Ecological and Economic Services Provided by Birds on Jamaican Blue Mountain Coffee Farms

Abstract: Coffee farms can support significant biodiversity, yet intensification of farming practices is degrading agricultural habitats and compromising ecosystem services such as biological pest control. The coffee berry borer (Hypothenemus hampei) is the world's primary coffee pest. Researchers have demonstrated that birds reduce insect abundance on coffee farms but have not documented avian control of the berry borer or quantified avian benefits to crop yield or farm income. We conducted a bird‐exclosure experiment on coffee farms in the Blue Mountains, Jamaica, to measure avian pest control of berry borers, identify potential predator species, associate predator abundance and borer reductions with vegetation complexity, and quantify resulting increases in coffee yield. Coffee plants excluded from foraging birds had significantly higher borer infestation, more borer broods, and greater berry damage than control plants. We identified 17 potential predator species (73% were wintering Neotropical migrants), and 3 primary species composed 67% of migrant detections. Average relative bird abundance and diversity and relative resident predator abundance increased with greater shade‐tree cover. Although migrant predators overall did not respond to vegetation complexity variables, the 3 primary species increased with proximity to noncoffee habitat patches. Lower infestation on control plants was correlated with higher total bird abundance, but not with predator abundance or vegetation complexity. Infestation of fruit was 1–14% lower on control plants, resulting in a greater quantity of saleable fruits that had a market value of US$44–$105/ha in 2005/2006. Landscape heterogeneity in this region may allow mobile predators to provide pest control broadly, despite localized farming intensities. These results provide the first evidence that birds control coffee berry borers and thus increase coffee yield and farm income, a potentially important conservation incentive for producers.     

乙酸型顶极群落的内平衡与反馈调节机制研究

通过产酸脱硫反应器处理高浓度硫酸盐有机废水的连续流试验，从“动态”角度考察COD／SO4^2-比改变引起的pH值、氧化还原电位（ORP）、碱度（ALK）和末端产物（VFAs）等的变动及生态因子的叠加效应引发的优势种群变迁，分析了乙酸型顶极群落的稳定性及其发生定向性生态演替的规律，进而阐明了乙酸型顶极群落抵抗环境压力的内平衡与反馈调节机制，并指出乙酸型代谢和乙酸型顶极群落是产酸脱硫生态系统的典型特征。     

产酸脱硫反应器中限制性生态因子的定量化研究

采用产酸脱硫反应器进行连续流试验并配合静态试验 ,从群体生态学角度考察限制性生态因子———COD SO2 -4 比、硫酸盐负荷率 (Ns)、pH值、氧化还原电位 (ORP)和碱度 (ALK)的定量化对产酸脱硫生态系统的影响 .提出COD SO2 -4 比大于2 0 ,Ns 小于 7 5kg(SO2 -4 ) (m3·d) ,pH =6 0— 6 2 ,ORP =- 32 0— - 42 0mV ,ALK =15 0 0— 2 0 0 0mg L是维持硫酸盐还原菌(SRB)较高活性和生态系统稳定性的标志 ,硫酸盐去除率可达 80 %— 90 %     

Prenatal diagnosis in two cases of de novo complex balanced chromosomal rearrangements. Three-year follow-up in one case

We report two cases of apparently balanced complex de novo chromosomal rearrangements (BCCR) detected prenatally at 17 weeks and 10 weeks of gestation, respectively. Chromosomes were studied using GTG-banding and fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH). In one case four chromosomes and in the other case three chromosomes were involved in the rearrangements. One of the pregnancies was terminated and no external or internal abnormalities were detected at autopsy. The other pregnancy continued to term. Level III ultrasound examination showed no abnormalities. The child is now 3 years old and has neither congenital anomalies nor evidence of delayed psychomotor development.     

塔里木盆地光温模式研究及其应用

建立了塔里木盆地光照、温度模式 ,该模式可以预测出塔里木盆地无资料地区各网格点的日照时数和冬季(1月)、夏季 (7月 )平均气温。在此基础上 ,应用统计学导出的极值分布和正态分布概率模式 ,预测了塔里木盆地各站上述要素不同概率的设计值。首次揭示了塔里木盆地无资料地区光照时间、温度分布规律。该模式为塔里木油田石油工业总体规划和大型工程设计及农业合理布局等提供了有效的科学依据     

再燃脱硝的动力学模拟和组分影响分析

采用Gear算法模拟了再燃脱硝再燃区中化学反应过程，反应的热力学和动力学参数采用GRI3．0,模拟结果和实验结果作比较，说明该模拟可以用于预测再燃脱硝的基本过程。在模拟的基础上讨论了不同再燃燃料及其中的不同组分如HCN、NH3、H2和CO等对脱硝效果的影响。     

高效内循环生物反应器的研究和应用

在改进传统活性污泥法基础上 ,将活性污泥法和流化床结合起来的高效内循环生物反应器是一种新型的废水处理装置 ,兼有二者的优点。用于处理废纸脱墨废水 ,污泥负荷与容积负荷均比传统活性污泥法高 ,COD去除率可达 80 %左右 ,剩余污泥量很少     

