Albert Einstein, Developer of the Theory of Relativity

Albert Einstein, Developer of the Theory of Relativity Albert Einstein (March 14, 1879–April 18, 1955), a German-born theoretical physicist who lived during the 20th century, revolutionized scientific thought. Having developed the Theory of Relativity, Einstein opened the door for the development of atomic power and the creation of the atomic bomb. Einstein is best known for his 1905 general theory of relativity, Emc2, which posits that energy (E) equals mass (m) times the speed of light (c) squared. But his influence went far beyond that theory. Einsteins theories also changed thinking about how the planets revolve around the sun. For his scientific contributions, Einstein also won the 1921 Nobel Prize in physics. Einstein also was forced to Flee Nazi Germany after the rise of Adolf Hitler. Its no exaggeration to say that his theories indirectly helped lead the Allies to victory over the Axis powers in World War II, particularly the defeat of Japan. Fast Facts: Albert Einstein Known For: The General Theory of Relativity, Emc2, which led to the development of the atomic bomb and atomic power.Born: March 14, 1879 in Ulm,  Kingdom of Wà ¼rttemberg,  German EmpireParents: Hermann Einstein and Pauline KochDied: April 18, 1955 in Princeton, New JerseyEducation: Swiss Federal Polytechnic (1896–1900, B.A., 1900; University of Zurich, Ph.D., 1905)Published Works: On a Heuristic Point of View Concerning the Production and Transformation of Light, On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies, Does an Object’s Inertia Depend on Its Energy Content?Awards and Honors: Barnard Medal (1920), Nobel Prize in Physics (1921), Matteucci Medal (1921), Gold Medal of the Royal Astronomical Society (1926), Max Planck Medal (1929), Time Person of the Century (1999)Spouses: Mileva Marić (m. 1903–1919), Elsa Là ¶wenthal (m. 1919–1936)Children: Lieserl, Hans Albert Einstein, EduardNotable Quote: Try and penetrate with our limited means the secrets of na ture and you will find that, behind all the discernible concatenations, there remains something subtle, intangible and inexplicable. Early Life and Education Albert Einstein was born on March 14, 1879, in Ulm, Germany to Jewish parents, Hermann and Pauline Einstein. A year later, Hermann Einsteins business failed and he moved his family to Munich to start a new electric business with his brother Jakob. In Munich, Alberts sister Maja was born in 1881. Only two years apart in age, Albert adored his sister and they had a close relationship with each other their whole lives. Although Einstein is now considered the epitome of genius, in the first two decades of his life, many people thought Einstein was the exact opposite. Right after Einstein was born, relatives were concerned with Einsteins pointy head. Then, when Einstein didnt talk until he was 3 years old, his parents worried something was wrong with him. Einstein also failed to impress his teachers. From elementary school through college, his teachers and professors thought he was lazy, sloppy, and insubordinate. Many of his teachers thought he would never amount to anything. When Einstein was 15 years old, his fathers new business had failed and the Einstein family moved to Italy. At first, Albert remained behind in Germany to finish high school, but he was soon unhappy with that arrangement and left school to rejoin his family. Rather than finish high school, Einstein decided to apply directly to the prestigious Polytechnic Institute in Zurich, Switzerland. Although he failed the entrance exam on the first try, he spent a year studying at a local high school and retook the entrance exam in October 1896 and passed. Once at the Polytechnic, Einstein again did not like school. Believing that his professors only taught old science, Einstein would often skip class, preferring to stay home and read about the newest in scientific theory. When he did attend class, Einstein would often make it obvious that he found the class dull. Some last-minute studying allowed Einstein to graduate in 1900. However, once out of school, Einstein was unable to find a job because none of his teachers liked him enough to write him a recommendation letter. For nearly two years, Einstein worked at short-term jobs until a friend was able to help him get a job as a patent clerk at the Swiss