Are land sparing and land sharing real alternatives for European agricultural landscapes?

There is a lively debate on whether biodiversity conservation and agricultural production could be better reconciled by land sparing (strictly separating production fields and conservation areas) or by land sharing (combining both, agricultural production and biodiversity conservation on the same land). The debate originates from tropical countries, where agricultural land use continues to increase at the expense of natural ecosystems. But is it also relevant for Europe, where agriculture is withdrawing from marginal regions whilst farming of fertile lands continues to be intensified? Based on recent research on farmland biodiversity we conclude that the land sharing – land sparing dichotomy is too simplistic for Europe. Instead we differentiate between productive and marginal farmland. On productive farmland, semi-natural habitats are required to yield ecosystem services relevant for agriculture, to promote endangered farmland species which society wants to conserve even in intensively farmed regions, and to allow migration of non-farmland species through the agricultural matrix. On marginal farmland, high-nature value farming is a traditional way of land sharing, yielding high quality agricultural products and conserving specialized species. To conserve highly disturbance-sensitive species, there is a need for nature reserves. In conclusion, land sparing is not a viable olution for Europe in both productive and marginal farmland but because of different reasons in each type of farmland.

Use of an Online Photo Management and Sharing Application to Create a Searchable Digital Dental Radiograph Repository

Problem: Dental radiographs generally display one or more findings/diagnoses, and are linked to a unique set of patient demographics, medical history and other findings not represented by the image. However, this information is not associated with radiographs in any type of meta format, and images are not searchable based on any clinical criteria (1,2). The purpose of this pilot study is to create an online, searchable data repository of dental radiographs to be used for patient care, teaching and research. [See PDF for complete abstract]

Older patients with chronic myeloid leukemia (≥65 years) profit more from higher imatinib doses than younger patients: a subanalysis of the randomized CML-Study IV

The impact of imatinib dose on response rates and survival in older patients with chronic myeloid leukemia in chronic phase has not been studied well. We analyzed data from the German CML-Study IV, a randomized five-arm treatment optimization study in newly diagnosed BCR-ABL-positive chronic myeloid leukemia in chronic phase. Patients randomized to imatinib 400 mg/day (IM400) or imatinib 800 mg/day (IM800) and stratified according to age (≥65 years vs. <65 years) were compared regarding dose, response, adverse events, rates of progression, and survival. The full 800 mg dose was given after a 6-week run-in period with imatinib 400 mg/day. The dose could then be reduced according to tolerability. A total of 828 patients were randomized to IM400 or IM800. Seven hundred eighty-four patients were evaluable (IM400, 382; IM800, 402). One hundred ten patients (29 %) on IM400 and 83 (21 %) on IM800 were ≥65 years. The median dose per day was lower for patients ≥65 years on IM800, with the highest median dose in the first year (466 mg/day for patients ≥65 years vs. 630 mg/day for patients <65 years). Older patients on IM800 achieved major molecular remission and deep molecular remission as fast as younger patients, in contrast to standard dose imatinib with which older patients achieved remissions much later than younger patients. Grades 3 and 4 adverse events were similar in both age groups. Five-year relative survival for older patients was comparable to that of younger patients. We suggest that the optimal dose for older patients is higher than 400 mg/day. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00055874

Understanding the Sharing Economy: The Role of Response to Negative Reviews in the Peer-To-Peer Accommodation Sharing Network?

Recognizing the potentially ruinous effect of negative reviews on the reputation of the hosts as well as a subjective nature of the travel experience judgements, peer-to-peer accommodation sharing plat-forms, like Airbnb, have readily embraced the “response” option, empowering hosts with the voice to challenge, deny or at least apologize for the subject of critique. However, the effects of different re-sponse strategies on trusting beliefs towards the host remain unclear. To fill this gap, this study focus-es on understanding the impact of different response strategies and review negativity on trusting be-liefs towards the host in peer-to-peer accommodation sharing setting utilizing experimental methods. Examination of two different contexts, varying in the controllability of the subject of complaint, re-veals that when the subject of complaint is controllable by a host, such strategies as confession / apol-ogy and denial can improve trusting beliefs towards the host. However, when the subject of criticism is beyond the control of the host, denial of the issue does not yield guest’s confidence in the host, where-as confession and excuse have positive influence on trusting beliefs.

Building up and sharing knowledge for better decision making on soil and water conservation in a changing mountain environment - the WOCAT experience

For successful implementation of any soil and water conservation (SWC) or sustainable land management practice, it is essential to have a proper understanding of the natural and human environment in which these practices are applied. This understanding should be based on comprehensive information concerning the application of the technologies and not solely on the technological details. The World Overview of Conservation Approaches and Technologies (WOCAT) is documenting and evaluating SWC practices worldwide, following a standardised methodology that facilitates exchange and comparison of experiences. Notwithstanding this standardisation, WOCAT allows flexible use of its outputs, adapted to different users and different environments. WOCAT offers a valuable tool for evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of SWC practices and their potential for application in other areas. Besides collecting a wealth of information, gaps in available information are also exposed, showing the need for more research in those fields. Several key issues for development- oriented research have been identified and are being addressed in collaboration with a research programme for mitigating syndromes of global change.

Sharing evidence of sustainable land management impacts

Ensuring sustainable use of natural resources is crucial for maintaining the basis for our livelihoods. With threats from climate change, disputes over water, biodiversity loss, competing claims on land, and migration increasing worldwide, the demands for sustainable land management (SLM) practices will only increase in the future. For years already, various national and international organizations (GOs, NGOs, donors, research institutes, etc.) have been working on alternative forms of land management. And numerous land users worldwide – especially small farmers – have been testing, adapting, and refining new and better ways of managing land. All too often, however, the resulting SLM knowledge has not been sufficiently evaluated, documented and shared. Among other things, this has often prevented valuable SLM knowledge from being channelled into evidence-based decision-making processes. Indeed, proper knowledge management is crucial for SLM to reach its full potential. Since more than 20 years, the international WOCAT network documents and promotes SLM through its global platform. As a whole, the WOCAT methodology comprises tools for documenting, evaluating, and assessing the impact of SLM practices, as well as for knowledge sharing, analysis and use for decision support in the field, at the planning level, and in scaling up identified good practices. In early 2014, WOCAT’s growth and ongoing improvement culminated in its being officially recognized by the UNCCD as the primary recommended database for SLM best practices. Over the years, the WOCAT network confirmed that SLM helps to prevent desertification, to increase biodiversity, enhance food security and to make people less vulnerable to the effects of climate variability and change. In addi- tion, it plays an important role in mitigating climate change through improving soil organic matter and increasing vegetation cover. In-depth assessments of SLM practices from desertification sites enabled an evaluation of how SLM addresses prevalent dryland threats. The impacts mentioned most were diversified and enhanced production and better management of water and soil degradation, whether through water harvesting, improving soil moisture, or reducing runoff. Among others, favourable local-scale cost-benefit relationships of SLM practices play a crucial role in their adoption. An economic analysis from the WOCAT database showed that land users perceive a large majority of the technologies as having benefits that outweigh costs in the long term. The high investment costs associated with some practices may constitute a barrier to adoption, however, where appropriate, short-term support for land users can help to promote these practices. The increased global concerns on climate change, disaster risks and food security redirect attention to, and trigger more funds for SLM. To provide the necessary evidence-based rationale for investing in SLM and to reinforce expert and land users assessments of SLM impacts, more field research using inter- and transdisciplinary approaches is needed. This includes developing methods to quantify and value ecosystem services, both on-site and off-site, and assess the resilience of SLM practices, as currently aimed at within the EU FP7 projects CASCADE and RECARE.