Characterising current agroecological and regenerative farming research capability and infrastructure, and examining the case for a Living Lab network [Final report]

Agriculture is a major cause of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, biodiversity loss, and pollution. Agroecological and regenerative farming have been advocated as alternative approaches that may have fewer negative (or even net positive) environmental impacts than conventional agriculture at farm- and landscape-scales, leading to considerable interest in these approaches (Newton et al. 2020; Bohan et al. 2022; Prost et al. 2023). This report forms the third part of a Defra-funded project Evaluating the productivity, environmental sustainability and wider impacts of agroecological and regenerative farming systems compared to conventional systems. The first part of this project was a rapid evidence review of agroecological and regenerative farming systems and their impacts (Burgess et al. 2023), and the second reported interview findings to examine farmer and stakeholder perspectives on barriers and enablers in agroecological and regenerative farming (Hurley et al. 2023). This third part of the project characterised the current research capability in agroecology and regenerative farming, and explored the potential role of a new ‘living lab’ trial network. Three objectives are addressed in this report: 1) Characterise the existing agroecological and regenerative farming research capability and infrastructure in the UK. 2) Explore lessons from recent research initiatives and identify key research gaps, to inform a potential UK living labs trials network in agroecology/regenerative farming. 3) Develop recommendations for a new living lab trial or research network in agroecology/regenerative farming. Objective 1 was addressed through an online survey to gather quantitative and qualitative data on current research initiatives and networks in regenerative farming and agroecology. There were 22 respondents from 20 organisations (Section 2.2). Key findings from the survey: • The size and the timescales of research initiatives varied substantially from single sites to networks of 50-100 sites and with agroecological/regenerative practices applied from one to over 20 years. • All the survey respondents applied multiple agroecological/regenerative processes and had multiple target outcomes. • Just under 40% of respondents are not currently collecting data from their network. • Three-quarters of the survey participants not currently collecting data stated they would like to collect data, given more funding, knowledge or support. • Biodiversity was one of the most frequent target outcomes, and data collection most frequently focussed on biodiversity. • Face-to-face and email communication was most frequently used between farms in a network. Around two-thirds of respondents also held farm demonstration days as a means of knowledge exchange. • Most of the research initiatives and networks were funded by charities, NGOs or funded themselves, with a smaller number funded by UK or EU government funding. • Growing to incorporate more farms and researchers and developing knowledge exchange further were prioritised as future aspirations by survey respondents. Incorporating more researchers and applying for funding were also a focus for many research initiatives. • Targeted funding was seen as very important in achieving future aspirations by most respondents, along with improved connections with farmers and landowners and improved skills and information for knowledge exchange. Improved infrastructure and monitoring tools were emphasised less, but still considered important. The online survey results illustrate the wide range of current research initiatives in agroecology and regenerative farming, which vary from small-scale trials on a few farms to robust, repeatable data collection across a large network. To illustrate the range of approaches in more details, five case studies were described (Section 2.3) which included an ongoing living lab network, three research project and a long-term demonstration farm. Key characteristics of eight European living labs were also summarised through a network of EU agroecology living labs (the ALL-Ready project; Section 2.4). Objective 2 was addressed through an online workshop, at which participants responded to questions about research gaps and priorities, infrastructure needs, and the barriers and enablers to data sharing and access (Section 3). Participants views were gathered through online discussion boards and facilitated verbal discussion (Figure 1). Key themes and conclusions from the workshop: • Many of the impacts of agroecology and regenerative practices remain poorly understood, with biodiversity and greenhouse gas emissions highlighted. • Impacts on multiple potential benefits and trade-offs (e.g. yield vs. biodiversity vs. greenhouse gas emissions) need to be understood. The variation in responses (e.g. between soil types or regions) was seen as a priority area for research to improve the understanding of scaling-up. • Research needs to be conducted at adequate temporal and spatial scales given the timescales needed for impacts of these practices to become apparent. • There may be a bias in farmer participation in agroecological and regenerative agriculture research (those who can afford the time and money). • Understanding transitions to agroecology and regenerative farming across different types of farm business was raised as a research gap along with investigating the role of knowledge in these types of practice. This was reflected in the discussion of infrastructure and skills, with support (better guidance, input from advisors) and upskilling/improvements in education seen as priorities to support transitions. • The role of economic drivers, including subsidies and supply chain structures, is a research priority to understand why and how farmers may transition to these farming practices. • Standardised assessments and monitoring tools (including farmer apps) were highlighted to support future research, in particular standardised soil carbon assessments. Hubs to loan monitoring equipment to farmers were also suggested. • The time commitment needed was seen as an impediment to data collection by farmers, with comments that research initiatives worked better with someone external collecting data. • Data quality and formats were raised as barriers to data sharing in agroecology/regenerative farming. Formats that can be easily read across a range of software were suggested as a solution, along with more standardised approaches in data collection. • Integration and sharing of data across platforms were another solution, in particular for regulatory data (e.g. pesticide usage). • A potential tension was raised between standardising monitoring approaches and data collection, and constraining innovation by farmers. • Our understanding of how widespread agroecological and regenerative farming practices are, and which are being used / in what combinations, is constrained by lack of uptake data. Practices are being implemented with or without subsidies, and in varying combinations with more conventional approaches. Without these uptake data, larger scale research and modelling may be constrained. The online survey findings, case studies and lessons learnt from the workshop participants informed the development of recommendations for a future living labs network in the UK (Objective 3, Section 4). Four options were proposed: i) Develop a standardised methodology or protocol for each of the 12 attributes listed for assessment within the Global Farm Metric, to support consistency of farm measurements. ii) New research projects funded to collect standardised data on impacts and trade-offs across existing networks of farms applying agroecological / regenerative practices. This would maximise research synergies with existing networks. iii) New research network set up to apply agroecological / regenerative practices on commercial farms, co-designed between farmers and researchers. Standardised data collection on impacts and trade-offs. iv) Long-term living lab UK network set up, within which facilitation roles and research projects funded. These options could be applied in combination (e.g. a standardised methodology (i) developed within (iv) a long-term living lab network ). Which options are taken forward will depend on funding and factors such as the structure of available funding and timescales. Indicative costs were provided for field surveys of greenhouse gases and biodiversity, two of the impacts identified as research priorities in the workshop