Patent Office in Bern. Finally, with a job and some stability, Einstein was able to marry his college sweetheart, Mileva Maric, whom his parents strongly disapproved. The couple went on to have two sons: Hans Albert (born 1904) and Eduard (born 1910). Einstein the Patent Clerk For seven years, Einstein worked six days a week as a patent clerk. He was responsible for examining the blueprints of other peoples inventions and then determining whether they were feasible. If they were, Einstein had to ensure that no one else had already been given a patent for the same idea. Somehow, between his very busy work and family life, Einstein not only found time to earn a doctorate from the University of Zurich (awarded 1905) but found time to think. It was while working at the patent office that Einstein made his most influential discoveries. Influential Theories In 1905, while working at the patent office, Einstein wrote five scientific papers, which were all published in the Annalen der Physik (Annals of Physics, a major physics journal). Three of these were published together in September 1905. In one paper, Einstein theorized that light must not just travel in waves but existed as particles, which explained the photoelectric effect. Einstein himself described this particular theory as revolutionary. This was also the theory for which Einstein won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1921. In another paper, Einstein tackled the mystery of why pollen never settled to the bottom of a glass of water but rather, kept moving (Brownian motion). By declaring that the pollen was being moved by water molecules, Einstein solved a longstanding, scientific mystery and proved the existence of molecules. His third paper described Einsteins Special Theory of Relativity, in which Einstein revealed that space and time are not absolutes. The only thing that is constant, Einstein stated, is the speed of light; the rest of space and time are all based on the position of the observer. Not only are space and time not absolutes, Einstein discovered that energy and mass, once thought completely distinct items, were actually interchangeable. In his Emc2  equation (Eenergy, mmass, and cspeed of light), Einstein created a simple formula to describe the relationship between energy and mass. This formula reveals that a very small amount of mass can be converted into a huge amount of energy, leading to the later invention of the atomic bomb. Einstein was only 26 years old when these articles were published and already he had done more for science than any individual since Sir Isaac Newton. Scientists Take Notice In 1909, four years after his theories were first published, Einstein was finally offered a teaching position. Einstein enjoyed being a teacher at the University of Zurich. He had found traditional schooling as he grew up extremely limiting and thus he wanted to be a different kind of teacher. Arriving at school unkempt, with hair uncombed and his clothes too baggy, Einstein soon became known as much for his appearance as his teaching style. As Einsteins fame within the scientific community grew, offers for new, better positions began to pour in. Within only a few years, Einstein worked at the University of Zurich (Switzerland), then the German University in Prague (Czech Republic), and then went back to Zurich for the Polytechnic Institute. The frequent moves, the numerous conferences that Einstein attended, and preoccupation of Einstein with science left Mileva (Einsteins wife) feeling both neglected and lonely. When Einstein was offered a professorship at the University of Berlin in 1913, she didnt want to go. Einstein accepted the position anyway. Not long after arriving in Berlin, Mileva and Albert separated. Realizing the marriage could not be salvaged, Mileva took the kids back to Zurich. They officially divorced in 1919. Achieves Worldwide Fame During  World War I, Einstein stayed in Berlin and worked diligently on new theories. He worked like a man obsessed. With Mileva gone, he often forgot to eat and sleep. In 1917, the stress eventually took its toll and he collapsed. Diagnosed with gallstones, Einstein was told to rest. During his recuperation, Einsteins cousin Elsa helped nurse him back to health. The two became very close and when Alberts divorce was finalized, Albert and Elsa married. It was during