Why you should not recycle Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

Why you should not recycle - Essay Example The vastness of landspace is underestimated when it is thought to be saved with recycling as the waste consumes very little of the total landspace. â€Å"If all the solid waste for the next thousand years were put into a single space, it would take up 44 miles of landfill, a mere .01% of the U.S. landspace† (Cordato, 1995). This means that the benefit obtained by recycling in terms of the saved landspace is negligible and can be easily overlooked. Secondly, one of the strongest arguments in favor of recycling that is conventionally raised is that recycling is a method to preserve trees. Since paper is made from trees, it is claimed that recycling paper would reduce the need to cut trees to make paper from. Although the argument seems quite convincing, yet it does not reflect the real phenomenon. Since the supply of a material at a particular point in time is consistent with the demand for it, a reduction in the demand of paper would result in an equivalent reduction in the number of trees. People would care little to plant more trees if there occurs a decline in their need. The validity of this argument can be estimated from the number of trees that are grown with the intention of using them for the making of paper. â€Å"In the paper industry, 87% of the trees used are planted to produce paper. For every 13 trees "saved" by recycling, 87 will never get planted† (Cordato, 1995). Thus recycling has an overall negative e ffect on the growth of trees. â€Å"Promoting recycling may therefore not simply be pointless but actually damaging† (FOPAP, 2012). Thirdly, recycling hardly does anything to reduce pollution. There is no noticeable difference between the extent of chemicals released in the environment in the process of manufacturing things and those that are released in recycling things. Recycling involves a lot of chemical processing of the used material, which has an equivalent impact on the environment. Recycling also causes a decline in the quality

The issue on war Essay Example for Free

The issue on war Essay The issue on war in our society today is sure to stir a hot debate. Much more among Christian circles. After 9/11 and the continuing war in Iraq, Americans and the world in general, had become divided along sharp lines. Most conservatives are more likely to support war while the liberals are more likely to oppose. It is quite interesting that wide support comes from the Evangelical Christians. A 2002 survey showed that Evangelicals were found to be the most supportive sector of the population who are in favor for the war in Iraq. Not a few were perplexed: isn’t this a contradiction to Biblical teachings? Is it not, that Christians were taught by Jesus to be â€Å"peacemaker† (Matthew 5:9)? Isn’t the God that they worship described as the â€Å"Prince of Peace† in the book of Isaiah (Isaiah9:6)? Does the Church go for war, with the belief that through this means it will triumph in love? Aren’t they instead, taught to love in order to prevent war? In both sides of this issue, we will find men and women who are truly sincere and honest upon their convictions. In fact, Scriptural tests can be found to support both â€Å"pro-war† and â€Å"anti-war† positions. Inherent upon these questions are also directed on whether God is either for or against war. The Old Testament is filled with battles and even indicates God directing or going out to battle with His people (as long as it is sanctioned by Him). On the other hand, the New Testament teachings seemed to contradict or oppose the ways written in the Old Testament. It is filled with teachings and different expressions of love for God, towards one’s neighbors and even to the point of loving one’s enemies. Does God’s Word run contradictory by itself; does God contradict Himself? Consequently, do Christians, as followers of Christ, express love at all times and never resort to the use of sword? Would this principle apply at all times, as exemplified by Jesus and the Christian martyrs who gave their lives to the point of death? Or should they follow Old Testament examples of going to war in order for peace and love to reign? This study attempts to answer how Christians can rejoice in serving a God of love, who is also a God of war. Also, this paper will try to demonstrate how the same power that lifted up and brought unspeakable joy to the saints of God, is the same power that worked through God’s mighty men, as they fought through battles and received victory, for as long as they lived in obedience to His instructions. II. The Nature/ Character of God It is important, that before we attempt to answer the questions mentioned above, one must lay first the proper foundation from which we will build our understanding of this particular issue. Before attempting to answer what God is for, we will first attempt to know what he is like. For much of what he does or does not do stems from who He is, and His character. He will never do anything that is out of His nature and character. Theologians have tried to describe God in various, different ways. He is known as the all-knowing, all-wise, all-powerful God. He is the source of substance from which all human virtues flow. He is the God who is able to do anything and everything; the one who possess everything GOOD that we would like to be. He is the only one who is omnipotent (all-powerful); omniscient (all-knowing); or omnipresent (present everywhere). God is a Spirit, who is eternal and ever living; the one, who has no beginning or end. He is a Person, referring upon Himself as â€Å"I am†, or the â€Å"Great I am†. In His person is the essence of love and He reveals Himself as a loving, merciful God. He is also holy meaning high above or cut above, and part of His holiness is His being righteous. No evil or wrong can be found in Him. Therefore, He alone is the righteous judge totally fair and just. The God that we speak of is no other than the Creator God. His power is what sustains the universe, existing outside creation. He is also present in it, which theologians call ‘immanent’, in which He sits as ruler over-all. Though He exists in nature, He is not nature, nor is He bound by the laws of nature. The best description of God was given by God Himself, through the name which He revealed of Himself to the Israelites, the name Yahweh. It is usually translated