en.search-data.min.4ba64733e07e8dcdd7a1f4025ee3677edc79501e2888e0a56f4bdeaade7b8bb6.js

'use strict';(function(){const indexCfg={cache:true};indexCfg.doc={id:'id',field:['title','content'],store:['title','href','section'],};const index=FlexSearch.create('balance',indexCfg);window.bookSearchIndex=index;index.add({'id':0,'href':'/docs/hugo-book.html','title':"Hugo-Book",'section':"Docs",'content':"Introduction #  Ferre hinnitibus erat accipitrem dixi Troiae tollens #  Lorem markdownum, a quoque nutu est quodcumque mandasset veluti. Passim inportuna totidemque nympha fert; repetens pendent, poenarum guttura sed vacet non, mortali undas. Omnis pharetramque gramen portentificisque membris servatum novabis fallit de nubibus atque silvas mihi. Dixit repetitaque Quid; verrit longa; sententia mandat quascumque nescio solebat litore; noctes. Hostem haerentem circuit plenaque tamen.\n Pedum ne indigenae finire invergens carpebat Velit posses summoque De fumos illa foret  Est simul fameque tauri qua ad #  Locum nullus nisi vomentes. Ab Persea sermone vela, miratur aratro; eandem Argolicas gener.\nMe sol #  Nec dis certa fuit socer, Nonacria dies manet tacitaque sibi? Sucis est iactata Castrumque iudex, et iactato quoque terraeque es tandem et maternos vittis. Lumina litus bene poenamque animos callem ne tuas in leones illam dea cadunt genus, et pleno nunc in quod. Anumque crescentesque sanguinis progenies nuribus rustica tinguet. Pater omnes liquido creditis noctem.\nif (mirrored(icmp_dvd_pim, 3, smbMirroredHard) != lion(clickImportQueue, viralItunesBalancing, bankruptcy_file_pptp)) { file += ip_cybercrime_suffix; } if (runtimeSmartRom == netMarketingWord) { virusBalancingWin *= scriptPromptBespoke + raster(post_drive, windowsSli); cd = address_hertz_trojan; soap_ccd.pcbServerGigahertz(asp_hardware_isa, offlinePeopleware, nui); } else { megabyte.api = modem_flowchart - web + syntaxHalftoneAddress; } if (3 \u0026lt; mebibyteNetworkAnimated) { pharming_regular_error *= jsp_ribbon + algorithm * recycleMediaKindle( dvrSyntax, cdma); adf_sla *= hoverCropDrive; templateNtfs = -1 - vertical; } else { expressionCompressionVariable.bootMulti = white_eup_javascript( table_suffix); guidPpiPram.tracerouteLinux += rtfTerabyteQuicktime(1, managementRosetta(webcamActivex), 740874); } var virusTweetSsl = nullGigo;  Trepident sitimque #  Sentiet et ferali errorem fessam, coercet superbus, Ascaniumque in pennis mediis; dolor? Vidit imi Aeacon perfida propositos adde, tua Somni Fluctibus errante lustrat non.\nTamen inde, vos videt e flammis Scythica parantem rupisque pectora umbras. Haec ficta canistris repercusso simul ego aris Dixit! Esse Fama trepidare hunc crescendo vigor ululasse vertice exspatiantur celer tepidique petita aversata oculis iussa est me ferro.\n"});index.add({'id':1,'href':'/docs/hugo-book/menu.html','title':"Menu",'section':"Hugo-Book",'content':"Introduction #  Ferre hinnitibus erat accipitrem dixi Troiae tollens #  Lorem markdownum, a quoque nutu est quodcumque mandasset veluti. Passim inportuna totidemque nympha fert; repetens pendent, poenarum guttura sed vacet non, mortali undas. Omnis pharetramque gramen portentificisque membris servatum novabis fallit de nubibus atque silvas mihi. Dixit repetitaque Quid; verrit longa; sententia mandat quascumque nescio solebat litore; noctes. Hostem haerentem circuit plenaque tamen.\n Pedum ne indigenae finire invergens carpebat Velit posses summoque De fumos illa foret  Est simul fameque tauri qua ad #  Locum nullus nisi vomentes. Ab Persea sermone vela, miratur aratro; eandem Argolicas gener.\nMe sol #  Nec dis certa fuit socer, Nonacria dies manet tacitaque sibi? Sucis est iactata Castrumque iudex, et iactato quoque terraeque es tandem et maternos vittis. Lumina litus bene poenamque animos callem ne tuas in leones illam dea cadunt genus, et pleno nunc in quod. Anumque crescentesque sanguinis progenies nuribus rustica tinguet. Pater omnes liquido creditis noctem.\nif (mirrored(icmp_dvd_pim, 3, smbMirroredHard) != lion(clickImportQueue, viralItunesBalancing, bankruptcy_file_pptp)) { file += ip_cybercrime_suffix; } if (runtimeSmartRom == netMarketingWord) { virusBalancingWin *= scriptPromptBespoke + raster(post_drive, windowsSli); cd = address_hertz_trojan; soap_ccd.pcbServerGigahertz(asp_hardware_isa, offlinePeopleware, nui); } else { megabyte.api = modem_flowchart - web + syntaxHalftoneAddress; } if (3 \u0026lt; mebibyteNetworkAnimated) { pharming_regular_error *= jsp_ribbon + algorithm * recycleMediaKindle( dvrSyntax, cdma); adf_sla *= hoverCropDrive; templateNtfs = -1 - vertical; } else { expressionCompressionVariable.bootMulti = white_eup_javascript( table_suffix); guidPpiPram.tracerouteLinux += rtfTerabyteQuicktime(1, managementRosetta(webcamActivex), 740874); } var virusTweetSsl = nullGigo;  Trepident sitimque #  Sentiet et ferali errorem fessam, coercet superbus, Ascaniumque in pennis mediis; dolor? Vidit imi Aeacon perfida propositos adde, tua Somni Fluctibus errante lustrat non.