this time that Einstein revealed his General Theory of Relativity, which considered the effects of acceleration and gravity on time and space. If Einsteins theory was correct, then the gravity of the sun would bend light from stars. In 1919, Einsteins General Theory of Relativity could be tested during a solar eclipse. In May 1919, two British astronomers (Arthur Eddington and Sir Frances Dyson) were able to put together an expedition that observed the  solar eclipse  and documented the bent light. In November 1919, their findings were announced publicly. After having suffered monumental bloodshed during World War I, people around the world were craving news that went beyond their countrys borders. Einstein became a worldwide celebrity overnight. It wasnt just his revolutionary theories; it was Einsteins general persona that appealed to the masses. Einsteins disheveled hair, poorly fitting clothes, doe-like eyes, and witty charm endeared him to the average person. He was a genius, but he was an approachable one. Instantly famous, Einstein was hounded by reporters and photographers wherever he went. He was given honorary degrees and asked to visit countries around the world. Albert and Elsa took trips to the United States, Japan, Palestine (now Israel), South America, and throughout Europe. Becomes an Enemy of the State Although Einstein spent the 1920s traveling and making special appearances, these took away from the time he could work on his scientific theories. By the early 1930s, finding time for science wasnt his only problem. The political climate in Germany was changing drastically. When  Adolf Hitler  took power in 1933, Einstein was luckily visiting the United States (he never returned to Germany). The Nazis promptly declared Einstein an enemy of the state, ransacked his house, and burned his books. As death threats began, Einstein finalized his plans to take a position at the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton, New Jersey. He arrived at Princeton on Oct. 17, 1933. Einstein suffered a personal loss when Elsa died on Dec. 20, 1936. Three years later, Einsteins sister Maja fled from  Mussolinis Italy  and came to live with Einstein in Princeton. She stayed until her death in 1951. Until the Nazis took power in Germany, Einstein had been a devoted pacifist for his entire life. However, with the harrowing tales coming out of Nazi-occupied Europe, Einstein reevaluated his pacifist ideals. In the case of the Nazis, Einstein realized they needed to be stopped, even if that meant using military might to do so. The Atomic Bomb In July 1939, scientists  Leo Szilard  and Eugene Wigner visited Einstein to discuss the possibility that Germany was working on building an atomic bomb. The ramifications of Germany building such a destructive weapon prompted Einstein to write a letter to  President Franklin D. Roosevelt  to warn him about this potentially massive weapon. In response, Roosevelt established the  Manhattan Project, a collection of U.S. scientists urged to beat Germany to the construction of a working atomic bomb. Even though Einsteins letter prompted the Manhattan Project, Einstein himself never worked on constructing the atomic bomb. Later Years and Death From 1922 until the end of his life, Einstein worked on finding a unified field theory. Believing that God does not play dice, Einstein searched for a single, unified theory that could combine all the fundamental forces of physics between elementary particles. Einstein never found it. In the years after World War II, Einstein advocated for a world government and for civil rights. In 1952, after the death of Israels first President Chaim Weizmann, Einstein was offered the presidency of Israel. Realizing that he was not good at politics and too aged to start something new, Einstein declined the offer. On April 12, 1955, Einstein collapsed at his home. Just six days later, on April 18, 1955, Einstein died when the aneurysm he had been living with for several years finally burst. He was 76 years old. Resources and Further Reading â€Å"The Year Of Albert Einstein.†Ã‚  Smithsonian.com, Smithsonian Institution, 1 June 2005.â€Å"Albert Einstein.†Ã‚  Biography.com, AE Networks Television, 14 Feb. 2019.Kuepper, Hans-Josef. â€Å"The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein.†Ã‚  Albert Einstein - Honours, Prizes and Awards.