Time-variability in the Interstellar Boundary Conditions of the Heliosphere: Effect of the Solar Journey on the Galactic Cosmic Ray Flux at Earth

During the solar journey through galactic space, variations in the physical properties of the surrounding interstellar medium (ISM) modify the heliosphere and modulate the flux of galactic cosmic rays (GCR) at the surface of the Earth, with consequences for the terrestrial record of cosmogenic radionuclides. One phenomenon that needs studying is the effect on cosmogenic isotope production of changing anomalous cosmic ray fluxes at Earth due to variable interstellar ionizations. The possible range of interstellar ram pressures and ionization levels in the low density solar environment generate dramatically different possible heliosphere configurations, with a wide range of particle fluxes of interstellar neutrals, their secondary products, and GCRs arriving at Earth. Simple models of the distribution and densities of ISM in the downwind direction give cloud transition timescales that can be directly compared with cosmogenic radionuclide geologic records. Both the interstellar data and cosmogenic radionuclide data are consistent with cloud transitions during the Holocene, with large and assumption-dependent uncertainties. The geomagnetic timeline derived from cosmic ray fluxes at Earth may require adjustment to account for the disappearance of anomalous cosmic rays when the Sun is immersed in ionized gas.Comment: Submitted to Space Sciences Review

The environmental effectiveness of the Higher Level Stewardship scheme; resurveying the baseline agreement monitoring sample to quantify change between 2009 and 2016. Full technical final report

Agri-environment schemes (AES) are one of the most significant mechanism for delivering environmental policy within England, both in terms of expenditure and coverage of land. AES are multi-objective, primarily addressing conservation of wildlife, landscapes and the historic environment and providing public access as well as addressing broader environmental issues such as climate change and flood management. This project contributes to evaluation of the Higher Level Stewardship (HLS) AES, which was designed to achieve the highest standards of environmental management and target features of the greatest conservation value, including Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs). Monitoring is a key element of scheme delivery in order to assess the efficacy of AES, and determine which factors contribute to successful AES outcomes. Here, we resurveyed a sample of HLS agreements (surveyed 6-7 years previously), to assess environmental outcomes and in particular change in plant communities over time in relation to AES management. The assessment of change over time allowed the effects of AES management to be quantified against defined objectives, as opposed to drawing conclusions from a single assessment where the conservation value of land entered into an AES can be confounded with AES management effects

Designing a survey to monitor multi-scale impacts of agri-environment schemes on mobile taxa

Agri-environment schemes (AES) are key mechanisms to deliver conservation policy, and include management to provide resources for target taxa. Mobile species may move to areas where resources are increased, without this necessarily having an effect across the wider countryside or on populations over time. Most assessments of AES efficacy have been at small spatial scales, over short timescales, and shown varying results. We developed a survey design based on orthogonal gradients of AES management at local and landscape scales, which will enable the response of several taxa to be monitored. An evidence review of management effects on butterflies, birds and pollinating insects provided data to score AES options. Predicted gradients were calculated using AES uptake, weighted by the evidence scores. Predicted AES gradients for each taxon correlated strongly, and with the average gradient across taxa, supporting the co-location of surveys across different taxa. Nine 1 × 1 km survey squares were selected in each of four regional blocks with broadly homogenous background habitat characteristics. Squares in each block covered orthogonal contrasts across the range of AES gradients at local and landscape scales. This allows the effects of AES on species at each scale, and the interaction between scales, to be tested. AES options and broad habitats were mapped in field surveys, to verify predicted gradients which were based on AES option uptake data. The verified AES gradient had a strong positive relationship with the predicted gradient. AES gradients were broadly independent of background habitat within each block, likely allowing AES effects to be distinguished from potential effects of other habitat variables. Surveys of several mobile taxa are ongoing. This design will allow mobile taxa responses to AES to be tested in the surrounding countryside, as well as on land under AES management, and potentially in terms of population change over time. The design developed here provides a novel, pseudo-experimental approach for assessing the response of mobile species to gradients of management at two spatial scales. A similar design process could be applied in other regions that require a standardized approach to monitoring the impacts of management interventions on target taxa at landscape scales, if equivalent spatial data are available

