A schematic view of resources,technology and environment in agricultural development

Agricultural production systems can be viewed as consisting of three interrelated components: resources, technology, and environment (R-T-E). The quantities, qualities and terms of availability of resources condition the kinds of technology available to farmers and their choices among them. The technologies employed, in turn, may damage the environment, generating demands for policies to reduce the damages, and they also affect the future terms of availability of resources. The components of R-T-E systems are thus interdependent, and the relations among them change with time.In thinking about the future of world R-T-E systems in agriculture it is useful to group countries in four categories, given presently available technologies: (1) low productivity potential/high land potential; (2) high productivity potential/high land potential; (3) high productivity potential/low land potential; and (4) low productivity potential/low land potential. Given prospective increases in real prices, or scarcity of energy, fertilizer, and water for irrigation, farmers in Category 1 countries (e.g., the United States) are likely to respond by adopting more land-using technologies than in the past, and soil erosion is likely to be the most important resulting environmental problem. In Category 2 countries (e.g., Brazil) also, land-using technologies will appear attractive, but the use of agricultural chemicals will also increase sharply. Environmental problems of erosion, habitat loss and pesticide damage are likely to increase. Category 3 countries (e.g., India) will adopt more land-saving technologies despite rising prices of non-land inputs, and environmental problems associated with large irrigation systems are likely to become more important. The options for Category 4 countries (e.g., Western Europe) are more limited. The most likely response will be towards larger farms rather than major changes in technology. Environmental impacts of agriculture are not now of major importance in these countries and this is not likely to change.Governments have three broad options for dealing with energing problems of agricultural R-T-E systems. The traditional approaches rely on regulations or on a variety of financial inducements to move farmers towards more socially desirable patterns of resource use. A third, less traditional, approach is to invest in development of new technologies which simultaneously are economically attractive to farmers and less damaging to the environment.     

东非十足类螃蟹迈纳新胀蟹对红树林海底落叶的清理

本文通过在东非进行的一系列野外和实验室试验,研究了丰富的红树林十足类螃蟹迈纳新胀蟹(Neosarmatium meinerti)对落叶的清理.在地势高的海榄雌(Avicennia meinerti)潮间带,螃蟹掩埋了所有红树林林区海底的落叶,而且会在2小时内平均消耗其中的67%.     

Visual fields in Flamingos: chick-feeding versus filter-feeding

In birds, the position and extent of the region of binocular vision appears to be determined by feeding ecology. Of prime importance is the degree to which vision is used for the precise control of bill position when pecking or lunging at prey. In birds that do not require such precision (probe and filter-feeders), the bill falls outside the binocular field, which extends above and behind the head, thus providing comprehensive visual coverage. Flamingos Phoenicopteridae are highly specialised filter-feeders. They employ a unique technique that does not require accurate bill positioning in which the inverted head is placed between the feet. Feeding flamingos often walk forwards with the head pointing “backwards”. Here we show that in Lesser Flamingos Phoeniconaias minor visual fields are in fact the same as those of birds that feed by precision pecking and that feeding flamingos are blind in the direction of their walking. We suggest that this is due to the requirement for accurate bill placement when flamingos feed their chicks with “crop-milk”, and possibly when building their nest. We propose that chick-feeding may be the ultimate determinant of visual field topography in birds, not feeding ecology.     

Initiale Aktivität und Willkürverhalten bei Tieren

Initiation as a basic property of behavioral activity is functionally analyzed and discussed at the level of voluntary behavior. Fixed action patterns often are not released by stimuli but are generated by the animal itself through brain processes of the Darwinian type. Analogous to mutations, behavioral “subroutines” are brought up by chance and are subjected to selection either by the change in the situation (trial and the elimination of error) or by mental activity suppressing inappropriate behavior even before it is executed.Initiation improves the chance of survival. It is a prerequisite of goal-oriented behavior, an essential constituent of operant conditioning and presumably the first step in the evolution of thought. According to I. Kant a person is free if, by following his own directive, he does what has to be done. This definition meets the two central criteria of initiation: the independence of releasing stimuli and the adaptive value of the behavior generated.     

Reassessing the role of the honeybee (Apis mellifera) Dufour's gland in egg marking

Dufour's gland secretion may allow worker honeybees to discriminate between queen-laid and worker-laid eggs. To investigate this, we combined the chemical analysis of individually treated eggs with an egg removal bioassay. We partitioned queen Dufour's gland into hydrocarbon and ester fractions. The bioassay showed that worker-laid eggs treated with either whole gland extract, ester fraction or synthetic gland esters were removed more slowly than untreated worker-laid eggs. However, the effect only lasted up to 20 h. Worker-laid eggs treated with the hydrocarbon fraction were removed at the same rate as untreated eggs. The amount of ester which reduced the egg removal rate was far higher than that naturally found on queen-laid or worker-laid eggs, and at natural ester levels no effect was found. Our results indicate that esters or hydrocarbons probably do not function as the signal by which eggs can be discriminated.