(C) PLOS One
This story was originally published by PLOS One and is unaltered.
 . . . . . . . . . .



Rural livelihood diversification is associated with lower vulnerability to climate change in the Andean-Amazon foothills [1]

['Lucila Marcela Beltrán-Tolosa', 'The Alliance Of Bioversity International', 'Ciat', 'Cali', 'Universidad Nacional De Colombia', 'Unal', 'Palmira', 'Gisella S. Cruz-Garcia', 'Oxfam Novib', 'The Hague']

Date: 2022-11 

Abstract The Andean-Amazon foothills region, one of the richest biodiversity ecoregions on earth, is threatened by climate change combined with unsustainable agricultural and extensive livestock farming. These land-use practices tend to reduce the diversification of rural farming, decreasing households’ livelihood alternatives and rendering them more vulnerable to climate change. We studied the relationship between rural livelihood diversification and household-level vulnerability to climate change in a sample of Andean-Amazon foothills households in Colombia and Peru. Firstly, we determined typologies of households based on their rural livelihood diversification, including farming diversification (agrobiodiversity and farming activities) and agroecological management practices. Secondly, we evaluated each household typology’s vulnerability to climate change by assessing sensitivity and adaptive capacity based on the ‘livelihood assets pentagon’, which encompasses the five human capitals: natural, social, human, physical, and financial. We concluded that households with higher rural livelihood diversification are less vulnerable to climate change. However, it is impossible to draw significant conclusions about the relationship between the factors of diversification of management practices and vulnerability to climate change because most households have few agroecological practices. Results may inform future interventions that aim to decrease Andean-Amazon foothills households’ sensitivity and strengthen their adaptive capacity to climate change.

