Modeling the Radio Background from the First Black Holes at Cosmic Dawn: Implications for the 21 cm Absorption Amplitude

We estimate the 21 cm Radio Background from accretion onto the first intermediate-mass Black Holes between $z\approx 30$ and $z\approx 16$. Combining potentially optimistic, but plausible, scenarios for black hole formation and growth with empirical correlations between luminosity and radio-emission observed in low-redshift active galactic nuclei, we find that a model of black holes forming in molecular cooling halos is able to produce a 21 cm background that exceeds the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) at $z \approx 17$ though models involving larger halo masses are not entirely excluded. Such a background could explain the surprisingly large amplitude of the 21 cm absorption feature recently reported by the EDGES collaboration. Such black holes would also produce significant X-ray emission and contribute to the $0.5-2$ keV soft X-ray background at the level of $\approx 10^{-13}-10^{-12}$ erg sec$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$ deg$^{-2}$, consistent with existing constraints. In order to avoid heating the IGM over the EDGES trough, these black holes would need to be obscured by Hydrogen column depths of $N_\text{H} \sim 5 \times 10^{23} \text{cm}^{-2}$. Such black holes would avoid violating contraints on the CMB optical depth from Planck if their UV photon escape fractions were below $f_{\text{esc}} \lesssim 0.1$, which would be a natural result of $N_\text{H} \sim 5 \times 10^{23} \text{cm}^{-2}$ imposed by an unheated IGM.Comment: 10 pages, 7 figures, accepted to ApJ, replacement to match submitted versio

The imprints of primordial non-gaussianities on large-scale structure: scale dependent bias and abundance of virialized objects

We study the effect of primordial nongaussianity on large-scale structure, focusing upon the most massive virialized objects. Using analytic arguments and N-body simulations, we calculate the mass function and clustering of dark matter halos across a range of redshifts and levels of nongaussianity. We propose a simple fitting function for the mass function valid across the entire range of our simulations. We find pronounced effects of nongaussianity on the clustering of dark matter halos, leading to strongly scale-dependent bias. This suggests that the large-scale clustering of rare objects may provide a sensitive probe of primordial nongaussianity. We very roughly estimate that upcoming surveys can constrain nongaussianity at the level |fNL| <~ 10, competitive with forecasted constraints from the microwave background.Comment: 16 pages, color figures, revtex4. v2: added references and an equation. submitted to PRD. v3: simplified derivation, additional reference

Host Growth Can Cause Invasive Spread of Crops by Soilborne Pathogens

Invasive soilborne plant pathogens cause substantial damage to crops and natural populations, but our understanding of how to prevent their epidemics or reduce their damage is limited. A key and experimentally-tested concept in the epidemiology of soilborne plant diseases is that of a threshold spacing between hosts below which epidemics (invasive spread) can occur. We extend this paradigm by examining how plant-root growth may alter the conditions for occurrence of soilborne pathogen epidemics in plant populations. We hypothesise that host-root growth can 1) increase the probability of pathogen transmission between neighbouring plants and, consequently, 2) decrease the threshold spacing for epidemics to occur. We predict that, in systems initially below their threshold conditions, root growth can trigger soilborne pathogen epidemics through a switch from non-invasive to invasive behaviour, while in systems above threshold conditions root growth can enhance epidemic development. As an example pathosystem, we studied the fungus Rhizoctonia solani on sugar beet in field experiments. To address hypothesis 1, we recorded infections within inoculum-donor and host-recipient pairs of plants with differing spacing. We translated these observations into the individual-level concept of pathozone, a host-centred form of dispersal kernel. To test hypothesis 2 and our prediction, we used the pathozone to parameterise a stochastic model of pathogen spread in a host population, contrasting scenarios of spread with and without host growth. Our results support our hypotheses and prediction. We suggest that practitioners of agriculture and arboriculture account for root system expansion in order to reduce the risk of soilborne-disease epidemics. We discuss changes in crop design, including increasing plant spacing and using crop mixtures, for boosting crop resilience to invasion and damage by soilborne pathogens. We speculate that the disease-induced root growth observed in some pathosystems could be a pathogen strategy to increase its population through host manipulation. © 2013 Leclerc et al.ML thanks the Institut Technique franc¸ais de la Betterave industrielle (ITB) for funding this project. CAG and JANF were funded by the UK’s Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript

Agroecology as a science, a movement and a practice. A review

Agroecology involves various approaches to solve actual challenges of agricultural production. Though agroecology initially dealt primarily with crop production and protection aspects, in recent decades new dimensions such as environmental, social, economic, ethical and development issues are becoming relevant. Today, the term ‘agroecology’ means either a scientific discipline, agricultural practice, or political or social movement. Here we study the different meanings of agroecology. For that we analyse the historical development of agroecology. We present examples from USA, Brazil, Germany, and France. We study and discuss the evolution of different meanings agroecology. The use of the term agroecology can be traced back to the 1930s. Until the 1960s agroecology referred only as a purely scientific discipline. Then, different branches of agroecology developed. Following environmental movements in the 1960s that went against industrial agriculture, agroecology evolved and fostered agroecological movements in the 1990s. Agroecology as an agricultural practice emerged in the 1980s, and was often intertwined with movements. Further, the scales and dimensions of agroecological investigations changed over the past 80 years from the plot and field scales to the farm and agroecosystem scales. Actually three approaches persist: (1) investigations at plot and field scales, (2) investigations at the agroecosystem and farm scales, and (3) investigations covering the whole food system. These different approaches of agroecological science can be explained by the history of nations. In France, agroecology was mainly understood as a farming practice and to certain extent as a movement, whereas the corresponding scientific discipline was agronomy. In Germany, agroecology has a long tradition as a scientific discipline. In the USA and in Brazil all three interpretations of agroecology occur, albeit with a predominance of agroecology as a science in the USA and a stronger emphasis on movement and agricultural practice in Brazil. These varied meanings of the term agroecology cause confusion among scientists and the public, and we recommend that those who publish using this term be explicit in their interpretation

