Search

Herein, we report a solution-processable memristive device based on bismuth vanadate (BiVO

Iodine is an essential microelement for humans and its deficiency leads to iodine deficiency disorder (IDD) which is a common problem faced by people in hilly areas. Biofortification of iodine is an option to overcome the IDD problem. Herein, we investigated the iodine uptake and accumulation in the edible portion of vegetables such as Brassica napus (BNP) and Brassica pekinensis (BPK) which were grown on two different soils such as sandy soil (SS) and silty loam soil (SLS) with different concentrations of iodine application (used in sodium iodide form) such as 0 ppm, 50 ppm, and 100 ppm. The concentration of iodine was determined by the oxidation of iodide, and nutrients were examined by double acid digestion. Different concentrations of iodine were noticed in silty loam and sandy soils, roots, and shoots of BNP and BPK, while the concentration follows the order: soils roots shoots. Iodine concentrations in the roots of BNP and BPK ranged from 46 to 223.7 μg/g which shows a strong correlation with other soil nutrients. Moreover, a large amount of iodine was lost due to the leaching. It is concluded that the biofortification of iodine increases its concentration in Brassica species. This work provides a reference for the iodine biofortification in plant species which will be helpful to control IDD.

This paper uses governance of water infrastructure in two settlements of Baltistan as an entry point to examine the co-production of power and vulnerability. Access to water and irrigated land is a critical factor in determining how the effects of disasters, such as flooding, are socially distributed within a community. At the same time, the governance of water is intimately linked to the longer-term politics of disaster vulnerability. We examine three different forms of disputes over water infrastructure where struggles over authority and social ordering materialise: (i) between and within settlements over access to a water resource; (ii) within settlements over post-disaster water infrastructure development and (iii) between a settlement and the district government over land, water rights and flood protection. The findings illustrate that the governance of water infrastructure involves continuous negotiations, contestations and disputes over access rights. Access to water resources as an expression of rights plays a key role in the recognition of authority relations. In particular, influential individuals seek to legitimise their leadership role in a settlement by representing the rights and interests of groups in the negotiation of these disputes. However, environmental variability and change, including disasters and post-disaster development interventions, alter perceptions of what constitute legitimate rights, and provide spaces for popular contestation of authority relations through silent non-compliance with decisions. The close interlinkages between material and nonmaterial effects of a disaster are a key feature of the co-production of power and vulnerability. By adding authority relations to studies of village-level practices around disasters, we enrich our understanding of the co-production of power and vulnerability and how these dynamics unfold over time. It is only by investigating this co-production that a deeper understanding can be developed of the mechanisms through which vulnerability is either exacerbated or reduced for particular groups. Corresponding author: Awais Arifeen, Department of International Environment and Development Studies, Faculty of Landscape and Society

This paper examines humanitarian assistance practices to understand how approaches followed by various actors address – or fail to address - social vulnerability to disasters. This question is addressed through a study of humanitarian responses in two disaster-affected villages of Baltistan in northern Pakistan. Through analysis of key informant interviews, semi-structured interviews with men and women, group discussions and secondary data sources, we identify how government, non-governmental and faith-based organisations understand and seek to address underlying socio-political processes that define vulnerability. We analyse how knowledges and practices serve to legitimise authority relations between and among humanitarian organisations and local populations. The paper finds that a simplistic understanding of vulnerability - that people with higher losses are more vulnerable and deserve more assistance in comparison to those who suffer lower losses - tends to favour well-off people, as they own (and lose) more physical assets. This understanding is shared between humanitarian actors and the local elite, such as settlement leaders. This convergence of knowledges enabled the elite to privilege themselves, both in terms of material benefits and influential positions. The reliance of local humanitarian organisations on external actors, such as national governments and donors for funding and legitimacy further hindered contextual understandings of disaster vulnerability. This finding demonstrates how politics of humanitarian assistance transcend geographical scales. We conclude that humanitarian actors not only failed to address the socio-political drivers of vulnerability but also contributed to the exacerbation of vulnerability through reinforcing inequitable village-level and cross-scalar authority relations.