as â€Å"Jehovah† or â€Å"Lord†. The name is the hiphil tense of the Hebrew verb â€Å"to be†, which suggest to mean â€Å"He who causes (everything else) to be† (P. Robertson. Answers to 200 of Life’s Most Probing Questions). To know the name of God is to know His character. The names of God, found in the Bible, are God’s way of revealing Himself His nature and character. At the heart of everything that God is and does, lies in the essence of His very being that He is love. Love defines His character, and the reason for all His actions: â€Å"†¦. God is love† (I John 4:8b). God is eternally one, of a single mind and purpose, and unchanging. If God is love, he is love before the creation of the world until after the end of time. He was, is, and will always be. He never changes. His love is not dependent on our actions God is not love if I obey Him; vengeful if I disobey. All of His actions and purposes are consistent with love. Although much of the Old Testament records a lot of battles and wars, either with God directing the Israelites to fight or, the battles are directed against them with God’s sanction, this does not go against His loving character. Whichever, still God revealed Himself to Israel as one who loves and keeps His covenant of love-relationship with them (Deuteronomy 7:6-13a). III. The Kingdom of God Second foundation is, to acknowledge and to understand the existence of two spiritual kingdoms. A kingdom is a place where a king rules. For God’s kingdom, wherever God reigns, there His kingdom exists. The kingdom of God is not visible, nor determined by spatial boundaries. It is a spiritual kingdom, therefore not visible in the naked eye. Jesus Christ said, â€Å"The kingdom of God is within you† (Luke 17:21). Jesus gave his followers a pattern of prayer, commonly referred to as the Lord’s Prayer and in it a petition to God which says: â€Å"Your kingdom come. Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven† (Matthew 6:10). Jesus showed through this prayer, His priority of God’s kingdom. In the kingdom of God, everything is subject to God’s power, with no question. The kingdom of God is eternal. For now, it exists as an invisible kingdom here in our midst. Wherever there are those who honor Jesus Christ as the King and Lord over all, and wherever the Spirit of the King is, there is the kingdom of God. However, in the visible world, there is resistance to God’s will. This resistance is influenced by another kingdom, ruled by Satan. This kingdom led by Satan and his cohorts, is warring against God, His holy angels and his followers. It is also invisible to the naked eye. These two invisible kingdoms influence the visible world. Though the war has been won by Jesus on the Cross and his ascension to the right hand of God, the battle is still raging for the souls of men. IV. The Impact of the fall of Man The battle for man’s soul began with the first man, Adam. With Adam’s disobedience to the terms of his rule, man â€Å"falls† thereby experiencing the loss of his â€Å"dominion†. As man’s relationship with God is severed, who is the fountainhead of his power to rule, everything of his delegated realm (Earth) comes under a curse. Man loses the â€Å"life† power essential to ruling in God’s Kingdom. Moreover, through his disobedience to God and submission to the Serpent’s suggestions, man’s rule has been forfeited to the Serpent. In Revelations 12:9, it verifies that the spirit using the snake’s form was Satan himself. The domain originally delegated to man now has fallen to Satan (the prince of this world), who becomes administrator of this cursed realm. The Serpent’s â€Å"seed† and â€Å"head† show a continual line of evil offspring who carry out Satan’s rule. However, amidst the tragedy and bleak picture, God offers a way out. God, in his great love for man (despite their rebellion against Him), has moved His plan of redemption, and a plan to restore man’s lost estate through Christ Jesus, His only begotten Son. Thus, the battle for the soul of man, and man battling within himself (against his sinful nature), is real. V. Covenant Relationship A beautiful picture of God’s plan of redemption for all mankind is seen in His relationship with Israel. Salvation is for all, but God planted the ‘seed’ of salvation through the nation of Israel, choosing them as a holy people, separated for His plan and purpose. Through the Israelites, God battles to restore the mankind back to Himself, and save them from eternal punishment. VI. Conclusion A. The Victory of Christians As a conclusion, Every Christian should have spiritual victory. Robert Laurin, in Baker’s Dictionary of Theology, says: â€Å"Victory is above all a religiously conditioned concept in Scripture. This is rooted in the basic biblical principle that God is just, punishing sin and rewarding righteousness Victory is for the vindication of God’s purposes, or because of righteous living on the part of God’s people†¦ â€Å"In the OT victory is almost exclusively over external foes and issues in physical peace and security. But in the New Testament victory is expressed mainly in terms of spiritual forces and blessings. It is not triumph over social or economic difficulties that are the concern of the NT; it is mastery over temptation and the powers of evil†¦ â€Å"Thus victory is both present and eschatological. It is now that a Christian enters into the power and blessings of a triumph yet to find its complete realization in the future. † (See â€Å"Victory†). For all believers in Christ, the unseen world is not a fictional cosmos but a reality that had, and still continuous to have implication for all. Satan’s kingdom has waged war against the Creator God and his people, since the time of Adam, and has sought to bring defeat and disgrace to both. Martin Luther’s hymn, A Mighty Fortress Is Our God, says: â€Å"With cruel and dreadful might, he arms himself to fight; on earth he has no equal†. References: Robertson, P. Answers to 200 of Life’s Most Probing Questions. 1984 Johnson, IB. â€Å"God is Love†. 3rd chapter on Systematic Theology. â€Å"Truth†. http://www. inspiredbooks. com/Truth. htm â€Å"Victory†. Cited in Adult Teacher Supplement. 1969 Martin, M. â€Å"Spiritual Warfare: Biblical Armament for Victory†. http://www. answers. org/issues/spiritual_warfare. html Spirit Filled Life Bible. New King James Version. 1991

Hedgerow Management in Pastoral Landscapes

