Characterising current agroecological and regenerative farming research capability and infrastructure, and examining the case for a Living Lab network [Final report]

Agriculture is a major cause of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, biodiversity loss, and pollution. Agroecological and regenerative farming have been advocated as alternative approaches that may have fewer negative (or even net positive) environmental impacts than conventional agriculture at farm- and landscape-scales, leading to considerable interest in these approaches (Newton et al. 2020; Bohan et al. 2022; Prost et al. 2023). This report forms the third part of a Defra-funded project Evaluating the productivity, environmental sustainability and wider impacts of agroecological and regenerative farming systems compared to conventional systems. The first part of this project was a rapid evidence review of agroecological and regenerative farming systems and their impacts (Burgess et al. 2023), and the second reported interview findings to examine farmer and stakeholder perspectives on barriers and enablers in agroecological and regenerative farming (Hurley et al. 2023). This third part of the project characterised the current research capability in agroecology and regenerative farming, and explored the potential role of a new ‘living lab’ trial network. Three objectives are addressed in this report: 1) Characterise the existing agroecological and regenerative farming research capability and infrastructure in the UK. 2) Explore lessons from recent research initiatives and identify key research gaps, to inform a potential UK living labs trials network in agroecology/regenerative farming. 3) Develop recommendations for a new living lab trial or research network in agroecology/regenerative farming. Objective 1 was addressed through an online survey to gather quantitative and qualitative data on current research initiatives and networks in regenerative farming and agroecology. There were 22 respondents from 20 organisations (Section 2.2). Key findings from the survey: • The size and the timescales of research initiatives varied substantially from single sites to networks of 50-100 sites and with agroecological/regenerative practices applied from one to over 20 years. • All the survey respondents applied multiple agroecological/regenerative processes and had multiple target outcomes. • Just under 40% of respondents are not currently collecting data from their network. • Three-quarters of the survey participants not currently collecting data stated they would like to collect data, given more funding, knowledge or support. • Biodiversity was one of the most frequent target outcomes, and data collection most frequently focussed on biodiversity. • Face-to-face and email communication was most frequently used between farms in a network. Around two-thirds of respondents also held farm demonstration days as a means of knowledge exchange. • Most of the research initiatives and networks were funded by charities, NGOs or funded themselves, with a smaller number funded by UK or EU government funding. • Growing to incorporate more farms and researchers and developing knowledge exchange further were prioritised as future aspirations by survey respondents. Incorporating more researchers and applying for funding were also a focus for many research initiatives. • Targeted funding was seen as very important in achieving future aspirations by most respondents, along with improved connections with farmers and landowners and improved skills and information for knowledge exchange. Improved infrastructure and monitoring tools were emphasised less, but still considered important. The online survey results illustrate the wide range of current research initiatives in agroecology and regenerative farming, which vary from small-scale trials on a few farms to robust, repeatable data collection across a large network. To illustrate the range of approaches in more details, five case studies were described (Section 2.3) which included an ongoing living lab network, three research project and a long-term demonstration farm. Key characteristics of eight European living labs were also summarised through a network of EU agroecology living labs (the ALL-Ready project; Section 2.4). Objective 2 was addressed through an online workshop, at which participants responded to questions about research gaps and priorities, infrastructure needs, and the barriers and enablers to data sharing and access (Section 3). Participants views were gathered through online discussion boards and facilitated verbal discussion (Figure 1). Key themes and conclusions from the workshop: • Many of the impacts of agroecology and regenerative practices remain poorly understood, with biodiversity and greenhouse gas emissions highlighted. • Impacts on multiple potential benefits and trade-offs (e.g. yield vs. biodiversity vs. greenhouse gas emissions) need to be understood. The variation in responses (e.g. between soil types or regions) was seen as a priority area for research to improve the understanding of scaling-up. • Research needs to be conducted at adequate temporal and spatial scales given the timescales needed for impacts of these practices to become apparent. • There may be a bias in farmer participation in agroecological and regenerative agriculture research (those who can afford the time and money). • Understanding transitions to agroecology and regenerative farming across different types of farm business was raised as a research gap along with investigating the role of knowledge in these types of practice. This was reflected in the discussion of infrastructure and skills, with support (better guidance, input from advisors) and upskilling/improvements in education seen as priorities to support transitions. • The role of economic drivers, including subsidies and supply chain structures, is a research priority to understand why and how farmers may transition to these farming practices. • Standardised assessments and monitoring tools (including farmer apps) were highlighted to support future research, in particular standardised soil carbon assessments. Hubs to loan monitoring equipment to farmers were also suggested. • The time commitment needed was seen as an impediment to data collection by farmers, with comments that research initiatives worked better with someone external collecting data. • Data quality and formats were raised as barriers to data sharing in agroecology/regenerative farming. Formats that can be easily read across a range of software were suggested as a solution, along with more standardised approaches in data collection. • Integration and sharing of data across platforms were another solution, in particular for regulatory data (e.g. pesticide usage). • A potential tension was raised between standardising monitoring approaches and data collection, and constraining innovation by farmers. • Our understanding of how widespread agroecological and regenerative farming practices are, and which are being used / in what combinations, is constrained by lack of uptake data. Practices are being implemented with or without subsidies, and in varying combinations with more conventional approaches. Without these uptake data, larger scale research and modelling may be constrained. The online survey findings, case studies and lessons learnt from the workshop participants informed the development of recommendations for a future living labs network in the UK (Objective 3, Section 4). Four options were proposed: i) Develop a standardised methodology or protocol for each of the 12 attributes listed for assessment within the Global Farm Metric, to support consistency of farm measurements. ii) New research projects funded to collect standardised data on impacts and trade-offs across existing networks of farms applying agroecological / regenerative practices. This would maximise research synergies with existing networks. iii) New research network set up to apply agroecological / regenerative practices on commercial farms, co-designed between farmers and researchers. Standardised data collection on impacts and trade-offs. iv) Long-term living lab UK network set up, within which facilitation roles and research projects funded. These options could be applied in combination (e.g. a standardised methodology (i) developed within (iv) a long-term living lab network ). Which options are taken forward will depend on funding and factors such as the structure of available funding and timescales. Indicative costs were provided for field surveys of greenhouse gases and biodiversity, two of the impacts identified as research priorities in the workshop

