It’s possible that I shall make an ass of myself. But in that case one can always get out of it with a little dialectic. I have, of course, so worded my proposition as to be right either way (K.Marx, Letter to F.Engels on the Indian Mutiny)
Monday, November 06, 2023
Urine biomarkers can outperform serum biomarkers in certain diseases
In recent decades, the emphasis of biomarker research has centered around blood-based markers. However, blood biomarkers alone cannot capture the full spectrum of clinically relevant indicators. Consequently, urine has emerged as a valuable and complementary source of information, with increasing evidence of the diagnostic potential of urinary biomarkers compared to their serum counterparts for the detection of specific diseases.
In a study published in the KeAi journal Urine, a group of researchers from China, including Prof Zhiguo Mao and Dr. Cheng Xue from the Shanghai Changzheng Hospital, together with Prof Youhe Gao from Beijing Normal University, reported the enhanced performance of urinary biomarkers compared to plasma biomarkers for disease detection.
“Blood, being a complex fluid with multiple physiological functions, remains relatively stable due to the body's homeostatic mechanisms. In contrast, urine, a waste product generated by the kidneys, changes over time, making it an excellent source of early biomarkers,” explained Xue, first author of the study.
Notably, urine does not require stability mechanisms, rendering it more accurate in reflecting introduced changes in the body.
“The direct association between urine and the urinary system positions it as a prime area for discovering biomarkers, particularly in the context of urological diseases,” added Xue.
The process of urine formation in the nephrons allows for the concentration of specific urinary system biomarkers, which mnay be in higher levels in urine compared to in blood. Additionally, smaller molecules that can pass through the filtration stage and are not reabsorbed tend to become concentrated in urine, making them more easily detectable.
Furthermore, the ease and non-invasiveness of urine collection make it an attractive biofluid for biomarker discovery, and urinary proteins can be efficiently preserved for long-term archiving.
“A key takeaway from our findings is the potential for a combined approach, leveraging both urinary and serum biomarkers for a more holistic and personalized strategy for disease diagnosis and management,” said Xue.
Nonetheless, the team acknowledges the challenges in realizing this potential, particularly the standardization of urinary biomarker assays and the expansion of the spectrum of diseases that can be diagnosed using urinary biomarkers.
###
Contact the author: Zhiguo Mao, or Cheng Xue, Division of Nephrology, Shanghai Changzheng Hospital, Second Military Medical University (Naval Medical University), Shanghai, 200003, China. E-mail:maozhiguo93@126.com, or xuecheng@smmu.edu.cn. Youhe Gao, Gene Engineering Drug and Biotechnology Beijing Key Laboratory, College of Life Sciences, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, China.
The publisher KeAi was established by Elsevier and China Science Publishing & Media Ltd to unfold quality research globally. In 2013, our focus shifted to open access publishing. We now proudly publish more than 100 world-class, open access, English language journals, spanning all scientific disciplines. Many of these are titles we publish in partnership with prestigious societies and academic institutions, such as the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC).
Those at risk for Type 2 diabetes may already know to avoid sugar, but new research suggests they may want to skip the salt as well.
A new study from Tulane University published in Mayo Clinic Proceedingsfound that frequently adding salt to foods was associated with an increased risk of developing Type 2 diabetes.
The study surveyed more than 400,000 adults registered in the UK Biobank about their salt intake. Over a median of 11.8 years of follow-up, more than 13,000 cases of Type 2 diabetes developed among participants. Compared to those who “never” or “rarely” used salt, participants who “sometimes,” “usually,” or “always” added salt had a respective 13%, 20%, and 39% higher risk of developing Type 2 diabetes.
“We already know that limiting salt can reduce the risk of cardiovascular diseases and hypertension, but this study shows for the first time that taking the saltshaker off the table can help prevent Type 2 diabetes as well,” said lead author Dr. Lu Qi, HCA Regents Distinguished Chair and professor at the Tulane University School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine.
Further research is needed to determine why high salt intake could be linked to a higher risk of Type 2 diabetes. However, Qi believes salt encourages people to eat larger portions, increasing the chances of developing risk factors such as obesity and inflammation. The study found an association between frequent consumption of salt and higher BMI and waist-to-hip ratio.
Qi said the next step is to conduct a clinical trial controlling the amount of salt participants consume and observing the effects.
Still, Qi said it’s never too early to start searching for low-sodium ways to season your favorite foods.
