Several influential reports have suggested that one of the most appropriate responses to expected food shortages and ongoing environmental degradation is sustainable intensification, i.e. the increase of food production with at worst no increase in environmental harm, and ideally environmental benefit. Here we sought evidence of sustainable intensification among British farmers by selecting innovative arable, dairy, mixed and upland farms and analysing their own data on yields, inputs and land use and , where area took into account estimated area to grow any imported animal feeds), regulation of climate, air and water quality (modelled -1-1-1 emissions of GHGs (CO2e ha), ammonia (kg ha) and nitrate loss (kg ha)) and biodiversity (using an index based on the presence of habitats and management).Several farms have increased both food production and other ecosystem services over this time by increasing yields, using resources more efficiently and /or enhancing biodiversity, and sometimes by reducing livestock numbers and increasing cropping. The motivation has been to improve farm profitability through increasing food production, reducing input costs and accessing public payments through agri-environment schemes and generating renewable energy. Such sustainable intensification was not achieved by farmers who increased meat or milk yields. Sustainable intensification can be achieved when the correct drivers are in place to influence the actions of individual farmers. Also, it is possible to indicate sustainable intensification by using a small number of high-level indicators derived from data that farmers already hold, though such an approach may not capture the impacts of farmer innovative practices. HIGHLIGHTSSustainable intensification is being achieved by innovative farmers in Britain Sustainable intensification is driven by the desire to raise income and cut costs Biodiversity enhancement is seen by farmers as a cost, to be borne by public payments Sustainable intensification can be indicated using farmers" own data but the metrics need to be refined Research is needed to capture the impacts of innovations such as zero tillage

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

The Union Internationale pour la Protection des Obtentions Végétales (UPOV) currently relies on morphological characteristics to evaluate distinctness, uniformity, and stability (DUS) as eligibility requirements for the granting of Plant Variety Protection (PVP). We used 10 maize (Zea mays L.) inbred lines, including both unrelated and closely similar pairs, representing three heterotic groups to compare abilities of morphological, ribonucleic acid (RNA) transcription, metabolomic, and single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) data to distinguish inbred lines. We used the range of variability and robustness as important factors to determine distinguishing power of each methodological approach. Using an index that ranged from 0 to 100 (useless to the perfect ideal), index scores for each methodology were: metabolomics (0), RNA transcription (18.2), morphology (19.6), and SNPs (35.7). The ability to distinguish among genotypes using RNA transcription expression data was concordant with SNP data for genotypes that were up to 97.2% similar according to SNPs. The SNP data alone could provide the basis for a determination of distinctness among inbred lines of maize with use of morphological, physiological, or agronomic performance data as supplementary information, if needed.