NITROGEN AND ORGANIC MATTER LOSSES IN NO‐TILL CORN CROPPING SYSTEMS1

ABSTRACT: Intensive cropping systems based on mechanical movement of soil have induced land degradation in most agricultural areas due to soil erosion and soil fertility losses. Thus, farmers have been increasing fertilization rates to maintain an economically competitive crop yield. This practice has resulted in water quality degradation and lake eutrophication in many agricultural watersheds. Research was conducted in the Patzcuaro watershed in central Mexico to develop appropriate technology that prevents nonpoint source pollution from fertilizers. Organic matter (OM) and nitrogen (N) losses in runoff and nitrate (NO₃‐N) percolation in Andisols with corn under conventional till (CT) and no‐till (NT) treatments using variable percentages of crop residue as soil cover were investigated for steep‐slope agriculture. USLE type runoff plots were used to collect water runoff, while suction tubes with porous caps at 30, 60, and 90 cm depth were used to sample soil water solutes for NO₃‐N analyses. Results indicated a significant reduction of N and OM losses in runoff as residue cover increased in the NT treatments. Inorganic N in runoff was 25 kg/ha for NT without residue cover (NT‐0) and 6 kg/ha for the NT with 100 percent residue cover (NT‐100). Organic matter losses in runoff were 157 and 24 kg/ha for the NT‐0 and NT‐100 treatments, respectively. Nitrate‐N percolation was evident in CT and NT with 100 percent residue cover (NT‐100). However, NT‐100 had higher NO₃‐N concentration at the root zone, suggesting the possibility of reducing fertilization rates with the use of NT treatments.     

The role of scientists in statutory interpretation of the U.S. Endangered Species Act

Like many federal statutes, the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA) contains vague or ambiguous language. The meaning imparted to the ESA's unclear language can profoundly impact the fates of endangered and threatened species. Hence, conservation scientists should contribute to the interpretation of the ESA when vague or ambiguous language contains scientific words or refers to scientific concepts. Scientists need to know at least these 2 facts about statutory interpretation: statutory interpretation is subjective and the potential influence of normative values results in different expectations for the parties involved. With the possible exception of judges, all conventional participants in statutory interpretation are serving their own interests, advocating for their preferred policies, or biased. Hence, scientists can play a unique role by informing the interpretative process with objective, policy‐neutral information. Conversely, scientists may act as advocates for their preferred interpretation of unclear statutory language. The different roles scientists might play in statutory interpretation raise the issues of advocacy and competency. Advocating for a preferred statutory interpretation is legitimate political behavior by scientists, but statutory interpretation can be strongly influenced by normative values. Therefore, scientists must be careful not to commit stealth policy advocacy. Most conservation scientists lack demonstrable competence in statutory interpretation and therefore should consult or collaborate with lawyers when interpreting statutes. Professional scientific societies are widely perceived by the public as unbiased sources of objective information. Therefore, professional scientific societies should remain policy neutral and present all interpretations of unclear statutory language; explain the semantics and science both supporting and contradicting each interpretation; and describe the potential consequences of implementing each interpretation. A review of scientists’ interpretations of the phrase “significant portion of its range” in the ESA is used to critique the role of scientists and professional societies in statutory interpretation.     

An interdisciplinary review of current and future approaches to improving human–predator relations

In a world of shrinking habitats and increasing competition for natural resources, potentially dangerous predators bring the challenges of coexisting with wildlife sharply into focus. Through interdisciplinary collaboration among authors trained in the humanities, social sciences, and natural sciences, we reviewed current approaches to mitigating adverse human–predator encounters and devised a vision for future approaches to understanding and mitigating such encounters. Limitations to current approaches to mitigation include too much focus on negative impacts; oversimplified equating of levels of damage with levels of conflict; and unsuccessful technical fixes resulting from failure to engage locals, address hidden costs, or understand cultural (nonscientific) explanations of the causality of attacks. An emerging interdisciplinary literature suggests that to better frame and successfully mitigate negative human–predator relations conservation professionals need to consider dispensing with conflict as the dominant framework for thinking about human–predator encounters; work out what conflicts are really about (they may be human–human conflicts); unravel the historical contexts of particular conflicts; and explore different cultural ways of thinking about animals. The idea of cosmopolitan natures may help conservation professionals think more clearly about human–predator relations in both local and global context. These new perspectives for future research practice include a recommendation for focused interdisciplinary research and the use of new approaches, including human‐animal geography, multispecies ethnography, and approaches from the environmental humanities notably environmental history. Managers should think carefully about how they engage with local cultural beliefs about wildlife, work with all parties to agree on what constitutes good evidence, develop processes and methods to mitigate conflicts, and decide how to monitor and evaluate these. Demand for immediate solutions that benefit both conservation and development favors dispute resolution and technical fixes, which obscures important underlying drivers of conflicts. If these drivers are not considered, well‐intentioned efforts focused on human–wildlife conflicts will fail.