Home Builder Developer - Interior Renovation and Design

INTRODUCTION

Decades of experiments have revealed that biodiversity of primary producers is crucial for providing and maintaining ecosystem functions and services in planted and natural grasslands (13), which are increasingly critical as humans expand and intensify agriculture to feed our growing population (4, 5). Although biodiversity-ecosystem functioning research has mainly focused on the relationship between primary producer diversity and biomass production, evidence is mounting for the influence of plant diversity on higher trophic levels (6) and multiple associated ecosystem functions and services (2, 710). In light of global findings that terrestrial insect biomass may be in decline (11), it is imperative that mechanisms underlying changes in insect biodiversity and the services they provide are identified. An improved understanding of these mechanisms will enable more accurate forecasting of changes in insect-mediated ecosystem services, such as the natural control of herbivore pests (6, 12).

Earlier studies found that plant diversity increases arthropod biomass with particularly strong effects on predator numbers (10), suggesting that plant diversity may support predator abundance, increasing predation on herbivores and reducing herbivory on plants. Recent analyses of complex food web models have also lent support to these conclusions by showing that increasing animal diversity and biomass yields higher plant primary production (13). Conversely, other experimental studies have found evidence for a stronger positive effect of plant diversity on arthropod herbivores compared with their predators (8, 14), leading to potential increases in herbivory in high-diversity plant communities (15). Reconciling these findingsdisentangling the effects of plant quantity and quality (bottom-up) from those of predators (top-down) that simultaneously act on herbivores and determining the true, generalizable role of plant diversity in constraining herbivore impacts on plant biomass productionrequires a unified measure of total herbivore impacts across manipulative plant diversity experiments.

Recent findings suggest that the positive effects of plant quality and quantity on herbivore energy gains may decline from low- to high-diversity plant communities due to the dilution of high-quality resources with increased nutrient heterogeneity (6). These results are consistent with the resource concentration hypothesis (16), which proposes that trophic efficiency decreases as resource diversity increases (17). However, plant diversity likely constrains herbivore performance by means other than just the dilution of nutrient concentrations, as predation rates have also been shown to increase at high levels of plant diversity (18, 19). This process is described by the enemies hypothesis (16), which proposes that higher plant species diversity will provide greater refuge for predators [e.g., (20)], leading to greater suppression of herbivores via top-down control (19). Given that both bottom-up and top-down forces operate simultaneously, increasing plant diversity likely reduces herbivore impacts on plants through these simultaneous multitrophic controls in food webs. Together, these processes yield four central predictions around the multitrophic control of herbivory in arthropod food webs. With increasing plant diversity, herbivores will experience (i) reduced per capita energetic gains from plants (Fig. 1A) and (ii) enhanced per capita predation rates (Fig. 1A) and will therefore face (iii) increasing net losses due to these simultaneous shifts in resources and predation with increasing plant diversity (Fig. 1A). Because of the predicted positive effect of plant diversity on net herbivore control, we expect (iv) a decline in arthropod herbivory per unit biomass of primary producers at high plant diversity (Fig. 1B).

The simultaneous roles of the resource concentration hypothesis and enemies hypothesis in constraining herbivore impacts are described by (A) isolated bottom-up (Uij) and top-down (Dji) effects on herbivores, respectively, yielding the emergent net herbivore control (log ratio of top-down versus bottom-up effects). This is expected to drive a decline in (B) biomass-specific effects of herbivores on plants.

We determine the role of plant diversity in controlling herbivore impacts on plant communities using a quantitative food web approach (21) to examine multitrophic arthropod data collected across 2 years from analogous grassland biodiversity experiments conducted on two continents, Europe (22) and North America (7). We constructed 487 functional group-level food webs (fig. S1 and table S1) from aboveground arthropod datasets (7, 22) by first grouping all species into functional feedings groups based on taxonomy and life history traits and then assigning trophic links based on known feeding relationships among these groups (see Materials and Methods). We then quantified energy fluxes along trophic links in each food web using a food web energetics approach (21, 23, 24) and quantified total fluxes of energy (i) through each food web, (ii) to herbivores, and (iii) to their arthropod predators, which also included fluxes to omnivores via herbivorous and predatory interactions, respectively. Using these energy fluxes, we quantified the top-down effects of predators and the bottom-up effects of plants on herbivores to estimate the net multitrophic control of herbivory in each food web. Last, to determine the emergent influence of plant diversity on arthropod herbivory, we quantified the top-down impact of arthropod herbivores on plant communities across the experimental plant diversity gradients by calculating herbivore feeding rate per unit biomass of primary producers (see Materials and Methods). This approach provides a unified measure of herbivory that assesses the impacts of herbivores proportional to the biomass production of plant communities of varying diversity.

Increasing plant diversity resulted in higher overall energy flux through arthropod food webs with 95% more resource consumption in 16-species plant communities than in monocultures (P < 0.001; Fig. 2A and table S2). While the effect of increasing plant diversity on energy flux to herbivores was weaker (a 70% increase, P < 0.001; Fig. 2B and table S2), we found a particularly strong effect of plant diversity on total predation, with 162% greater energy flux to predators in 16-species plant communities compared to monocultures (P < 0.001; Fig. 2C and table S2). Our initial results closely match those of recent findings from the Jena Experiment in Germany (25), despite using fundamentally different approaches to quantifying energy fluxes (21). However, unlike the study by Buzhdygan et al. (25), we use energy fluxes to quantify herbivore pest control via multitrophic mechanisms that represent so far unresolved competing hypotheses of plant diversity effects on herbivore control. The observed increases in energy flux in the arthropod food webs of the current study are likely driven, in part, by increased arthropod biomass and abundance with increasing plant diversity (fig. S2), as has been found in previous studies testing for plant diversity effects on arthropods (7, 8). It is, however, important to note that organismal biomass alone does not govern the energetic demands of biological communities; energy fluxes are collectively determined by variation in species composition, body size structure, and food web structure. Nevertheless, organismal biomass has been shown to be a key determinant (24) that is also sensitive to changes in primary producer biomass on which arthropod communities rely. Although the total biomass of herbivores and predators both responded similarly to increasing plant diversity (fig. S2), energy fluxes to predators increased more strongly from monocultures to 16-species plant communities than those to herbivores (Fig. 2, A and B, and table S2). This indicates that biomass is not a simple proxy for energy transfer and that approaches integrating information on metabolism, assimilation efficiency, and trophic interactions (e.g., 21, 23) yield unique insights into energy flux dynamics in multitrophic systems.

Plant diversityenergy flux relationships are shown for total summed energy flux (log-transformed) to all trophic groups in the arthropod food webs (A), to all herbivores (B), and to all predators (C). Trend lines show the partial effects of plant diversity from the linear mixed effects models (see table S2) after accounting for different years [ 95% confidence interval (CI)].

These findings corroborate those of some previous studies from grassland biodiversity experiments (9, 10), suggesting that arthropod predators benefit more strongly from increasing plant diversity than do herbivores. However, other studies have found opposite trends in organismal biomass for herbivores compared with predators across different biodiversity experiments [e.g., (9)]. We observed no marked differences in predator or herbivore biomass responses to plant diversity that could provide clear support for primacy of top-down or bottom-up processes (fig. S2). Despite apparent inconsistencies among previous studies (810) that measured responses in abundance or biomass, our results indicate that food web energetics across the systems analyzed in these previous studies are remarkably similar and demonstrate clearer differences in responses of herbivores versus predators to the experimental plant diversity gradients (Fig. 2). Our analyses reveal consistent shifts in energy fluxes to herbivores and predators between the North American and German biodiversity experiments (Fig. 2 and table S3), suggesting that the effects of plant diversity on the energetic structure and functioning of food webs are general across different contexts.

The underlying mechanisms driving these different herbivore and predator responses (i.e., stronger positive plant diversity effects on predators versus herbivores) are not experimentally tested here. However, our results are consistent with the resource concentration hypothesis, whereby arthropod herbivores have lower chances of encountering preferred plant species in patches with higher plant diversity, thus reducing their likelihood of remaining in high-diversity patches (26, 27). In addition, within plant species, declines in tissue protein (nitrogen) levels have been found in plant communities with high species richness (28, 29), suggesting that host plants may be less nutritious at higher plant diversity. Note that we do not directly incorporate shifts in plant tissue stoichiometry in our calculations of energy flux and bottom-up effects, which would require quantitative knowledge of scaling relationships between stoichiometry and assimilation efficiency. Instead, our results arise from stoichiometric constraints on arthropod community structure, which is consistent with previous findings that resource stoichiometry influences arthropod diversity and biomass (30). At the same time, arthropod predators also benefit significantly from the increased habitat complexity of high-diversity plant communities, which has been suggested to reduce their risk of being detected and eaten by vertebrate predators (18).

In line with our predictions, with increasing plant diversity, we found an 11% decline in bottom-up effects of primary producers on the abundance of arthropod herbivores (P = 0.018; Fig. 3A and table S4) and a 25% increase in top-down effects of predators on herbivores from monocultures to 16-species plant communities, although this was statistically nonsignificant (P = 0.105; Fig. 3A and table S4). Moreover, our third prediction was strongly supported, as we found a significant positive effect of plant diversity on net herbivore control with an average 28% increase in the log ratio of top-down versus bottom-up effects on herbivores across the plant diversity gradients of both biodiversity experiments (P < 0.001; Fig. 3B and table S4). These results provide strong support (which are consistent across both experiments; table S5) for previous suggestions that primary producer diversity could impose constraints on arthropod herbivore biomass (26, 27). However, unlike many previous attempts to quantify plant diversity effects on arthropod herbivores, by implementing a quantitative food web approach (21), our analyses integrate simultaneous mechanisms that control herbivory and thus provide new insight into the true role of plant diversity in controlling herbivores.

We show empirical support for effects of plant diversity on (A) bottom-up pressure (log-transformed Uvh) applied by plants on arthropod herbivores (green symbols) and top-down pressure (log-transformed Dph) applied by predators on arthropod herbivores (blue symbols; P > 0.05) and for (B) the log ratio of top-down versus bottom-up pressure simultaneously imposed on herbivores. As expected, this led to (C) declining top-down pressure (log-transformed Dhv) of herbivores on plants (per unit plant biomass) with increasing plant diversity. Trend lines show the partial effects of plant diversity from the linear mixed effects models (see table S4) after accounting for different years ( 95% CI).