Economic Questions Speech or Presentation Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2500 words

Economic Questions - Speech or Presentation Example M1 is the narrowest measure of money which includes currency, checking account deposits and travelers checks. The M2 includes the M1 plus other assets that have check-writing features such as small-denomination time deposits, savings deposits and money market accounts, and money market mutual fund shares (noninstitutional). The M3 monetary aggregate is composed of M2 plus large denomination time deposits, term repurchase agreements, term Eurodollars and institutional money market mutual fund shares (Mishkin 57- 59). The Fed consists of 12 regional Federal Reserve banks, around 3000 member commercial banks, the Board of Governors of the Fed, the Federal Open Market Committee, and the Federal Advisory Council. Each of the 12 Federal Reserve banks perform the following: a. clear checks; b. issue new currency; c. withdraw damaged currency from circulation; d. administer and make discount loans to banks in their districts; e. evaluate proposed mergers and applications for banks to expand their activities; f. act as intermediaries between the business community and the Fed; g. examine bank holding companies and state-chartered banks; h. collect data on local business conditions; i. use their staff of professional economist to research topics related to monetary policy (Mishkin 369- 370). Those in favor of an independent Fed argue... This would add inflationary bias to monetary policy leading to an expansionary monetary policy and political business cycles. However, those in favor of less independent Fed want more accountability, transparency and democratic decision- making which affects the entire economy (Mishkin 386-387). DQ 1: Discuss the four players and how they affect the money supply process. First is the central bank, the main government agency which oversees the banking system and is in control of monetary policy. Second are the banks which serve as financial intermediaries as they accept deposits and grant loans. Third are the depositors who hold accounts in banks. The last players are the borrowers from the banks (Mishkin391- 392). DQ 2: Discuss the deficiencies of the simple model of multiple deposit creation. First, the model fails to take into account the behavior of all four players which could affect the money supply, especially the role played by the central bank. Also, it fails to predict the smaller expansion of deposits once depositors decide to hold more currency or when banks decide to hold excess reserves (Mishkin 409-410). DQ 3: Compare and contrast the Keynesian and Monetarist views on the money supply. Both schools of thought see the money supply as an important component of the economy. They just differ on the policy to address the fluctuations resulting from the increasing money supply. Keynesian economists believe that central bank can manipulate the levels of money supply, either by increasing or raising it to prop up the economy. Monetarist believes that the central bank should avoid controlling the money supply since it will lead to further fluctuations.

William Faulkner correlated with his Light in August Essay

William Faulkner correlated with his Light in August - Essay Example The story "Light in August" was first named by Faulkner as the "Dark House" and was officially published on October 9, 1932. It is considered that the origin of the "Dark House" was due to the frustration Faulkner felt within himself after the death of his beloved daughter; nothing stopped Faulkner from going wild because of her daughter's death. It was Faulkner's depression that his creation of "Joe Christmas" revolves around identity framed provocatively in terms of displaced persons in a culture that set an exceedingly high premium upon everyone having a place and staying in it according to race, sex, and class. Joe Christmas was a child born of a white mother but who could never know his race because no one really knew whether his father was black or white. In the end Joe Christmas was sacrificed, and his death represents something of compensation for the social sins of others. One feels that he found his place in dying for their salvation, as he always remained skeptical about his identity. (Williamson, 1993). Faulkner portrays a white man whose "black blood" has in effect been imposed on him by external forces. Nothing in Joe's appearance indicates that he is anything but white, to the point where he is able throughout the novel to move easily in white society without anyone suspecting him as black. Even at the barbershop where he is given close attention to his face and hair, possessing all physical signs of Negro origins, easily detectable, no one recognizes him as the "nigger murderer" carrying a price on his head. Despite of having physical features of a nigger, people don't consider and accept him as a nigger of that town and it often happens that Joe is referred to as "Joe, the white nigger" an obvious oxymoron in the 1930s South. In Robert Penn Warren's words, "Faulkner here undercuts the official history and mythology of a whole society by indicating that the 'nigger' is a creation of the white man." (Singal J., 1997) Joe, the son of a sinful Southern white girl and a carnival dark man, possibly a Mexican considers his father to be partially black, or he might not have been black at all. The crucial factor was that neither Joe nor anyone else could ever know with certainty whether he was black or white in a society in which everything began with that definition. Faulkner has created Joe Christmas as a hostile vagrant, a person who remains unsure of him and who tries to find out his racial identity. Faulkner has made Christmas a disputed and lonely character who, has been viewed as an intense example of modern urban estrangement. He is constantly seeking his identity and always negate the society for the rules the society possesses. He depicts the picture of an all-alone isolated personality who is expecting the society to change for him. At times Joe is wearing dress, white shirt with black pants, which suggests his internal division. And this divided character may even symbolize the racial confli ct of the South as a whole. Faulkner has painted Joe in such a manner right from his infancy to adolescence, that it is clear that

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.