to January 2009); EMBASE (1980 to January 2009). We also checked the reference lists of trials and review articles and handsearched three main anaesthesia journals. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all identified randomized controlled trials comparing anxiolytic drug(s) with placebo before general anaesthesia in adult day case surgical patients. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We collected data on anaesthetic drugs used; results of psychomotor function tests where these were used to assess residual effect of premedication; and on times from end of anaesthesia to ability to walk unaided or readiness for discharge from hospital. Formal statistical synthesis of individual trials was not performed in view of the variety of drugs studied. MAIN RESULTS: We included 17 studies. Methodological quality of included studies was poor. Of these 17, only seven studies specifically addressed the discharge question; none found any delay in premedicated patients. Two other studies used clinical criteria to assess fitness for discharge, though times were not given. Again, there was no difference from placebo. Eleven studies used tests of psychomotor function with or without clinical measures as indicators of recovery from anaesthesia. In none of these studies did the premedication appear to delay discharge, although performance on tests of psychomotor function was sometimes still impaired. Three studies showed no impairment in psychomotor function, six showed some impairment which had resolved by three hours or time of discharge and two showed significant impairment. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence of a difference in time to discharge from hospital, assessed by clinical criteria, in patients who received anxiolytic premedication. However, in view of the age and variety of anaesthetic techniques used and clinical heterogeneity between studies, inferences for current day case practice should be made with caution.

Ultrasound guidance for peripheral nerve blockade.

BACKGROUND: Peripheral nerve blocks can be performed using ultrasound guidance. It is not yet clear whether this method of nerve location has benefits over other existing methods. OBJECTIVES: To assess whether the use of ultrasound to guide peripheral nerve blockade has any advantages over other methods of peripheral nerve location. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the following databases for relevant published trials: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2008, Issue 3); MEDLINE (1966 to July 2008); EMBASE (1974 to July 2008); ISI Web of Science (1945 to 2008 ); CINAHL (1982 to July 2008); and LILACS (1980 to July 2008). We also handsearched meeting supplements. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all identified randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing ultrasound-guided peripheral nerve block with at least one other method of nerve location. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We attempted to contact study authors for additional information, where necessary. MAIN RESULTS: We included 18 trials containing data from 1344 patients. Ten trials assessed upper limb blocks and eight assessed lower limb blocks. Most compared ultrasound with peripheral nerve stimulation. All trials were assessed as having a moderate risk of bias due to inability to blind the practitioner. Meta-analysis was not performed because of the variety of blocks, techniques, and outcomes, and the review was based on the authors' assessment of the trials. Ultrasound guidance produced similar success rates in providing surgical anaesthesia (72% to 98.8%) when compared with peripheral nerve stimulation (58% to 93.1%). Major complication rates were low in all studies; however, the use of ultrasound appeared to reduce the incidence of vascular puncture or haematoma formation. Differences in study methodology made it difficult to compare block characteristics, however ultrasound improved quality of sensory block in six studies and motor block in four studies. Block onset time was found to be improved in six out of the 10 studies where this was assessed. Two studies assessed volume of local anaesthetic required and both found a significant reduction was possible when ultrasound was used. Ten studies assessed block performance time and five found a significant reduction with ultrasound, the mean difference in time taken was 1.5 to 4.8 minutes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In experienced hands, ultrasound provides at least as good success rates as other methods of peripheral nerve location. Individual studies have demonstrated that ultrasound may reduce complication rates and improve quality, performance time, and time to onset of blocks. Due to wide variations in study outcomes we chose not to combine the studies in our analysis.