Our analytical approach also reveals that increasing multitrophic control on herbivores at higher plant diversity (via increased predation and reduced plant nutritional value) drives an overall decline in the biomass-specific impacts of herbivores on plant communities (P < 0.001; Fig. 3C and table S4), shedding light on earlier work that demonstrated greater reduction of biomass by arthropods with increasing plant diversity (31). In particular, we found a 44% reduction of herbivore feeding rates (estimated by energy flux from plants to invertebrate consumers), per gram of plant mass, from monoculture to 16-species plant communities. Thus, for every gram of plant biomass produced, plants lose just under half as much energy to arthropod herbivores when planted in high-diversity mixtures compared to when plants are grown in monocultures. Therefore, although overall energy loss to herbivores moderately increases in high-diversity plots (Fig. 2B)which matches findings of previous studies [e.g., (17)]the proportional loss of energy to herbivory is lower because high-diversity plant communities also produce more total biomass per unit area (32).

Our results seemingly contrast with earlier findings of higher loss of plant biomass with increasing plant diversity in the presence (versus absence) of the entire arthropod food web (31). However, quantification of plant community responses to food web interactions varied markedly and is difficult to compare. Seabloom et al. (31) assessed the impacts of the entire arthropod food web (without distinguishing trophic guilds) on total plant biomass, while our analyses specifically quantify the flux of energy, per unit biomass of plants, to arthropod herbivores (including plant-feeding omnivores). These differences point to two general implications of these contrasting results. First, our measure of herbivore impact is likely to detect herbivore effects on plant performance beyond those that manifest in short-term biomass production, such as tissue nutrient content (28). Second, while heavy sustained applications of broad-spectrum insecticides [as in the Seabloom et al. (31) study] may yield larger increases in plant biomass at high plant diversity, our study demonstrates that naturally assembling arthropod food webs control mass-specific effects of herbivores on plants through a complex of trophic interactions, which are also crucial for maintaining ecological stability (33). Decades of research on integrated pest management have shown that pest control that relies heavily on insecticides can lead to detrimental rebounds of herbivore pests, due to destabilizing nontarget effects on natural enemies following pesticide application (34). Nonetheless, the exact mechanisms underlying the differences between these two studies remain hidden and require further experimental, targeted manipulations of predators and herbivores to understand the negative influence of the arthropod food web on the relationship between plant diversity and biomass production (31). Still, together, these results demonstrate that plant biodiversity is a strong driver of primary productivity and may be crucial for limiting herbivore pest outbreaks by simultaneously constraining energetic gains of herbivores and supporting effective communities of natural enemies.

By distinguishing among the different functions provided across trophic levels in grassland food webs, our study reveals how increasing plant diversity strengthens the multitrophic controls that can yield net benefits for plants. We show that simultaneous changes in energy gained from resources and predation pressure received by arthropod predators suppress herbivores and their impacts on plant communities. This brings to light the importance of biotic interactions for maintaining ecosystem services and points to the need for further research into the role of food web structure for controlling the relationship between biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. Our study reconciles long-standing competing hypotheses about the ability of plant diversity to reduce herbivore impacts, by demonstrating that both natural enemies and resource concentration act in concert to constrain the negative effects of herbivores on plant performance. Hence, conserving plant diversity could be vital for maintaining natural control of herbivores and thereby help to minimize inputs of agrochemicals and maximize plant performance.

We used aboveground arthropod community data from two plant diversity experiments located on two different continents, namely, the Jena Experiment in Central Europe and the Cedar Creek Biodiversity Experiment in North America. The Jena Experiment, established in 2002 in the floodplain of the Saale River (Thuringia, Germany, 5055N, 1135E; 130 m above sea level), is an experimentally maintained plant diversity gradient using 60 plant species native to Central European mesophilic grasslands. Plant communities were sown in 400-m2 plots with species richness levels of 1, 2, 4, 8, and 16, replicated across four spatial blocks (35). The diversity levels of 1 to 8 plant species were replicated 16 times, and the 16-species treatment was replicated 14 times, making a total of 78 replicate plots. In 2009, the plot size was reduced to 100 m2 and the monocultures of Bellis perennis (L., 1753) and Cynosurus cristatus (L., 1753) were excluded due to poor cover of the target species, leaving a total of 76 plots considered in the present study. Twice per year, the plots are mown to mimic traditional management practices and also weeded to maintain the experimental species richness levels (35). A detailed description of species selection for each plot and for the management of the Jena Experiment can be found in (35).

Similarly, the Cedar Creek Biodiversity Experiment was established in 1994 at the Cedar Creek Ecosystem Science Reserve near East Bethel (Minnesota, USA) to create an experimental plant diversity gradient. Here, plots of 169 m2 (reduced to 81 m2 in 2000) were also sown with plant species richness levels of 1 (n = 39), 2 (n = 35), 4 (n = 29), 8 (n = 30), and 16 (n = 35), for which species were randomly drawn from a total species pool of 18 plant species. As in the Jena Experiment, experimental plant diversity levels were maintained by weeding plots two to four times during the growing season but were burned once per year in spring to mimic natural disturbance regimes typical of the region (1).

To account for colonization time of arthropod communities since the establishment of both experiments, we used arthropod data collected after 8 and 10 years from the initial experimental planting (i.e., years 2010 and 2012 from the Jena Experiment and years 2002 and 2004 from Cedar Creek). At the Jena Experiment, aboveground vegetation-dwelling arthropods were collected via suction sampling in June and July between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., within two sampling periods of 4 days for the entire experiment. Two subplots of 0.75 m 0.75 m were randomly placed within each plot, covered with a fine mesh cage, and exhaustively sampled using a modified commercial vacuum cleaner (Krcher A2500, Krcher GmbH, Winnenden, Germany) until no further arthropods were sighted. Arthropod samples were pooled from the two sampling times (June and July) to maximize coverage of species assemblages. At the Cedar Creek Biodiversity Experiment, vegetation-dwelling arthropods were collected via sweep net sampling at peak plant biomass (in August) over a single day. A total of 25 sweeps were conducted on each plot using a 38-cm-diameter net consisting of muslin mesh and by walking a 10-m line transect within 2 to 3 m of the plots edge. The use of different collection methods at each experimental site potentially had an effect on sampled species and their abundances. Specifically, sweep net samples may exclude many ground-dwelling arthropods that suction sampling would be more likely to capture. In contrast, some highly mobile groups such as Orthoptera were undersampled with suction sampling at the Jena Experiment, so they were not included in the Jena Experiment food webs (table S1). Nevertheless, past research has found that these two methods do generally provide comparable data of arthropod species across trophic levels and even appear to capture similar responses of arthropods to variation in plant diversity (36). Although these different sampling methods could presumably lead to inconsistent results in our analyses, we found no significant differences between the experimental sites in any arthropod food web variables.

All specimens from both experiments (with the exception of Diptera and Lepidoptera from the Jena Experiment, due to lack of taxonomic expertise) were identified to at least family level, or to genus and species level where possible, and abundances of species at each plot were recorded. For taxa from the Jena Experiment, body lengths were obtained from (37), and for Cedar Creek, average species body lengths were measured for approximately 70% (313 of 450) of the taxa (7). For all remaining taxa, average body lengths were retrieved from the literature. Body length was converted to fresh body mass (in milligrams) using taxon-specific length-mass regressions of temperate arthropods (38). In addition, the average assimilation efficiency, e (that is, the proportion of energy assimilated into arthropod biomass from total consumed energy), was assigned for each trophic interaction based on resources consumed (39). This was set to 0.158 for arthropods consuming detritus, 0.545 for arthropods consuming live plant material, and 0.906 for arthropods consuming other live arthropods (39). These values are based on well-known difference among trophic levels in their ability to extract energy from ingested material, whereby herbivores and detritivores are faced with resources of a lower digestibility than predators. Specifically, the assimilation efficiencies used in our study are taken from model estimates for each trophic level that were quantified using the most comprehensive meta-analysis on assimilation efficiencies to date (39).

Mean metabolic rates were calculated for each taxon for each of the two sampling years using published metabolic rate regressions for arthropod taxa (24, 40). Estimation of arthropod metabolic rates was made using regressions from fresh body mass, temperature (mean summer temperature of each experimental site from both sampling years), and phylogeny using the formulalnX=lnxo+a(lnMEkT)where X is the metabolic rate, a is the allometric exponent, M is the fresh body mass, E is the activation energy, k is the Boltzmanns constant, T is the temperature, and xo is a normalization factor (40). Taxon-specific values were used for xo, a, and E to calculate metabolic rates for Arachnida, Coleoptera, and Hymenoptera, and parameters from a general insect metabolic rate regression were used for the remaining taxa. Metabolic rates were calculated as joules hour1 and then converted to joules month1 by multiplying by the average number of hours per month from when samples were collected.

All taxa were assigned to a functional feeding group (FFG) by first separating into taxonomic orders and then further identifying taxa within orders as either carnivores, herbivores, detritivores, or omnivores. Omnivores were further classified as carnivore-herbivores, carnivore-detritivores, herbivore-detritivores, or generalist omnivores (that consume other arthropods, plants, and detritus). We used this combined approach of taxonomic and functional distinctions because feeding associations have been shown to be highly phylogenetically conserved, particularly in our study system (41). Therefore, taxonomic groupings provide additional information on likely feeding behavior beyond general feeding traits alone. Furthermore, taxonomic groupings also provide information about the likely vulnerability of arthropods to predators, by indicating traits such as sclerotization or movement behavior. An adjacency matrix of possible trophic links among all FFGs (16 for the Jena Experiment and 23 for Cedar Creek) was created for each experimental site, yielding a so-called meta-web for the Jena Experiment and for Cedar Creek (fig. S1). Trophic links were assigned on the basis of all likely feeding interactions among FFGs, which were derived from a number of steps that combined expert knowledge and extensive literature searches. Specifically, general trophic links were first assigned at the functional group level based on expert knowledge. Then, we screened taxa that occurred within each functional group to ensure that feeding links were still meaningful for each given taxa. For example, predatory beetles (Coleoptera) were first assigned a feeding link with booklice (Psocoptera) based on co-occurrence and likely ability of beetles to overcome these prey. This link was then validated by finding literature support for some predatory beetles present in our food webs (e.g., Coccinellidae) that feed on booklice. These feeding links were additionally cross-referenced with matching taxonomic groups from recent species-level food webs constructed from the Jena Experiment, using feeding interactions reported in the literature, trophic levels, and a range of trait-based rules (22). For each plot and year in both experiments, we extracted local food webs (i.e., subsets of the meta-webs) based on the presence of FFGs at a given plot and year, yielding a total of 152 food webs from the Jena Experiment and 335 food webs from Cedar Creek.