“It’s not a difficult change to make, but it could have a tremendous impact on your health,” Qi said.
A new study has shown that women who are taking the oral contraceptive pill are less likely to report depression.
The research, which analysed data from 6,239 women in the United States aged 18-55 years old, found that the prevalence of major depression amongst users of the oral contraceptive pill (OCP) was significantly lower, at 4.6%, compared to former OCP users (11.4%).
The study was led by researchers at Anglia Ruskin University (ARU), alongside experts from the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston and University of California, Davis.
The researchers suggest two possible explanations for their findings, which are contrary to a commonly held belief that OCP can cause depression.
One is that taking the pill can remove concerns about unwanted pregnancy, therefore helping to improve the mental health of OCP users. It is also possible the results could be influenced by “survivor bias”, where women who experience signs of depression while using OCP stop taking it, moving them into the category of former users.
The cross-sectional study, which used data collected by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention in the United States, controlled for demographic characteristics, chronic conditions, and the use of antidepressants.
In both users and former users, widowed, divorced or separated women, obese women or those with a history of cancer were more likely to report depression. In addition, in former users, depression was more commonly reported in women who were Black or Hispanic, were smokers, had lower levels of education, or were experiencing poverty.
Lead author Dr Julia Gawronska, a Postdoctoral Research Fellow at Anglia Ruskin University (ARU), said: “Contraception is a crucial component of preventive health care. Most women tolerate taking the oral contraceptive pill without experiencing depressive symptoms but there is a subset of women that may experience adverse mood side effects and even develop depression, and the reasons are not entirely clear.
“Unlike some previous studies, we found that women currently taking the oral contraceptive pill were much less likely to report clinically relevant depression compared to women who previously took the pill.
“Taking the pill could provide positive mental health benefits for some women, simply by removing their concerns about becoming pregnant. The ‘survivor effect’ could also play a part, with women who experience symptoms of depression more likely to discontinue taking it, placing them into the group of former users.
“However, stopping taking the pill without a suitable alternative increases the risk of unintended pregnancy. It is important that women are fully supported, provided with full information, and offered alternative forms of contraception if necessary.”
CREDIT: ANNENBERG PUBLIC POLICY CENTER OF THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA
PHILADELPHIA – Americans have less confidence in vaccines to address a variety of illnesses than they did just a year or two ago, and more people accept misinformation about vaccines and Covid-19, according to the latest health survey from the Annenberg Public Policy Center (APPC) of the University of Pennsylvania.
The survey conducted October 5-12, 2023, with a panel of over 1,500 U.S. adults, finds that the number of Americans who think vaccines approved for use in the United States are safe dropped to 71% from 77% in April 2021. The percentage of adults who don’t think vaccines approved in the U.S. are safe grew to 16% from 9% over that same two-and-a-half-year period.
Despite concerted efforts by news organizations, public health officials, scientists, and fact-checkers (including APPC’s project FactCheck.org) to counter viral misinformation about vaccination and Covid-19, the survey finds that some false or unproven claims about them are more widely accepted today than two to three years ago. Although the proportion of the American public that holds these beliefs is, in some cases, still relatively small, the survey finds growth in misinformation acceptance across many questions touching on vaccination.
“There are warning signs in these data that we ignore at our peril,” said Kathleen Hall Jamieson, director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center and director of the survey. “Growing numbers now distrust health-protecting, life-saving vaccines.”
Highlights
Covid-19 vaccine: Less than two-thirds of Americans (63%) think is it safer to get the Covid-19 vaccine than the Covid-19 disease, a decline from 75% in April 2021.
Ivermectin: Over a quarter (26%) incorrectly think ivermectin is an effective treatment for Covid-19, up dramatically from 10% in September 2021.
Autism: A small but growing number (16%) believe that “increased vaccines are why so many kids have autism these days,” up from 10% in April 2021.
Return to normal: Asked when they expected to return to their normal, pre-Covid life, two-thirds (67%) say they already have. Three-quarters (75%) say they never or rarely wear a mask or face covering.
APPC’s Annenberg Science and Public Health Knowledge survey
The survey data come from the 13th wave of a nationally representative panel of 1,559 U.S. adults, first empaneled in April 2021, conducted for the Annenberg Public Policy Center by SSRS, an independent market research company. This wave of the Annenberg Science and Public Health Knowledge (ASAPH) survey was fielded October 5-12, 2023, and has a margin of sampling error (MOE) of ± 3.4 percentage points at the 95% confidence level. All figures are rounded to the nearest whole number and may not add to 100%. Combined subcategories may not add to totals in the topline and text due to rounding.