Citation: Beltrán-Tolosa LM, Cruz-Garcia GS, Ocampo J, Pradhan P, Quintero M (2022) Rural livelihood diversification is associated with lower vulnerability to climate change in the Andean-Amazon foothills. PLOS Clim 1(11): e0000051. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000051 Editor: Laura Kuhl, Northeastern University, UNITED STATES Received: July 28, 2021; Accepted: October 6, 2022; Published: November 8, 2022 Copyright: © 2022 Beltrán-Tolosa et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Data Availability: All data files are available from the Alliance of Bioversity International and CIAT database. Accession number(s): DOI URL: https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/A8XHJD DOI: 10.7910/DVN/A8XHJD. Funding: This work is part of the Sustainable Amazonian Landscapes (SAL) project, which forms part of the International Climate Initiative (IKI). The German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety (BMUB) supports this initiative on the basis of a decision of the German Bundestag. This study is part of LMB´s Ph.D. dissertation with the Universidad Nacional de Colombia (sede Palmira) and is funded by the Instituto Colombiano para el Desarrollo de la Ciencia y la tecnología de Colombia (COLCIENCIAS). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction Rural households are vulnerable to climate change as they directly depend on ecosystem services (e.g., wood for fuel, wild food, and freshwater) that are susceptible to weather and climate variability [1]. The vulnerability of households to climate change can be defined as their propensity or predisposition to be adversely affected by climate change, including extreme climate events [2]. Such vulnerability results from households’ social, economic, political, cultural, and environmental conditions. The concept of vulnerability has two components: sensitivity (SE); and adaptive capacity (AC) [2]. SE describes a household’s susceptibility to a climatic event, depending on their livelihood conditions. AC is the ability of a household to adjust to, reduce, or mitigate the impacts of climatic events [2]. Therefore, vulnerability to climate change is intrinsically related to a household’s ‘livelihood’, defined as the assets (both material and social resources), capabilities, and activities required to sustain a household [3]. For example, a household lacking quality housing materials may be more vulnerable to property damage and potential homelessness due to natural hazard-induced disasters [4]. Similarly, a household without access to education or training on farming techniques is less able to adapt to climatic changes. It may also lack information about recovery strategies compared to more educated households [5]. Likewise, a household whose livelihood is poorly diversified, i.e., with limited livelihood activities, will be more vulnerable to climate change because it will lack livelihood alternatives that might withstand extreme climatic events [6,7]. In particular, rural livelihood diversification is essential for reducing vulnerability to climate change [8,9]. Rural livelihood diversification consists of maintaining and adopting a diverse portfolio of activities to survive and improve living standards [10,11]. This portfolio encompasses on-farm and off-farm activities that help increase income, improve assets, and build resilience to periods of off-peak farming production and risks, including farming diversification and management practices [7,10–12]. Farming diversification, the basic principle of agroecology, includes agrobiodiversity maintenance and incorporation of various farming activities [13–16]. Agrobiodiversity could be maintained by including inter- and intra-species diversity of farms, crops, and animals; this builds resilience to climate change and decreases production losses. Different species and crop varieties respond differently to (and might withstand) various climatic hazards; thus, diversification reduces farmers’ vulnerability to climate change [16]. Including various farming activities (e.g., agriculture, poultry, aquaculture, and beekeeping) diversifies food sources, strengthens self-sufficiency, and increases the likelihood that at least some of the farming activities will withstand climate change impacts [16–18]. Agroecological management practices are methods designed to produce substantial quantities of food, care for the ecological processes and ecosystem services, and not depend on conventional techniques such as chemical products [19,20]. Farm diversification and