\nTamen inde, vos videt e flammis Scythica parantem rupisque pectora umbras. Haec ficta canistris repercusso simul ego aris Dixit! Esse Fama trepidare hunc crescendo vigor ululasse vertice exspatiantur celer tepidique petita aversata oculis iussa est me ferro.\n"});index.add({'id':2,'href':'/docs/cnrm/values/thesis_Q_preface.html','title':"Preface",'section':"Thesis Human-Nature Values",'content':"Through my tutors, I have developed courage to look beyond my own enjoyment of Welsh uplands, to connect land to people. Sometimes I find that hard to do when I look, and see distant markets standing between the two. It is great to find people who understand how we have got where we are, and why the land is, as it is. I wonder who knows how it is to become?\nI have no vision of utopia, but I have a happy vision in which the land teems with wildlife. I only wish that more people could stay in farming, and trade locally. To work together, play together, and work less hard, with time to do what rural people have always done: Make merry.\n"});index.add({'id':3,'href':'/docs/hugo-book/shortcodes.html','title':"Shortcodes",'section':"Hugo-Book",'content':"Introduction #  Ferre hinnitibus erat accipitrem dixi Troiae tollens #  Lorem markdownum, a quoque nutu est quodcumque mandasset veluti. Passim inportuna totidemque nympha fert; repetens pendent, poenarum guttura sed vacet non, mortali undas. Omnis pharetramque gramen portentificisque membris servatum novabis fallit de nubibus atque silvas mihi. Dixit repetitaque Quid; verrit longa; sententia mandat quascumque nescio solebat litore; noctes. Hostem haerentem circuit plenaque tamen.\n Pedum ne indigenae finire invergens carpebat Velit posses summoque De fumos illa foret  Est simul fameque tauri qua ad #  Locum nullus nisi vomentes. Ab Persea sermone vela, miratur aratro; eandem Argolicas gener.\nMe sol #  Nec dis certa fuit socer, Nonacria dies manet tacitaque sibi? Sucis est iactata Castrumque iudex, et iactato quoque terraeque es tandem et maternos vittis. Lumina litus bene poenamque animos callem ne tuas in leones illam dea cadunt genus, et pleno nunc in quod. Anumque crescentesque sanguinis progenies nuribus rustica tinguet. Pater omnes liquido creditis noctem.\nif (mirrored(icmp_dvd_pim, 3, smbMirroredHard) != lion(clickImportQueue, viralItunesBalancing, bankruptcy_file_pptp)) { file += ip_cybercrime_suffix; } if (runtimeSmartRom == netMarketingWord) { virusBalancingWin *= scriptPromptBespoke + raster(post_drive, windowsSli); cd = address_hertz_trojan; soap_ccd.pcbServerGigahertz(asp_hardware_isa, offlinePeopleware, nui); } else { megabyte.api = modem_flowchart - web + syntaxHalftoneAddress; } if (3 \u0026lt; mebibyteNetworkAnimated) { pharming_regular_error *= jsp_ribbon + algorithm * recycleMediaKindle( dvrSyntax, cdma); adf_sla *= hoverCropDrive; templateNtfs = -1 - vertical; } else { expressionCompressionVariable.bootMulti = white_eup_javascript( table_suffix); guidPpiPram.tracerouteLinux += rtfTerabyteQuicktime(1, managementRosetta(webcamActivex), 740874); } var virusTweetSsl = nullGigo;  Trepident sitimque #  Sentiet et ferali errorem fessam, coercet superbus, Ascaniumque in pennis mediis; dolor? Vidit imi Aeacon perfida propositos adde, tua Somni Fluctibus errante lustrat non.\nTamen inde, vos videt e flammis Scythica parantem rupisque pectora umbras. Haec ficta canistris repercusso simul ego aris Dixit! Esse Fama trepidare hunc crescendo vigor ululasse vertice exspatiantur celer tepidique petita aversata oculis iussa est me ferro.\n"});index.add({'id':4,'href':'/docs/hugo-book/menu/table-of-contents/with-toc.html','title':"With ToC",'section':"Table of Contents",'content':"Caput vino delphine in tamen vias #  Cognita laeva illo fracta #  Lorem markdownum pavent auras, surgit nunc cingentibus libet Laomedonque que est. Pastor An arbor filia foedat, ne fugit aliter, per. Helicona illas et callida neptem est Oresitrophos caput, dentibus est venit. Tenet reddite famuli praesentem fortibus, quaeque vis foret si frondes gelidos gravidae circumtulit inpulit armenta nativum.