What is the evidence for the contribution of forests to poverty alleviation? A systematic map protocol

This is the final version of the article. Available from BioMed Central via the DOI in this record.Background: Forests provide an essential resource that support the livelihoods of an estimated 20% of the global population. Forests are thought to serve in three primary roles to support livelihoods: subsistence, safety nets, and pathways to prosperity. While we have a working understanding of how poor people depend on forests in individual sites and countries, much of this evidence is dispersed and not easily accessible. Thus, while the importance of forest ecosystems and resources to contribute to poverty alleviation has been increasingly emphasized in international policies, conservation and development initiatives and investments- the strength of evidence to support how forests can affect poverty outcomes is still unclear. This study takes a systematic mapping approach to scope, identify and describe studies that measure the effect of forest-based activities on poverty outcomes at local and regional scales. This effort builds upon an existing systematic map on linkages between conservation and human well-being in order to make this process more efficient. We will conduct a refined and updated search strategy pertinent to forests-poverty linkages to glean additional evidence from studies outside the scope of the original map. Results of this study can be used for informing conservation and development policy and practices in global forest ecosystems and highlight evidence gaps where future primary studies and systematic reviews can add value. Methods: We build upon the search strategy outlined in McKinnon et al. (Environ Evid 1-25, 2016) and expand our search to cover a total of 7 bibliographic databases, 15 organizational websites, 8 existing systematic reviews and maps, and evidence gap maps, and solicit key informants. All searches will be conducted in English and encompass all nations. Search results will be screened at title, abstract, and full text levels, recording both the number of excluded articles and reasons for exclusion. Full text assessment will be conducted on all included article and extracted data will be reported in a narrative review that will summarize trends in the evidence, report any knowledge gaps and gluts, and provide insight for policy, practice and future research. The data from this systematic map will be made available as well, through an open access, searchable data portal and visualization tool.We are grateful for funding support from the Program on Forests (PROFOR) (SA, SO, SC, RG) and the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Hatch Project #1009327 (DM)

A systematic map of evidence on the contribution of forests to poverty alleviation

This is the final version. Available from the publisher via the DOI in this record.Background: Forests provide an essential resource to the livelihoods of an estimated 20% of the global population. The contribution of forest ecosystems and forest-based resources to poverty reduction is increasingly emphasized in international policy discourse and conservation and development investments. However, evidence measuring the effect of forest-based activities on poverty outcomes remains scattered and unclear. Lack of systematic understanding of forest-poverty relationships, in turn, inhibits research, policymaking, and efficient financial resource allocation. Methods: To identify relevant studies for inclusion in this systematic map we searched six bibliographic databases, 15 organizational websites, eight systematic evidence syntheses (reviews and maps), and solicited information from key informants. Search results were screened for relevance against predefined inclusion criteria at title, abstract, and full text levels, according to a published protocol. Included articles were coded using a predefined framework. Trends in the evidence, knowledge gaps and relatively well-researched sub-topics are reported in a narrative synthesis. Occurrence and extent of existing evidence about links between interventions and outcomes are presented in a visual heatmap. Data are available through the open access Evidence for Nature and People Data Portal (http://www.natureandpeopleevidence.org). Results: A total of 242 articles were included in the systematic map database. Included articles measured effects of 14 forest-based intervention types on 11 poverty dimensions. The majority of the evidence base (72%) examined links between productivity-enhancement strategies (e.g. forest management, agroforestry, and habitat management) and monetary income and/or social capital outcomes. Other areas with high occurrence of articles include linkages between interventions involving governance, individual rights/empowerment or linked enterprises/livelihood alternatives with impacts on monetary income from direct sale of goods. A key knowledge gap was on the impacts of investment-based interventions (i.e. enhancing produced, human, and social capitals). Another was the impacts of forest-based interventions on financial capital (savings, debt), non-monetary benefits, and health. Conclusions: The evidence base on forest-based productive activities and poverty alleviation is growing but displays a number of biases in the distribution of articles on key linkages. Priorities for future systematic reviews and evaluations include in-depth examinations into the impacts of rights-based activities (e.g. governance, empowerment) on poverty dimensions; and productivity-enhancing activities on social capital. More comprehensive and robust evidence is needed to better understand the synergies and trade-offs among the different objectives of forest conservation and management and variation in outcomes for different social groups in different social-ecological contexts

