scholarly journals Larval and phenological traits predict insect community response to mowing regime manipulations

2019 ◽  
Vol 29 (4) ◽  
pp. e01900 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roel Klink ◽  
Myles H. M. Menz ◽  
Hannes Baur ◽  
Oliver Dosch ◽  
Isabel Kühne ◽  
...  
Forests ◽  
2022 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 66
Author(s):  
Heather M. Thompson ◽  
Mark R. Lesser ◽  
Luke Myers ◽  
Timothy B. Mihuc

Ecosystem recovery following wildfire is heavily dependent upon fire severity and frequency, as well as factors such as regional topography and connectivity to unburned patches. Insects are an often-overlooked group of organisms impacted by fire and play crucial roles in many ecosystem services. Flying insects are particularly capable of avoiding fire, returning to burned patches following the initial disturbance, making them an important group to study when assessing wildfire impacts. Following a wildfire in July of 2018 at the Altona Flat Rock jack pine barrens in northeastern New York, insects were collected from an unburned reference site and a post-fire site using malaise traps. Samples were collected in the 2018, 2019, and 2020 field seasons. Insect groups were found to have three main responses to the disturbance event: increased abundance post-fire, unchanged abundance post-fire, or reduced abundance post-fire. Several dipteran families and some non-dipteran groups were present in greater abundance in the post-fire study site, such as Diptera Polleniidae, which increased in abundance immediately following the disturbance in 2018. Other fire-adapted taxa exhibited a more delayed positive response in 2019 and 2020. Diversity, particularly among Diptera, increased with time since the disturbance at the post-fire site. Many taxa declined in response to fire disturbance, including Lepidoptera and several Diptera families, most likely due to habitat, moisture, and organic matter requirements. Future studies could prove beneficial in understanding the recovery of this community and informing land management practices.


2017 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 217-227 ◽  
Author(s):  
Myung-Bok Lee ◽  
Joshua W. Campbell ◽  
Darren A. Miller ◽  
James A. Martin

Author(s):  
Harald Klingemann ◽  
Justyna Klingemann

Abstract. Introduction: While alcohol treatment predominantly focuses on abstinence, drug treatment objectives include a variety of outcomes related to consumption and quality of life. Consequently harm reduction programs tackling psychoactive substances are well documented and accepted by practitioners, whereas harm reduction programs tackling alcohol are under-researched and met with resistance. Method: The paper is mainly based on key-person interviews with eight program providers conducted in Switzerland in 2009 and up-dated in 2015, and the analysis of reports and mission statements to establish an inventory and description of drinking under control programs (DUCPs). A recent twin program in Amsterdam and Essen was included to exemplify conditions impeding their implementation. Firstly, a typology based on the type of alcohol management, the provided support and admission criteria is developed, complemented by a detailed description of their functioning in practice. Secondly, the case studies are analyzed in terms of factors promoting and impeding the implementation of DUCPs and efforts of legitimize them and assess their success. Results: Residential and non-residential DUCPs show high diversity and pursue individualized approaches as the detailed case descriptions exemplify. Different modalities of proactively providing and including alcohol consumption are conceptualized in a wider framework of program objectives, including among others, quality of life and harm reduction. Typically DUCPs represent an effort to achieve public or institutional order. Their implementation and success are contingent upon their location, media response, type of alcohol management and the response of other substance-oriented stake holders in the treatment system. The legitimization of DUCPs is hampered by the lack of evaluation studies. DUCPs rely mostly – also because of limited resources – on rudimentary self-evaluations and attribute little importance to data collection exercises. Conclusions: Challenges for participants are underestimated and standard evaluation methodologies tend to be incompatible with the rationale and operational objectives of DUCPs. Program-sensitive multimethod approaches enabled by sufficient financing for monitoring and accompanying research is needed to improve the practice-oriented implementation of DUCPs. Barriers for these programs include assumptions that ‘alcohol-assisted’ help abandons hope for recovery and community response to DUCPs as locally unwanted institutions (‘not in my backyard’) fuelled by stigmatization.


2017 ◽  
Vol 41 (1) ◽  
pp. 4-16 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter A. de Schweinitz ◽  
Cyndi Nation ◽  
Christopher R. DeCou ◽  
Tracy J. Stewart ◽  
James Allen

2002 ◽  
Author(s):  
N. Maher ◽  
C. Shrigley ◽  
J. Brophy ◽  
M. Keith ◽  
M. Gilroy

2014 ◽  
Vol 515 ◽  
pp. 83-95 ◽  
Author(s):  
P Pino-Pinuer ◽  
R Escribano ◽  
P Hidalgo ◽  
R Riquelme-Bugueño ◽  
W Schneider

1971 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. 373-385 ◽  
Author(s):  
John E. Conklin

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document