Markers of physiological stress during exercise under conditions of normoxia, normobaric hypoxia, hypobaric hypoxia and genuine high altitude.

Purpose To investigate whether there is a differential response at rest and following exercise to conditions of genuine high altitude (GHA), normobaric hypoxia (NH), hypobaric hypoxia (HH) and normobaric normoxia (NN). Method Markers of sympathoadrenal and adrenocortical function (plasma normetanephrine [PNORMET], metanephrine [PMET], cortisol), myocardial injury (highly sensitive cardiac troponin T [hscTnT]) and function (N-terminal brain natriuretic peptide [NT-proBNP]) were evaluated at rest and with exercise under NN, at 3375 m in the Alps (GHA) and at equivalent simulated altitude under NH and HH. Participants cycled for 2 hours {15 minute warm-up, 105 minutes at 55% Wmax (maximal workload)} with venous blood samples taken prior (T0), immediately following (T120) and 2 hours post-exercise (T240). Results Exercise in the three hypoxic environments produced a similar pattern of response with the only difference between environments being in relation to PNORMET. Exercise in NN only induced a rise in PNORMET and PMET. Conclusion Biochemical markers that reflect sympathoadrenal, adrenocortical and myocardial responses to physiological stress demonstrate significant differences in the response to exercise under conditions of normoxia versus hypoxia while NH and HH appear to induce broadly similar responses to GHA and may therefore be reasonable surrogates

An analysis of the difference between measured and predicted energy savings when houses are insulated

When houses are retrofitted with cavity wall and loft insulation, the actual energy savings derived from measurements of before and after fuel consumptions are commonly found to be considerably less than expected from the model predictions. This discrepancy, termed a 'reduction factor' is caused in part by changed internal temperatures, a 'comfort factor', with the remainder due to other causes such as insulation performance, occupancy and ventilation. This study reviewed 13 papers relating to the relationship between the predicted and the actual energy saving that occurs when houses are insulated. These papers can be divided into a) 'strategic' studies using simplified data from large groups of dwellings, b) detailed analyses of specific monitoring exercises with information from smaller groups of dwellings, and c) specific studies of individual measures including cavity wall insulation, loft insulation and ventilation. It was possible to quantify either a reduction factor or a comfort factor from five of the reports. These figures suggest that the best estimate for the reduction factor was 50% of the theoretical expected energy savings, with the comfort factor contributing 15% to this. Various issues were identified as relevant to the difference between the predicted and measured energy saving; these include: • The performance of thermal insulation; • Ventilation, which is a significant energy burden and is largely under occupant control, is difficult to represent in theoretical models. • Separation of energy use for hot water, cooking, lighting and other appliances from space heating consumption. • The correction of energy use for different outside temperatures before and after insulation • The use of appropriate energy models to model specific houses.Presenters: name: Chris Sanders affiliation: (Glasgow Caledonian University) email: [email protected]

