Measuring farmland biodiversity

About one-third of the world’s land surface is used for farming, a fact that bears important implications for biodiversity. In Europe, for instance, an estimated 50 percent of all wild species are reliant on agricultural habitats, while agricultural productivity often depends on the presence or absence of particular species. Despite this close coupling, surprisingly little is known about the status and evolution of farmland biodiversity. A team of European and African researchers, hoping to fill this gap in information, recently invented and piloted a new toolbox called the BioBio indicator set, which measures 23 different instances of biodiversity across a variety of farm types and scales in Europe. Applications were also tested in Tunisia, Ukraine, and Uganda, where they proved a feasible starting point for adaptation to the agricultural context of different countries

Relationship between RET fusion partner and treatment outcomes in patients (pts) with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) from the phase I/II ARROW study and real-world data (RWD)

Background: The ARROW study is assessing the anti-tumour activity of pralsetinib, a highly-selective RET inhibitor in advanced solid tumours, including RET fusion+ NSCLC. Prolonged overall survival (OS) was reported with RET inhibitor therapy in NSCLC pts with CCDC6 vs KIF5B RET fusions (Tan AC, et al. JTO 2020). We examined the relationship between RET fusion partner and treatment outcomes in pts with RET fusion+ NSCLC from ARROW and RWD. Methods: In phase 2 of ARROW, 233 pts with RET fusion+ NSCLC (KIF5B n=164, CCDC6 n=41, Other n=28) received 400mg/day pralsetinib until progression, intolerance or withdrawal. Primary endpoints: overall response rate (ORR) and safety. In Q4 2021, 67 pts with RET fusion+ NSCLC (KIF5B n=46, CCDC6 n=8, Other n=13) met eligibility criteria from the nationwide (US-based) de-identified Flatiron Health-FMI NSCLC clinico-genomic database. Cox regression analyses are reported. Results: Baseline characteristics by RET fusion partner were balanced across subgroups within ARROW. ORR was similar with KIF5B and CCDC6, but lower with Other RET fusions (Table); the same trend was seen in treatment-naïve and prior treatment subgroups. Disease control rate (DCR) was high in all pts, but lowest in the Other RET fusions subgroup. Median duration of response (DOR) and progression-free survival (PFS) were higher with CCDC6 vs KIF5B RET fusions irrespective of prior treatment. OS data are immature. In the RWD cohort, median OS was numerically longer in CCDC6 and Other RET fusions vs KIF5B RET-driven disease (52.8 and 38.5 vs 19.1 months); when adjusted for covariates including RET inhibitor usage (KIF5B n=12, CCDC6 n=5, Other n=5), OS HRs for CCDC6 and Other RET fusions vs KIF5B were 0.49 (95% CI: 0.08–3.11) and 0.41 (95% CI: 0.13–1.30), respectively. Conclusions: Pralsetinib is active in RET fusion+ NSCLC, regardless of fusion partner or prior treatment. CCDC6 RET-driven disease may have a better prognosis vs KIF5B

Biodiversity indicators in organic and conventional farming systems: main results from the European project BIOBIO

In the framework of the European project BIOBIO, we compared between countries habitat and cumulated species richnesses of plants, wild bees, spiders and earthworms, measured in 169 conventional and organic farms belonging to 10 case studies in 10 European countries. For the French case study (Gascony Valleys and Hills), correlations between direct (habitat and taxonomic richnesses) and indirect (agricultural practices) indicators of biodiversity within 8 conventional and 8 organic farms, were calculated. Results showed that the main driver of biodiversity at the farm level was the number of cultivated and above all semi-natural habitats, inthe French case study region as well as inthe other regions. This factor partially explained the highest biodiversity level of the French case study region. However, farming practices, specific or not to the organic and conventional systems, most often drove biodiversity parameters at the habitat level. In fine, the project proposed the BIOBIO method for monitoring biodiversity in farms

An increase in food production in Europe could dramatically affect farmland biodiversity

Conversion of semi-natural habitats, such as field margins, fallows, hedgerows, grassland, woodlots and forests, to agricultural land could increase agricultural production and help meet rising global food demand. Yet, the extent to which such habitat loss would impact biodiversity and wild species is unknown. Here we survey species richness for four taxa (vascular plants, earthworms, spiders, wild bees) and agricultural yield across a range of arable, grassland, mixed, horticulture, permanent crop, for organic and non-organic agricultural land on 169 farms across 10 European regions. We find that semi-natural habitats currently constitute 23% of land area with 49% of species unique to these habitats. We estimate that conversion of semi-natural land that achieves a 10% increase in agricultural production will have the greatest impact on biodiversity in arable systems and the least impact in grassland systems, with organic practices having better species retention than non-organic practices. Our findings will help inform sustainable agricultural development

Can Inoculation Withstand Multiple Attacks?: An Examination of the Effectiveness of the Inoculation Strategy Compared to the Supportive and Restoration Strategies