Hedgerow Management in Pastoral Landscapes Abstract Hedgerows are an important part of the British landscape, providing both food and shelter for a number of taxa. As part of the UK government’s Environmental Stewardship (ES) Scheme, farmers are granted subsidies for, amongst other things, ‘enhanced hedgerow management’. Although hedgerow management under ES is expected to have beneficial effects for taxa such as invertebrates and birds, less is known about the effects ES management will have on small mammal communities. The aim of this study was to investigate whether this ‘enhanced hedgerow management’ is affecting hedgerow characteristics in pastoral landscapes and whether small mammal abundances are increased under ES managed hedgerows. ‘Conservation buffer strips’ (2m+ unimproved grassy margins) were investigated as a possible improvement to ES hedgerow management. Using live trapping methods, I investigated small mammal abundances in ES managed hedgerows compared with non-ES managed hedgerows. Wood mice Apodemus sylvaticus and bank voles Clethrionomys glareolus were the most abundant species, with some captures of field voles Microtus agrestis and common shrews Sorex araneus. Small mammal abundances were increased in ES managed hedgerows, however, the presence of a ‘conservation buffer strip’ was more significant in increasing small mammal densities. ES management showed no definite effect on the hedgerows’ characteristics. Introduction Agricultural intensification since the 1940s has led to widespread and significant reductions in the biodiversity of many agricultural areas. This drive for greater yields has been linked with the population decreases seen in many species of farmland specialists and non-specialists who often inhabit farmland (Robinson and Sutherland, 2002). Farmland habitats can be categorised into non-linear habitats such as set-aside, cropped fields and woodland areas, and linear habitats, generally field boundaries, such as ditches, banks, streams and hedgerows. These field boundaries remain relatively undisturbed areas and are therefore significant wildlife corridors within otherwise inhospitable agricultural landscapes (Tew, 1994). Although there continued to be a reduction in total area of hedgerows within the UK during the 80s and early 90s, the last decade has seen small increases in the area of hedgerow as their conservation significance became more documented (Barr and Gillespie, 2000). This increase in the number of hedgerows has been driven by government backed grants. Countryside Steward (CS), set up in 1991 encouraged selected farmers to enhance and conserve the wildlife within their farms, a large part of this involved the laying of new hedgerows. The CS schemes have now been superseded by the Environmental Stewardship Schemes. More recently, hedgerow grant pilot schemes have been set up in a number of regions to encourage landowners, both farmers and non-farmers to manage their hedgerows more effectively; these grants are available to pay for gapping up, hedge laying or coppicing. Small mammals in pastoral land are largely confined to hedgerows or other non-crop features and are therefore particularly vulnerable to intensification (Bates and Harris, 2009). Small mammal species constitute the main prey biomass for a number of species of mammals and birds, and therefore small mammal abundance directly influences the abundance and diversity of predator species contributing to the complexity of local food webs (Korpimaki and Norrdahl, 1991). There remains some debate on the importance of linear habitats for small mammals, with some suggesting that they cannot support viable populations, that those found in hedgerows are ‘sink’ populations (Tattersall et al. 2004). However, there is evidence that small mammal abundance and diversity does not depend on the linear or non-linear character of the habitat and that linear habitats can support viable populations (Gelling et al. 2007). Thus, in large expanses of uninhabitable grassland, field boundary hedgerows are of great importance for maintaining small mammal populations in an agricultural landscape, but differing farming practices can lead to a huge variety in the quality of these habitats As the emphasis of farming has shifted there have been a number of agri-environment schemes introduced across Europe with the aim of reversing the effects of previous intensification and enhancing agricultural land for wildlife (Kleijn and Sutherland, 2003). The UK introduced a new set of farming standards in 2005 with farmers now guaranteed subsidy payments, known as ‘cross-compliance’, as long as they follow a set of prescribed conditions aimed at improving the environmental value of their farms. A compulsory code of good practice will preclude farming land within 2 m of the centre of a hedge (DEFRA, 2005a). Beyond cross-compliance subsidies, farmers can also apply to put their farmland into Environmental Stewardship (ES). ES is a tiered system, with Entry-Level ES designed to allow most farmers access to the payments by compiling a farm management plan that aims to improve the features of their farm for wildlife and to maintain/improve the scenic value of the British countryside. The enhanced hedgerow management option within ES requires that the farmer cut the hedge no more than once every 2 years, that hedgerows are cut during the winter and that cutting be staggered across the farm. The combined aim of these prescriptions is to ensure that at least some of the hedgerow is allowed to flower every summer (Defra, 2005b). Properly managed hedgerows are valuable features, playing a key role in enhancing the wildlife value of farmland. Flowering hedgerows are an important source of food and shelter for a number of birds (Hinsley and Bellamy, 2000). Studies suggest that the ES schemes will have a beneficial effect, mainly for taxa such as invertebrates and birds (Kleijn and Sutherland 2003), Whittingham (2007) emphasizes the importance of monitoring the effects of ES to ensure that the scheme’s prescriptions meet the needs of a greater range of species. It is much less well understood how the changes to hedgerow management will effect small mammal abundance, and it is important that there is greater understanding of the factors that influence small mammal populations since small mammals provide the major source of prey biomass for many larger predators (Love et al., 2000). Small mammals also play a role in a range of important ecosystem processes (Hayward and Phillipson, 1979). Previous studies have established the main effects of varying hedgerow management within arable landscapes (Shore et al. 2005). Arable environments provide cover for small mammals due to the height and density of the crop. Small mammals have been shown to make substantial use of the field at certain times of the year (Tattersall et al. 2001; Tew et al. 2000; Todd et al. 2000). However, no small mammal species have been shown to make use of agriculturally improved pastoral fields at any time of year (Montgomery and Dowie 1993). Grazed pastoral land provides very little cover, restricting the movements of resident small mammal communities. Therefore, hedgerow management in predominantly dairy and cattle areas will likely have a large influence on the success of small mammal populations (Gelling et al. 2007). In particular, the level of ground cover vegetation along the hedgerow and the presence of some form of non-farmed margin can significantly affect the small mammal abundance (Bates and Harris 2009, Gelling et al. 2007). The 2m margin prescribed by ‘cross compliance’ is irrelevant in terms of providing cover within pastoral landscapes. Although the 2m margin remains uncut and clear of interference from the farmer (no fertilisers), year round grazing will mean that little cover is offered right up to the base of the hedgerow. Therefore, whereas ES management may boost small mammal numbers within arable areas (Shore et al. 2005), the value of ES hedgerow management within pastoral landscapes is less well understood. I utilised a number of hedgerow sites to compare hedgerow structure and small mammal communities on ES farms versus non-ES farms. For each farm, one site was selected to be representative and one to include a significant (2m plus) conservation buffer strip of unimproved, non-grazed grass/shrubland. I aimed to investigate (i) how ES management effects the hedgerow characteristics, in particular the level of ground cover for small mammals (ii) whether these ES prescriptions are providing any significant benefit for small mammal densities and (iii) as the movements of small mammals within pastoral landscapes are so restricted, could small mammal assemblages in hedgerows be significantly improved by including an unimproved, non-grazed, grassy margin or ‘conservation buffer strip’ (2+m from the edge of the hedgerow). Methods Sites The study was conducted over 20 different farms spread across County Durham and Northumberland. The farms were selected due to their suitability for this study, each farm containing both a hedgerow site with a conservation buffer strip and at least one without. All farms selected were representative in terms of habitat of those within the local area. A hedgerow was defined as a continuous line of woody vegetation no more than 3m tall. Hedgerow Survey The farms were paired, with one ES farm neighbouring a non-ES farm, making 10 farm pairs and 20 farms in total. Hedgerow surveys were carried out throughout June 2009. 10 hedgerows were randomly selected on each farm. All hedgerows on each farm were surveyed using an edited version of the Defra Hedgerow Survey Form and handbook (DEFRA, 2007). Each hedgerow was measured to determine its cross-sectional area. The character of the hedgerow was scored by reference to a series of standard diagrams, noting the level of available ground level cover for small mammals (1=little or no vegetation cover at ground level, 2=gappy cover at ground level, 3=constant vegetation cover from hedgerows at ground level). Additional variables were recorded, including whether the hedge had been flailed (mechanically cut) recently, i.e. during the previous winter, the number of standard and veteran trees and the number of woody species within the hedgerow. The data sets for cross-sectional area, level of grou nd vegetation cover and the number of woody species were averaged to produce an overall mean value for each farm. The number of flailed hedgerows was summed to give an overall percentage of hedgerows flailed on each farm. Trapping Procedure Previous trapping studies have shown that, unlike in arable land, small mammals within pastoral land stay almost entirely within the hedgerows and therefore hedgerows can be treated as linear habitats (Gelling et al. 2007). Trapping was carried out in two major trapping sessions, mid-April to June and mid-July to August, 2009. Within each of the 20 farm sites I selected a representative hedgerow and a hedgerow flanked by an unimproved 2m+ grassy margin, designated a conservation buffer strip, making a total of 40 trapping sites. Where possible the hedgerow sites were selected randomly, however, each ES site was required to have been managed according to the prescriptions of Stewardship farming, i.e. the hedgerows were cut not more than once every two years and the farmers adhered to the prescribed 2m margin of non-interference (2m from the centre of the hedge) (DEFRA 2005a, DEFRA 2005b). Every hedgerow selected was flanked by improved or semi-improved grassland for the grazing of dai ry cattle and/or the production of silage. At each site, a 104m section of isolated hedgerow (not directly connected to woodland) was selected.13 Longworth traps were placed at ground level within the hedgerow, at 8m intervals. Traps were provisioned with hay, apple, oat grains and dried mealworm. The traps were set at dusk and checked at dawn and dusk for three days. All targeted animals that were captured were fur-clipped to help identify re-captures. Species, sex and weight were recorded for each animal before release at the point of capture. Analysis Hedgerow characteristics were recorded and analysed using a paired measures multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) (SPSS 17.0.2). I had multiple dependent variables that I wished to analyse, however, using multiple one-way ANOVAs to try to do this would have raised the probability of a Type I error (Gibson et al. 2007). Therefore the data was investigated using a MANOVA which controls the experiment-wide error rate. Multiple dependent variables that were related (e.g. Cross sectional area of hedge and amount of ground cover, etc.) were analysed in one test, with the hedgerow management (ES managed or non-ES managed) being treated as the two levels of the treatment factor (Gibson et al. 2007). There was a total of 4 dependent variables; the mean cross-sectional area, the percentage