Can Regenerative Agriculture increase national soil carbon stocks? Simulated country-scale adoption of reduced tillage, cover cropping, and ley-arable integration using RothC.

Adopting Regenerative Agriculture (RA) practices on temperate arable land can increase soil organic carbon (SOC) concentration without reducing crop yields. RA is therefore receiving much attention as a climate change mitigation strategy. However, estimating the potential change in national soil carbon stocks following adoption of RA practices is required to determine its suitability for this. Here, we use a well-validated model of soil carbon turnover (RothC) to simulate adoption of three regenerative practices (cover cropping, reduced tillage intensity and incorporation of a grass-based ley phase into arable rotations) across arable land in Great Britain (GB). We develop a modelling framework which calibrates RothC using studies of these measures from a recent systematic review, estimating the proportional increase in carbon inputs to the soil compared to conventional practice, before simulating adoption across GB. We find that cover cropping would on average increase SOC stocks by 10 t·ha-1 within 30 years of adoption across GB, potentially sequestering 6.5 megatonnes of carbon dioxide per year (MtCO2·y-1). Ley-arable systems could increase SOC stocks by 3 or 16 t·ha-1, potentially providing 2.2 or 10.6 MtCO2·y-1 of sequestration over 30 years, depending on the length of the ley-phase (one and four years, respectively, in these scenarios). In contrast, our modelling approach finds little change in soil carbon stocks when practising reduced tillage intensity. Our results indicate that adopting RA practices could make a meaningful contribution to GB agriculture reaching net zero greenhouse gas emissions despite practical constraints to their uptake.

Principles and framework for assessing the risk of bias for studies included in comparative quantitative environmental systematic reviews.

The internal validity of conclusions about effectiveness or impact in systematic reviews, and of decisions based on them, depends on risk of bias assessments being conducted appropriately. However, a random sample of 50 recently-published articles claiming to be quantitative environmental systematic reviews found 64% did not include any risk of bias assessment, whilst nearly all that did omitted key sources of bias. Other limitations included lack of transparency, conflation of quality constructs, and incomplete application of risk of bias assessments to the data synthesis. This paper addresses deficiencies in risk of bias assessments by highlighting core principles that are required for risk of bias assessments to be fit-for-purpose, and presenting a framework based on these principles to guide review teams on conducting risk of bias assessments appropriately and consistently. The core principles require that risk of bias assessments be Focused, Extensive, Applied and Transparent (FEAT). These principles support risk of bias assessments, appraisal of risk of bias tools, and the development of new tools. The framework follows a Plan-Conduct-Apply-Report approach covering all stages of risk of bias assessment. The scope of this paper is comparative quantitative environmental systematic reviews which address PICO or PECO-type questions including, but not limited to, topic areas such as environmental management, conservation, ecosystem restoration, and analyses of environmental interventions, exposures, impacts and risks.

Author Correction: Eight problems with literature reviews and how to fix them.

An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via a link at the top of the paper.

Eight problems with literature reviews and how to fix them.

Traditional approaches to reviewing literature may be susceptible to bias and result in incorrect decisions. This is of particular concern when reviews address policy- and practice-relevant questions. Systematic reviews have been introduced as a more rigorous approach to synthesizing evidence across studies; they rely on a suite of evidence-based methods aimed at maximizing rigour and minimizing susceptibility to bias. Despite the increasing popularity of systematic reviews in the environmental field, evidence synthesis methods continue to be poorly applied in practice, resulting in the publication of syntheses that are highly susceptible to bias. Recognizing the constraints that researchers can sometimes feel when attempting to plan, conduct and publish rigorous and comprehensive evidence syntheses, we aim here to identify major pitfalls in the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews, making use of recent examples from across the field. Adopting a 'critical friend' role in supporting would-be systematic reviews and avoiding individual responses to police use of the 'systematic review' label, we go on to identify methodological solutions to mitigate these pitfalls. We then highlight existing support available to avoid these issues and call on the entire community, including systematic review specialists, to work towards better evidence syntheses for better evidence and better decisions.

A restatement of the natural science evidence base concerning neonicotinoid insecticides and insect pollinators.

There is evidence that in Europe and North America many species of pollinators are in decline, both in abundance and distribution. Although there is a long list of potential causes of this decline, there is concern that neonicotinoid insecticides, in particular through their use as seed treatments are, at least in part, responsible. This paper describes a project that set out to summarize the natural science evidence base relevant to neonicotinoid insecticides and insect pollinators in as policy-neutral terms as possible. A series of evidence statements are listed and categorized according to the nature of the underlying information. The evidence summary forms the appendix to this paper and an annotated bibliography is provided in the electronic supplementary material.

A restatement of the natural science evidence base relevant to the control of bovine tuberculosis in Great Britain.

Bovine tuberculosis (bTB) is a very important disease of cattle in Great Britain, where it has been increasing in incidence and geographical distribution. In addition to cattle, it infects other species of domestic and wild animals, in particular the European badger (Meles meles). Policy to control bTB is vigorously debated and contentious because of its implications for the livestock industry and because some policy options involve culling badgers, the most important wildlife reservoir. This paper describes a project to provide a succinct summary of the natural science evidence base relevant to the control of bTB, couched in terms that are as policy-neutral as possible. Each evidence statement is placed into one of four categories describing the nature of the underlying information. The evidence summary forms the appendix to this paper and an annotated bibliography is provided in the electronic supplementary material.

Biodiversity technologies: tools as change agents.

A meeting on Biodiversity Technologies was held by the Biodiversity Institute, Oxford on the 27-28 of September 2012 at the Department of Zoology, University of Oxford. The symposium brought together 36 speakers from North America, Australia and across Europe, presenting the latest research on emerging technologies in biodiversity science and conservation. Here we present a perspective on the general trends emerging from the symposium.