Seeds of change: The value of using Rhinanthus minor in grassland restoration

Question: What is the value of using Rhinanthus minor in grassland restoration and can restrictions on its establishment be overcome? Location: England (United Kingdom). Methods: Two experiments were established to determine the efficacy of inoculating R. minor on a suite of four agriculturally improved grasslands and the efficacy of using R. minor in grassland restoration. In Experiment 1, the effect of herbicide gap creation on the establishment and persistence of R. minor in grasslands ranging in productivity was investigated with respect to sward management. In Exp. 2, R. minor was sown at 1000 seeds/m(2) in conjunction with a standard meadow mix over a randomized plot design into Lolium perenne grassland of moderate productivity. The treatment of scarification was investigated as a treatment to promote R. minor. Results: Gap size had a significant role in the establishment and performance of R. minor, especially the 30 cm diameter gaps (Exp. 1). However, R. minor failed to establish long-term persistent populations in all of the agriculturally improved grasslands. In Exp. 2, establishment of R. minor was increased by scarification and its presence was associated with a significant increase in Shannon diversity and the number of sown and unsown species. Values of grass above-ground biomass were significantly lower in plots sown with R. minor, but values of total above-ground biomass (including R. minor) and forb biomass (not including R. minor) were not affected. Conclusions: The value of introducing R. minor into species-poor grassland to increase diversity has been demonstrated, but successful establishment was dependent on grassland type. The scope for using R. minor in grassland restoration schemes is therefore conditional, although establishment can be enhanced through disturbance such as sward scarification.

The F test for comparing two normal variances: correct and incorrect calculation of the two-sided p-value?

This article illustrates that not all statistical software packages are correctly calculating a p-value for the classical F test comparison of two independent Normal variances. This is illustrated with a simple example, and the reasons why are discussed. Eight different software packages are considered.

Theory and practice in value management: a reply to Ellis et al (2005)

The constructivist model of 'soft' value management (VM) is contrasted with the VM discourse appropriated by cost consultants who operate from within UK quantity surveying (QS) practices. The enactment of VM by cost consultants is shaped by the institutional context within which they operate and is not necessarily representative of VM practice per se. Opportunities to perform VM during the formative stages of design are further constrained by the positivistic rhetoric that such practitioners use to conceptualize and promote their services. The complex interplay between VM theory and practice is highlighted and analysed from a non-deterministic perspective. Codified models of 'best practice' are seen to be socially constructed and legitimized through human interaction in the context of interorganizational networks. Published methodologies are seen to inform practice in only a loose and indirect manner, with extensive scope for localized improvization. New insights into the relationship between VM theory and practice are derived from the dramaturgical metaphor. The social reality of VM is seen to be constituted through scripts and performances, both of which are continuously contested across organizational arenas. It is concluded that VM defies universal definition and is conceptualized and enacted differently across different localized contexts.