Precision, Applicability, and Economic Implications: A Comparison of Alternative Biodiversity Offset Indexes.

The rates of ecosystem degradation and biodiversity loss are alarming and current conservation efforts are not sufficient to stop them. The need for new tools is urgent. One approach is biodiversity offsetting: a developer causing habitat degradation provides an improvement in biodiversity so that the lost ecological value is compensated for. Accurate and ecologically meaningful measurement of losses and estimation of gains are essential in reaching the no net loss goal or any other desired outcome of biodiversity offsetting. The chosen calculation method strongly influences biodiversity outcomes. We compare a multiplicative method, which is based on a habitat condition index developed for measuring the state of ecosystems in Finland to two alternative approaches for building a calculation method: an additive function and a simpler matrix tool. We examine the different logic of each method by comparing the resulting trade ratios and examine the costs of offsetting for developers, which allows us to compare the cost-effectiveness of different types of offsets. The results show that the outcomes of the calculation methods differ in many aspects. The matrix approach is not able to consider small changes in the ecological state. The additive method gives always higher biodiversity values compared to the multiplicative method. The multiplicative method tends to require larger trade ratios than the additive method when trade ratios are larger than one. Using scoring intervals instead of using continuous components may increase the difference between the methods. In addition, the calculation methods have differences in dealing with the issue of substitutability.

Early alterations in cortical and cerebellar regional brain growth in Down Syndrome: An in vivo fetal and neonatal MRI assessment.

Down Syndrome (DS) is the most frequent genetic cause of intellectual disability with a wide spectrum of neurodevelopmental outcomes. At present, the relationship between structural brain morphology and the spectrum of cognitive phenotypes in DS, is not well understood. This study aimed to quantify the development of the fetal and neonatal brain in DS participants, with and without a congenital cardiac defect compared with a control population using dedicated, optimised and motion-corrected in vivo magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). We detected deviations in development and altered regional brain growth in the fetus with DS from 21 weeks' gestation, when compared to age-matched controls. Reduced cerebellar volume was apparent in the second trimester with significant alteration in cortical growth becoming evident during the third trimester. Developmental abnormalities in the cortex and cerebellum are likely substrates for later neurocognitive impairment, and ongoing studies will allow us to confirm the role of antenatal MRI as an early biomarker for subsequent cognitive ability in DS. In the era of rapidly developing technologies, we believe that the results of this study will assist counselling for prospective parents.