Energy fluxes (as joules per month) among all nodes in the local food webs were calculated, where links were assigned using the food web energetics approach (21, 23, 24). Although energy flux is expressed in flow of energy (joules) per unit time, energy flux directly relates to material ingested by consumers in food webs as it describes the chemical energy that is taken up by heterotrophs and both converted to biomass and processed and lost as kinetic energy through metabolism (42). Furthermore, the material ingested by heterotrophs is composed of a suite of chemical elements (e.g., C, P, and N) that comprise organic compounds, which harbor chemical energy that is released and transformed through the process of metabolism (42). Therefore, energy fluxes are also closely correlated with elemental fluxes in food webs (21). To quantify energy fluxes in food webs across both grassland experiments, we assumed a steady-state system, whereby all energetic losses of nodes in the food webs (estimated by metabolism and predation by higher trophic levels) must be exactly balanced by energy intake, via consumption of resources, after accounting for efficiency of energy assimilation from ingested material. Fij, the flux of energy from resource i to consumer j, was thus calculated asieijFij=Xj+kWjkFkwhere eij is the efficiency that consumer j converts energy consumed from resource i into energy used for metabolism and biomass production, which varies with trophic level (39). Thus, the left side of the equation represents the energetic gains of consumer j via consumption of resources, and the right side of the equation defines energetic losses resulting from metabolism Xj (the sum of individual metabolic rates from arthropods in node j) and from predation on consumer j by higher trophic levels (21, 23). Energy flux to each consumer was defined as Fij = WijFj, where Fj is the sum of ingoing fluxes to species j and Wij is the proportion of Fj that is obtained from species i, which was obtained by scaling consumer preferences wij to the biomasses of different available prey usingWij=wijBikwkjBkwhere Bi is the biomass of resource i. To ensure realistic calculations of the proportions of energy flux from multiple resources to omnivores that feed either on both plants and arthropods or on detritus and arthropods, we set equal preferences among arthropod prey, plants, and detritus but maintained biomass-dependent preferences among arthropod prey. This was done to avoid extreme preferences of omnivores toward plants and detritus, which typically have far higher biomass than arthropod prey but are likely to be less preferred by omnivorous consumers due to lower nutritional value (43).

However, we suspected that variation in the assignment of feeding preferences of omnivores for plants versus arthropods could affect calculations of predatory and herbivorous energy fluxes, which could lead to different overall conclusions for the effects of plant diversity on herbivore control depending on preferences set in the food webs. To assess whether this was the case here, we conducted a sensitivity analysis whereby we incrementally altered the proportional omnivore preferences for plants versus arthropods from 0.2 to 0.9 (in increments of 0.1) and reanalyzed each model used to produce (Fig. 3, D and E). Our sensitivity analysis revealed that our results are highly robust to changes in feeding preferences of omnivores, as we found no discernible changes in the outcome of all but one of our models testing the effects of plant diversity on net herbivore control and on herbivore effects on plants (fig. S3 and table S6). Only in one scenario, testing the effect of plant diversity on herbivore control with omnivore preferences set to the most extreme preference for plants (90% preference for plants versus arthropods), we find only a marginally significant relationship (P = 0.058; fig. S3 and table S6). Therefore, we chose to assign a standardized equal preference for plants and arthropods (50% preference for each resource pool). In addition, cannibalistic links were allowed for several predator groups, but preference for cannibalism was set to 0.1 in the adjacency matrix to strongly down-weight the amount of energy a predator consumed from its own biomass pool. This was because biomass-dependent links yielded unrealistically high feeding preferences for cannibalism when the cannibalistic node was among the most abundant in a given food web. Energy flux calculations were performed using the fluxweb package (23) in R 3.4.2 (44).

To quantify whole-food web energy flux, we calculated the sum of energy flux along all trophic links within each entire food web, regardless of where in the food web the energy was flowing. Total herbivory was calculated as the sum of all outgoing energy flux from plants to account for the consumption of plant material by both strict herbivores and omnivores that partition their feeding between plant and other material (e.g., detritus and/or arthropod prey). Last, total predation was calculated as the sum of all outgoing energy flux from arthropod nodes to include predation by omnivores that feed on both arthropod prey and other energy sources (e.g., detritus and/or plants).

To assess herbivory, we quantified the total consumption of plant energy by herbivores, per unit biomass of plants using Dhv=FvhBv, where Fvh is the energy flux from plants to herbivores and Bv is the community biomass of plants in the food web (Fig. 4), yielding mass-specific energetic losses of plants to herbivores as joules month1 g1 of plant biomass. To further determine the forces regulating the herbivore effects on plant communities in the two diversity experiments, we additionally quantified both positive effects of plants on herbivores and negative effects of predators on herbivores in each food web across the experimental plant diversity gradients.

Fij is the total flux from resource to consumer, B is the community biomass of resource or consumer, and eij is the efficiency with which energy from a resource is assimilated (for allocation to, e.g., biomass production, movement, etc.).

Effects of predators on herbivores were calculated as Dph=FhpBh, where Fhp is the total energy flux from herbivores to their predators and Bh is the community biomass of herbivores in a given food web, yielding mass-specific energetic losses of herbivores to predators as joules month1 g1 of herbivore biomass. Effects of plants on herbivores were calculated as Uvh=evhFvhBh, where evh is the efficiency at which herbivores convert consumed plant material into herbivore biomass, Fvh is the total energy flux from plants to herbivores, and Bh is the community biomass of herbivores in the food web (Fig. 4), yielding mass-specific energetic gains of herbivores from plants as joules month1 g1 of herbivore biomass. Furthermore, we estimated the simultaneous top-down and bottom-up forces on herbivores at each grassland plot by calculating the log ratio, log(Dph/Uvh), to describe the negative top-down forces imposed by predators on herbivores relative to the positive bottom-up forces imposed by plants. Hence, a log ratio of 0 would indicate that top-down (per unit biomass energy loss) and bottom-up (per unit biomass energy gain) forces were equal at the community level with positive and negative values, indicating a net energetic loss or gain, respectively, per unit biomass of herbivores.

To analyze the effects of plant species richness on energy flux along all trophic links (whole-food web energy flux), energy flux to all herbivores, and energy flux to all predators in the 487 grassland food webs, we constructed linear mixed effects models using the nlme R package (45), with plant species richness as a fixed effect and experimental year as a random effect. In addition, our maximal models included experiment (whether data were from the Jena Experiment or the Cedar Creek Biodiversity Experiment) as a fixed effect and its interaction with plant species richness to account for variation in response variables arising from different experimental locations and collection methods as well as to test for consistency of findings across both grassland experiments. All models were checked for homoscedasticity of variance and normality of model residuals, following which each response variable (whole-community flux, flux to herbivores, and flux to predators) was log-transformed to meet the assumptions of normality and remove heteroscedasticity of variance. We finally conducted model simplification using Akaike information criterion (AIC) selection to identify a minimal adequate model for each response variable. We applied a minimum threshold of two AIC units to determine the best model, but where multiple models fell within this threshold, we selected the model with the fewest parameters as the minimum adequate model.

Similar to the models on summed energy fluxes, we constructed four linear mixed effects models [using the nlme package (45)] to test for a relationship between plant species richness and the bottom-up and top-down control of herbivore biomass (Uvh and Dph, respectively) as well as on net herbivore control, log(Dph/Uvh), and herbivore effects on plants (Dhv). Again, plant diversity, experiment, and their interaction were specified as fixed effects and experimental year as a random effect. As we identified issues with heteroscedasticity of variance in all of these four models, we first log-transformed each response variable (excluding the log ratio Dph/Uvh response). This sufficiently improved only one of the models (with top-down effects on herbivores as the response), with considerable issues in heteroscedasticity still remaining in the other three models. Therefore, we included a varIdent variance function (46) in each remaining model, allowing for different variances for each experimental year and value of plant species richness across the two experiments. Model simplification was again carried out (as above) to identify a minimum adequate model in each case.

Acknowledgments: We are grateful to the technical staff of the Jena Experiment for maintaining the experimental field site and to the many student assistants for weeding the experimental plots. Funding: This study was funded by the German Research Foundation (FOR 1451). The Cedar Creek Biodiversity Experiment was supported by grants from the U.S. National Science Foundation Long-Term Ecological Research Program (LTER), including DEB-0620652 and DEB-1234162, and by the University of Minnesota. A.D.B., U.B., B.G., D.P.G., J.H., C.R., and N.E. also acknowledge support from the German Research Foundation (FZT 118). Author contributions: N.E., C.S., U.B., and A.D.B. conceived the project; E.T.B., A.E., D.T., and W.W.W. contributed data; A.D.B., E.T.B., A.E., J.H., and C.R. compiled the data; A.D.B. and B.G. analyzed the data; A.D.B. wrote the manuscript; and all authors discussed the results and contributed to the manuscript text. Competing interests: The authors declare that they have no competing interests. Data and materials availability: Custom R scripts used to generate and analyze the data (https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.12909962.v1), along with the underlying datasets generated and analyzed for this manuscript (https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.12655295.v1), can be found in the Figshare repository.

Read the original post:
Biodiversity enhances the multitrophic control of arthropod herbivory - Science Advances

Beathan Report recently released a research report on the Urban Pest Management market analysis, which studies the Urban Pest Management industry coverage, current market competitive status, and market outlook and forecast by 2025.

Urban Pest Management Market 2020-2025 Research Report categorizes the Urban Pest Management market by key players, product type, applications and regions, etc. The report also covers the latest industry data, key players analysis, market share, growth rate, opportunities and trends, investment strategy for your reference in analyzing the Urban Pest Management market.

Request Sample Report @ https://beathanreports.com/request-for-sample-report/14542

According to this latest study, the 2020 growth of Urban Pest Management will have significant change from the previous year. By the most conservative estimates of Urban Pest Management market size (most likely outcome) will be a year-over-year revenue growth rate of XX% in 2020, from US$ xx million in 2019. We give this scenario a XX% probability, where under the scenario the supply chain will start to recover and quarantines and travel bans will ease, over the Q2. Longer-term, the effect of COVID-19 will be felt throughout the year with some degree of harm done by the virus. Over the next five years the Urban Pest Management market will register a XX% CAGR in terms of revenue, the global market size will reach US$ xx million by 2025.

