Concert recording 2022-04-06

[Track 1]. Three pieces / Igor Stravinsky -- [Track 2]. Sonata for clarinet and piano. II. Lebhaft / Paul Hindemith -- [Track 3]. Fantasiestücke, op. 73. I. Zart und mit Ausdruck ; II. Lebhaft, leicht / Robert Schumann -- [Track 4]. Duo for clarinet and piano. I. Allegro / Norbert Burgmüller -- [Track 5]. Sonata for clarinet and piano. II. Allegro animato / Camille Saint-Saëns -- [Track 6.] Set for clarinet. III. Vite / Katherine Hoover -- [Track 7]. Ballade, bass clarinet & piano / Eugène Bozza -- [Track 8]. Introduction, theme and variations / Carl Maria von Weber -- [Track 9]. Five Bagatelles. IV. Forlana / Gerald Finzi -- [Track 10]. Six studies in English folksongs. V. Andante tranquillo ; VI. Allegro vivace -- [Track 11]. Grand duo concertant. I. Allegro con fuoco / Carl Maria von Weber

Concert recording 2022-04-06

[Track 1]. Three pieces / Igor Stravinsky -- [Track 2]. Sonata for clarinet and piano. II. Lebhaft / Paul Hindemith -- [Track 3]. Fantasiestücke, op. 73. I. Zart und mit Ausdruck ; II. Lebhaft, leicht / Robert Schumann -- [Track 4]. Duo for clarinet and piano. I. Allegro / Norbert Burgmüller -- [Track 5]. Sonata for clarinet and piano. II. Allegro animato / Camille Saint-Saëns -- [Track 6.] Set for clarinet. III. Vite / Katherine Hoover -- [Track 7]. Ballade, bass clarinet & piano / Eugène Bozza -- [Track 8]. Introduction, theme and variations / Carl Maria von Weber -- [Track 9]. Five Bagatelles. IV. Forlana / Gerald Finzi -- [Track 10]. Six studies in English folksongs. V. Andante tranquillo ; VI. Allegro vivace -- [Track 11]. Grand duo concertant. I. Allegro con fuoco / Carl Maria von Weber

Concert recording 2022-11-14

[Track 1]. Solo de concours / André Messager -- [Track 2]. Concertino for clarinet and piano / Carl Maria von Weber -- [Track 3]. Concerto No. 2 in E-flat Major. III. Alla polacca / Carl Maria von Weber -- [Track 4]. Sonatina for clarinet and piano. III. Furioso / Malcolm Arnold -- [Track 5]. Promenade (Walking the dog) for clarinet & piano / George Gershwin / arr. Shieley Denwood -- [Track 6]. Fantasistykke for clarinet and piano / Carl Nielsen -- [Track 7]. Sonata for clarinet and piano. I. Mässig bewegt / Paul Hindemith -- [Track 8]. Premiere Rhapsody for clarinet and piano / Claude Debussy -- [Track 9]. Impromptu: Duo for Clarinet and Marimba / William A.R. May -- [Track 10]. Irish suite / arr. Elliot A. Del Borgo -- [Track 11]. Danse Macabre / Camille Saint-Saëns ; arr. Melanie Thorne -- [Track 12]. “Nimrod” from Enigma variations / Edward Elgar ; arr. Jeanie Murrow -- [Track 13]. Claribel / Roland Cardon

Concert recording 2022-11-14

[Track 1]. Solo de concours / André Messager -- [Track 2]. Concertino for clarinet and piano / Carl Maria von Weber -- [Track 3]. Concerto No. 2 in E-flat Major. III. Alla polacca / Carl Maria von Weber -- [Track 4]. Sonatina for clarinet and piano. III. Furioso / Malcolm Arnold -- [Track 5]. Promenade (Walking the dog) for clarinet & piano / George Gershwin / arr. Shieley Denwood -- [Track 6]. Fantasistykke for clarinet and piano / Carl Nielsen -- [Track 7]. Sonata for clarinet and piano. I. Mässig bewegt / Paul Hindemith -- [Track 8]. Premiere Rhapsody for clarinet and piano / Claude Debussy -- [Track 9]. Impromptu: Duo for Clarinet and Marimba / William A.R. May -- [Track 10]. Irish suite / arr. Elliot A. Del Borgo -- [Track 11]. Danse Macabre / Camille Saint-Saëns ; arr. Melanie Thorne -- [Track 12]. “Nimrod” from Enigma variations / Edward Elgar ; arr. Jeanie Murrow -- [Track 13]. Claribel / Roland Cardon

The Relative Validity of the Menzies Remote Short-Item Dietary Assessment Tool (MRSDAT) in Aboriginal Australian Children Aged 6–36 Months

© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).The Menzies Remote Short-item Dietary Assessment Tool (MRSDAT) can be used to derive a dietary index score, which measures the degree of compliance with the Australian Dietary Guidelines. This study aimed to determine the relative validity of a dietary index score for children aged 6–24 months, living in a Remote Aboriginal Community (RAC), derived using MRSDAT. This validation study compared dietary index scores derived using MRSDAT with those derived from the average of three 24-h recalls. Participants were aged 6–36 months at the first dietary assessment and were living in a RAC. The level of agreement between the two methods was explored using Lin’s concordance correlation coefficient (CCC), Bland-Altman plots, weighted Cohen’s kappa, and Fischer’s exact and paired t-tests. Forty participants were recruited. The CCC was poor between methods (R = 0.35, 95% CI 0.06, 0.58), with MRSDAT estimating higher dietary intake scores for all food groups except fruit, and higher dietary quality scores by an average of 4.78 points/100. Community-based Aboriginal researchers were central to this validation study. MRSDAT was within the performance range of other short-item dietary assessment tools developed for young children, and shows promise for use with very young children in RACs. View Full-Tex

