Plant traits can be used to predict ecosystem responses to environmental change using a response–effect trait framework. To do this, appropriate traits must be identified that explain a species' influence on ecosystem function (“effect traits”) and the response of those species to environmental change (“response traits”). Response traits are often identified and measured along gradients in plant resources, such as water availability; however, precipitation explains very little variation in most plant traits globally. Given the strong relationship between plant traits and ecosystem functions, such as net primary productivity (NPP), and between NPP and precipitation, the lack of correlation between precipitation and plant traits is surprising. We address this issue through a systematic review of >500 published studies that describe plant trait responses to altered water availability. The overarching goal of this review was to identify potential causes for the weak relationship between commonly measured plant traits and water availability so that we may identify more appropriate “response traits.” We attribute weak trait–precipitation relationships to an improper selection of traits (e.g., nonhydraulic traits) and a lack of trait‐based approaches that adjust for trait variation within communities (only 4% of studies measure community‐weighted traits). We then highlight the mechanistic value of hydraulic traits as more appropriate “response traits” with regard to precipitation, which should be included in future community‐scale trait surveys. Trait‐based ecology has the potential to improve predictions of ecosystem responses to predicted changes in precipitation; however, this predictive power depends heavily on the identification of reliable response and effect traits. To this end, trait surveys could be improved by a selection of traits that reflect physiological functions directly related to water availability with traits weighted by species relative abundance. A http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1365-2435.13135/suppinfo is available for this article.

In breast cancer patients receiving AC, the addition of aprepitant to a 5-HT(3) antagonist and dexamethasone during cycle 2 of treatment improved antiemetic outcome. Although the improvement in the primary endpoint of complete control during cycle 2 was not significant, all secondary endpoints such as complete response and no emesis rates were significantly better during cycle 2. The extent of antiemetic control during cycle 2 was numerically inferior to the results achieved in a phase III trial employing aprepitant with cycle 1 of AC chemotherapy, suggesting that the preferred approach is to include aprepitant with the initial cycle of AC chemotherapy.

IntroductionAdjuvant whole breast radiation therapy has developed into the standard of care for patients following a lumpectomy for early-stage breast cancer. However, there is recent interest in intraoperative radiation therapy (IORT) to minimize toxicity while still improving local control beyond surgical resection and anti-estrogen therapy alone.Materials and methodsAll patients were evaluated pre-operatively in a multidisciplinary clinic setting at a community hospital for suitability for breast conservation therapy. A total of 109 patients were reviewed receiving 110 IORT treatments. Patients were followed with clinical breast examinations and mammography as clinically indicated.ResultsAt a median follow-up of 29.9 months, 2/110 (1.8%) patients experienced a local failure. One patient (0.9%) experienced a regional failure. Local control, disease-free survival and overall survival at 3 years were 98.9% (95%CI 92.2–99.8), 97.2% (95%CI 88.9–99.3), and 96.0% (95%CI 84.9–99.0), respectively. Five-year local control, disease-free survival, and overall survival rates were 96.3% (95%CI 84.7–99.2), 94.6% (95%CI 83.2–98.3), and 92.5% (95%CI 80.4–97.3), respectively. Patient self-reported cosmetic outcome was available for 51 patients, with all patients reporting being either very pleased, pleased, or satisfied with their cosmetic outcome, and no patients reported being dissatisfied or worse.ConclusionsThe results of our series suggest the feasibility of utilizing IORT in a community-based cancer center with a high degree of local control, and patient satisfaction with regard to cosmesis. While the results of this series suggest that IORT may be a promising modality, longer follow-up is warranted to better understand exactly which clinicopathological features can predict long-term locoregional disease control.

Summary Global change forecasts in ecosystems require knowledge of within‐species diversity, particularly of dominant species within communities. We assessed site‐level diversity and capacity for adaptation in Bouteloua gracilis, the dominant species in the Central US shortgrass steppe biome. We quantified genetic diversity from 17 sites across regional scales, north to south from New Mexico to South Dakota, and local scales in northern Colorado. We also quantified phenotype and plasticity within and among sites and determined the extent to which phenotypic diversity in B. gracilis was correlated with climate. Genome sequencing indicated pronounced population structure at the regional scale, and local differences indicated that gene flow and/or dispersal may also be limited. Within a common environment, we found evidence of genetic divergence in biomass‐related phenotypes, plasticity, and phenotypic variance, indicating functional divergence and different adaptive potential. Phenotypes were differentiated according to climate, chiefly median Palmer Hydrological Drought Index and other aridity metrics. Our results indicate conclusive differences in genetic variation, phenotype, and plasticity in this species and suggest a mechanism explaining variation in shortgrass steppe community responses to global change. This analysis of B. gracilis intraspecific diversity across spatial scales will improve conservation and management of the shortgrass steppe ecosystem in the future.

The use of a 5-HT(3) antagonist and dexamethasone prior to oxaliplatin results in excellent control of nausea and vomiting (CR-90%) during the 24 h after chemotherapy. However, without further antiemetic treatment, complete response in the delayed period decreased to 54%. This study supports the need for routine antiemetic prophylaxis for delayed nausea and vomiting following oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy.