Explore the vast range of titles available.

It is crucial that biodiversity conservation initiatives in agriculture take into account how farmers understand and value their relationships with nature. However, while highly relevant for pan‐European conservation work, insight into differences and commonalities in farmers' views across socio‐ecologically different European regions is still lacking. Therefore, we studied how farmers describe the relationship between how they farm and biodiversity in two contrasting regions: the Netherlands and the French Massif Central. In both regions, we included two specific study areas. We focused on dairy farming, as it is a key sector in terms of socio‐economic importance and biodiversity impact in both regions. In each area, we conducted 15 in‐depth interviews focusing on the impacts of the farm on biodiversity and vice versa, as well as on the relational importance of biodiversity to the farmer. We allowed farmers to use the term ‘biodiversity’ in their own words. We analysed our data using the Integrated Nature Futures Framework (I‐NFF), a recently proposed framework for analysing what people value positively and negatively about nature‐related matters. Six main narratives emerged, which we named ‘farming WITH biodiversity’, ‘farming FROM biodiversity—valorising what is there’, ‘farming FROM biodiversity—innovating for sustainability’, ‘farming FOR biodiversity’, ‘farming SEPARATE from biodiversity—out of necessity’ and ‘farming SEPARATE from biodiversity—out of conviction’. These narratives vary in how farmers conceptualise biodiversity, perceive and value interactions between farming and biodiversity, and define problems and solutions. Although we encountered partly the same narratives in the Dutch and Massif Central areas, we also noted considerable differences. In the Dutch areas, we frequently encountered ‘FOR’, which strongly depicts biodiversity as an additional service that requires payment, and ‘SEPARATE—out of conviction’, which argues for production‐intensive systems. In the Massif Central areas, we virtually never encountered these narratives and instead more often encountered ‘WITH’, which depicts farming as naturally integrated with biodiversity. Moreover, the narratives had strong region‐specific details. We close by discussing how better insight into such differences and commonalities can help foster more understanding engagement with farmers on the topic of biodiversity. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.

Recognising that taking farmers’ perspectives on biodiversity more seriously is crucial for moving European agriculture in more biodiversity-friendly directions, this thesis aimed to better understand these perspectives and explore how they can be better taken into account in science, policy and practice. It focused on the case of dairy farming in the Netherlands and the French Massif Central. The authors conducted in-depth interviews with 60 dairy farmers across two areas in the Netherlands and two in the French Massif Central.First, judging that existing frameworks were inadequate to capture the perspectives these farmers had shared with them, the authors developed the ‘Integrated Nature Futures Framework’ (I-NFF). The I-NFF reveals not only positive values people express regarding nature-related matters, but also negative ones.Second, using the I-NFF, they analysed how the interviewed farmers had described the relationship between how they farm and ‘biodiversity’. Six narratives emerged: ‘farming WITH biodiversity’, ‘farming FROM biodiversity - valorising what is there’, ‘farming FROM biodiversity - innovating for sustainability’, ‘farming FOR biodiversity’, ‘farming SEPARATE from biodiversity - out of necessity’, and ‘farming SEPARATE from biodiversity - out of conviction’.Although the authors had encountered partly the same narratives in the Dutch and Massif Central areas, they also noted considerable differences. Whereas in the Dutch areas they frequently encountered ‘FOR’ and ‘SEPARATE - out of conviction’, in the Massif Central areas they hardly encountered these narratives and instead more often encountered ‘WITH’. Moreover, the narratives had strong region-specific details.Third, they examined which farming practices the farmers had identified as biodiversity-friendly, and whether and how these differed across interviews they had assigned to different narratives. They found a spectrum of perspectives, from farmers emphasising overall moderation of production intensity (‘WITH’, ‘FROM - valorising what is there’, ‘SEPARATE - out of necessity’) to those emphasising eco-efficient production and/or conservation on spared land (‘FROM - innovating for sustainability’, ‘FOR’, ‘SEPARATE - out of conviction’).Fourth, building on the previous steps, the authors held a multidisciplinary expert workshop to explore how various instruments to promote biodiversity-friendly farming align with farmers’ perspectives and needs. This emphasised the importance of more bottom-up initiatives and of designing and implementing instruments in participatory ways.Overall, the thesis highlights that many farmers interpret biodiversity rather broadly and primarily associate it with concrete, place-specific aspects; that for many it does not carry purely positive connotations; that at least a proportion of farmers has sensible things to say about how to adapt farming practice for biodiversity; that perspectives can differ considerably among farmers, even within the same area; and that, on top of that, there are also substantial differences between areas. Building on this, it highlights the importance of approaching ‘biodiversity’ in ways that resonate with how farmers understand and value it; recognising and acting on the negatives of ‘biodiversity’; integrating farmers’ on-the-ground insights alongside scientific and technical knowledge; leaving room - within boundaries - for multiple forms of biodiversity-friendly farming, and offering a broad set of support measures; and doing all this in sufficiently place-specific ways.

