Effectiveness of rodenticides for managing invasive roof rats and native deer mice in orchards

Roof rats (Rattus rattus) and deer mice (Peromyscus maniculatus) are occasional pests of nut and tree fruit orchards throughout California and in many other parts of the USA and beyond. In general, the most practical and cost-effective control method for rodents in many agricultural environments is the use of rodenticides (toxic baits), but little or no information exists on the efficacy of current rodenticides in controlling roof rats and deer mice in orchards. Therefore, our goals were to develop an index of rodent activity to monitor efficacy of rodenticides and to subsequently test the efficacy of three California Department of Food and Agriculture rodenticide baits (0.005 % chlorophacinone treated oats, 0.005 % diphacinone treated oats, and 0.005 % diphacinone wax block) to determine their utility for controlling roof rats and deer mice in agricultural orchards. We determined that a general index using the number of roof rat photos taken at a minimum of a 5-min interval was strongly correlated to the minimum number known estimate of roof rats; this approach was used to monitor roof rat and deer mouse populations pre- and post-treatment. Of the baits tested, the 0.005 % diphacinone treated oats was most effective for both species; 0.005 % chlorophacinone grain was completely ineffective against roof rats. Our use of elevated bait stations proved effective at providing bait to target species and should substantially limit access to rodenticides by many non-target species.     

Network analysis of a stakeholder community combatting illegal wildlife trade

The illegal wildlife trade has emerged as a growing and urgent environmental issue. Stakeholders involved in the efforts to curb wildlife trafficking include nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), academia, and state government and enforcement bodies. The extent to which these stakeholders work and communicate among each other is fundamental to effectively combatting illicit trade. Using the United Kingdom as a case study, we used a social network analysis and semistructured interviews of stakeholders to assess communication relationships in the counter wildlife trafficking community. The NGOs consistently occupied 4 of the 5 most central positions in the generated networks, whereas academic institutions routinely occupied 4 of the 5 most peripheral positions. However, NGOs were the least diverse in their communication practices compared with the other stakeholder groups. Stakeholders identified personal relationships as the most important aspect of functioning communication. Participant insights also showed that stakeholder-specific variables (e.g., ethical and confidentiality concerns), competition, and fundraising can have a confounding effect on intercommunication. Evaluating communication networks and intrastakeholder communication trends is essential to creating cohesive, productive, and efficient responses to the challenges of combatting illegal wildlife trade. Article impact statement: Communication among those combatting illegal wildlife trade is confounded by stakeholder variables (ethics, confidentiality), competition, and fundraising.     

Cost‐effectiveness of conservation payment schemes for species with different range sizes

Payments to compensate landowners for carrying out costly land‐use measures that benefit endangered biodiversity have become an important policy instrument. When designing such payments, it is important to take into account that spatially connected habitats are more valuable for many species than isolated ones. One way to incentivize provision of connected habitats is to offer landowners an agglomeration bonus, that is, a bonus on top of payments they are receiving to conserve land if the land is spatially connected. Researchers have compared the cost‐effectiveness of the agglomeration bonus with 2 alternatives: an all‐or‐nothing, agglomeration payment, where landowners receive a payment only if the conserved land parcels have a certain level of spatial connectivity, and a spatially homogeneous payment, where landowners receive a payment for conserved land parcels irrespective of their location. Their results show the agglomeration bonus is rarely the most cost‐effective option, and when it is, it is only slightly better than one of the alternatives. This suggests that the agglomeration bonus should not be given priority as a policy design option. However, this finding is based on consideration of only 1 species. We examined whether the same applied to 2 species, one for which the homogeneous payment is best and the other for which the agglomeration payment is most cost‐effective. We modified a published conceptual model so that we were able to assess the cost‐effectiveness of payment schemes for 2 species and applied it to a grassland bird and a grassland butterfly in Germany that require the same habitat but have different spatial‐connectivity needs. When conserving both species, the agglomeration bonus was more cost‐effective than the agglomeration and the homogeneous payment; thus, we showed that as a policy the agglomeration bonus is a useful conservation‐payment option.     

