High yielding biomass ideotypes of willow (Salix spp.) show differences in below ground biomass allocation.

Willows (Salix spp.) grown as short rotation coppice (SRC) are viewed as a sustainable source of biomass with a positive greenhouse gas (GHG) balance due to their potential to fix and accumulate carbon (C) below ground. However, exploiting this potential has been limited by the paucity of data available on below ground biomass allocation and the extent to which it varies between genotypes. Furthermore, it is likely that allocation can be altered considerably by environment. To investigate the role of genotype and environment on allocation, four willow genotypes were grown at two replicated field sites in southeast England and west Wales, UK. Above and below ground biomass was intensively measured over two two-year rotations. Significant genotypic differences in biomass allocation were identified, with below ground allocation differing by up to 10% between genotypes. Importantly, the genotype with the highest below ground biomass also had the highest above ground yield. Furthermore, leaf area was found to be a good predictor of below ground biomass. Growth environment significantly impacted allocation; the willow genotypes grown in west Wales had up to 94% more biomass below ground by the end of the second rotation. A single investigation into fine roots showed the same pattern with double the volume of fine roots present. This greater below ground allocation may be attributed primarily to higher wind speeds, plus differences in humidity and soil characteristics. These results demonstrate that the capacity exists to breed plants with both high yields and high potential for C accumulation

Defining and unpacking the core concepts of pharmacology education

Pharmacology education currently lacks a research-based consensus on which core concepts all graduates should know and understand, as well as a valid and reliable means to assess core conceptual learning. The Core Concepts in Pharmacology Expert Group (CC-PEG) from Australia and New Zealand recently identified a set of core concepts of pharmacology education as a first step toward developing a concept inventory—a valid and reliable tool to assess learner attainment of concepts. In the current study, CC-PEG used established methodologies to define each concept and then unpack its key components. Expert working groups of three to seven educators were formed to unpack concepts within specific conceptual groupings: what the body does to the drug (pharmacokinetics); what the drug does to the body (pharmacodynamics); and system integration and modification of drug–response. First, a one-sentence definition was developed for each core concept. Next, sub-concepts were established for each core concept. These twenty core concepts, along with their respective definitions and sub-concepts, can provide pharmacology educators with a resource to guide the development of new curricula and the evaluation of existing curricula. The unpacking and articulation of these core concepts will also inform the development of a pharmacology concept inventory. We anticipate that these resources will advance further collaboration across the international pharmacology education community to improve curricula, teaching, assessment, and learning.Marina Santiago, Elizabeth A. Davis, Tina Hinton, Thomas A. Angelo, Alison Shield, Anna-Marie Babey, Barbara Kemp-Harper, Gregg Maynard, Hesham S. Al-Sallami, Ian F. Musgrave, Lynette B. Fernandes, Suong N. T. Ngo, Arthur Christopoulos, Paul J. Whit

Defining and unpacking the core concepts of pharmacology education

Pharmacology education currently lacks a research-based consensus on which core concepts all graduates should know and understand, as well as a valid and reliable means to assess core conceptual learning. The Core Concepts in Pharmacology Expert Group (CC-PEG) from Australia and New Zealand recently identified a set of core concepts of pharmacology education as a first step toward developing a concept inventory—a valid and reliable tool to assess learner attainment of concepts. In the current study, CC-PEG used established methodologies to define each concept and then unpack its key components. Expert working groups of three to seven educators were formed to unpack concepts within specific conceptual groupings: what the body does to the drug (pharmacokinetics); what the drug does to the body (pharmacodynamics); and system integration and modification of drug–response. First, a one-sentence definition was developed for each core concept. Next, sub-concepts were established for each core concept. These twenty core concepts, along with their respective definitions and sub-concepts, can provide pharmacology educators with a resource to guide the development of new curricula and the evaluation of existing curricula. The unpacking and articulation of these core concepts will also inform the development of a pharmacology concept inventory. We anticipate that these resources will advance further collaboration across the international pharmacology education community to improve curricula, teaching, assessment, and learning