Many companies are operating in the market and conduct their businesses through joint ventures, which benefit the overall market. The Key Players Analysis for the industry is presented in this report.

The following players are covered in this report:

Indian Pest Control Company

Terminix

LP Pest Solutions

Mitie

Brunswick Pest Control

Venus Pest Company

POC Pest

Home Paramount

Pesticon

Wil-Kil Pest Control

Request Discount About This Report @ https://beathanreports.com/discount-request-on-report/14542

This study especially analyses the impact of Covid-19 outbreak on the Urban Pest Management , covering the supply chain analysis, impact assessment to the Urban Pest Management market size growth rate in several scenarios, and the measures to be undertaken by Urban Pest Management companies in response to the COVID-19 epidemic.

In addition, this report discusses the key drivers influencing market growth, opportunities, the challenges, and the risks faced by key manufacturers and the market as a whole. It also analyzes key emerging trends and their impact on present and future development.

Breakdown Data by Type

Mosquito

Bed Bug

Termite

Cockroaches

Other

Urban Pest Management Breakdown Data by Application

Residential

Commercial

Other

Based on regional and country-level analysis, the Urban Pest Management market has been segmented as follows:

North America

United States

Canada

Europe

Germany

France

U.K.

Italy

Russia

Nordic

Rest of Europe

Asia-Pacific

China

Japan

South Korea

Southeast Asia

India

Australia

Rest of Asia-Pacific

Latin America

Mexico

Brazil

Middle East & Africa

Turkey

Saudi Arabia

UAE

Rest of Middle East & Africa

Request For Customization About This Report @ https://beathanreports.com/request-for-customization/14542

Contact Us

Beathan Report,

4004 W Lake Sammamish,

Pkway B9 Redmond,

WA 98052 United States.

Tel: +44 115 888 3028

Web: http://www.beathanreports.com

About Us

At Beathan Report, we understand that the research we provide is only as good as the outcome it inspires. These reports are generated by well-renowned publishers on the basis of the data acquired from an extensive research and credible business statistics. Thats why we are proud to provide the widest range of research products, multilingual 24/7 customer support and dedicated custom research services to deliver the insights you need to achieve your goals. Take a look at few of our aspects that makes Beathan Report an asset to your business.

See the article here:
Rise in Prevalence of Depression that Boosts the Growth of Urban Pest Management Market In Industry - The Think Curiouser

A newly articulated research Global Mosquito Control Service Market report presentation has been added to the growing repository to effectively gauge diverse factors across historical and current timelines to scout for noteworthy business developments inclusive of popular techniques as well as investor preferences and winning tactical discretion that fetch high potential returns.

Access the PDF sample of the Mosquito Control Service Market report @ https://www.orbisresearch.com/contacts/request-sample/2532135?utm_source=Atish

The key players covered in this studyRentokil InitialMosquito SquadRollinsEcolabClarkeTerminixLawn DoctorMassey ServicesMosquito ShieldMosquito JoeMosquito AuthorityArrow ExterminatorsPoulins Pest ControlAnticimexTurner Pest ControlIKARI SHODOKU

Striving to render an unbiased picture of the current Global Mosquito Control Service Market conditions which are largely dominated by the unprecedented occurrence of COVID-19, this highly crucial research synopsis is poised to remain a reliable information source to influence logical Mosquito Control Service deductions.

Make an enquiry of Mosquito Control Service Market report @ https://www.orbisresearch.com/contacts/enquiry-before-buying/2532135?utm_source=Atish

Market segment by Type, the product can be split intoChemical control serviceMechanical control serviceOthers

Market segment by Application, split intoGovernmentCommercialResidential

Further in the report, report readers are also presented with high end, market relevant information such as details on production and consumption patterns that subsequently reflect upon upstream and downstream process, production, as well as logistics and supply chain parameters.

Browse the complete Mosquito Control Service Market report @ https://www.orbisresearch.com/reports/index/global-mosquito-control-service-market-size-status-and-forecast-2019-2025?utm_source=Atish

The report further includes relevant data on frontline players besides engaging into detailed evaluation of their company profiles, business objectives as well as most preferred business strategies aligning with region specific market forces and influencers.

The principal focus of this section of the report is to closely monitor and gauge a multitude of active market forces which are enormously disparate on a large scale and yet continue to decide future growth tendencies in the global Mosquito Control Service Market.

A dedicated chapter on vendor landscape, highlighting leading players as well as other competent and relevant market contributors as well as stakeholders have been well illustrated in the report.

About Us:Orbis Research (orbisresearch.com) is a single point aid for all your Market research requirements. We have vast database of reports from the leading publishers and authors across the globe. We specialize in delivering customized reports as per the requirements of our clients. We have complete information about our publishers and hence are sure about the accuracy of the industries and verticals of their specialization. This helps our clients to map their needs and we produce the perfect required Market research study for our clients.

Contact Us:Hector CostelloSenior Manager Client Engagements4144N Central Expressway,Suite 600, Dallas,Texas 75204, U.S.A.Phone No.: +1 (972)-362-8199 ; +91 895 659 5155

More:
Mosquito Control Service Market Report, History And Forecast 2020-2025, Breakdown Data By Manufacturers, Key Regions, Types And Application - The...

LA Chamber Orchestra Announces 2020-21 Virtual Season and Names James Darrah Creative Director of Digital Content

Los Angeles Chamber Orchestra (LACO), led by Music Director Jaime Martn, announces its 2020-21 Season, entitled LACO Close Quarters, featuring a robust slate of 16 original digital programs with sweeping repertoire and compelling visual elements directed by groundbreaking director/designer/artist James Darrah, who has been named 2020-21 Creative Director of Digital Content. Martn, lauded for his "infectious music making" (Los Angeles Times), embarks on his second season with LACO, conducting half of the programs. Darrah noted for visually and emotionally striking (work) that injects real drama (New York Times) at the intersection of theater, music and film is establishing a first-of-its-kind LACO digital studio at Wilhardt & Naud, a film studio and multidisciplinary arts campus located in Chinatown in downtown Los Angeles. The studio will serve as a creative hub for developing artistic media content with L.A.-based artists and filmmakers, who, inspired by the Orchestras musical programming, will create works in a variety of mediums that will factor into the broadcasts and endure long after the season concludes. This marks the Orchestras first creative partnership with Darrah. LACOs concerts, each between 30 and 40 minutes in length, are filmed at The Colburn Schools Olive Rehearsal Hall socially distanced with no audience and produced exclusively for streaming. Available to the public at no cost, the digital broadcasts air biweekly on Fridays, from November 6, 2020, through June 4, 2021, at 6:30 pm (PT), at LACO.org/laco-at-home, and on LACOs YouTube channel and Facebook live.

This new slate of virtual programming, developed under the Orchestras LACO AT HOME brand, builds upon the highly successful LACO SummerFest series, the Orchestras first foray into streaming that concluded in September and featured five digital chamber music concerts that have attracted more than 130,000 viewers to date.

LACO Close Quarters broadcast dates are Fridays, November 6 and 20, December 4 and 18, 2020, January 1, 15 and 29, February 12 and 26, March 12 and 26, April 9 and 23, May 7 and 21, and June 4, 2021, at 6:30 pm (PT).

REPERTOIRE HIGHLIGHTS FOR FIRST HALF OF SEASONThe programming for the first half of LACOs 2020-21 all-digital season includes a LACO-commissioned world premiere by composer and Artistic Advisor Derrick Spiva Jr. featuring actors from LAs own Robey Theatre Company, and the first-ever joint appearance of Martn on flute and LACO Conductor Laureate Jeffrey Kahane on fortepiano, who are featured together with Assistant Concertmaster Tereza Stanislav on Bachs Brandenburg Concerto No. 5 in D-major. Other notable repertoire includes Coplands Appalachian Spring, conducted by Martn with Kahane on piano; Stravinskys LHistoire du Soldat, again featuring actors from the Robey Theatre Company; and Voodoo Dolls by Jessie Montgomery, whose music weaves classical music with elements of vernacular music, improvisation, language and social justice.

Additionally, LACO presents Pueblos Magicos by LA-based, Mexican-born composer Juan Pablo Contreras, recognized for blending Western classical and Mexican folk music and considered one of the most prominent young composers in Latin America (Milenio); Ccantu by Peruvian composer Jimmy Lpez; Argentinian composer J.P. Jofres Tangdromo for violin and bandoneon; Concierto barroco by Jos Enrique Gonzalez Medina, who is deeply connected to his home state of Baja California in Mexico. Also featured are Brazilian-American Clarice Assads Obrigado for mandolin and strings, which explores the music, chants and rhythms of the Afro-Brazilian religion called Umbanda, music she was introduced to as a child, as well as works for harpsichord, theorbo and baroque guitar by a range of Baroque-era Hispanic and Latin American composers.

LACO recognizes the generous support of the Colburn Foundation and the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation. Steinway is the official piano of Los Angeles Chamber Orchestra. The Orchestra also receives public funding via grants from the City of Los Angeles Department of Cultural Affairs, the Los Angeles County Arts Commission and the National Endowment for the Arts. James Darrah at LACO is generously underwritten by Ruth Eliel and Bill Cooney. The premiere episode of LACO Close Quarters on November 6, 2020, is sponsored in part by Anne and Jeff Grausam. For episode #4 premiering on December 18, 2020, Jaime Martn and Jeffrey Kahane at LACO are generously sponsored by Ned and Dana Newman. Juan Pablo Contreras and episode #5 premiering on January 15, 2020, are generously sponsored by Anne-Marie and Alex Spataru.

The broadcasts will be available on demand at laco.org/laco-at-home, LACOs YouTube channel and Facebook live.

Excerpt from:
Opinion from your neighbor: for the article about transplant helicopter crashing. LA... - Patch.com

The study on Global Urban Pest Management Market, offers deep insights about the Urban Pest Management Market covering all the crucial aspects of the Market. Some of the important aspects analyzed in the report includes Market share, production, key regions, revenue rate as well as key players. This Urban Pest Management report also provides the readers with detailed figures at which the Urban Pest Management Market was valued in the historical year and its expected growth in upcoming years. Besides, analysis also forecasts the CAGR at which the Urban Pest Management is expected to mount and major factors driving Markets growth. This Urban Pest Management Market was accounted for USD million in the historical year and is estimated to reach at USD million by the end of the forecast period, rising at a CAGR .