of flailed hedgerows, the average number of woody species and the mean level of ground cover. For each trapping session the relative density was estimated as the minimum number alive (MNA), or the total number of individuals caught over the three days. Species richness was calculated as the number of different species caught. Using General Linear Modelling (GLM; Minitab 15), I examined the relationships between small mammal densities and a number of predictor variables. The dependent variables I investigated were the overall total small mammal density (MNA) and the total biomass of all small mammals caught within 104m. I also investigated the density of each individual species, constructing similar models for the number of captures and biomass for each individual species. I focused on wood mice Apodemus sylvaticus and bank voles Clethrionomys glareolus. There were also some captures of field voles Microtus agrestis and common shrew Sorex araneus, these data were not investigated individually but were included in the total density of small mammals and the total biomass. The pr edictor variables considered were the presence/absence of ES management, the presence/absence of a conservation buffer strip and the number of standard and veteran trees within the hedgerow. The relationships were analysed using a backward stepwise GLM, with all main predictors and their first order interactions initially included within the model. The insignificant interactions were then removed. Each trapping session was carried out over 3 days on 4 sites on neighbouring farms, the variation between trapping locations and times was taken into account by including the variable ‘block’ within the initial model, however, it was found to have no significance and was therefore removed from the final model. There are well documented seasonal variations in small mammal abundance (Alibhai and Gipps 1985; Flowerdew 1985; Butet et al. 2006), therefore, as there were two major trapping seasons (mid-April to May and Mid-June to July) I included the variable ‘season’ in all models. The number of captures of field voles and common shrew were too low to allow thorough analysis; however, the number of captures for each species was investigated using a Kruskal-Wallis test (Minitab 15) to determine the relationship between the presence of a buffer strip and their individual abundance. Results The total number of catches was 276 individual small mammals of four different species, during 240 trap sessions (dusk till dawn and dawn till dusk). The most abundant species were wood mice, making up 45% of the captures, 11% of which were juveniles, with a total capture of 122 individuals (61 in the first season of trapping and 61 in the second season). 32% (89 individuals) of captures were bank voles, none of which were juveniles, with 26 captures in season 1 and 53 captures in season 2. 17% of captures (48 individuals) were common shrews and 6% (17 individuals) were field voles. Table 1. Summary of the number of captures for each species Total Wood mice Captured – Season 1 (juveniles) / Season 2 (juveniles) Bank vole – Season 1 / Season 2 Field vole – Season 1 / Season 2 Common shrew – Season 1 / Season 2 Total – Season 1 / Season 2 Total N trapped throughout study 122 – 61 (2) / 61 (11) 89 – 36 / 53 17 – 4 / 13 48 – 28 / 20 276 – 129 / 147 Percentage of total 44 33 6 17 100 Percentage of hedgerows present 93 46 23 45 Effect of ES Management and Buffer strips A total of 40 hedgerows were surveyed with 20 hedgerows under ES hedgerow management and 20 hedgerows under non-ES management. ES sites had been under ES hedgerow management for 2 years or more. The measured dimensions of the hedgerow were used to estimate the hedgerow cross sectional area. Analysis using a paired measures MANOVA found no significant difference in the size of ES managed hedgerows to the size of non-ES managed hedgerows (F(1,9)=0.847, P=0.381). ES management also had no significant effect on the percentage of flailed hedgerows within the farm (F(1,9)=0.019, P=0.889). The woody species diversity within hedgerows was not significantly different between ES managed hedgerows and non-ES managed hedgerows (F(1,9)=3.047, P=0.115). There was a significant positive association of the presence of ES hedgerow management with the level of woody vegetation cover at ground level (F(1,9)=10.613, P=0.010). Table 2. Comparisons of hedgerow characteristics on ES managed farms versus non-ES managed farms. Data were analysed using a paired MANOVA. Mean (SE) Hedgerow characteristic Description of measurement ES Non-ES F(1,9) P Area Average cross sectional area/m2 2.99 (0.12) 2.83 (0.14) 0.847 0.381 Flailed Percentage of hedgerows that had been recently flailed (flailed during previous Winter) 26.00 (2.21) 25.00 (6.54) 0.019 0.893 Species diversity Number of woody species 3.16 (0.24) 2.73 (0.27) 3.047 0.115 Small mammal cover Average Area of small Mammal cover (1=little or no vegetation cover at ground level, 2=gappy cover at ground level, 3=constant vegetation cover from hedgerows at ground level) 2.63 (0.87) 2.13 (0.11) 10.613 0.010 Small Mammal Assemblages Backward stepwise general linear modelling was used to analyse the data. The results showed that buffer strips have a significant effect on the total number caught within the hedgerow (F(1,35)= 16.29, P A GLM for total biomass showed similar results with Season (F(1,34)=0.83, P=0.369) and the number of standard trees (F(1,34)=1.12, P=0.298) both having no significant effect on the total biomass. ES management had a positive association with total biomass (F(1,34)=4.92, P=0.033), as did the presence of a buffer strip (F(1,34)=27.62, P Wood mice were the most common species trapped, contributing 45% of the captures. The factors affecting wood mice captures were analysed using a backward stepwise GLM. Season had no significant effect (F(1,34)=2.36, P=0.134). Unlike the model involving ‘total captures’, ES management (F(1,34)=0.07, P=0.798) and Buffer Strip (F(1,34) A backward stepwise GLM was constructed for both ‘bank vole captures’ and ‘the total bank vole mass’, both models produced similar results. Season had no effect on bank vole captures (F(1,35)=2.06, P=0.160) and total bank vole mass (F(1,35)=1.66, P=0.206). The presence of ES management on the hedgerow had a significant positive effect on the number of bank vole captures (F(1,35)=7.15, P=0.011) and on the total bank vole mass (F(1,35)=5.91, P=0.020). The