Modelling Landscape-scale Species Response to Agri-Environment Schemes

Agri-environment schemes (AES) are the most significant environmental policy delivery mechanism in England, and include the conservation of biodiversity as a key objective. Provisional results from the ongoing Landscape-scale species monitoring of AES (LandSpAES) baseline field survey have shown some positive responses of mobile taxa to AES gradients at local (1km2) or landscape (3 × 3km) scales. However, it is not known whether these provisional results might be more broadly applicable outside the regions surveyed in the LandSpAES project, i.e. in other regions, or nationally. Here, we present the findings of an analytical project to explore the use of national Citizen Science (CitSci) scheme data, to investigate whether similar relationships with AES gradients would be found at a national scale in CitSci data to those shown with LandSpAES data, and whether integrated modelling was possible with combined CitSci and LandSpAES datasets. The design of LandSpAES has high power to detect AES effects, including the independent testing of the local and landscape AES gradients, but is restricted to six regions. The national CitSci are more representative of England as a whole, but have not been designed to detect AES effects. The aim of this project was to determine whether the provisional taxon responses to the AES gradients found in the LandSpAES project could be detected at a national scale using CitSci scheme data. To achieve this aim, three key questions were addressed through the analytical work: 1) Can addition of covariates account for environmental variation between survey squares in each dataset, to improve the comparability of AES gradient effects between LandSpAES and CitSci schemes? 2) Do the CitSci scheme datasets show similar relationships between taxa responses and the AES gradients, to those found with the LandSpAES data? 3) Can integrated approaches to combining datasets be used to jointly model CitSci and LandSpAES data, and does integrated modelling reduce uncertainty in quantifying the effects of AES gradients on taxa responses at a national scale across England

