DOCSLIB.ORG

Environmental Effects of Conservation Practices on Grazing Lands Diversity (BIOLOG Ecoplates) As a Reliable Tool for 796

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Rangeland: Fish and Wildlife Effects 790. Willow flycatcher and yellow warbler response to cattle grazing. Taylor, D. M. and Littlefield, C. D. American Birds 40(5): 1169-1173. (1986) NAL Call #: QL671.A32; ISSN: 0004-7686 Descriptors: Empidonax traillii/ Dendroica petechia/ human activity/ habitat protection © The Thomson Corporation Plant Ecology, Biodiversity, and Other Environmental Effects 791. 14 vs. 42-paddock rotational grazing aboveground abandonment/ land degradation/ mountain grazing lands: biomass dynamics forage production and harvest area enclosures, open management schemes/ soil efficiency. properties/ species richness/ vegetation composition Heitschmidt, R. K.; Dowhower, S. L.; and Walker, J. W. Abstract: Loss of biodiversity is the single most important Journal of Range Management 40(3): 216-223. (1987) threat to the conservation and sustainable use of drylands NAL Call #: 60.18 J82; ISSN: 0022-409X in northern Ethiopia due to many centuries of cultivation http://jrm.library.arizona.edu/data/1987/403/6heit.pdf and heavy livestock grazing pressure. The current study Descriptors: cattle/ Texas/ USA/ stocking densities/ assessed the restoration of biodiversity in highly degraded growing season areas in eastern Tigray, northern Ethiopia using area Abstract: Research was initiated at the Texas Experimental enclosures (AEs). The study assessed whether the Ranch in 1981 to quantify the effects of 2 stocking differences in biodiversity between AEs and open densities, equivalent to 14- and 42-paddock rotational management schemes and time of land abandonment grazing (RG) treatments, on aboveground biomass influenced diversity of plant life forms (i.e. herbs, shrubs dynamics, aboveground net primary production (ANPP), and trees). Changes in biodiversity were compared using and harvest efficiency of forage. Baseline data were the state-and-transition model. Management types and time collected in 1981 from 3 adjacent 30-ha paddocks in a 14- since abandonment (hereafter called age) had a significant paddock, cell designed RG treatment. Near the beginning effect on herbaceous plant species abundance but not in of the 1982 growing season the center paddock was shrub species, while site factors had a greater effect on subdivided into three, 10-ha paddocks to establish the RG- diversity of plant life forms in general. Herbaceous species 42 treatment. Stocking densities in the 14- and 42-paddock richness increased with age of restoration, reaching a treatments were 4.2 and 12.5 AU/ha, respectively, from maximum after three years of rest and declined thereafter, March 1982 to June 1984 and 3.0 and 9.1 AU/ha from June most probably as a result of hay harvesting and to November 1984. During 1981, estimated ANPP in the replacement of annual species by perennial grass species. two RG-14 paddocks averaged 4,088 kg/ha as compared to Tree species richness increased gradually with age of land 5,762 in the single RG-42 paddock. Following subdivision, abandonment up to the maximum age of eight years. Four ANPP in the RG-14 paddocks averaged 2,533 kg/ha as vegetation states and seven possible transitions that could compared to 2,670 kg/ha in the RG-42 paddocks. Although guide management were identified. The vegetation states ANPP varied significantly among the 4 years of the study it differed in terms of diversity of herbs and tree species but was not affected by density treatment. Likewise, harvest not those of shrubs. Promotion of tree species states will efficiency varied among years but was unaffected by require longer periods of rest, while promotion of density treatment. Average harvest efficiency over the 4 herbaceous species richness will need shorter periods. The years was about 42%. Aboveground biomass dynamics state-and-transitional model could, therefore, be used to were also generally unaffected by density treatments. guide future management by promoting vegetation states © The Thomson Corporation that are desired by land users. © The Thomson Corporation 792. Alfalfa survival and vigor in rangeland grazed by sheep. 