Institution
University of Nevada, Reno
Education•Reno, Nevada, United States•
About: University of Nevada, Reno is a education organization based out in Reno, Nevada, United States. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Poison control. The organization has 13561 authors who have published 28217 publications receiving 882002 citations. The organization is also known as: University of Nevada & Nevada State University.
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
•
TL;DR: The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, Volume 13(1), 2012, pp. 11−14 ISSN 1528-3518 as discussed by the authors, is the most cited publication for distance education.
Abstract: † Lynda R. Wiest, College of Education/299, University of Nevada, Reno, 1664 N. Virginia St., Reno, NV 89557. Tele-phone: (775) 682-7868. E-mail: wiest@unr.eduThe Quarterly Review of Distance Education, Volume 13(1), 2012, pp. 11–14 ISSN 1528-3518Copyright © 2012 Information Age Publishing, Inc. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
168 citations
••
TL;DR: The goal of this synthesis is to support more local food production using native plants in an ecologically sustainable manner.
Abstract: For addressing potential food shortages, a fundamental tradeoff exists between investing more resources to increasing productivity of existing crops, as opposed to increasing crop diversity by incorporating more species. We explore ways to use local plants as food resources and the potential to promote food diversity and agricultural resilience. We discuss how use of local plants and the practice of local agriculture can contribute to ongoing adaptability in times of global change. Most food crops are now produced, transported, and consumed long distances from their homelands of origin. At the same time, research and practices are directed primarily at improving the productivity of a small number of existing crops that form the cornerstone of a global food economy, rather than to increasing crop diversity. The result is a loss of agro-biodiversity, leading to a food industry that is more susceptible to abiotic and biotic stressors, and more at risk of catastrophic losses. Humans cultivate only about 150 of an estimated 30,000 edible plant species worldwide, with only 30 plant species comprising the vast majority of our diets. To some extent, these practices explain the food disparity among human populations, where nearly 1 billion people suffer insufficient nutrition and 2 billion people are obese or overweight. Commercial uses of new crops and wild plants of local origin have the potential to diversify global food production and better enable local adaptation to the diverse environments humans inhabit. We discuss the advantages, obstacles, and risks of using local plants. We also describe a case study-the missed opportunity to produce pine nuts commercially in the Western United States. We discuss the potential consequences of using local pine nuts rather than importing them overseas. Finally, we provide a list of edible native plants, and synthesize the state of research concerning the potential and challenges in using them for food production. The goal of our synthesis is to support more local food production using native plants in an ecologically sustainable manner.
168 citations
••
University of Valle1, Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute2, Stellenbosch University3, Zoological Society of London4, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences5, American Museum of Natural History6, Center for Biological Diversity7, Tufts University8, Wageningen University and Research Centre9, Naturalis10, University of Nevada, Reno11, University of Amsterdam12, University of Osnabrück13, University of Queensland14, International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources15, University of Sussex16, University of Salzburg17, Michigan State University18, Radboud University Nijmegen19, Macquarie University20, University of Trier21, Xishuangbanna Tropical Botanical Garden22, Xerces Society23, Cardiff University24, Çukurova University25, University of Freiburg26, University of Sydney27, Harper Adams University28, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute29, Cornell University30, Chinese Academy of Sciences31, University of Waikato32, Vietnam Academy of Science and Technology33, University of Reading34, Bogor Agricultural University35, National Agricultural Research Institute36, Washington State University Vancouver37, Kasetsart University38, University of Göttingen39, University of Canterbury40, University of Novi Sad41, University of Connecticut42, Butterfly Conservation43, Natural History Museum44
TL;DR: A global ‘roadmap’ for insect conservation and recovery is proposed that entails the immediate implementation of several ‘no-regret’ measures that will act to slow or stop insect declines.
Abstract: To the Editor — A growing number of studies are providing evidence that a suite of anthropogenic stressors — habitat loss and fragmentation, pollution, invasive species, climate change and overharvesting — are seriously reducing insect and other invertebrate abundance, diversity and biomass across the biosphere1–8. These declines affect all functional groups: herbivores, detritivores, parasitoids, predators and pollinators. Insects are vitally important in a wide range of ecosystem services9 of which some are vitally important for food production and security (for example, pollination and pest control)10. There is now a strong scientific consensus that the decline of insects, other arthropods and biodiversity as a whole, is a very real and serious threat that society must urgently address11–13. In response to the increasing public awareness of the problem, the German government is committing funds to combat and reverse declining insect numbers13. This funding should act as a clarion call to other nations across the world — especially wealthier ones — to follow suit and to respond proactively to the crisis by addressing the known and suspected threats and implementing solutions. We hereby propose a global ‘roadmap’ for insect conservation and recovery (Fig. 1). This entails the immediate implementation of several ‘no-regret’ measures (Fig. 1, step 1) that will act to slow or stop insect declines. Among the initiatives we encourage are the following immediate measures: Taking aggressive steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions; reversing recent trends in agricultural intensification including reduced application of synthetic pesticides and fertilizers and pursuing their replacement with agro-ecological measures; promoting the diversification and maintenance of locally adapted landuse techniques; increasing landscape heterogeneity through the maintenance of natural areas within the landscape matrix and ensuring the retention and creation of microhabitats within habitats which may be increasingly important for insects during extreme climatic events such as droughts or heatwaves; reducing identified local threats such as light, water or noise pollution, invasive species and so on; prioritizing the import of goods that are not produced at the cost of healthy, species-rich ecosystems; designing and deploying policies (for example, subsidies and taxation) to induce the innovation and adoption of insectfriendly technologies; enforcing stricter measures to reduce the introduction of alien species, and prioritizing nature-based tactics for their (long-term) mitigation; compiling and implementing conservation strategies for species that are vulnerable, threatened or endangered; funding educational and outreach programs, including those tailored to the needs of the wider public, farmers, land managers, decision makers and conservation professionals; enhancing ‘citizen science’ or ‘community science’ as a way of obtaining more data on insect diversity and abundance as well as engaging the public, especially in areas where academic or professional infrastructure is lacking; devising and deploying measures across agricultural and food value chains that favour insect-friendly farming, including tracking, labelling, certification and insurance schemes or outcome-based incentives that facilitate behavioural changes, and investing in capacity building to create a new generation of insect conservationists and providing knowledge and skills to existing professionals (particularly in developing countries). To better understand changes in insect abundance and diversity, research should aim to prioritize the following areas: Quantifying temporal trends in insect abundance, diversity and biomass by extracting long-term datasets from existing insect collections to inform new censuses; exploring the relative contributions of different anthropogenic stressors causing insect declines within and across different taxa; initiating long-term studies comparing insect abundance and diversity in different habitats and ecosystems along a management-intensity gradient and at the intersection of agricultural and natural habitats; designing and validating insectfriendly techniques that are effective, locally relevant and economically sound in agriculture, managed habitats and urban environments; promoting and applying standardized monitoring protocols globally and establishing long-term monitoring plots or sites based on such protocols, as well as increasing support for existing monitoring efforts; establishing an international governing body under the auspices of existing bodies (for example, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) or the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN)) that is accountable for documenting and monitoring the effects of proposed solutions on insect biodiversity in the longer term; launching public–private partnerships and sustainable financing initiatives with the aim of restoring, protecting and creating new vital insect habitats as well as managing key threats; increasing exploration and research to improve biodiversity assessments, with a focus on regional capacity building in understudied and neglected areas, and performing large-scale assessments of the conservation status of insect groups to help define priority species, areas and issues. Most importantly, we should not wait to act until we have addressed every key knowledge gap. We currently have enough information on some key causes of insect decline to formulate no-regret solutions whilst more data are compiled for lesserknown taxa and regions and long-term data are aggregated and assessed. Implementation should be accompanied by research that examines impacts, the results of which can be used to modify and improve the implementation of effective measures. Furthermore, such a ‘learning-by-doing’ approach ensures that these conservation strategies are robust to newly emerging pressures and threats. We must act now. ❐
167 citations
••
167 citations
••
TL;DR: Five families with SVAS who have small deletions in the WS region studied shared a deletion of LIMK1, which encodes a protein strongly expressed in the brain, supporting the hypothesis that LimK1 hemizygosity contributes to impairment in visuospatial constructive cognition.
Abstract: Most individuals with Williams syndrome (WS) have a 1.6 Mb deletion in chromosome 7q11.23 that encompasses the elastin (ELN) gene, while most families with autosomal dominant supravalvar aortic stenosis (SVAS) have point mutations in ELN. The overlap of the clinical phenotypes of the two conditions (cardiovascular disease and connective tissue abnormalities such as hernias) is due to the effect of haploinsufficiency of ELN. SVAS families often have affected individuals with some WS facial features, most commonly in infancy, suggesting that ELN plays a role in WS facial gestalt as well. To find other genes contributing to the WS phenotype, we studied five families with SVAS who have small deletions in the WS region. None of the families had mental retardation, but affected family members had the Williams Syndrome Cognitive Profile (WSCP). All families shared a deletion of LIMK1, which encodes a protein strongly expressed in the brain, supporting the hypothesis that LIMK1 hemizygosity contributes to impairment in visuospatial constructive cognition. While the deletions from the families nearly spanned the WS region, none had a deletion of FKBP6 or GTF2I, suggesting that the mental retardation seen in WS is associated with deletion of either the centromeric and/or telomeric portions of the region. Comparison of these five families with reports of other individuals with partial deletions of the WS region most strongly implicates GTF2I in the mental retardation of WS.
167 citations
Authors
Showing all 13726 results
Name | H-index | Papers | Citations |
---|---|---|---|
Robert Langer | 281 | 2324 | 326306 |
Thomas C. Südhof | 191 | 653 | 118007 |
David W. Johnson | 160 | 2714 | 140778 |
Menachem Elimelech | 157 | 547 | 95285 |
Jeffrey L. Cummings | 148 | 833 | 116067 |
Bing Zhang | 121 | 1194 | 56980 |
Arturo Casadevall | 120 | 980 | 55001 |
Mark H. Ellisman | 117 | 637 | 55289 |
Thomas G. Ksiazek | 113 | 398 | 46108 |
Anthony G. Fane | 112 | 565 | 40904 |
Leonardo M. Fabbri | 109 | 566 | 60838 |
Gary H. Lyman | 108 | 694 | 52469 |
Steven C. Hayes | 106 | 450 | 51556 |
Stephen P. Long | 103 | 384 | 46119 |
Gary Cutter | 103 | 737 | 40507 |