Home curing bacon for a mild flavor

Maurice Alexander and W. C. Stringer (Department of Animal Husbandry and Department of Food Science and Nutrition, College of Agriculture)New 7/79/10

The ‘mosaic habitat’ concept in human evolution: past and present

The habitats preferred by hominins and other species are an important theme in palaeoanthropology, and the ‘mosaic habitat’ (also referred to as habitat heterogeneity) has been a central concept in this regard for the last four decades. Here we explore the development of this concept – loosely defined as a range of different habitat types, such as woodlands, riverine forest and savannah within a limited spatial area– in studies of human evolution in the last sixty years or so. We outline the key developments that took place before and around the time when the term ‘mosaic’ came to wider palaeoanthropological attention. To achieve this we used an analysis of the published literature, a study of illustrations of hominin evolution from 1925 onwards and an email survey of senior researchers in palaeoanthropology and related fields. We found that the term mosaic starts to be applied in palaeoanthropological thinking during the 1970’s due to the work of a number of researchers, including Karl Butzer and Glynn Isaac , with the earliest usage we have found of ‘mosaic’ in specific reference to hominin habitats being by Adriaan Kortlandt (1972). While we observe a steady increase in the numbers of publications reporting mosaic palaeohabitats, in keeping with the growing interest and specialisation in various methods of palaeoenvironmental reconstruction, we also note that there is a lack of critical studies that define this habitat, or examine the temporal and spatial scales associated with it. The general consensus within the field is that the concept now requires more detailed definition and study to evaluate its role in human evolution

Assessment of groundwater discharges into West Neck Bay, New York, via natural tracers

Author Posting. © Elsevier B.V., 2006. This is the author's version of the work. It is posted here by permission of Elsevier B.V. for personal use, not for redistribution. The definitive version was published in Continental Shelf Research 29 (2006): 1971-1983, doi:10.1016/j.csr.2006.07.011.A field experiment to compare methods of assessing submarine groundwater discharge (SGD) was held on Shelter Island, NY, in May 2002. We evaluated the use of radon, radium isotopes, and methane to assess SGD rates and dynamics from a glacial aquifer in the coastal zone. Fluxes of radon across the sediment-water interface were calculated from changes in measured surface water inventories following evaluation and correction for tidal effects, atmospheric evasion, and mixing with offshore waters. These fluxes were then converted to SGD rates using the measured radon concentration in the groundwater. We used the short-lived radium isotopes to calculate a horizontal mixing coefficient to assess radon loss by mixing between nearshore and offshore waters. We also made an independent calculation of SGD using the Ra-derived mixing coefficient and the long-lived 226Ra concentration gradient in the bay. Seepage rates were calculated to range between 0 and 34 cm.day-1 using the radon measurements and 15 cm.day-1 as indicated by the radium isotopes. The radiotracer results were consistent and comparable to SGD rates measured directly with vented benthic chambers (seepage meters) deployed during this experiment. These meters indicated rates between 2 and 200 cm.day-1 depending on their location. Both the calculated radon fluxes and rates measured directly by the automated seepage meters revealed a clear reproducible pattern of higher fluxes during low tides. Considering that the two techniques are completely independent, the agreement in the SGD dynamics is significant. Methane concentration in groundwater was very low (~30 nM) and not suitable as SGD tracer at this study site.The SGD intercomparison experiment was partially funded by SCOR, LOICZ, and UNESCO (IOC and IHP). W. C. Burnett acknowledges support from CICEET (Grant# 1368-810-41) and ONR (Grant# 1368-769-27). J. P. Chanton acknowledges support from Seagrant (R\C-E-44). The WHOI researchers acknowledge funding from CICEET (#NA07OR0351, NA17OZ2507)