794. Bacteria as bioindicators in wetlands: Berdahl, J. D.; Wilton, A. C.; Lorenz, R. J.; and Frank, A. B. Bioassessment in the Bonneville Basin of Utah, USA. Journal of Range Management 39(1): 59-62. (1986) Merkley, M.; Rader, R. B.; Mcarthur, J. V.; and Eggett, D. NAL Call #: 60.18 J82; ISSN: 0022-409X Wetlands 24(3): 600-607. (2004) http://jrm.library.arizona.edu/data/1986/391/15berd.pdf NAL Call #: QH75.A1W47; ISSN: 0277-5212 Descriptors: Medicago/ cultivars/ germplasm/ grazing/ Descriptors: marshes/ wetlands/ basins/ biodegradation/ regrowth/ sheep/ rangelands/ North Dakota genetic analysis/ indicator species/ grazing/ surface area/ This citation is from AGRICOLA. comparative studies/ analytical techniques/ genetics/ bioassays/ degradation/ man-induced effects/ 793. An assessment of restoration of biodiversity in anthropogenic factors/ genetic diversity/ species diversity/ degraded high mountain grazing lands in northern bacteria/ biodiversity/ organic compounds/ substrates/ Ethiopia. ecosystems/ bioindicators/ USA, Utah, Bonneville Basin Asefa, D. T.; Oba, G.; Weladji, R. B.; and Colman, J. E. Abstract: Bacteria should be excellent indicators of the Land Degradation and Development 14(1): 25-38. (2003) early signs of degradation caused by human intervention NAL Call #: S622.L26; ISSN: 1085-3278 because they have the highest surface area to volume ratio Descriptors: state and transition model: mathematical and of all organisms. We determined the utility of a simple computer techniques/ biodiversity restoration/ land procedure that measures aerobic bacterial metabolic 209 Environmental Effects of Conservation Practices on Grazing Lands diversity (BIOLOG EcoPlates) as a reliable tool for 796. Benefits of protective fencing to plant and rodent assessing the effects of cattle grazing on spring communities of the Western Mojave Desert, California. ecosystems of the Bonneville Basin, Utah, USA. Marshes Brooks, Matthew L. disturbed by cattle could be distinguished from protected Environmental Management 19(1): 65-74. (1995) marshes using EcoPlate analyses. The diversity of organic NAL Call #: HC79.E5E5; ISSN: 0364-152X compounds used by bacteria was greater in grazed versus Descriptors: alien grass/ annual plant biomass/ community ungrazed marshes. A separate genetic analysis (DGGE) diversity/ desert ecosystem/ desert tortoise research natural provided corroborating evidence. Greater metabolic area/ forb biomass/ human disturbance/ Kern County/ diversity (EcoPlates) corresponded to greater bacterial livestock grazing/ Merriami's kangaroo rat/ method/ assemblage diversity in grazed versus protected marshes. protective effect Greater plant diversity at grazed sites might account for the Abstract: Human disturbance in the western Mojave Desert greater diversity of organic substrates used by bacteria in takes many forms. The most pervasive are livestock grazed sites. However, the results were not conclusive. In grazing and off-highway vehicle use. Over the past few some marshes, a greater diversity of organic substrate use decades several areas within this region have been fenced occurred where there was greater plant diversity, whereas to preclude human disturbance. These areas provide in other marshes the diversity of organic substrates used by opportunities to study the impact of human activities in a bacteria was lower where plant diversity was greatest. desert ecosystem. This paper documents the response of Regardless of the mechanism, aerobic bacterial metabolic plant and small mammal populations to fencing constructed diversity (EcoPlates) is a potentially valuable tool for between 1978 and 1979 at the Desert Tortoise Research assessing the early signs of degradation in wetland Natural Area, Kern County, California. Aboveground live ecosystems. annual plant biomass was generally greater inside than © CSA outside the fenced plots during April 1990, 1991, and 1992. The alien grass Schismus barbatus was a notable 795. Below-ground biomass and productivity of a exception, producing more biomass in the unprotected grazed site and a neighbouring ungrazed exclosure in a area. Forb biomass was greater than that of alien annual grassland in central Argentina. grasses inside the fence during all three years of the study. Pucheta, Eduardo; Bonamici, Ivano; Cabido, Marcelo; and Outside the fence, forb biomass was significantly higher Diaz, Sandra than that of alien grasses only during spring 1992. Percent Austral Ecology 29(2): 201-208. (2004) cover of perennial shrubs was higher inside the fence than NAL Call #: QH540 .A8; ISSN: 1442-9985 outside, while no significant trend was detected in density. Descriptors: long term exclosure: applied and field There was also more seed biomass inside the fence; this techniques/ below ground biomass/ below ground net plant may have contributed to the greater diversity and density of productivity [bnpp]/ climates/ grazing impact/ mountain Merriam's kangaroo rats (Dipodomys merriami), long-tailed grasslands/ root turnover rates/ seasonal variation pocket mice (Chaetodipus formosus), and southern Abstract: We estimated the below-ground net plant grasshopper mice (Onychomys torridus) in the protected productivity (BNPP) of different biomass components in an area. These results show that protection from human intensively and continuously 45-ha grazed site and in a disturbance has many benefits, including greater overall neighbouring exclosure ungrazed for 16 years for a natural community
Recommended publications
  • English Nature Research Report

