Frontiers of protected areas versus forest exploitation: Assessing habitat network functionality in 16 case study regions globally.

Exploitation of natural forests forms expanding frontiers. Simultaneously, protected area frontiers aim at maintaining functional habitat networks. To assess net effects of these frontiers, we examined 16 case study areas on five continents. We (1) mapped protected area instruments, (2) assessed their effectiveness, (3) mapped policy implementation tools, and (4) effects on protected areas originating from their surroundings. Results are given as follows: (1) conservation instruments covered 3-77%, (2) effectiveness of habitat networks depended on representativeness, habitat quality, functional connectivity, resource extraction in protected areas, time for landscape restoration, "paper parks", "fortress conservation", and data access, (3) regulatory policy instruments dominated over economic and informational, (4) negative matrix effects dominated over positive ones (protective forests, buffer zones, inaccessibility), which were restricted to former USSR and Costa Rica. Despite evidence-based knowledge about conservation targets, the importance of spatial segregation of conservation and use, and traditional knowledge, the trajectories for biodiversity conservation were generally negative.

A reliable method to assess the water permeability of a dialysis system: the global ultrafiltration coefficient.

Background: Recent randomized controlled trials suggest that sufficiently high convection post-dilutional haemodiafiltration (HC-HDF) improves survival in dialysis patients, consequently this technique is increasingly being adopted. However, when performing HC-HDF, rigorous control systems of the ultrafiltration setting are required. Assessing the global ultrafiltration coefficient of the dialysis system [GKD-UF; defined as ultrafiltration rate (QUF)/transmembrane pressure] or water permeability may be adapted to the present dialysis settings and be of value in clinics. Methods: GKD-UF was determined and its reproducibility, variability and influencing factors were specifically assessed in 15 stable patients routinely treated by high-flux haemodialysis or HC-HDF in a single unit. Results: GKD-UF invariably followed a parabolic function with increasing QUF in dialysis and both pre- and post-dilution HC-HDF (R2 constantly >0.96). The vertex of the parabola, GKD-UF-max and related QUF were very reproducible per patient (coefficient of variation 3.9 ± 0.6 and 3.3 ± 0.3%, respectively) and they greatly varied across patients (31­42 mL/h−1/mmHg and 82­100 mL/min, respectively). GKD-UF-max and its associated QUF decreased during dialysis treatment (P < 0.01). The GKD-UF-max decrease was related to weight loss (R2 = 0.66; P = 0.0015). Conclusions: GKD-UF is a reliable and accurate method to assess the water permeability of a system in vivo. It varies according to dialysis setting and patient-related factors. It is an objective parameter evaluating the forces driving convection and identifies any diversion of the system during the treatment procedure. It is applicable to low- or high-flux dialysis as well as pre- or post-dilution HDF. Thus, it may be used to describe the characteristics of a dialysis system, is suitable for clinical use and may be of help for personalized prescription.