Search

Objective To describe the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of meperidine after IM and subcutaneous administration in horses. Study design prospective, randomized, blinded, crossover trial. Animals Six adult horses weighing 494 ± 33 kg. Methods Treatments included meperidine 1 mg/kg IM with saline 6 mL subcutaneously, meperidine 1 mg/kg subcutaneously with saline 6 mL IM, and saline 6 mL subcutaneously and 6 mL IM, with a 7-day washout between treatments. Plasma meperidine concentrations and pharmacodynamic values (thermal and mechanical thresholds, physiological variables, fecal production) were collected at various time points for 24 hours. Accelerometry data were obtained for 8 hours to measure locomotor activity. Data were analyzed with a mixed effects model, and α was set at .05. Results Meperidine terminal half-life (T1/2 ), maximal plasma concentrations, and time to maximal concentration were 186 ± 59 and 164 ± 56 minutes, 265.7 ± 47.2 and 243.1 ± 80.1 ng/mL at 17 ± 6, and 24 ± 13 minutes for IM at subcutaneous administration, respectively. No effect of treatment or time was observed on thermal or mechanical thresholds, heart rate, respiratory rate, locomotor activity, frequency of defecations, or fecal weight (P > .2 for all). Conclusion Maximum meperidine concentrations were achieved quickly with a short T1/2 in both treatment groups. Neither IM nor subcutaneous meperidine influenced thermal or mechanical threshold or physiological variables. Clinical significance The short half-life and lack of detectable antinociceptive effect do not support IM or subcutaneous administration meperidine at 1 mg/kg for analgesia in horses.

As approaches to ecological restoration become increasingly large scale and collaborative, there is a need to better understand social aspects of restoration and how they influence land management. In this article, we examine social perspectives that influence the determination of ecological reference conditions in restoration. Our analysis is based on in‐depth interviews with diverse stakeholders involved in collaborative restoration of fire‐adapted forest landscapes. We conducted interviews with 86 respondents from six forest collaboratives that are part of the U.S. Forest Service's Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program. Collaboratives use a variety of approaches to develop reference conditions, including historic, contemporary, and future scenarios. Historical conditions prior to European settlement (nineteenth century or “pre‐settlement” conditions), or prior to more recent grazing, logging, and exclusion of fire, were the predominant type of reference used in all sites. Stakeholders described benefits and limitations of reference conditions. Primary benefits include (1) providing a science‐based framework for bringing stakeholders together around a common vision; (2) gaining social understanding and acceptance of the underlying need for restoration; and (3) serving to neutralize otherwise value‐laden discussions about multiple, sometimes competing, resource objectives. Limitations stem from (1) concerns over social conflict when reference conditions are perceived to contradict other stakeholder values and interests, (2) differing interpretations of reference condition science, (3) inappropriate application or over‐generalization of reference information, and (4) limited relevance of historical references for current and future conditions in some ecosystems. At the same time, collaboratives are adopting innovative strategies to address conceptual and methodological limitations of reference conditions.

Digging animals may alter many characteristics of their environment as they disrupt and modify the ground's surface by creating foraging pits or burrows. Extensive disturbance to the soil and litter layer changes litter distribution and availability, potentially altering fuel loads. In many landscapes, including peri-urban areas, fire management to reduce fuel loads is complex and challenging. The reintroduction of previously common digging animals, many of which are now threatened, may have the added benefit of reducing fuel loads. We experimentally examined how the reintroduction of a marsupial bandicoot, quenda (Isoodon fusciventer), altered surface fuel loads in an urban bush reserve in Perth, Western Australia. Foraging activities of quenda (where they dig for subterranean food) were substantial throughout the reserve, creating a visibly patchy distribution in surface litter. Further, in open plots where quenda had access, compared to fenced plots where quenda were excluded, quenda foraging significantly reduced litter cover and litter depth. Similarly, estimated surface fuel loads were nearly halved in open plots where quenda foraged compared to fenced plots where quenda were absent (3.6 cf. 6.4 Mg/ha). Fire behavior modeling, using the estimated surface fuel loads, indicated the predicted rate of spread of fire were significantly lower for open plots where quenda foraged compared to fenced plots under both low (29.2 cf. 51.4 m/h; total fuels) and high (74.3 cf. 130.4 m/h; total fuels) fire conditions. Although many environments require fire, including the bushland where this study occurred, fire management can be a considerable challenge in many landscapes, including urban bushland reserves, which are usually small and close to human infrastructure. The reintroduction of previously common digging species may have potential value as a complimentary tool for reducing fuel loads, and potentially, fire risk.

As collaborative approaches to resolving public disputes become more prevalent, agency officials are finding themselves in unfamiliar terrain. This article offers one conceptualization of agency roles in collaborative processes, drawing from the experiences of natural resource managers and enviromental regulators at the federal level. Based on an examination of 65 cases, the authorsidentify three distinct "hat" that effective agency officals wear in collaborative processes - leader, partner, and stakeholder. The objective and function of each role is assessed, along with the implications of agency facilitation. The most successful agency representatives were able to blend the three primary roles, and did not act as facilitators of the collaborative process.