The policy center has been tracking the American public’s knowledge, beliefs, and behaviors regarding vaccination, Covid-19, flu, RSV, and other consequential health issues through this survey panel over the past two-and-a-half years. In addition to Jamieson, the APPC team on this survey includes research analyst Shawn Patterson Jr., who analyzed the data; Patrick E. Jamieson, director of the Annenberg Health and Risk Communication Institute, who developed the questions; and Ken Winneg, managing director of survey research, who supervised the fielding of the survey.
Beliefs in vaccine misinformation are on the rise:
Vaccinations affecting childhood autism: There’s been a decline in the number of people who know it is false to say that “increased vaccinations are why so many kids have autism these days,” dropping to 65% from 71% in April 2021. The number of people who believe that this is true has grown to 16% from 10% over that period. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) says that vaccines do not cause autism.
Growing belief in false MMR-autism link: Asked if it is true or false that vaccines given to children for diseases like measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) cause autism, 12% incorrectly say this is true, up from 9% in June 2021, a statistically significant rise. Most people (70%) correctly say that this allegation is false. According to the CDC, vaccine experts say “the MMR vaccine is not responsible for increases in the number of children with autism.”
Flu shot and Covid-19: There was a small but statistically significant increase in the number of people who incorrectly think that getting a flu shot increases your risk of contracting Covid-19 – 9% say this is true, up from 6% in January 2023. As pointed out in a story by FactCheck.org, there is no evidence a flu shot increases the risk of Covid-19.
Growing belief that vaccines contain toxins: More than 1 in 10 people (12%) now incorrectly believe it is true that “vaccines in general are full of toxins and harmful ingredients like ‘antifreeze,’” a significant increase from 8% in April 2021. Although most people (73%) know this is false, that number has declined from 77% in June 2021. FactCheck.org notes that flu ingredients are safe in this story and writes about the ingredients in Covid-19 vaccines here. A look at the ingredients in vaccines is here.
Ivermectin to treat Covid-19: Over a quarter (26%) incorrectly say ivermectin is an effective treatment for Covid-19, up from 10% in September 2021. The percentage who know this is false also rose, to 37% from 27% in September 2021. Overall, the number of people who are unsure declined, to 38% from 63%. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has not authorized or approved the use of ivermectin for treating or preventing Covid-19 in humans or animals, and says current data do not show it is effective against Covid-19.
Cancer and mRNA vaccines: 12% of those surveyed say it is true that mRNA vaccines against Covid-19 “cause cancer,” up from 9% in January 2023. The number who believe this is false remained steady at 58%. There is no evidence Covid-19 vaccines cause or “accelerate” cancer, according to FactCheck.org.
In addition, many do not know that the flu vaccine cannot give you the flu: Just half of those surveyed (51%) know that the seasonal flu shot distributed in the U.S. cannot give you flu, while nearly 3 in 10 people (29%) think that is false. This finding is statistically unchanged since January. The CDC says the flu vaccine cannot cause flu.
Less confidence in vaccine safety
Declining belief that vaccines are safe: Although most people (71%) agree that vaccines approved for use in the U.S. are safe, that is down significantly from 77% in April 2021. More people (16%) think it false to state that vaccines in the U.S. are safe than in January 2022 (11%). FactCheck.org examines what is known about vaccine safety.
Less confidence in Covid-19 vaccine: Less than two-thirds (63%) say it is safer to get the Covid-19 vaccine than to get the disease Covid-19, a significant drop from 77% in November 2021. And the number of people who say it is false to state that the vaccine is safer than the disease is up to 21%, more than doubling from 10% in April 2021.
Safety of specific vaccines
The public has widely varying opinions about the safety of individual vaccines – but several of those we asked about are perceived as less safe today than 14 months earlier in an August 2022 wave of this survey. The MMR, Covid-19, and pneumonia vaccines are all regarded as less safe than in the earlier survey.
Beliefs in the safety of individual vaccines range from 81% for the long-established vaccines for the seasonal flu and MMR (measles, mumps, and rubella) to 50% for the vaccine approved in August by the FDA for pregnant people to protect their infants from respiratory syncytial virus, or RSV. The significant declines are marked with an*:
MMR vaccine*: 81% say the MMR vaccine is safe (down significantly from 88% in August 2022), while 9% say it is unsafe and 10% are not sure.
Flu vaccine: 81% say the flu vaccine is safe (no significant change from August 2022), while 11% say it is unsafe and 8% are not sure.
Shingles vaccine: 78% say the shingles vaccine is safe (no significant change from August 2022), while 7% say it is unsafe and 15% are not sure.
Pneumonia vaccine*: 74% say the pneumonia vaccine is safe (down significantly from 80% in August 2022), while 8% say it is unsafe and 18% are not sure.
HPV vaccine: 65% say the vaccine for HPV, human papillomavirus, is safe (no significant change from August 2022), while 11% say it is unsafe and 24% are not sure.
Covid-19 vaccine*: 66% say the Covid-19 vaccine is safe (down significantly from 73% in August 2022), while 24% say it is unsafe and 10% are not sure.
RSV vaccine for older adults: 62% say the RSV vaccine for people 60 and older is safe, while 11% say it is unsafe, and 27% are not sure. This vaccine was first approved by the FDA in May 2023; this question was not asked last year.
RSV for pregnant people: Just half (50%) say the vaccine given to pregnant people to protect their infants from RSV is safe, while 13% say it is unsafe, and over a third (38%) are not sure. This vaccine was approved by the FDA in August 2023; this question was not asked last year.
Effectiveness of different vaccines
Public perceptions of the effectiveness of some vaccines have also declined over the past 14 months. The perceived effectiveness of the vaccines for MMR, flu, pneumonia, and HPV all had statistically significant drops since August 2022 and are marked with an *. Large percentages of people are unsure of whether the new RSV vaccines are effective. When asked how effective these vaccines are at preventing symptomatic disease, survey respondents say:
MMR vaccine*: 83% effective (down significantly from 87% in August 2022)
Flu vaccine*: 75% effective (down significantly from 81% in August 2022)
Shingles vaccine: 73% effective (no significant change)
Pneumonia vaccine*: 69% effective (down significantly from 74% in August 2022)
Covid-19 vaccine: 65% effective (no significant change)
HPV vaccine*: 61% effective (down significantly from 66% in August 2022)
RSV vaccine for older adults: 54% effective (37% not sure)
RSV vaccine for pregnant persons to protect their infants from RSV: 42% effective (47% not sure)
Lives returning to normal
Return to normal: Growing numbers of Americans say they have returned to their normal, pre-Covid lives. Asked when they expect to be able to return to their normal, pre-Covid life, 67% say they already have, significantly higher than in January (52%). However, this is not true for a small but persistent group who see life as forever changed. One in 5 Americans (20%) say they will never return to their normal, pre-Covid lives, more than in June 2023 (16%).
Mask-wearing: Asked how often you wear a mask or face covering indoors when with people who are not part of your household, 75% say never or rarely (statistically unchanged from June) – with 53% of those saying they never wear one. Another 21% say they sometimes, often, or always wear a mask or face covering, and 4% say they don’t go places where they might come in contact with people who are not in their household.
Download the topline with data for wave 13 of the survey.
The Annenberg Public Policy Centerwas established in 1993 to educate the public and policy makers about communication’s role in advancing public understanding of political, science, and health issues at the local, state, and federal levels. Read about our science and health surveys.
METHOD OF RESEARCH
Survey
Two-thirds of those surveyed say they have already returned to their pre-pandemic normal lives and three-quarters say they never or rarely wear a mask or face covering indoors when with people who are not from their household. Source: ASAPH surveys of the Annenberg Public Policy Center, September 2021-October 2023.
Perceived safety of different vaccines. Asked in August 2022 and October 2023 in the ASAPH survey of the Annenberg Public Policy Center. Three of the vacines -- MMR, pneumonia, and Covid-19 -- had a statistically significant decline in overall perceived safety (combined very safe/somewhat safe).
Perceived effectiveness of different vaccines. Asked in August 2022 and October 2023 in the ASAPH survey of the Annenberg Public Policy Center. Four vacines -- MMR, flu, pneumonia, and HPV -- had a statistically significant decline in overall perceived effectiveness (combined very effective/somewhat effective).
Stress in America 2023: A nation grappling with psychological impacts of collective trauma
Pandemic aftermath includes more stress, chronic health issues
U.S. society appears to be experiencing the psychological impacts of a collective trauma in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic, according to the results of a new survey by the American Psychological Association. Psychologists warn that a superficial characterization of life being “back to normal” is obscuring the post-traumatic effects on mental and physical health.
The long-term stress sustained since the COVID-19 pandemic began has had a significant impact on well-being, evidenced by a significant increase in reported mental health conditions and chronic illnesses, according to the results of Stress in America™ 2023, a nationwide survey conducted by The Harris Poll on behalf of APA among more than 3,000 U.S. adults age 18+.
The survey revealed that those ages 35 to 44 reported the most significant increase in chronic health conditions since the pandemic — 58% in 2023 compared with 48% in 2019. Adults ages 35 to 44 also experienced the highest increase in mental health diagnoses — 45% reported a mental illness in 2023 compared with 31% in 2019 — though adults ages 18 to 34 still reported the highest rate of mental illnesses at 50% in 2023. Adults ages 35 to 44 were more likely to report that money (77% vs. 65%) and the economy (74% vs. 51%) were the factors that cause them significant stress today compared with 2019.
“The COVID-19 pandemic created a collective experience among Americans. While the early pandemic lockdowns may seem like the distant past, the aftermath remains,” said Arthur C. Evans Jr., PhD, APA’s chief executive officer. “We cannot ignore the fact that we have been significantly changed by the loss of more than one million Americans, as well as the shift in our workplaces, school systems and culture at large. To move toward post-traumatic growth, we must first identify and understand the psychological wounds that remain.”
APA psychologists noted that many people had generally positive perceptions of their physical health even when they reported being diagnosed with a chronic condition. More than four in five adults rated their physical health as good, very good or excellent (81%), yet 66% of adults said they have been told by a health care provider that they have a chronic illness.
Furthermore, 81% of adults reported their mental health as good, very good or excellent, while more than one-third (37%) said they have a diagnosed mental health condition — a 5 percentage point increase from pre-pandemic levels in 2019 (32%).
The majority of adults also downplayed their stress; 67% said their problems aren’t “bad enough” to be stressed about, knowing that others have it worse. When asked why they don’t seek treatment, adults’ top reasons were the belief that therapy doesn’t work (40%), lack of time (39%) or lack of insurance (37%). Despite these reasons, nearly half (47%) said they wish they had someone to help manage their stress, and 62% reported they don’t talk about their stress because they don’t want to burden others.
Nearly a quarter of adults (24%) rated their average stress between eight and 10 on a scale of one to 10 where one means little to no stress and 10 means a great deal of stress. This is up from 19% in 2019, before the pandemic. This increase was mirrored across all age groups except those age 65+: 34% of those age 18 to 34 reported this in 2023 (+8 percentage points from 2019); 31% of those 35 to 44 (+10 percentage points); 22% of those 45 to 64 (+4 percentage points); and 9% of those 65+ (-1 percentage point). Parents of children under the age of 18 who ranked their average stress between eight and 10 also saw a significant increase (33% in 2023 vs. 24% in 2019).
In 2023, parents were more likely than other adults to report that financial strain increased in their household (46% vs. 34%), that money is a cause of fights in their family (58% vs. 30%) and that they are more likely to feel consumed by worries regarding money (66% vs. 39%). Most troubling is that compared with other adults, parents of children under the age of 18 were more likely to report that on most days their stress is completely overwhelming (48% vs. 26%), they are so stressed they feel numb (42% vs. 22%) or on most days they are so stressed they can’t function (41% vs. 20%).
“Stress affects all systems of the body, so it is crucial that Americans know the serious impacts of stress and what they can do to reduce the effect of stressors in their life, as well as receive help from their health care providers, workplace and support systems to prevent further health crises,” said Evans.
More information on the survey findings and how to handle stress is available at www.stressinamerica.org. APA psychologists are available for media interviews to discuss these findings and provide science-based recommendations on how to address the ongoing mental health crisis in the U.S.
METHODOLOGY
The research was conducted online in the United States by The Harris Poll on behalf of the American Psychological Association among 3,185 adults age 18+ who reside in the U.S. (i.e., a national sample). In addition, oversamples allowed for increased totals by race/ethnicity: 805 Black, 811 Latino/a/e and 800 Asian individuals. For adults who identify as Latino/a/e, interviews were conducted in English and Spanish. The survey was conducted Aug. 4 – 26, 2023.