Environmental cost of using poor decision metrics to prioritize environmental projects

Conservation decision makers commonly use project‐scoring metrics that are inconsistent with theory on optimal ranking of projects. As a result, there may often be a loss of environmental benefits. We estimated the magnitudes of these losses for various metrics that deviate from theory in ways that are common in practice. These metrics included cases where relevant variables were omitted from the benefits metric, project costs were omitted, and benefits were calculated using a faulty functional form. We estimated distributions of parameters from 129 environmental projects from Australia, New Zealand, and Italy for which detailed analyses had been completed previously. The cost of using poor prioritization metrics (in terms of lost environmental values) was often high—up to 80% in the scenarios we examined. The cost in percentage terms was greater when the budget was smaller. The most costly errors were omitting information about environmental values (up to 31% loss of environmental values), omitting project costs (up to 35% loss), omitting the effectiveness of management actions (up to 9% loss), and using a weighted‐additive decision metric for variables that should be multiplied (up to 23% loss). The latter 3 are errors that occur commonly in real‐world decision metrics, in combination often reducing potential benefits from conservation investments by 30–50%. Uncertainty about parameter values also reduced the benefits from investments in conservation projects but often not by as much as faulty prioritization metrics.     

Recycling food and agriculture by-products to mitigate climate change: a review

Food loss and waste is a major issue affecting food security, environmental pollution, producer profitability, consumer prices, and climate change. About 1.3 billion tons of food products are yearly lost globally, with China producing approximately 20 million tons of soybean dregs annually. Here, we review food and agricultural byproducts with emphasis on the strategies to convert this waste into valuable materials. Byproducts can be used for animal and plant nutrition, biogas production, food, extraction of oils and bioactive substances, and production of vinegar, wine, edible coatings and organic fertilizers. For instance, bioactive compounds represent approximately 8–20% of apple pomace, 5–17% of orange peel, 10–25% of grape seeds, 3–15% of pomegranate peel, and 2–13% of date palm seeds. Similarly, the pharmaceutical industry uses approximately 6.5% of the total output of gelatin derived from fish bones and animal skin. Animals fed with pomegranate peel and olive pomace improved the concentration of deoxyribonucleic acid and protein, the litter size, the milk yield, and nest characteristics. Biogas production amounts to 57.1% using soybean residue, 53.7% using papaya peel, and 49.1% using sugarcane bagasse.

     

Trauma demography and clinical epidemiology of motorcycle crash–related head injury in a neurosurgery practice in an African developing country

Objective: Though motor vehicle crashes (MVCs) were the main cause of head trauma from road traffic injuries (RTIs), motorcycle crashes (MCCs) are now a major cause of RTI-related head injury (HI) in many developing countries.

Methods: Using a prospective database of HIs from a neurosurgical practice in a sub-Saharan African developing country, a cross-sectional survey was conducted for the trauma demography and clinical epidemiology of this MCC-related HI.

Results: Motorcycle crashes accounted for 57% (473/833) of all RTI-related HIs in this registry. The victims, with a mean age of 33.1 years (SD = 18.3), consisted mainly of males (83.1%), those of low socioeconomic status (>90%), and those aged between 20 and 40 years old (56%). MCCs involved only riders in 114 cases (114/473, 32.1%), of which 69% were motorcycle–motorcycle crashes. The HI was moderate–severe in 50.8%; clinical symptomatology of significant HI included loss of consciousness (92%), anisocoria (35%), Abbreviated Injury Scale head (AIS–head) score > 3 (28%), and CT-Rotterdam score > 3 (30%). Extracranial systemic injury involved the limbs most frequently, with an Injury Severity Score (ISS) >25 in 49%. The fatality rate was 24%.

MCC-related HI among pedestrian victims involved more vulnerable age groups (the young and elderly) but have lower mean ISS compared to motorcycle passengers (mean ISS = 23.5 [11.6] vs. 27.4 [13.0]; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.27–6.49; P = .004). In addition, compared to a contemporary cohort of MVC-related HIs in our registry, MCC victims were older (mean age 34.8 years [18.0] vs. 30.8 [18.4]; P = .002); had higher proportions of certain extracranial trauma like long bone fractures (71 vs. 29%; P = .02); and suffered fewer surgical brain lesions (25.5 vs. 17.2%; P = .004).

Conclusions: Motorcycle crashes are now a significant threat to the heads, limbs, and lives of vulnerable road users in developing countries.