Survey of Period Variations of Superhumps in SU UMa-Type Dwarf Novae. VIII: The Eighth Year (2015-2016)

Continuing the project described by Kato et al. (2009, arXiv:0905.1757), we collected times of superhump maxima for 128 SU UMa-type dwarf novae observed mainly during the 2015-2016 season and characterized these objects. The data have improved the distribution of orbital periods, the relation between the orbital period and the variation of superhumps, the relation between period variations and the rebrightening type in WZ Sge-type objects. Coupled with new measurements of mass ratios using growing stages of superhumps, we now have a clearer and statistically greatly improved evolutionary path near the terminal stage of evolution of cataclysmic variables. Three objects (V452 Cas, KK Tel, ASASSN-15cl) appear to have slowly growing superhumps, which is proposed to reflect the slow growth of the 3:1 resonance near the stability border. ASASSN-15sl, ASASSN-15ux, SDSS J074859.55+312512.6 and CRTS J200331.3-284941 are newly identified eclipsing SU UMa-type (or WZ Sge-type) dwarf novae. ASASSN-15cy has a short (~0.050 d) superhump period and appears to belong to EI Psc-type objects with compact secondaries having an evolved core. ASASSN-15gn, ASASSN-15hn, ASASSN-15kh and ASASSN-16bu are candidate period bouncers with superhump periods longer than 0.06 d. We have newly obtained superhump periods for 79 objects and 13 orbital periods, including periods from early superhumps. In order that the future observations will be more astrophysically beneficial and rewarding to observers, we propose guidelines how to organize observations of various superoutbursts.Comment: 123 pages, 162 figures, 119 tables, accepted for publication in PASJ (including supplementary information

Exploration of Uncharted Regions of the Protein Universe

Determination of first protein structures, from hundreds of families of unknown function, have shown that divergence, rather than novelty, is the dominant force that shapes the evolution of the protein universe

Quantifying and addressing the prevalence and bias of study designs in the environmental and social sciences

Building trust in science and evidence-based decision-making depends heavily on the credibility of studies and their findings. Researchers employ many different study designs that vary in their risk of bias to evaluate the true effect of interventions or impacts. Here, we empirically quantify, on a large scale, the prevalence of different study designs and the magnitude of bias in their estimates. Randomised designs and controlled observational designs with pre-intervention sampling were used by just 23% of intervention studies in biodiversity conservation, and 36% of intervention studies in social science. We demonstrate, through pairwise within-study comparisons across 49 environmental datasets, that these types of designs usually give less biased estimates than simpler observational designs. We propose a model-based approach to combine study estimates that may suffer from different levels of study design bias, discuss the implications for evidence synthesis, and how to facilitate the use of more credible study designs.Fil: Christie, Alec P.. University of Cambridge; Reino UnidoFil: Abecasis, David. Universidad de Algarve. Centro de Ciencias del Mar; PortugalFil: Adjeroud, Mehdi. Université de Perpignan; Francia. Institut de Recherche Pour Le Developpement; FranciaFil: Alonso, Juan Carlos. Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas. Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales; EspañaFil: Amano, Tatsuya. University of Queensland; AustraliaFil: Anton, Alvaro. Universidad del País Vasco. Facultad de Educación de Bilbao; EspañaFil: Baldigo, Barry P.. United States Geological Survey; Estados UnidosFil: Barrientos, Rafael. Universidad Complutense de Madrid; EspañaFil: Bicknell, Jake E.. University of Kent; Reino UnidoFil: Buhl, Deborah A.. United States Geological Survey; Estados UnidosFil: Cebrian, Just. Mississippi State University; Estados UnidosFil: Ceia, Ricardo S.. Universidad de Coimbra; PortugalFil: Cibils Martina, Luciana. Universidad Nacional de Río Cuarto. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas, Fisicoquímicas y Naturales. Departamento de Ciencias Naturales; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Córdoba; ArgentinaFil: Clarke, Sarah. Marine Institute; IrlandaFil: Claudet, Joachim. Universite de Paris; Francia. Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique; FranciaFil: Craig, Michael D.. University of Western Australia; Australia. Murdoch University; AustraliaFil: Davoult, Dominique. Sorbonne University; FranciaFil: De Backer, Annelies. Flanders Research Institute for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food; BélgicaFil: Donovan, Mary K.. University of California; Estados Unidos. University of Hawaii at Manoa; Estados UnidosFil: Eddy, Tyler D.. University of South Carolina; Estados Unidos. Memorial University of Newfoundland; Canadá. Victoria University of Wellington; Nueva ZelandaFil: França, Filipe M.. Lancaster University; Reino UnidoFil: Gardner, Jonathan P. A.. Victoria University of Wellington; Nueva ZelandaFil: Harris, Bradley P.. Alaska Pacific University; Estados UnidosFil: Huusko, Ari. Natural Resources Institute Finland; FinlandiaFil: Jones, Ian L.. Memorial University of Newfoundland; CanadáFil: Kelaher, Brendan P.. Southern Cross University; AustraliaFil: Kotiaho, Janne S.. Universidad de Jyvaskyla; FinlandiaFil: López Baucells, Adrià. Universidad de Lisboa; Portugal. Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute; Panamá. Universidad Nacional de Colombia. Instituto de Investigaciones Amazonicas; Colombia. Museo de Ciencias Naturales de Granollers; EspañaFil: Major, Heather L.. University of New Brunswick; CanadáFil: Mäki Petäys, Aki. Voimalohi Oy; Finlandia. University of Oulu; Finlandi

