An Analysis of Reading Preferences of Pilots to Develop a Book List for Aviation Education

This study proposed to develop a list of aviation books that experienced pilots consider inspirational and motivational which could be used in an aviation literature course in adult education. Survey results showed the subject pilots had a positive attitude toward reading and flying, but there was little correlation (r = .35) between the two. This suggests that something else influenced the reading of the sample books. The pilot resondents suggested 269 books for use in a course. This book list will need additional refining and syntopical sorting before use as a canon in an aviation education course

Ecosystem resilience despite large-scale altered hydroclimatic conditions

Climate change is predicted to increase both drought frequency and duration, and when coupled with substantial warming, will establish a new hydroclimatological model for many regions. Large-scale, warm droughts have recently occurred in North America, Africa, Europe, Amazonia and Australia, resulting in major effects on terrestrial ecosystems, carbon balance and food security. Here we compare the functional response of above-ground net primary production to contrasting hydroclimatic periods in the late twentieth century (1975-1998), and drier, warmer conditions in the early twenty-first century (2000-2009) in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres. We find a common ecosystem water-use efficiency (WUE e: Above-ground net primary production/ evapotranspiration) across biomes ranging from grassland to forest that indicates an intrinsic system sensitivity to water availability across rainfall regimes, regardless of hydroclimatic conditions. We found higher WUE e in drier years that increased significantly with drought to a maximum WUE e across all biomes; and a minimum native state in wetter years that was common across hydroclimatic periods. This indicates biome-scale resilience to the interannual variability associated with the early twenty-first century drought - that is, the capacity to tolerate low, annual precipitation and to respond to subsequent periods of favourable water balance. These findings provide a conceptual model of ecosystem properties at the decadal scale applicable to the widespread altered hydroclimatic conditions that are predicted for later this century. Understanding the hydroclimatic threshold that will break down ecosystem resilience and alter maximum WUE e may allow us to predict land-surface consequences as large regions become more arid, starting with water-limited, low-productivity grasslands. © 2013 Macmillan Publishers Limited. All rights reserved

Lithological influences on contemporary and long-term regolith weathering at the Luquillo Critical Zone Observatory

Lithologic differences give rise to the differential weatherability of the Earth’s surface and globally variable silicate weathering fluxes, which provide an important negative feedback on climate over geologic timescales. To isolate the influence of lithology on weathering rates and mechanisms, we compare two nearby catchments in the Luquillo Critical Zone Observatory in Puerto Rico, which have similar climate history, relief and vegetation, but differ in bedrock lithology. Regolith and pore water samples with depth were collected from two ridgetops and at three sites along a slope transect in the volcaniclastic Bisley catchment and compared to existing data from the granitic Río Icacos catchment. The depth variations of solid-state and pore water chemistry and quantitative mineralogy were used to calculate mass transfer (tau) and weathering solute profiles, which in turn were used to determine weathering mechanisms and to estimate weathering rates. Regolith formed on both lithologies is highly leached of most labile elements, although Mg and K are less depleted in the granitic than in the volcaniclastic profiles, reflecting residual biotite in the granitic regolith not present in the volcaniclastics. Profiles of both lithologies that terminate at bedrock corestones are less weathered at depth, near the rock-regolith interfaces. Mg fluxes in the volcaniclastics derive primarily from dissolution of chlorite near the rock-regolith interface and from dissolution of illite and secondary phases in the upper regolith, whereas in the granitic profile, Mg and K fluxes derive from biotite dissolution. Long-term mineral dissolution rates and weathering fluxes were determined by integrating mass losses over the thickness of solid-state weathering fronts, and are therefore averages over the timescale of regolith development. Resulting long-term dissolution rates for minerals in the volcaniclastic regolith include chlorite: 8.9 × 10‾¹⁴ mol m‾² s‾¹, illite: 2.1 × 10‾¹⁴ mol m‾² s‾¹ and kaolinite: 4.0 × 10‾¹⁴ mol m‾² s‾¹. Long-term weathering fluxes are several orders of magnitude lower in the granitic regolith than in the volcaniclastic, despite higher abundances of several elements in the granitic regolith. Contemporary weathering fluxes were determined from net (rain-corrected) solute profiles and thus represent rates over the residence time of water in the regolith. Contemporary weathering fluxes within the granitic regolith are similar to the long-term fluxes. In contrast, the long-term fluxes are faster than the contemporary fluxes in the volcaniclastic regolith. Contemporary fluxes in the granitic regolith are generally also slightly faster than in the volcaniclastic. The differences in weathering fluxes over space and time between these two watersheds indicate significant lithologic control of chemical weathering mechanisms and rates

BIOFRAG: A new database for analysing BIOdiversity responses to forest FRAGmentation

