Reaction of Home Economics College Students to an Audiovisual Multimedia Consumer Education Presentation

Home Management, Equipment, and Family Economic

Why we love bees and hate wasps

1. Bees and wasps are important facets of natural capital to be valued by human societies: bees pollinate wild flowers and agricultural crops; wasps regulate arthropod populations, including insect vectors of human diseases and crop pests. Despite the importance of both taxa, bees are universally loved whilst wasps are universally despised. This study explores some of the reasons behind this. 2. Here data are presented from almost 750 members of the public on their perceptions of insects, including bees and wasps. In addition, an analysis is conducted of researcher effort on bees and wasps, using publication numbers of peer-reviewed papers over the last 37 years, and unpublished conference proceedings at specialist international conferences over the last 16 years. 3. The results show that wasps are indeed universally disliked by the public and moreover are unpopular research taxa among researchers. Words used to describe wasps are emotive and negative, whilst those describing bees are functional and positive. A low level of interest in nature and a lack of knowledge (among the public) and research effort (among scientists) regarding the ecosystem services of wasps are likely to be at the root of the negative perception. Whilst the ecosystem services of bees are well understood by the public, those provided by wasps are poorly understood. 4. Positive action to promote research on wasps and to overhaul the public image of wasps via outreach and the media could help to reset the imbalance in appreciation of two of the world's most ecologically important taxa. Cultural shifts to a more positive attitude towards wasps could be pivotal in working with these facets of natural capital, rather than against them

Harnessing the potential of ligninolytic enzymes for lignocellulosic biomass pretreatment

Abundant lignocellulosic biomass from various industries provides a great potential feedstock for the production of value-added products such as biofuel, animal feed, and paper pulping. However, low yield of sugar obtained from lignocellulosic hydrolysate is usually due to the presence of lignin that acts as a protective barrier for cellulose and thus restricts the accessibility of the enzyme to work on the cellulosic component. This review focuses on the significance of biological pretreatment specifically using ligninolytic enzymes as an alternative method apart from the conventional physical and chemical pretreatment. Different modes of biological pretreatment are discussed in this paper which is based on (i) fungal pretreatment where fungi mycelia colonise and directly attack the substrate by releasing ligninolytic enzymes and (ii) enzymatic pretreatment using ligninolytic enzymes to counter the drawbacks of fungal pretreatment. This review also discusses the important factors of biological pretreatment using ligninolytic enzymes such as nature of the lignocellulosic biomass, pH, temperature, presence of mediator, oxygen, and surfactant during the biodelignification process

Making Research Data Accessible

This chapter argues that these benefits will accrue more quickly, and will be more significant and more enduring, if researchers make their data “meaningfully accessible.” Data are meaningfully accessible when they can be interpreted and analyzed by scholars far beyond those who generated them. Making data meaningfully accessible requires that scholars take the appropriate steps to prepare their data for sharing, and avail themselves of the increasingly sophisticated infrastructure for publishing and preserving research data. The better other researchers can understand shared data and the more researchers who can access them, the more those data will be re-used for secondary analysis, producing knowledge. Likewise, the richer an understanding an instructor and her students can gain of the shared data being used to teach and learn a particular research method, the more useful those data are for that pedagogical purpose. And the more a scholar who is evaluating the work of another can learn about the evidence that underpins its claims and conclusions, the better their ability to identify problems and biases in data generation and analysis, and the better informed and thus stronger an endorsement of the work they can offer

Impact Metrics

Virtually every evaluative task in the academy involves some sort of metric (Elkana et al. 1978; Espeland & Sauder 2016; Gingras 2016; Hix 2004; Jensenius et al. 2018; Muller 2018; Osterloh and Frey 2015; Todeschini & Baccini 2016; Van Noorden 2010; Wilsdon et al. 2015). One can decry this development, and inveigh against its abuses and its over-use (as many of the foregoing studies do). Yet, without metrics, we would be at pains to render judgments about scholars, published papers, applications (for grants, fellowships, and conferences), journals, academic presses, departments, universities, or subfields. Of course, we also undertake to judge these issues ourselves through a deliberative process that involves reading the work under evaluation. This is the traditional approach of peer review. No one would advocate a system of evaluation that is entirely metric-driven. Even so, reading is time-consuming and inherently subjective; it is, after all, the opinion of one reader (or several readers, if there is a panel of reviewers). It is also impossible to systematically compare these judgments. To be sure, one might also read, and assess, the work of other scholars, but this does not provide a systematic basis for comparison – unless, that is, a standard metric(s) of comparison is employed. Finally, judging scholars through peer review becomes logistically intractable when the task shifts from a single scholar to a large group of scholars or a large body of work, e.g., a journal, a department, a university, a subfield, or a discipline. It is impossible to read, and assess, a library of work

God\u27s Man

144 unnumbered leaves of plates : all illustrations. Curated title for Fleet Library Special Collections book cover exhibition Bound to Please, fall 2022. Printed by Plimpton Press, Norwood, Mass. Gods\u27 Man is a wordless novel by American artist Lynd Ward (1905-1985) published in 1929. In 139 captionless woodblock prints, it tells the Faustian story of an artist who signs away his soul for a magic paintbrush. Gods\u27 Man was the first American wordless novel, and is considered a precursor of the graphic novel, whose development it influenced. --Wikipedia. Cover also designed by Ward. Gift of Robert Garzillo.https://digitalcommons.risd.edu/specialcollections_books_printmaking/1006/thumbnail.jp

Spice and the Devil's Cave

New York: A. A. Knopf, 193

Runner of the Mountain Tops: The Life of Louis Agassiz

New York: Random House, 193

The last piece in the cellulase puzzle: the characterization of ß-glucosidase from the herbivorous Gecarcinid land crab Gecarcoidea natalis

A 160 kDa enzyme with β-glucosidase activity was purified from the midgut Gland of the land crab Gecarcoidea natalis. The enzyme was capable of releasing glucose progressively from cellobiose, cellotriose or cellotetraose. Although β-glucosidases (EC 3.2.1.21) have some activity towards substrates longer than cellobiose, the enzyme was classified as a glucohydrolase (EC 3.2.1.74) as it had a preference for larger substrates (cellobiose<cellotriose=cellotetraose). It was able to synthesise some cellotetraose by the transglycosylation of smaller substrates – another common feature of glucohydrolases. The interaction between the glucohydrolase described here and the endo-β-1,4-glucanases described previously for G. natalis provides a complete model for cellulose hydrolysis in crustaceans and possibly in other invertebrates. After mechanical fragmentation by the gastric mill, multiple endo-β-1,4-glucanases would initially cleave β-1,4-glycosidic bonds within native cellulose, releasing small oligomers, including cellobiose, cellotriose and cellotetraose. The glucohydrolase would then attach to these oligomers, progressively releasing glucose. The glucohydrolase might also attach directly to crystalline cellulose to release glucose from free chain ends. This two-enzyme system differs from the traditional model, which suggests that total cellulose hydrolysis requires the presence an endo-β-1,4-glucanse, a cellobiohydrolase and a β-glucosidas