2. Academic Wits University Research Outputs (All submissions)
Permanent URI for this communityhttps://hdl.handle.net/10539/36826
Browse
3 results
Search Results
Item Carnivore conservation needs evidence based livestock protection(Public Library of Science, 2018-09) van Eeden, L.M.; Eklund, A.; Miller, J.R.B.; López-Bao, J.V; Chapron, G.; Cejtin, M.R.; McManus, J.Carnivore predation on livestock often leads people to retaliate. Persecution by humans has contributed strongly to global endangerment of carnivores. Preventing livestock losses would help to achieve three goals common to many human societies: preserve nature, protect animal welfare, and safeguard human livelihoods. Between 2016 and 2018, four independent reviews evaluated >40 years of research on lethal and nonlethal interventions for reducing predation on livestock. From 114 studies, we find a striking conclusion: scarce quantitative comparisons of interventions and scarce comparisons against experimental controls preclude strong inference about the effectiveness of methods. For wise investment of public resources in protecting livestock and carnivores, evidence of effectiveness should be a prerequisite to policy making or large-scale funding of any method or, at a minimum, should be measured during implementation. An appropriate evidence base is needed, and we recommend a coalition of scientists and managers be formed to establish and encourage use of consistent standards in future experimental evaluations.Item Recalibration of the limiting antigen avidity EIA to determine mean duration of recent infection in divergent HIV-1 subtypes.(Public Library of Science, 2015-02-24) Duong, Y.T.; Kassanjee, R.; Welte, A.; Ampofo, W.; Parekh, B.S.; Morgan, M.; De, A.; Dobbs, T.; Rottinghaus, E.; Nkengasong, J.; Curlin, M.E.; Kittinunvorakoon, C.; Raengsakulrach, B.; Martin, M.; Choopanya, K.; Vanichseni, S.; Jiang, Y.; Qiu, M.; Yu, H.; Hao, Y.; Shah, N.; Le, L.-V.; Kim, A.A.; Nguyen, T.A.Background: Mean duration of recent infection (MDRI) and misclassification of long-term HIV-1 infections, as proportion false recent (PFR), are critical parameters for laboratory-based assays for estimating HIV-1 incidence. Recent review of the data by us and others indicated that MDRI of LAg-Avidity EIA estimated previously required recalibration. We present here results of recalibration efforts using >250 seroconversion panels and multiple statistical methods to ensure accuracy and consensus. Methods: A total of 2737 longitudinal specimens collected from 259 seroconverting individuals infected with diverse HIV-1 subtypes were tested with the LAg-Avidity EIA as previously described. Data were analyzed for determination of MDRI at ODn cutoffs of 1.0 to 2.0 using 7 statistical approaches and sub-analyzed by HIV-1 subtypes. In addition, 3740 specimens from individuals with infection >1 year, including 488 from patients with AIDS, were tested for PFR at varying cutoffs. Results: Using different statistical methods,MDRI values ranged from 88-94 days at cutoff ODn = 1.0 to 177-183 days at ODn = 2.0. The MDRI values were similar by different methods suggesting coherence of different approaches. Testing formisclassification among long-terminfections indicated that overall PFRs were 0.6%to 2.5%at increasing cutoffs of 1.0 to 2.0, respectively. Balancing the need for a longer MDRI and smaller PFR (<2.0%) suggests that a cutoff ODn = 1.5, corresponding to an MDRI of 130 days should be used for cross-sectional application. The MDRI varied among subtypes from 109 days (subtype A&D) to 152 days (subtype C). Conclusions: Based on the new data and revised analysis, we recommend an ODn cutoff = 1.5 to classify recent and long-term infections, corresponding to an MDRI of 130 days (118-142). Determination of revised parameters for estimation of HIV-1 incidence should facilitate application of the LAg-Avidity EIA for worldwide use.Item 'Skullduggery': Lions align and their mandibles rock!(Public Library of Science, 2015-11) Williams, V.L.; Loveridge, A.J.; Newton, D.J.; Macdonald, D.W.South Africa has legally exported substantial quantities of lion bones to Southeast Asia and China since 2008, apparently as part of the multinational trade substituting bones and body parts of other large cats for those of the tiger in wine and other health tonics. The legal sale of lion bones may mask an illegal trade, the size of which is only partially known. An observed component of the illegal trade is that quantities of skeletons are sometimes declared falsely/fraudulently on CITES export permits. Furthermore, there are emerging concerns that bones from tigers reared in captivity in South Africa and elsewhere are being laundered as lion bones using CITES Appendix II permits. There is therefore a need for tools to monitor the trade in lion body parts and to distinguish between lions and tigers. Our research indicates that it is possible to use skeletons, skulls and cranial sutures to detect misdeclarations in the lion bone trade. It is also possible to use the average mass of a lion skeleton to corroborate the numbers of skeletons declared on CITES permits, relative to the weight of the consolidated consignments stated on the air waybills. When the mass of consolidated consignments of skeletons destined for export was regressed against the number of skeletons in that consignment, there was a strong correlation between the variables (r2 = 0.992) that can be used as a predictor of the accuracy of a declaration on a CITES permit. Additionally, the skulls of lions and tigers differ: two cranial sutures of lions align and their mandibles rock when placed on a flat surface, whereas the cranial sutures of tigers are not aligned and their mandibles rest naturally on two contact points. These two morphological differences between the skulls of tigers and lions are easy to observe at a glance and provide a method for distinguishing between the species if illegal trade in the bones is suspected and the skulls are present. These identifications should ideally be confirmed by a DNA test to provide rigorous evidence to prosecute offenders violating CITES regulations.