    English Nature Research Report

    3.2 Grazing animals used in projects 3.2.1 Species of gradng animals Some sites utilised more than one species of grazing animals so the results in Table 5 are based on 182 records. The majority of sites used sheep and/or cattle and these species were used on an almost equal number of sites, Ponies were also widely used but horses and goats were used infrequently and pigs were used on just 2 sites. No other species of grazing livestock was recorded (a mention of rabbits was taken to refer to wild populations). Table 5. Species of livestock used for grazing Sheep Cattle Equines Goats Pigs Number of Sites 71 72 30 7 2 Percentage of Records 39 40 16 4 I 3.2.2 Breeds of Sheep The breeds and crosses of sheep used are shown in Table 6. A surprisingly large number of 46 breeds or crosses were used on the 71 sites; the majority can be considered as commercial, although hardy, native breeds or crosses including hill breeds such as Cheviot, Derbyshire Gritstone, Herdwick, Scottish Blackface, Swaledale and Welsh Mountain, grassland breeds such as Beulah Speckled Face, Clun Forest, Jacob and Lleyn and down breeds such as Dorset (it was not stated whether this was Dorset Down or Dorset Horn), Hampshire Down and Southdown. Continental breeds were represented by Benichon du Cher, Bleu du Maine and Texel. Rare breeds (i.e. those included on the Rare Breeds Survival Trust’s priority and minority lists) were well represented by Hebridean, Leicester Longwool, Manx Loghtan, Portland, Shetland, Soay, Southdown, Teeswater and Wiltshire Horn.
  • A Phylogeny of the Hubbardochloinae Including Tetrachaete (Poaceae: Chloridoideae: Cynodonteae)

    A Phylogeny of the Hubbardochloinae Including Tetrachaete (Poaceae: Chloridoideae: Cynodonteae)

    Peterson, P.M., K. Romaschenko, and Y. Herrera Arrieta. 2020. A phylogeny of the Hubbardochloinae including Tetrachaete (Poaceae: Chloridoideae: Cynodonteae). Phytoneuron 2020-81: 1–13. Published 18 November 2020. ISSN 2153 733 A PHYLOGENY OF THE HUBBARDOCHLOINAE INCLUDING TETRACHAETE (CYNODONTEAE: CHLORIDOIDEAE: POACEAE) PAUL M. PETERSON AND KONSTANTIN ROMASCHENKO Department of Botany National Museum of Natural History Smithsonian Institution Washington, D.C. 20013-7012 [email protected]; [email protected] YOLANDA HERRERA ARRIETA Instituto Politécnico Nacional CIIDIR Unidad Durango-COFAA Durango, C.P. 34220, México [email protected] ABSTRACT The phylogeny of subtribe Hubbardochloinae is revisited, here with the inclusion of the monotypic genus Tetrachaete, based on a molecular DNA analysis using ndhA intron, rpl32-trnL, rps16 intron, rps16- trnK, and ITS markers. Tetrachaete elionuroides is aligned within the Hubbardochloinae and is sister to Dignathia. The biogeography of the Hubbardochloinae is discussed, its origin likely in Africa or temperate Asia. In a previous molecular DNA phylogeny (Peterson et al. 2016), the subtribe Hubbardochloinae Auquier [Bewsia Gooss., Dignathia Stapf, Gymnopogon P. Beauv., Hubbardochloa Auquier, Leptocarydion Hochst. ex Stapf, Leptothrium Kunth, and Lophacme Stapf] was found in a clade with moderate support (BS = 75, PP = 1.00) sister to the Farragininae P.M. Peterson et al. In the present study, Tetrachaete elionuroides Chiov. is included in a phylogenetic analysis (using ndhA intron, rpl32- trnL, rps16 intron, rps16-trnK, and ITS DNA markers) in order to test its relationships within the Cynodonteae with heavy sampling of species in the supersubtribe Gouiniodinae P.M. Peterson & Romasch. Chiovenda (1903) described Tetrachaete Chiov. with a with single species, T.
  • DEFRA Blanket Bog Review V021107