Differential cross section and recoil polarization measurements for the gamma p to K+ Lambda reaction using CLAS at Jefferson Lab

We present measurements of the differential cross section and Lambda recoil polarization for the gamma p to K+ Lambda reaction made using the CLAS detector at Jefferson Lab. These measurements cover the center-of-mass energy range from 1.62 to 2.84 GeV and a wide range of center-of-mass K+ production angles. Independent analyses were performed using the K+ p pi- and K+ p (missing pi -) final-state topologies; results from these analyses were found to exhibit good agreement. These differential cross section measurements show excellent agreement with previous CLAS and LEPS results and offer increased precision and a 300 MeV increase in energy coverage. The recoil polarization data agree well with previous results and offer a large increase in precision and a 500 MeV extension in energy range. The increased center-of-mass energy range that these data represent will allow for independent study of non-resonant K+ Lambda photoproduction mechanisms at all production angles.Comment: 22 pages, 16 figure

First measurement of direct f0(980)f_0(980) photoproduction on the proton

We report on the results of the first measurement of exclusive $f_0(980)$ meson photoproduction on protons for $E_\gamma=3.0 - 3.8$ GeV and $-t = 0.4-1.0$ GeV$^2$. Data were collected with the CLAS detector at the Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility. The resonance was detected via its decay in the $\pi^+ \pi^-$ channel by performing a partial wave analysis of the reaction $\gamma p \to p \pi^+ \pi^-$. Clear evidence of the $f_0(980)$ meson was found in the interference between $P$ and $S$ waves at $M_{\pi^+ \pi^-}\sim 1$ GeV. The $S$-wave differential cross section integrated in the mass range of the $f_0(980)$ was found to be a factor of 50 smaller than the cross section for the $\rho$ meson. This is the first time the $f_0(980)$ meson has been measured in a photoproduction experiment

Landscape-scale species monitoring of agri-environment schemes (LandSpAES project). Final project report, 2022

In this project, we applied a novel, pseudo-experimental design in order to collect a baseline survey dataset of the responses of mobile taxa to local and landscape AES gradients over four years, from 54 survey squares across six regions (NCAs) in England. This is the first project to monitor the responses of multiple mobile taxa to generalised AES gradients across large spatial extents, which were applied to arable, grassland and upland agricultural systems, in order specifically to address impacts beyond AES option or agreement boundaries. This baseline dataset supported a spatial assessment of relationships between the AES gradients and taxon abundance (or activity), species richness and diversity. Strong evidence for relationships with local and / or landscape AES gradients were found for one or more response variable for butterflies, moths and bats. Little or no evidence of AES gradient relationships were found for either bees or hoverflies and weak evidence for associations with bird metrics. A future resurvey would allow analyses of the longer-term changes in target taxa in response to AES management, against this baseline. The identification of various spatial relationships is encouraging in terms of the likely power to detect AES effects on biodiversity change in the future

The global burden of falls: Global, regional and national estimates of morbidity and mortality from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017

Background: Falls can lead to severe health loss including death. Past research has shown that falls are an important cause of death and disability worldwide. The Global Burden of Disease Study 2017 (GBD 2017) provides a comprehensive assessment of morbidity and mortality from falls. Methods: Estimates for mortality, years of life lost (YLLs), incidence, prevalence, years lived with disability (YLDs) and disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) were produced for 195 countries and territories from 1990 to 2017 for all ages using the GBD 2017 framework. Distributions of the bodily injury (eg, hip fracture) were estimated using hospital records. Results: Globally, the age-standardised incidence of falls was 2238 (1990-2532) per 100 000 in 2017, representing a decline of 3.7% (7.4 to 0.3) from 1990 to 2017. Age-standardised prevalence w

Fashion retailing – past, present and future

This issue of Textile Progress reviews the way that fashion retailing has developed as a result of the application of the World Wide Web and information and communications technology (ICT) by fashion-retail companies. The review therefore first considers how fashion retailing has evolved, analysing retail formats, global strategies, emerging and developing economies, and the factors that are threatening and driving growth in the fashion-retail market. The second part of the review considers the emergence of omni-channel retailing, analysing how retail has progressed and developed since the adoption of the Internet and how ICT initiatives such as mobile commerce (m-commerce), digital visualisation online, and in-store and self-service technologies have been proven to support the progression and expansion of fashion retailing. The paper concludes with recommendations on future research opportunities for gaining a better understanding of the impacts of ICT and omni-channel retailing, through which it may be possible to increase and develop knowledge and understanding of the way the sector is developing and provide fresh impetus to an already-innovative and competitive industr