Assessing Compensatory Versus Additive Harvest Mortality: An Example Using Greater Sage-Grouse

ABSTRACT We used band-recovery data from 2 populations of greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus), one in Colorado, USA, and another in Nevada, USA, to examine the relationship between harvest rates and annual survival. We used a Seber parameterization to estimate parameters for both populations. We estimated the process correlation between reporting rate and annual survival using Markov chain Monte Carlo methods implemented in Program MARK. If hunting mortality is additive to other mortality factors, then the process correlation between reporting and survival rates will be negative. Annual survival estimates for adult and juvenile greater sage-grouse in Nevada were 0.42±0.07 (x̄±SE) for both age classes, whereas estimates of reporting rate were 0.15±0.02 and 0.16±0.03 for the 2 age classes, respectively. For Colorado, average reporting rates were 0.14±0.016, 0.14±0.010, 0.19±0.014, and 0.18±0.014 for adult females, adult males, juvenile females, and juvenile males, respectively. Corresponding mean annual survival estimates were 0.59±0.01, 0.37±0.03, 0.78±0.01, and 0.64±0.03. Estimated process correlation between logit-transformed reporting and survival rates for greater sage-grouse in Colorado was ρ = 0.68±0.26, whereas that for Nevada was ρ = 0.04±0.58. We found no support for an additive effect of harvest on survival in either population, although the Nevada study likely had low power. This finding will assist mangers in establishing harvest regulations and otherwise managing greater sage-grouse populations.     

Disentangling stocking introgression and natural migration in brown trout: survival success and recruitment failure in populations with semi‐supportive breeding

1. Introgression into natural salmonid populations from stocked conspecifics has been widely studied. Outcomes vary from no effect even after decades of stocking, to population replacement after only a couple of generations. Potential introgression caused by semi‐supportive breeding (i.e. using a mixture of local strains as brood stock) is, however, less well studied. 2. We investigated population structure of brown trout (Salmo trutta) in a regulated alpine lake with three natural, environmentally contrasting tributaries used as spawning and rearing habitat. Massive semi‐supportive breeding of admixed local strains has been implemented for decades. Stocked trout represented c. 17% of the total lake population, and a substantial post‐release survival reflects a considerable potential for introgression. However, the mark‐recapture studies indicate no spawning runs of stocked fish. 3. Using 13 polymorphic microsatellite loci, we found natural straying and non‐native reproduction, especially among wild populations inhabiting environmentally unstable habitat. Retained genetic structure across tributaries indicated low reproductive success of wild‐born non‐natives. Moreover, the genetic structure among tributaries has probably not been influenced by semi‐supportive breeding, because of recruitment failure of stocked trout.     

The T-Cell Antigen Receptor: A Logical Response to an Unknown Ligand

The immune system can be roughly divided into innate and adaptive compartments. The adaptive compartment includes the B and T lymphocytes, whose antigen receptors are generated by recombination of gene segments. The consequence is that the creation of self-reactive lymphocytes is unavoidable. For the host to remain viable, the immune system has evolved a strategy for removing autoimmune lymphocytes during development. This review discusses how T lymphocytes are generated, how they recognize antigens, and how their antigen receptor directs the removal of self-reactive T cells.     

Indirect sperm transfer and male mating strategies in soil invertebrates

Summary

Many soil invertebrates transfer their sperm indirectly by means of spermatophores. Among the different taxa there is great variation in spermatophore architecture, auxiliary structures and behaviour. The behaviour, ranging from elaborate courtship rituals to seemingly indifferent scattering of spermatophores, can roughly be classified as association and dissociation. Which of the two is adaptive depends on many factors which can be summarized in a simple functional response model showing that in some cases the best choice depends on density.     

The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews

Matthew Page and co-authors describe PRISMA 2020, an updated reporting guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews.

Systematic reviews serve many critical roles. They can provide syntheses of the state of knowledge in a field, from which future research priorities can be identified; they can address questions that otherwise could not be answered by individual studies; they can identify problems in primary research that should be rectified in future studies; and they can generate or evaluate theories about how or why phenomena occur. Systematic reviews therefore generate various types of knowledge for different users of reviews (such as patients, healthcare providers, researchers, and policy makers).[1,2]To ensure a systematic review is valuable to users, authors should prepare a transparent, complete, and accurate account of why the review was done, what they did (such as how studies were identified and selected) and what they found (such as characteristics of contributing studies and results of meta-analyses). Up-to-date reporting guidance facilitates authors achieving this.[3]The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement published in 2009 (hereafter referred to as PRISMA 2009)[4–10] is a reporting guideline designed to address poor reporting of systematic reviews.[11] The PRISMA 2009 statement comprised a checklist of 27 items recommended for reporting in systematic reviews and an “explanation and elaboration” paper[12–16] providing additional reporting guidance for each item, along with exemplars of reporting. The recommendations have been widely endorsed and adopted, as evidenced by its co-publication in multiple journals, citation in over 60 000 reports (Scopus, August 2020), endorsement from almost 200 journals and systematic review organisations, and adoption in various disciplines. Evidence from observational studies suggests that use of the PRISMA 2009 statement is associated with more complete reporting of systematic reviews,[17–20] although more could be done to improve adherence to the guideline.[21]Many innovations in the conduct of systematic reviews have occurred since publication of the PRISMA 2009 statement. For example, technological advances have enabled the use of natural language processing and machine learning to identify relevant evidence,[22–24] methods have been proposed to synthesise and present findings when meta-analysis is not possible or appropriate,[25–27] and new methods have been developed to assess the risk of bias in results of included studies.[28,29] Evidence on sources of bias in systematic reviews has accrued, culminating in the development of new tools to appraise the conduct of systematic reviews.[30, 31] Terminology used to describe particular review processes has also evolved, as in the shift from assessing “quality” to assessing “certainty” in the body of evidence.[32] In addition, the publishing landscape has transformed, with multiple avenues now available for registering and disseminating systematic review protocols,[33, 34] disseminating reports of systematic reviews, and sharing data and materials, such as preprint servers and publicly accessible repositories. To capture these advances in the reporting of systematic reviews necessitated an update to the PRISMA 2009 statement.Summary points

• To ensure a systematic review is valuable to users, authors should prepare a transparent, complete, and accurate account of why the review was done, what they did, and what they found
• The PRISMA 2020 statement provides updated reporting guidance for systematic reviews that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies
• The PRISMA 2020 statement consists of a 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews
• We anticipate that the PRISMA 2020 statement will benefit authors, editors, and peer reviewers of systematic reviews, and different users of reviews, including guideline developers, policy makers, healthcare providers, patients, and other stakeholders