\n Te at cruciabere vides rubentis manebo Maturuit in praetemptat ruborem ignara postquam habitasse Subitarum supplevit quoque fontesque venabula spretis modo Montis tot est mali quasque gravis Quinquennem domus arsit ipse Pellem turis pugnabant locavit  Natus quaerere #  Pectora et sine mulcere, coniuge dum tincta incurvae. Quis iam; est dextra Peneosque, metuis a verba, primo. Illa sed colloque suis: magno: gramen, aera excutiunt concipit.\n Phrygiae petendo suisque extimuit, super, pars quod audet! Turba negarem. Fuerat attonitus; et dextra retinet sidera ulnas undas instimulat vacuae generis? Agnus dabat et ignotis dextera, sic tibi pacis feriente at mora euhoeque comites hostem vestras Phineus. Vultuque sanguine dominoque metuit risi fama vergit summaque meus clarissimus artesque tinguebat successor nominis cervice caelicolae.\n Limitibus misere sit #  Aurea non fata repertis praerupit feruntur simul, meae hosti lentaque citius levibus, cum sede dixit, Phaethon texta. Albentibus summos multifidasque iungitur loquendi an pectore, mihi ursaque omnia adfata, aeno parvumque in animi perlucentes. Epytus agis ait vixque clamat ornum adversam spondet, quid sceptra ipsum est. Reseret nec; saeva suo passu debentia linguam terga et aures et cervix de ubera. Coercet gelidumque manus, doluit volvitur induta?\nEnim sua #  Iuvenilior filia inlustre templa quidem herbis permittat trahens huic. In cruribus proceres sole crescitque fata, quos quos; merui maris se non tamen in, mea.\nGermana aves pignus tecta #  Mortalia rudibusque caelum cognosceret tantum aquis redito felicior texit, nec, aris parvo acre. Me parum contulerant multi tenentem, gratissime suis; vultum tu occupat deficeret corpora, sonum. E Actaea inplevit Phinea concepit nomenque potest sanguine captam nulla et, in duxisses campis non; mercede. Dicere cur Leucothoen obitum?\nPostibus mittam est nubibus principium pluma, exsecratur facta et. Iunge Mnemonidas pallamque pars; vere restitit alis flumina quae quoque, est ignara infestus Pyrrha. Di ducis terris maculatum At sede praemia manes nullaque!\n"});index.add({'id':5,'href':'/docs/cnrm.html','title':"Land Management",'section':"Docs",'content':"filename \u0026lsquo;_index.md\u0026rsquo; weight: not set appears to be fine. collapsible: true\n"});index.add({'id':6,'href':'/docs/cnrm/values/thesis_Q_declaration.html','title':"Declaration",'section':"Thesis Human-Nature Values",'content':"This work has not previously been accepted in substance for any degree and is not being concurrently submitted in candidature for any degree.\nCandidate:\t…………………………………….( John A. Plumridge) Date:\t…………………\nStatement 1:\nThis dissertation is being submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science.\nCandidate:\t…………………………………….( John A. Plumridge) Date:\t…………………\nStatement 2:\nThis dissertation is the result of my own independent work/investigation except where otherwise stated.\nCandidate:\t…………………………………….( John A. Plumridge) Date:\t…………………\nStatement 3:\nI hereby give consent for my dissertation, if accepted, to be available for photocopying and for interlibrary loan, and for the title and summary to be made available to outside organisations.\nCandidate:\t…………………………………….( John A. Plumridge) Date:\t…………………\n"});index.add({'id':7,'href':'/docs/hugo-book/menu/table-of-contents/without-toc.html','title':"Without ToC",'section':"Table of Contents",'content':"At me ipso nepotibus nunc celebratior genus #  Tanto oblite #  Lorem markdownum pectora novis patenti igne sua opus aurae feras materiaque illic demersit imago et aristas questaque posset. Vomit quoque suo inhaesuro clara. Esse cumque, per referri triste. Ut exponit solisque communis in tendens vincetis agisque iamque huic bene ante vetat omina Thebae rates. Aeacus servat admonitu concidit, ad resimas vultus et rugas vultu dignamque Siphnon.\nQuam iugulum regia simulacra, plus meruit humo pecorumque haesit, ab discedunt dixit: ritu pharetramque. Exul Laurenti orantem modo, per densum missisque labor manibus non colla unum, obiectat. Tu pervia collo, fessus quae Cretenque Myconon crate! Tegumenque quae invisi sudore per vocari quaque plus ventis fluidos. Nodo perque, fugisse pectora sorores.\nSumme promissa supple vadit lenius #  Quibus largis latebris aethera versato est, ait sentiat faciemque. Aequata alis nec Caeneus exululat inclite corpus est, ire tibi ostendens et tibi. Rigent et vires dique possent lumina; eadem dixit poma funeribus paret et felix reddebant ventis utile lignum.