Breeding progress and preparedness for mass‐scale deployment of perennial lignocellulosic biomass crops switchgrass, miscanthus, willow and poplar

UK: The UK‐led miscanthus research and breeding was mainly supported by the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), the BBSRC CSP strategic funding grant BB/CSP1730/1, Innovate UK/BBSRC “MUST” BB/N016149/1, CERES Inc. and Terravesta Ltd. through the GIANT‐LINK project (LK0863). Genomic selection and genomewide association study activities were supported by BBSRC grant BB/K01711X/1, the BBSRC strategic programme grant on Energy Grasses & Bio‐refining BBS/E/W/10963A01. The UK‐led willow R&D work reported here was supported by BBSRC (BBS/E/C/00005199, BBS/E/C/00005201, BB/G016216/1, BB/E006833/1, BB/G00580X/1 and BBS/E/C/000I0410), Defra (NF0424) and the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) (B/W6/00599/00/00). IT: The Brain Gain Program (Rientro dei cervelli) of the Italian Ministry of Education, University, and Research supports Antoine Harfouche. US: Contributions by Gerald Tuskan to this manuscript were supported by the Center for Bioenergy Innovation, a US Department of Energy Bioenergy Research Center supported by the Office of Biological and Environmental Research in the DOE Office of Science, under contract number DE‐AC05‐00OR22725. Willow breeding efforts at Cornell University have been supported by grants from the US Department of Agriculture National Institute of Food and Agriculture. Contributions by the University of Illinois were supported primarily by the DOE Office of Science; Office of Biological and Environmental Research (BER); grant nos. DE‐SC0006634, DE‐SC0012379 and DE‐SC0018420 (Center for Advanced Bioenergy and Bioproducts Innovation); and the Energy Biosciences Institute. EU: We would like to further acknowledge contributions from the EU projects “OPTIMISC” FP7‐289159 on miscanthus and “WATBIO” FP7‐311929 on poplar and miscanthus as well as “GRACE” H2020‐EU.3.2.6. Bio‐based Industries Joint Technology Initiative (BBI‐JTI) Project ID 745012 on miscanthus.Peer reviewedPostprintPublisher PD

Dry matter losses and methane emissions during wood chip storage: the impact on full life cycle greenhouse gas savings of short rotation coppice willow for heat

A life cycle assessment (LCA) approach was used to examine the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and energy balance of short rotation coppice (SRC) willow for heat production. The modelled supply chain includes cutting multiplication, site establishment, maintenance, harvesting, storage, transport and combustion. The relative impacts of dry matter losses and methane emissions from chip storage were examined from a LCA perspective, comparing the GHG emissions from the SRC supply chain with those of natural gas for heat generation. The results show that SRC generally provides very high GHG emission savings of over 90 %. The LCA model estimates that a 1, 10 and 20 % loss of dry matter during storage causes a 1, 6 and 11 % increase in GHG emissions per MWh. The GHG emission results are extremely sensitive to emissions of methane from the wood chip stack: If 1 % of the carbon within the stack undergoes anaerobic decomposition to methane, then the GHG emissions per MWh are tripled. There are some uncertainties in the LCA results, regarding the true formation of methane in wood chip stacks, non-CO2 emissions from combustion, N2O emissions from leaf fall and the extent of carbon sequestered under the crop, and these all contribute a large proportion of the life cycle GHG emissions from cultivation of the cro

Stability of farm income: the role of agricultural diversity and agri-environment scheme payments

