Communicating the economic and environmental impacts of agroforestry systems

Paper presented at the 11th North American Agroforesty Conference, which was held May 31-June 3, 2009 in Columbia, Missouri.In Gold, M.A. and M.M. Hall, eds. Agroforestry Comes of Age: Putting Science into Practice. Proceedings, 11th North American Agroforestry Conference, Columbia, Mo., May 31-June 3, 2009.The Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada Agroforestry Division conducts research, development and delivers technology tools, products and services including tree and shrub seedlings for the adoption and integration of agroforestry practices by producers. The Division works toward increasing the adoption of agroforestry by demonstrating that agroforestry practices can be both environmentally and economically beneficial if properly integrated as a management practice in the agricultural landscape. To do so, it is important to demonstrate the return on investment for the producer, highlighting private benefits, while also determining opportunities that recognize public benefits. Agricultural practices are constantly changing as producers adopt new technologies and adapt to changing markets, social concerns and changing physical environments. Some producers may no longer consider trees in the agricultural landscape necessary as they rely more on adopted technologies and machinery advancements to impact production and environmental issues traditionally addressed by shelterbelts and tree buffers. As farms become larger and demographics of the farm population change, there is less time and traditional labour for producers to plant and care for trees. Agroforestry specialists and development staff must be cognizant of agricultural trends and keep this in mind when developing agroforestry marketing strategies and programming that is directed at producers. Using the AAFC-PFRA Agroforestry Division's Prairie Shelterbelt Program as an example, this presentation will focus on government & producer investment in agroforestry systems and the economic and environmental impacts of agroforestry systems for the producer and on the agricultural landscape.Laura Poppy (1), Janna Lutz (1), and Henry de Gooijer (1) ; 1. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Agroforestry Division, Indian Head, SK, Canada, S0G 2K0.Includes bibliographical references

Innovative agroforestry designs : Ecobuffers

Paper presented at the 12th North American Agroforesty Conference, which was held June 4-9, 2011 in Athens, Georgia.In Ashton, S. F., S.W. Workman, W.G. Hubbard and D.J. Moorhead, eds. Agroforestry: A Profitable Land Use. Proceedings, 12th North American Agroforestry Conference, Athens, GA, June 4-9, 2011.The predominance of large scale agriculture on the Canadian prairies and the introduction of precision farming technology has led to a noticeable reduction in habitat of marginal lands adjacent to agricultural fields. Removal of existing shelterbelts and a reduction in the number of new shelterbelt plantings is also partially a product of increased field and farm implement size. While improved land management techniques such as zero tillage can help mitigate the negative impact of the loss of shelterbelts, the positive functionality of agroforestry systems cannot be adequately replaced by monocultural farming practices. It is therefore important to target research and development on new agroforestry designs that will fit into modern farming practices. The AAFC Agroforestry Development Centre is conducting research and development on new multi-functional tree planting designs, particularly along field boundaries and riparian zones. The function of the new designs is for multiple purposes including enhancing biodiversity and water quality, conserving soil, biomass production, sequestering carbon and providing economic returns. Three alternative planting designs are being evaluated and demonstrated for their ability to be successfully integrated into current farming systems; ecological buffers (ECOBUFFERS), forest belts and willow buffers. Ecobuffers are a narrow, densely mixed shelterbelt that use native species to mimic natural hedgerows in design and function. Forest Belts are multi species in design, based on traditional plant spacings and willow buffers consist of multiple linear rows of willow cuttings planted in a dense arrangement along riparian areas acting as effective interceptors of nutrients and a source of renewable on farm bio-energy. Only ecobuffers will be addressed in this paper.Bill Schroeder (1), Dan Walker (1), Garth Inouye (1), Laura Poppy (1) and Janna Lutz (1) ; 1. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC), Agroforestry Development Centre, Indian Head, Saskatchewan, Canada.Includes bibliographical references

To have your citizen science cake and eat it? Delivering research and outreach through Open Air Laboratories (OPAL)

Background: The vast array of citizen science projects which have blossomed over the last decade span a spectrum of objectives from research to outreach. While some focus primarily on the collection of rigorous scientific data and others are positioned towards the public engagement end of the gradient, the majority of initiatives attempt to balance the two. Although meeting multiple aims can be seen as a ‘win–win’ situation, it can also yield significant challenges as allocating resources to one element means that they may be diverted away from the other. Here we analyse one such programme which set out to find an effective equilibrium between these arguably polarised goals. Through the lens of the Open Air Laboratories (OPAL) programme we explore the inherent trade-offs encountered under four indicators derived from an independent citizen science evaluation framework. Assimilating experience from the OPAL network we investigate practical approaches taken to tackle arising tensions. Results: Working backwards from project delivery to design, we found the following elements to be important: ensuring outputs are fit for purpose, developing strong internal and external collaborations, building a sufficiently diverse partnership and considering target audiences. We combine these ‘operational indicators’ with four pre-existing ‘outcome indicators’ to create a model which can be used to shape the planning and delivery of a citizen science project. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that whether the proverb in the title rings true will largely depend on the identification of challenges along the way and the ability to address these conflicts throughout the citizen science projec