    DEFRA Blanket Bog Review V021107

    Review of Blanket Bog Management and Restoration TECHNICAL REPORT TO DEFRA PROJECT No. CTE0513 H O’Brien, J C Labadz & D P Butcher Nottingham Trent University School of Animal Rural & Environmental Sciences Brackenhurst Southwell NG25 0QF [email protected] 01636 817017 April 2007 CONTENTS 1 Introduction............................................................................................ 9 1.1 Principal Aims.................................................................................. 9 1.2 Objectives....................................................................................... 9 2 Methodology ......................................................................................... 10 2.1 Published Literature ....................................................................... 10 2.2 Grey Literature .............................................................................. 10 2.3 Interviews..................................................................................... 10 3 Blanket Bog: Definition, Classification and Characteristics........................... 12 3.1 Introduction .................................................................................. 12 3.2 Definition of Blanket Bog ................................................................ 12 3.3 Classification of Blanket Bogs .......................................................... 14 3.4 Blanket Bog Formation ................................................................... 16 3.5 Hydrology of Blanket Bogs .............................................................
  • St.Kilda Soay Sheep & Mouse Projects

    St.Kilda Soay Sheep & Mouse Projects

    ST. KILDA SOAY SHEEP & MOUSE PROJECTS: ANNUAL REPORT 2009 J.G. Pilkington 1, S.D. Albon 2, A. Bento 4, D. Beraldi 1, T. Black 1, E. Brown 6, D. Childs 6, T.H. Clutton-Brock 3, T. Coulson 4, M.J. Crawley 4, T. Ezard 4, P. Feulner 6, A. Graham 10 , J. Gratten 6, A. Hayward 1, S. Johnston 6, P. Korsten 1, L. Kruuk 1, A.F. McRae 9, B. Morgan 7, M. Morrissey 1, S. Morrissey 1, F. Pelletier 4, J.M. Pemberton 1, 6 6 8 9 10 1 M.R. Robinson , J. Slate , I.R. Stevenson , P. M. Visscher , K. Watt , A. Wilson , K. Wilson 5. 1Institute of Evolutionary Biology, University of Edinburgh. 2Macaulay Institute, Aberdeen. 3Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge. 4Department of Biological Sciences, Imperial College. 5Department of Biological Sciences, Lancaster University. 6 Department of Animal and Plant Sciences, University of Sheffield. 7 Institute of Maths and Statistics, University of Kent at Canterbury. 8Sunadal Data Solutions, Edinburgh. 9Queensland Institute of Medical Research, Australia. 10 Institute of Immunity and Infection research, University of Edinburgh POPULATION OVERVIEW ..................................................................................................................................... 1 REPORTS ON COMPONENT STUDIES .................................................................................................................... 4 Vegetation ..................................................................................................................................................... 4 Weather during population
  • Dynamics of Innovation in Livestock Genetics in Scotland: an Agricultural Innovation Systems Perspective

    Dynamics of Innovation in Livestock Genetics in Scotland: an Agricultural Innovation Systems Perspective

