TY  - JOUR
A1  - Kleemann, Janina
A1  - Zamora, Camilo
A1  - Villacis-Chiluisa, Alexandra Belen
A1  - Cuenca, Pablo
A1  - Koo, Hongmi
A1  - Noh, Jin Kyoung
A1  - Fürst, Christine
A1  - Thiel, Michael
T1  - Deforestation in continental Ecuador with a focus on protected areas
JF  - Land
N2  - Forest conservation is of particular concern in tropical regions where a large refuge of biodiversity is still existing. These areas are threatened by deforestation, forest degradation and fragmentation. Especially, pressures of anthropogenic activities adjacent to these areas significantly influence conservation effectiveness. Ecuador was chosen as study area since it is a globally relevant center of forest ecosystems and biodiversity. We identified hotspots of deforestation on the national level of continental Ecuador between 1990 and 2018, analyzed the most significant drivers of deforestation on national and biome level (the Coast, the Andes, The Amazon) as well as inside protected areas in Ecuador by using multiple regression analysis. We separated the national system of protected areas (SNAP) into higher and lower protection levels. Besides SNAP, we also considered Biosphere Reserves (BRs) and Ramsar sites. In addition, we investigated the rates and spatial patterns of deforestation in protected areas and buffer zones (5 km and 10 km outwards the protected area boundaries) using landscape metrics. Between 1990 and 2018, approximately 4% of the accumulated deforestation occurred within the boundaries of SNAP, and up to 25.5% in buffer zones. The highest rates of deforestation have been found in the 5 km buffer zone around the protected areas with the highest protection level. Protected areas and their buffer zones with higher protection status were identified as the most deforested areas among SNAP. BRs had the highest deforestation rates among all protected areas but most of these areas just became BRs after the year 2000. The most important driver of deforestation is agriculture. Other relevant drivers differ between the biomes. The results suggest that the SNAP is generally effective to prevent deforestation within their protection boundaries. However, deforestation around protected areas can undermine conservation strategies to sustain biodiversity. Actions to address such dynamics and patterns of deforestation and forest fragmentation, and developing conservation strategies of their landscape context are urgently needed especially in the buffer zones of areas with the highest protection status.
KW  - conservation
KW  - driving forces
KW  - forest
KW  - loss
KW  - human pressure
KW  - land use change
KW  - landscape metrics
KW  - protection status
KW  - spatial analysis
Y1  - 2022
U6  - http://nbn-resolving.de/urn/resolver.pl?urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-262078
SN  - 2073-445X
VL  - 11
IS  - 2
ER  - 
TY  - JOUR
A1  - Assfalg, Volker
A1  - Selig, Katharina
A1  - Tolksdorf, Johanna
A1  - van Meel, Marieke
A1  - de Vries, Erwin
A1  - Ramsoebhag, Anne‐Marie
A1  - Rahmel, Axel
A1  - Renders, Lutz
A1  - Novotny, Alexander
A1  - Matevossian, Edouard
A1  - Schneeberger, Stefan
A1  - Rosenkranz, Alexander R.
A1  - Berlakovich, Gabriela
A1  - Ysebaert, Dirk
A1  - Knops, Noël
A1  - Kuypers, Dirk
A1  - Weekers, Laurent
A1  - Muehlfeld, Anja
A1  - Rump, Lars‐Christian
A1  - Hauser, Ingeborg
A1  - Pisarski, Przemyslaw
A1  - Weimer, Rolf
A1  - Fornara, Paolo
A1  - Fischer, Lutz
A1  - Kliem, Volker
A1  - Sester, Urban
A1  - Stippel, Dirk
A1  - Arns, Wolfgang
A1  - Hau, Hans‐Michael
A1  - Nitschke, Martin
A1  - Hoyer, Joachim
A1  - Thorban, Stefan
A1  - Weinmann‐Menke, Julia
A1  - Heller, Katharina
A1  - Banas, Bernhard
A1  - Schwenger, Vedat
A1  - Nadalin, Silvio
A1  - Lopau, Kai
A1  - Hüser, Norbert
A1  - Heemann, Uwe
T1  - Repeated kidney re‐transplantation—the Eurotransplant experience: a retrospective multicenter outcome analysis
JF  - Transplant International
N2  - In Eurotransplant kidney allocation system (ETKAS), candidates can be considered unlimitedly for repeated re‐transplantation. Data on outcome and benefit are indeterminate. We performed a retrospective 15‐year patient and graft outcome data analysis from 1464 recipients of a third or fourth or higher sequential deceased donor renal transplantation (DDRT) from 42 transplant centers. Repeated re‐DDRT recipients were younger (mean 43.0 vs. 50.2 years) compared to first DDRT recipients. They received grafts with more favorable HLA matches (89.0% vs. 84.5%) but thereby no statistically significant improvement of patient and graft outcome was found as comparatively demonstrated in 1st DDRT. In the multivariate modeling accounting for confounding factors, mortality and graft loss after 3rd and ≥4th DDRT (P < 0.001 each) and death with functioning graft (DwFG) after 3rd DDRT (P = 0.001) were higher as compared to 1st DDRT. The incidence of primary nonfunction (PNF) was also significantly higher in re‐DDRT (12.7%) than in 1st DDRT (7.1%; P < 0.001). Facing organ shortage, increasing waiting time, and considerable mortality on dialysis, we question the current policy of repeated re‐DDRT. The data from this survey propose better HLA matching in first DDRT and second DDRT and careful selection of candidates, especially for ≥4th DDRT.
KW  - allocation
KW  - child
KW  - fourth
KW  - graft
KW  - kidney
KW  - loss
KW  - repeated
KW  - re‐transplantation
KW  - survival
KW  - third
Y1  - 2020
U6  - http://nbn-resolving.de/urn/resolver.pl?urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-214161
VL  - 33
IS  - 6
SP  - 617
EP  - 631
ER  -