Patterns in recent and Holocene pollen accumulation rates across Europe - the Pollen Monitoring Programme Database as a tool for vegetation reconstruction

The collection of modern, spatially extensive pollen data is important for the interpretation of fossil pollen assemblages and the reconstruction of past vegetation communities in space and time. Modern datasets are readily available for percentage data but lacking for pollen accumulation rates (PARs). Filling this gap has been the motivation of the pollen monitoring network, whose contributors monitored pollen deposition in modified Tauber traps for several years or decades across Europe. Here we present this monitoring dataset consisting of 351 trap locations with a total of 2742 annual samples covering the period from 1981 to 2017. This dataset shows that total PAR is influenced by forest cover and climate parameters, which determine pollen productivity and correlate with latitude. Treeless vegetation produced PAR values of at least 140 grains cm−2 yr−1. Tree PAR increased by at least 400 grains cm−2 yr−1 with each 10 % increase in forest cover. Pollen traps situated beyond 200 km of the distribution of a given tree species still collect occasional pollen grains of that species. The threshold of this long-distance transport differs for individual species and is generally below 60 grains cm−2 yr−1. Comparisons between modern and fossil PAR from the same regions show similar values. For temperate taxa, modern analogues for fossil PARs are generally found downslope or southward of the fossil sites. While we do not find modern situations comparable to fossil PAR values of some taxa (e.g. Corylus), CO2 fertilization and land use may cause high modern PARs that are not documented in the fossil record. The modern data are now publicly available in the Neotoma Paleoecology Database and aid interpretations of fossil PAR data.publishedVersio

Patterns in recent and Holocene pollen accumulation rates across Europe - the Pollen Monitoring Programme Database as a tool for vegetation reconstruction

The collection of modern, spatially extensive pollen data is important for the interpretation of fossil pollen assemblages and the reconstruction of past vegetation communities in space and time. Modern datasets are readily available for percentage data but lacking for pollen accumulation rates (PARs). Filling this gap has been the motivation of the pollen monitoring network, whose contributors monitored pollen deposition in modified Tauber traps for several years or decades across Europe. Here we present this monitoring dataset consisting of 351 trap locations with a total of 2742 annual samples covering the period from 1981 to 2017. This dataset shows that total PAR is influenced by forest cover and climate parameters, which determine pollen productivity and correlate with latitude. Treeless vegetation produced PAR values of at least 140 grains cm(-2) yr(-1). Tree PAR increased by at least 400 grains cm(-2) yr(-1) with each 10% increase in forest cover. Pollen traps situated beyond 200 km of the distribution of a given tree species still collect occasional pollen grains of that species. The threshold of this long-distance transport differs for individual species and is generally below 60 grains cm(-2) yr(-1). Comparisons between modern and fossil PAR from the same regions show similar values. For temperate taxa, modern analogues for fossil PARs are generally found downslope or southward of the fossil sites. While we do not find modern situations comparable to fossil PAR values of some taxa (e.g. Corylus), CO2 fertilization and land use may cause high modern PARs that are not documented in the fossil record. The modern data are now publicly available in the Neotoma Paleoecology Database and aid interpretations of fossil PAR data

The winner takes all? Armenia's and Azerbaijan's road to Nagorno Karabakh conflict resolution