agroecological management practices make agroecosystems better adapted and more resilient to climate change [13,16,21]. The Andean-Amazon foothills region (AAF), also known as the ‘Napo Moist Forest Global Ecoregion’, is one of the earth’s richest biodiversity ecoregions [22]. However, it is threatened by climate change and changes in land use, such as unsustainable conventional agricultural and livestock grazing (e.g., monocultures and extensive livestock farming). Climate projections under Representative Concentration Pathway 8.5 (RCP 8.5) scenario indicated that by 2080 the mean temperature might increase by 4.2°C, and mean rainfall might increase by 12% in the north and 17% in the south of the AAF [23]. Consequently, climate and land-use changes in the region might increase local communities’ vulnerability [24]. For example, it is projected that important crops for local diets, such as maize and plantain, will lose suitable climatic areas to grow due to climate change, affecting local food security [23]. Unsustainable conventional agricultural and livestock farming tends to reduce farming diversification by focusing on the cultivation of only a few crops or extensive grazing. Such reduced diversity decreases important rural livelihood alternatives when one activity fails due to climate change impacts [13]. Moreover, unsustainable conventional practices affect ecosystem services and contribute to biodiversity loss, soil erosion, and water contamination. These conditions reduce the agroecosystem’s adaptive capacity [16,24–26]. There has been limited research into the links between vulnerability to climate change and rural livelihood diversification [8,9,27]. Moreover, the few existing studies focus mainly on areas in Africa and Asia [28–30], leaving a knowledge gap on the AAF [31], a biodiverse region and highly vulnerable to climate change [24,31–34]. One of the studies for the AAF shows vulnerability indexes by country calculated with sub-national and national data on health, poverty, infrastructure, conflict, and pressure on resources [31]. However, neither studies assess vulnerability with local indicators nor its relationship with rural livelihood diversification. This study attempts to fill this gap. Accounting for this relationship is crucial for informing future interventions that might decrease AAF households’ sensitivity and strengthen their adaptive capacity to climate change. We study the relationship between rural livelihood diversification and vulnerability to climate change in AAF households in Colombia and Peru. We hypothesized that rural households with more diversified livelihoods are less vulnerable to climate change. In this study, rural livelihood diversification includes farming diversification (agrobiodiversity and farming activities) and agroecological management practices. Agroecological management practices (e.g., crop rotation, intercropping, cover crops, organic fertilization, and natural pesticide use) protect biodiversity, soil, and water. They maintain agroecosystem productivity, build the resilience of the agroecosystem in the face of climate change, and decrease household vulnerability [13,35,36]. SE and AC, the two vulnerability factors, can be measured using an integrated approach known as the five livelihood capitals (natural, social, human, physical, and financial) [37]. Natural capital refers to the benefits provided by nature. Human capital is household members’ abilities, knowledge, labour capabilities, and health. Financial capital refers to monetary resources. Social capital is the relationship between individuals and their participation in organizations. Physical capital refers to basic infrastructure and assets. All types of capital contribute to household well-being. This study was based on Caquetá (Colombia) and Yurimaguas (Peru) case studies with colonos and mestizo communities, respectively. Colonos refers to people who migrated to Caquetá from different regions of Colombia. People who relocated to Yurimaguas from other areas of Peru are mestizos. Mestizos are people from non-Amazonian regions of Peru, and frequently of mixed Indigenous and European cultures. Colonos and mestizos now make up most of the populations in their respective areas. Each country’s government-supported migrations and associated productive projects provide subsistence options to those lacking livelihood or employment opportunities in their places of origin. The resultant colonos and mestizos are engaged in various farming activities with different management practices.