    Dynamics of Innovation in Livestock Genetics in Scotland: An Agricultural Innovation Systems Perspective Md. Mofakkarul. Islam 1, Alan Renwick 2, Chrysa Lamprinopoulou-Kranis 3, Laurens Klerkx 4 1Scottish Agricultural College (SAC), UK [email protected] 2Scottish Agricultural College (SAC), UK [email protected] 3Scottish Agricultural College (SAC), UK [email protected] 4Wageningen University, Netherlands [email protected] Paper prepared for presentation at the 131st EAAE Seminar ‘Innovation for Agricultural Competitiveness and Sustainability of Rural Areas’, Prague, Czech Republic, September 18-19, 2012 Copyright 2012 by Islam, M. M., Renwick, A., Lamprinopoulou-Kranis, C., and Klerkx, L. All rights reserved. Readers may make verbatim copies of this document for non-commercial purposes by any means, provided that this copyright notice appears on all such copies. Dynamics of Innovation in Livestock Genetics in Scotland: An Agricultural Innovation Systems Perspective Md. Mofakkarul Islam, Alan Renwick, Chrysa Lamprinopoulou-Kranis, Laurens Klerkx Abstract: The application of genetic selection technologies in livestock breeding offers unique opportunities to enhance the productivity, profitability, and competitiveness of the livestock industry in Scotland. However, there is a concern that the uptake of these technologies has been slower in the sheep and beef sectors in comparison to the dairy, pig and poultry sectors. This is rather paradoxical given the fact that Scotland’s research outputs in farm animal genetics are widely perceived to be excellent. A growing body of literature, popularly known as Innovation Systems theories, suggests that technological transformations require a much broader approach that transcends formal research establishments. Accordingly, this paper reports on preliminary work exploring whether and how an agricultural innovation systems perspective could help identify the dynamics of technology uptake in the livestock sectors in Scotland.
  • Conservation Grazing.Pdf

    Conservation Grazing.Pdf

    MINNESOTA WETLAND RESTORATION GUIDE CONSERVATION GRAZING TECHNICAL GUIDANCE DOCUMENT Document No.: WRG 6A-5 Publication Date: 1/30/2014 Table of Contents Introduction Application Other Considerations Costs Additional References INTRODUCTION Grazing by bison, elk and deer was historically a natural occurrence in grassland and shrubland plant communities in Minnesota. This grazing tended to be nomadic in nature and its intensity depended on the type of grazers, herd sizes, climate conditions, fire frequency, and the composition and structure of individual plant communities. Today conservation grazing is conducted by a variety of species including cattle, bison, horses, sheep, and goats to target specific invasive plants, or to replicate the grassland plant community structure and diversity that historically resulted from grazing. When grazing is conducted to control invasive species the intensity and duration of grazing is carefully monitored to ensure that target species are managed effectively, and that the integrity of the plant community is maintained. Most conservation grazing involves a short pulse of grazing followed by a long rest. Grazing can have benefits as well as negative impacts, so it is important to involve experienced professionals. Detailed grazing plans are an important component in the planning and implementation of prescribed grazing. Equipment that may be needed for grazing includes watering systems, electric, or barb”ed” wire fences around rotational grazing areas, moveable fencing to concentrate grazing and to ensure that areas are not overgrazed, and in some cases salt licks to concentrate animals (Tu et al. 2001). The following is a list of species commonly used for conservation grazing and their general characteristics.
  • Treffpunkt Biologische Vielfalt VI

    Treffpunkt Biologische Vielfalt VI

    Horst Korn & Ute Feit (Bearb.) Treffpunkt Biologische Vielfalt VI Aktuelle Forschung im Rahmen des Übereinkommens über die biologischen Vielfalt vorgestellt auf einer wissenschaftlichen Expertentagung an der Internationalen Naturschutzakademie Insel Vilm vom 22. – 26. August 2005 Bundesamt für Naturschutz Bonn – Bad Godesberg 2006 Titelbild: Annette Pahl Konzeption und Redaktion: Dr. habil. Horst Korn, Ute Feit Bundesamt für Naturschutz INA Insel Vilm 18581 Putbus Fachbetreuung des F+E-Vorhabens durch das BfN: Ute Feit Die BfN-Skripten sind nicht im Buchhandel erhältlich. Herausgeber: Bundesamt für Naturschutz Konstantinstr.110 53179 Bonn Tel.: +49 228/ 8491-0 Fax: +49 228/ 8491-200 URL: http://www.bfn.de Der Herausgeber übernimmt keine Gewähr für die Richtigkeit , die Genauigkeit und Vollständigkeit der Angaben sowie für die Beachtung privater Rechte Dritter. Die in den Beiträgen geäußerten Ansichten und Meinungen müssen nicht mit denen des Herausgebers übereinstimmen. Nachdruck, auch in Auszügen, nur mit Genehmigung des BfN. Druck: BMU-Druckerei Gedruckt auf 100% Altpapier Bonn – Bad Godesberg 2006 Inhaltsverzeichnis Vorwort .........................................................................................................................................................7 ANDREAS ZEHM Inter- und transdisziplinäre Forschung am Beispiel des BMBF-Förderschwerpunktes „Sozial- ökologischen Forschung“ (SÖF) ...................................................................................................................9 SUSANNE SCHÖN
  • Management of Grazing Animals for Environmental Quality