Maģistra darba nosaukums ir „Vai uzvarētājs saņem visu? Armēnijas un Azerbaidžānas ceļš uz Kalnu Karabahas konflikta risinājumu”. Mērķis ir iedziļināties konflikta problemātikā, risinājuma izaicinājumos un konflikta pušu ietekmē uz miera procesu. Hipotēze ir „Kalnu Karabahas konflikta risināšana tikai elites līmenī kavē miera risinājumu”. Karabahas konflikts ir no lejas uz augšu, kur svarīgu lomu spēlē politiskā mitoloģija. Nulles-summas domāšana apgrūtina procesu. Ir nepieciešama transformācija un vairāk iekļaujošā pieeja. Jāmeklē kopīgs fundaments, mazinot radikālas domstarpības, konceptuālas atšķirības, jāizbeidz vārdu karus, jāīsteno konstruktīva konfrontācija un otrā virziena diplomātija, lai mainītu vēstījumus, naidīguma un neuzticības problēmu. Ir jāskatās ilgtermiņa mērķos. Tiek secināts, ka hipotēze ir apstiprināta.Master's thesis title is “The winner takes all? Armenia's and Azerbaijan's road to Nagorno Karabakh conflict resolution”. Purpose is to deepen understanding of the conflict's problem, challenges and conflicting side's influence on peace process. Hypothesis is “Nagorno Karabakh conflict resolution only on elite's level delays peace agreement”. The conflict is bottom-up where political mythology plays important role. Zero-sum thinking complicates the process. There is a need for transformation and more inclusive approach. Sides have to find common ground, reduce radical disagreement, conceptual differences, words war. Sides should implement constructive confrontation and track-two diplomacy to change narratives, hatred, trust issues. They should look for long-term goals. In the end of the thesis it is concluded that hypothesis is proven

No light at the end of the tunnel: Armenia and Azerbaijan struggle over influence in Nagorno Karabakh