Strengthen causal models for better conservation outcomes for human well-being

This is the final version. Available from the publisher via the DOI in this record.All data files are available on github at www.github.com/scheng87/ toc.Background Understanding how the conservation of nature can lead to improvement in human conditions is a research area with significant growth and attention. Progress towards effective conservation requires understanding mechanisms for achieving impact within complex social-ecological systems. Causal models are useful tools for defining plausible pathways from conservation actions to impacts on nature and people. Evaluating the potential of different strategies for delivering co-benefits for nature and people will require the use and testing of clear causal models that explicitly define the logic and assumptions behind cause and effect relationships. Objectives and methods In this study, we outline criteria for credible causal models and systematically evaluated their use in a broad base of literature (~1,000 peer-reviewed and grey literature articles from a published systematic evidence map) on links between nature-based conservation actions and human well-being impacts. Results Out of 1,027 publications identified, only ~20% of articles used any type of causal models to guide their work, and only 14 total articles fulfilled all criteria for credibility. Articles rarely tested the validity of models with empirical data. Implications Not using causal models risks poorly defined strategies, misunderstanding of potential mechanisms for affecting change, inefficient use of resources, and focusing on implausible efforts for achieving sustainability.Science for Nature and People Partnership (SNAPP)National Institute for Health Research (NIHR

Using machine learning to advance synthesis and use of conservation and environmental evidence

This is the final version. Available from Wiley via the DOI in this record. National Institute for Health ResearchScience for Nature and People Partnershi

What are the effects of nature conservation on human well-being? A systematic map of empirical evidence from developing countries

This is the final version of the article. Available from BioMed Central via the DOI in this record.Background: Global policy initiatives and international conservation organizations have sought to emphasize and strengthen the link between the conservation of natural ecosystems and human development. While many indices have been developed to measure various social outcomes to conservation interventions, the quantity and strength of evidence to support the effects, both positive and negative, of conservation on different dimensions of human well-being, remain unclear, dispersed and inconsistent. Methods: We searched 11 academic citation databases, two search engines and 30 organisational websites for relevant articles using search terms tested with a library of 20 relevant articles. Key informants were contacted with requests for articles and possible sources of evidence. Articles were screened for relevance against predefined inclusion criteria at title, abstract and full text levels according to a published protocol. Included articles were coded using a questionnaire. A critical appraisal of eight systematic reviews was conducted to assess the reliability of methods and confidence in study findings. A visual matrix of the occurrence and extent of existing evidence was also produced. Results: A total of 1043 articles were included in the systematic map database. Included articles measured effects across eight nature conservation-related intervention and ten human well-being related outcome categories. Linkages between interventions and outcomes with high occurrence of evidence include resource management interventions, such as fisheries and forestry, and economic and material outcomes. Over 25 % of included articles examined linkages between protected areas and aspects of economic well-being. Fewer than 2 % of articles evaluated human health outcomes. Robust study designs were limited with less than 9 % of articles using quantitative approaches to evaluate causal effects of interventions. Over 700 articles occurred in forest biomes with less than 50 articles in deserts or mangroves, combined. Conclusions: The evidence base is growing on conservation-human well-being linkages, but biases in the extent and robustness of articles on key linkages persist. Priorities for systematic review, include linkages between marine resource management and economic/material well-being outcomes; and protected areas and governance outcomes. Greater and more robust evidence is needed for many established interventions to better understand synergies and trade-offs between interventions, in particular those that are emerging or contested.This study was made possible by a grant from the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation to Conservation International (Grant No. 3519). This research was conducted by the Evidence-based Conservation Working Group and financially supported in part by SNAP: Science for Nature and People, a collaboration of The Nature Conservancy, the Wildlife Conservation Society and the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis (NCEAS)

Testing Nelder-Mead based repulsion algorithms for multiple roots of nonlinear systems via a two-level factorial design of experiments

This paper addresses the challenging task of computing multiple roots of a system of nonlinear equations. A repulsion algorithm that invokes the Nelder-Mead (N-M) local search method and uses a penalty-type merit function based on the error function, known as 'erf', is presented. In the N-M algorithm context, different strategies are proposed to enhance the quality of the solutions and improve the overall efficiency. The main goal of this paper is to use a two-level factorial design of experiments to analyze the statistical significance of the observed differences in selected performance criteria produced when testing different strategies in the N-M based repulsion algorithm. The main goal of this paper is to use a two-level factorial design of experiments to analyze the statistical significance of the observed differences in selected performance criteria produced when testing different strategies in the N-M based repulsion algorithm.Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia (FCT

