Do interactions between plant roots and the rhizosphere affect parasitoid behaviour?

Multitrophic interactions are powerful forces shaping the structure of living communities. Plants encounter a great diversity of organisms in their environment: some of these interactions are beneficial (e.g. symbiotic fungi and insect pollinators) while some are detrimental (e.g. herbivorous insects and pathogenic micro-organisms). Multitrophic interactions between below-ground and above-ground organisms are receiving increasing attention because they may influence plant defences against biotic and abiotic stresses. In this study we show that an arbuscular mycorrhizal symbiosis makes tomato plants significantly more resistant towards aphids, by enhancing both direct defences, both attractivity towards aphid parasitoids

Title VII v. Seniority: The Supreme Court Giveth and the Supreme Court Taketh Away

Congress intended to solve the widespread problem of nonegalitarian hiring practices by enacting title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (the Act), during the apogee of the civil rights era. The Act represented a national commitment to end discrimination and to promote equality in employment. The enactment of title VII spawned extensive commentary on the effect of facially neutral employment practices that perpetuated pre-Act discrimination. Particular controversy arose concerning the application of seniority rules to blacks in jobs or seniority units from which they previously had been excluded because of their race. The problem of accommodating seniority systems and title VII arose in times of economic distress, when employers had to decide who would lose the job: the white employee who was more senior, or the minority employee whose lack of seniority was the result of historic discriminatory practices. The Supreme Court recently gave this controversy new life in its decision in Firefighters Local 1784 v. Stotts. This Article will discuss the interplay between seniority systems and title VII. Part I will examine the conflict that arises from the exemption of seniority systems from title VII. Part II will explore judicial decisions that have addressed the seniority-title VII conflict. Part III will analyze and critique the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Stotts. Finally, Part IV will examine the continuing controversy between title VII and seniority systems and conclude that, since 1977, the Supreme Court has narrowed the relief available to claimants under title VII in a manner contrary to the purposes of the Act

Sex and Globalization

For some time now, I have focused on a mission to bring together the separate discourses of the human rights and trade fields -- certainly not to blend them, but to raise awareness of their myriad interconnections. Indeed, human rights and trade are interlocking pieces of the puzzle we call international law and cannot possibly remain sequestered in the splendid isolation in which they have existed since their inception as disciplines. In any study of globalization, especially if one endeavors to pursue its benefits for all persons, not just the elite around the world, one must be aware of and seek to remedy its patent deficiencies in the myriad intersections of trade and human rights. Particular attention needs to be drawn to the impact of globalization on areas such as the environment, health, labor, trafficking, women, the global economy, indigenous populations, and poverty. The thesis of the book on which this essay is based is that viable alternatives exist to create structures and craft dialogues that can bridge the seemingly impassable divide between trade and human rights and will consequently move us forward to an era of fruitful integration of these spheres for the well-being of humankind generally and womankind specifically

Nativism, Terrorism, and Human Rights -- The Global Wrongs of \u3ci\u3eReno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee\u3c/i\u3e

The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee decision (American-Arab or AADC) is the most recent U.S. Supreme Court pronouncement regarding the intersection of immigration regulations and fundamental constitutional rights enjoyed by foreign subjects present within the United States. In American-Arab, the U.S. government commenced deportation proceedings against two legal permanent residents and six temporary visa holders on the basis of an ideological bias: the plaintiffs were alleged to be members of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (Popular Front or PFLP) -- a charge all the plaintiffs denied. The Supreme Court\u27s ruling endorsing the legality of the government\u27s deportation actions wholly eviscerated non-citizens\u27 First Amendment rights. This decision departed from the domestic trend of granting foreigners -- both legally and illegally present within the United States -- constitutional protections, particularly in First Amendment cases. This Article suggests that the American-Arab holding is a draconian nativistic assault on the rights of foreigners -- rights that are separately and independently protected by international human rights norms, which the Supreme Court simply ignored in rendering its ill-founded decision