English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

The depiction of farming's greenhouse-gas footprint (estimated at 30.9% of total emissions) is derived from a 2007 report that used data from 2004 (Nature 479, 279; 2011). But relative estimates of emissions from different sources have altered appreciably since then, largely because fossil-fuel usage and cement production for building have both escalated. In 2000–07, carbon dioxide emissions due to land-use changes were 1.1 petagram carbon equivalents (Pg C) per year and emissions from fossil-fuel usage and cement production accounted for 7.6 Pg C per year (Y. Pan et al. The contribution from land-use changes was therefore 12.6% of carbon dioxide emissions over this period. Emissions of methane, nitrous oxide and fluorine-containing gases were about 3.1 Pg C per year, so land-use changes contributed less than 10% of total greenhouse-gas emissions. Carbon dioxide emissions from fossil-fuel burning and cement production went up to about 9.1 Pg C in 2010. Assuming that the emissions from land-use changes were the same as in 2000–07 and that the carbon-equivalent contributions of methane, nitrous oxide and fluorine-containing gases were the same as in 2004, land-use changes would have accounted for only about 8% of total emissions last year. Although the increase in emissions from fossil-fuel usage and cement production is well documented, estimates of emissions from land-use changes remain uncertain. But they are unlikely to be as high as the earlier data might indicate. A new European science-policy body, ScienceEurope, was launched in October to give a stronger voice in Brussels to the major national research-funding agencies. Likely casualties of this effort include some of the most successful activities of the venerated European Science Foundation, causing major concern among many scientists. For example, the future of the Research Networking Programmes is under threat. These have been fostering cost-effective collaborations and networking between scientists from European countries in all fields for almost 20 years. Ninety such programmes are currently in operation. They rely on minimal bureaucracy, simple rules and very modest funding — €80,000 (US$107,000) per year and per network on average (covered by participating member organizations). This combination allows them to react swiftly to new scientific challenges. Our Research Networking Programmes in electronic-structure theory and molecular simulation, for example, have made Europe a leader in computational materials and molecular sciences, thanks to the sustained support of the European Science Foundation. It is not clear whether ScienceEurope, or the European Commission's Horizon 2020 programme, will make …

Autism: Social norms depend on what is typical