How much flower-rich habitat is enough for wild pollinators? Answering a key policy question with incomplete knowledge

In 2013, an opportunity arose in England to develop an agri-environment package for wild pollinators, as part of the new Countryside Stewardship scheme launched in 2015. It can be understood as a 'policy window', a rare and time-limited opportunity to change policy, supported by a narrative about pollinator decline and widely supported mitigating actions. An agri-environment package is a bundle of management options that together supply sufficient resources to support a target group of species. This paper documents information that was available at the time to develop such a package for wild pollinators. Four questions needed answering: (1) Which pollinator species should be targeted? (2) Which resources limit these species in farmland? (3) Which management options provide these resources? (4) What area of each option is needed to support populations of the target species? Focussing on wild bees, we provide tentative answers that were used to inform development of the package. There is strong evidence that floral resources can limit wild bee populations, and several sources of evidence identify a set of agri-environment options that provide flowers and other resources for pollinators. The final question could only be answered for floral resources, with a wide range of uncertainty. We show that the areas of some floral resource options in the basic Wild Pollinator and Farmland Wildlife Package (2% flower-rich habitat and 1 km flowering hedgerow), are sufficient to supply a set of six common pollinator species with enough pollen to feed their larvae at lowest estimates, using minimum values for estimated parameters where a range was available. We identify key sources of uncertainty, and stress the importance of keeping the Package flexible, so it can be revised as new evidence emerges about how to achieve the policy aim of supporting pollinators on farmland.

Modelling impacts of pollution in river systems: a new dispersion model and a case study of mine discharges in the Abrud, Aries and Mures river system in Transylvania, Romania

A new model of dispersion has been developed to simulate the impact of pollutant discharges on river systems. The model accounts for the main dispersion processes operating in rivers as well as the dilution from incoming tributaries and first-order kinetic decay processes. The model is dynamic and simulates the hourly behaviour of river flow and pollutants along river systems. The model has been applied to the Aries and Mures River System in Romania and has been used to assess the impacts of potential dam releases from the Roia Montan Mine in Transylvania, Romania. The question of mine water release is investigated under a range of scenarios. The impacts on pollution levels downstream at key sites and at the border with Hungary are investigated.

A technique for evaluation of interactive evolutionary systems

Very large scale scheduling and planning tasks cannot be effectively addressed by fully automated schedule optimisation systems, since many key factors which govern 'fitness' in such cases are unformalisable. This raises the question of an interactive (or collaborative) approach, where fitness is assigned by the expert user. Though well-researched in the domains of interactively evolved art and music, this method is as yet rarely used in logistics. This paper concerns a difficulty shared by all interactive evolutionary systems (IESs), but especially those used for logistics or design problems. The difficulty is that objective evaluation of IESs is severely hampered by the need for expert humans in the loop. This makes it effectively impossible to, for example, determine with statistical confidence any ranking among a decent number of configurations for the parameters and strategy choices. We make headway into this difficulty with an Automated Tester (AT) for such systems. The AT replaces the human in experiments, and has parameters controlling its decision-making accuracy (modelling human error) and a built-in notion of a target solution which may typically be at odds with the solution which is optimal in terms of formalisable fitness. Using the AT, plausible evaluations of alternative designs for the IES can be done, allowing for (and examining the effects of) different levels of user error. We describe such an AT for evaluating an IES for very large scale planning.

Electronic voting systems in undergraduate teaching

One of the major differences undergraduates experience during the transition to university is the style of teaching. In schools and colleges most students study key stage 5 subjects in relatively small informal groups where teacher–pupil interaction is encouraged and two-way feedback occurs through question and answer type delivery. On starting in HE students are amazed by the sizes of the classes. For even a relatively small chemistry department with an intake of 60-70 students, biologists, pharmacists, and other first year undergraduates requiring chemistry can boost numbers in the lecture hall to around 200 or higher. In many universities class sizes of 400 are not unusual for first year groups where efficiency is crucial. Clearly the personalised classroom-style delivery is not practical and it is a brave student who shows his ignorance by venturing to ask a question in front of such an audience. In these environments learning can be a very passive process, the lecture acts as a vehicle for the conveyance of information and our students are expected to reinforce their understanding by ‘self-study’, a term, the meaning of which, many struggle to understand. The use of electronic voting systems (EVS) in such situations can vastly change the students’ learning experience from a passive to a highly interactive process. This principle has already been demonstrated in Physics, most notably in the work of Bates and colleagues at Edinburgh.1 These small hand-held devices, similar to those which have become familiar through programmes such as ‘Who Wants to be a Millionaire’ can be used to provide instant feedback to students and teachers alike. Advances in technology now allow them to be used in a range of more sophisticated settings and comprehensive guides on use have been developed for even the most techno-phobic staff.

Gibberellin-responsive and -insensitive dwarfing alleles on wheat performance in contrasting tillage systems

Near-isogenic lines (NILs) of winter wheat varying for alleles for reduced height (Rht), gibberellin (GA) response and photoperiod insensitivity (Ppd-D1a) in cv. Mercia background (rht (tall), Rht-B1b, Rht-D1b, Rht-B1c, Rht8c+Ppd-D1a, Rht-D1c, Rht12) and cv. Maris Widgeon (rht (tall), Rht-D1b, Rht-B1c) backgrounds were compared to investigate main effects and interactions with tillage (plough-based, minimum-, and zero-tillage) over two years. Both minimum- and zero- tillage were associated with reduced grain yields allied to reduced harvest index, biomass accumulation, interception of photosynthetically active radiation (PAR), and plant populations. Grain yields were optimized at mature crop heights of around 740mm because this provided the best compromise between harvest index which declined with height, and above ground biomass which increased with height. Improving biomass with height was due to improvements in both PAR interception and radiation-use efficiency. Optimum height for grain yield was unaffected by tillage system or GA-sensitivity. After accounting for effects of height, GA insensitivity was associated with increased grain yields due to increased grains per spike, which was more than enough to compensate for poorer plant establishment and lower mean grain weights compared to the GA-sensitive lines. Although better establishment was possible with GA-sensitive lines, there was no evidence that this effect interacted with tillage method. We find, therefore, little evidence to question the current adoption of wheats with reduced sensitivity to GA in the UK, even as tillage intensity lessens.

Should system dynamics be described as a 'hard' or 'deterministic' systems approach?

This paper explores the criticism that system dynamics is a ‘hard’ or ‘deterministic’ systems approach. This criticism is seen to have four interpretations and each is addressed from the perspectives of social theory and systems science. Firstly, system dynamics is shown to offer not prophecies but Popperian predictions. Secondly, it is shown to involve the view that system structure only partially, not fully, determines human behaviour. Thirdly, the field's assumptions are shown not to constitute a grand content theory—though its structural theory and its attachment to the notion of causality in social systems are acknowledged. Finally, system dynamics is shown to be significantly different from systems engineering. The paper concludes that such confusions have arisen partially because of limited communication at the theoretical level from within the system dynamics community but also because of imperfect command of the available literature on the part of external commentators. Improved communication on theoretical issues is encouraged, though it is observed that system dynamics will continue to justify its assumptions primarily from the point of view of practical problem solving. The answer to the question in the paper's title is therefore: on balance, no.