Darba nosaukums ir „Bez gaismas tuneļa galā: Armēnijas un Azerbaidžānas cīņa par ietekmi Kalnu Karabahā”. Darba mērķis ir izpētīt Kalnu Karabaha konflikta būtību. Tiek uzdoti četri izpētes jautājumi. Pirmais, kāpēc konfliktu vēl nav izdevies atrisināt? Otrais, vai Kalnu Karabahas centieni atdalīties no Azerbaidžānas un iegūt neakarību ir pamatoti? Trešais, kādu lomu spēle starptautiskās organizācijas un atsevišķas valstis? Ceturtais, kādus problēmas risinājumus piedāvā pašas valstis? Darba hipotēze tika formulēta: „Pastāvošā reģionālajā status quo, kad netiek sasniegts nekāds progress konflikta risināšanai, un pastāv liels saspīlējums starp valstīm, ir nepieciešama Kalnu Karabaha neatkarības jautājuma pacelšana starptautiskā formā”. Darbs sastāv no ievada, septiņām nodaļām, piecām apakšnodaļām, secinājumiem, divām anotācijām latviešu un angļu valodās un literatūras saraksta. Darba pirmajā nodaļā tiek aprakstītas tautu tiesības uz pašnoteikšanos. Sākotnēji pašnoteikšanās tika realizēta dekolonizācijas procesa ietvaros. Mūsdienās pāšnoteikšanas tiek realizēta caur tautu pašpārvaldi eksistējošās valsts ieksienē. ANO uzsvēr valsts teritoriālas integritātes neaizskaramību. Tauta var panākt atdalīšanos gadījumā, ja tās cilvēktiesības tika pārkāptas un pastāvēja pašpārvaldes noliegums. Darba otrajā nodaļā tiek aprakstīta Karabahas konflikta rašanas vēsture. Jau no paša sākuma armēņu apdzīvotā Kalnu Karabaha bija apstrīdama teritorija un Armēnija un Azerbaidžāna centās pieradīt savas tiesības uz to. Karabaha armēņi sūtīja vairākas petīcijas uz PSRS ar lūgumu nodot teritoriju Armēnijas pārvaldē, tomēr nesaņēma pozitīvas atbildes. Konflikts saasinājas 1988. gadā bet eskalēja pēc Padomju Savienības sabrukuma un izversās karā starp divām republikam. Kopš 1994. gada starp valstīm pastāv pamiera vienošanās, tomēr mazmēroga pārkāpumi pastāv abās pusēs. Darba piektajā, sestajā un septitajā nodaļās tiek aprakstītas Armēnijas un Azerbaidžānas nostājas, konflikta risināšanas process un piedāvāti risinājumi EDSO Minskas grupas formatā. Koflikts pastāv jau vairāk par divām desmitgadēm, bet kompromiss tā arī netika sasniegts. Minskas grupa bieži saņem kritiku par savu nespēju atrisināt konfliktu. Tomēr grupa, kuras līdzpriekšēdētāji ir Francija, Krievija un ASV, ir vienīgais risināšanas intruments. Pārēju starptautisku organizāciju loma konflikta risināšānā ir diezgan ierobežota. Pašas Armēnijas un Azerbaidžānas sabiedrības nav gatavas kompromisam. Valstim pārrunu procesa laikā tika piedāvātas divas risinājuma pieejas- paketes un soli pa solim. Azerbaidžāna vēlējās pieņemt soli pa solim stratēģiju, bet Armēnija- paketes. Darba astotajā nodaļā tiek aprakstītas konfliktā iesaistītas puses, proti, Krievija, Irāna, ASV, Turcija un starptautiskās organizācijas. Darba nobeigumā tiek secināts, ka konfliktu nevar atstāt bez starptautiskās iejaukšanās. Abas valstis nevienreiz uzsvēra savu gatavību atrisināt konfliktu ar spēka pielietojumu, par ko arī liecinā valstu militāra budžeta palielinājumi. Neskatoties uz Minskas grupas kritiku, bez tās nenoteikts status quo varēja kļut par destabilizējošu visam reģionam. Tāpēc darba hipotēze tika pieradīta.The title of my bachelor paper is „No light at the end of the tunnel: Armenia and Azerbaijan struggle over influence in Nagorno Karabakh”. The aim is to make a research on Nagorno Karabakh conflict. There are four main research questions in my paper. First, why conflict is still not resolved? Second, does Karabakh have the ground for secession from Azerbaijan and gain independence? Third, what role in conflict resolution plays international organizations and states, as individual players? Fourth, what conflict solutions offer both states? Hypothesis is: „In exciting status quo when no progress is made in conflict resolution and there is a big tension between states, question of Nagorno Karabakh independence must take place in international form.” Research consists of introduction, seven chapters, five sub-chapters, conclusions, two annotations in Latvian and English and list of references. First chapter describes people’s rights for self-determination. At first self-determination was realized through decolonization. Contemporary determination is realized through self governance in existing state. UN value state`s territorial integrity. Peoples can gain secession when human rights violations took place and there was a denial of self governance. Second chapter discovers Karabakh conflict history of appearance. There was contestability of Armenian populated Karabakh territory from the very beginning. Armenia and Azerbaijan tried to prove its rights for Karabakh. Karabakh Armenians sent various petitions to USSR to transfer region under Armenian governance but did not receive positive reaction. Conflict sharpened in 1988 but escalated after collapse of USSR and led to war between two republics. Since 1994 between states is cease fire agreement but small scale violations exists on both sides. Research fifth, sixth and seventh chapter describes Armenia and Azerbaijan positions on the conflict, mediation efforts and offered solutions in OSCE Minsk group format. Conflict exists already more than two decades but sides were not able to compromise yet. Often Minsk group is criticized for not being able to resolve conflict. Still group, co-chairs are France, Russia and USA is the only mediation instrument. Other international organization involvement into conflict is limited. Societies in Armenia and Azerbaijan also are not ready for peace settlement. During negotiation process states were offered two resolution strategies- packet and step by step. Azerbaijan prefers step by step strategy, Armenia- packet solution. In eight chapter are describes in conflict involved sides- Russia, Iran, USA, Turkey and international organizations. In conclusions it is said that conflict cannot be left without international interference. Both states not once mentioned readiness to resolve conflict through using force. We can see it through the rise of states military budgets. Despite critics for Minsk group, without it the indefinite status quo could have been destabilizing for whole region. Research hypothesis has been proven