Study area The Andean-Amazon foothills region (AAF), known as the Napo Moist Forest Global Ecoregion, includes Peru’s north-western region, Ecuador’s Amazonian district, and Colombia’s south-western border of the Amazon. It is delimited by the Andean foothills to the west, Peru’s Napo river to the east, Caguan in Colombia to the north, and Peru’s Marañon river to the south [22,33,34]. The study took place in Colombia’s Caquetá department (1°29ˈ and 1°05ˈ N and 76°02ˈ and 75°38ˈ W) (Fig 1A) and Peru’s Yurimaguas district (located in the department of Loreto) (5°48’to 6°6’ S and 76°24’ to 76°4’ W) (Fig 1B). Specifically, the study was undertaken in four Caquetá municipalities and 27 settlements of Yurimaguas (see the Criteria for choosing study area sub-section below). PPT PowerPoint slide

PNG larger image

TIFF original image Download: Fig 1. Map of study areas. A) Caquetá department in Colombia and B) Yurimaguas district in Peru. Blue dots represent the households surveyed, and orange dots represent the focus groups. https://gadm.org/download_country.html. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000051.g001 Colombia’s department of Caquetá has an annual average temperature of 26°C, a humidity of 95%, and an annual average rainfall of 3700 mm (https://es.climate-data.org/). The capital, Florencia, is located at 240 m above sea level. The department has been significantly impacted by internal migration prompted by a 1970s agrarian reform and funded by international entities [38–40]. This endorsed migration provided subsistence alternatives to people lacking employment, including conventional cattle ranching and agriculture [40–43]. Nowadays, Caquetá’s main productive activity is extensive cattle ranching. This productive sector is the most significant contributor to Colombia’s deforestation. Its prevalence in Caquetá has converted the department into a deforestation hotspot [24,44,45]. Agriculture is also an important economic activity; the department’s main farm products are cacao, plantain, cassava, rice, maize, and sugarcane. The department’s population is about 500,000, round 200,000 live in rural areas [46]. Most of the population comprises colonos and, in smaller proportions, indigenous communities from various ethnic groups [34]. Colombia’s Amazon region faces significant food insecurity; it has the country’s second-highest rate of chronic malnutrition in infants under five years [47]. Moreover, 40.1% of Caquetá’s population is classified as living in monetary poverty, defined as the capacity of a household to acquire assets and access services [46]. Yurimaguas district, located 104 m above sea level in Peru’s department of Loreto, has an annual average temperature between 22°C-26°C, a humidity of 85%, and an annual average rainfall of 2,200 mm. The Peruvian government also facilitated migration to this region in the 1960s [48], mainly for agricultural employment and not for cattle ranching such as Caqueta. After yields decreased due to soil erosion linked to unsustainable agricultural practices, farmers introduced pastures and cattle ranching. Through the 1970s, the national government supported large-scale cattle ranching projects. After, another wave of immigrants arrived in Yurimaguas, lured by the lucrative gains of illicit coca plantations, further exacerbating deforestation rates [48,49]. Yurimaguas’ economy is based on agriculture, cattle ranching, and forestry. The main cash crops are oil palm, maize, cassava, papaya, plantain and rice [50]. The department’s population is approximately 63,500, 22% living in rural areas. Most of Yurimaguas’ population are mestizos but also comprises indigenous communities [51]. One-third of the Peruvian Amazon population is vulnerable to food insecurity due to a lack of food availability and access [52]. For instance, the Loreto department hosts 24% of the country’s chronically malnourished children under five years old; such severe malnutrition from conception to the age of two can result in irreversible stunting of cognitive and physical development [53]. Additionally, 41.1% of the Peruvian Amazon’s rural population lives in poverty, and 57% of Loreto’s population has at least one unsatisfied basic necessity (i.e., food, clean water, secure housing, essential clothing, health, or educational level) [54,55]. Criteria for choosing study area This study is part of the Sustainable Amazon Landscapes (SAL) project (https://ciat.cgiar.org/ciat-projects/sustainable-amazonian-landscapes/). The SAL project generated landscape units (LU) in Caquetá (Colombia) and Yurimaguas (Peru) to select the areas of intervention (i.e., for implementing sustainable agroecosystems to reverse environmental degradation) by overlapping layers of climate, soil, land -uses, geomorphology and physiography [44,56]. In total, there were 9 LU for Caquetá and 32 LU for Yurimaguas. Of these, 2 LUs for Caquetá and 4 LUs for Yurimaguas were prioritized based on the following criteria: LUs that occupy comparatively more geographic space. LUs with active deforestation where the first steps of forest transformation are evident, yet it is still possible to reverse these with sustainable land-use options. LUs that represent the most important land use in terms of economic, agricultural and ecosystem service considerations from the department of Caquetá and Yurimaguas district. The prioritized LUs for Caquetá were: 1) areas of cattle ranching and 2) areas of agriculture and forest. The prioritized LUs for Yurimaguas were: 1) areas with temporal crops LU, 2) areas of cattle ranching, 3) areas of mixed agriculture in the fragmented forest, and 4) areas of "palmito" (Bactris gasipaes). The municipalities belonging to the chosen LUs from Caquetá (Colombia) were San José de Fragua, Belen de los Andaquíes, Morelia, and Albania. The 27 settlements within the selected LUS from Yurimaguas (Peru) were: Mariano Melgar; Centro Chambira; Miguel Grau; Santa Lucía; Cotacayu; Nueva Barranquita; San Francisco de Pampayacu; Santa Clara; Quinayoc; Santo Tomas; San Francisco; 30 de Agosto; Suniplaya; Belen; Micaela Bastidas; San Roque; Trancayacu; San Luis; San Rafael; Callao; Manguay; Achual Limon; Nueva Vida; Varaderillo; Balsayacu; and Las Palmeras. Most of these municipalities’ and settlements’ inhabitants are colonos (Caquetá) and mestizos (Yurimaguas).

