Extensive development has destroyed and fragmented wildlife habitat in the Lower Florida Keys. The Lower Keys marsh rabbit (LKMR; Sylvilagus palustris hefneri) and the silver rice rat (SRR; Oryzomys argentatus) are listed by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC) as endangered species. Both species depend on coastal prairies, freshwater marshes, and intertidal salt-marsh zones. The objective of this study was to meet specific, species-level recovery goals and to add reliable information that may modify or support current recovery plans. Specifically, I (1) evaluated the use of LKMR reintroduction to suitable habitat, (2) examined characteristics of habitat used by LKMR, and (3) surveyed the Lower Florida Keys for SRRs, documenting current range and examining survey results for the past decade. I reintroduced 7 rabbits (3 males, 4 females) to suitable habitat on Water Key, and monitored their survival and release-site fidelity. All reintroduced rabbits survived and some reproduced, suggesting these translocation techniques are a viable tool for recovery. On Boca Chica Key, I radio-collared 13 LKMRs and compared vegetation characteristics between core-use and avoided areas within home ranges. Binary logistic regression associated rabbit use with high vegetation heights (7–8 dm), low canopy coverage (<=10%), high bunchgrass densities (2.5–3.8/sq m), and forb presence (>5%), supporting the hypothesis that LKMRs may be detrimentally impacted by hardwood encroachment into salt-marsh habitats. For LKMR recovery, I recommend management to resist hardwood encroachment, together with active predator control. I surveyed 36 locations on 18 islands for SRRs, capturing rats on 12 islands, including 2 on which SRRs had not previously been found. Comparisons of my data with historic data suggest SRRs either have increased in abundance over the past decade or that previous trapping efforts were not effective. Abundance of SRRs does not appear to be significantly different from that of populations of rice rats on the mainland. The USFWS and FFWCC should consider revising the conservation status of the SRR; however, it still should be regarded as a unique evolutionary unit with a very limited potential range.

Made available in DSpace on 2016-04-26T20:22:05Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Monica Cristina Monteiro Porto.pdf: 1466773 bytes, checksum: cf63c94cc5133f63f6e72c107e004182 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2013-10-10 / The purpose of this paper is to revisit the recovery action on real state matters (ação reivindicatória) against the successive amendments to the Code of Civil Procedure of 1973 and the Civil Code of 2002. This subject is current and thorny since it involves property rights, an issue that still causes a lot of controversy. Despite its importance, the recovery action on real state matters, in its legal aspect and not sociological aspect, is a subject rarely addressed by the doctrine, thus justifying a reanalysis of the institute within the context of the current civil procedure. This paper is divided into two parts. In the first part, it addresses the problem of the ownership arising out of the land formation of the country and its large territorial extensions, the property rights, the various types of judicial protection of the property rights, in order to finally approach more thorough the recovery action on real state matters. In the second part, it discusses the civil procedure itself, always highlighting the outcome of the main procedural innovations in the recovery action on real state matters. It was used for the preparation of this paper the study of Brazilian scholars as well as cases of our courts to demonstrate the relevance of the subject and also to corroborate with our positions. This paper sought to focus on the legal issues, leaving the analyses of the social issues that underlie the conflict surrounding the real property less attention, without, however, disregarding them, especially when they are obstacles to the recognition of the right to recover a property that is already recognized by a judgment of the merits in a recovery action. The purpose of this paper, therefore, is a revisitation of the subject in order to systematize it in accordance with the current Code of Civil Procedure, aiming to contribute to greater effectiveness of the institute / O presente trabalho tem por objetivo revisitar a ação reivindicatória face às sucessivas alterações introduzidas no Código de Processo Civil de 1973 e no Código Civil de 2002. O tema é atual e espinhoso, visto que envolve direito de propriedade, tema que ainda gera muita controvérsia. Não obstante sua importância, a ação reivindicatória, em seu aspecto legal e não sociológico, é tema pouco abordado pela doutrina, justificando, assim, uma reanalise do instituto dentro do contexto