Presentism remains

Here I examine some recent attempts to provide a new way of thinking about the philosophy of time that question the central role of ‘presentness’ within the definition of presentism. The central concern raised by these critics turns on the intelligibility and theoretical usefulness of the term ‘is present’ (cf. Correia and Rosenkrantz in Thought 4:19–27, 2015; Deasy in Nous, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1111/nous.12109; Williamson in Modal logic as metaphysics, OUP, Oxford, 2013). My overarching aim is to at least challenge such concerns. I begin with arguments due to Deasy (Nous, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1111/nous.12109). Deasy develops a view that he calls ‘transientism’ and that he takes to be a well-motivated version of presentism. I show that both this way of thinking about presentism and the argument supposedly motivating it all fail. I then move to an argument due to Correia and Rosenkrantz (Thought 4:19–27, 2015). Correia and Rosenkrantz purport to show that presentism can be salvaged without making recourse to the term ‘is present’. I demonstrate that their arguments fail. I then move on to a view, proposed and defended by Merricks (Truth and ontology, OUP, Oxford, 2007), Tallant (Erkenntnis 79:479–501, 2014), and Zimmerman (Philos Pap 25:115–126, 1996), and show that it has the wherewithal to meet the challenges raised by Williamson (Modal logic as metaphysics, OUP, Oxford, 2013) who, as noted above, raises genuine concerns about our capacity to define presentism

Validation of pharmacodynamic assays to evaluate the clinical efficacy of an antisense compound (AEG 35156) targeted to the X-linked inhibitor of apoptosis protein XIAP

The inhibitor of apoptosis protein, XIAP, is frequently overexpressed in chemoresistant human tumours. An antisense oligonucleotide (AEG 35156/GEM 640) that targets XIAP has recently entered phase I trials in the UK. Method validation data are presented on three pharmacodynamic assays that will be utilised during this trial. Quantitative RT-PCR was based on a Taqman assay and was confirmed to be specific for XIAP. Assay linearity extended over four orders of magnitude. MDA-MB-231/U6-E1 cells and clone X-G4 stably expressing an RNAi vector against XIAP were chosen as high and low XIAP expression quality controls (QCs). Within-day and between-day coefficients of variation (CVs) in precision for cycle threshold (CT) and delta CT values (employing GAPDH and beta 2 microglobulin as housekeepers) were always less than 10%. A Western blotting technique was validated using a GST–XIAP fusion protein as a standard and HeLa cells and SF268 (human glioblastoma) cells as high and low XIAP expression QCs. Specificity of the final choice of antibody for XIAP was evaluated by analysing a panel of cell lines including clone X-G4. The assay was linear over a 29-fold range of protein concentration and between-day precision was 29% for the low QC and 23% for the high QC when normalised to GAPDH. XIAP protein was also shown to be stable at −80°C for at least 60 days. M30-Apoptosense™ plasma Elisa detects a caspase-cleaved fragment of cytokeratin 18 (CK18), believed to be a surrogate marker for tumour cell apoptosis. Generation of an independent QC was achieved through the treatment of X-G4 cells with staurosporine and collection of media. Measurements on assay precision and kit-to-kit QC were always less than 10%. The M30 antigen (CK18-Asp396) was stable for 3 months at −80°C, while at 37°C it had a half-life of 80–100 h in healthy volunteer plasma. Results from the phase I trial are eagerly awaited

Little evidence for a selective advantage of armour-reduced threespined stickleback individuals in an invertebrate predation experiment

The repeated colonization of freshwater habitats by the ancestrally marine threespined stickleback Gasterosteus aculeatus has been associated with many instances of parallel reduction in armour traits, most notably number of lateral plates. The change in predation regime from marine systems, dominated by gape-limited predators such as piscivorous fishes, to freshwater habitats where grappling invertebrate predators such as insect larvae can dominate the predation regime, has been hypothesized as a driving force. Here we experimentally test the hypothesis that stickleback with reduced armour possess a selective advantage in the face of predation by invertebrates, using a natural population of stickleback that is highly polymorphic for armour traits and a common invertebrate predator from the same location. Our results provide no compelling evidence for selection in this particular predator–prey interaction. We suggest that the postulated selective advantage of low armour in the face of invertebrate predation may not be universal