presence of a buffer also had a significant effect, increasing the number of bank vole captures (F(1,35)=34.90, P Table 3. Summary statistics from general linear models Model Variables F P Adj. R2 Total Captures Season F(1,35)=1.09 0.305 53.79% ES Managed F(1,35)=5.23 0.028a Buffer Strip F(1,35)=16.29 Standard Trees F(1,35)=0.91 0.346 Total Biomassc Season F(1,34)=0.83 0.369 65.32% ES Managed F(1,34)=4.92 0.033a Buffer Strip F(1,34)=27.62 Standard Trees F(1,34)=1.12 0.298 Season*Buffer Strip F(1,34)=3.18 0.083b Wood Mice Captures Season F(1,34)=2.36 0.134 79.72% ES Managed F(1,34)=0.07 0.798 Buffer Strip F(1,34) Standard Trees F(1,34)=79.65 Season*Standard Trees F(1,34)=4.81 0.035a Total Wood Mice Massd Season F(1,35)=1.36 0.252 69.06% ES Managed F(1,35)=0.26 0.616 Buffer Strip F(1,35)=0.05 0.831 Standard Trees F(1,35)=49.03 0.003a Bank Vole Captures Season F(1,35)=2.06 0.160 54.76% ES Managed F(1,35)=7.15 0.011a Buffer Strip F(1,35)=34.90 Standard Trees F(1,35)=4.41 0.043a Total Bank Vole Masse Season F(1,35)=1.66 0.206 50.74% ES Managed F(1,35)=5.91 0.020a Buffer Strip F(1,35)=28.11 Standard Trees F(1,35)=2.32 0.137 a – Significant to the 95% confidence level b – Significant to the 90% confidence level c Total Biomass was square root transformed before analysis. d Wood Mice Mass was square root transformed before analysis. e Bank Vole Mass was square root transformed before analysis. A total of 17 field voles were captured, with all 17 trapped in hedgerows flanked by a conservation buffer strip. A total of 48 Common shrews were trapped, 81% of which were caught in hedgerows not flanked by a buffer strip Table 4. Non-target species captures. Effect of buffer strip, analysed using Kruskal-Wallis test. Total Captures Species Buffer Strip Present No Buffer Strip H P (adjusted for ties) Field vole 17 0 8.30 0.004 Common shrew 9 38 12.73 Discussion Hedgerow characteristics are known to affect small mammal numbers. Hedgerows with many gaps and a lack of ground cover support significantly lower small mammal populations (Gelling et al. 2007). Small mammals will select against hedgerows with a lack of vegetative cover due to the increased risk of predation (Orrock et al. 2004). Our results suggest that ES farms produce denser hedgerows with more cover at the ground level than non-ES farms. This is reflected in the small mammal survey which shows a somewhat strong association between small mammal numbers and ES hedgerows. However, having surveyed the farms and the farmers, I acknowledge that a wide number of variables affect the characteristics of the hedgerow. I suggest that the state of the hedgerows for small mammals is more significantly affected by the mindset of the farmer. Those farmers who have moved onto the Entry level ES scheme are generally those who most actively manage their farm. One supporting piece of data for this theory, is the number of flailed hedgerows on ES farms compared to non-ES farms. The hedgerow survey found that there were no differences in the number of recently flailed hedgerows within ES farms compared to non-ES farms, therefore, even though the cutting of hedgerows on ES farms is restricted, it still occurs as often on the ES farms within this survey than on the non-ES farms. The suggestion is that those farmers who are on the ES scheme are more actively involved in managing their farm, including their hedgerows, therefore hedgerows on ES farms commonly provide denser vegetation, less gaps and more cover at ground level. The typical ES farmer is more actively managing the hedge as a boundary or barrier to cattle than the typical non-ES farmer. The author suggests this conclusion having discussed hedgerow management with the farmers as part of the hedgerow survey and having a background in agriculture, however, it is also recognised that this topic goes beyond the scope and ava ilable data of this investigation. Hedgerows can be thought of as corridors linking woodland habitat, allowing small mammal migration (Soule and Terbough 1999), however, within the British pastoral landscape, hedgerows are often acting as the sole habitat for small mammals (Fitzgibbon 1997). My investigation found that the ratio of juvenile to adult wood mice increased during the season, with greater numbers present later in the summer, this is consistent with the observations of others (Alibhai and Gipps 1991, Flowerdew 1991). The breeding season for most small mammals begins in spring and ends in late summer, therefore it is natural that more juveniles are present in hedgerows as the summer progresses and they travel outward to establish their own home ranges. The presence of fully grown, breeding adults in both seasons of trapping indicates that animals are resident within the hedgerows, providing support for the argument that linear habitats can provide suitable habitat to support viable populations of small mamma ls. My results show that the total small mammal abundance and therefore the availability of prey biomass for predators is increased in hedgerows under ES management. The results of the hedgerow survey suggest that there is greater ground level vegetation cover in ES hedgerows. An increase in the amount of physical habitat creates greater foraging opportunities and can increase small mammal abundance (Gelling et al. 2007). Small mammals prefer hedgerows with greater ground level cover as they provide better refuge from predators (Orrock et al. 2004). Whereas the benefits of ES management for small mammal abundance remain unclear, this investigation highlights the importance of buffer strips. The value of unimproved grassy margins, in arable landscapes, for small mammal numbers has already been shown (Shore et al. 2005). This study suggests that the presence of a buffer strip along a hedgerow can provide a much improved habitat to support larger small mammal numbers in hedgerows within pastoral landscapes. Grassy margins are a refuge for small mammals beyond the hedgerow; they allow increased safety for foraging and greater shelter (Orrock et al. 2004). To understand the variation in the numbers trapped of each species, we need to establish an understanding of the differing ecological requirements for each species. The two most abundant species were the wood mouse and the bank vole. The results show that wood mice are found in greater numbers in hedgerows containing standard/veteran trees. This conclusion is supported by previous