11. Some aspects of enhancing natural pest control

Expert assessors Barbara Smith, Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust, UK Tony Harding, Rothamsted Research, UK Anthony Goggin, Linking Environment and Farming (LEAF), UK Felix Wackers, BioBest/University of Lancaster, Belgium/UK Melvyn Fidgett, Syngenta, UK Michael Garratt, University of Reading, UK Michelle Fountain, East Malling Research, UK Phillip Effingham, Greentech Consultants, UK Stephanie Williamson, Pesticides Action Network, UK Toby Bruce, Rothamsted Research, UK Andrew Wilby, Univ..

What works in conservation? Using expert assessment of summarised evidence to identify practices that enhance natural pest control in agriculture.

This paper documents an exercise to synthesize and assess the best available scientific knowledge on the effectiveness of different farm practices at enhancing natural pest regulation in agriculture. It demonstrates a novel combination of three approaches to evidence synthesis-systematic literature search, collated synopsis and evidence assessment using an expert panel. These approaches follow a logical sequence moving from a large volume of disparate evidence to a simple, easily understandable answer for use in policy or practice. The example of natural pest regulation in agriculture was selected as a case study within two independent science-policy interface projects, one European and one British. A third funder, a private business, supported the final stage to translate the synthesized findings into a useful, simplified output for agronomists. As a whole, the case study showcases how a network of scientific knowledge holders and knowledge users can work together to improve the use of science in policy and practice. The process identified five practices with good evidence of a benefit to natural pest regulation, with the most beneficial being 'Combine trap and repellent crops in a push-pull system'. It highlights knowledge gaps, or potential research priorities, by showing practices considered important by stakeholders for which there is not enough evidence to make an assessment of effects on natural pest regulation, including 'Alter the timing of pesticide application.' Finally, the process identifies several important practices where the volume of evidence of effects on natural pest regulation was too large (>300 experimental studies) to be summarised with the resources available, and for which focused systematic reviews may be the best approach. These very well studied practices include 'Reduce tillage' and 'Plant more than one crop per field'.Elements of this work were funded by the European Commission under its 7th framework programme (BiodiversityKnowledge project, Grant number: 265299), the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC)'s Knowledge Exchange Programme on Sustainable Food Production (Grant code: NE/K001191/1) and Waitrose plc. L.V.D is funded by NERC under the Biodiversity and Ecosystem Service Sustainability (BESS) Programme (Grant code: NE/K015419/1).This is the author accepted manuscript. It is currently under an indefinite embargo pending publication by Springer

The Cool Farm Biodiversity metric: an evidence-based online tool to report and improve management of biodiversity at farm scale

Halting biodiversity loss and achieving food security are both aims of the United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, but there is complex interplay between them. Agriculture drives biodiversity loss, but biodiversity provides benefits to agriculture. There is substantial potential to develop ‘win-win’ solutions for biodiversity and people within productive farmland, by boosting wildlife that can be supported, whilst maintaining yield and other services. To achieve this, farmers need to be able to assess the impacts of their management on biodiversity at farm scale. While suitable tools exist to drive improvement in biodiversity management, none incorporates evidence on the effectiveness of specific management practices. In this study we present the Cool Farm Biodiversity metric, which generates a farm-scale action-based biodiversity management assessment, scored using expert judgements and expert assessment of experimental evidence. The metric is designed to be biome-specific, so it responds to conservation aims, ecosystem processes and farming systems in particular biomes. To demonstrate that the metric is responsive to changes in farm management, we present an example of use on a large arable farm from the temperate forest biome

The Cool Farm Biodiversity metric: An evidence-based online tool to report and improve management of biodiversity at farm scale

Halting biodiversity loss and achieving food security are both aims of the United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, but there is complex interplay between them. Agriculture drives biodiversity loss, but biodiversity provides benefits to agriculture. There is substantial potential to develop ‘win-win’ solutions for biodiversity and people within productive farmland, by boosting wildlife that can be supported, whilst maintaining yield and other services. To achieve this, farmers need to be able to assess the impacts of their management on biodiversity at farm scale. While suitable tools exist to drive improvement in biodiversity management, none incorporates evidence on the effectiveness of specific management practices. In this study we present the Cool Farm Biodiversity metric, which generates a farm-scale action-based biodiversity management assessment, scored using expert judgements and expert assessment of experimental evidence. The metric is designed to be biome-specific, so it responds to conservation aims, ecosystem processes and farming systems in particular biomes. To demonstrate that the metric is responsive to changes in farm management, we present an example of use on a large arable farm from the temperate forest biome

