Characterization of marker chromosomes by microdissection and fluorescence in situ hybridization

We characterized by microdissection and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) two marker chromosomes: (1) a de novo, acrocentric marker chromosome detected in 88 per cent of the amniotic fluid cells of one of two physically and developmentally normal twins; and (2) a metacentric marker chromosome present in a phenotypically normal female. Analysis of FISH probes developed from the marker chromosomes indicated that the marker chromosomes in cases 1 and 2 were del(14)(q11) and a derivative chromosome from a Robertsonian translocation, respectively. Microdissection in combination with FISH may prove to be a valuable technique in determining the chromosomal origin of de novo marker chromosomes and unbalanced structural rearrangements detected during prenatal diagnosis.     

Rapid detection of numerical aberrations of chromosomes 13, 18 and 21 in chorionic mesenchymal cells

We have devised and evaluated a rapid screening method for the detection of numerical aberrations of chromosomes13, 18 and 21 in chorionic villus cells. We used non-radioactive in situ hybridization (ISH) with three chromosome-specific probes on overnight-attached mesenchymal cells from chorionic villi. A blind study was performed of 47 karyotypically normal samples, one triploid sample, two samples trisomic for chromosome 21, and two samples from a fetus with putative mosaicism (46/47, +21). All samples were hybridized with the chromosome 18- and 21-specific probes. Thirty samples were additionally hybridized with the chromosome 13-specific probe. The test could be completed within 3-4 days of sampling. In samples disomic with respect to the probed chromosomes, an average of 2 per cent (range 0-9 per cent) had three hybridization signals. By contrast, in the samples trisomic for the probed chromosome(s), 57 per cent (chromosome 13), 51 per cent (chromosome 18), and an average of 74 per cent (55-86 per cent) (chromosome 21) of the nuclei exhibited three signals. In the putative mosaic samples, the number of nuclei with three chromosome 21-specific signals ranged from 41 to 69 per cent. We conclude that this technique rapidly and clearly distinguishes between normal and trisomic/triploid samples, and consequently may be of use in future prenatal diagnosis.     

Rapid prenatal diagnosis of aneuploidy from uncultured amniotic fluid cells using five-colour fluorescence in situ hybridization

In this paper we describe the use of five-colour fluorescence in situ hybridization for prenatal diagnosis of aneuploidy using uncultured amniotic fluid cells. The analysis is based on ratio mixing of dual-labelled probes and digital imaging for the detection and visualization of five different probes specific for the five target chromosomes, 13, 18, 21, X, and Y. A retrospective blind analysis of 30 coded uncultured amniotic fluid samples correctly detected fetal sex and five trisomy 21 cases. Multicolour fluorescence in situ hybridization used in this way allows rapid and simultaneous detection of the most frequent aneuploidies.     

Prenatal application of fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) for identification of a mosaic Y-chromosome marker,IDIC(Yp)

An amniocentesis was performed at 13.3 weeks' gestation for advanced maternal age. A mosaic sex chromosome pattern was found: of 50 cells examined, 34 had a 45,X karyotype. In 14 cells with a modal number of 46, a recognizable Y was substituted by a small non-fluorescent marker. C-banding identified the marker as an isodicentric in 12 cells. In two cells, the non-fluorescent marker appeared to be monocentric and looked like a non-fluorescent del (Yq), but could have been an isodicentric Y with inactivation of one of the centromeres. Two cells with a modal number of 47 showed two copies of the monocentric marker. Fluorescent in situ hybridization with an alpha satellite Y-specific centromeric probe confirmed the Y-chromosome origin of the markers and allowed for more accurate prenatal diagnostic information.     

The role of scientists in statutory interpretation of the U.S. Endangered Species Act