Discussion Vulnerability to climate change and diversification of farming livelihoods Our results support the original hypothesis. They indicate that households with higher rural livelihood diversification (represented by diversity in agriculture, cattle ranching, pastures and farming activities) are less vulnerable to climate change. Accordingly, households with a higher diversity of cattle, pastures, and crops (the "moderately-diversified livelihoods" typologies of Caquetá and Yurimaguas, and Caquetá’s "slightly-diversified livelihoods" typology) tend to be less vulnerable to climate change than households with less diversity (the "non-diversified livelihoods" typology of both countries). Likewise, in both Caquetá and Yurimaguas, households with at least two farming activities (in addition to cattle ranching and agriculture, i.e., the "moderately-diversified livelihoods" and "slightly-diversified livelihoods" typologies) show less vulnerability to climate change. Certainly, it has been reported that rural livelihood diversification is the main strategy that farmers use to maintain well-being and resilience to the uncertainties typical of family farming, such as seasonality and climate change [11]. However, it is impossible to draw significant conclusions regarding the relationship between the diversification of agroecological management practices and vulnerability to climate change because the number of agroecological practices was low for most households. Diversification of crops (polycultures) helps minimize risks because this approach has higher yield stability during extreme climatic events than monocultures [18]. Likewise, findings indicate that, in hostile climatic conditions, the presence of different cattle varieties (including local breeds) increases the animal survival rate and maintenance of their reproductive levels [73]. In fact, during focus group discussions, farmers from Caquetá mentioned that local breeds stand better climatic effects than conventional races. Indeed, our study showed that households with more agrobiodiversity are less vulnerable to climate change. Along these lines, Tengö and Belfrage (2004) explained that agrobiodiversity helps buffer against climatic fluctuations and reduce yield losses because different species respond differently to change, securing the maintenance of a system´s functional capacity after climatic hazards [74]. Diversifying farming activities (such as cropping, livestock, poultry, aquaculture, beekeeping, and off-farm activities) build household resilience to climate change. If one activity is affected by climate change, the others may compensate. Likewise, diversity in farming activities buffers against income instability linked to crop seasonality and sales. For example, harvest periods generate wages but other periods require alternative activities to generate household income [6]. In the case of caquetá, farmers who practice aquaculture mentioned that they have an extra income by selling fish, compensating for the critical periods for cattle selling caused by climatic effects. In the case of Yurimaguas, women make marmalades, ice creams, refreshments, and handicrafts with local fruits and plants, which generate extra income for the household. Therefore, a highly diverse portfolio of activities secures a household’s improved adaptive capacity to climate change [10,11]. Our results also revealed that most households (in the three livelihood typologies in Caquetá and Yurimaguas) have very few agroecological management practices. These results indicate that although livelihood diversification might reduce household vulnerability and increase adaptive capacity to climate change, households’ abilities to cope with climate change could be further strengthened by including additional agroecological practices and building capacity for proper implementation. Agroecological practices stimulate soil biota, preserve natural enemies and pollinators, minimize water loss, and enhance soil fertility, pest regulation, and increase crop yields [17,35], thus increasing the agroecosystem’s adaptive capacity to climate change. In the aftermath of the 1998 Hurricane Mitch, studies conducted in Central America indicate that agroecological farms suffered less damage than conventional farms [75]. These agroecological farms conserved topsoil and soil moisture. They showed low levels of erosion and resulted in reduced economic losses [18,75]. Our findings suggest that low rural farming diversification is related to lower income, food security, and housing quality in both study regions. Moreover, this relationship is bi-directional. A low income also is associated with low-food security and a lack of possibilities for acquiring extra land and additional crops and livestock species to diversify the farm as an adaptation strategy to climate change [76]. Contrary, a high income is associated with having the possibility of diversifying the farm and improving diet diversity and housing quality. Therefore, most vulnerable households might be trapped in a cascade of causes and effects that draw them into spirals of poverty and vulnerability. It is recommended that future interventions focus on strengthening vulnerable households’ adaptive capacity through supporting rural livelihood diversification. Colombian and Peruvian adaptation plans to climate change also include livelihood diversification as an adaptation action to reduce vulnerability to climate change [77,78]. However, funding, training, and accompaniment are needed to implement this action for more vulnerable farmers. Facing vulnerability through the five livelihood capitals Vulnerability should be addressed using an integrated approach encompassing the five livelihood capitals. For instance, adaptation efforts should not solely focus on implementing land-use options that preserve biodiversity and the ecosystem services to sustain local communities’ livelihoods (natural capital) but should also strengthen a household’s financial, physical, human, and social status. For example, this study’s results indicate that in Yurimaguas, a lack of land tenure, which contributes to financial capital, was an indicator of vulnerability. Certainly, it has been found that a lack of land tenure increases households’ vulnerability to climate change, often resulting in homelessness (or inadequate housing), displacement, and a loss of identity [4]. In addition, mechanisms that facilitate access to land are indispensable for farming diversification and the implementation of agroecology and ensure adequate housing [79]. Adequate housing, road access, and transportation are part of the physical capital contributing to the basic infrastructure underpinning well-being. Most vulnerable households in both regions have low-quality houses, restricted access to roads and transport, and low access to house technology (mobile phones, television, and radio). Housing materials, such as wooden walls, dirt floors, and zinc roofs, are susceptible to climate impacts. Limited access to roads and transport reduces market access (i.e., affecting a household’s capacity to sell or access products and income-generating options). It decreases access to assistance during climatic emergencies. Likewise, low access to house technology increases isolation, and a lack of communication during emergencies reduces access to climatic information [6]. Hence, this study’s results suggest that infrastructure is a determinant factor in household vulnerability and should be included in government’s climate change adaptation plans. Human capital comprises food security, formal and informal education (technical assistance), and health, facilitating a household’s well-being [6,58,59]. A lack of food security, health and education are considered fundamental dimensions of poverty. The most vulnerable households (in both regions) do not produce food for their consumption but, rather, depend on external food provision channels. Moreover, the income of these households is low, which limits their capacity to purchase food. Because external channels of food provision may collapse during climatic emergencies (thus increasing household vulnerability), cultivating food for self-consumption is considered an important aspect of small farmers’ adaptive capacity to climate change [18]. Likewise, the most vulnerable households in both regions lack access to technical assistance or training in agricultural topics. Such capacity is essencial for farmers to improve their agricultural management practices, increase their adaptive capacity and decrease their vulnerability [5]. Moreover, the results from Caquetá indicate that the most vulnerable households also have reduced access to education. Reportedly, a lack of literacy in rural Colombia can reduce access to information about agricultural innovations and technologies that might otherwise improve farm productivity and buffer farms against climate change’ impacts [29,80,81].

