Network


Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.

Hotspot


Dive into the research topics where Amy Thomas is active.

Publication


Featured researches published by Amy Thomas.


Gcb Bioenergy | 2013

A multi-criteria based review of models that predict environmental impacts of land use-change for perennial energy crops on water, carbon and nitrogen cycling

Amy Thomas; Alan Bond; Kevin M. Hiscock

Reduction in energy sector greenhouse gas GHG emissions is a key aim of European Commission plans to expand cultivation of bioenergy crops. Since agriculture makes up 10–12% of anthropogenic GHG emissions, impacts of land‐use change must be considered, which requires detailed understanding of specific changes to agroecosystems. The greenhouse gas (GHG) balance of perennials may differ significantly from the previous ecosystem. Net change in GHG emissions with land‐use change for bioenergy may exceed avoided fossil fuel emissions, meaning that actual GHG mitigation benefits are variable. Carbon (C) and nitrogen (N) cycling are complex interlinked systems, and a change in land management may affect both differently at different sites, depending on other variables. Change in evapotranspiration with land‐use change may also have significant environmental or water resource impacts at some locations. This article derives a multi‐criteria based decision analysis approach to objectively identify the most appropriate assessment method of the environmental impacts of land‐use change for perennial energy crops. Based on a literature review and conceptual model in support of this approach, the potential impacts of land‐use change for perennial energy crops on GHG emissions and evapotranspiration were identified, as well as likely controlling variables. These findings were used to structure the decision problem and to outline model requirements. A process‐based model representing the complete agroecosystem was identified as the best predictive tool, where adequate data are available. Nineteen models were assessed according to suitability criteria, to identify current model capability, based on the conceptual model, and explicit representation of processes at appropriate resolution. FASSET, ECOSSE, ANIMO, DNDC, DayCent, Expert‐N, Ecosys, WNMM and CERES‐NOE were identified as appropriate models, with factors such as crop, location and data availability dictating the final decision for a given project. A database to inform such decisions is included.


Science of The Total Environment | 2017

Comparing strengths and weaknesses of three ecosystem services modelling tools in a diverse UK river catchment

Katrina Sharps; Dario Masante; Amy Thomas; Bethanna Jackson; John W. Redhead; Linda May; Havard Prosser; B. J. Cosby; Bridget A. Emmett; Laurence Jones

Ecosystem services modelling tools can help land managers and policy makers evaluate the impacts of alternative management options or changes in land use on the delivery of ecosystem services. As the variety and complexity of these tools increases, there is a need for comparative studies across a range of settings, allowing users to make an informed choice. Using examples of provisioning and regulating services (water supply, carbon storage and nutrient retention), we compare three spatially explicit tools - LUCI (Land Utilisation and Capability Indicator), ARIES (Artificial Intelligence for Ecosystem Services) and InVEST (Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Tradeoffs). Models were parameterised for the UK and applied to a temperate catchment with widely varying land use in North Wales. Although each tool provides quantitative mapped output, can be applied in different contexts, and can work at local or national scale, they differ in the approaches taken and underlying assumptions made. In this study, we focus on the wide range of outputs produced for each service and discuss the differences between each modelling tool. Model outputs were validated using empirical data for river flow, carbon and nutrient levels within the catchment. The sensitivity of the models to land-use change was tested using four scenarios of varying severity, evaluating the conversion of grassland habitat to woodland (0-30% of the landscape). We show that, while the modelling tools provide broadly comparable quantitative outputs, each has its own unique features and strengths. Therefore the choice of tool depends on the study question.


Science of The Total Environment | 2016

Spatial patterns and environmental constraints on ecosystem services at a catchment scale.

Bridget A. Emmett; David Cooper; Simon M. Smart; Bethanna Jackson; Amy Thomas; B. J. Cosby; Chris D. Evans; Helen C. Glanville; James E. McDonald; Shelagh K. Malham; Miles R. Marshall; Susan G. Jarvis; Paulina Rajko-Nenow; Gearoid Webb; Susan E. Ward; Ed Rowe; Laurence Jones; Adam J. Vanbergen; Aidan M. Keith; Heather Carter; M. Glória Pereira; Steve Hughes; Inma Lebron; Andrew J. Wade; Davey L. Jones