This investigation introduced multiple competitive attacks in order to assess the effectiveness of inoculation treatments in protecting established attitudes in a natural setting. A four-phase experiment was conducted involving 433 participants. The results revealed that the effectiveness of refutational inoculation messages dissipated some in the face of an additional attack. Still, refutational inoculation messages proved to be more effective than supportive, restoration, and control (no message) conditions in protecting established attitudes in the face of multiple attacks. The content of an additional attack (the same as the first attack or different) did not affect the capacity of inoculation refutational messages to confer resistance to competitive attacks.Yeshttps://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/manuscript-submission-guideline

A two-layered mechanical model of the rat esophagus. Experiment and theory

BACKGROUND: The function of esophagus is to move food by peristaltic motion which is the result of the interaction of the tissue forces in the esophageal wall and the hydrodynamic forces in the food bolus. The structure of the esophagus is layered. In this paper, the esophagus is treated as a two-layered structure consisting of an inner collagen-rich submucosa layer and an outer muscle layer. We developed a model and experimental setup for determination of elastic moduli in the two layers in circumferential direction and related the measured elastic modulus of the intact esophagus to the elastic modulus computed from the elastic moduli of the two layers. METHODS: Inflation experiments were done at in vivo length and pressure-diameters relations were recorded for the rat esophagus. Furthermore, the zero-stress state was taken into consideration. RESULTS: The radius and the strain increased as function of pressure in the intact as well as in the individual layers of the esophagus. At pressures higher than 1.5 cmH(2)O the muscle layer had a larger radius and strain than the mucosa-submucosa layer. The strain for the intact esophagus and for the muscle layer was negative at low pressures indicating the presence of residual strains in the tissue. The stress-strain curve for the submucosa-mucosa layer was shifted to the left of the curves for the muscle layer and for the intact esophagus at strains higher than 0.3. The tangent modulus was highest in the submucosa-mucosa layer, indicating that the submucosa-mucosa has the highest stiffness. A good agreement was found between the measured elastic modulus of the intact esophagus and the elastic modulus computed from the elastic moduli of the two separated layers

How much would it cost to monitor farmland biodiversity in Europe?

International audienceTo evaluate progress on political biodiversity objectives, biodiversity monitoring provides information on whether intended results are being achieved. Despite scientific proof that monitoring and evaluation increase the (cost) efficiency of policy measures, cost estimates for monitoring schemes are seldom available, hampering their inclusion in policy programme budgets. Empirical data collected from 12 case studies across Europe were used in a power analysis to estimate the number of farms that would need to be sampled per major farm type to detect changes in species richness over time for four taxa (vascular plants, earthworms, spiders and bees). A sampling design was developed to allocate spatially, across Europe, the farms that should be sampled. Cost estimates are provided for nine monitoring scenarios with differing robustness for detecting temporal changes in species numbers. These cost estimates are compared with the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) budget (2014-2020) to determine the budgetallocation required for the proposed farmland biodiversity monitoring. Results show that the bee indicator requires the highest number of farms to be sampled and the vascular plant indicator the lowest. The costs for the nine farmland biodiversity monitoring scenarios corresponded to 001%-074% of the total CAP budget and to 004%-248% of the CAP budget specifically allocated to environmental targets.Synthesis and applications. The results of the cost scenarios demonstrate that, based on the taxa and methods used in this study, a Europe-wide farmland biodiversity monitoring scheme would require a modest share of the Common Agricultural Policy budget. The monitoring scenarios are flexible and can be adapted or complemented with alternate data collection options (e.g. at national scale or voluntary efforts), data mobilization, data integration or modelling efforts. Editor's Choic

Gains to species diversity in organically farmed fields are not propagated at the farm level

Organic farming is promoted to reduce environmental impacts of agriculture, but surprisingly little is known about its effects at the farm level, the primary unit of decision making. Here we report the effects of organic farming on species diversity at the field, farm and regional levels by sampling plants, earthworms, spiders and bees in 1470 fields of 205 randomly selected organic and nonorganic farms in twelve European and African regions. Species richness is, on average, 10.5% higher in organic than nonorganic production fields, with highest gains in intensive arable fields (around +45%). Gains to species richness are partly caused by higher organism abundance and are common in plants and bees but intermittent in earthworms and spiders. Average gains are marginal +4.6% at the farm and +3.1% at the regional level, even in intensive arable regions. Additional, targeted measures are therefore needed to fulfil the commitment of organic farming to benefit farmland biodiversity

An increase in food production in Europe could dramatically affect farmland biodiversity

Conversion of semi-natural habitats, such as field margins, fallows, hedgerows, grassland, woodlots and forests, to agricultural land could increase agricultural production and help meet rising global food demand. Yet, the extent to which such habitat loss would impact biodiversity and wild species is unknown. Here we survey species richness for four taxa (vascular plants, earthworms, spiders, wild bees) and agricultural yield across a range of arable, grassland, mixed, horticulture, permanent crop, for organic and non-organic agricultural land on 169 farms across 10 European regions. We find that semi-natural habitats currently constitute 23% of land area with 49% of species unique to these habitats. We estimate that conversion of semi-natural land that achieves a 10% increase in agricultural production will have the greatest impact on biodiversity in arable systems and the least impact in grassland systems, with organic practices having better species retention than non-organic practices. Our findings will help inform sustainable agricultural development