ABSTRACT
Marine predators are vital to the healthy functioning of coastal ecosystems, but to understand their roles, it is necessary to elucidate their movement ecology, particularly in relation to one another. A decade's worth of acoustic telemetry data (2011-2020) from Algoa Bay, South Africa, was investigated to determine how two mesopredatory species (teleosts: dusky kob Argyrosomus japonicus, n = 11, and leervis Lichia amia, n = 16) and two top predatory species (sharks: ragged-tooth sharks Carcharias taurus, n = 45, and white sharks Carcharodon carcharias, n = 31) used and shared this bay ecosystem. Multi-annual seasonal fidelity to the bay was exhibited by all species, but differences in residency were observed among species. Similarly, species used space in the bay differently-the teleosts moved less and had movements restricted to the central and western inshore regions of the bay. Conversely, the sharks roamed more, but detections were concentrated in the western part of the bay for C. taurus and in the eastern part of the bay for C. carcharias. Social network analysis showed that species segregated in space and time on a fine scale. However, there was some interaction observed between C. taurus, L. amia, and A. japonicus, but to varying degrees. This is likely because of strong habitat preferences exhibited by each species and predator-prey relationships between these predatory guilds. Results highlight that the sheltered marine Algoa Bay is a resource-rich environment, supporting multiple predators with different hunting strategies albeit similar prey preferences. Finally, these species are likely afforded some protection by the current Greater Addo Elephant National Park Marine Protected Area in the bay but are vulnerable to fishing pressure when they leave this ecosystem.
ABSTRACT
Migration is a critical aspect of ocean ecosystems, and understanding this phenomenon answers ecological and management questions. Given the difficulty in tracking ocean animals across large distances, the extent to which different ray species perform long-distance movements, such as migrations, remains unknown. This study used passive acoustic telemetry to track the movements of endemic diamond Gymnura natalensis and critically endangered duckbill Aetomylaeus bovinus rays along the South African coastline using a collaborative nationwide network of coastal acoustic receivers for up to 7 years. Duckbill rays were detected significantly more frequently than diamond rays, but both species moved between the south and east coasts of South Africa (traveling up to 1167 km). Tagged individuals were detected significantly more often in their tagging locations during summer months but traveled significantly further distances during winter months. Furthermore, movement models fitted to individual duckbill rays' annual net-squared displacement identified most individual annual movements as migratory. This evidence suggests that both diamond and duckbill rays make eastward winter migrations and return to specific areas along the coastline during the summer months. The exceptions to this were diamond rays tagged on the east coast that were not found to migrate seasonally, which supports previous research that there is intraspecific variability in migrations for ray species. These findings have implications for understanding ray migration not only on a global scale but also locally for spatial management interventions and population delineation.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Although its mechanisms are poorly understood, desensitization has been used to induce a temporary state of immune unresponsiveness in patients who have IgE-, non-IgE-, or pharmacologically mediated reactions when a drug has no alternatives. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to characterize the outcomes and identify risk factors for reactions during drug desensitization. METHODS: A retrospective review of electronic medical records of adult patients undergoing drug desensitization from January 1, 2011, to December 31, 2013, was conducted in 2 intensive care units at a tertiary medical center. We used multivariate analysis to determine if specified risk factors were associated with reacting during the desensitization. Reactions were classified according to the pretest probability prior to desensitization, and then, reactions during desensitization were classified based on the occurrence of cutaneous reactions as follows: successful with no reaction, mild reaction, moderate reaction, or failed. Failure could result from any systemic allergic or cutaneous reaction resulting in procedure termination. The desensitizations were also assessed to determine if the patient required de-escalation secondary to a reaction. RESULTS: A total of 88 desensitizations were performed in 69 patients. Desensitization was completed with no cutaneous reaction in 85% of patients. No baseline characteristic, medication class (P = 0.46), or indication for desensitization (P = 0.59) was associated with having a reaction. Reported histories of urticaria (P < 0.0001) and labored breathing (P = 0.003) during prior exposure were significant in identifying patients who might have a reaction during desensitization. However, neither history of urticaria nor labored breathing was independently associated with having a reaction in multivariate analysis (OR = 0.979, 95% CI = 0.325-2.952, P = 0.970, and OR = 1.626, 95% CI = 0.536-4.931, P = 0.739, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Drug desensitization is safe for patients who have no alternative for therapy. Reported allergy histories of urticaria and labored breathing are both associated with having a reaction during the desensitization process.