\n Remansit notam Stygia feroxque Et dabit materna Vipereas Phrygiaeque umbram sollicito cruore conlucere suus Quarum Elis corniger Nec ieiunia dixit  Vertitur mos ortu ramosam contudit dumque; placabat ac lumen. Coniunx Amoris spatium poenamque cavernis Thebae Pleiadasque ponunt, rapiare cum quae parum nimium rima.\nQuidem resupinus inducto solebat una facinus quae #  Credulitas iniqua praepetibus paruit prospexit, voce poena, sub rupit sinuatur, quin suum ventorumque arcadiae priori. Soporiferam erat formamque, fecit, invergens, nymphae mutat fessas ait finge.\n Baculum mandataque ne addere capiti violentior Altera duas quam hoc ille tenues inquit Sicula sidereus latrantis domoque ratae polluit comites Possit oro clausura namque se nunc iuvenisque Faciem posuit Quodque cum ponunt novercae nata vestrae aratra  Ite extrema Phrygiis, patre dentibus, tonso perculit, enim blanda, manibus fide quos caput armis, posse! Nocendo fas Alcyonae lacertis structa ferarum manus fulmen dubius, saxa caelum effuge extremis fixum tumor adfecit bella, potentes? Dum nec insidiosa tempora tegit spirarunt. Per lupi pars foliis, porreximus humum negant sunt subposuere Sidone steterant auro. Memoraverit sine: ferrum idem Orion caelum heres gerebat fixis?\n"});index.add({'id':8,'href':'/docs/cnrm/values/thesis_Q_acknowledgements.html','title':"Acknowledgements",'section':"Thesis Human-Nature Values",'content':"| To Dr F. Sinclair for his talented and inspired teaching. Dr. G. Edwards-Jones for his commitment to education and to conservation, which is also inspiring. | To Meryl for her friendship, poise, and help. To Dr. Colin Price for his excellent lectures and teaching methods, support and, sense of fun. | To Dr. G. George for his enthusiastic help. To Dr H. Omed for his support and kindness at all times. | To Suzanna for her care. To Suzanna\u0026rsquo;s parents for their good wishes. | To my daughter for her bright merriness. To my mother for her interest and support. To Matt for his engaging conversations. To the Q people. | To all the fine people on my course. To those people who made me feel at home.\n"});index.add({'id':9,'href':'/docs/cnrm/values/thesis_Q_tablesandfigures.html','title':"Tables and Figures",'section':"Thesis Human-Nature Values",'content':"TABLES #  | No. | Table | Page | | 1 | Description of sub-topic classifications. | 43 | | 2 | Structure of the Q-items (Levels x Effects) | 44 | | 3 | Q sort scale | 44 | | 4 | Eigenvalues and explained variance for Factors 1-5 | 50 | | 5 | Factor Characteristics for factors 1-5 | 50 | | 6 | Correlations Between Factors 1-5 | 51 | | 7 | Summary of trends in median for Factors 1-5 by group | 56 | | 8 | Total sums of squares scores by group for all five factors | 58 | | 9 | Management statements by factor rank scores | 63 | | 1 | Transformative statements and communication by factor rank scores. | 64 | | 1 | Sacred beliefs and sacred value statements by factor rank scores | 65 | | 1 | Consensus Statements | 68 |\nFIGURES #  | No.| Figure | Page | | 1 | Causal Diagram: Policy, Land Use Practices and Landscape Flows | 13 | | 2 | Interaction Bar plot for f3 mean scores: Levels (A) | 54 | | 3 | Box Plot: Factor 3 scores by Groups | 55 | | 4 | Sacred landscapes | 66 |\n"});index.add({'id':10,'href':'/docs/cnrm/values/thesis_Q_results.html','title':"Results of the Investigation",'section':"Thesis Human-Nature Values",'content':":date: 2002-07-02 :tags: values :Author: John Plumridge\n.. contents:: Table of Contents :depth: 2 .. sectnum::\n.. _Adapting Sacred Landscape: http://cms.nfshost.com/thesis_Q_landuse_interests.html .. |Fmax| replace:: F\\ :sub:max\nResults from Adapting Sacred Landscape_\nFive factors were found, accounting for 56% of the total variance. Reliability coefficients and composite reliability scores are high. Factor ratios of statements and sorts were judged to be adequate for clear separation of factors. Reliability measures were high. Factors show separation at a maximum 0.5636 correlation.\nFollowing interpretation of the array of statements scores for each factor, the five viewpoints were labelled\u0026rsquo; Sacred Adaptive\u0026rsquo;, \u0026lsquo;Technologist\u0026rsquo;, \u0026lsquo;Sacred Protector \u0026lsquo;\u0026lsquo;Protector\u0026rsquo; and \u0026lsquo;Administrator\u0026rsquo;. These appellations represent viewpoints concerning environmental management and sacred beliefs.\nBalance of the statements #  |Fmax| Between groups tests show balance was obtained in the four groups of statements, and thus responses were not contingent upon design and represent a point of view. Interactions across Levels and Effects were noted, and these indicate where improvements to the sample of statements might be made.