Experimental evaluation of evolution and coevolution as agents of ecosystem change in Trinidadian streams.

Evolution has been shown to be a critical determinant of ecological processes in some systems, but its importance relative to traditional ecological effects is not well known. In addition, almost nothing is known about the role of coevolution in shaping ecosystem function. Here, we experimentally evaluated the relative effects of species invasion (a traditional ecological effect), evolution and coevolution on ecosystem processes in Trinidadian streams. We manipulated the presence and population-of-origin of two common fish species, the guppy (Poecilia reticulata) and the killifish (Rivulus hartii). We measured epilithic algal biomass and accrual, aquatic invertebrate biomass, and detrital decomposition. Our results show that, for some ecosystem responses, the effects of evolution and coevolution were larger than the effects of species invasion. Guppy evolution in response to alternative predation regimes significantly influenced algal biomass and accrual rates. Guppies from a high-predation site caused an increase in algae relative to guppies from a low-predation site; algae effects were probably shaped by observed divergence in rates of nutrient excretion and algae consumption. Rivulus-guppy coevolution significantly influenced the biomass of aquatic invertebrates. Locally coevolved populations reduced invertebrate biomass relative to non-coevolved populations. These results challenge the general assumption that intraspecific diversity is a less critical determinant of ecosystem function than is interspecific diversity. Given existing evidence for contemporary evolution in these fish species, our findings suggest considerable potential for eco-evolutionary feedbacks to operate as populations adapt to natural or anthropogenic perturbations.

Comparison of extramedullary versus intramedullary referencing for tibial component alignment in total ankle arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: The majority of total ankle arthroplasty (TAA) systems use extramedullary alignment guides for tibial component placement. However, at least 1 system offers intramedullary referencing. In total knee arthroplasty, studies suggest that tibial component placement is more accurate with intramedullary referencing. The purpose of this study was to compare the accuracy of extramedullary referencing with intramedullary referencing for tibial component placement in total ankle arthroplasty. METHODS: The coronal and sagittal tibial component alignment was evaluated on the postoperative weight-bearing anteroposterior (AP) and lateral radiographs of 236 consecutive fixed-bearing TAAs. Radiographs were measured blindly by 2 investigators. The postoperative alignment of the prosthesis was compared with the surgeon's intended alignment in both planes. The accuracy of tibial component alignment was compared between the extramedullary and intramedullary referencing techniques using unpaired t tests. Interrater and intrarater reliabilities were assessed with intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). RESULTS: Eighty-three tibial components placed with an extramedullary referencing technique were compared with 153 implants placed with an intramedullary referencing technique. The accuracy of the extramedullary referencing was within a mean of 1.5 ± 1.4 degrees and 4.1 ± 2.9 degrees in the coronal and sagittal planes, respectively. The accuracy of intramedullary referencing was within a mean of 1.4 ± 1.1 degrees and 2.5 ± 1.8 degrees in the coronal and sagittal planes, respectively. There was a significant difference (P < .001) between the 2 techniques with respect to the sagittal plane alignment. Interrater ICCs for coronal and sagittal alignment were high (0.81 and 0.94, respectively). Intrarater ICCs for coronal and sagittal alignment were high for both investigators. CONCLUSIONS: Initial sagittal plane tibial component alignment was notably more accurate when intramedullary referencing was used. Further studies are needed to determine the effect of this difference on clinical outcomes and long-term survivability of the implants. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective comparative study.