Instability (or variability) in farm income represents a significant challenge for farm management and the design of public policies. Identifying farming practices which can increase the stability of farm income may help farms to cope with shocks such as extreme weather events and economic challenges. Farming practices associated with increasing agricultural diversity and agri-environment schemes are considered to improve ecological functions and landscape resilience, however, their effect on the stability of farm income is not well known. Using a multilevel model, we analyse the effect of a range of farming practices and subsidies on the stability of farm income, and their relative importance, using four different measures of stability. We examine data for 2,333 farms in England and Wales, from 2007 to 2015, and use separate multilevel models for a range of different farm types to provide targeted recommendations for farmers. Here we show that greater agricultural diversity (i.e. lower degree of specialisation in different crop and livestock activities) increases the stability of farm income, in dairy, general cropping, cereal and mixed farms. Agricultural diversity is a particularly important factor for general cropping farms; increasing the degree of specialisation by one standard deviation (we use standardised coefficients), increases the variability of income by approximately 20%. Dairy, general cropping and mixed farms that receive more agri-environment payments also have more stable incomes, reducing variability by between 4 and 8%. In contrast, an increase in direct subsidies paid to farmers based on the area farmed is associated with a relatively large decrease in the stability of farm income, ranging from 6-35% across most farm types. Reducing the intensity of inputs is found to be an important factor increasing the stability of income for all farm types; on average reducing the intensity of inputs reduces variability of income by 20%. Practices associated with increasing agricultural diversity and agri-environment schemes have previously been found to lead to a better provision of ecosystem services and resilience to abiotic stresses, reducing the need for expensive chemical inputs. Engagement in environmentally sustainable farming practices including agri-environment schemes, increasing agricultural diversity, and reducing the intensity of inputs, may increase the stability of many farm businesses whilst at the same time reducing negative impacts of farming on the environment

Towards stability of food production and farm income in a variable climate

Stable food production is vital for food security. Stability of farm income is also necessary to ensure the sustainability of food production and to protect livelihoods, in a changing climate. We analyse the relative effects of climate variability, subsidies and farming practices on the stability of food production and farm income. We examine farms in England and Wales between 2005 and 2017, and link farms to climate data at a sub-regional scale. Our results show that variability in temperature and rainfall reduces the stability of farm income and food production. While variability in climate can be largely outside of the farmers control our findings indicate that, under current conditions, farm management can have a larger effect on stability than climate. We identified three key aspects of farm management and policy that improve stability: i) increasing agricultural diversity, ii) increasing the efficiency of agrochemical use and iii) agri-environmental management. These management practices have previously been associated with benefits to natural ecosystems and may therefore increase the stability of agriculture whilst reducing negative impacts of farming on the environment. We also found differences in effect size of climate impacts and adaptation options between farm types, emphasising the need for flexible agricultural policies

Learning how to deal with values, frames and governance in sustainability appraisal

The effectiveness of Sustainability Appraisal is highly contested because of the value-based nature of the assumed goal (sustainable development), because effectiveness itself can be determined through different theoretical framings, and because good governance does not guarantee sustainable outcomes. Drawing on learning derived from the literature and a case study examining biomass crop planting on a regional scale in England, an approach for managing the Sustainability Appraisal development and application process is proposed. This incorporates analytic–deliberative techniques as the basis for more pluralism, combined with constraints mapping. Such an approach, it is suggested, can better accommodate multiple framings

Potential unintended consequences of agricultural land use change driven by dietary transitions

With a growing body of research associating livestock agriculture with faster global warming, higher health costs and greater land requirements, a drastic shift towards plant-based diets is often suggested as an effective all-round solution. Implicitly, this argument is predicated on the assumption that the reallocation of resources currently assigned to animal production systems will automatically result in the efficient cultivation of human-edible crops without negative environmental, health or socioeconomic consequences. In reality, however, the validity of this assumption warrants careful examination, as a farm’s capability to adopt a new agricultural system is multifaceted and context-specific. Through a transdisciplinary review of literature, here we discuss examples of unintended consequences that could arise from the conversion of grasslands into arable production, including potentially adverse impacts on yield stability, biodiversity, soil fertility and beyond. We contend that few of these issues are being methodically considered as part of the current food security debate and call for a closer examination of supply-side constraints