68 resultados para KRA
Resumo:
Includes index.
Resumo:
Lebenslauf.
Resumo:
Available on demand as hard copy or computer file from Cornell University Library.
Resumo:
Available on demand as hard copy or computer file from Cornell University Library.
Resumo:
Advertisements: p. [147]-[148].
Resumo:
Mode of access: Internet.
Resumo:
Bibliographical foot-notes.
Resumo:
Mode of access: Internet.
Resumo:
Mode of access: Internet.
Resumo:
Mode of access: Internet.
Resumo:
Královská Česká společnost náuk, Prague. Třída mathematicko-přirodovědecka. Sitzungberichte.
Resumo:
Purpose, Design/methodology / approach The acknowledgement of state significance in relation to development projects can result in special treatment by regulatory authorities, particularly in terms of environmental compliance and certain economic and other government support measures. However, defining just what constitutes a “significant project”, or a project of “state significance”, varies considerably between Australian states. In terms of establishing threshold levels, in Queensland there is even less clarity. Despite this lack of definition, the implications of “state significance” can nevertheless be considerable. For example, in Queensland if the Coordinator-General declares a project to be a “significant project” under the State Development and Public Works Organisation Act 1971, the environmental impact assessment process may become more streamlined – potentially circumventing certain provisions under The Integrated Planning Act 1997. If the project is not large enough to be so deemed, an extractive resource under the State Planning Policy 2/07 - Protection of Extractive Resources 2007 may be considered to be of State or regional significance and subsequently designated as a “Key Resource Area”. As a consequence, such a project is afforded some measure of resource protection but remains subject to the normal assessment process under the Integrated Development Assessment System, as well as the usual requirements of the vegetation management codes, and other regulations. Findings (Originality/value) & Research limitations / implications This paper explores the various meanings of “state significance” in Queensland and the ramifications for development projects in that state. It argues for a streamlining of the assessment process in order to avoid or minimise constraints acting on the state’s development. In so doing, it questions the existence of a strategic threat to the delivery of an already over-stretched infrastructure program.
Resumo:
Key resource areas (KRAs), defined as dry season foraging zones for herbivores, were studied relative to the more extensive outlying rangeland areas (non-KRAs) in Kenya. Field surveys with pastoralists, ranchers, scientists and government officials delineated KRAs on the ground. Identified KRAs were mapped based on global positioning and local experts' information on KRAs accessibility and ecological attributes. Using the map of known KRAs and non-KRAs, we examined characteristics of soils, climate, topography, land use/cover attributes at KRAs relative to non-KRAs. How and why do some areas (KRAs) support herbivores during droughts when forage is scarce in other areas of the landscape? We hypothesized that KRAs have fundamental ecological and socially determined attributes that enable them to provide forage during critical times and we sought to characterize some of those attributes in this study. At the landscape level, KRAs took different forms based on forage availability during the dry season but generally occurred in locations of the landscape with aseasonal water availability and/or difficult to access areas during wet season forage abundance. Greenness trends for KRAs versus non-KRAs were evaluated with a 22-year dataset of Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI). Field surveys of KRAs provided qualitative information on KRAs as dry season foraging zones. At the scale of the study, soil attributes did not significantly differ for KRAs compared to non-KRAs. Slopes of KRA were generally steeper compared to non-KRAs and elevation was higher at KRAs. Field survey respondents indicated that animals and humans generally avoid difficult to access hilly areas using them only when all other easily accessible rangeland is depleted of forage during droughts. Understanding the nature of KRAs will support identification, protection and restoration of critical forage hotspots for herbivores by strengthening rangeland inventory, monitoring, policy formulation, and conservation efforts to improve habitats and human welfare. (c) 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Resumo:
Bactrocera dorsalis (Hendel) and B. papayae Drew & Hancock represent a closely related sibling species pair for which the biological species limits are unclear; i.e., it is uncertain if they are truely two biological species, or one biological species which has been incorrectly taxonomically split. The geographic ranges of the two taxa are thought to abut or overlap on or around the Isthmus of Kra, a recognised biogeographic barrier located on the narrowest portion of the Thai Peninsula. We collected fresh material of B. dorsalis sensu lato (i.e., B. dorsalis sensu stricto + B. papayae) in a north-south transect down the Thai Peninsula, from areas regarded as being exclusively B. dorsalis s.s., across the Kra Isthmus, and into regions regarded as exclusively B. papayae. We carried out microsatellite analyses and took measurements of male genitalia and wing shape. Both the latter morphological tests have been used previously to separate these two taxa. No significant population structuring was found in the microsatellite analysis and results were consistent with an interpretation of one, predominantly panmictic population. Both morphological datasets showed consistent, clinal variation along the transect, with no evidence for disjunction. No evidence in any tests supported historical vicariance driven by the Isthmus of Kra, and none of the three datasets supported the current taxonomy of two species. Rather, within and across the area of range overlap or abutment between the two species, only continuous morphological and genetic variation was recorded. Recognition that morphological traits previously used to separate these taxa are continuous, and that there is no genetic evidence for population segregation in the region of suspected species overlap, is consistent with a growing body of literature that reports no evidence of biological differentiation between these taxa.
Resumo:
CONTENTS: Success story of one-stop aqua shop in Kaipara Village, by Kuddus Ansary. Enhancement of people’s livelihoods in Kompong Kra Sang community fishery, by Chun Sophat. Char livelihoods of the old Brahmaputra River in Bangladesh, by Nesar Ahmed. Fin fish community structure as a measure of ecological degradation in two tropical rivers of India, by D. Chakrabarty and S.K. Das. Penaeid shrimp fisheries of Pakistan, by Razia Sultana. Reviving the shrimp industry in Capiz, by Jessica C. Esmao.