Dataset Information

World checklist of hornworts and liverworts.

ABSTRACT: A working checklist of accepted taxa worldwide is vital in achieving the goal of developing an online flora of all known plants by 2020 as part of the Global Strategy for Plant Conservation. We here present the first-ever worldwide checklist for liverworts (Marchantiophyta) and hornworts (Anthocerotophyta) that includes 7486 species in 398 genera representing 92 families from the two phyla. The checklist has far reaching implications and applications, including providing a valuable tool for taxonomists and systematists, analyzing phytogeographic and diversity patterns, aiding in the assessment of floristic and taxonomic knowledge, and identifying geographical gaps in our understanding of the global liverwort and hornwort flora. The checklist is derived from a working data set centralizing nomenclature, taxonomy and geography on a global scale. Prior to this effort a lack of centralization has been a major impediment for the study and analysis of species richness, conservation and systematic research at both regional and global scales. The success of this checklist, initiated in 2008, has been underpinned by its community approach involving taxonomic specialists working towards a consensus on taxonomy, nomenclature and distribution.

SUBMITTER: Soderstrom L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4758082 | biostudies-other | 2016

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe World Health Organization (WHO) published the WHO Safe Childbirth Checklist in 2015, which included the key evidence-based practices to prevent the major causes of maternal and neonatal morbidity and mortality during childbirth. We assessed the current use of the WHO Safe Childbirth Checklist (SCC) and adaptations regarding the SCC tool and implementation strategies in different contexts from Africa, Southeast Asia, Europe, and North America.MethodsThis explanatory, sequential mixed methods study-including surveys followed by interviews-of global SCC implementers focused on adaptation and implementation strategies, data collection, and desired improvements to support ongoing SCC use. We analyzed the survey results using descriptive statistics. In a subset of respondents, follow-up virtual semi-structured interviews explored how they adapted, implemented, and evaluated the SCC in their context. We used rapid inductive and deductive thematic analysis for the interviews.ResultsOf the 483 total potential participants, 65 (13.5%) responded to the survey; 55 completed the survey (11.4%). We analyzed completed responses from those who identified as having SCC implementation experience (n = 29, 52.7%). Twelve interviews were conducted and analyzed. Ninety percent of respondents indicated that they adapted the SCC tool, including adding clinical and operational items. Adaptations to structure included translation into local language, incorporation into a mobile app, and integration into medical records. Respondents reported variation in implementation strategies and data collection. The most common implementation strategies were meeting with stakeholders to secure buy-in, incorporating technical training, and providing supportive supervision or coaching around SCC use. Desired improvements included clarifying the purpose of the SCC, adding guidance on relevant clinical topics, refining items addressing behaviors with low adherence, and integrating contextual factors into decision-making. To improve implementation, participants desired political support to embed SCC into existing policies and ongoing clinical training and coaching.ConclusionAdditional adaptation and implementation guidance for the SCC would be helpful for stakeholders to sustain effective implementation.

Project description:Comprising more than 6500 species, Opiliones is the third most diverse order of Arachnida, after the megadiverse Acari and Araneae. The database referred here is part 1 of 12 of a project containing an intended worldwide checklist of species and subspecies of Opiliones as Darwin Core archives, and it includes the superfamilies Travunioidea and Triaenonychoidea. These two superfamilies are often treated together under the denomination of Insidiatores. In this Part 1, a total of 571 species and subspecies are listed. Briggsidae and Cladonychiidae are both downgraded to subfamilies of Travuniidae. Peltonychia Roewer, 1935 is an available name and senior synonym of Hadziana Roewer, 1935 and is herein revalidated. Seven genera of Triaenonychidae described by Lawrence between 1931 and 1933 originally failed to comply ICZN rules for availability (Art. 13.3). All of them only became available when Staręga (1992) designated a type species for each. Therefore, the correct authorships of Austromontia Lawrence, 1931, Biacumontia Lawrence, 1931, Graemontia Lawrence, 1931, Larifugella Lawrence, 1933, Mensamontia Lawrence, 1931, Monomontia Lawrence, 1931 and Rostromontia Lawrence, 1931 are all Staręga, 1992. Fumontana Shear, 1977, originally referred only to subfamily Triaenonychinae (as opposed to Soerensenellinae then and not corresponding to present Triaenonychinae), not to any tribe (which in turn correspond to modern subfamilies) is herein included in the subfamily Triaenonychinae. Picunchenops Maury, 1988 originally not included in any tribe of Triaenonychidae, is herein included in the subfamily Triaenonychinae. Trojanella Karaman, 2005, originally ranked as Travunioidea incertae sedis, is herein included in the TravuniidaeTravuniinae. Nunciaovata Roewer, 1915 (synonymized with Triaenonyxcockayni Hogg, 1920 by Forster (1954), but with inverted precedence) is here combined as Nunciacoriaceaovata Roewer, 1915 as correct senior synonym instead of Nunciacoriaceacockayni (Hogg, 1920), which is current in the literature. Neonunciaenderbei (Hogg, 1909) is reaffirmed as the correct spelling for the species, while the deliberate change to Neonunciaenderbyi by Forster (1954) is an incorrect subsequent spelling.

