Identifying leverage points for strengthening adaptive capacity to climate change

Leverage points from systems research are increasingly important to understand how to support transformations towards sustainability, but few studies have considered leverage points in strengthening adaptive capacity to climate change. The existing literature mainly considers strengthening adaptive capacity as a steady and linear process. This article explores possibilities to fast track positive adaptive capacity trajectories of small-scale farmers in the Northern Region of Ghana. Leverage points were identified by triangulating data from semi-structured interviews with farmers (n=72), key informant interviews (n=7) and focus group discussions (FG1 n=17; FG2 n=20). The results present two ways to approach adaptation planning: 1) using four generic leverage points (gender equality, social learning, information and knowledge, and access to finance) or 2) combining the adaptive capacity and leverage point frameworks, thereby creating 15 associations. The generic points provide a set of topics as a starting point for policy and intervention planning activities, while the 15 associations support the identification of place-specific leverage points. Four benefits of using leverage points for adaptive capacity in adaptation planning were identified: guidance on where to intervene in a system, ability to deal with complex systems, inclusion of both causal and teleological decision-making, and a possibility to target deep, transformative change. © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.Peer reviewe

Host genetics of response to porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome in nursery pigs

PRRS is the most costly disease in the US pig industry. While vaccination, biosecurity and eradication effort have had some success, the variability and infectiousness of PRRS virus strains have hampered the effectiveness of these measures. We propose the use of genetic selection of pigs as an additional and complementary effort. Several studies have shown that host response to PRRS infection has a sizeable genetic component and recent advances in genomics provide opportunities to capitalize on these genetic differences and improve our understanding of host response to PRRS. While work is also ongoing to understand the genetic basis of host response to reproductive PRRS, the focus of this review is on research conducted on host response to PRRS in the nursery and grow-finish phase as part of the PRRS Host Genetics Consortium. Using experimental infection of large numbers of commercial nursery pigs, combined with deep phenotyping and genomics, this research has identified a major gene that is associated with host response to PRRS. Further functional genomics work identified the GBP5 gene as harboring the putative causative mutation. GBP5 is associated with innate immune response. Subsequent work has validated the effect of this genomic region on host response to a second PRRSV strain and to PRRS vaccination and co-infection of nursery pigs with PRRSV and PCV2b. A genetic marker near GBP5 is available to the industry for use in selection. Genetic differences in host response beyond GBP5 appear to be highly polygenic, i.e. controlled by many genes across the genome, each with a small effect. Such effects can by capitalized on in a selection program using genomic prediction on large numbers of genetic markers across the genome. Additional work has also identified the genetic basis of antibody response to PRRS, which could lead to the use of vaccine response as an indicator trait to select for host response to PRRS. Other genomic analyses, including gene expression analyses, have identified genes and modules of genes that are associated with differences in host response to PRRS and can be used to further understand and utilize differences in host response. Together, these results demonstrate that genetic selection can be an additional and complementary tool to combat PRRS in the swine industry

The farmer as a landscape steward: Comparing local understandings of landscape stewardship, landscape values, and land management actions

We develop a landscape stewardship classification which distinguishes between farmers’ understanding of landscape stewardship, their landscape values, and land management actions. Forty semi-structured interviews were conducted with smallholder (5 acres), medium-holders (5-100 acres), and large- holders (100 acres) in South-West Devon, UK. Thematic analysis revealed four types of stewardship understandings: (1) an environmental frame which emphasized the farmers’ role in conserving or restoring wildlife; (2) a primary production frame which emphasized the farmers’ role in taking care of primary production assets; (3) a holistic frame focusing on farmers’ role as a conservationist, primary producer, and manager of a range of landscape values, and; (4) an instrumental frame focusing on the financial benefits associated with compliance with agri-environmental schemes. We compare the landscape values and land management actions that emerged across stewardship types, and discuss the global implications of the landscape stewardship classification for the engagement of farmers in landscape management