Methane emissions from soils: synthesis and analysis of a large UK data set

Nearly 5000 chamber measurements of CH4 flux were collated from 21 sites across the UK, covering a range of soil and vegetation types, to derive a parsimonious model that explains as much of the variability as possible, with the least input requirements. Mean fluxes ranged from -0.3 to 27.4 nmol CH4 m−2 s−1, with small emissions or low rates of net uptake in mineral soils (site means of -0.3 to 0.7 nmol m−2 s−1) and much larger emissions from organic soils (site means of -0.3 to 27.4 nmol m−2 s−1). Less than half of the observed variability in instantaneous fluxes could be explained by independent variables measured. The reasons for this include measurement error, stochastic processes and, probably most importantly, poor correspondence between the independent variables measured and the actual variables influencing the processes underlying methane production, transport and oxidation. When temporal variation was accounted for, and the fluxes averaged at larger spatial scales, simple models explained up to ~75% of the variance in CH4 fluxes. Soil carbon, peat depth, soil moisture and pH together provided the best sub-set of explanatory variables. However, where plant species composition data were available, this provided the highest explanatory power. Linear and non-linear models generally fitted the data equally well, with the exception that soil moisture required a power transformation. To estimate the impact of changes in peatland water table on CH4 emissions in the UK, an emission factor of +0.4 g CH4 m−2 y−1 per cm increase in water table height was derived from the data

Need for recovery amongst emergency physicians in the UK and Ireland: A cross-sectional survey

OBJECTIVES: To determine the need for recovery (NFR) among emergency physicians and to identify demographic and occupational characteristics associated with higher NFR scores. DESIGN: Cross-sectional electronic survey. SETTING: Emergency departments (EDs) (n=112) in the UK and Ireland. PARTICIPANTS: Emergency physicians, defined as any registered physician working principally within the ED, responding between June and July 2019. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: NFR Scale, an 11-item self-administered questionnaire that assesses how work demands affect intershift recovery. RESULTS: The median NFR Score for all 4247 eligible, consented participants with a valid NFR Score was 70.0 (95% CI: 65.5 to 74.5), with an IQR of 45.5-90.0. A linear regression model indicated statistically significant associations between gender, health conditions, type of ED, clinical grade, access to annual and study leave, and time spent working out-of-hours. Groups including male physicians, consultants, general practitioners (GPs) within the ED, those working in paediatric EDs and those with no long-term health condition or disability had a lower NFR Score. After adjusting for these characteristics, the NFR Score increased by 3.7 (95% CI: 0.3 to 7.1) and 6.43 (95% CI: 2.0 to 10.8) for those with difficulty accessing annual and study leave, respectively. Increased percentage of out-of-hours work increased NFR Score almost linearly: 26%-50% out-of-hours work=5.7 (95% CI: 3.1 to 8.4); 51%-75% out-of-hours work=10.3 (95% CI: 7.6 to 13.0); 76%-100% out-of-hours work=14.5 (95% CI: 11.0 to 17.9). CONCLUSION: Higher NFR scores were observed among emergency physicians than reported in any other profession or population to date. While out-of-hours working is unavoidable, the linear relationship observed suggests that any reduction may result in NFR improvement. Evidence-based strategies to improve well-being such as proportional out-of-hours working and improved access to annual and study leave should be carefully considered and implemented where feasible