The Malaise Trap: Its Utility and Potential for Sampling Insect Populations

Slightly over three decades have elapsed since Malaise (1937) first published plans for the insect trap now bearing his name a stationary mesh tent with open sides, a central baffle, and a top-mounted collecting apparatus (Fig. 1). A non-attractant device, the Malaise trap is based upon the observation that most flying insects hitting an obstacle respond by flying (or crawling) upward (and thus into captivity). In recent years, the Malaise trap has become increasingly popular among insect taxonomists and collectors as a means of augmenting catch and collecting rare or ephemeral representatives. Many variations have been developed (e.g., Townes, 1962; Gressitt and Gressitt, 1962; Marston, 1965; Chanter, 1965; Butler, 1965), most aimed at making the trap more portable and/or efficient for collecting a particular insect group. To date, however, the Malaise trap has received little notice among other biologists, although it would appear to have considerable potential in almost any field study involving flying insects, and particularly in ecological investigations

USING LAND AS A CONTROL VARIABLE IN DENSITY-DEPENDENT BIOECONOMIC MODELS

The bioeconomic analysis of endangered species without consumptive values can be problematic when analysed with density-dependent models that assume a fixed environment size. Most bioeconomic models use harvest as a control variable, yet when modelling non-harvestable species, frequently the only variable under control of conservationists is the quantity of habitat to be made available. The authors explore the implications of this in a model developed to analyse the potential population recovery of New Zealand's yellow-eyed penguin. The penguin faces severe competition with man for the terrestrial resources required for breeding and has declined in population to perilously low levels. The model was developed to estimate the land use required for recovery and preservation of the species and to compare the results to current tourism-driven conservation efforts. It is demonstrated that land may serve as a useful control variable in bioeconomic models and that such a model may be useful for determining whether sufficient incentives exist to preserve a species. However, the model may generate less useful results for providing a specific estimate of the optimal allocation of land to such a species.Land Economics/Use,

Developing a Framework for Sensible Regulation: Lessons from OSHA's Proposed Ergonomics Rule

Injuries caused by workplace activities that involve repetitive motion, known as musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs), increasingly concern workers, employers, and regulators because of their frequency and high treatment costs. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) recently proposed a national rule designed to reduce the workplace risk of MSDs. OSHA estimates there were about 626,000 MSDs in 1997, representing about one-third of all serious nonfatal workplace injuries and illnesses. OSHA estimates the proposed rule will cost $4 billion per year and generate$9 billion per year in benefits. Yet, OSHA does not provide sufficient evidence that private markets are failing to reduce MSD risk without government intervention and does not convincingly demonstrate that the rule will result in more good than harm. Unless OSHA effectively addresses some of the more serious flaws in the proposed rule, OSHA should not proceed with the final regulation. OSHA should more carefully evaluate the nature and extent of MSDs in the workplace than it did in the proposed rule and use improved economic analysis to target serious MSDs that employers can reduce at low cost. Furthermore, OSHA should include new provisions to improve employer access to information about reducing workplace risk of MSDs. The rule's ergonomics program requirements should apply only to those MSDs which employers do not have sufficient incentive to reduce without government intervention.

PROJECTED CASH FLOWS AND PROFITABILITY FOR REPRESENTATIVE LOUISIANA FARMS, 2001.

Changes in commodity prices and input costs along with adjustments in capital structure significantly affect farm cash flow requirements and whole farm profitability. These changes coupled with crop yield and price variability increase the need for farm business cash flow and profitability planning on a whole farm basis. Planning for profits is expected to affect both the short and long run success of the business and cash flow planning is expected to allow the manager to establish farm business cash needs for a specified period of time (production period) so that cash commitments are met as they come due. Furthermore, agricultural lenders have become increasingly concerned with loan repayment capacity and are placing relatively more emphasis on cash flow analysis in the loan evaluation process. In general, farm managers who develop cash flow and profitability projections should find it easier to justify and to secure adequate financing for their businesses. The purpose of this report is to supplement the series of annual cost projections for enterprises by providing profitability and cash flow projections for several whole farm situations throughout the state. Whole farm projections of returns and expenses are expected to provide information regarding the relative profitability of individual farming situations throughout the state. Estimates from cash flow projections provide information concerning the timing of cash flows and the distribution of cash flows for individual farm situations and comparison of estimates for these situations provide an indication of the relative cash flow positions of farms across the state. These projections are expected to be of value to farmers, agricultural credit agencies, extension personnel, researchers, and other professionals with an interest in the agricultural production industry. This report is organized into three general parts. Data sources and procedures used in the study are presented in the first section. In the second section, projected income and cash flow statements for representative farms in major crop producing areas of the state are presented and discussed. The final section summarizes the financial projections for representative farms considered in the study.Farm Management,

Has the housing boom increased mortgage risk?

Adjustable rate mortgages

BIOECONOMIC MODELLING OF ENDANGERED SPECIES CONSERVATION

Resource /Energy Economics and Policy,

A Solution to Concerns over Public Access to Scientific Data

To balance the public need for accountability and better policy decision making with concerns regarding burdens on scientists and scientific progress, the authors propose that increased access be limited to data relevant in analyzing regulations that would have an annual economic impact of at least $100 million. They also recommend establishing an agency to replicate key findings used to support regulations before they are finalized.Regulatory Reform

Should Researchers Be Required to Share Data Used in Supporting Regulatory Decisions?

The scientific establishment is deeply concerned over a proposed regulation that would require data to be shared on projects that are federally funded. Specifically, the proposed amendment to OMB Circular A-110 would require data collected by researchers at universities, hospitals, and non-profit institutions to be shared with interested parties if (1) the data are produced as part of a grant or agreement funded by the federal government; (2) the data are used in a published study; and (3) the data or study is used in formulating a policy or rule. Parties could request the data under the Freedom of Information Act. The proposed rule responds to a provision by Senator Richard Shelby in the 1999 Omnibus Spending Bill that requires data generated under federal awards at universities and non-profit institutions to be available to the public. This regulatory analysis develops an economic framework for evaluating proposals to provide greater access to research data. Our analysis also offers specific recommendations for improving OMB Circular A-110 as well as the broader regulatory process. We argue that the economic analysis of sharing research findings can be separated into three parts: the impact of requiring public access on incentives to produce data, research, and innovation; the impact of that requirement on the quality of research; and the impact of required access on the efficiency and transparency of policy. The economic analysis demonstrates that the standard property-rights framework used to justify time-limited property rights for the use of data is not sufficient for addressing broader problems in which research and data could be used to help inform public policy decisions. The value of sharing data for public policy must also be considered. A second conclusion is that traditional peer review done by scientific journals is not adequate for purposes of relying on research for major public policy decisions. A third conclusion is that scientists who are reluctant to share their findings are more likely to have errors in their analysis than the average researcher. A fourth conclusion is that requiring the release of data could slow the development of data and delay the publication of results. Although substantial costs and uncertainty may be associated with greater public access to data, our analysis suggests that academic norms alone provide very limited access to scientific data. We recommend improving Circular A-110 by narrowing and clarifying the scope of the proposed regulation. The proposed regulation should apply to economically significant regulations that have an annual economic impact of at least $100 million. In addition, we recommend that Congress create an agency that would be charged with replicating the findings of regulatory agencies before such regulations could be implemented. The recommendations concerning replication would require additional legal authority. Taken together, our recommendations would help lay the foundation for a regulatory system that is more accountable and has more scientific integrity.