Major companies of this report:

Indian Pest Control CompanyTerminixLP Pest SolutionsMitieBrunswick Pest ControlVenus Pest CompanyPOC PestHome ParamountPesticonWil-Kil Pest Control

Request a sample of this report @ https://www.orbisresearch.com/contacts/request-sample/5029415?utm_source=Ancy

Market research reports play an extremely important role in refining the productivity of an industry. The information in this reports will help the companies to make informed Marketing strategies. Moreover, ultimate goal of Market research is to analyze how the Markets target group will obtain a product or service. Market research report is predominantly prepared following certain methodology and guidelines for collecting, organizing and analyzing data. The research report on Global Urban Pest Management Market has been very well drafted for the benefit of the readers who are looking forward to invest in the Market.

Besides, focusing on overall aspects of the Market this report majorly covered profiles of the top big companies along with their sales data, etc. It also delivers the business models, strategies, growth, innovations and every information about key manufacturers that will enable in making business estimates. In addition, every Market has a set of manufacturers, vendors and consumers that define the Market as well as their every moves and achievements becomes a subject of studying for Market analysts.

Browse the complete report @ https://www.orbisresearch.com/reports/index/2015-2025-global-urban-pest-management-market-research-by-type-end-use-and-region?utm_source=Ancy

Segmentation by Type:

MosquitoBed BugTermiteCockroachesOthers

Segmentation by Application:

ResidentialCommercialOthers

Moreover, reports offers Market competition through region segmentation of Markets that enables in thorough analysis of the Market in terms of revenue generation potential, demand & supply comparison, business opportunities and future estimates of the Market. The annual progression for the Global Urban Pest Management Market in different regions cannot always be listed down as it will keep changing, thus studying and reviewing Markets occasionally becomes vital. Major regions highlighted for the Global Urban Pest Management Market report, include North America, South America, Asia, Europe and Middle East.

Market research report on the Global Urban Pest Management Market, also has the Market analyzed on the basis of different end user applications and type. End user application segments analysis allows defining the consumer behavior as well. It is helpful to investigate product application in order to foretell the products outcome. Analyzing different segment type is also crucial aspect. It helps determine which type of the product or service needs improvement. When reports are product centric, they also includes information about sales channel, distributors, traders as well as dealers. This facilitates effective planning as well as execution of the supply chain management. In a nutshell, a Market research report is through guide of a Market that aids the better Marketing and management of businesses.

Make an enquiry of this report @ https://www.orbisresearch.com/contacts/enquiry-before-buying/5029415?utm_source=Ancy

About Us :

ABOUT US:Orbis Research (orbisresearch.com) is a single point aid for all your market research requirements. We have vast database of reports from the leading publishers and authors across the globe. We specialize in delivering customized reports as per the requirements of our clients. We have complete information about our publishers and hence are sure about the accuracy of the industries and verticals of their specialization. This helps our clients to map their needs and we produce the perfect required market research study for our clients.

Contact Us :

CONTACT US:Hector CostelloSenior Manager Client Engagements4144N Central Expressway,Suite 600, Dallas,Texas 75204, U.S.A.Phone No.: +1 (972)-362-8199; +91 895 659 5155

The rest is here:
Global Urban Pest Management Market Outlook 2020, Research Study, Technology Trends, Current Scope, Application, Business Statistics and Growth...

More than 100 new jobs look set to be created in Hull after off-site construction specialist M-AR secured a new 100,000 sq ft factory.

The Melton-based company has acquired the large premises in Freightliner Road, enabling it to increase and accelerate the delivery of modular housing across the UK.

Production capacity will be tripled for the 13-year-old firm, allowing it to deliver 750 homes a year, ramping up to 1,000 by 2022.

Rob Grimbleby, managing director, said: Expanding our manufacturing operation is a key strategic milestone for us and is testament to our great people and our partners, many of whom have worked alongside us for many years.

Modern methods of construction provide a route to increase the supply of high-quality buildings around the country, and its been great to see recent announcements from the government in support of the off-site sector.

We are proud to be opening our second factory in the UK in delivering much needed, energy efficient housing that assists housing associations, registered providers, local authorities and our developer partners to respond to the current housing shortage.

Indeed, the unique challenges of Covid-19 and the housing crisis will see an acceleration in new forms of delivery, and we are well placed to help customers deliver turnkey projects. Enquiries remain strong across all our market sectors, and we are particularly excited about the housing sector, where we feel we have the right skills and approaches to provide best value to our new and existing customers.

The expansion plans at the former Actavo facility follow a string of key framework appointments and contract wins, including the Central Housing Investment Consortium, a 15 year 573 million housing programme and the 400m Procure Plus off-site housing framework.

M-AR will further invest in development training, providing skills for local people to work on the low carbon homes, made from light gauge steel. They include bungalows and apartments.

It is estimated that one quarter of new homes will be of modular build, with East Yorkshire a strong cluster.

The combination of a strong concentration of trades following the post-war rebuilding of Hull and it being a prime timber import location saw the sector blossom, with caravans and park lodges widening to commercial, industrial and now residential accommodation, with building methods brought on significantly.

Go here to see the original:
100 new jobs to be created as modular homes building comes to sprawling Hull site - Business Live

As COVID creates urgency around homelessness, frontline workers say the affordable housing solutions fail to address the root causes

Samuel Engelking

The phrase is a favourite for municipal and federal governments alike, but its meaning has become deceptively confusing over the years: affordable housing. The term has been used to describe rental rates for middle-class households, to gesture widely to a crisis plaguing Toronto and to refer to housing supposedly made for the citys most vulnerable communities.

But who is affordable housing really for? Housing advocates say that the term has changed so much that it has become meaningless, vaguely pointing to a level of affordability that is nowhere near accessible for the citys currently unhoused population.

Affordable housing in Toronto could refer to a variety of housing structures, including subsidized, modular, supportive, rent-geared-to-income and social housing. Each has a slightly different purpose and represent different levels of affordable.

A Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives report found that a renter would need to make $27.74 per hour to be able to afford a one-bedroom in Toronto. And a minimum-wage worker would need to work 79 hours per week. When you consider a vacancy rate that, in 2019, hovered around 1.5 per cent (a healthy rental market should have a minimum rate of three per cent), you have all the makings of an affordable housing crisis.

The government defines affordable housing as shelter expenses that represent less than 30 per cent of pre-tax (or gross) income.

Though the crisis is one that hits most income levels, its effects are most vividly seen among the more than 10,000 people currently unhoused in Toronto any given night. And with a chronically low supply of affordable housing options, they have nowhere to go.

At the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, shelter capacity went down in order to allow for physical distancing, and encampments began to pop up in parks as people experiencing homelessness looked for alternative places to stay.

The city has been reluctant to allow the encampments, citing city bylaws that dont allow people to inhabit parks overnight. But with limited shelter capacity and the pandemic resulting in more unhoused people due to job loss and evictions, options are slim.

In recent weeks, the city has announced initiatives to tackle the shortage of affordable housing options. It plans on building 250 supportive modular homes over the next two years, and has also received funding from the federal government for the Rapid Housing Initiative (RHI), with the goal of creating a minimum of 417 new permanent affordable homes.

However, housing activists say these plans are insignificant and, ultimately, not truly affordable. The demand for affordable housing vastly eclipses the meagre supply being proposed by the city, and activists say that very few of these units are genuinely affordable for the people who need it most.

Since federal and provincial governments pulled out of social housing funding in the 1990s, the rental costs of so-called affordable housing funded by the municipal government have often been much higher. In Toronto, units that start off affordable dont stay that way, meaning that the city is losing its current affordable housing supply while barely adding to the new supply. Activists are calling for a commitment from the city to rent-geared-to-income and supportive housing, coupled with a real effort to control the citys rental market.

The way we think about homelessness needs to change, says Greg Cook, an outreach worker and housing advocate with Sanctuary Toronto.

The term chronic homelessness is problematic, because it individualizes a systemic issue, he says. Its actually a failure by the media and the government to acknowledge that we have a crisis because people cant afford housing.

Cook says government officials are quick to point to mental health and addiction as the complex issues fuelling homelessness, but he says all that does is obfuscate the real economic problem.

Basically, were not willing to, at the very least, regulate a runaway real estate industry thats making tons of money, he says. Meanwhile, people just cannot afford rent on minimum wage or the Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP) or Ontario Works (OW).

The way we think about and regulate rent prices also needs to change, says Melissa Goldstein, a local housing advocate. She argues that a lack of vacancy control and eviction prevention has turned Torontos rental market into the wild west.

Vacancy control would limit the amount landlords can raise rent in between tenancies. In Ontario, landlords can only raise rent on existing tenants every year by a provincially mandated residential rent increase of 2.2 per cent. But landlords can also raise rent between tenants, and without vacancy control, they can scale up rent prices by 30 or 40 per cent.

If we had vacancy control, I think it would not be nearly as important that we dont have adequate social housing, because we just wouldnt have the rising rents that were seeing, she says. Housing would just be more affordable.

Matias Kunzle, Montgomery Sisam Architects

The citys modular housing project takes shape at 11 Macey Avenue in Scarborough.

David Hulchanski has studied homelessness and housing affordability in Toronto and Canada for over 40 years. Hes tracked how social housing spending has gone down over the past few decades. From 1965 to 1995, the city of Toronto added an average of 3,900 new social housing units per year to the housing market, meaning social housing made up around 12 per cent of the total housing supply.

At the time, the federal government was responsible for funding most social housing initiatives, recognizing that municipalities had nowhere near enough cash to keep up with demand.

Until around the late 1980s, homelessness wasnt really a well-recognized or much-used phrase, Hulchanski says. In the few reports or studies looking at homelessness from the 60s to 80s, the common phrase was homeless and transient men.

What was going on since the Industrial Revolution was there would be some people, mainly men, who werent associated with a family home, who drifted from job to job and lived in poorer areas in the city, he explains.

