5 resultados para Resource-conservation

em DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln


Relevância:

70.00% 70.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

Since the destruction and despair caused by the dust bowl of the 1930’s, Americans and their government have taken a keen interest in natural resource conservation policy on agricultural land. The Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act of 1936 was the first farm bill to include provisions that provided payments to farmers willing to employ soil conservation measures (Cain and Lovejoy, 2004). While the main purpose of this bill was to provide financial support to impoverished farmers, the fact remains that natural resource conservation was starting to become an important issue for the American public.

Relevância:

40.00% 40.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

ABSTRACT This thesis will determine if there is a discrepancy between how literature defines conservation, preservation, and restoration, and how natural resource professionals define these terms. Interviews were conducted with six professionals from six different agencies that deal with natural resources. These agencies consisted of both government and non-government groups. In addition to interviewing these professionals regarding how they define the terms, they were asked where their work fits into the context of these terms. The interviewees’ responses were then compared with the literature to determine inconsistencies with the use of these terms in the literature and real world settings. The literature and the interviewees have agreed on the term conservation. There are some different points of view about preservation, some see it as ‘no management’ and some others see it as keeping things the same or ‘static.’ Restoration was the term where both the literature and professionals thought of moving an ecosystem from one point of succession or community, to another point on a continuum. The only thing in which they disagree on is the final goal of a restoration project. The literature would suggest restoring the ecosystem to a past historic condition, where the interviewees said to restore it to the best of their abilities and to a functioning ecosystem.

Relevância:

30.00% 30.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

Stabilizing human population size and reducing human-caused impacts on the environment are keys to conserving threatened species (TS). Earth's human population is ~ 7 billion and increasing by ~ 76 million per year. This equates to a human birth-death ratio of 2.35 annually. The 2007 Red List prepared by the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) categorized 16,306 species of vertebrates, invertebrates, plants, and other organisms (e.g., lichens, algae) as TS. This is ~ 1 percent of the 1,589,161 species described by IUCN or ~ 0.0033 percent of the believed 5,000,000 total species. Of the IUCN’s described species, vertebrates comprised relatively the most TS listings within respective taxonomic categories (5,742 of 59,811), while invertebrates (2,108 of 1,203,175), plants (8,447 of 297,326), and other species (9 of 28,849) accounted for minor class percentages. Conservation economics comprises microeconomic and macroeconomic principles involving interactions among ecological, environmental, and natural resource economics. A sustainable-growth (steady-state) economy has been posited as instrumental to preserving biological diversity and slowing extinctions in the wild, but few nations endorse this approach. Expanding growth principles characterize most nations' economic policies. To date, statutory fine, captive breeding cost, contingent valuation analysis, hedonic pricing, and travel cost methods are used to value TS in economic research and models. Improved valuation methods of TS are needed for benefit-cost analysis (BCA) of conservation plans. This Chapter provides a review and analysis of: (1) the IUCN status of species, (2) economic principles inherent to sustainable versus growth economies, and (3) methodological issues which hinder effective BCAs of TS conservation.

Relevância:

30.00% 30.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

Maize demand for food, livestock feed, and biofuel is expected to increase substantially. The Western U.S. Corn Belt accounts for 23% of U.S. maize production, and irrigated maize accounts for 43 and 58% of maize land area and total production, respectively, in this region. The most sensitive parameters (yield potential [YP], water-limited yield potential [YP-W], yield gap between actual yield and YP, and resource-use efficiency) governing performance of maize systems in the region are lacking. A simulation model was used to quantify YP under irrigated and rainfed conditions based on weather data, soil properties, and crop management at 18 locations. In a separate study, 5-year soil water data measured in central Nebraska were used to analyze soil water recharge during the non-growing season because soil water content at sowing is a critical component of water supply available for summer crops. On-farm data, including yield, irrigation, and nitrogen (N) rate for 777 field-years, was used to quantify size of yield gaps and evaluate resource-use efficiency. Simulated average YP and YP-W were 14.4 and 8.3 Mg ha-1, respectively. Geospatial variation of YP was associated with solar radiation and temperature during post-anthesis phase while variation in water-limited yield was linked to the longitudinal variation in seasonal rainfall and evaporative demand. Analysis of soil water recharge indicates that 80% of variation in soil water content at sowing can be explained by precipitation during non-growing season and residual soil water at end of previous growing season. A linear relationship between YP-W and water supply (slope: 19.3 kg ha-1 mm-1; x-intercept: 100 mm) can be used as a benchmark to diagnose and improve farmer’s water productivity (WP; kg grain per unit of water supply). Evaluation of data from farmer’s fields provides proof-of-concept and helps identify management constraints to high levels of productivity and resource-use efficiency. On average, actual yields of irrigated maize systems were 11% below YP. WP and N-fertilizer use efficiency (NUE) were high despite application of large amounts of irrigation water and N fertilizer (14 kg grain mm-1 water supply and 71 kg grain kg-1 N fertilizer). While there is limited scope for substantial increases in actual average yields, WP and NUE can be further increased by: (1) switching surface to pivot systems, (2) using conservation instead of conventional tillage systems in soybean-maize rotations, (3) implementation of irrigation schedules based on crop water requirements, and (4) better N fertilizer management.