Like many federal statutes, the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA) contains vague or ambiguous language. The meaning imparted to the ESA's unclear language can profoundly impact the fates of endangered and threatened species. Hence, conservation scientists should contribute to the interpretation of the ESA when vague or ambiguous language contains scientific words or refers to scientific concepts. Scientists need to know at least these 2 facts about statutory interpretation: statutory interpretation is subjective and the potential influence of normative values results in different expectations for the parties involved. With the possible exception of judges, all conventional participants in statutory interpretation are serving their own interests, advocating for their preferred policies, or biased. Hence, scientists can play a unique role by informing the interpretative process with objective, policy‐neutral information. Conversely, scientists may act as advocates for their preferred interpretation of unclear statutory language. The different roles scientists might play in statutory interpretation raise the issues of advocacy and competency. Advocating for a preferred statutory interpretation is legitimate political behavior by scientists, but statutory interpretation can be strongly influenced by normative values. Therefore, scientists must be careful not to commit stealth policy advocacy. Most conservation scientists lack demonstrable competence in statutory interpretation and therefore should consult or collaborate with lawyers when interpreting statutes. Professional scientific societies are widely perceived by the public as unbiased sources of objective information. Therefore, professional scientific societies should remain policy neutral and present all interpretations of unclear statutory language; explain the semantics and science both supporting and contradicting each interpretation; and describe the potential consequences of implementing each interpretation. A review of scientists’ interpretations of the phrase “significant portion of its range” in the ESA is used to critique the role of scientists and professional societies in statutory interpretation.     

An interdisciplinary review of current and future approaches to improving human–predator relations

In a world of shrinking habitats and increasing competition for natural resources, potentially dangerous predators bring the challenges of coexisting with wildlife sharply into focus. Through interdisciplinary collaboration among authors trained in the humanities, social sciences, and natural sciences, we reviewed current approaches to mitigating adverse human–predator encounters and devised a vision for future approaches to understanding and mitigating such encounters. Limitations to current approaches to mitigation include too much focus on negative impacts; oversimplified equating of levels of damage with levels of conflict; and unsuccessful technical fixes resulting from failure to engage locals, address hidden costs, or understand cultural (nonscientific) explanations of the causality of attacks. An emerging interdisciplinary literature suggests that to better frame and successfully mitigate negative human–predator relations conservation professionals need to consider dispensing with conflict as the dominant framework for thinking about human–predator encounters; work out what conflicts are really about (they may be human–human conflicts); unravel the historical contexts of particular conflicts; and explore different cultural ways of thinking about animals. The idea of cosmopolitan natures may help conservation professionals think more clearly about human–predator relations in both local and global context. These new perspectives for future research practice include a recommendation for focused interdisciplinary research and the use of new approaches, including human‐animal geography, multispecies ethnography, and approaches from the environmental humanities notably environmental history. Managers should think carefully about how they engage with local cultural beliefs about wildlife, work with all parties to agree on what constitutes good evidence, develop processes and methods to mitigate conflicts, and decide how to monitor and evaluate these. Demand for immediate solutions that benefit both conservation and development favors dispute resolution and technical fixes, which obscures important underlying drivers of conflicts. If these drivers are not considered, well‐intentioned efforts focused on human–wildlife conflicts will fail.     

Toward reassessing data‐deficient species

One in 6 species (13,465 species) on the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List is classified as data deficient due to lack of information on their taxonomy, population status, or impact of threats. Despite the chance that many are at high risk of extinction, data‐deficient species are typically excluded from global and local conservation priorities, as well as funding schemes. The number of data‐deficient species will greatly increase as the IUCN Red List becomes more inclusive of poorly known and speciose groups. A strategic approach is urgently needed to enhance the conservation value of data‐deficient assessments. To develop this, we reviewed 2879 data‐deficient assessments in 6 animal groups and identified 8 main justifications for assigning data‐deficient status (type series, few records, old records, uncertain provenance, uncertain population status or distribution, uncertain threats, taxonomic uncertainty, and new species). Assigning a consistent set of justification tags (i.e., consistent assignment to assessment justifications) to species classified as data deficient is a simple way to achieve more strategic assessments. Such tags would clarify the causes of data deficiency; facilitate the prediction of extinction risk; facilitate comparisons of data deficiency among taxonomic groups; and help prioritize species for reassessment. With renewed efforts, it could be straightforward to prevent thousands of data‐deficient species slipping unnoticed toward extinction.     