studies which have shown that trees within hedgerows are beneficial for wood mice (Montgomerie and Dowie, 1993). Mice often take shelter in burrows formed beneath trees/within tree roots which may suggest why this species was found more commonly within hedgerows containing standard/veteran trees (Montgomerie and Dowie, 1993). Wood mice are a generalist species occupying a wide variety of habitat (Flowerdew 1993). They general occupy a relatively large home range and travel extensively, consuming a wide range of food sources depending upon season and availability (Flowerdew 1993). This is reflected in the re sults, with wood mice having been trapped in 93% of all the hedgerows. The results also show that wood mice abundance is not affected by ES management for hedgerows, nor is it significantly improved by the presence of a buffer strip. Wood mice have been shown to avoid hedgerows with major gaps, and wood mouse captures have been shown to increase with proximity to woodland (Gelling et al. 2007). Wood mice have relatively large home ranges and the suggestion is that individuals rarely stay long within any one hedgerow; rather they travel through, utilising hedgerows for foraging and shelter between woodland (Montgomery and Dowie 1993; Gelling et al 2007; Todd et al 2000; Tew et al. 2000). Therefore, ES management and the presence of buffer strips have little effect on the number of wood mouse captures; more important is the proximity to woodland or the presence of trees within a hedgerow which provide the preferred shelter for the wood mouse (Todd et al. 2000; Tew et al. 2000). Bank voles are a more specialist species, and generally occupy much smaller home ranges than do wood mice. They are burrowers, using ground vegetation to create runs and pathways in deciduous habitats (Morris 1982; Alibhai and Gipps 1985). Bank voles are a major prey resource for a number of raptors and bank vole abundance has been shown to significantly affect raptor populations (Korpimaki and Norrdahl, 1991). Other studies have found that bank vole numbers are positively associated with the size of hedgerows (Pollard Relton, 1970; Tew, 1994; Bellamy et al., 2000). Grassy margins of 2m plus have been shown to significantly increase bank vole numbers in arable fields (Shore et al. 2005), my results show that this conclusion extends to pastoral landscapes with bank vole numbers being significantly increased by the presence of an unimproved grassy margin or conservation buffer strip. The results also suggest that ES management improves hedgerows for bank voles, with bank vole abundanc e found to be significantly higher on ES hedgerow sites. Bank voles are found in much greater abundance in areas which provide thick ground vegetation and suffer little disturbance (Tew 1994), my results suggest that this is partially provided by ES management, however, the creation of grassy margins along hedgerows could significantly improve bank vole abundance in pastoral landscapes. The creation of margins could also be significant in the conservation of field voles. Field vole numbers in the UK are in decline believed to be due to the loss of rough grass habitat in intensively managed arable regions (Harris et al., 1995; Love et al., 2000). Field voles are specialists and depend upon rough, ungrazed grassland within woodland and hedgerows. Field voles are generally only found within areas of long grass (Alibhai and Gipps, 1991b). Very few captures of field voles were recorded within this experiment, however all field voles captures occurred within hedgerows flanked by conservation buffer strips. The presence of a buffer strip may provide the field voles’

We Should Make Snow on the Mountain Essay -- Argumentative Persuasive

We Should Make Snow on the Mountain The varying opinions on whether snow should be made on the Snowbowl Ski Mountain in Flagstaff, Arizona have grown to become a statewide debate. Snowbowl is one of the sacred mountains in the San Francisco Peaks that is very meaningful to the Native people. If snow were to be made on the mountain, it would interfere with the beliefs of many people. On the other hand, many Arizona residents rely on the ski area for its incoming business, recreation, and for providing jobs to many people. The dispute on the expansion of the ski area and the making of snow has continued to be discussed for the last fifteen years. The tribes defending their lands are very confident in the decisions the National Forest has been faced with. Should snow be made on Snowbowl Mountain? The answer is fast approaching. The National Forest Department of Coconino is taking the final public response on the proposed action before a decision is made. It is clear, though, that the proposed improvements for Snowbowl bri ng about many negative factors such as interfering with the Native beliefs, the effects it will have on the economy, and the costliness of the expansion. This almost makes the proposed plan not worth the effort. First, the Native’s beliefs in this area are very important because the land is so sacred to them. They do not want it to be destroyed. â€Å"It’s something so emotional to the Hopi people. The Peaks are part of our everyday lives. It’s not just a significant landscape; it carries the essence of our life as well.† Kuwanwisiwma, chief of the local Hopi tribe, states in an article published in the Arizona Daily Sun (2002). This project is also very unnatural towards the environment. The making of snow is not... ...f you want to put it into western perspective.† In a letter written by the Forest Supervisor, published by the United States Department of Agriculture (2004), Jim Golden, he insures that a decision will be returned to the public on the proposed action at some point in the next three seasons to come, this was in the season of 2002. Although the snowfall this year looks promising so far, there is no guarantee that the area will pull through. With the thirteen Native tribes strongly opposing all proposals, the effect it will have on the economy, and the costliness of the entire plan all working against the project proposal, the Snowbowl expansion may be set aside for more time to come. Satisfying the needs of the two opposing sides will be difficult, but the community will come to realize that the economy of Flagstaff and surrounding people will be affected greatly.

Why did the Beatles and the Rolling Stones have such a great impact during the 1960’s?

