This paper gives an overview of the meaning of the term 'roughness' in the field of fluvial hydraulics, and how it is often formulated as a 'resistance to flow' term in 1-D, 2-D & 3-D numerical models. It looks at how roughness is traditionally characterised in both experimental and numerical fields, and subsequently challenges the definitions that currently exist. In the end, the authors wonder: is roughness well understood and defined at all? Such a question raises a number of concerns in both research and practice; for example, how does one modeller use the roughness value from an experimental piece of work, or how does a practitioner identify the roughness value of a particular river channel? The authors indicate that roughness may not be uniquely defined, that there may be distinct 'experimental' and 'numerical' roughness values, and that in each field nuances exist associated with the context in which these values are used.

Simple SummaryFurther understanding of why dairy farmers do not engage in disease prevention and control strategies (biosecurity) is required. Using semi-structured interviews informed by a health psychology approach with 25 dairy farmers, a number of barriers, such as disease testing inaccuracies, types of disease transmission, perceived lack of risk and effectiveness of measures, were identified. Motivators included being advised to undertake measures by veterinarians, and the increased threat and severity of the disease in focus. These results suggest there is an advantage to farm advisors and herd health professionals understanding and working with the beliefs of individual dairy farmers to target appropriate communication and advice strategies relating to biosecurity recommendations.AbstractDisease prevention and control practices are frequently highlighted as important to ensure the health and welfare of farmed animals, although little is known as to why not many practices are carried out. The aim of this study was to identify the motivators and barriers of dairy cattle farmers towards the use of biosecurity measures on dairy farms using a health psychology approach. Twenty-five farmers on 24 farms in Great Britain (GB) were interviewed using the Theory of Planned Behaviour framework. Results indicated that farmers perceived they had the ability to control what happened on their farms in terms of preventing and controlling disease, and described benefits from being proactive and vigilant. However, barriers were cited in relation to testing inaccuracies, effectiveness and time-efficiency of practices, and disease transmission route (e.g., airborne transmission). Farmers reported they were positively influenced by veterinarians and negatively influenced by the government (Department for Environment Food & Rural Affairs (DEFRA)) and the general public. Decisions to implement practices were influenced by the perceived severity of the disease in question, if disease was diagnosed on the farm already, or was occurring on other farms. Farmers described undertaking a form of personal risk assessment when deciding if practices were worth doing, which did not always involve building in disease specific factors or opinions from veterinarians or other advisors. These results indicate that further guidance about the intricacies of control and prevention principles in relation to specific animal diseases may be required, with an obvious role for veterinarians. There appears to be an opportunity for farm advisors and herd health professionals to further understand farmer beliefs behind certain attitudes and target communication and advice accordingly to further enhance dairy cattle health and welfare.

No abstract

The silver-nucleoside complex [Ag(i)-(N3-cytidine)2]+, 1, self-assembles to form a supramolecular metal-mediated base-pair array highly analogous to those seen in metallo-DNA.

No abstract

The “deficit model” as an explanation of the public understanding of science has attracted sustained criticism. While acknowledging the limitations of the deficit model, we argue that researchers should not abandon all interest in exploring it. Our results suggest that the deficit model is an important part of a culture of argumentation shared by both scientists and members of the public, and drawn upon as explanations of the public understanding of science. We carried out discourse analysis of a focus group conducted at the height of the UK's Foot and Mouth Disease crisis. The focus of our analysis was a debate about the science behind the spread and control of the virus. The results point to the importance of the deficit model in the public understanding ofthe public understanding of science. The challenge is to look to other ways of describing the relation between science and society, while recognizing that the deficit model serves scientists, the public and others alike as a resource for political discourse.

No abstract

No abstract