Search

Our understanding of the habitat needs of grassland fauna is often incomplete because of their cryptic behaviour. This presents a barrier to identifying important habitat attributes, whether these change at different spatial scales, and how this informs management decisions. Here, we use a critically endangered bird, the Plains‐wanderer (Pedionomus torquatus, Pedionomidae), as an exemplar of the challenge of managing grasslands for cryptic species. Until now, almost all ecological knowledge of Plains‐wanderers has come from the detection of nocturnally roosting individuals and habitat assessments at fine‐scales that indicate open swards are preferred habitat. We GPS‐tracked 13 adult Plains‐wanderers to better understand diurnal habitat utilization in native grasslands of south‐eastern Australia. Using these data, we assessed whether Plains‐wanderers select for different habitat attributes during the day and night, and whether this varied according to spatial scale. At the fine‐scale (< 1 ha), daytime foraging occurred in denser swards than those of nocturnal roosting sites. At the patch‐scale (1–50 ha), Plains‐wanderers selected for denser vegetation, with higher grass and lichen cover, whilst avoiding areas where structure was impacted by a high exotic plant cover. Plains‐wanderers did not select habitat based on grassland type at the landscape‐scale (>100 ha). We demonstrate that Plains‐wanderers require grasslands with both open and denser swards to support foraging and roosting. In doing so, we address the biases associated with habitat assessments based on roost‐only locations and extend known habitat associations critical to the successful management of the species. Our findings highlight that a precautionary approach to the classification of habitat requirements is warranted when uncertainty around habitat use of cryptic grassland fauna exists. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Australian government recently released its response to the Review of Medicines and Medical Devices Regulation, accepting most recommendations. One recommendation involves the introduction of provisional approvals for perceived life-saving and innovative new treatments, allowing these to be approved on the basis of more limited data on the condition that further safety and efficacy data (including real-world evidence) are collected to determine whether full approval should be granted. However, experience with similar schemes overseas raises significant questions about the safety and efficacy of products made available through these pathways. These uncertainties are compounded by the challenges associated with the collection and use of 'real-world' data and the difficulty of withdrawing products from the market once patients and clinicians become familiar with them. Although there may be good reasons to provide patients with earlier access to medicines on the basis of provisional evidence (including providing treatment options and hope to patients with serious illnesses), we must exercise caution in order to protect both current and future patients from potentially harmful and futile treatments and ensure that healthcare systems use their resources wisely. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]