The environmental effectiveness of the Higher Level Stewardship scheme; resurveying the baseline agreement monitoring sample to quantify change between 2009 and 2016. Full technical final report

Agri-environment schemes (AES) are one of the most significant mechanism for delivering environmental policy within England, both in terms of expenditure and coverage of land. AES are multi-objective, primarily addressing conservation of wildlife, landscapes and the historic environment and providing public access as well as addressing broader environmental issues such as climate change and flood management. This project contributes to evaluation of the Higher Level Stewardship (HLS) AES, which was designed to achieve the highest standards of environmental management and target features of the greatest conservation value, including Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs). Monitoring is a key element of scheme delivery in order to assess the efficacy of AES, and determine which factors contribute to successful AES outcomes. Here, we resurveyed a sample of HLS agreements (surveyed 6-7 years previously), to assess environmental outcomes and in particular change in plant communities over time in relation to AES management. The assessment of change over time allowed the effects of AES management to be quantified against defined objectives, as opposed to drawing conclusions from a single assessment where the conservation value of land entered into an AES can be confounded with AES management effects

The Burden of COVID-19 on Caregivers of Children with Suspected Genetic Conditions: A Therapeutic Odyssey

Aims: Children with disabilities and rare or undiagnosed conditions and their families have faced numerous hardships of living during the COVID-19 pandemic. For those with undiagnosed conditions, the diagnostic odyssey can be long, expensive, and marked by uncertainty. We, therefore, sought to understand whether and how COVID-19 impacted the trajectory of children’s care. Methods: We conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews with 25 caregivers who, prior to the pandemic, were on a diagnostic odyssey for their children. Results: Most caregivers did not report any interruptions to their child’s diagnostic odyssey. The greatest impact was access to therapy services, including the suspension or loss of their child’s in-person therapeutic care and difficulties with virtual therapies. This therapy gap caused caregivers to fear that their children were not making progress. Conclusion: Although much has been written about the challenges of diagnostic odysseys for children and their families, this study illustrates the importance of expanding the focus of these studies to include therapeutic odysseys. Because therapeutic odysseys continue regardless of whether diagnoses are made, future research should investigate how to support caregivers through children’s therapies within and outside of the COVID-19 context

Designing a survey to monitor multi-scale impacts of agri-environment schemes on mobile taxa

Agri-environment schemes (AES) are key mechanisms to deliver conservation policy, and include management to provide resources for target taxa. Mobile species may move to areas where resources are increased, without this necessarily having an effect across the wider countryside or on populations over time. Most assessments of AES efficacy have been at small spatial scales, over short timescales, and shown varying results. We developed a survey design based on orthogonal gradients of AES management at local and landscape scales, which will enable the response of several taxa to be monitored. An evidence review of management effects on butterflies, birds and pollinating insects provided data to score AES options. Predicted gradients were calculated using AES uptake, weighted by the evidence scores. Predicted AES gradients for each taxon correlated strongly, and with the average gradient across taxa, supporting the co-location of surveys across different taxa. Nine 1 × 1 km survey squares were selected in each of four regional blocks with broadly homogenous background habitat characteristics. Squares in each block covered orthogonal contrasts across the range of AES gradients at local and landscape scales. This allows the effects of AES on species at each scale, and the interaction between scales, to be tested. AES options and broad habitats were mapped in field surveys, to verify predicted gradients which were based on AES option uptake data. The verified AES gradient had a strong positive relationship with the predicted gradient. AES gradients were broadly independent of background habitat within each block, likely allowing AES effects to be distinguished from potential effects of other habitat variables. Surveys of several mobile taxa are ongoing. This design will allow mobile taxa responses to AES to be tested in the surrounding countryside, as well as on land under AES management, and potentially in terms of population change over time. The design developed here provides a novel, pseudo-experimental approach for assessing the response of mobile species to gradients of management at two spatial scales. A similar design process could be applied in other regions that require a standardized approach to monitoring the impacts of management interventions on target taxa at landscape scales, if equivalent spatial data are available