    Management of Grazing Animals for Environmental Quality

    Management of grazing animals for environmental quality Etienne M. in Molina Alcaide E. (ed.), Ben Salem H. (ed.), Biala K. (ed.), Morand-Fehr P. (ed.). Sustainable grazing, nutritional utilization and quality of sheep and goat products Zaragoza : CIHEAM Options Méditerranéennes : Série A. Séminaires Méditerranéens; n. 67 2005 pages 225-235 Article available on line / Article disponible en ligne à l’adresse : -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------ http://om.ciheam.org/article.php?IDPDF=6600046 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------ To cite this article / Pour citer cet article -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------ Etienne M. Management of grazing animals for environmental quality. In : Molina Alcaide E. (ed.), Ben Salem H. (ed.), Biala K. (ed.), Morand-Fehr P. (ed.). Sustainable grazing, nutritional utilization and quality of sheep and goat products . Zaragoza : CIHEAM, 2005. p. 225-235 (Options Méditerranéennes : Série A. Séminaires Méditerranéens; n. 67) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------ http://www.ciheam.org/
  • First Report on the State of the World's Animal Genetic Resources"

    First Report on the State of the World's Animal Genetic Resources"

    "First Report on the State of the World’s Animal Genetic Resources" (SoWAnGR) Country Report of the United Kingdom to the FAO Prepared by the National Consultative Committee appointed by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra). Contents: Executive Summary List of NCC Members 1 Assessing the state of agricultural biodiversity in the farm animal sector in the UK 1.1. Overview of UK agriculture. 1.2. Assessing the state of conservation of farm animal biological diversity. 1.3. Assessing the state of utilisation of farm animal genetic resources. 1.4. Identifying the major features and critical areas of AnGR conservation and utilisation. 1.5. Assessment of Animal Genetic Resources in the UK’s Overseas Territories 2. Analysing the changing demands on national livestock production & their implications for future national policies, strategies & programmes related to AnGR. 2.1. Reviewing past policies, strategies, programmes and management practices (as related to AnGR). 2.2. Analysing future demands and trends. 2.3. Discussion of alternative strategies in the conservation, use and development of AnGR. 2.4. Outlining future national policy, strategy and management plans for the conservation, use and development of AnGR. 3. Reviewing the state of national capacities & assessing future capacity building requirements. 3.1. Assessment of national capacities 4. Identifying national priorities for the conservation and utilisation of AnGR. 4.1. National cross-cutting priorities 4.2. National priorities among animal species, breeds,
  • Plethora of Plants - Collections of the Botanical Garden, Faculty of Science, University of Zagreb (2): Glasshouse Succulents

    Plethora of Plants - Collections of the Botanical Garden, Faculty of Science, University of Zagreb (2): Glasshouse Succulents