However, in 1993, the federal government made the decision to cease funding new social housing. By 1996, the feds announced that management and subsidization of social housing would be transferred to provinces. In Ontario in 1998, the provincial government transferred financial responsibility for social housing to municipalities, and passed the Social Housing Reform Act in 2000 to implement the transfer.

Hulchanski says the downloading of social housing is a major factor in the rise of homelessness as a widespread crisis. Because of the lack of social supports and the cutbacks of new social housing, you had everyone and anyone women, men, young and old, families finding themselves unhoused, he explains.

People always talk about how the federal government pulled out of supporting social housing, Goldstein adds. The impact of that has been huge because there hasnt been anything to replace it.

In December 2019, the city released the HousingTO 2020-2030 Action Plan, a 10-year plan outlining goals for, among other things, building more affordable and supportive housing units. The target is to build 40,000 new affordable housing units over 10 years, with 18,000 of those in supportive housing.

Supportive housing provides a combination of housing assistance and supports, including for mental and physical health.

The problem with that plan is really just the lack of funds to implement the goals, Goldstein says.

To make the plan a reality, the federal and provincial governments must fund each action item. The city is asking Canada and Ontario to provide capital and ongoing operating funding to support the creation and delivery of 18,000 supportive housing homes over the next 10 years, which are anticipated to cost a total of $6.4 billion in capital costs and $300 million in ongoing annual operating costs.

Even if the city does come up with the money, Cook worries it wont be enough. Im frankly concerned it wont even keep up to the level were at now, he says. In the last 10 years, they didnt even get halfway to what they said theyre going to do.

In the citys 2000-2010 action plan, the goal was to create 1,000 affordable housing units annually. Toronto hit that target once in 2012 due to additional provincial and federal economic stimulus funding. In other years, the city barely reached 400 units.

Even then, it was basically making housing somewhat affordable for middle-class people, Cook says. I would argue that that trend has continued, so when they say 40,000 units, most of those units arent accessible to people on ODSP and OW.

Compared to the citys historical social housing supply, Hulchanski says Torontos current plan is totally insignificant. He notes that while their goal averages out to around 4,000 new units a year, those units wont count as true social housing.

I call it fake affordable housing; its market housing to help developers who build rental buildings to market their very expensive rental buildings, he says.

The city has increasingly turned to a public-private partnership model. Developments will often combine not-for-profit, private and public participation on projects, resulting in affordable units being included alongside other units in a new condo or apartment building.

Hulchanski points to Mirvish Village as an example of how Toronto conceives of affordable housing. Its a for-profit development that includes 916 rental units at different affordability levels.

According to a recent report by Goldstein, 85 of the units will rent for 80 per cent of average market rent (AMR) for 25 years, after which point rent can be raised again. Another 281 units will rent at 30 per cent of median before tax total income for households in the area for 10 years.

According to the city of Torontos 2020 affordable housing model, 80 per cent of AMR would equal $1,099 for a one-bedroom apartment.

Goldstein writes that the city funding that went toward this development could have funded 65 units of permanently and deeply affordable public housing. These units would rent at the established deeply affordable rental rate of 30 per cent of individual household income, rather than the median before-tax total income for households in the area.

Goldstein says the city is losing affordable housing at a much faster rate than its being created.

We lose it every time somebody moves out and housing gets more expensive, and we lose it through rent redevelopment, she says. When a unit with rental housing is redeveloped, Goldstein says the redeveloped properties are often rented at a higher rate.

Her report mentions the Queens Hotel eviction, in which 27 tenants were mass evicted for redevelopment and renovation purposes after the city failed to secure it as affordable housing.

As mentioned earlier, the pandemic spurred the city to announce Torontos first modular supportive housing project, which will see 250 units built over two years.

So how much will they cost to rent?

Ahmed Hussen, the federal minister of families, children and social development and MP for York South-Weston, says the government has different definitions for different affordability levels.

Some mixed housing units incorporate some market rental units, some somewhat affordable units, and then some deeply affordable units, he says. Deeply affordable means 30 per cent of the persons income and somewhat affordable is 80 per cent of AMR in Toronto.

He couldnt specify at what rate the RHI units would rent for, but even if all 417 units are created within a year, along with the 250 modular homes, the city is still falling far behind its yearly 4,000 affordable housing units goal.

Hussen says that while the federal government is happy to provide funding for initiatives like the RHI, the province needs to step in too.

We said we will eliminate chronic homelessness, but were not going to meet those targets or even exceed them if we dont have other levels of government come in, he says.

In response to an interview request, a rep for Parkdale-High Park councillor and city planning and housing committee member Gord Perks said the city has issued the COVID-19 Housing and Homelessness Recovery Response Plan, which is an urgent appeal to the federal and provincial governments to create 3,000 permanent, affordable homes, within the next 24 months, for homeless, vulnerable and marginalized residents.

The 3,000 homes would include 1,000 new permanent modular homes, 1,000 new permanent affordable rental homes created through acquisitions and shovel-ready construction projects and new portable housing benefits that will assist 1,000 people secure housing and pay rent.

A spokesperson from Ontarios ministry of municipal affairs and housing said in a statement the province is providing the city with an additional $217 million through housing and homelessness programs next year and accelerating approval for the two modular housing projects and three developments in West Don Lands. The statement also points to the Canada-Ontario Housing Benefit, a joint federal-provincial housing allowance that will invest up to $1.4 billion over nine years.

Matias Kunzle, Montgomery Sisam Architects

The citys housing plan aims to build 40,000 new affordable units over 10 years, with 18,000 of those in supportive housing.

Since last November, Candace, whose name has been altered for privacy, has been living in a shelter hotel with her two children after leaving an abusive home situation. At the time, she was put on a priority list for community housing. But its been a year and she says she hasnt heard anything.

Picture someone who maybe lost her job and fell behind on her bills and ended up getting evicted. She has nowhere to go, she doesnt have friends or family, so she ends up at a shelter. The list that she goes on is the housing list for a person whos homeless, Candace explains.

Thats a forever list. Thats 10 years. Thats not emergency.

A report by Social Planning Toronto found that in 2019 over 110,000 households were on the waitlist for social housing.

It could take years before [someone] can get out of the shelter system and get housing, says Roxie Danielson, a street nurse who works with people in the shelter system. The ODSP rates are just so low, and its just not enough for people to afford market rent, for example.

[The city] announced theyre going to buy some land and put modular housing there, but it was nowhere near enough the amount thats needed for people that actually do need housing, she continues. The city is just not investing enough there.

The lack of supply means people on waitlists end up in housing that doesnt meet their needs.

Candace ideally wants to move to Halton. But shes seen other women at the shelter on the waitlist get housing in neighbourhoods she would never consider.

I chose somewhere out of town, somewhere quiet, somewhere that I can feel safe to raise my kids and my kids can walk to school and be safe, she says.

Diana McNally is a frontline worker who works with the Toronto Drop-in Network, and she sees the lack of housing options as a recurring problem particularly when it comes to supportive housing.

Ive known lots of folks who really dont want to be housed in these kinds of units. Maybe they have animals and they cant have animals. They have a partner, but its a bachelor unit. Oftentimes, in supportive housing, youre not allowed to have guests, she says. Theyre looking for a place that suits them and theres not necessarily a lot of flexibility.

She thinks about the lack of options when people wind up homeless again after being placed in permanent housing.

If you look at folks who are sleeping rough, about 16 per cent of them, once they are housed, return to homelessness within one year, and they return an average of 2.3 times, she says. Any idea that it is permanent housing is patently false.

McNally says part of the solution is to include people experiencing homelessness into conversations around housing needs and housing solutions.

We really need to actually engage people in a much more fulsome way to ask what are the services that they really need to remain housed, and make sure that those are in place over long periods of time, she says.

She also notes that while the government can say that projects such as the modular housing units are geared towards multiple equity-seeking groups, the supply is so low that theres no way for that to match up.

In fact, this kind of housing does not necessarily make sense for a lot of folks, she says. And so I deeply question, how are they going to prioritize who has access? I dont know.

Hulchanski points out that the idea of supportive housing being key to getting people off the streets is not new.

He cites a 1999 report on an action plan for homelessness that highlighted the need for supportive housing; then only a few years later, the federal government pulled out of social housing funding entirely.

A key part of [the 1999 report] was a modest ask for 5,000 additional supportive housing units over a short period of time, and then maybe more depending on if we need more, he says. Again, we know what to do. We just havent been doing it.

@juliamastro

Julia Mastroianni and Melissa Goldstein discuss Torontos affordable-housing crisis in the latest episode of the NOW What podcast, available on Apple PodcastsorSpotifyor playable directly below:

Julia Mastroianni

Julia Mastroiannis first attempt at writing resulted in the first 20 pages of a novel that she promptly abandoned, a year after starting, at age nine, because she couldn't bear to read her own work. Since then, shes completed assignments at various publications, including Post City Magazines and the National Post.

Read more from the original source:
There's no such thing as affordable housing in Toronto - NOW Toronto

Creating structures and imaginary worlds with Lego building bricks can be fun at every age. An abbreviation of two Danish words, leg and godt, the Lego name is a creation of Danish carpenter Ole Kirk Christiansen that translates to play well. This intention has flourished since the Lego Groups invention of small bricks with interlocking studs in 1958, and the brightly colored bricks inspire kids and adults to do exactly that.

When combined in Lego sets, the bricks and pieces can create a range of specific projects, like a space rocket, townhouse, or construction vehicle. Whether youre looking for a small project for a child or a large project that can take days for an adult to complete, there are a variety of Lego sets available for any age group, price, or interest. Read on to discover some of the best Lego sets by category.

When shopping for a Lego set, there are a number of things to think about, such as project theme, age appropriateness, and number of pieces. Since Lego sets can be used as both toys and collectors items, its helpful to determine the objective of your selection. No matter the set you buy, there is the added flexibility to combine sets, because the traditional Lego brick still fits together with any piece manufactured since 1958.

Children and adults are attracted to Lego sets for different reasons. Younger children tend to play with the bricks in a less structured way, while older kids and adults may focus on building techniques and the accuracy of the finished project.

Adult Lego enthusiasts may buy sets with the intention to collect and display the completed project as a design element in their homes. Some of the best Lego sets can increase in value over time, making them a good investment.

For children and adults, the act of assembling Lego bricks can provide a relaxing experience that may help relieve anxiety and stress. In the United States, behavior therapists and teachers use Lego sets as a tool to calm hyperactive children and promote cooperative learning. When children construct a set with other kids, they strengthen their collaboration abilities and develop more effective communication skills.