processual atual. O estudo está dividido em duas partes. Na primeira, aborda os problemas do domínio decorrentes da formação do país e das grandes extensões territoriais, os direitos reais, as várias espécies de tutela jurisdicional dos direitos reais, para, então, abordar de forma mais minuciosa a ação reivindicatória. A segunda parte do estudo, aborda o procedimento, sempre destacando os reflexos das principais inovações processuais na ação reivindicatória. Utilizou-se para a elaboração desse estudo obras de doutrinadores brasileiros, bem como jurisprudência dos nossos tribunais a fim de demonstrar a atualidade do tema e, também, de corroborar as posições defendidas. Buscouse focar o trabalho nas questões legais, deixando de analisar com profundidade as questões sociais que permeiam os conflitos que cercam os direitos reais, sem, contudo, desconsiderá-las, principalmente, quando são óbices à realização do direito de reaver a coisa, já reconhecido por sentença de procedência da ação reivindicatória. O objetivo do presente estudo, portanto, é uma revisitação do tema para sistematizá-lo de acordo com o Código de Processo Civil moderno, visando colaborar para maior efetividade do instituto

Objective: The concept of recovery has become an integral part of modern mental health care. Understanding the outcomes and underlying mechanisms of key recovery interventions, such as Wellness Recovery Action Planning (WRAP), is essential in order to expand the theoretical understanding of recovery and inform how to target recovery in treatment. Therefore a systematic review of the literature was conducted to evaluate the mental health outcomes of WRAP for adults. The empirical study then explored three constructs in relation to WRAP and recovery. These were social problem solving, cognitive defusion and social identification. Method: The systematic review of the mental health outcomes of WRAP was conducted by searching four databases, contacting the authors of WRAP research and seeking evaluative information from organisations that deliver WRAP. Fourteen relevant studies met the inclusion criteria. Whereas, the empirical study recruited participants on a trans-diagnostic basis from across Scotland. Using a quantitative cross sectional design, 109 participant's completed 5 self-report questionnaires. These were the Knowledge, Attitudes and Beliefs about WRAP Questionnaire (WRAP beliefs), the Recovery Assessment Scale - Short (RAS-S), the Social Problem Solving Inventory - Revised - Short (SPSI-R-S), the Four Item Measure of Social Identification (FISI) and the Cognitive Fusion Questionnaire (CFQ). Correlation, regression and mediation analysis were used to explore relationships, and in particular, the predictors and mediators of recovery. Results: The systematic review provided strong evidence that WRAP has a significant positive impact on hope and also reduces the symptoms of mental illness. However, whether WRAP improves personal levels of recovery was unclear and a possible risk of disempowerment was found. Promising preliminary mental health outcomes in the areas of confidence in managing mental health, quality of life, service use, self-advocacy and knowledge attitudes and beliefs about recovery were highlighted. Only studies that did not use peer facilitators failed to find significant increases in hope compared to treatment as usual control groups. In the empirical study, the results indicated that all the constructs examined were correlated to recovery. In the regression analysis, WRAP beliefs, social problem solving and cognitive defusion also demonstrated a predictive relationship with recovery. Mediation analysis indicated that, social problem solving mediated two distinct relationships. One between WRAP beliefs and recovery, and another between cognitive defusion and recovery. The social problem solving subscales also showed how the two predictors relate to recovery through social problem solving in different ways. Social identification with the WRAP group did not significantly predict or mediate recovery. Conclusions: The systematic review indicated having peer facilitators delivering WRAP is key to helping participants foster hope and that a further randomised control trial could help clarify if improved personal recovery is an outcome of WRAP. It additionally suggested how the relationship between WRAP beliefs and recovery could be explored, as per the design of the empirical study. Findings from the empirical study implied that improving participants' social problem solving and cognitive defusion should be specifically targeted in WRAP delivery. The studies combined indicate that to achieve the best recovery results interventions, like WRAP, should target inspiring hope through peer support, improving knowledge, attitudes and beliefs about recovery and cognitive defusion from unhelpful thoughts.