Institution
Wageningen University and Research Centre
Education•Wageningen, Netherlands•
About: Wageningen University and Research Centre is a education organization based out in Wageningen, Netherlands. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Sustainability. The organization has 23474 authors who have published 54833 publications receiving 2608897 citations.
Topics: Population, Sustainability, European union, Agriculture, Climate change
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
Stockholm Environment Institute1, Stockholm University2, Australian National University3, University of Alaska Fairbanks4, Université catholique de Louvain5, University of East Anglia6, Wageningen University and Research Centre7, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences8, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research9, University of Oxford10, James Cook University11, Arizona State University12, Royal Institute of Technology13, University of Minnesota14, University of Vermont15, Stockholm International Water Institute16, California State University San Marcos17, Goddard Institute for Space Studies18, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation19, University of Arizona20, Max Planck Society21
TL;DR: Identifying and quantifying planetary boundaries that must not be transgressed could help prevent human activities from causing unacceptable environmental change, argue Johan Rockstrom and colleagues.
Abstract: Identifying and quantifying planetary boundaries that must not be transgressed could help prevent human activities from causing unacceptable environmental change, argue Johan Rockstrom and colleagues.
8,837 citations
Northern Arizona University1, National Institutes of Health2, University of Minnesota3, University of California, Davis4, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution5, Massachusetts Institute of Technology6, University of Copenhagen7, University of Trento8, Chinese Academy of Sciences9, University of California, San Francisco10, University of Pennsylvania11, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory12, North Carolina State University13, University of California, San Diego14, Institute for Systems Biology15, Dalhousie University16, University of British Columbia17, Statens Serum Institut18, Anschutz Medical Campus19, University of Washington20, Michigan State University21, Stanford University22, Broad Institute23, Harvard University24, Australian National University25, University of Düsseldorf26, University of New South Wales27, Sookmyung Women's University28, San Diego State University29, Howard Hughes Medical Institute30, Cornell University31, Max Planck Society32, Colorado State University33, Google34, Syracuse University35, Webster University36, United States Department of Agriculture37, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences38, Colorado School of Mines39, University of Southern Mississippi40, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration41, University of California, Merced42, Wageningen University and Research Centre43, University of Arizona44, Environment Agency45, University of Florida46, Merck & Co.47
TL;DR: QIIME 2 development was primarily funded by NSF Awards 1565100 to J.G.C. and R.K.P. and partial support was also provided by the following: grants NIH U54CA143925 and U54MD012388.
Abstract: QIIME 2 development was primarily funded by NSF Awards 1565100 to J.G.C. and 1565057 to R.K. Partial support was also provided by the following: grants NIH U54CA143925 (J.G.C. and T.P.) and U54MD012388 (J.G.C. and T.P.); grants from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation (J.G.C. and R.K.); ERCSTG project MetaPG (N.S.); the Strategic Priority Research Program of the Chinese Academy of Sciences QYZDB-SSW-SMC021 (Y.B.); the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council APP1085372 (G.A.H., J.G.C., Von Bing Yap and R.K.); the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) to D.L.G.; and the State of Arizona Technology and Research Initiative Fund (TRIF), administered by the Arizona Board of Regents, through Northern Arizona University. All NCI coauthors were supported by the Intramural Research Program of the National Cancer Institute. S.M.G. and C. Diener were supported by the Washington Research Foundation Distinguished Investigator Award.
8,821 citations
Technical University of Madrid1, Stanford University2, Elsevier3, VU University Amsterdam4, National Institutes of Health5, University of Leicester6, Harvard University7, Beijing Genomics Institute8, Maastricht University9, Wageningen University and Research Centre10, University of Oxford11, Heriot-Watt University12, University of Manchester13, University of California, San Diego14, Leiden University Medical Center15, Leiden University16, Federal University of São Paulo17, Science for Life Laboratory18, Bayer19, Swiss Institute of Bioinformatics20, Cray21, University Medical Center Groningen22, Erasmus University Rotterdam23
TL;DR: The FAIR Data Principles as mentioned in this paper are a set of data reuse principles that focus on enhancing the ability of machines to automatically find and use the data, in addition to supporting its reuse by individuals.