Crop Updates 2001 - Cereals

This session covers forty two papers from different authors: PLENARY 1. Planning your cropping program in season 2001, Dr Ross Kingwell, Agriculture Western Australia and University of Western Australia WORKSHOP 2. Can we produce high yields without high inputs? Wal Anderson, Centre for Cropping Systems, Agriculture Western Australia VARIETIES 3. Local and interstate wheat variety performance and $ return to WA growers, Eddy Pol, Peter Burgess and Ashley Bacon, Agritech Crop Research CROP ESTABLISHMENT 4 Soil management of waterlogged soils, D.M. Bakker, G.J. Hamilton, D. Houlbrooke and C. Spann, Agriculture Western Australia 5. Effect of soil amelioration on wheat yield in a very dry season, M.A Hamza and W.K. Anderson, Agriculture Western Australia 6. Fuzzy tramlines for more yield and less weed, Paul Blackwell1 and Maurice Black2 1Agriculture Western Australia, 2Harbour Lights Estate, Geraldton 7. Tramline farming for dollar benefits, Paul Blackwell, Agriculture Western Australia NUTRITION 8. Soil immobile nutrients for no-till crops, M.D.A. Bolland1, R.F. Brennan1,and W.L. Crabtree2, 1Agriculture Western Australia, 2Western Australian No-Tillage Farmers Association 9. Burn stubble windrows: to diagnose soil fertility problems, Bill Bowden, Chris Gazey and Ross Brennan, Agriculture Western Australia 10. Calcium: magnesium ratios; are they important? Bill Bowden1, Rochelle Strahan2, Bob Gilkes2 and Zed Rengel2 1Agriculture Western Australia, 2Department of Soil Science and Plant Nutrition, UWA 11. Responses to late foliar applications of Flexi-N, Stephen Loss, Tim O’Dea, Patrick Gethin, Ryan Guthrie, Lisa Leaver, CSBP futurefarm 12. A comparison of Flexi-N placements, Stephen Loss, Tim O’Dea, Patrick Gethin, Ryan Guthrie, Lisa Leaver, CSBP futurefarm 13. What is the best way to apply potassium? Stephen Loss, Tim O’Dea, Patrick Gethin, Ryan Guthrie, CSBP futurefarm 14. Claying affects potassium nutrition in barley, Stephen Loss, David Phelps, Tim O’Dea, Patrick Gethin, Ryan Guthrie, Lisa Leaver, CSBP futurefarm 15. Nitrogen and potassium improve oaten hay quality, Stephen Loss, Tim O’Dea, Patrick Gethin, Ryan Guthrie, Lisa Leaver, CSBP futurefarm AGRONOMY 16. Agronomic responses of new wheat varieties in the northern wheatbelt, Darshan Sharma and Wal Anderson, Agriculture Western Australia 17. Wheat agronomy research on the south coast, Mohammad Amjad and Wal Anderson, Agriculture Western Australia 18. Influence of sowing date on wheat yield and quality in the south coast environment, Mohammad Amjadand Wal Anderson, Agriculture Western Australia 19. More profit from durum, Md.Shahajahan Miyan and Wal Anderson, Agriculture Western Australia 20. Enhancing recommendations of flowering and yield in wheat, JamesFisher1, Senthold Asseng2, Bill Bowden1 and Michael Robertson3 ,1AgricultureWestern Australia, 2CSIRO Plant Industry, 3CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems 21. When and where to grow oats, Glenn McDonald, Agriculture Western Australia 22. Managing Gaidner barley for quality, Kevin Young and Blakely Paynter, Agriculture Western Australia PESTS AND DISEASES 23. Strategies for leaf disease management in wheat, Jatinderpal Bhathal1, Cameron Weeks2, Kith Jayasena1 and Robert Loughman1 ,1Agriculture Western Australia. 