Вивчення кварк-глюонної плазми хіггсового механізму порушення електрослабкої симетрії

Вже багато років наукове оточення всього світу хвилює питання звідки бере свій початок стандартна теорія походження матерії

Polarised clathrin-mediated endocytosis of EGFR during chemotactic invasion

Directed cell migration is critical for numerous physiological processes including development and wound healing. However chemotaxis is also exploited during cancer progression. Recent reports have suggested links between vesicle trafficking pathways and directed cell migration. Very little is known about the potential roles of endocytosis pathways during metastasis. Therefore we performed a series of studies employing a previously characterised model for chemotactic invasion of cancer cells to assess specific hypotheses potentially linking endocytosis to directed cell migration. Our results demonstrate that clathrin-mediated endocytosis is indispensable for epidermal growth factor (EGF) directed chemotactic invasion of MDA-MB-231 cells. Conversely, caveolar endocytosis is not required in this mode of migration. We further found that chemoattractant receptor (EGFR) trafficking occurs by clathrin-mediated endocytosis and is polarised towards the front of migrating cells. However, we found no role for clathrin-mediated endocytosis in focal adhesion disassembly in this migration model. Thus, this study has characterised the role of endocytosis during chemotactic invasion and has identified functions mechanistically linking clathrin-mediated endocytosis to directed cell motility

BIOFRAG: A new database for analysing BIOdiversity responses to forest FRAGmentation

Habitat fragmentation studies are producing inconsistent and complex results across which it is nearly impossible to synthesise. Consistent analytical techniques can be applied to primary datasets, if stored in a flexible database that allows simple data retrieval for subsequent analyses. Method: We developed a relational database linking data collected in the field to taxonomic nomenclature, spatial and temporal plot attributes and further environmental variables (e.g. information on biogeographic region. Typical field assessments include measures of biological variables (e.g. presence, abundance, ground cover) of one species or a set of species linked to a set of plots in fragments of a forested landscape. Conclusion: The database currently holds records of 5792 unique species sampled in 52 landscapes in six of eight biogeographic regions: mammals 173, birds 1101, herpetofauna 284, insects 2317, other arthropods: 48, plants 1804, snails 65. Most species are found in one or two landscapes, but some are found in four. Using the huge amount of primary data on biodiversity response to fragmentation becomes increasingly important as anthropogenic pressures from high population growth and land demands are increasing. This database can be queried to extract data for subsequent analyses of the biological response to forest fragmentation with new metrics that can integrate across the components of fragmented landscapes. Meta-analyses of findings based on consistent methods and metrics will be able to generalise over studies allowing inter-comparisons for unified answers. The database can thus help researchers in providing findings for analyses of trade-offs between land use benefits and impacts on biodiversity and to track performance of management for biodiversity conservation in human-modified landscapes.Fil: Pfeifer, Marion. Imperial College London; Reino UnidoFil: Lefebvre, Veronique. Imperial College London; Reino UnidoFil: Gardner, Toby A.. Stockholm Environment Institute; SueciaFil: Arroyo Rodríguez, Víctor. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México; MéxicoFil: Baeten, Lander. University of Ghent; BélgicaFil: Banks Leite, Cristina. Imperial College London; Reino UnidoFil: Barlow, Jos. Lancaster University; Reino UnidoFil: Betts, Matthew G.. State University of Oregon; Estados UnidosFil: Brunet, Joerg. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences; SueciaFil: Cerezo Blandón, Alexis Mauricio. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Agronomía. Departamento de Métodos Cuantitativos y Sistemas de Información; ArgentinaFil: Cisneros, Laura M.. University of Connecticut; Estados UnidosFil: Collard, Stuart. Nature Conservation Society of South Australia; AustraliaFil: D´Cruze, Neil. The World Society for the Protection of Animals; Reino UnidoFil: Da Silva Motta, Catarina. Ministério da Ciência, Tecnologia, Inovações. Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas da Amazônia; BrasilFil: Duguay, Stephanie. Carleton University; CanadáFil: Eggermont, Hilde. University of Ghent; BélgicaFil: Eigenbrod, Félix. University of Southampton; Reino UnidoFil: Hadley, Adam S.. State University of Oregon; Estados UnidosFil: Hanson, Thor R.. No especifíca;Fil: Hawes, Joseph E.. University of East Anglia; Reino UnidoFil: Heartsill Scalley, Tamara. United State Department of Agriculture. Forestry Service; Puerto RicoFil: Klingbeil, Brian T.. University of Connecticut; Estados UnidosFil: Kolb, Annette. Universitat Bremen; AlemaniaFil: Kormann, Urs. Universität Göttingen; AlemaniaFil: Kumar, Sunil. State University of Colorado - Fort Collins; Estados UnidosFil: Lachat, Thibault. Swiss Federal Institute for Forest; SuizaFil: Lakeman Fraser, Poppy. Imperial College London; Reino UnidoFil: Lantschner, María Victoria. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Bahía Blanca; Argentina. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria. Centro Regional Patagonia Norte. Estación Experimental Agropecuaria San Carlos de Bariloche; ArgentinaFil: Laurance, William F.. James Cook University; AustraliaFil: Leal, Inara R.. Universidade Federal de Pernambuco; BrasilFil: Lens, Luc. University of Ghent; BélgicaFil: Marsh, Charles J.. University of Leeds; Reino UnidoFil: Medina Rangel, Guido F.. Universidad Nacional de Colombia; ColombiaFil: Melles, Stephanie. University of Toronto; CanadáFil: Mezger, Dirk. Field Museum of Natural History; Estados UnidosFil: Oldekop, Johan A.. University of Sheffield; Reino UnidoFil: Overal , Williams L.. Museu Paraense Emílio Goeldi. Departamento de Entomologia; BrasilFil: Owen, Charlotte. Imperial College London; Reino UnidoFil: Peres, Carlos A.. University of East Anglia; Reino UnidoFil: Phalan, Ben. University of Southampton; Reino UnidoFil: Pidgeon, Anna Michle. University of Wisconsin; Estados UnidosFil: Pilia, Oriana. Imperial College London; Reino UnidoFil: Possingham, Hugh P.. Imperial College London; Reino Unido. The University Of Queensland; AustraliaFil: Possingham, Max L.. No especifíca;Fil: Raheem, Dinarzarde C.. Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences; Bélgica. Natural History Museum; Reino UnidoFil: Ribeiro, Danilo B.. Universidade Federal do Mato Grosso do Sul; BrasilFil: Ribeiro Neto, Jose D.. Universidade Federal de Pernambuco; BrasilFil: Robinson, Douglas W.. State University of Oregon; Estados UnidosFil: Robinson, Richard. Manjimup Research Centre; AustraliaFil: Rytwinski, Trina. Carleton University; CanadáFil: Scherber, Christoph. Universität Göttingen; AlemaniaFil: Slade, Eleanor M.. University of Oxford; Reino UnidoFil: Somarriba, Eduardo. Centro Agronómico Tropical de Investigación y Enseñanza; Costa RicaFil: Stouffer, Philip C.. State University of Louisiana; Estados UnidosFil: Struebig, Matthew J.. University of Kent; Reino UnidoFil: Tylianakis, Jason M.. University College London; Estados Unidos. Imperial College London; Reino UnidoFil: Teja, Tscharntke. Universität Göttingen; AlemaniaFil: Tyre, Andrew J.. Universidad de Nebraska - Lincoln; Estados UnidosFil: Urbina Cardona, Jose N.. Pontificia Universidad Javeriana; ColombiaFil: Vasconcelos, Heraldo L.. Universidade Federal de Uberlandia; BrasilFil: Wearn, Oliver. Imperial College London; Reino Unido. The Zoological Society of London; Reino UnidoFil: Wells, Konstans. University of Adelaide; AustraliaFil: Willig, Michael R.. University of Connecticut; Estados UnidosFil: Wood, Eric. University of Wisconsin; Estados UnidosFil: Young, Richard P.. Durrell Wildlife Conservation Trust; Reino UnidoFil: Bradley, Andrew V.. Imperial College London; Reino UnidoFil: Ewers, Robert M.. Imperial College London; Reino Unid