Future directions Although the vulnerability is assessed using local indicators, it is recommended to adequate the methodology to compare typologies more precisely rather than using low, medium, or high levels of vulnerability. Also, additional research could focus on the potential benefits of integrating agroecological management practices with livelihood diversification as a strategy for climate adaptation in these regions.

Conclusions This study’s results, based on information from rural households in Caquetá (Colombia), and Yurimaguas (Peru), indicate that households with higher rural livelihood diversification in terms of agrobiodiversity (i.e. crop, pasture, and cattle diversity) and diversity of farming activities are less vulnerable to climate change. Therefore, it is strongly recommended that the governments of both countries implement the adaptation plans already established. For example, the adaptation plans to climate change for Colombia and Peru mentioned livelihood diversification as an adaptation action to reduce vulnerability to climate change. However, more funding, training, and accompaniment to implement this activity, prioritising the more vulnerable households, are needed in the field. Moreover, these actions need to be accompanied by a commitment to implementing policies encompassing the five capitals of livelihoods (natural, financial, physical, human, and social), such as securing land tenure, improving infrastructure, and facilitating access to education, food, and technology. In combination, these would decrease rural households’ vulnerability to climate change.

Supporting information S1 Fig. Optimal cluster solution to group households from Caquetá (Colombia), based on farming diversification and agroecological management practices. This analysis was based on 15 variables that indicate a household’s diversity in terms of agrobiodiversity and farming activities. These variables are framed around: 1) agriculture, cattle ranching diversity, and pastoral diversity; 2); the number of agroecological practices for agriculture (AP-A) out of 10 different practices; 3) the number of cattle ranching practices (AP-CR) out of 11 different practices; 4); the number of additional productive activities (aside from cattle ranching and agriculture), out of a total of seven activities; and 5) the type of land-use in hectares. Data were obtained from 256 households in Caquetá https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000051.s001 (JPG) S2 Fig. Optimal cluster solution to group households in Yurimaguas (Peru), based on farming diversification and agroecological management practices. This analysis was based on 15 variables that indicate a household’s diversity in terms of agrobiodiversity and farming activities. These variables are framed around: 1) agriculture, cattle ranching diversity, and pastoral diversity; 2); the number of agroecological practices for agriculture (AP-A) out of 10 different practices; 3) the number of cattle ranching practices (AP-CR) out of 11 different practices; 4); the number of additional productive activities (aside from cattle ranching and agriculture), out of a total of seven activities; and 5) the type of land-use in hectares. Data were obtained from 256 households in Caquetá https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000051.s002 (JPG)

Acknowledgments The project is led by the International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT) and implemented in partnership with Germany’s Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), the Center for Research on Sustainable Systems of Agricultural Production (CIPAV), the Instituto Amazónico de Investigaciones Científicas (SINCHI), the Universidad de la Amazonía in Colombia, the Instituto de Investigaciones de la Amazonía Peruana (IIAP) and the Peruvian Universidad Nacional Agraria La Molina (UNALM). This work contributes to the CGIAR Research Program on Water Land Ecosystems (WLE). We thank Jorge Parra, Stephanie Lee and Evert Thomas for comments that greatly improved the manuscript. Finally, we express our gratitude to the local families from the municipalities of Caquetá (Colombia) and the settlements of Yurimaguas (Peru) for their kind cooperation and encouragement that helped us complete this project.

[END]
---
[1] Url: https://journals.plos.org/climate/article?id=10.1371/journal.pclm.0000051

Published and (C) by PLOS One
Content appears here under this condition or license: Creative Commons - Attribution BY 4.0.

via Magical.Fish Gopher News Feeds:
gopher://magical.fish/1/feeds/news/plosone/