2Mingenew-Irwin Group Inc 24. Strategies for leaf disease management in malting barley, K. Jayasena1, Q. Knight2 and R. Loughman1, 1Agriculture Western Australia, 2IAMA Agribusiness 25. Cereal disease diagnostics, Dominie Wright and Nichole Burges, Agriculture Western Australia 26. The big rust: Did you get your money back!! Peter Burgess, Agritech Crop Research 27. Jockey – winning the race against disease in wheat, Lisa-Jane Blacklow, Rob Hulme and Rob Giffith, Aventis CropScience 28. Distribution and incidence of aphids and barley yellow dwarf virus in over-summering grasses in WA wheatbelt, Jenny Hawkes and Roger Jones, CLIMA and Agriculture Western Australia 29. Further developments in forecasting aphid and virus risk in cereals, Debbie Thackray, Jenny Hawkes and Roger Jones, Agriculture Western Australia and Centre for Legumes in Mediterranean Agriculture 30. Effect of root lesion nematodes on wheat yields in Western Australia, S. B. Sharma, S. Kelly and R. Loughman, Crop Improvement Institute, Agriculture Western Australia 31. Rotational crops and varieties for management of root lesion nematodes in Western Australia, S.B. Sharma, S. Kelly and R. Loughman, Crop Improvement Institute, Agriculture Western Australia WEEDS 32. Phenoxy herbicide tolerance of wheat, Peter Newman and Dave Nicholson, Agriculture Western Australia 33. Tolerance of wheat to phenoxy herbicides,Harmohinder S. Dhammu, Terry Piper and Mario F. D\u27Antuono, Agriculture Western Australia 34. Herbicide tolerance of durum wheats, Harmohinder S. Dhammu, Terry Piper and David Nicholson, Agriculture Western Australia 35. Herbicide tolerance of new wheats, Harmohinder S. Dhammu, Terry Piper and David F. Nicholson, Agriculture Western Australia BREEDING 36. Towards molecular breeding of barley: construction of a molecular genetic map, Mehmet Cakir1, Nick Galwey1, David Poulsen2, Garry Ablett3, Reg Lance4, Rob Potter5 and Peter Langridge6,1Plant Sciences, Faculty of Agriculture, UWA, 2Queensland Department of Primary Industries, Qld, 3Centre for Plant Conservation Genetics Southern Cross University, Lismore NSW, 5SABC Murdoch University, WA, 6Department of Plant Science University of Adelaide, Glen Osmond SA 37. Toward molecular breeding of barley: Identifying markers linked to genes for quantitative traits, Mehmet Cakir1, Nick Galwey1, David Poulsen2, Reg Lance3, Garry Ablett4, Greg Platz2, Joe Panozzo5, Barbara Read6, David Moody5, Andy Barr7 and Peter Langridge7 , 1Plant Sciences, Faculty of Agriculture, UWA, 2Queensland Department of Primary Industries, Warwick, QLD,3Agriculture Western Australia, 4Centre for Plant Conservation Genetics, Southern Cross University, Lismore NSW, 5VIDA Private Bag 260, Horsham VIC, 6NSW Dept. of Agriculture, Wagga Wagga NSW, 7Department of Plant Science, University of Adelaide, Glen Osmond SA 38. Can we improve grain yield by breeding for greater early vigour in wheat? Tina Botwright1, Tony Condon1, Robin Wilson2 and Iain Barclay2, 1CSIRO Plant Industry, 2Agriculture Western Australia MARKETING AND QUALITY 39. The Crop Improvement Royalty, Howard Carr, Agriculture Western Australia 40. GrainGuardÔ - The development of a protection plan for the wheat industry, Greg Shea, Agriculture Western Australia CLIMATE 41. Rainfall – what happened in 2000 and the prospects for 2001, Ian Foster, Agriculture Western Australia 42. Software for climate management issues, David Tennant,Agriculture Western Australia CONTRIBUTING AUTHOR CONTACT DETAIL

The social dimension of globalization: A review of the literature

With globalization affecting so many inter-connected areas, it is difficult to grasp its full impact. This literature review of over 120 sources considers the impact of globalization on wages and taxes, poverty, inequality, insecurity, child labour, gender, and migration. Opening with some stylized facts concerning globalization in 1985-2002, the authors then highlight recent findings on these areas, reporting on controversies and on emerging consensus where it exists. There follows a review of national and international policy responses designed to make globalization more sustainable and equitable and to deliver decent jobs, security and a voice in decision-making

Global carbon budget 2019

Accurate assessment of anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and their redistribution among the atmosphere, ocean, and terrestrial biosphere – the “global carbon budget” – is important to better understand the global carbon cycle, support the development of climate policies, and project future climate change. Here we describe data sets and methodology to quantify the five major components of the global carbon budget and their uncertainties. Fossil CO2 emissions (EFF) are based on energy statistics and cement production data, while emissions from land use change (ELUC), mainly deforestation, are based on land use and land use change data and bookkeeping models. Atmospheric CO2 concentration is measured directly and its growth rate (GATM) is computed from the annual changes in concentration. The ocean CO2 sink (SOCEAN) and terrestrial CO2 sink (SLAND) are estimated with global process models constrained by observations. The resulting carbon budget imbalance (BIM), the difference between the estimated total emissions and the estimated changes in the atmosphere, ocean, and terrestrial biosphere, is a measure of imperfect data and understanding of the contemporary carbon cycle. All uncertainties are reported as ±1σ. For the last decade available (2009–2018), EFF was 9.5±0.5 GtC yr−1, ELUC 1.5±0.7 GtC yr−1, GATM 4.9±0.02 GtC yr−1 (2.3±0.01 ppm yr−1), SOCEAN 2.5±0.6 GtC yr−1, and SLAND 3.2±0.6 GtC yr−1, with a budget imbalance BIM of 0.4 GtC yr−1 indicating overestimated emissions and/or underestimated sinks. For the year 2018 alone, the growth in EFF was about 2.1 % and fossil emissions increased to 10.0±0.5 GtC yr−1, reaching 10 GtC yr−1 for the first time in history, ELUC was 1.5±0.7 GtC yr−1, for total anthropogenic CO2 emissions of 11.5±0.9 GtC yr−1 (42.5±3.3 GtCO2). Also for 2018, GATM was 5.1±0.2 GtC yr−1 (2.4±0.1 ppm yr−1), SOCEAN was 2.6±0.6 GtC yr−1, and SLAND was 3.5±0.7 GtC yr−1, with a BIM of 0.3 GtC. The global atmospheric CO2 concentration reached 407.38±0.1 ppm averaged over 2018. For 2019, preliminary data for the first 6–10 months indicate a reduced growth in EFF of +0.6 % (range of −0.2 % to 1.5 %) based on national emissions projections for China, the USA, the EU, and India and projections of gross domestic product corrected for recent changes in the carbon intensity of the economy for the rest of the world. Overall, the mean and trend in the five components of the global carbon budget are consistently estimated over the period 