\nDemographic variables #  Factor loadings did not vary with within Wales or outside Wales, within the West. This indicates a comprehensive selection of participants and similar range of viewpoints in this concourse of views.\nNo effects of age were found upon factor loadings, which suggests that no viewpoint is age dependent. The age range of participants was from 20 to 64 (mean age = 29, median 33).\nFactors Obtained \u0026amp; Salience of Statements #  Factors Obtained #  The 38 Q sorts were processed following the usual steps of Q methodology, of correlation and centriod factor analysis using MQMethod 2.0 (revised and maintained by Peter Schmolck, University of the Federal Armed Forces Munich, Germany).\nRaw scores are shown in Appendix A.1; the correlation matrix in Appendix A.2; the unrotated factor matrix is shown in Appendix A.3.\nAn initial 8 factors were obtained using the centroid factor analysis model. Factors were rotated using the Varimax criterion, to produce Factor z scores are given in Appendix A.5. From Factor Z scores normalised factor statement scores were calculated, as given Appendix A.6., upon which interpretation was to be based. Standard errors for factor scores in Appendix A.7. The Varimax procedure rotates the factors to maximise the degree of difference between each factor. Five factors where participants had a factor loading of 0.45 or more were significant at the p = 0.01 level.\n.. table:: Table 4: Eigen values and % variance for Factors 1-5\n================= ======= ====== ====== ======= factors f1 f2 f3 f4 ================= ======= ====== ====== ======= Eigen Values 15.4654 3.0135 1.3056 1.0548 % explained var. 21 13 11 8 ================= ======= ====== ====== =======\nFrom Table 4, Factor eigen values ranging from 15.4654 to 1.0340 accounted for 56 percent of the total variance\n.. table:: Table 5: Factor characteristics for factors 1-5\n========================= ======= ====== ====== ======= ======= factors f1 f2 f3 f4 f5 ========================= ======= ====== ====== ======= ======= No. of defining variables 12 6 2 2 2 Average Rel.Coef. 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 Composite Reliablity 0.98 0.96 0.889 0.889 0.889 S.E. of Factor Scores 0.143 0.2 0.333 0.333 0.333 ========================= ======= ====== ====== ======= =======\nFrom Table 5, Factor characteristics reliability coefficients and composite reliability scores are all greater than 0.8 which was considered highly reliable. The number of defining variables for factors ranged from 12 to 2.\n.. image:: http://cnrm.lilyralph.co.uk/images/dissrt7.jpg\nFactor Ratios #   The ratios of Q-sorts to factors was 38/5 =7.6 The ratio of statements to factors was 56/5 = 11.2  Significance of Q-sort factor loadings #  A loading is statistically significant (i.e. significantly different from zero) if it is 2.58 times the standard error (Brown 1980:283,238), where SE=1/SQRT(N)N is the number of statements. SQRT means square root.\n  i.e. 1/SQRT(58) x 2.58 - 0.338 (where N=58).\n Hence a loading was significant (p\u0026lt;0.1) if it exceeded 0.338.    All 38 Q-sorts load significantly across one factor or more (refer to Appendix A.4. Factor Matrix Loadings).\n  Number of mixed cases, scoring highly on two factors = 5\n  Salience of Statements #  Statements lack salience, and hence would not be useful in depicting any factors\u0026rsquo; point of view, if all factor types sort the statement into the neutral range (Thompson, 2000). The neutral range is defined as a statement\u0026rsquo;s average absolute value (factor Z-score) of less than 0.5\nA consensus statement is one where all factors agree pr disagree. Np statement\u0026rsquo;s Z-scores is in the neutral range for all factors.\nAnalysis of Balance in the Q Sample #  Variance Across Groups #  The Fischer |Fmax| test was chosen because it does not assume homogeneity of variance, unlike Anova. It is used to test the null hypothesis that the group variances are equal. Assumptions are: Within each group, the scores are independent, and identically normally distributed with the same mean and variance. (Zar, 1996). See Appendix B.1. for details of the F tests; see Appendix B.3. for Tables of means, medians, sums of scores.\nEffects x Levels (AxB) interactions: Factor 1, 3 and 4 show significant interaction between Levels(A) and Effects (B).\n F ratios = 3.70 (F1), 12.50 (F3), 4.50 (F4)  critical value (2,27)= 2.93 p \u0026lt; 0.01    Levels (A) interactions:\n No significant effects occurred between two Levels Aa and Ab. |Fmax| = 1.33\tcritical value (4,13) = 6.40  Effects (B) interactions Factor 3 only, shows significant interaction between the Effects Bc and Bd.\n F ratio = 7.63 critical value (4,13) = 6.40 p \u0026lt; 0.01  .. image:: http://cnrm.lilyralph.co.uk/images/dissrt8.jpg\nBetween groups variance tests #  |Fmax| tests:\n Group Interaction variances: No factor shows significant variability in response to the 14 statements of each topic in |Fmax| tests. |Fmax| = 3.27 - Critical value (4,13)- = 4.45: p\u0026lt;05 (see appendix B.1. for data)  Unpaired t- tests by groups #  The unpaired t-test compares the means between two groups. A mean of zero was hypothesised, according to the balanced forced-choice Q sort employed with a mean of zero. Homogeneity between cells was not assumed. Normal, or quasi-normal distribution is assumed. (see appendix B.2. for data)\nF3 alone shows significant variance. This occurs in the involvement group and the responsibility group - within Level Aa, as displayed in Fig.3, below\n Involvement: mean= 1.071  T= +4.02 p = 0.0015   Responsibility: mean = -1  T= -2.463\tp = 0.0285    .. image:: http://cnrm.lilyralph.co.uk/images/dissrt9.jpg\nMedian Values by Factor #  .. table:: Table 7: Summary of Trends in median for factors 1-5\n============= ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== / f1 f2 f3 f4 f5 ============= ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== relationship + - 0 + 0 responsiblity - 0 - - 0 significance - 0 0 - 0 invovement 0 0 + + - ============= ==== ==== ==== ==== ====\nTable 7 above gives the trends in scores for factors by group. (See appendix B.5.for median values and sums of scores).\n Balance is achieved in 9 out of 20 cells. \u0026lsquo;Relationship\u0026rsquo; views are given positive emphasis by factors 1 and 4. \u0026lsquo;Responsibility\u0026rsquo; values are given negative emphasis by F1, and F2 and F3. \u0026lsquo;Significance\u0026rsquo; views are given negative emphasis by F1 and F and balance by F2, F3 and F5. \u0026lsquo;Involvement\u0026rsquo; values are given overall positive emphasis by F3 and F4, negative emphasis by F5, and are balanced by F1 and F2. Trends in discriminations of strength of agreement, are indicated by sums of scores in Table 8. The stronger the feeling the higher the SS, whether the median score is low or not.  Sums of Squares #  .. table:: Table 8: Total Sums of Square scores by group for all five factors\n========== ========== ================ ============== ============= / relation responsibility significance involvement ========== ========== ================ ============== ============= total SS 133 181 91 152 ========== ========== ================ ============== =============\nDiscussion of the Balance of Groups #  Variance analysis was to determine whether the a priori structure that was built into the Q sample is evident in the pattern of factor scores.\nInteractive effects across groups, within Levels SS(A) and also, Effects SS(B) indicate that the mean scores of the four cells deviate from one another. The principle of randomisation has not operated during the judges\u0026rsquo; self description and contingencies are involved between cells (Brown, S.R. \u0026amp; Melamed, L.E., 1990, p. 73). Technically, it indicates there is an \u0026ldquo;interaction\u0026rdquo; between main effect A and effect B (Sohn, 1991). This interaction is not a cause for alarm, the means being relatively close to the hypothesised mean of zero, with cell counts of 28. The comfort for the judges in completing the sort would be tolerable.\nInteraction effects were observed across groups, and within the Level, interactions observed are not a cause for alarm, given a maximum mean of 1.071 and- the negative findings with |Fmax| tests between groups.\nObservation of the medians shows considerable balance within item groups, realised in 9 cases out of twenty subgroup trails. Significant differences occurred for F3 within the level Aa. Cell interactions were expected; within the context of the whole sort, it was possible for judge\u0026rsquo;s to comfortably complete the sort from their viewpoint. Personal observation, and the reported experience, of judges\u0026rsquo; comfort in performing the sorts, was encouraging. Such Interaction was expected because the heterogeneous sample of 56 items represented a- range of views, as well as values, and cannot be balanced as a set of attributes might be with \u0026lsquo;vices and virtues\u0026rsquo;/\u0026lsquo;skills and non-skills\u0026rsquo;. Some people find more of the range of views acceptable, than others can.