Speaking to a metronome reduces kinematic variability in typical speakers and people who stutter.

Background: Several studies indicate that people who stutter show greater variability in speech movements than people who do not stutter, even when the speech produced is perceptibly fluent. Speaking to the beat of a metronome reliably increases fluency in people who stutter, regardless of the severity of stuttering.Objectives: Here, we aimed to test whether metronome-timed speech reduces articulatory variability.Method: We analysed vocal tract MRI data from 24 people who stutter and 16 controls. Participants repeated sentences with and without a metronome. Midsagittal images of the vocal tract from lips to larynx were reconstructed at 33.3 frames per second. Any utterances containing dysfluencies or non-speech movements (e.g. swallowing) were excluded. For each participant, we measured the variability of movements (coefficient of variation) from the alveolar, palatal and velar regions of the vocal tract.Results: People who stutter had more variability than control speakers when speaking without a metronome, which was then reduced to the same level as controls when speaking with the metronome. The velar region contained more variability than the alveolar and palatal regions, which were similar.Conclusions: These results demonstrate that kinematic variability during perceptibly fluent speech is increased in people who stutter compared with controls when repeating naturalistic sentences without any alteration or disruption to the speech. This extends our previous findings of greater variability in the movements of people who stutter when producing perceptibly fluent nonwords compared with controls. These results also show, that in addition to increasing fluency in people who stutter, metronome-timed speech also reduces articulatory variability to the same level as that seen in control speakers

Regional Carbon Fluxes from Land Use and Land Cover Change in Asia, 1980-2009

We present a synthesis of the land-atmosphere carbon flux from land use and land cover change (LULCC) in Asia using multiple data sources and paying particular attention to deforestation and forest regrowth fluxes. The data sources are quasi-independent and include the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization-Forest Resource Assessment (FAO-FRA 2015; country-level inventory estimates), the Emission Database for Global Atmospheric Research (EDGARv4.3), the 'Houghton' bookkeeping model that incorporates FAO-FRA data, an ensemble of 8 state-of-the-art Dynamic Global Vegetation Models (DGVM), and 2 recently published independent studies using primarily remote sensing techniques. The estimates are aggregated spatially to Southeast, East, and South Asia and temporally for three decades, 1980–1989, 1990-1999 and 2000-2009. Since 1980, net carbon emissions from LULCC in Asia were responsible for 20%-40% of global LULCC emissions, with emissions from Southeast Asia alone accounting for 15%-25% of global LULCC emissions during the same period. In the 2000s and for all Asia, three estimates (FAO-FRA, DGVM, Houghton) were in agreement of a net source of carbon to the atmosphere, with mean estimates ranging between 0.24 to 0.41 Pg C yr?1, whereas EDGARv4.3 suggested a net carbon sink of ?0.17 Pg C yr?1. Three of 4 estimates suggest that LULCC carbon emissions declined by at least 34% in the preceding decade (1990-2000). Spread in the estimates is due to the inclusion of different flux components and their treatments, showing the importance to include emissions from carbon rich peatlands and land management, such as shifting cultivation and wood harvesting, which appear to be consistently underreported

Evaluation of forest snow processes models (SnowMIP2)

Thirty‐three snowpack models of varying complexity and purpose were evaluated across a wide range of hydrometeorological and forest canopy conditions at five Northern Hemisphere locations, for up to two winter snow seasons. Modeled estimates of snow water equivalent (SWE) or depth were compared to observations at forest and open sites at each location. Precipitation phase and duration of above‐freezing air temperatures are shown to be major influences on divergence and convergence of modeled estimates of the subcanopy snowpack. When models are considered collectively at all locations, comparisons with observations show that it is harder to model SWE at forested sites than open sites. There is no universal “best” model for all sites or locations, but comparison of the consistency of individual model performances relative to one another at different sites shows that there is less consistency at forest sites than open sites, and even less consistency between forest and open sites in the same year. A good performance by a model at a forest site is therefore unlikely to mean a good model performance by the same model at an open site (and vice versa). Calibration of models at forest sites provides lower errors than uncalibrated models at three out of four locations. However, benefits of calibration do not translate to subsequent years, and benefits gained by models calibrated for forest snow processes are not translated to open conditions