Global and regional variability and change in terrestrial ecosystems net primary production and NDVI: A model-data comparison

The net primary productivity (NPP) is commonly used for understanding the dynamics of terrestrial ecosystems and their role in carbon cycle. We used a combination of the most recent NDVI and model-based NPP estimates (from five models of the TRENDY project) for the period 1982–2012, to study the role of terrestrial ecosystems in carbon cycle under the prevailing climate conditions. We found that 80% and 67% of the global land area showed positive NPP and NDVI values, respectively, for this period. The global NPP was estimated to be about 63 Pg C·y−1, with an increase of 0.214 Pg C·y−1·y−1. Similarly, the global mean NDVI was estimated to be 0.33, with an increasing trend of 0.00041 y−1. The spatial patterns of NPP and NDVI demonstrated substantial variability, especially at the regional level, for most part of the globe. However, on temporal scale, both global NPP and NDVI showed a corresponding pattern of increase (decrease) for the duration of this study except for few years (e.g., 1990 and 1995–1998). Generally, the Northern Hemisphere showed stronger NDVI and NPP increasing trends over time compared to the Southern Hemisphere; however, NDVI showed larger trends in Temperate regions while NPP showed larger trends in Boreal regions. Among the five models, the maximum and minimum NPP were produced by JULES (72.4 Pg C·y−1) and LPJ (53.72 Pg C·y−1) models, respectively. At latitudinal level, the NDVI and NPP ranges were ~0.035 y−1 to ~−0.016 y−1 and ~0.10 Pg C·y−1·y−1 to ~−0.047 Pg C·y−1·y−1, respectively. Overall, the results of this study suggest that the modeled NPP generally correspond to the NDVI trends in the temporal dimension. The significant variability in spatial patterns of NPP and NDVI trends points to a need for research to understand the causes of these discrepancies between molded and observed ecosystem dynamics, and the carbon cycle

Tocilizumab in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial

Background: In this study, we aimed to evaluate the effects of tocilizumab in adult patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 with both hypoxia and systemic inflammation. Methods: This randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]), is assessing several possible treatments in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 in the UK. Those trial participants with hypoxia (oxygen saturation <92% on air or requiring oxygen therapy) and evidence of systemic inflammation (C-reactive protein ≥75 mg/L) were eligible for random assignment in a 1:1 ratio to usual standard of care alone versus usual standard of care plus tocilizumab at a dose of 400 mg–800 mg (depending on weight) given intravenously. A second dose could be given 12–24 h later if the patient's condition had not improved. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality, assessed in the intention-to-treat population. The trial is registered with ISRCTN (50189673) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04381936). Findings: Between April 23, 2020, and Jan 24, 2021, 4116 adults of 21 550 patients enrolled into the RECOVERY trial were included in the assessment of tocilizumab, including 3385 (82%) patients receiving systemic corticosteroids. Overall, 621 (31%) of the 2022 patients allocated tocilizumab and 729 (35%) of the 2094 patients allocated to usual care died within 28 days (rate ratio 0·85; 95% CI 0·76–0·94; p=0·0028). Consistent results were seen in all prespecified subgroups of patients, including those receiving systemic corticosteroids. Patients allocated to tocilizumab were more likely to be discharged from hospital within 28 days (57% vs 50%; rate ratio 1·22; 1·12–1·33; p<0·0001). Among those not receiving invasive mechanical ventilation at baseline, patients allocated tocilizumab were less likely to reach the composite endpoint of invasive mechanical ventilation or death (35% vs 42%; risk ratio 0·84; 95% CI 0·77–0·92; p<0·0001). Interpretation: In hospitalised COVID-19 patients with hypoxia and systemic inflammation, tocilizumab improved survival and other clinical outcomes. These benefits were seen regardless of the amount of respiratory support and were additional to the benefits of systemic corticosteroids. Funding: UK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council) and National Institute of Health Research

Convalescent plasma in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised controlled, open-label, platform trial

Background: Many patients with COVID-19 have been treated with plasma containing anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of convalescent plasma therapy in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19. Methods: This randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]) is assessing several possible treatments in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 in the UK. The trial is underway at 177 NHS hospitals from across the UK. Eligible and consenting patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either usual care alone (usual care group) or usual care plus high-titre convalescent plasma (convalescent plasma group). The primary outcome was 28-day mortality, analysed on an intention-to-treat basis. The trial is registered with ISRCTN, 50189673, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04381936. Findings: Between May 28, 2020, and Jan 15, 2021, 11558 (71%) of 16287 patients enrolled in RECOVERY were eligible to receive convalescent plasma and were assigned to either the convalescent plasma group or the usual care group. There was no significant difference in 28-day mortality between the two groups: 1399 (24%) of 5795 patients in the convalescent plasma group and 1408 (24%) of 5763 patients in the usual care group died within 28 days (rate ratio 1·00, 95% CI 0·93–1·07; p=0·95). The 28-day mortality rate ratio was similar in all prespecified subgroups of patients, including in those patients without detectable SARS-CoV-2 antibodies at randomisation. Allocation to convalescent plasma had no significant effect on the proportion of patients discharged from hospital within 28 days (3832 [66%] patients in the convalescent plasma group vs 3822 [66%] patients in the usual care group; rate ratio 0·99, 95% CI 0·94–1·03; p=0·57). Among those not on invasive mechanical ventilation at randomisation, there was no significant difference in the proportion of patients meeting the composite endpoint of progression to invasive mechanical ventilation or death (1568 [29%] of 5493 patients in the convalescent plasma group vs 1568 [29%] of 5448 patients in the usual care group; rate ratio 0·99, 95% CI 0·93–1·05; p=0·79). Interpretation: In patients hospitalised with COVID-19, high-titre convalescent plasma did not improve survival or other prespecified clinical outcomes. Funding: UK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council) and National Institute of Health Research

Can Paris pledges avert severe climate change?

Current international climate negotiations seek to catalyze global emissions reductions through a system of nationally determined country-level emissions reduction targets that would be regularly updated. These "Intended Nationally Determined Contributions" (INDC) would constitute the core of mitigation commitments under any agreement struck at the upcoming Paris Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). With INDCs now reported from more than 150 countries and covering around 90% of global emissions, we can begin to assess the role of this round of INDCs in facilitating or frustrating achievement of longer-term climate goals. In this context, it is important to understand what these INDCs collectively deliver in terms of two objectives. First, how much do they reduce the probability of the highest levels of global mean surface temperature change? Second, how much do they improve the odds of achieving the international goal of limiting temperature change to under 2-degrees C relative to preindustrial levels? Although much discussion has focused on the latter objective, the former is equally important when viewing climate mitigation from a risk-management perspective

Formulation of a process for the planning and management of technology development

Presented at the 1st AIAA ATIO Forum, Los Angeles, CA, October 16-18, 2001.Due to the importance of technology use in Aerospace systems, the process of technology development is one of the most important parts of fielding a new system. Technology development is the process of creating and managing activities such as experiments, analysis, and prototyping in order to reduce the risk associated with the use of a new technology. While technical risk is addressed by the activities, the project must be planned and managed so as to reduce the cost and schedule risk associated with completing those activities. This study introduces a process that will assist in the planning and management of a technology development project and lead to successful development efforts