Should Conductors Listen To Recordings When They Learn Scores?

We can observe the conductor’s work at his performances and rehearsals. However, we cannot see the process of score preparation from the time they get the score to the downbeat of the first rehearsal because the conductor does this work alone. This dissertation discusses the debate among conductors past and present about whether, when, and how to use recordings as part of the score preparation. It considers the advantages and disadvantages of using recordings in the score preparation process. I conducted several types of research on the use of recordings by living conductors. I interviewed conductors using Skype and phone conversations, email correspondence, and in-person interviews. I found information online, and in books and magazine articles. This dissertation recounts these conductors’ methods of learning scores with and without listening to recordings and answers the following questions: What are conductors specifically interested in when listening to recordings? How did conductors from the past learn the scores when the recordings did not exist, or when they were not widely available? Do conductors use recordings to learn the score? How do conductors use the recordings in their score learning process? The research presented within begins to answer the questions about learning scores, an important process for all conductors

The Effects of Conditioning and Gender on Ratings of Perceived Exertion During Physical Exercise

The purpose of this investigation was to determine if gender played a factor in perception during physical exertion, and whether those perceptions were influenced by conditioning level. Sixteen male and sixteen female volunteer subjects, ranging in age from 21 to 35, constituted the sample for this study. The Bruce protocol for a Symptom­-Limited Graded Exercise test was the instrument utilized to evaluate heart rate during the maximal physical exercise program. A ventilatory analyzer measured each subject\u27s maximal oxygen consumption. Borg\u27s Rated Perceived Exertion Scale was employed for subjective evaluation of an individual\u27s perception of effort. The t-test compared mean scores of RPE during test 1 and test 2, and was utilized to determine significant difference. Analysis of variance and Scheffe post hoc tests were used to determine if there were differences between males and females, or between the conditioned and non­conditioned subjects. The Pearson product-moment was employed to determine correlation between heart rate and RPE values. It was hypothesized that there would be a significant RPE difference at the alpha value .05, between males and females, and between conditioning levels of those subjects

Archaeological Landscapes during the 10–8 ka Lake Stanley Lowstand on the Alpena‐Amberley Ridge, Lake Huron

Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/136243/1/gea21590.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/136243/2/gea21590_am.pd

A synthesis of the effects of cheatgrass invasion on the US Great Basin carbon storage

Non‐native, invasive Bromus tectorum (cheatgrass) is pervasive in sagebrush ecosystems in the Great Basin ecoregion of the western United States, competing with native plants and promoting more frequent fires. As a result, cheatgrass invasion likely alters carbon (C) storage in the region. Many studies have measured C pools in one or more common vegetation types: native sagebrush, invaded sagebrush and cheatgrass‐dominated (often burned) sites, but these results have yet to be synthesized. We performed a literature review to identify studies assessing the consequences of invasion on C storage in above‐ground biomass (AGB), below‐ground biomass (BGB), litter, organic soil and total soil. We identified 41 articles containing 386 unique studies and estimated C storage across pools and vegetation types. We used linear mixed models to identify the main predictors of C storage. We found consistent declines in biomass C with invasion: AGB C was 55% lower in cheatgrass (40 ± 4 g C/m2) than native sagebrush (89 ± 27 g C/m2) and BGB C was 62% lower in cheatgrass (90 ± 17 g C/m2) than native sagebrush (238 ± 60 g C/m2). In contrast, litter C was \u3e4× higher in cheatgrass (154 ± 12 g C/m2) than native sagebrush (32 ± 12 g C/m2). Soil organic C (SOC) in the top 10 cm was significantly higher in cheatgrass than in native or invaded sagebrush. SOC below 20 cm was significantly related to the time since most recent fire and losses were observed in deep SOC in cheatgrass \u3e5 years after a fire. There were no significant changes in total soil C across vegetation types. Synthesis and applications. Cheatgrass invasion decreases biodiversity and rangeland productivity and alters fire regimes. Our findings indicate cheatgrass invasion also results in persistent biomass carbon (C) losses that occur with sagebrush replacement. We estimate that conversion from native sagebrush to cheatgrass leads to a net reduction of C storage in biomass and litter of 76 g C/m2, or 16 Tg C across the Great Basin without management practices like native sagebrush restoration or cheatgrass removal

