Institution
University of Sheffield
Education•Sheffield, United Kingdom•
About: University of Sheffield is a education organization based out in Sheffield, United Kingdom. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Context (language use). The organization has 41675 authors who have published 102908 publications receiving 3946383 citations. The organization is also known as: Sheffield University & shef.ac.uk.
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
••
TL;DR: Biogeochemical processes controlling nitrate attenuation in aquifers are critically reviewed and denitrifying bacteria are essentially ubiquitous in the subsurface, the critical limiting factors are oxygen and electron donor concentration and availability and variability in other environmental conditions appears to be less important.
1,141 citations
••
TL;DR: In this article, the authors emphasize the potential for improving green-roof function by understanding the interactions between its ecosystem elements, especially the relationships among growing media, soil biota, and vegetation.
Abstract: Green roofs (roofs with a vegetated surface and substrate) provide ecosystem services in urban areas, including improved storm-water management, better regulation of building temperatures, reduced urban heat-island effects, and increased urban wildlife habitat. This article reviews the evidence for these benefits and examines the biotic and abiotic components that contribute to overall ecosystem services. We emphasize the potential for improving green-roof function by understanding the interactions between its ecosystem elements, especially the relationships among growing media, soil biota, and vegetation, and the interactions between community structure and ecosystem functioning. Further research into green-roof technology should assess the efficacy of green roofs compared to other technologies with similar ends, and ultimately focus on estimates of aggregate benefits at landscape scales and on more holistic cost-benefit analyses.
1,137 citations
••
TL;DR: Social learning is increasingly becoming a normative goal in natural resource management and policy, but there remains little consensus over its meaning or theoretical basis as discussed by the authors. This lack of conceptual clarity has limited our capacity to assess whether social learning has occurred, and if so, what kind of learning has taken place, to what extent, between whom, when, and how.
Abstract: Social learning is increasingly becoming a normative goal in natural resource management and policy. However, there remains little consensus over its meaning or theoretical basis. There are still considerable differences in understanding of the concept in the literature, including a number of articles published in Ecology & Society. Social learning is often conflated with other concepts such as participation and proenvironmental behavior, and there is often little distinction made between individual and wider social learning. Many unsubstantiated claims for social learning exist, and there is frequently confusion between the concept itself and its potential outcomes. This lack of conceptual clarity has limited our capacity to assess whether social learning has occurred, and if so, what kind of learning has taken place, to what extent, between whom, when, and how. This response attempts to provide greater clarity on the conceptual basis for social learning. We argue that to be considered social learning, a process must: (1) demonstrate that a change in understanding has taken place in the individuals involved; (2) demonstrate that this change goes beyond the individual and becomes situated within wider social units or communities of practice; and (3) occur through social interactions and processes between actors within a social network. A clearer picture of what we mean by social learning could enhance our ability to critically evaluate outcomes and better understand the processes through which social learning occurs. In this way, it may be possible to better facilitate the desired outcomes of social learning processes.
1,136 citations
••
Daniel J. Klionsky1, Amal Kamal Abdel-Aziz2, Sara Abdelfatah3, Mahmoud Abdellatif4 +2980 more•Institutions (777)
TL;DR: In this article, the authors present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes.
Abstract: In 2008, we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, this topic has received increasing attention, and many scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Thus, it is important to formulate on a regular basis updated guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Despite numerous reviews, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to evaluate autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. Here, we present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a dogmatic set of rules, because the appropriateness of any assay largely depends on the question being asked and the system being used. Moreover, no individual assay is perfect for every situation, calling for the use of multiple techniques to properly monitor autophagy in each experimental setting. Finally, several core components of the autophagy machinery have been implicated in distinct autophagic processes (canonical and noncanonical autophagy), implying that genetic approaches to block autophagy should rely on targeting two or more autophagy-related genes that ideally participate in distinct steps of the pathway. Along similar lines, because multiple proteins involved in autophagy also regulate other cellular pathways including apoptosis, not all of them can be used as a specific marker for bona fide autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field.
1,129 citations
••
TL;DR: It is the responsibility of model developers to conduct modeling studies according to the best practicable standards of quality and to communicate results with adequate disclosure of assumptions and with the caveat that conclusions are conditional upon the assumptions and data on which the model is built.
1,127 citations
Authors
Showing all 42209 results
Name | H-index | Papers | Citations |
---|---|---|---|
Cyrus Cooper | 204 | 1869 | 206782 |
Rob Knight | 201 | 1061 | 253207 |
Jie Zhang | 178 | 4857 | 221720 |
David Baker | 173 | 1226 | 109377 |
Yang Gao | 168 | 2047 | 146301 |
Douglas F. Easton | 165 | 844 | 113809 |
Dennis R. Burton | 164 | 683 | 90959 |
David W. Johnson | 160 | 2714 | 140778 |
Hannes Jung | 159 | 2069 | 125069 |
John B. Goodenough | 151 | 1064 | 113741 |
Kevin J. Gaston | 150 | 750 | 85635 |
A. Gomes | 150 | 1862 | 113951 |
J. Fraser Stoddart | 147 | 1239 | 96083 |
Hugh A. Sampson | 147 | 816 | 76492 |
Kevin Murphy | 146 | 728 | 120475 |