\nThe strong responses overall to \u0026lsquo;Responsibility\u0026rsquo; items, observed in the group total sums of squares, is potentially less a function of balance, and instead due to the \u0026lsquo;hot\u0026rsquo; nature of the issues involved. Here is one example (factor scores in brackets):\n\u0026ldquo;An environmental policy based on loss and profit accounting procedures should work.\u0026rdquo; (-2 -2 -2 -2 0 )\nPerhaps people chose to disagree more strongly with responsibility items. A count reveals 29 negatives (see Appendix A.5. \u0026lsquo;Ranks statement totals\u0026rsquo;) in the low-scoring \u0026lsquo;significance\u0026rsquo; group, when 28 would achieve true balance. Responsibility has 40 negatives, showing strength of disagreement. In this then, lies an explanation for the Interactive effects between Levels SS(A) and Effects SS(B). A search for more balance to the views represented in the Responsibility and involvement set would be fruitful.\nThe effects and levels do not function as independent variables; the judges are not under test. The subsequent factorisation has no critical dependency on test \u0026lsquo;construction\u0026rsquo; effects\u0026rsquo; (Stephenson, 1977, p. 8), \u0026ldquo;and the design is not used in interpretation because it is the subject\u0026rsquo;s understanding that is being measured\u0026rdquo; (Stephenson, 1963, p. 270). These groupings are determined by hierarchy. They are designed to achieve balance in the sample, and determine whether judge response is contingent upon design.\nBalance has not been a problem, and is obtained through the four categories, as determined by |Fmax| tests. Overall balance for the judge in a forced choice Q sort was achieved through careful scrutiny of the range items presented across the hierarchies.\nDiscussion of Factor Results #  High factor-score interrelations usually indicate the forcing of too many factors. A maximum of 0.5636 correlation indicates a factor that can be considered meaningful, and is therefore not excessive. Reliability coefficient are high.\nFive factors were found, accounting for 56% of the total variance. \u0026ldquo;Whereas reporting eigen values (EV) and percent of variance (%Var) may appear innocent enough, their reporting conveys the impression that they have some meaning and importance. I would therefore be inclined not to report them unless there is some overriding reason to do so\u0026rdquo; (Brown, 2002).\nIn fact they are relatively unimportant in Q. The eigen values are the sum of the squared factor loadings, and the the %VAr is given by dividing EV by the number of Q sorts: the more Q sorts, the higher the EV. Hence, if you happen to have included more factor A type persons than factor B in the P set, then the EV does not say anything about the real world. Participants in Q are usually selected for theoretical reasons, not randomly. EV is also relatively unimportant in R methodology, where type 1 trait may have more test items that type 2.\nBoth factor ratios of statements to factors are to be judged to be adequate for clear separation of factors.\nThe number of defining variables- refers to the Q sorts marked with high factor loadings used to define a factor. A minimum of two Q sorts (i.e. people) is sufficient to define a factor. actor matrix loadings are given in Appendix A.4.\nNo statement lacks salience. Where a consensus statement (where all factors agree, or disagree), consists in either strong agreement or strong disagreement, it would nevertheless be salient and relevant from each factor\u0026rsquo;s point of view.\nDemographic Variables - Age and Region #  Demographic variables: age and region #  See Appendix B.6. for data table of demographic variables.\nRegion #  In a test of Anova, nominal variable region- (within Wales / outside the Wales) was tested for variance with respondents\u0026rsquo; loadings on factors 1-5.\nH0: The null hypothesis is that the mean of the dependent variable, factor loadings, is the same regardless of region.\nNo effects of region upon factor loadings were observed at the significance level p \u0026lt; 0.05. Therefore the null hypothesis is accepted.\t(See appendix B.7. for details)\nAge #  The age range of participants was from 20 to 64 (mean age = 29, median 33). In a test of Anova, the continuous variable age- was tested for variance with respondents\u0026rsquo; loadings on factors 1-5.