Some sets are used for group activities through after-school programs and interactive Lego fan-run communities that include building clubs and informational websites.

While there are kids and adults at every age who look forward to the challenge of constructing intricate Lego sets, the building complexity of each set is evaluated and assigned to a certain age group. The recommended age group is printed on the packaging, so its easy to identify the best Lego set that is age appropriate.

Age recommendations are especially important when selecting Lego sets for toddlers who are too young to play with the small parts that could be a choking hazard. Starting at age 2, children can play with chunkier sets called Duplo that are designed to help toddlers with fine motor skills and imaginative play. The sets with the iconic smaller bricks are recommended for kids who are over 5 years old.

The size of the completed project can be a big factor when shopping for a Lego set. While a Lego project can be built and then taken apart when its done, many Lego enthusiasts plan to display the finished project. Some adults and children combine Lego sets to create little worlds that can include realistic towns from one type of set and imaginative worlds with creatures and vehicles from other various sets.

The chosen size of the completed set and collection of sets can be determined by the amount of space available to devote to the hobby. Its important to look at the completed set size when shopping. Many Lego sets with hundreds of pieces range in size from inches to a little more than a foot in mass. Sets that include thousands of pieces can be as big as 40 inches wide or 27 inches tall. Sets of this size are perfect for the minifigure characters that are just four bricks tall, but it can be more challenging to find space in your home for those larger sizes.

A Lego sets level of difficulty and completion time depends on the number of pieces. Lego sets with more parts can take many hours or days to assemble.

Beginner sets with larger bricks for toddlers have about 16 or more pieces. Standard-size brick sets for beginners typically have about 100 pieces, so it shouldnt take young builders long to put them together. Most Lego sets for older children have a range of 100 to 1,000 bricks. The complexity of sets amps up when the number hits more than 1,000 bricks, and the largest sets exceed 7,000 pieces.

Over the years, the size of Lego sets has continued to grow. The number of bricks in a set has increased by an average of 1.9 percent annually, while the largest sets are increasing an average of 5 percent each year.

Adding to the challenge, the Lego sets that have a lot of pieces include nonbrick pieces. These can include baseplates, wedges, slopes, tiles, windows, doors, wheels, fences, and decorated parts. Good organization is an important component in keeping track of the types of pieces and successfully completing one of the larger projects.

Some Lego sets combine fixed and movable parts. The fixed parts include the standard bricks and accessories like base plates and windows. The movable parts are made up of pieces like axles, gears, and connector pegs.

Adding to the movement features are motorization. There are two types of motors: the pull-back and Powered Up. Some Lego sets offer Powered Up as a tech platform that supports sensors and smart motors to rev up your set for speed, sound, and lights. A wireless Bluetooth connection via a free app allows for remote control operation.

Lego offers a multitude of themes based on age, purpose, and interest. For kids, the themes include pirates, space, dinosaurs, superheroes, houses, castles, and more. For teens and adults who are interested in constructing collectibles, there are modular houses, cars, buildings, and seasonal sets. There are sets inspired by well-known films and produced because fans have voted for them, themed sets with power functions to make vehicles move, and a series of Lego sets that brings iconic buildings from around the world to life.

Lego Group also produces licensed theme sets such as Batman, Spider-Man, DC Universe, Marvel, Disney, Harry Potter, Jurassic World, Minecraft, Ninjago, and Star Wars.

Lego knows that some builders crave creative freedom instead of following instructions. While some builders may use structured sets to build their own new forms, others prefer to use sets designed for free-form creativity. For these builders, Lego offers sets that let builders decide what creations they want to make. There is a starter set for the youngest builders that comes with a storage case filled with plain bricks, decorated bricks, numbered bricks, a buildable wagon base that has turning wheels, two windows, a dog, and a boy figure.

For builders ages 4 to 99 years old, there is a set with 1,500 pieces that includes bricks in 33 colors. It also includes a green baseplate along with windows, eyes, and wheels for creating structures, figures, and vehicles.

No matter the set used, constructing the plastic bricks into a completed form encourages children to problem solve, think creatively, follow directions, and persevere. The process also aids in developing spatial awareness, fine motor skills, and coordination.

The widespread interest in Lego sets bridges generations, making them fun for every age. Used as an education tool, a make-believe toy, or a serious hobby, Lego sets foster ingenuity in all age groups and are versatile in their use and in their finished forms.

The versatility and durability of Lego sets stands out among other toys, especially since the bricks and accessories can last for decades and are interchangeable from one set to another. With each addition of more bricks and sets, the amount of building opportunities expands, and creativity abounds.

Lego sets can make the perfect gift. When shopping for a Lego set, keep in mind the recipients age, set size, number of pieces, power capability, and the theme to ensure all your requirements are met. Here are some of the best Lego sets available on the market.

Photo: amazon.com

This brick box is a good introduction for first-time builders, and its ideal for supplementing other Lego sets. The plastic storage box is packed with 790 pieces that are compatible with all Lego construction sets. Thats why the Lego Classic Large Creative Brick Box is recommended for ages 4 to 99.

Included in the set are building ideas for a house or scooter, but you are free to unleash your imagination. In the box, youll find 33 different-colored bricks, eight types of windows and doors, two green baseplates, and six tires and wheel rims. One baseplate measures 6 inches by 6 inches, and the other is 4 inches by 2 inches.

Photo: amazon.com

The budget-friendly Lego Creator 3-in-1 Townhouse Toy Store is a lot of value for the money. Kids can choose their adventure with three building options that include a townhouse, toy store, cake shop, and flower shop. Adding to the fun are realistic accessories such as a working rocket ride, cakes, two minifigures, a bird, and flowers.

For hours of fun and pretend play, children ages 8 and up can assemble a townhouse with a street-level toy store and an upstairs apartment. Then they can rebuild it into a cake shop with an outside seating area or reassemble it into a flower shop with a skylight. The largest building in the Lego set is the townhouse toy store, which measures 7 inches by 5 inches by 3 inches.

Photo: amazon.com

Your preschooler can build a steam train while developing communication skills, fine motor skills, and cognitive skills. The push-and-go motor moves the train along the tracks. An optional app has additional activities and allows children to operate the train with a remote control.

The Lego Duplo Steam Train set for ages 2 to 5 has a locomotive driver, squirrel and child figures, refueling can, suitcase, bread, and a spade. To assemble the locomotive, passenger carriage, train station, coal tipper, and tree, the set contains 59 pieces. Among the pieces are 16 individual tracks and five action bricks that make the train sound the horn, turn on the lights, refuel, change direction, or stop. The steam train with attached passenger carriage measures 3 inches by 11 inches by 2 inches, and the train station is 5 inches by 4 inches by 2 inches. Batteries are required, but theyre not included.

Photo: amazon.com

The Lego City Ice-Cream Truck set provides rich details to ignite the imagination of little ones ages 5 to 7. They can build the truck and serve ice cream to customers.

The 200-piece set comes with an ice cream seller, skateboarder, and a dog figure along with accessories such as ice cream cones, skateboard, helmet, and money.

Directions are included for constructing the colorful truck that measures 4 inches by 5 inches by 2 inches. You also can use the Digital Instructions Plus available through the Lego Life app. The digital instructions allow novice builders to zoom in and rotate the model to aid them with assembly.

Photo: amazon.com

Aspiring astronauts will find the building blocks necessary to build their way to a space mission in the Lego City Deep Space Rocket and Launch Control set. With the 837-piece set, they can construct a customizable multistage rocket with a cockpit, booster, and payload storage modules. A monorail system with two cars has access to multiple stops along the track.

The launch control tower is the heart of the space center, where two scientists and a launch director prepare the ground crew technician and two astronauts for liftoff. Additional items include a rover with an articulated grappling arm, telescope with folding solar panels, magnifying glass, and robot figure.

This Lego set is recommended for kids ages 7 to 9. The standing rocket measurements are approximately 16 inches by 4 inches by 2 inches, and the monorail track is about 3 inches by 14 inches by 18 inches.

Photo: amazon.com

Builders ages 12 and up learn about the elements of engineering as they construct the authentic 4,108-piece Lego Technic Liebherr Excavator. The functional, high-tech construction toy is run by three XL motors, four L motors, and two Bluetooth-controlled smart hubs. Its also operated with the Lego Technic Control+ app.

Hours of immersive play are provided with realistic features and motorization. Kids can engage sound effects, rotate the excavator, move the boom and bucket, and drive the machine forward and backward. With a smart device, they can record driving distances and power usage. The impressive excavator model requires batteries (not included) and measures 15 inches by 25 inches by 10 inches.

Photo: amazon.com

This Lego set is an accurate replica of the White House for builders ages 18 and older interested in history, design, and architectureor for those who just want to immerse themselves in a creative project. While assembling the 1,483-piece set, builders re-create the presidents Executive Residence and the colonnades that connect the East and West Wings along with the Rose Garden and Jacqueline Kennedy Garden.

Builders can divide the model into three sections for closer examination. The completed model is 4 inches by 18 inches by 7 inches.

Photo: amazon.com

Over the years, the Lego Star Wars Millennium Falcon has remained a perennial favorite. The model is based on the Corellian freighter from the movie Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker.

The Lego design allows access inside the freighter and features a cockpit that opens. The interior is filled with details such as a cargo area with two containers, navigation computer with rotating chair, couch, Dejarik hologame table, galley, bunk, hidden smuggling compartment, and a hyperdrive with repair tools. The freighter is ready for battle with rotating top- and bottom-gun turrets, two spring-loaded shooters, and a lowering ramp.

The set includes seven character figures, so kids can act out Star Wars adventures with Finn, Chewbacca, C-3PO, Lando Calrissian, Boolio, R2-D2, and D-O. It is recommended for ages 9 and up and the starship measures 5 inches by 17 inches by 12 inches.

Photo: amazon.com

Builders construct Tony Starks Iron Man Hall of Armor using the 524 pieces in the set. The Lego set has a rotating podium with two posable robotic arms and detachable modules that are designed for combining and stacking in a variety of ways. Some of the modules are the lab, kitchen, and various storage units. The six Marvel Universe minifigures include Iron Man MK 1, Iron Man MK 5, Iron Man MK 41, Iron Man MK 50, and two Outriders.

