Defining the Impact of Non‐Native Species

Non‐native species cause changes in the ecosystems to which they are introduced. These changes, or some of them, are usually termed impacts; they can be manifold and potentially damaging to ecosystems and biodiversity. However, the impacts of most non‐native species are poorly understood, and a synthesis of available information is being hindered because authors often do not clearly define impact. We argue that explicitly defining the impact of non‐native species will promote progress toward a better understanding of the implications of changes to biodiversity and ecosystems caused by non‐native species; help disentangle which aspects of scientific debates about non‐native species are due to disparate definitions and which represent true scientific discord; and improve communication between scientists from different research disciplines and between scientists, managers, and policy makers. For these reasons and based on examples from the literature, we devised seven key questions that fall into 4 categories: directionality, classification and measurement, ecological or socio‐economic changes, and scale. These questions should help in formulating clear and practical definitions of impact to suit specific scientific, stakeholder, or legislative contexts. Definiendo el Impacto de las Especies No‐Nativas     

Response of antibiotics and resistance genes to high-intensity and low-intensity manure management

The purpose of this study was to determine the response of antibiotics and antibiotic resistance genes (ARG) to manure management. A pilot field study was conducted using horse manure containing no antibiotics, into which chlortetracycline (CTC), tylosin (TYL), and monensin (MON) were spiked and compared to unspiked controls. Subsequently, a large-scale field study was conducted comparing manure from a dairy with minimal use of antibiotics and a feedlot with regular subtherapeutic use of antibiotics. The manures were subjected to high-intensity management (HIM) (amending, watering, and turning) and low-intensity management (LIM) (no amending, watering, or turning) and were monitored for antibiotic concentrations and levels of tetracycline ARG [tet(W) and tet(O)] using quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction. All three antibiotics in the pilot study dissipated more rapidly in HIM manure, with half-lives ranging from 4 to 15 d, compared to LIM manure, with half-lives ranging from 8 to 30 d. Levels of tet(W) were significantly higher after 141 d of treatment, but levels of tet(O) were significantly lower in all treatments. In the large-scale study, the feedlot manure had higher initial concentrations than the dairy manure of tetracycline (TC), oxytetracycline (OTC), and CTC as well as tet(W) and tet(O). Tetracycline and OTC dissipated more rapidly in HIM manure, with half-lives ranging from 6 to 15 d, compared to LIM manure, with half-lives ranging from 7 to 31 d. After 6 mo of treatment, tet(W) and tet(O) decreased significantly in feedlot manure, whereas dairy manure required only 4 mo of treatment for similar results.