Improved understanding and prediction of the fundamental environmental controls on ecosystem service supply across the landscape will help to inform decisions made by policy makers and land-water managers. To evaluate this issue for a local catchment case study, we explored metrics and spatial patterns of service supply for water quality regulation, agriculture production, carbon storage, and biodiversity for the Macronutrient Conwy catchment. Methods included using ecosystem models such as LUCI and JULES, integration of national scale field survey datasets, earth observation products and plant trait databases, to produce finely resolved maps of species richness and primary production. Analyses were done with both 1×1km gridded and subcatchment data. A common single gradient characterised catchment scale ecosystem services supply with agricultural production and carbon storage at opposing ends of the gradient as reported for a national-scale assessment. Species diversity was positively related to production due to the below national average productivity levels in the Conwy combined with the unimodal relationship between biodiversity and productivity at the national scale. In contrast to the national scale assessment, a strong reduction in water quality as production increased was observed in these low productive systems. Various soil variables were tested for their predictive power of ecosystem service supply. Soil carbon, nitrogen, their ratio and soil pH all had double the power of rainfall and altitude, each explaining around 45% of variation but soil pH is proposed as a potential metric for ecosystem service supply potential as it is a simple and practical metric which can be carried out in the field with crowd-sourcing technologies now available. The study emphasises the importance of considering multiple ecosystem services together due to the complexity of covariation at local and national scales, and the benefits of exploiting a wide range of metrics for each service to enhance data robustness.


Biomass & Bioenergy | 2013

A GIS based assessment of bioenergy potential in England within existing energy systems.

Amy Thomas; Alan Bond; Kevin M. Hiscock


Energy Policy | 2016

Bridging the gap between energy and the environment

Robert A. Holland; Kate Scott; Emma Hinton; Melanie C. Austen; John Barrett; Nicola Beaumont; Tina Blaber-Wegg; Gareth Brown; Eleanor Carter-Silk; P Cazenave; Felix Eigenbrod; Kevin M. Hiscock; Tara Hooper; Andrew Lovett; Eleni Papathanasopoulou; Pete Smith; Amy Thomas; Rob Tickner; Ricardo Torres; Gail Taylor


Journal of Systemic Therapies | 2005

INTRODUCING MOVEMENT AND PROP AS ADDITIONAL METAPHORS IN NARRATIVE THERAPY

Christine Novy; Susan E. Ward; Amy Thomas; Leigh Bulmer; Marie-France Gauthier


One Ecosystem: ecology and sustainability data journal | 2018

Practical solutions for bottlenecks in ecosystem services mapping

Ignacio Palomo; L. Willemen; Evangelia G. Drakou; Benjamin Burkhard; Neville D. Crossman; Chloe Bellamy; Kremena Burkhard; C. Sylvie Campagne; Anuja Dangol; Jonas Franke; Sylwia Kulczyk; Solen Le Clec'h; Dania Abdul Malak; Lorena Muñoz; Vytautas Naruševičius; Sam Ottoy; Jennifer Roelens; Louise Sing; Amy Thomas; Koenraad Van Meerbeek; P.J.F.M. Verweij


Journal of Hydrology | 2017

Climate and land-use change impact on faecal indicator bacteria in a temperate maritime catchment (the River Conwy, Wales)

Gianbattista Bussi; Paul Whitehead; Amy Thomas; Dario Masante; Laurence Jones; B. Jack Cosby; Bridget A. Emmett; Shelagh K. Malham; Christel Prudhomme; Harvard Prosser


Archive | 2017

Soil Resources, the Delivery of Ecosystem Services and Value

David A. Robinson; Fiona Seaton; Katrina Sharps; Amy Thomas; Francis Parry Roberts; Martine van der Ploeg; Laurence Jones; Jannes Stolte; Maria Puig de la Bellacasa; Paula Harrison; Bridget A. Emmett


Archive | 2014

Glastir Monitoring & Evaluation Programme. Second year annual report

B.E. Emmett; M. Abdalla; S.G. Anthony; S. Astbury; Tom A. August; G. Barrett; Björn C. Beckmann; John B. Biggs; Marc S. Botham; David C. Bradley; David Chadwick; R. Collier; David Cooper; J. M. Cooper; B. J. Cosby; Simon Creer; P. Cross; D. Dadam; Francois Edwards; Mike Edwards; Chris D. Evans; N. Ewald; Angus Garbutt; C. Giampieri; A. Goodwin; S. Grebby; Sheila Greene; I. Halfpenney; Jeanette Hall; Colin Harrower

Collaboration


Dive into the Amy Thomas's collaboration.

Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

B. J. Cosby

University of Virginia

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Bethanna Jackson

Victoria University of Wellington

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Alan Bond

North-West University

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Chris D. Evans

University of East Anglia

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Researchain Logo
Decentralizing Knowledge