Restoration Handbook for Sagebrush Steppe Ecosystems with Emphasis on Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat—Part 3. Site Level Restoration Decisions

Sagebrush steppe ecosystems in the United States currently (2016) occur on only about one-half of their historical land area because of changes in land use, urban growth, and degradation of land, including invasions of non-native plants. The existence of many animal species depends on the existence of sagebrush steppe habitat. The greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) depends on large landscapes of intact habitat of sagebrush and perennial grasses for their existence. In addition, other sagebrush-obligate animals have similar requirements and restoration of landscapes for greater sage-grouse also will benefit these animals. Once sagebrush lands are degraded, they may require restoration actions to make those lands viable habitat for supporting sagebrush-obligate animals, livestock, and wild horses, and to provide ecosystem services for humans now and for future generations. When a decision is made on where restoration treatments should be applied, there are a number of site-specific decisions managers face before selecting the appropriate type of restoration. This site-level decision tool for restoration of sagebrush steppe ecosystems is organized in nine steps. ●Step 1 describes the process of defining site-level restoration objectives. ●Step 2 describes the ecological site characteristics of the restoration site. This covers soil chemistry and texture, soil moisture and temperature regimes, and the vegetation communities the site is capable of supporting. ●Step 3 compares the current vegetation to the plant communities associated with the site State and Transition models. ●Step 4 takes the manager through the process of current land uses and past disturbances that may influence restoration success. ●Step 5 is a brief discussion of how weather before and after treatments may impact restoration success. ●Step 6 addresses restoration treatment types and their potential positive and negative impacts on the ecosystem and on habitats, especially for greater sage-grouse. We discuss when passive restoration options may be sufficient and when active restoration may be necessary to achieve restoration objectives. ●Step 7 addresses decisions regarding post-restoration livestock grazing management. ●Step 8 addresses monitoring of the restoration; we discuss important aspects associated with implementation monitoring as well as effectiveness monitoring. ●Step 9 takes the information learned from monitoring to determine how restoration actions in the future might be adapted to improve restoration success

Restoration Handbook for Sagebrush Steppe Ecosystems with Emphasis on Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat—Part 1. Concepts for Understanding and Applying Restoration

Sagebrush steppe ecosystems in the United States currently occur on only about one-half of their historical land area because of changes in land use, urban growth, and degradation of land, including invasions of non-native plants. The existence of many animal species depends on the existence of sagebrush steppe habitat. The greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) is a landscape-dependent bird that requires intact habitat and combinations of sagebrush and perennial grasses to exist. In addition, other sagebrush-obligate animals also have similar requirements and restoration of landscapes for greater sage-grouse also will benefit these animals. Once sagebrush lands are degraded, they may require restoration actions to make those lands viable habitat for supporting sagebrush-obligate animals. This restoration handbook is the first in a three-part series on restoration of sagebrush ecosystems. In Part 1, we discuss concepts surrounding landscape and restoration ecology of sagebrush ecosystems and greater sage-grouse that habitat managers and restoration practitioners need to know to make informed decisions regarding where and how to restore specific areas. We will describe the plant dynamics of sagebrush steppe ecosystems and their responses to major disturbances, fire, and defoliation. We will introduce the concepts of ecosystem resilience to disturbances and resistance to invasions of annual grasses within sagebrush steppe. An introduction to soils and ecological site information will provide insights into the specific plants that can be restored in a location. Soil temperature and moisture regimes are described as a tool for determining resilience and resistance and the potential for various restoration actions. Greater sage-grouse are considered landscape birds that require large areas of intact sagebrush steppe; therefore, we describe concepts of landscape ecology that aid our decisions regarding habitat restoration. We provide a brief overview of restoration techniques for sage-grouse habitat restoration. We conclude with a description of the critical nature of monitoring for adaptive management of sagebrush steppe restoration at landscape- and project-specific levels