The Lego Marvel Avengers Iron Man Hall of Armor is recommended for builders ages 7 and up. When the Iron Man Lab is completed with modules in standard formation, it measures more than 5 inches by 13 inches by 6 inches. The Igor Suit is about 3 inches by 1 inch by 3 inches.

The popularity of Lego sets endures because they are a quality product that captivates builders of all ages. Since the Lego Group continues to introduce new sets and institute new technology, you may have more questions. The following popular questions and answers may help.

Lego sets can be expensive because the company manufactures a higher-quality product than its competitors and pays licensing fees for brands such as Disney, Star Wars, and Marvel.

The largest Lego sets include Star Wars UCS Millennium Falcon, Harry Potter Hogwarts Castle, and the Taj Mahal. The Millennium Falcon set has the most pieces at 7,541.

Sometimes Lego sets have extra pieces; this may happen because the pieces arent counted. Instead, the pieces are automatically weighed and packaged. If you need an extra piece for a set, each piece has a unique number to make replacing pieces easier.

Lego pieces are stored in a variety of ways. For example, you can keep them in boxes, cubes, containers, or bins. Some Lego builders keep pieces in carts and chests with drawers.

See original here:
The Best Lego Sets for Kids and Adults - BobVila.com

SMR delivers in-depth insights on theMultifamily Modular Construction Marketin its upcoming report titled, Global Multifamily Modular Construction Report 2020-2026. According to this study, the global Multifamily Modular Construction is estimated to be valued at XX Million US$ in 2020 and is projected to reach XX Million US$ by 2026, expanding at a CAGR of XX% during the forecast period. The research report on Multifamily Modular Construction offers top to bottom analysis in terms of market growth, industrial chain analysis, opportunity analysis, market dynamics, and competitive situations, etc.This report studies the Multifamily Modular Construction status and outlook of global and major regions, from aspects of players, countries, product types and applications/end users, this report analyzes the top players in global Multifamily Modular Construction industry and splits by product type and applications/end users. This report also includes the impact of COVID-19 on the Multifamily Modular Construction industry.

Benefits of asking a sample report before buying:

Get a Free Sample Report,Please [emailprotected]https://www.syndicatemarketresearch.com/sample/multifamily-modular-construction-market.html

Global Multifamily Modular Construction: Competitive Landscape Analysis

This report contains the major manufacturers analysis of the global Multifamily Modular Construction industry. By knowing the progress of these manufacturers (sales price, revenue, volume and gross margin from 2020 to 2026), the user can learn the collaborations and strategies that the manufacturers are focusing on competition in the market.

Global Multifamily Modular Construction: Types and End Users analysis

The research report includes specific segments such as applications/end users and product types of Multifamily Modular Construction industry. The report provides market size (sales volume and revenue) for each type and applications/end users from 2020 to 2026. Knowing the benefits of the segment in recognizing the significance of various factors that assist market growth.

Global Multifamily Modular Construction: Regional Analysis

Geographically, this report is segmented into several key countries with market size, growth rate, import and export of Multifamily Modular Construction from 2016 to 2026, which covering United States, Canada, Germany, France, UK, Italy, Russia, Spain, Netherlands, China, Japan, Korea, India, Australia, Indonesia, Vietnam, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Egypt, Brazil, Mexico, Argentina, Colombia and Rest of the world.

Get Full Customize report or for any Special Discount [emailprotected]https://www.syndicatemarketresearch.com/inquiry/multifamily-modular-construction-market

Key Players In Global Multifamily Modular Construction Market Report Include:

Palomar Modular Buildings, Champion Homes, ASRC Construction, Simplex Modular Homes, USModular Inc., Hayes Modular, Stack Modular, Westchester Modular Homes, Guerdon Modular Buildings

Market Segmentation, By Product Types:

One Floor, Two Floors

Market Segmentation, By Applications/End Users:

Residential, Commercial

Reasons To Buy This Report:

Report answers the following questions:

Access Full Report, here:https://www.syndicatemarketresearch.com/market-analysis/multifamily-modular-construction-market.html

NOTE TO PROVIDE A MORE ACCURATE MARKET FORECAST, ALL OUR REPORTS WILL BE UPDATED BEFORE DELIVERY, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE EFFECTS OF COVD-19.(* if you have any special needs, please let us know and we will report as you wish.)

Contact Us:

Email ID:[emailprotected]

Read this article:
Global Multifamily Modular Construction Outlook 2020-In-Depth Insight Of Sales Analysis, Growth Forecast And Upcoming Trends 2026 - The Think...

Sudhan Thomas, former president of the Jersey City Board of Education and former Acting Executive Director of the Jersey City Employment and Training Program (JCETP), along with Ocean County attorney Paul Appel, were indicted for embezzlement, money laundering, and fraud in connection with multiple criminal schemes, U.S. Attorney Craig Carpenito announced on Nov. 2.

Thomas, 45, was charged in a 26-count indictment with embezzling funds from the JCETP, wire fraud, and money laundering in connection with the alleged JCETP theft.

Thomas was charged with wire fraud for allegedly embezzling money from his 2016 school board campaign, wire fraud for allegedly embezzling money from his 2019 school board campaign, bank fraud for allegedly stealing checks issued by and to another school board candidates campaign in 2018, and mail and wire fraud for allegedly defrauding two Florida-based companies.

In January Thomas was charged by criminal complaint with embezzling funds from JCETP. He pleaded not guilty and was released on a $75,000 unsecured bond.

Paul Appel, 78, of Point Pleasant, is charged as Thomass alleged accomplice in several of the schemes, including the alleged embezzlement of funds from the JCETP, alleged money laundering in connection to the JCETP theft, the alleged embezzlement of money from Thomass 2016 school board campaign, and the alleged fraud against the two Florida companies.

Alleged theft of federally funded nonprofit

Thomas served as the JCETPs acting executive director from January 2019 until his resignation in July 2019.

The JCETP is a nonprofit organization that receives federal funding from grants to help residents prepare for and enter the workforce.

From March 2019 through July 2019, Thomas allegedly embezzled more than $45,000 from the JCETP.

During his brief time as the acting executive director, he allegedly caused checks to be drawn from JCETP accounts made payable to other people but which he allegedly received or used to pay his debts and expenses.

Thomas caused certain checks to be issued to Appel who then redirected the funds back to Thomas, including by issuing checks made payable to Next Glocal; Thomas was a director of Next Glocal.

Thomas allegedly embezzled JCETP funds by issuing JCETP checks made out to cash that he either cashed himself or used to obtain bank checks made payable to Next Glocal, which were then deposited into a bank account for Thomass personal use.

Thomas then allegedly used these JCETP funds deposited to Next Glocals bank account to pay for his personal expenses, including payments to his landlord and airfare and hotel expenses for a trip to Hawaii.

In August 2019, former JCETP employee Nuria Sierra filed a whistle-blower lawsuit against Thomas and the JCETP when she lost her job in July after alerting JCETP board members and state officials to several financial improprieties at the agency. She noted that Thomas had allegedly made three checks payable to cash and provided no receipts.

Candidate schemes

In 2016 Thomas was elected to the school board, serving as vice president and then president of the board.

Appel served as treasurer for Thomass 2016 campaign.

From September 2016 to November 2016, Thomas and Appel collected campaign contributions and deposited them into a bank account opened for the 2016 campaign that they both controlled.

Under the guise of collecting repayments for loans to the campaign or reimbursement for other campaign-related expenses, Thomas and Appel allegedly embezzled more than $8,000 from Thomass 2016 campaign for their own personal use.

Thomas ran for re-election to the school board in 2019.

From June 2018 to August 2019, Thomas collected campaign contributions and deposited them into two bank accounts opened for the 2019 campaign.

Under the same guise of collecting repayments for loans to the campaign, Thomas allegedly embezzled approximately $6,000 from the 2019 campaign by causing checks to be issued from the campaign bank accounts made payable to Thomas. He then allegedly cashed those checks or deposited them into a bank account for his personal use.

In November 2018, Thomas was an informal advisor for a candidate in the 2018 school board election. During that time he allegedly claimed that he required $100 checks to pay eight individuals who worked on the unnamed candidates campaign. When the campaign provided Thomas with the requested checks, Thomas allegedly fraudulently endorsed the checks and deposited them into a bank account for his personal use.

Thomas also got a $1,000 contribution check made payable to the candidates 2018 campaign committee which he allegedly fraudulently endorsed and deposited into a bank account for his personal use.

Floridia companies allegedly defrauded

In 2016, Thomas and Appel entered into an agreement with a Florida-based technology company to expand the companys business through a debit card program.

Between May 2016 and October 2016, Thomas and Appel allegedly made false representations regarding work they were undertaking as part of the agreement and induced the technology company to wire them a total of $48,500.

Thomas and Appel allegedly diverted the companys funds to their own bank accounts and used them to pay personal expenses, including payments to Thomass landlord, tuition for Thomass relative, and payments for Appels credit and debit card expenses.

According to the charges, the duo didnt provide any meaningful services or generate any business as required under the agreement with the Florida company, or spend any substantial parts of the funds provided by the company toward fulfilling the agreement.

That same year, Thomas and Appel entered into an agreement with a Florida-based housing company in connection with the sale of modular homes to veterans and the homeless.

Between October 2016 and April 2017, Thomas and Appel allegedly made false representations regarding work they would undertake pursuant to the agreement in order to collect monthly $2,000 payments from the housing company.

The housing company made five $2,000 payments to Thomas and Appel between November 2016 and March 2017.

Thomas and Appel allegedly misappropriated the funds without providing any meaningful services or generating any business as required under the agreement, or spending any substantial part of the funds toward the fulfillment of the agreement.

Facing prison time

Thomas and Appel face a maximum of up to 100 years in prison and up to $2.25 million in fines.

U.S. Attorney Carpenito credited special agents with the FBI, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge George M. Crouch Jr., and special agents of the U.S. Department of Labor, Office of Inspector General, New York Region, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Michael C. Mikulka with the investigation leading to the charges.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Tazneen Shahabuddin of the Special Prosecutions Division in Newark represents the government in this case.

The charges and allegations contained in the indictment are merely accusations. Thomas and Appel are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.

For updates on this and other stories checkwww.hudsonreporter.comand follow us on Twitter @hudson_reporter. Marilyn Baer can be reached atMarilynb@hudsonreporter.com.

Read more here:
Former Jersey City elected official indicted - The Hudson Reporter