    NAT. CROAT. VOL. 27 No 2 407-420* ZAGREB December 31, 2018 professional paper/stručni članak – museum collections/muzejske zbirke DOI 10.20302/NC.2018.27.28 PLETHORA OF PLANTS - COLLECTIONS OF THE BOTANICAL GARDEN, FACULTY OF SCIENCE, UNIVERSITY OF ZAGREB (2): GLASSHOUSE SUCCULENTS Dubravka Sandev, Darko Mihelj & Sanja Kovačić Botanical Garden, Department of Biology, Faculty of Science, University of Zagreb, Marulićev trg 9a, HR-10000 Zagreb, Croatia (e-mail: [email protected]) Sandev, D., Mihelj, D. & Kovačić, S.: Plethora of plants – collections of the Botanical Garden, Faculty of Science, University of Zagreb (2): Glasshouse succulents. Nat. Croat. Vol. 27, No. 2, 407- 420*, 2018, Zagreb. In this paper, the plant lists of glasshouse succulents grown in the Botanical Garden from 1895 to 2017 are studied. Synonymy, nomenclature and origin of plant material were sorted. The lists of species grown in the last 122 years are constructed in such a way as to show that throughout that period at least 1423 taxa of succulent plants from 254 genera and 17 families inhabited the Garden’s cold glass- house collection. Key words: Zagreb Botanical Garden, Faculty of Science, historic plant collections, succulent col- lection Sandev, D., Mihelj, D. & Kovačić, S.: Obilje bilja – zbirke Botaničkoga vrta Prirodoslovno- matematičkog fakulteta Sveučilišta u Zagrebu (2): Stakleničke mesnatice. Nat. Croat. Vol. 27, No. 2, 407-420*, 2018, Zagreb. U ovom članku sastavljeni su popisi stakleničkih mesnatica uzgajanih u Botaničkom vrtu zagrebačkog Prirodoslovno-matematičkog fakulteta između 1895. i 2017. Uređena je sinonimka i no- menklatura te istraženo podrijetlo biljnog materijala. Rezultati pokazuju kako je tijekom 122 godine kroz zbirku mesnatica hladnog staklenika prošlo najmanje 1423 svojti iz 254 rodova i 17 porodica.
  • Upper Mustang Biodiversity Conservation Project Final Report

    Upper Mustang Biodiversity Conservation Project Final Report

    UNITED NATIONS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME Upper Mustang Biodiversity Conservation Project ATLAS ID GEF-00013971 TRAC-00013970 (formerly NEP/99/G35 and NEP/99/021) Final Report of the Terminal Evaluation Mission September 2006 Phillip Edwards (Team Leader) Rajendra Suwal Neeta Thapa ACRONYMS AND TERMS Exchange rate at the time of the TPE was US$1 to NR 71 (Nepali Rupees) ACA Anapurna Conservation Area ACAP Anapurna Conservation Area Project AHF American Himalayan Foundation APPA Appreciative Participatory Planning and Action BCP Biodiversity Conservation Plan CAMC Conservation Area Management Committee CAMOP Conservation Area Management Operation Plan CAMP Conservation Area Management Plan CAMR Conservation Area Management Regulation CBBMS Community Based Biodiversity Monitoring System CBO Community Based Organization CITES Convention on International Trade on Endangered Species CPM Co-Project Manager CRAC Community Resource Action Area Committee CRAJSC Community Resources Action Joint Sub-Committee CTF Community Trust Fund DAG Disadvantage Group DDC District Development Committee DNPWC Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation EIA Environment Impact Assessment FIT Free Independent Tourist/Trekker GEF Global Environment Facility GIS Geographic Information System GON Government of Nepal Ha. Hectares HMG His Majesty’s Government HQ Head Quarters HRD Human Resource Development ICDP Integrated Conservation Development Program ICIMOD International Center for Integrated Mountain Development IEA Initial Environmental Assessment IGA Income
  • How to Manage Different Habitats Commons Factsheet No

    How to Manage Different Habitats Commons Factsheet No

    How to manage different habitats Commons Factsheet No. 08 www.naturalengland.co.uk How to manage different habitats Many commons and greens are beautiful places, rich in wildlife. Because commons have a long history of being used by people, the habitats they support are relatively natural but have been shaped by human activities over the millennia (e.g. unimproved grassland, heathland, woodlands). If they are to retain their wildlife and scenery the traditional uses must either be continued, or replicated some other way (see FS3 Why does our common need to be looked after?). This factsheet summarises the characteristic features of each habitat type, together with conservation aims and management techniques for habitats frequently found on commons. Different techniques Before deciding on particular management techniques, you will want to consider their The management of habitats can vary from potential impact on the species present, simple to complex. It can often be carried the landscape, the environment, features out by volunteers with hand tools or may of archaeological and historical interest, need people with specialised training and and public access and safety (see FS5 Is our equipment. Here, the main methods you common more special than we think?, FS4 Who might use are outlined and sources of further has an interest in the common? and FS8 What information signposted. Herbicide treatments future for our commons?). Remember to plan are not discussed, as these are best used only aftercare and monitoring (see FS17 Are we if there are no other realistic options, and getting it right?). you will want specialist advice and possibly contractors to carry out the work.