Metrics of progress in the understanding and management of threats to Australian birds.

Although evidence-based approaches have become commonplace for determining the success of conservation measures for the management of threatened taxa, there are no standard metrics for assessing progress in research or management. We developed 5 metrics to meet this need for threatened taxa and to quantify the need for further action and effective alleviation of threats. These metrics (research need, research achievement, management need, management achievement, and percent threat reduction) can be aggregated to examine trends for an individual taxon or for threats across multiple taxa. We tested the utility of these metrics by applying them to Australian threatened birds, which appears to be the first time that progress in research and management of threats has been assessed for all threatened taxa in a faunal group at a continental scale. Some research has been conducted on nearly three-quarters of known threats to taxa, and there is a clear understanding of how to alleviate nearly half of the threats with the highest impact. Some management has been attempted on nearly half the threats. Management outcomes ranged from successful trials to complete mitigation of the threat, including for one-third of high-impact threats. Progress in both research and management tended to be greater for taxa that were monitored or occurred on oceanic islands. Predation by cats had the highest potential threat score. However, there has been some success reducing the impact of cat predation, so climate change (particularly drought), now poses the greatest threat to Australian threatened birds. Our results demonstrate the potential for the proposed metrics to encapsulate the major trends in research and management of both threats and threatened taxa and provide a basis for international comparisons of evidence-based conservation science.

Medidas de Progreso en el Entendimiento y el Manejo de las Amenazas que Enfrentan las Aves Australianas Resumen Aunque los métodos basados en evidencias se han vuelto muy comunes para la determinación del éxito de las medidas de conservación del manejo de los taxones amenazados, hoy en día no existen medidas estandarizadas para la evaluación del progreso de la investigación o el manejo. Desarrollamos cinco medidas para cumplir con esta necesidad que tienen los taxones amenazados y para cuantificar la necesidad de una mayor acción y un alivio efectivo de las amenazas. Estas medidas (falta de investigación, éxito de la investigación, falta de manejo, éxito del manejo y porcentaje de reducción de amenazas) pueden agregarse para examinar las tendencias de un taxón individual o las tendencias de las amenazas para múltiples taxones. Probamos la utilidad de estas medidas por medio de su aplicación en aves australianas amenazadas, que parece ser la primera vez que se evalúa el progreso en la investigación y en el manejo de amenazas para el caso de varios taxones amenazados dentro de un grupo faunístico a escala continental. Se ha realizado algún tipo de investigación sobre casi tres cuartas partes de las amenazas conocidas para los taxones, y hay un claro entendimiento de cómo aliviar casi la mitad de las amenazas con el impacto más alto. Se ha intentado algún tipo de manejo con casi la mitad de las amenazas. Los resultados del manejo variaron desde ensayos exitosos hasta la mitigación completa de la amenaza, incluso para un tercio de las amenazas de alto impacto. Tanto el progreso en la investigación como en el manejo tendió a ser mayor para los taxones que estaban siendo monitoreados, o que ocurrían en islas oceánicas. La depredación por gatos tuvo el puntaje más como amenaza potencial. Sin embargo, ha habido poco de éxito en la reducción del impacto de la depredación por gatos, así que ahora el cambio climático (particularmente la sequía) es la mayor amenaza para las aves amenazadas en Australia. Nuestros resultados demuestran el potencial que tienen las medidas propuestas de encapsular las tendencias más importantes en la investigación y en el manejo tanto de las amenazas como de los taxones amenazados y de proporcionar una base para comparaciones internacionales de la ciencia de la conservación basada en evidencias.

Comparison of the erythrocyte sedimentation rate measured in the eye casualty department by the Seditainer method with an automated system.

PURPOSE: To compare a new automated system for the measurement of erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) with the established manual Seditainer method. METHODS: Two hundred and twelve patients undergoing investigation for giant cell arteritis or other systemic vasculitides had ESR measurements by both the established manual Seditainer and the new laboratory-based automated system. The results were compared by correlation coefficient and mean difference. The limits of agreement with confidence intervals were also calculated. RESULTS: Across the range of results from 1 to 120 mm/h, the correlation coefficient was 0.844. The automated method had a mean negative bias of -9.8 mm/h (95% confidence interval: -12.2 to -7.4 mm/h). The wide scatter of results produced limits of agreement (+/- 2 standard deviations) between the two methods of -45 to 26 mm/h. There were seven results that were underestimated by the automated system which were clinically significant. CONCLUSIONS: There is a wide degree of scatter between the two sets of results. The automated system has a negative bias when compared with the manual method. There is a propensity for the automated system to sporadically underestimate the true result, sometimes to a degree that is clinically significant. The authors therefore cannot recommend replacement of the manual Seditainer system at the present time.