Abstract: There is an urgent need to improve the infrastructure supporting the reuse of scholarly data. A diverse set of stakeholders—representing academia, industry, funding agencies, and scholarly publishers—have come together to design and jointly endorse a concise and measureable set of principles that we refer to as the FAIR Data Principles. The intent is that these may act as a guideline for those wishing to enhance the reusability of their data holdings. Distinct from peer initiatives that focus on the human scholar, the FAIR Principles put specific emphasis on enhancing the ability of machines to automatically find and use the data, in addition to supporting its reuse by individuals. This Comment is the first formal publication of the FAIR Principles, and includes the rationale behind them, and some exemplar implementations in the community.
7,602 citations
Stockholm Resilience Centre1, Australian National University2, University of Copenhagen3, McGill University4, Stellenbosch University5, University of Wisconsin-Madison6, Wageningen University and Research Centre7, Stockholm University8, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences9, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research10, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation11, International Livestock Research Institute12, University College London13, Stockholm Environment Institute14, The Energy and Resources Institute15, University of California, San Diego16, Royal Institute of Technology17
TL;DR: An updated and extended analysis of the planetary boundary (PB) framework and identifies levels of anthropogenic perturbations below which the risk of destabilization of the Earth system (ES) is likely to remain low—a “safe operating space” for global societal development.
Abstract: The planetary boundaries framework defines a safe operating space for humanity based on the intrinsic biophysical processes that regulate the stability of the Earth system. Here, we revise and update the planetary boundary framework, with a focus on the underpinning biophysical science, based on targeted input from expert research communities and on more general scientific advances over the past 5 years. Several of the boundaries now have a two-tier approach, reflecting the importance of cross-scale interactions and the regional-level heterogeneity of the processes that underpin the boundaries. Two core boundaries—climate change and biosphere integrity—have been identified, each of which has the potential on its own to drive the Earth system into a new state should they be substantially and persistently transgressed.
7,169 citations
Macquarie University1, University of Minnesota2, Stanford University3, Simón Bolívar University4, Wageningen University and Research Centre5, Smithsonian Environmental Research Center6, University of Alaska Fairbanks7, VU University Amsterdam8, University of Zurich9, Centre national de la recherche scientifique10, Curtin University11, Tohoku University12, University of Wisconsin–Eau Claire13, Landcare Research14, University of Concepción15, University of Cape Town16, University of Tartu17, Polish Academy of Sciences18, University of Tokyo19, Utrecht University20, University of Western Australia21, Charles Darwin University22, Ural State University23, University of Toronto24, Texas A&M University25, University of Córdoba (Spain)26
TL;DR: Reliable quantification of the leaf economics spectrum and its interaction with climate will prove valuable for modelling nutrient fluxes and vegetation boundaries under changing land-use and climate.
Abstract: Bringing together leaf trait data spanning 2,548 species and 175 sites we describe, for the first time at global scale, a universal spectrum of leaf economics consisting of key chemical, structural and physiological properties. The spectrum runs from quick to slow return on investments of nutrients and dry mass in leaves, and operates largely independently of growth form, plant functional type or biome. Categories along the spectrum would, in general, describe leaf economic variation at the global scale better than plant functional types, because functional types overlap substantially in their leaf traits. Overall, modulation of leaf traits and trait relationships by climate is surprisingly modest, although some striking and significant patterns can be seen. Reliable quantification of the leaf economics spectrum and its interaction with climate will prove valuable for modelling nutrient fluxes and vegetation boundaries under changing land-use and climate.
6,360 citations
Authors
Showing all 23851 results
| Name | H-index | Papers | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| Juul E. Van der Veen | 3 | 3 | 94 |
| D.K. Haubenhofer | 3 | 5 | 314 |
| Roxanne van Rooijen | 3 | 3 | 90 |
| Jeroen Vos | 3 | 7 | 32 |
| Sara Grenni | 3 | 4 | 68 |
| Menno H.A. Binnekamp | 3 | 3 | 91 |
| Remco Kornet | 3 | 5 | 25 |
| Richard Johannes Antonius Gosselink | 3 | 4 | 25 |
| Evelien Kramer | 3 | 3 | 111 |
| A.J. Gijsbertsen-Abrahamse | 3 | 3 | 181 |
| M.L.I. Wigham | 3 | 5 | 131 |
| L.M. Oude Griep | 3 | 6 | 82 |
| Anne Claire B. van Orten-Luiten | 3 | 3 | 111 |
| Andre Meriac | 3 | 3 | 39 |
| Hendrik Jan van Dooren | 3 | 4 | 72 |