Modeling protected species distributions and habitats to inform siting and management of pioneering ocean industries: A case study for Gulf of Mexico aquaculture.

Marine Spatial Planning (MSP) provides a process that uses spatial data and models to evaluate environmental, social, economic, cultural, and management trade-offs when siting (i.e., strategically locating) ocean industries. Aquaculture is the fastest-growing food sector in the world. The United States (U.S.) has substantial opportunity for offshore aquaculture development given the size of its exclusive economic zone, habitat diversity, and variety of candidate species for cultivation. However, promising aquaculture areas overlap many protected species habitats. Aquaculture siting surveys, construction, operations, and decommissioning can alter protected species habitat and behavior. Additionally, aquaculture-associated vessel activity, underwater noise, and physical interactions between protected species and farms can increase the risk of injury and mortality. In 2020, the U.S. Gulf of Mexico was identified as one of the first regions to be evaluated for offshore aquaculture opportunities as directed by a Presidential Executive Order. We developed a transparent and repeatable method to identify aquaculture opportunity areas (AOAs) with the least conflict with protected species. First, we developed a generalized scoring approach for protected species that captures their vulnerability to adverse effects from anthropogenic activities using conservation status and demographic information. Next, we applied this approach to data layers for eight species listed under the Endangered Species Act, including five species of sea turtles, Rice's whale, smalltooth sawfish, and giant manta ray. Next, we evaluated four methods for mathematically combining scores (i.e., Arithmetic mean, Geometric mean, Product, Lowest Scoring layer) to generate a combined protected species data layer. The Product approach provided the most logical ordering of, and the greatest contrast in, site suitability scores. Finally, we integrated the combined protected species data layer into a multi-criteria decision-making modeling framework for MSP. This process identified AOAs with reduced potential for protected species conflict. These modeling methods are transferable to other regions, to other sensitive or protected species, and for spatial planning for other ocean-uses.

Supporting Spartina: Interdisciplinary perspective shows Spartina as a distinct solid genus.

In 2014, a DNA-based phylogenetic study confirming the paraphyly of the grass subtribe Sporobolinae proposed the creation of a large monophyletic genus Sporobolus, including (among others) species previously included in the genera Spartina, Calamovilfa, and Sporobolus. Spartina species have contributed substantially (and continue contributing) to our knowledge in multiple disciplines, including ecology, evolutionary biology, molecular biology, biogeography, experimental ecology, biological invasions, environmental management, restoration ecology, history, economics, and sociology. There is no rationale so compelling to subsume the name Spartina as a subgenus that could rival the striking, global iconic history and use of the name Spartina for over 200 yr. We do not agree with the subjective arguments underlying the proposal to change Spartina to Sporobolus. We understand the importance of both the objective phylogenetic insights and of the subjective formalized nomenclature and hope that by opening this debate we will encourage positive feedback that will strengthen taxonomic decisions with an interdisciplinary perspective. We consider that the strongly distinct, monophyletic clade Spartina should simply and efficiently be treated as the genus Spartina.

The treatment of primary central nervous system lymphoma in 122 immunocompetent patients: a population-based study of successively treated cohorts from the British Colombia Cancer Agency.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to evaluate the clinical outcome of a population-based cohort of immunocompetent patients with primary central nervous system lymphoma (PCNSL) treated with 3 different strategies over 13 years. METHODS: One hundred twenty-two consecutive patients (median age, 66 years) with PCNSL were identified. Three treatment strategies were employed: 1) whole-brain irradiation with (from January, 1990, to June, 1991) or without (from April, 1995, to December, 1999) cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (CHOP)-type chemotherapy (n=50 patients); 2) combined-modality therapy, including 1 g/m2 methotrexate plus whole-brain irradiation (from July, 1991, to March, 1995; n=34 patients); and 3) 8 g/m2 methotrexate alone (from January, 2000, to March, 2003) with whole-brain irradiation reserved for those with progressive disease (n=38 patients). Treatment failure was defined as progressive disease, disease recurrence, death from toxicity or lymphoma, or toxicity that necessitated a change in primary treatment. RESULTS: The median failure-free survival was 7 months, and the median overall survival (OS) was 17 months. The median OS was similar in all 3 eras. In this population-based analysis, one-third of patients did not receive the treatment strategy of the era. Therefore, the data also were analyzed by treatment received. On multivariate analysis (including era of treatment), 3 factors-age > 60 years, lactate dehydrogenase > normal, and omission of methotrexate-were associated significantly with poorer OS (hazard ratio: 2.3, 2.2, and 2.3, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Outcomes for a general population with PCNSL remained constant despite different treatment strategies over three eras. For the two-thirds of patients who could receive potentially curative treatment, age, lactate dehydrogenase level, and receipt of > or = 1 g/m2 methotrexate appeared to be important determinants of OS.