Search

Biomass productiongenerates land use impacts in the form of emissions from Forestry and Other Land Use (FOLU), i.e. due to changes in ecosystem carbon stocks. Recently, consumption-based accounting (CBA) approaches have emerged as alternatives to conventional production-based accounts, quantifying FOLU emissions associated with biomass consumption, for example, of particular territories. However, the quantification and allocation of FOLU emissions to individual biomass products, a fundamental part of CBA approaches, is a complex endeavour. Existing studies make diverging methodological choices, which are rarely critically discussed. In this study, we provide a structured overview of existing CBA approaches to estimating FOLU emissions. We cluster the literature in a two-by-two grid, distinguishing the primary element under investigation (impacts of changing consumption patterns in a region vs. impacts of consumption on production landscapes) and the analytical lens (prospective vs retrospective). Further, we identify three distinct dimensions which characterise the way in which different studies allocate FOLU emissions to biomass products: the choice of reference system and the spatial and temporal scales. Finally, we identify three frontiers that require future attention: (1) overcoming structural biases which underestimate FOLU emissions from territories that experienced deforestation in the distant past, (2) explicitly tackling the interdependence of proximatecausesand ultimate drivers ofland use change, and (3) assessing uncertainties and understanding the effects of land management. In this way, we enable a critical assessment of appropriate methods, support a nuanced interpretation of results from particular approaches as well as enhance the informative value of CBA approaches related to FOLU emissions. Our analysis contributes to discussions on sustainable land use practices with respect to biomass consumption and has implications for informing international climate policy in scenarios where consumption-based approaches are adopted in practice.

Summary Background Charts of size at birth are used to assess the postnatal growth of preterm babies on the assumption that extrauterine growth should mimic that in the uterus. Methods The INTERGROWTH-21 st Project assessed fetal, newborn, and postnatal growth in eight geographically defined populations, in which maternal health care and nutritional needs were met. From these populations, the Fetal Growth Longitudinal Study selected low-risk women starting antenatal care before 14 weeks' gestation and monitored fetal growth by ultrasonography. All preterm births from this cohort were eligible for the Preterm Postnatal Follow-up Study, which included standardised anthropometric measurements, feeding practices based on breastfeeding, and data on morbidity, treatments, and development. To construct the preterm postnatal growth standards, we selected all live singletons born between 26 and before 37 weeks' gestation without congenital malformations, fetal growth restriction, or severe postnatal morbidity. We did analyses with second-degree fractional polynomial regression models in a multilevel framework accounting for repeated measures. Fetal and neonatal data were pooled from study sites and stratified by postmenstrual age. For neonates, boys and girls were assessed separately. Findings From 4607 women enrolled in the study, there were 224 preterm singleton births, of which 201 (90%) were enrolled in the Preterm Postnatal Follow-up Study. Variance component analysis showed that only 0·2% and 4·0% of the total variability in postnatal length and head circumference, respectively, could be attributed to between-site differences, justifying pooling the data from all study sites. Preterm growth patterns differed from those for babies in the INTERGROWTH-21 st Newborn Size Standards. They overlapped with the WHO Child Growth Standards for term babies by 64 weeks' postmenstrual age. Interpretation Our data have yielded standards for postnatal growth in preterm infants. These standards should be used for the assessment of preterm infants until 64 weeks' postmenstrual age, after which the WHO Child Growth Standards are appropriate. Size-at-birth charts should not be used to measure postnatal growth of preterm infants. Funding Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Reviewed are all the published clinical trials of glycine-based oral rehydration salts (ORS), L-alanine-based ORS, L-glutamine-based ORS, maltodextrin-based ORS, and rice-based ORS, as well as the results of several recently completed, but unpublished, studies of these formulations that were supported by WHO. All experimental ORS formulations contained the same concentrations of salts as citrate-based WHO-ORS; all trials were randomized comparisons with WHO-ORS, and all except those with rice-based ORS were double-blind studies. The rate of stool loss and, less frequently, the duration of diarrhoea were used as indicators of clinical performance to compare ORS formulations. The following conclusions were reached concerning the efficacy and use of modified ORS formulations. Rice-based ORS (50 g/l) is superior to WHO-ORS for patients with cholera, and for such patients it can be recommended in any situation where its preparation and use are practical. Rice-based (50 g/l) and WHO-ORS solutions are equally effective for treating children with acute non-cholera diarrhoea, when feeding is resumed promptly following initial rehydration, as has been consistently recommended by WHO. Since rice-based ORS is not superior to WHO-ORS for such children, there is no apparent reason to advise a change from glucose to pre-cooked rice in the recommended formulation for WHO-ORS. Maltodextrin-based ORS formulations (50 g/l) and WHO-ORS appear to be equally effective for treating children with acute non-cholera diarrhoea; there is no reason to advise a change from glucose to maltodextrin in the recommended formulation for WHO-ORS. Amino-acid-containing ORS formulations are not recommended for either non-cholera or cholera diarrhoea, since they are more costly and have no clinical advantage over WHO-ORS for children with acute non-cholera diarrhoea or over rice-based ORS for persons with cholera.