Habitat fragmentation studies are producing inconsistent and complex results across which it is nearly impossible to synthesise. Consistent analytical techniques can be applied to primary datasets, if stored in a flexible database that allows simple data retrieval for subsequent analyses. Method: We developed a relational database linking data collected in the field to taxonomic nomenclature, spatial and temporal plot attributes and further environmental variables (e.g. information on biogeographic region. Typical field assessments include measures of biological variables (e.g. presence, abundance, ground cover) of one species or a set of species linked to a set of plots in fragments of a forested landscape. Conclusion: The database currently holds records of 5792 unique species sampled in 52 landscapes in six of eight biogeographic regions: mammals 173, birds 1101, herpetofauna 284, insects 2317, other arthropods: 48, plants 1804, snails 65. Most species are found in one or two landscapes, but some are found in four. Using the huge amount of primary data on biodiversity response to fragmentation becomes increasingly important as anthropogenic pressures from high population growth and land demands are increasing. This database can be queried to extract data for subsequent analyses of the biological response to forest fragmentation with new metrics that can integrate across the components of fragmented landscapes. Meta-analyses of findings based on consistent methods and metrics will be able to generalise over studies allowing inter-comparisons for unified answers. The database can thus help researchers in providing findings for analyses of trade-offs between land use benefits and impacts on biodiversity and to track performance of management for biodiversity conservation in human-modified landscapes.Fil: Pfeifer, Marion. Imperial College London; Reino UnidoFil: Lefebvre, Veronique. Imperial College London; Reino UnidoFil: Gardner, Toby A.. Stockholm Environment Institute; SueciaFil: Arroyo Rodríguez, Víctor. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México; MéxicoFil: Baeten, Lander. University of Ghent; BélgicaFil: Banks Leite, Cristina. Imperial College London; Reino UnidoFil: Barlow, Jos. Lancaster University; Reino UnidoFil: Betts, Matthew G.. State University of Oregon; Estados UnidosFil: Brunet, Joerg. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences; SueciaFil: Cerezo Blandón, Alexis Mauricio. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Agronomía. Departamento de Métodos Cuantitativos y Sistemas de Información; ArgentinaFil: Cisneros, Laura M.. University of Connecticut; Estados UnidosFil: Collard, Stuart. Nature Conservation Society of South Australia; AustraliaFil: D´Cruze, Neil. The World Society for the Protection of Animals; Reino UnidoFil: Da Silva Motta, Catarina. Ministério da Ciência, Tecnologia, Inovações. Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas da Amazônia; BrasilFil: Duguay, Stephanie. Carleton University; CanadáFil: Eggermont, Hilde. University of Ghent; BélgicaFil: Eigenbrod, Félix. University of Southampton; Reino UnidoFil: Hadley, Adam S.. State University of Oregon; Estados UnidosFil: Hanson, Thor R.. No especifíca;Fil: Hawes, Joseph E.. University of East Anglia; Reino UnidoFil: Heartsill Scalley, Tamara. United State Department of Agriculture. Forestry Service; Puerto RicoFil: Klingbeil, Brian T.. University of Connecticut; Estados UnidosFil: Kolb, Annette. Universitat Bremen; AlemaniaFil: Kormann, Urs. Universität Göttingen; AlemaniaFil: Kumar, Sunil. State University of Colorado - Fort Collins; Estados UnidosFil: Lachat, Thibault. Swiss Federal Institute for Forest; SuizaFil: Lakeman Fraser, Poppy. Imperial College London; Reino UnidoFil: Lantschner, María Victoria. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Bahía Blanca; Argentina. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria. Centro Regional Patagonia Norte. Estación Experimental Agropecuaria San Carlos de Bariloche; ArgentinaFil: Laurance, William F.. James Cook University; AustraliaFil: Leal, Inara R.. Universidade Federal de Pernambuco; BrasilFil: Lens, Luc. University of Ghent; BélgicaFil: Marsh, Charles J.. University of Leeds; Reino UnidoFil: Medina Rangel, Guido F.. Universidad Nacional de Colombia; ColombiaFil: Melles, Stephanie. University of Toronto; CanadáFil: Mezger, Dirk. Field Museum of Natural History; Estados UnidosFil: Oldekop, Johan A.. University of Sheffield; Reino UnidoFil: Overal , Williams L.. Museu Paraense Emílio Goeldi. Departamento de Entomologia; BrasilFil: Owen, Charlotte. Imperial College London; Reino UnidoFil: Peres, Carlos A.. University of East Anglia; Reino UnidoFil: Phalan, Ben. University of Southampton; Reino UnidoFil: Pidgeon, Anna Michle. University of Wisconsin; Estados UnidosFil: Pilia, Oriana. Imperial College London; Reino UnidoFil: Possingham, Hugh P.. Imperial College London; Reino Unido. The University Of Queensland; AustraliaFil: Possingham, Max L.. No especifíca;Fil: Raheem, Dinarzarde C.. Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences; Bélgica. Natural History Museum; Reino UnidoFil: Ribeiro, Danilo B.. Universidade Federal do Mato Grosso do Sul; BrasilFil: Ribeiro Neto, Jose D.. Universidade Federal de Pernambuco; BrasilFil: Robinson, Douglas W.. State University of Oregon; Estados UnidosFil: Robinson, Richard. Manjimup Research Centre; AustraliaFil: Rytwinski, Trina. Carleton University; CanadáFil: Scherber, Christoph. Universität Göttingen; AlemaniaFil: Slade, Eleanor M.. University of Oxford; Reino UnidoFil: Somarriba, Eduardo. Centro Agronómico Tropical de Investigación y Enseñanza; Costa RicaFil: Stouffer, Philip C.. State University of Louisiana; Estados UnidosFil: Struebig, Matthew J.. University of Kent; Reino UnidoFil: Tylianakis, Jason M.. University College London; Estados Unidos. Imperial College London; Reino UnidoFil: Teja, Tscharntke. Universität Göttingen; AlemaniaFil: Tyre, Andrew J.. Universidad de Nebraska - Lincoln; Estados UnidosFil: Urbina Cardona, Jose N.. Pontificia Universidad Javeriana; ColombiaFil: Vasconcelos, Heraldo L.. Universidade Federal de Uberlandia; BrasilFil: Wearn, Oliver. Imperial College London; Reino Unido. The Zoological Society of London; Reino UnidoFil: Wells, Konstans. University of Adelaide; AustraliaFil: Willig, Michael R.. University of Connecticut; Estados UnidosFil: Wood, Eric. University of Wisconsin; Estados UnidosFil: Young, Richard P.. Durrell Wildlife Conservation Trust; Reino UnidoFil: Bradley, Andrew V.. Imperial College London; Reino UnidoFil: Ewers, Robert M.. Imperial College London; Reino Unid