1959–2018, but discrepancies of up to 1 GtC yr−1 persist for the representation of semi-decadal variability in CO2 fluxes. A detailed comparison among individual estimates and the introduction of a broad range of observations shows (1) no consensus in the mean and trend in land use change emissions over the last decade, (2) a persistent low agreement between the different methods on the magnitude of the land CO2 flux in the northern extra-tropics, and (3) an apparent underestimation of the CO2 variability by ocean models outside the tropics. This living data update documents changes in the methods and data sets used in this new global carbon budget and the progress in understanding of the global carbon cycle compared with previous publications of this data set (Le Quéré et al., 2018a, b, 2016, 2015a, b, 2014, 2013). The data generated by this work are available at https://doi.org/10.18160/gcp-2019 (Friedlingstein et al., 2019)

Genome-Wide Association Study in BRCA1 Mutation Carriers Identifies Novel Loci Associated with Breast and Ovarian Cancer Risk

BRCA1-associated breast and ovarian cancer risks can be modified by common genetic variants. To identify further cancer risk-modifying loci, we performed a multi-stage GWAS of 11,705 BRCA1 carriers (of whom 5,920 were diagnosed with breast and 1,839 were diagnosed with ovarian cancer), with a further replication in an additional sample of 2,646 BRCA1 carriers. We identified a novel breast cancer risk modifier locus at 1q32 for BRCA1 carriers (rs2290854, P = 2.7×10-8, HR = 1.14, 95% CI: 1.09-1.20). In addition, we identified two novel ovarian cancer risk modifier loci: 17q21.31 (rs17631303, P = 1.4×10-8, HR = 1.27, 95% CI: 1.17-1.38) and 4q32.3 (rs4691139, P = 3.4×10-8, HR = 1.20, 95% CI: 1.17-1.38). The 4q32.3 locus was not associated with ovarian cancer risk in the general population or BRCA2 carriers, suggesting a BRCA1-specific associat

GA4GH: International policies and standards for data sharing across genomic research and healthcare.

The Global Alliance for Genomics and Health (GA4GH) aims to accelerate biomedical advances by enabling the responsible sharing of clinical and genomic data through both harmonized data aggregation and federated approaches. The decreasing cost of genomic sequencing (along with other genome-wide molecular assays) and increasing evidence of its clinical utility will soon drive the generation of sequence data from tens of millions of humans, with increasing levels of diversity. In this perspective, we present the GA4GH strategies for addressing the major challenges of this data revolution. We describe the GA4GH organization, which is fueled by the development efforts of eight Work Streams and informed by the needs of 24 Driver Projects and other key stakeholders. We present the GA4GH suite of secure, interoperable technical standards and policy frameworks and review the current status of standards, their relevance to key domains of research and clinical care, and future plans of GA4GH. Broad international participation in building, adopting, and deploying GA4GH standards and frameworks will catalyze an unprecedented effort in data sharing that will be critical to advancing genomic medicine and ensuring that all populations can access its benefits