Search

The expansions and contractions of a species' range in response to temporal changes in selective filters leave genetic signatures that can inform a more accurate reconstruction of their evolutionary history across the landscape. After a long period of continental decline, Australian rainforests settled into localized patterns of contraction or expansion during the climatic fluctuations of the Quaternary. The environmental impacts of recurring glacial and interglacial periods also intensified the arrival of new lineages from the Sunda shelf, and it can be expected that immigrant versus locally persistent taxa responded to environmental challenges in quantifiably different manner. To investigate how such differences impact on species' distribution, we contrast landscape genomic patterns and changes in habitat availability between a species with a long continental history on Doryphora sassafras and a Sunda-derived species (Toona ciliata), across a distributional overlap. Extensive landscape-level homogeneity across chloroplast and nuclear genomes for the Sunda-derived T. ciliata, characterize the genetic signature of a very recent invasion and a rapid southern "exploratory" expansion that had not been previously recorded in the Australian flora (i.e., of Gondwanan origin or Sahul-derived). In contrast, D. sassafras is consistent with other Sahul-derived species characterized by strong geographical divergence and regional differentiation. Interestingly, our findings suggest that admixture between genetically divergent populations during expansion events might be a contributing factor to the successful colonization of novel habitats. Overall, this study identifies some of the mechanisms regulating the rearrangements in species distributions and assemblage composition that follow major environmental shifts, and reminds us how a species' current range might not necessarily define species' habitat preference, with the consequence that estimates of past or future range might not always be reliable., (© 2022 The Authors. Evolution © 2022 The Society for the Study of Evolution.)

Objective: To compare clinical outcomes following induction of labour (IOL) using a balloon catheter and going home, versus prostaglandin (PG) as an inpatient., Design: Randomised controlled trial., Setting: Eight Australian maternity hospitals., Population: Women with uncomplicated term singleton pregnancies undergoing IOL for low-risk indications including post-term, advanced maternal age and 'social' reasons., Methods: Between September 2015 and October 2018, 347 women were randomised to a balloon outpatient group and 348 to a PG inpatient group. The PG group received Dinoprostone, either 2 mg gel or 10 mg controlled-release tape. The balloon group had a double-balloon catheter inserted and went home., Main Outcome Measures: The primary outcome was a composite neonatal measure comprising nursery admission, intubation/cardiac compressions, acidaemia, hypoxic ischaemic encephalopathy, seizure, infection, pulmonary hypertension, stillbirth or death. Clinical and process outcomes are reported., Results: There were no statistically significant differences in the primary outcome comparing balloon with PG (18.6% versus 25.8%; relative risk = 0.77, 95% CI 0.51-1.02; P = 0.070), cord arterial pH <7.10 (3.5% versus 9.2%; P = 0.072), nursery admissions (12.6% versus 15.5%; P = 0.379), neonatal antibiotic use (12.1% versus 17.6%; P = 0.103), or mode of birth. Nulliparous women in the balloon group had lower rates of the primary outcome (20.4% versus 31.0%;P = 0.032); Parous women were less likely to have an unassisted vaginal birth (77.6% versus 92.3%; P = 0.045)., Conclusions: Balloon catheters may be a superior method of cervical priming for nulliparous women, whereas this may not be the case for parous women. It is feasible that nulliparous women go home after commencing balloon catheter IOL, and the likelihood of adverse outcomes is low., Tweetable Abstract: Multicentre trial shows outpatient induction using balloon catheter is safe and feasible for nulliparous women., (© 2019 Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.)