In the early 60's and late 50's things changed people were more open to new ideas and T.V, fashion and Music became a very big part of life. They were all new and exciting and every young person wanted to be part of it. Music especially played a big part all that teenagers wanted to do was listen to music but this was made very hard for them there was no radio stations for them the had to listen to Radio Luxembourg which although played non-stop pop music kept cutting out after every few minutes the in 1964 a new pirate station was launched it was Radio Caroline It was a ship which was just outside British territorial waters and did the same as radio Luxembourg, played non stop pop music. Every teenager loved it but it was very unpopular with the BBC and the government and they tried to get it banned. There were British Pop acts though and two of the biggest were the Beatles and the Rolling Stones. When I say big I mean huge, I was born in 1988 about 25 years after the bands started out and I could quote you lyrics from some of their songs. People are still buying their music today and they are still acquiring new fans every year. The Beatles wee four Lads from Liverpool with very broad regional accents and they were Paul, Ringo, George and John. The Beatles were different they had different and new hairstyles and they wrote and performed their own music unlike so many other British acts. Many people didn't like them and saw them as an attack on the establishment. The Rolling Stones were Mick, Keith, Charlie and Bill. They were from London and they had their first hit in Britain in 1963 with Come On/I Wanna Be Loved. They also had a hit with a Beatles cover. They were known by the establishment as longhaired louts and had very much the same feedback from the public as the Beatles did although a lot of people would argue that they were worse than the Beatles. One person said that when they went to a Beatles concert they didn't hear one note all they could hear was the thousands of fans screaming. This was new no one had supported a band or musician like this before yes there had been strong followings for people before but nothing like that was seen at each bands concerts. At about the same time or just slightly before the same music phenomenon was happening in the USA with bands like the beach boys and the monkeys. British music was influenced by the US and a lot of people looked to the country as inspiration. Neither were instant hits though The Beatles had actually been a struggling band playing in clubs like the cavern, where they actually got discovered and the stones didn't get to number one until July 1964. As the years went on they got more drastic and the Beatles wrote songs which were obviously about drugs and this is why young people liked them because they weren't afraid to say what they wanted to which many teenagers wanted to but never could do before. I suppose our modern day answer to the Beatles would be someone like Eimenem. In the beginning of the 60's there was such an attack on the establishment and bands like the stones and the Beatles upheld this attack. They were people teenagers could follow and who their parents didn't really like, which for some made them like them even more. They weren't just pop stars to them, they were heroes. You could say well what makes them so different from every other band, what made them so special well one of the things for the Beatles was that they were one of the first, no other band was like them they were new, exciting and talented. A modern day example of how they become famous is the spice girls and I'm not comparing them on talent but when the spice girls came along there was no other proper girl band which is why thy were such a success. Lyrics were a big part of both bands they were new and inspirational and home-grown examples are â€Å"I can't get no satisfaction† from the Beatles and † I wish somebody'd come along and run into it and wreck it†. They also wrote their own lyrics. They were turned in Media Stars and they both were the first ever bands to be a hit in America no other bands were like them. They both had very good management which also helped them lots The Beatles had Epstein and the stones had Oldham both of whom were very good at their jobs and made stars out of both bands. Something that kept the Beatles and the stones in the charts was that they changed with the times, the sixties was all about that nothing stayed popular for very long but they changed as the time went to suit that months trend. The stones didn't change as much as the Beatles but from what they did I think they grew into it, I believe that the Beatles were managed into it but it made them a success, made them very rich and gave each one a chance at their own solo careers. They were legends, the two remaining Beatles now have been successful in their careers and even today the rolling stones are still performing and realising album the most recent one being 40 licks, which was a complete success and which I know of people my own age that brought the C.D so if they get that kind response in 2003 you can only begin to imagine what it was like in sixties how it made their fans feel how much impact they had on everyone whether they enjoyed their music or not.

Browning Peal Essay

Browning PEAL Essay Robert Browning uses many techniques one such example being his continuous reference to women being similar to roses. Browning uses the imagery of roses throughout the poem to represent women and femininity. It is a common practice in literature for poets to refer to women as flowers, in particular roses; such as Browning has done in ‘Women and Roses’. This is because they represent natural beauty that has been created by God, which compliments the woman Browning is talking about because it shows his feelings on how he believes they don’t have to try to be beautiful.Roses also represent love and passion, the colour red is an intimate colour that represents seduction and sometimes danger as seen in ‘Of Mice and Men’ where Curley’s wife is referred to as having â€Å"full rouged lips† and â€Å"red fingernails†. The thorns on roses continues this theme of potential risk, because the simple idea of men picking ros es for women could injure the man due to the thorns on the stem, this could represent how men have to fight past the hard things in love to get to the beauty or the woman.In ‘Women and Roses’, Browning also uses roses as a representation of the stages through a woman’s life going into womanhood and how she grows from a young shoot full of promise to something incredibly beautiful and natural and eventually to an old and wilted flower, â€Å"bees pass it unimpeached†. The poem is about finding perfect love with a woman, which is represented as finding a rose with no thorns, thorns being the trouble in a relationship or a woman.Browning wrote ‘Prospice’ after his beloved wife, Elizabeth Barrett Browning, died in 1861. The poem shows Browning’s beliefs on death and how he feels that he will once again be reunited with his love in the afterlife. The title ‘Prospice' can be translated as ‘look forward’, and in this poem, p ublished in 1864, Browning is most likely looking forward to death, when he expects ‘I will clasp thee again’, meaning he will be with Elizabeth once more.Such optimism seems to contrast noticeably with the religious doubt or searching of many Victorian writers. But Browning does not claim that there is anything easy about facing death, instead he shows one way of coping. He gives the ‘Arch Fear’, death, a ‘visible form’ so that he can imagine taking him on in one last fight to show that he will not be taken easily, ‘Barriers’ and ‘guerdon’ suggest a tournament took place. In ‘A Woman’s Last Word’ Browning uses Roman numerals to show the breaking down of a omplex subject such as a woman’s feelings after an argument. By doing this it makes it easier for the reader to follow and distinguish the different stages of feelings the character goes through and also shows the changes in direction of he r attitude until she reaches submission towards her love. This is a good technique used as he wrote the poem from a woman’s point of view and has gone into a lot of detail on how she feels and reacts to the argument.