Differential Response to Soil Salinity in Endangered Key Tree Cactus: Implications for Survival in a Changing Climate

Understanding reasons for biodiversity loss is essential for developing conservation and management strategies and is becoming increasingly urgent with climate change. Growing at elevations <1.4 m in the Florida Keys, USA, the endangered Key tree cactus (Pilosocereus robinii) experienced 84 percent loss of total stems from 1994 to 2007. The most severe losses of 99 and 88 percent stems occurred in the largest populations in the Lower Keys, where nine storms with high wind velocities and storm surges, occurred during this period. In contrast, three populations had substantial stem proliferation. To evaluate possible mortality factors related to changes in climate or forest structure, we examined habitat variables: soil salinity, elevation, canopy cover, and habitat structure near 16 dying or dead and 18 living plants growing in the Lower Keys. Soil salinity and elevation were the preliminary factors that discriminated live and dead plants. Soil salinity was 1.5 times greater, but elevation was 12 cm higher near dead plants than near live plants. However, distribution-wide stem loss was not significantly related to salinity or elevation. Controlled salinity trials indicated that salt tolerance to levels above 40 mM NaCl was related to maternal origin. Salt sensitive plants from the Lower Keys had less stem growth, lower root:shoot ratios, lower potassium: sodium ratios and lower recovery rate, but higher δ 13C than a salt tolerant lineage of unknown origin. Unraveling the genetic structure of salt tolerant and salt sensitive lineages in the Florida Keys will require further genetic tests. Worldwide rare species restricted to fragmented, low-elevation island habitats, with little or no connection to higher ground will face challenges from climate change-related factors. These great conservation challenges will require traditional conservation actions and possibly managed relocation that must be informed by studies such as these

BIOFRAG - a new database for analyzing BIOdiversity responses to forest FRAGmentation

Peer reviewe

BIOFRAG – a new database for analyzing BIOdiversity responses to forest FRAGmentation

Habitat fragmentation studies have produced complex results that are challenging to synthesize. Inconsistencies among studies may result from variation in the choice of landscape metrics and response variables, which is often compounded by a lack of key statistical or methodological information. Collating primary datasets on biodiversity responses to fragmentation in a consistent and flexible database permits simple data retrieval for subsequent analyses. We present a relational database that links such field data to taxonomic nomenclature, spatial and temporal plot attributes, and environmental characteristics. Field assessments include measurements of the response(s) (e.g., presence, abundance, ground cover) of one or more species linked to plots in fragments within a partially forested landscape. The database currently holds 9830 unique species recorded in plots of 58 unique landscapes in six of eight realms: mammals 315, birds 1286, herptiles 460, insects 4521, spiders 204, other arthropods 85, gastropods 70, annelids 8, platyhelminthes 4, Onychophora 2, vascular plants 2112, nonvascular plants and lichens 320, and fungi 449. Three landscapes were sampled as long-term time series (>10 years). Seven hundred and eleven species are found in two or more landscapes. Consolidating the substantial amount of primary data available on biodiversity responses to fragmentation in the context of land-use change and natural disturbances is an essential part of understanding the effects of increasing anthropogenic pressures on land. The consistent format of this database facilitates testing of generalizations concerning biologic responses to fragmentation across diverse systems and taxa. It also allows the re-examination of existing datasets with alternative landscape metrics and robust statistical methods, for example, helping to address pseudo-replication problems. The database can thus help researchers in producing broad syntheses of the effects of land use. The database is dynamic and inclusive, and contributions from individual and large-scale data-collection efforts are welcome.Keywords: Species turnover, Data sharing, Database, Global change, Landscape metrics, Edge effects, Forest fragmentation, Matrix contrast, Bioinformatic