Agroecology as a science, a movement and a practice. A review

Agroecology involves various approaches to solve actual challenges of agricultural production. Though agroecology initially dealt primarily with crop production and protection aspects, in recent decades new dimensions such as environmental, social, economic, ethical and development issues are becoming relevant. Today, the term ‘agroecology’ means either a scientific discipline, agricultural practice, or political or social movement. Here we study the different meanings of agroecology. For that we analyse the historical development of agroecology. We present examples from USA, Brazil, Germany, and France. We study and discuss the evolution of different meanings agroecology. The use of the term agroecology can be traced back to the 1930s. Until the 1960s agroecology referred only as a purely scientific discipline. Then, different branches of agroecology developed. Following environmental movements in the 1960s that went against industrial agriculture, agroecology evolved and fostered agroecological movements in the 1990s. Agroecology as an agricultural practice emerged in the 1980s, and was often intertwined with movements. Further, the scales and dimensions of agroecological investigations changed over the past 80 years from the plot and field scales to the farm and agroecosystem scales. Actually three approaches persist: (1) investigations at plot and field scales, (2) investigations at the agroecosystem and farm scales, and (3) investigations covering the whole food system. These different approaches of agroecological science can be explained by the history of nations. In France, agroecology was mainly understood as a farming practice and to certain extent as a movement, whereas the corresponding scientific discipline was agronomy. In Germany, agroecology has a long tradition as a scientific discipline. In the USA and in Brazil all three interpretations of agroecology occur, albeit with a predominance of agroecology as a science in the USA and a stronger emphasis on movement and agricultural practice in Brazil. These varied meanings of the term agroecology cause confusion among scientists and the public, and we recommend that those who publish using this term be explicit in their interpretation

Limitation of energy deposition in classical N body dynamics

Energy transfers in collisions between classical clusters are studied with Classical N Body Dynamics calculations for different entrance channels. It is shown that the energy per particle transferred to thermalised classical clusters does not exceed the energy of the least bound particle in the cluster in its ``ground state''. This limitation is observed during the whole time of the collision, except for the heaviest system.Comment: 13 pages, 15 figures, 1 tabl

Detection of Gravitational Lensing in the Cosmic Microwave Background

Gravitational lensing of the cosmic microwave background (CMB), a long-standing prediction of the standard cosmolgical model, is ultimately expected to be an important source of cosmological information, but first detection has not been achieved to date. We report a 3.4 sigma detection, by applying quadratic estimator techniques to all sky maps from the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) satellite, and correlating the result with radio galaxy counts from the NRAO VLA Sky Survey (NVSS). We present our methodology including a detailed discussion of potential contaminants. Our error estimates include systematic uncertainties from density gradients in NVSS, beam effects in WMAP, Galactic microwave foregrounds, resolved and unresolved CMB point sources, and the thermal Sunyaev-Zeldovich effect.Comment: 27 pages, 20 figure

Agroecology as a science, a movement and a practice. A review

Agroecology involves various approaches to solve actual challenges of agricultural production. Though agroecology initially dealt primarily with crop production and protection aspects, in recent decades new dimensions such as environmental, social, economic, ethical and development issues are becoming relevant. Today, the term ‘agroecology’ means either a scientific discipline, agricultural practice, or political or social movement. Here we study the different meanings of agroecology. For that we analyse the historical development of agroecology. We present examples from USA, Brazil, Germany, and France. We study and discuss the evolution of different meanings agroecology. The use of the term agroecology can be traced back to the 1930s. Until the 1960s agroecology referred only as a purely scientific discipline. Then, different branches of agroecology developed. Following environmental movements in the 1960s that went against industrial agriculture, agroecology evolved and fostered agroecological movements in the 1990s. Agroecology as an agricultural practice emerged in the 1980s, and was often intertwined with movements. Further, the scales and dimensions of agroecological investigations changed over the past 80 years from the plot and field scales to the farm and agroecosystem scales. Actually three approaches persist: (1) investigations at plot and field scales, (2) investigations at the agroecosystem and farm scales, and (3) investigations covering the whole food system. These different approaches of agroecological science can be explained by the history of nations. In France, agroecology was mainly understood as a farming practice and to certain extent as a movement, whereas the corresponding scientific discipline was agronomy. In Germany, agroecology has a long tradition as a scientific discipline. In the USA and in Brazil all three interpretations of agroecology occur, albeit with a predominance of agroecology as a science in the USA and a stronger emphasis on movement and agricultural practice in Brazil. These varied meanings of the term agroecology cause confusion among scientists and the public, and we recommend that those who publish using this term be explicit in their interpretation