Pond research and management in Europe: "Small is Beautiful"

The phrase "Small is Beautiful" was first used by the talented scholar Leopold Kohr (1909 131994), but it becames more popular thanks to the essays of one of his students, the British economist E. F. Schumacher, and it was coined as a response to the socially established idea that "Big is Powerful". It could be argued that this desire for "bigness" explains why current legal frameworks and the conservation planning and management related to standing waters often overlook ponds, despite their well-known value in terms of biodiversity and socio-economic benefits (Oertli et al., 2004; Cereghino et al., 2008). Of course, this is only one of several possible explanations, but it is important to understand that such long-established ideas can have a lasting effect upon the efficiency of our conservation actions. Beyond this social perspective, the history of science can also provide some explanation as to why ponds have been undervalued for so long

Pond research and management in Europe ::“small is beautiful”

The phrase “Small is Beautiful” was first used by the talented scholar Leopold Kohr (1909–1994), but it became more popular thanks to the essays of one of his students, the British economist E. F. Schumacher, and it was coined as a response to the socially established idea that “Big is Powerful”. It could be argued that this desire for “bigness” explains why current legal frameworks and the conservation planning and management related to standing waters often overlook ponds, despite their well-known value in terms of biodiversity and socio-economic benefits (Oertli et al., 2004; Céreghino et al., 2008). Of course, this is only one of several possible explanations, but it is important to understand that such long-established ideas can have a lasting effect upon the efficiency of our conservation actions. Beyond this social perspective, the history of science can also provide some explanation as to why ponds have been undervalued for so long. Some of the first limnological work was undertaken during the late nineteenth–early twentieth century by the Swiss scientist François-Alphonse Forel on the ecology of Lake Geneva (1892, 1895, 1904). From this, one of the firsts treatises of limnology—“Die Binnengewässer Mitteleuropas” (Thieneman, 1925)—included a chapter on standing waters that included lakes, ponds, pools and bogs, but most of the chapter focussed upon the larger bodies of water—a trend replicated in the limnology books which followed (e.g. Arévalo, 1929; Naumann, 1932; Ruttner, 1940; Dussart, 1966; Wetzel, 1975; Margalef, 1983). Lakes, therefore, were the “cradle” of limnological studies. During the second half of the twentieth century, the study of limnology broadened to include the ecological processes in rivers and streams, thanks mainly to the H. B. N. Hynes’ masterful revision of the subject (Hynes, 1970). Ponds, however, remained overlooked and received significantly less scientific attention than streams, rivers and lakes. This is more surprising when several studies have established that (1) on a global scale they cover a greater total area than lakes (Downing et al., 2006); (2) their typical characteristics, such as shallow waters and small size, imply a different ecological functioning (Oertli et al., 2002; Søndergaard et al., 2005); (3) they play a major role in global cycles (Downing, 2010) and (4) they have high aquatic biodiversity (Wood et al., 2003; Williams et al., 2004). Despite the evidence that ponds per se receive less scientific attention than other water bodies (Oertli et al., 2009), in the scientific literature “ponds” are often included under other terms such as “shallow lakes” (e.g. Scheffer et al., 1993; Moss et al., 2009) or “wetlands” (e.g. Gopal et al., 2000; van der Valk, 2006), as in the USA where the term “wetlands” is often used to describe “ponds” (Batzer & Wissinger, 1996 and references therein; Batzer et al., 1999). These more general definitions may significantly reduce the level of scientific interest and could go some way to explain some of the biases that are regularly observed today in Europe’s Water Framework Directive (WFD) (Miracle et al., 2010). Ponds are too small to fit the standard model of site-based protection and they do not fit the standard model of consent-based protection applicable to lakes and running waters under Europe’s most powerful piece of water legislation. In this context, three emerging ideas have to be taken into account in pond management decisions: (1) the importance of pond networks in addition to isolated ponds (Gibbs, 2000; Jeffries, 2005); (2) to consider lesser known floral and faunal groups which, nevertheless, contain high biodiversity (i.e. diatoms, meiofauna and insects), and to use surrogate species with caution (i.e. having some idea of their effectiveness for the circumstances in which they will be applied; Favreau et al., 2006; Gascón et al., 2009; Bagella et al., 2011); and (3) differences in the community structure and ecological functioning of water bodies throughout Europe imply, for example, that some limnological paradigms used in the management of cold temperate ponds cannot be generalised to the Mediterranean region (Álvarez-Cobelas et al., 2005; Brucet et al., 2009, 2010)

Challenges and opportunities in the use of ponds and pondscapes as nature-based solutions

Ponds and “pondscapes” (networks of ponds) are crucial habitats for biodiversity and for delivering multiple benefits to humans, so-called “Nature’s Contribution to People”, such as climate mitigation and adaptation to climate change, creation, and maintenance of habitat for biodiversity, water purification, flood mitigation and cultural benefits (e.g., recreational possibilities). However, ponds are not often considered as Nature-based Solutions to provide all these benefits. In addition, there is insufficient knowledge on how to manage and restore ponds to maximise their role to increase the resilience of ecosystems and society to climate change. To facilitate improved implementation of ponds as Nature-based Solutions for the delivery of a wide range of Nature Contributions to People, it is important to generate and integrate biodiversity, ecosystems, societal, economic and policy knowledge. Hence, there is a need for evidence-based guidance to support the broader use of ponds. Here, we review the role of ponds and pondscapes in delivering Nature’s Contributions to People and provide an overview of the challenges and opportunities for their broader implementation as Nature-based Solutions. Finally, we propose a conceptual framework that can help the implementation of pond Nature-based Solutions, and that outlines future research needs