Background Gestational weight gain differs according to pre-pregnancy body mass index and is related to the risks of adverse maternal and child health outcomes. Gestational weight gain charts for women in different pre-pregnancy body mass index groups enable identification of women and offspring at risk for adverse health outcomes. We aimed to construct gestational weight gain reference charts for underweight, normal weight, overweight, and grades 1, 2 and 3 obese women and to compare these charts with those obtained in women with uncomplicated term pregnancies. Methods We used individual participant data from 218,216 pregnant women participating in 33 cohorts from Europe, North America, and Oceania. Of these women, 9065 (4.2%), 148,697 (68.1%), 42,678 (19.6%), 13,084 (6.0%), 3597 (1.6%), and 1095 (0.5%) were underweight, normal weight, overweight, and grades 1, 2, and 3 obese women, respectively. A total of 138, 517 women from 26 cohorts had pregnancies with no hypertensive or diabetic disorders and with term deliveries of appropriate for gestational age at birth infants. Gestational weight gain charts for underweight, normal weight, overweight, and grade 1, 2, and 3 obese women were derived by the Box-Cox t method using the generalized additive model for location, scale, and shape. Results We observed that gestational weight gain strongly differed per maternal pre-pregnancy body mass index group. The median (interquartile range) gestational weight gain at 40 weeks was 14.2 kg (11.4–17.4) for underweight women, 14.5 kg (11.5–17.7) for normal weight women, 13.9 kg (10.1–17.9) for overweight women, and 11.2 kg (7.0–15.7), 8.7 kg (4.3–13.4) and 6.3 kg (1.9–11.1) for grades 1, 2, and 3 obese women, respectively. The rate of weight gain was lower in the first half than in the second half of pregnancy. No differences in the patterns of weight gain were observed between cohorts or countries. Similar weight gain patterns were observed in mothers without pregnancy complications. Conclusions Gestational weight gain patterns are strongly related to pre-pregnancy body mass index. The derived charts can be used to assess gestational weight gain in etiological research and as a monitoring tool for weight gain during pregnancy in clinical practice.

BACKGROUND:Maternal obesity and excessive gestational weight gain may have persistent effects on offspring fat development. However, it remains unclear whether these effects differ by severity of obesity, and whether these effects are restricted to the extremes of maternal body mass index (BMI) and gestational weight gain. We aimed to assess the separate and combined associations of maternal BMI and gestational weight gain with the risk of overweight/obesity throughout childhood, and their population impact.METHODS AND FINDINGS:We conducted an individual participant data meta-analysis of data from 162,129 mothers and their children from 37 pregnancy and birth cohort studies from Europe, North America, and Australia. We assessed the individual and combined associations of maternal pre-pregnancy BMI and gestational weight gain, both in clinical categories and across their full ranges, with the risks of overweight/obesity in early (2.0-5.0 years), mid (5.0-10.0 years) and late childhood (10.0-18.0 years), using multilevel binary logistic regression models with a random intercept at cohort level adjusted for maternal sociodemographic and lifestyle-related characteristics. We observed that higher maternal pre-pregnancy BMI and gestational weight gain both in clinical categories and across their full ranges were associated with higher risks of childhood overweight/obesity, with the strongest effects in late childhood (odds ratios [ORs] for overweight/obesity in early, mid, and late childhood, respectively: OR 1.66 [95% CI: 1.56, 1.78], OR 1.91 [95% CI: 1.85, 1.98], and OR 2.28 [95% CI: 2.08, 2.50] for maternal overweight; OR 2.43 [95% CI: 2.24, 2.64], OR 3.12 [95% CI: 2.98, 3.27], and OR 4.47 [95% CI: 3.99, 5.23] for maternal obesity; and OR 1.39 [95% CI: 1.30, 1.49], OR 1.55 [95% CI: 1.49, 1.60], and OR 1.72 [95% CI: 1.56, 1.91] for excessive gestational weight gain). The proportions of childhood overweight/obesity prevalence attributable to maternal overweight, maternal obesity, and excessive gestational weight gain ranged from 10.2% to 21.6%. Relative to the effect of maternal BMI, excessive gestational weight gain only slightly increased the risk of childhood overweight/obesity within each clinical BMI category (p-values for interactions of maternal BMI with gestational weight gain: p = 0.038, p < 0.001, and p = 0.637 in early, mid, and late childhood, respectively). Limitations of this study include the self-report of maternal BMI and gestational weight gain for some of the cohorts, and the potential of residual confounding. Also, as this study only included participants from Europe, North America, and Australia, results need to be interpreted with caution with respect to other populations.CONCLUSIONS:In this study, higher maternal pre-pregnancy BMI and gestational weight gain were associated with an increased risk of childhood overweight/obesity, with the strongest effects at later ages. The additional effect of gestational weight gain in women who are overweight or obese before pregnancy is small. Given the large population impact, future intervention trials aiming to reduce the prevalence of childhood overweight and obesity should focus on maternal weight status before pregnancy, in addition to weight gain during pregnancy.

Peer Review History: PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process; therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. The editorial history of this article is available here: