How much do we really lose?—Yield losses in the proximity of natural landscape elements in agricultural landscapes

Natural landscape elements (NLEs) in agricultural landscapes contribute to biodiversity and ecosystem services, but are also regarded as an obstacle for large‐scale agricultural production. However, the effects of NLEs on crop yield have rarely been measured. Here, we investigated how different bordering structures, such as agricultural roads, field‐to‐field borders, forests, hedgerows, and kettle holes, influence agricultural yields. We hypothesized that (a) yield values at field borders differ from mid‐field yields and that (b) the extent of this change in yields depends on the bordering structure. We measured winter wheat yields along transects with log‐scaled distances from the border into the agricultural field within two intensively managed agricultural landscapes in Germany (2014 near Göttingen, and 2015–2017 in the Uckermark). We observed a yield loss adjacent to every investigated bordering structure of 11%–38% in comparison with mid‐field yields. However, depending on the bordering structure, this yield loss disappeared at different distances. While the proximity of kettle holes did not affect yields more than neighboring agricultural fields, woody landscape elements had strong effects on winter wheat yields. Notably, 95% of mid‐field yields could already be reached at a distance of 11.3 m from a kettle hole and at a distance of 17.8 m from hedgerows as well as forest borders. Our findings suggest that yield losses are especially relevant directly adjacent to woody landscape elements, but not adjacent to in‐field water bodies. This highlights the potential to simultaneously counteract yield losses close to the field border and enhance biodiversity by combining different NLEs in agricultural landscapes such as creating strips of extensive grassland vegetation between woody landscape elements and agricultural fields. In conclusion, our results can be used to quantify ecocompensations to find optimal solutions for the delivery of productive and regulative ecosystem services in heterogeneous agricultural landscapes

COVID-19 vaccination dynamics in the US: coverage velocity and carrying capacity based on socio-demographic vulnerability indices in California's pediatric population

IntroductionCOVID-19 vaccine inequities have been widespread across California, the United States, and globally. As COVID-19 vaccine inequities have not been fully understood in the youth population, it is vital to determine possible factors that drive inequities to enable actionable change that promotes vaccine equity among vulnerable minor populations.MethodsThe present study used the social vulnerability index (SVI) and daily vaccination numbers within the age groups of 12–17, 5–11, and under 5 years old across all 58 California counties to model the growth velocity and the anticipated maximum proportion of population vaccinated.ResultsOverall, highly vulnerable counties, when compared to low and moderately vulnerable counties, experienced a lower vaccination rate in the 12–17 and 5–11 year-old age groups. For age groups 5–11 and under 5 years old, highly vulnerable counties are expected to achieve a lower overall total proportion of residents vaccinated. In highly vulnerable counties in terms of socioeconomic status and household composition and disability, the 12–17 and 5–11 year-old age groups experienced lower vaccination rates. Additionally, in the 12–17 age group, high vulnerability counties are expected to achieve a higher proportion of residents vaccinated compared to less vulnerable counterparts.DiscussionThese findings elucidate shortcomings in vaccine uptake in certain pediatric populations across California and may help guide health policies and future allocation of vaccines, with special emphasis placed on vulnerable populations, especially with respect to socioeconomic status and household composition and disability

Anforderungen des Gewaesserschutzes an eine ordnungsgemaesse Landwirtschaft

TIB Hannover: RN 8422(1990,19) / FIZ - Fachinformationszzentrum Karlsruhe / TIB - Technische InformationsbibliothekSIGLEDEGerman

SRI’s normative and ethics-based rationale

Socially responsible investment (SRI) has a long lineage. Faith-based investors practised it for centuries to ensure they did not invest in “sin.” In recent decades other types of investors have embraced it, challenging apartheid, tobacco, and fossil fuel industries. The SRI sector has grown dramatically, and with this growth its rationales have changed. While some investors embrace SRI as a matter of ethical compulsion, many act for other reasons including their financial self-interest. Some may even no longer speak of SRI or “ethical investment,” but instead refer to “environmental, social and governance” (ESG) issues as “financially material” (Ransome and Sampford 2011). This article evaluates the principal rationales for SRI, namely legal compliance, to avoid complicity in undesirable activities, to use leverage to enable positive change, and to accrue financial advantages