Using long-term data for a reintroduced population to empirically estimate future consequences of inbreeding

Inbreeding depression is an important long-term threat to reintroduced populations. However, the strength of inbreeding depression is difficult to estimate in wild populations because pedigree data are inevitably incomplete and because good data are needed on survival and reproduction. Predicting future population consequences is especially difficult because this also requires projecting future inbreeding levels and their impacts on long-term population dynamics, which are subject to many uncertainties. We illustrate how such projections can be derived through Bayesian state-space modeling methods based on a 26-year data set for North Island Robins (Petroica longipes) reintroduced to Tiritiri Matangi Island in 1992. We used pedigree data to model increases in the average inbreeding level (F ) over time based on kinship of possible breeding pairs and to estimate empirically N_e/N (effective/census population size). We used multiple imputation to model the unknown components of inbreeding coefficients, which allowed us to estimate effects of inbreeding on survival for all 1458 birds in the data set while modeling density dependence and environmental stochasticity. This modeling indicated that inbreeding reduced juvenile survival (1.83 lethal equivalents [SE 0.81]) and may have reduced subsequent adult survival (0.44 lethal equivalents [0.81]) but had no apparent effect on numbers of fledglings produced. Average inbreeding level increased to 0.10 (SE 0.001) as the population grew from 33 (0.3) to 160 (6) individuals over the 25 years, giving a ratio of 0.56 (0.01). Based on a model that also incorporated habitat regeneration, the population was projected to reach a maximum of 331–1144 birds (median 726) in 2130, then to begin a slow decline. Without inbreeding, the population would be expected stabilize at 887–1465 birds (median 1131). Such analysis, therefore, makes it possible to empirically derive the information needed for rational decisions about inbreeding management while accounting for multiple sources of uncertainty.     

Effects of productivity on biodiversity in forest ecosystems across the United States and China

In the global campaign against biodiversity loss in forest ecosystems, land managers need to know the status of forest biodiversity, but practical guidelines for conserving biodiversity in forest management are lacking. A major obstacle is the incomplete understanding of the relationship between site primary productivity and plant diversity, due to insufficient ecosystem‐wide data, especially for taxonomically and structurally diverse forest ecosystems. We investigated the effects of site productivity (the site's inherent capacity to grow timber) on tree species richness across 19 types of forest ecosystems in North America and China through 3 ground‐sourced forest inventory data sets (U.S. Forest Inventory and Analysis, Cooperative Alaska Forest Inventory, and Chinese Forest Management Planning Inventory). All forest types conformed to a consistent and highly significant (P < 0.001) hump‐shaped unimodal relationship, of which the generalized coefficients of determination averaged 20.5% over all the forest types. That is, tree species richness first increased as productivity increased at a progressively slower rate, and, after reaching a maximum, richness started to decline. Our consistent findings suggest that forests of high productivity would sustain few species because they consist mostly of flat homogeneous areas lacking an environmental gradient along which a diversity of species with different habitats can coexist. The consistency of the productivity–biodiversity relationship among the 3 data sets we examined makes it possible to quantify the expected tree species richness that a forest stand is capable of sustaining, and a comparison between the actual species richness and the sustainable values can be useful in prioritizing conservation efforts.     

Empirical Trials of Plant Field Guides

We designed 3 image‐based field guides to tropical forest plant species in Ghana, Grenada, and Cameroon and tested them with 1095 local residents and 20 botanists in the United Kingdom. We compared users’ identification accuracy with different image formats, including drawings, specimen photos, living plant photos, and paintings. We compared users’ accuracy with the guides to their accuracy with only their prior knowledge of the flora. We asked respondents to score each format for usability, beauty, and how much they would pay for it. Prior knowledge of plant names was generally low (<22%). With a few exceptions, identification accuracy did not differ significantly among image formats. In Cameroon, users identifying sterile Cola species achieved 46–56% accuracy across formats; identification was most accurate with living plant photos. Botanists in the United Kingdom accurately identified 82–93% of the same Cameroonian species; identification was most accurate with specimens. In Grenada, users accurately identified 74–82% of plants; drawings yielded significantly less accurate identifications than paintings and photos of living plants. In Ghana, users accurately identified 85% of plants. Digital color photos of living plants ranked high for beauty, usability, and what users would pay. Black and white drawings ranked low. Our results show the potential and limitations of the use of field guides and nonspecialists to identify plants, for example, in conservation applications. We recommend authors of plant field guides use the cheapest or easiest illustration format because image type had limited bearing on accuracy; match the type of illustration to the most likely use of the guide for slight improvements in accuracy; avoid black and white formats unless the audience is experienced at interpreting illustrations or keeping costs low is imperative; discourage false‐positive identifications, which were common; and encourage users to ask an expert or use a herbarium for groups that are difficult to identify. Pruebas Empíricas de Guías de Campo de Plantas Hawthorne, Cable & Marshall