Insect pollinators: linking research and policy. Workshop report.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Pollinators interact with plants to underpin wider biodiversity, ecosystem function, ecosystem services to agricultural crops and ultimately human nutrition. The conservation of pollinators is thus an important goal. Pollinators and pollination represent a tractable example of how biodiversity can be linked to an ecosystem service. This represents a case study for exploring the impacts of various policy instruments aiming to halt/reverse the loss of ecosystem services. There is a need to understand how multiple pressures (e.g. habitat loss, fragmentation and degradation, climate change, pests and diseases, invasive species and environmental chemicals) can combine or interact to affect diversity, abundance and health of different pollinator groups. Decision makers need to balance consideration of the effects of single pressures on pollinators against the suite of other pressures on pollinators. For instance, the threat from pesticide use (with its high public and media profile) also needs to be considered in the context of the other threats facing pollinators and balanced against the need for food security. An independent review of the balance of risks across pollinator groups from pesticide use would help synthesise current knowledge into an accessible form for decision makers. To manage or lessen these threats to pollinators (wild and managed) and pollination requires improved knowledge about their basic ecology. We still need to know where and in what numbers different pollinator species occur, how they use different environments, how they interact with each other through shared plants and diseases and how wild pollinator abundance is changing. Decision makers need clear factual evidence for i) the relative contribution of different managed and wild pollinator groups to wildflower and crop pollination and ii) how this varies across different land-uses, ecosystems and regions. Addressing these basic and applied questions will improve our ability to forecast impacts on pollination service delivery to agricultural crops arising from current and future environmental changes, pesticide use and emerging diseases. The development of a long-term, multi-scale monitoring scheme to monitor trends in pollinator (wild and managed) population size and delivery of pollination services (ideally tied to data collection on land-use, pesticide applications and disease incidence at relevant spatial scales) would provide the evidence base for developing the effectiveness of policy and management interventions over time. Such a monitoring scheme would benefit from including research council organisations (e.g. CEH), governmental departments (e.g. Fera), universities, museums and NGOs (e.g. BBKA,SBA, Bumblebee Conservation Trust etc) Insect Pollinators: linking research and policy Workshop Report | 5 In the context of agricultural intensification and conservation we need to establish what type, quality and quantity of interventions (e.g. agri-environment schemes, protected areas) are needed, where to place them and how they can sustain different pollinator populations and effective pollination services. Current monitoring of the risks from diseases and pesticides requires broadening to consider other insects aside from honey bees, unless we can demonstrate that honey bees are good surrogates for all other pollinators. There is a need to increase confidence in regulatory risk assessments pertaining to pathogens and pesticides by incorporating other pollinator species, investigating chronic exposure to multiple chemicals and using field relevant dosages (specific to regions, not using other data sources as surrogates). At present the effects of spatial, social and temporal scales on the benefits stakeholders receive from pollination services are only beginning to be understood. Economic valuation of pollination services can help optimise the cost-effectiveness of service management measures and offer new opportunities to incentivise action or raise awareness among stakeholders. Novel tools and instruments (e.g. education and training) are needed to translate broad international (e.g. CBD, EU Biodiversity Strategy) and national (e.g. England‟s Biodiversity Strategy) policies into local actor (e.g. beekeeper, farmer, citizen scientist) contributions to meet biodiversity commitments Refocusing some public funding to link basic science to development of practical solutions (e.g. better crop protection products, improved disease resistance or treatment) could help science deliver better-targeted evidence for pollinator protection. Scientists need to make more use of opportunities (e.g. POSTnotes1; practitioner guides) to transfer knowledge to a broad audience in order to better influence decision maker and practitioner behaviours. Improved knowledge exchange between scientists and decision makers is important to combating threats to pollination. Central to this is improved understanding of the respective positions of policy makers and scientists. For instance, policy-makers usually need to be presented with a range of options to balance against other areas of policy. Science does not always arrive at a consensus due to uncertainties in data or models. Policy-makers need to understand that scientists are communicating the “best available knowledge at present” and that consequently it is not always possible to give a definitive answer

Knowledge exchange:a review and research agenda for environmental management

There is increasing emphasis on the need for effective ways of sharing knowledge to enhance environmental management and sustainability. Knowledge exchange (KE) are processes that generate, share and/or use knowledge through various methods appropriate to the context, purpose, and participants involved. KE includes concepts such as sharing, generation, coproduction, comanagement, and brokerage of knowledge. This paper elicits the expert knowledge of academics involved in research and practice of KE from different disciplines and backgrounds to review research themes, identify gaps and questions, and develop a research agenda for furthering understanding about KE. Results include 80 research questions prefaced by a review of research themes. Key conclusions are: (1) there is a diverse range of questions relating to KE that require attention; (2) there is a particular need for research on understanding the process of KE and how KE can be evaluated; and (3) given the strong interdependency of research questions, an integrated approach to understanding KE is required. To improve understanding of KE, action research methodologies and embedding evaluation as a normal part of KE research and practice need to be encouraged. This will foster more adaptive approaches to learning about KE and enhance effectiveness of environmental management