Project description:The 2009 World Health Organisation (WHO) surgical safety checklist significantly reduces surgical mortality and morbidity (up to 47%). Yet in 2016, only 25% of East African anesthetists regularly use the checklist. Nationwide implementation of the checklist is reported in high-income countries, but in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) reports of successful implementations are sparse, limited to single institutions and require intensive support. Since checklist use leads to the biggest improvements in outcomes in LMICs, methods of wide-scale implementation are needed. We hypothesized that, using a three-day course, successful wide-scale implementation of the checklist could be achieved, as measured by at least 50% compliance with six basic safety processes at three to four months. We also aimed to determine predictors for checklist utilization.Using a blended educational implementation strategy based on prior pilot studies we designed a three-day dynamic educational course to facilitate widespread implementation of the WHO checklist. The course utilized lectures, film, small group breakouts, participant feedback and simulation to teach the knowledge, skills and behavior changes needed to implement the checklist. In collaboration with the Ministry of Health and local hospital leadership, the course was delivered to 427 multi-disciplinary staff at 21 hospitals located in 19 of 22 regions of Madagascar between September 2015 and March 2016. We evaluated implementation at three to four months using questionnaires (with a 5-point Likert scale) and focus groups. Multivariate linear regression was used to test predictors of checklist utilization.At three to four months, 65% of respondents reported always using the checklist, with another 13% using it in part. Participant's years in practice, hospital size, or surgical volume did not predict checklist use. Checklist use was associated with counting instruments (p< 0.05), but not with verifying: patient identity, difficult intubation risk, risk of blood loss, prophylactic antibiotic administration, or counting needles and sponges.Use of a multi-disciplinary three-day course for checklist implementation resulted in 78% of participants using the checklist, at three months; and an increase in counting surgical instruments. Successful checklist implementation was not predicted by participant length of medical service, hospital size or surgical volume. If reproducible in other countries, widespread implementation in LMICs becomes a realistic possibility.

Project description:India is revising its mental health legislation with the Indian Mental Healthcare Act 2017 (IMHA). When implemented, this legislation will apply to over 1.25 billion people. In 2005, the World Health Organization (WHO) published a Resource Book (WHO-RB) on mental health, human rights and legislation, including a checklist of 175 specific items to be addressed in mental health legislation or policy in individual countries. Even following the publication of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) (2006), the WHO-RB remains the most comprehensive checklist for mental health legislation available, rooted in UN and WHO documents and providing the most systematic, detailed framework for human rights analysis of mental health legislation. We sought to determine the extent to which the IMHA will bring Indian legislation in line with the WHO-RB.The IMHA and other relevant pieces of Indian legislation are compared to each of the items in the WHO-RB. We classify each item in a binary manner, as either concordant or not, and provide more nuanced detail in the text.The IMHA addresses 96/175 (55.4%) of the WHO-RB standards examined. When other relevant Indian legislation is taken into account, 118/175 (68.0%) of the standards are addressed in Indian law. Important areas of low concordance include the rights of families and carers, competence and guardianship, non-protesting patients and involuntary community treatment. The important legal constructs of advance directives, supported decision-making and nominated representatives are articulated in the Indian legislation and explored in this paper.In theory, the IMHA is a highly progressive piece of legislation, especially when compared to legislation in other jurisdictions subject to similar analysis. Along with the Indian Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016, it will bring Indian law closely in line with the WHO-RB. Vague, opaque language is however, used in certain contentious areas; this may represent arrangement-focused rather than realisation-focused legislation, and lead to inadvertent limitation of certain rights. Finally, the WHO-RB checklist is an extremely useful tool for this kind of analysis; we recommend it is updated to reflect the CRPD and other relevant developments.

Dataset Information

World checklist of hornworts and liverworts.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets