Habitat models and assessment of habitat partitioning for Kemp’s ridley and loggerhead marine turtles foraging in Chesapeake Bay (USA)

Understanding the spatial distribution of a species is required to enact effective conservation. Complications to effective conservation can arise when the distributions of multiple target species are non-overlapping. Conservation efforts meant to protect one species may shift threats into the distribution of another species. Two species of marine turtle, loggerhead Caretta caretta and Kemp’s ridley Lepidochelys kempii, are common seasonally in Chesapeake Bay, a large estuary on the US east coast. Both species are protected under the US Endangered Species Act and face spatially complex threats in the region. We created habitat suitability models for these 2 species to inform conservation efforts in the region and explore the extent of overlap between their distributions. Argos satellite tags were deployed on 24 Kemp’s ridley and 10 loggerhead turtles to record animal locations within the Bay. Boosted regression tree models were created for each species using presence-only animal locations, predicting suitable habitat within the Bay. Habitat for Kemp’s ridley turtles was predicted in shallow, coastal areas of the southern Bay as well as in brackish areas of rivers. Loggerhead turtle habitat was predicted to extend farther north than Kemp’s ridley habitat and was generally found in deeper areas of the middle Bay. There is some evidence that these 2 species are partitioning habitat. Any conservation measures adopted to conserve marine turtles in the Chesapeake Bay should consider the habitat of both species holistically to avoid shifting impacts from one species to another.

The preservation of a spare hemi-abdominal flap in unilateral breast reconstruction with abdominal free flap in high risk patients

BACKGROUND

Unilateral breast reconstruction with a free abdominal TRAM or DIEP flap restores the shape of the amputated breast with acceptable donor site morbidity. In patients with small breasts and ample lower abdominal tissue this can be achieved by using only a hemi-abdominal flap. In these cases, the contra-lateral flap is usually discarded, but it could potentially be left in situ as a "spare" hemi-abdominal flap, especially in patients at high risk for contra-lateral breast cancer or flap failure. We report our early experience with this preservation technique.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The authors report two cases of unilateral breast reconstruction with hemi-abdominal DIEP free flaps in women at high risk for contra-lateral breast cancer and/or flap failure, who opted not to have prophylactic contra-lateral mastectomies. They consented to having the unused "spare" hemi-abdominal deepithelialized flap left in situ in case the need for a secondary flap arose.

RESULTS

The "spare" hemi-abdominal flap was used for immediate reconstruction as an SIEA free flap when the first patient's original flap necrosed secondary to microcirculation problems. The second patient's spare flap was left in situ by burying it after de-epithelialization.

CONCLUSIONS

We believe that patients undergoing unilateral breast reconstruction who are at high risk for contra-lateral breast cancer and/or free flap failure, and who choose not to undergo an immediate contra-lateral prophylactic mastectomy, should have the "spare" hemi-abdominal flap buried. This tissue could be used as a potential bailout flap in cases of original flap failure or for contralateral breast reconstruction at a later date.