Impact of opioid-free analgesia on pain severity and patient satisfaction after discharge from surgery: multispecialty, prospective cohort study in 25 countries

Background: Balancing opioid stewardship and the need for adequate analgesia following discharge after surgery is challenging. This study aimed to compare the outcomes for patients discharged with opioid versus opioid-free analgesia after common surgical procedures.Methods: This international, multicentre, prospective cohort study collected data from patients undergoing common acute and elective general surgical, urological, gynaecological, and orthopaedic procedures. The primary outcomes were patient-reported time in severe pain measured on a numerical analogue scale from 0 to 100% and patient-reported satisfaction with pain relief during the first week following discharge. Data were collected by in-hospital chart review and patient telephone interview 1 week after discharge.Results: The study recruited 4273 patients from 144 centres in 25 countries; 1311 patients (30.7%) were prescribed opioid analgesia at discharge. Patients reported being in severe pain for 10 (i.q.r. 1-30)% of the first week after discharge and rated satisfaction with analgesia as 90 (i.q.r. 80-100) of 100. After adjustment for confounders, opioid analgesia on discharge was independently associated with increased pain severity (risk ratio 1.52, 95% c.i. 1.31 to 1.76; P < 0.001) and re-presentation to healthcare providers owing to side-effects of medication (OR 2.38, 95% c.i. 1.36 to 4.17; P = 0.004), but not with satisfaction with analgesia (beta coefficient 0.92, 95% c.i. -1.52 to 3.36; P = 0.468) compared with opioid-free analgesia. Although opioid prescribing varied greatly between high-income and low- and middle-income countries, patient-reported outcomes did not.Conclusion: Opioid analgesia prescription on surgical discharge is associated with a higher risk of re-presentation owing to side-effects of medication and increased patient-reported pain, but not with changes in patient-reported satisfaction. Opioid-free discharge analgesia should be adopted routinely