Respondents for this survey were selected from among those who have agreed to participate in Harris’ surveys. The sampling precision of Harris online polls is measured by using a Bayesian credible interval. For this study, the sample data for the national sample is accurate to within + 2.5 percentage points using a 95% confidence level. This credible interval will be wider among subsets of the surveyed population of interest.
CORVALLIS, Ore. – The world’s largest dam removal and restoration project currently underway on the Klamath River in Oregon and California will aid salmon populations that have been devastated by disease and other factors. However, it will not fully alleviate challenges faced by the species, a team of researchers conclude in a just-published paper.
“The dam removals will likely go a long way towards restoring balance in the river,” said Sascha Hallett, a fish parasitologist at Oregon State University who has studied the river for two decades. “Certainly under certain circumstances there are going to be disease outbreaks, like with people and pathogens. But we envision that they are not going to be as large and not going to be as frequent as we have observed in the past.”
Michael Belchik, a fisheries biologist with the Yurok Tribe in California and co-author of the paper, said he thinks there will be noticeable gains for fish shortly after the dams are removed.
“I think you are going to see fish accessing new habitat right away, and that is going to be a cause for celebration,” said Belchik, who has worked for the Tribe since 1995.
In the paper, published in Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, Hallett and a team of researchers from Oregon State, Tribes in Oregon and California, and state and federal agencies outlined their predictions for salmon disease risk in the Klamath River following the removal of four hydroelectric dams. They also provide post-dam removal research and monitoring recommendations and insights to aid habitat restoration efforts.
One of the four dams was removed earlier this year, and the other three are slated to be taken down in early 2024. Removal of the dams will result in restoration of habitat originally altered more than 100 years ago with construction of the first dam.
The Klamath River runs more than 250 miles from Oregon's high desert interior through the Cascade Mountains before entering the Pacific Ocean in northern California. It has broad ecological, cultural, recreational and economic relevance. The river was once the third largest salmon-producing river on the West Coast. Those salmon served as the foundation of life and culture for Tribes living along the river.
Construction of the dams in the early-to-mid-20th century blocked access for salmon and other fish species to hundreds of miles of habitat and created barriers that led to increases in pathogens deadly to the fish.
This dynamic received widespread attention in 2002 when there was a die-off of tens of thousands of chinook salmon in the Klamath River. Shortly after this event, Jerri Bartholomew, an Oregon State microbiologist who works with Hallett, started studying the Klamath River salmon.
Salmon health is impacted by many factors, including stream-flow levels, water temperature and pathogens. Barthlomew and her colleagues focus on the pathogens.
They have spent the past 20 years unraveling how a parasite known as Ceratonova shasta works in conjunction with an aquatic worm host, Manayunkia occidentalis, which is smaller than an eyelash, to create conditions in the Klamath River that are deadly to salmon.
In the paper, researchers say that increased habitat availability and longer fish migration routes created by dam removals will increase duration of pathogen exposure. However, restoration of the river’s natural flow will decrease fish disease risk by essentially flushing out the pathogens and unclogging a pathogen hot spot that has formed below the Iron Gate Dam, about five miles south of the California-Oregon border just east of Interstate 5. The dam is slated for removal in early 2024.
“There’s no question in my mind just the removal of these four dams will go a long way to knocking back that current infection zone by shifting things in terms of time and space where the hosts and parasites overlap,” said Julie Alexander, an aquatic ecologist who works with Hallett and Barthlomew.
She also cautioned that restoration efforts that will occur after dam removal need to be conducted thoughtfully.
"You don't want to go and restore a section of river to encourage salmon to spawn somewhere we know there are worms because then you are going to create a hot spot," Alexander said.
In addition to co-authors from the Yurok Tribe, authors of the paper include scientists at the Hoopa, Klamath and Karuk Tribes, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
The ongoing research by Oregon State and its partners has been supported by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. That includes a $4.5 million award earlier this year.
“Without this funding and without these groups contributing different pieces of the datasets, we would not have been poised at this time to capture that and be able to make predictions,” Hallett said. “Those two things are really important going forward to be able to inform short-term and long-term management actions as well as being able to inform ‘Was this major environmental change event successful?’”
Aerial view of JC Boyle Dam on Klamath River in Oregon.