Phylogeny of rock-inhabiting fungi related to Dothideomycetes

The class Dothideomycetes (along with Eurotiomycetes) includes numerous rock-inhabiting fungi (RIF), a group of ascomycetes that tolerates surprisingly well harsh conditions prevailing on rock surfaces. Despite their convergent morphology and physiology, RIF are phylogenetically highly diverse in Dothideomycetes. However, the positions of main groups of RIF in this class remain unclear due to the lack of a strong phylogenetic framework. Moreover, connections between rock-dwelling habit and other lifestyles found in Dothideomycetes such as plant pathogens, saprobes and lichen-forming fungi are still unexplored. Based on multigene phylogenetic analyses, we report that RIF belong to Capnodiales (particularly to the family Teratosphaeriaceae s.l.), Dothideales, Pleosporales, and Myriangiales, as well as some uncharacterised groups with affinities to Dothideomycetes. Moreover, one lineage consisting exclusively of RIF proved to be closely related to Arthoniomycetes, the sister class of Dothideomycetes. The broad phylogenetic amplitude of RIF in Dothideomycetes suggests that total species richness in this class remains underestimated. Composition of some RIF-rich lineages suggests that rock surfaces are reservoirs for plant-associated fungi or saprobes, although other data also agree with rocks as a primary substrate for ancient fungal lineages. According to the current sampling, long distance dispersal seems to be common for RIF. Dothideomycetes lineages comprising lichens also include RIF, suggesting a possible link between rock-dwelling habit and lichenisation

Heavy Quarks and Heavy Quarkonia as Tests of Thermalization

We present here a brief summary of new results on heavy quarks and heavy quarkonia from the PHENIX experiment as presented at the "Quark Gluon Plasma Thermalization" Workshop in Vienna, Austria in August 2005, directly following the International Quark Matter Conference in Hungary.Comment: 8 pages, 5 figures, Quark Gluon Plasma Thermalization Workshop (Vienna August 2005) Proceeding

Single Electrons from Heavy Flavor Decays in p+p Collisions at sqrt(s) = 200 GeV

The invariant differential cross section for inclusive electron production in p+p collisions at sqrt(s) = 200 GeV has been measured by the PHENIX experiment at the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider over the transverse momentum range $0.4 <= p_T <= 5.0 GeV/c at midrapidity (eta <= 0.35). The contribution to the inclusive electron spectrum from semileptonic decays of hadrons carrying heavy flavor, i.e. charm quarks or, at high p_T, bottom quarks, is determined via three independent methods. The resulting electron spectrum from heavy flavor decays is compared to recent leading and next-to-leading order perturbative QCD calculations. The total cross section of charm quark-antiquark pair production is determined as sigma_(c c^bar) = 0.92 +/- 0.15 (stat.) +- 0.54 (sys.) mb.Comment: 329 authors, 6 pages text, 3 figures. Submitted to Phys. Rev. Lett. Plain text data tables for the points plotted in figures for this and previous PHENIX publications are (or will be) publicly available at http://www.phenix.bnl.gov/papers.htm

Nuclear Modification of Electron Spectra and Implications for Heavy Quark Energy Loss in Au+Au Collisions at sqrt(s_NN)=200 GeV

The PHENIX experiment has measured mid-rapidity transverse momentum spectra (0.4 < p_T < 5.0 GeV/c) of electrons as a function of centrality in Au+Au collisions at sqrt(s_NN)=200 GeV. Contributions from photon conversions and from light hadron decays, mainly Dalitz decays of pi^0 and eta mesons, were removed. The resulting non-photonic electron spectra are primarily due to the semi-leptonic decays of hadrons carrying heavy quarks. Nuclear modification factors were determined by comparison to non-photonic electrons in p+p collisions. A significant suppression of electrons at high p_T is observed in central Au+Au collisions, indicating substantial energy loss of heavy quarks.Comment: 330 authors, 6 pages text, 3 figures. Submitted to Phys. Rev. Lett. Plain text data tables for the points plotted in figures for this and previous PHENIX publications are (or will be) publicly available at http://www.phenix.bnl.gov/papers.htm