What Works in Conservation 2018

This book provides an assessment of the effectiveness of 1277 conservation interventions based on summarized scientific evidence. The 2018 edition contains new chapters covering practical global conservation of primates, peatlands, shrublands and heathlands, management of captive animals as well as an extended chapter on control of freshwater invasive species. Other chapters cover global conservation of amphibians, bats, birds and forests, conservation of European farmland biodiversity and some aspects of enhancing natural pest control, enhancing soil fertility and control of freshwater invasive species. It contains key results from the summarized evidence for each conservation intervention and an assessment of the effectiveness of each by international expert panels. The accompanying website www.conservationevidence.com describes each of the studies individually, and provides full references

Increasing frailty is associated with higher prevalence and reduced recognition of delirium in older hospitalised inpatients: results of a multi-centre study

Purpose: Delirium is a neuropsychiatric disorder delineated by an acute change in cognition, attention, and consciousness. It is common, particularly in older adults, but poorly recognised. Frailty is the accumulation of deficits conferring an increased risk of adverse outcomes. We set out to determine how severity of frailty, as measured using the CFS, affected delirium rates, and recognition in hospitalised older people in the United Kingdom. Methods: Adults over 65 years were included in an observational multi-centre audit across UK hospitals, two prospective rounds, and one retrospective note review. Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS), delirium status, and 30-day outcomes were recorded. Results: The overall prevalence of delirium was 16.3% (483). Patients with delirium were more frail than patients without delirium (median CFS 6 vs 4). The risk of delirium was greater with increasing frailty [OR 2.9 (1.8–4.6) in CFS 4 vs 1–3; OR 12.4 (6.2–24.5) in CFS 8 vs 1–3]. Higher CFS was associated with reduced recognition of delirium (OR of 0.7 (0.3–1.9) in CFS 4 compared to 0.2 (0.1–0.7) in CFS 8). These risks were both independent of age and dementia. Conclusion: We have demonstrated an incremental increase in risk of delirium with increasing frailty. This has important clinical implications, suggesting that frailty may provide a more nuanced measure of vulnerability to delirium and poor outcomes. However, the most frail patients are least likely to have their delirium diagnosed and there is a significant lack of research into the underlying pathophysiology of both of these common geriatric syndromes

11. Some aspects of enhancing natural pest control

Expert assessors Barbara Smith, Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust, UK Tony Harding, Rothamsted Research, UK Anthony Goggin, Linking Environment and Farming (LEAF), UK Felix Wackers, BioBest/University of Lancaster, Belgium/UK Melvyn Fidgett, Syngenta, UK Michael Garratt, University of Reading, UK Michelle Fountain, East Malling Research, UK Phillip Effingham, Greentech Consultants, UK Stephanie Williams..

Are potentially clinically meaningful benefits misinterpreted in cardiovascular randomized trials? A systematic examination of statistical significance, clinical significance, and authors’ conclusions

Background: While journals and reporting guidelines recommend the presentation of confidence intervals, many authors adhere strictly to statistically significant testing. Our objective was to determine what proportions of not statistically significant (NSS) cardiovascular trials include potentially clinically meaningful effects in primary outcomes and if these are associated with authors’ conclusions. Methods: Cardiovascular studies published in six high-impact journals between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2014 were identified via PubMed. Two independent reviewers selected trials with major adverse cardiovascular events (stroke, myocardial infarction, or cardiovascular death) as primary outcomes and extracted data on trial characteristics, quality, and primary outcome. Potentially clinically meaningful effects were defined broadly as a relative risk point estimate ≤0.94 (based on the effects of ezetimibe) and/or a lower confidence interval ≤0.75 (based on the effects of statins). Results: We identified 127 randomized trial comparisons from 3200 articles. The primary outcomes were statistically significant (SS) favoring treatment in 21% (27/127), NSS in 72% (92/127), and SS favoring control in 6% (8/127). In 61% of NSS trials (56/92), the point estimate and/or lower confidence interval included potentially meaningful effects. Both point estimate and confidence interval included potentially meaningful effects in 67% of trials (12/18) in which authors’ concluded that treatment was superior, in 28% (16/58) with a neutral conclusion, and in 6% (1/16) in which authors’ concluded that control was superior. In a sensitivity analysis, 26% of NSS trials would include potential meaningful effects with relative risk thresholds of point estimate ≤0.85 and/or a lower confidence interval ≤0.65. Conclusions: Point estimates and/or confidence intervals included potentially clinically meaningful effects in up to 61% of NSS cardiovascular trials. Authors’ conclusions often reflect potentially meaningful results of NSS cardiovascular trials. Given the frequency of potentially clinical meaningful effects in NSS trials, authors should be encouraged to continue to look beyond significance testing to a broader interpretation of trial results.Pharmaceutical Sciences, Faculty ofNon UBCReviewedFacult