\nAssumptions homogeneity of variance, a linear or plateau relationship, normal distributions.\nH0: The null hypothesis is that the mean of the dependent variable, factor loadings, is the same regardless of region.\nNo effects of age upon factor loadings were observed at the significance level p \u0026lt; 0.05. Therefore the null hypothesis is accepted (see Appendix B.8 for details.)\nImplications of these findings are discussed in sections: Adapting Sacred Landscape_\nAppendices #  ======== ======================================================= ====== Appendix Table Page ======== ======================================================= ====== A.1. Data table: Statement scores by Q sort i-iii A.2. Correlation matrix between sorts iv-v A.3. Unrotated Factor Matrix showing factor loadings by sort vi A.4. Factor Matrix Loadings vii A.5. Normalised factor z scores viii A.6. Factor Q-sort values for each statement ix-xi A.7. Factor characteristics xii B.1. F-tests for variance by effect and level: Factors 1-5 xiii B.2. Unpaired t-tests: Factors by Groups. xiv B.3. Descriptive Statistics: Cell categories for factors 1-5 xv B.4. Demographic Variables xvi B.5. Analysis of factors by demographic variables: Region xvii B.6. Analysis of factors by demographic variables: Age xviii ======== ======================================================= ======\n"});index.add({'id':11,'href':'/docs/cnrm/values/thesis_Q_references.html','title':"References",'section':"Thesis Human-Nature Values",'content':"Articles #  Adams, W. M. (1996) Future Nature: A Vision for Conservation. London, Earthscan.\nAllen, W., Bosch, O, Gibson, R., \u0026amp; Jopp, A., (2000) Benefits of collaborative learning for environmental management: Applying the Integrated Systems for Knowledge Management approach to support animal pest control. Environmental Management 27 (2) 215-223.\nAndrews, J. \u0026amp; Rebane, M. (1994) Farming \u0026amp; Wildlife.RSPB, Bedfordshire.\nAnttonen, V. (1999) The Sacred Critical Guide to the Study of Religion. (eds William Braun \u0026amp; Russell T. McCutcheon). London.\nApffel-Marglin, F. (1998) Secularism, Unicity and Diversity: The case of Haracandi\u0026rsquo;s grove. Contributions to Indian Sociology - 32 (2) 217-235.\nArrow, K. (1987) Economic Theory and the Hypothesis of Rationality. In Eatwell, et al., (ed),The New Palgrave, London, Macmillan.\nAvila M., (1992) Economics of Agroforestry Systems in Central America. In\nSullivan, G., et al., Financial and Economic Analyses of Agroforestry Systems. Nitrogen Fixing Tree Association, Hawaii.\nBell, Catherine (1997) Ritual. Perspectives and Dimensions. Oxford.\nBell, Clive (1931) Art. London: Chatto and Windus.\nBentham, J. (1970/1789) Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. Methuen, London.\nBerleant, A. (1994) Beyond Disinterestedness British Journal of - Aesthetics - 34 (3) 242-254.\nBhat, Jayashree V.,, Krishna K.., Krushnamegh K.., Kunjeera, M., Laxman N.,, Nayak M., Ranjit D., Shankar J., Shridhar P., Shrikant G., Subramanian K., Suri V., Utkarsh, G., Yogesh G., (2000) Participatory Local Level Assessment of Life Support Systems A Methodology Manual. Technical report No.78.Centre for Ecological Sciences Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore.\nBookchin, M. (1982) The Ecology of Freedom: The Emergence and Dissolution of Hierarchy, Palo Alto California, Chesire Books.\nBrady, E. (1998) Don\u0026rsquo;t Eat the Daisies: Disinterestedness and the Situated Aesthetic Environmental Values 7 97-114\nBrookfield, H. \u0026amp; Paddoch, C. (1994) Appreciating Biodiversity: A Conservation Paradox. In Bormann, F.H. \u0026amp; Kellert, S.R. (eds) Ecology, Economics, Ethics: The Broken Circle. pp. 26-39. Yale Univ. Press, New Haven.\nBuber, M.(1996) I and Thou (Walter Kaufmann, trans.), New York, Touchstone.\nByers, E. (1995) Mountain Agenda: Environmentally Sustainable and Equitable Development Opportunities. The Mountain Institute, Franklin, USA.\nByrd, K. (2002). Mirrors and Metaphors: Contemporary Narratives of the Wolf in Minnesota. Ethics, Place, and Environment: 5 (1 )\nCarmichael, D. et. al., (1994) Introduction. In Carmichael, D. et. al., (eds) to Sacred Sites, Sacred Places, London: Routledge.\nChambers, R.et al., (1989).Thrupp (eds.). Farmer First: Farmer Innovation and Agricultural Research. London: Intermediate Technology Publications.\nChandran, M. \u0026amp; Hughes, J. (1997) The sacred groves of South India: Ecology, traditional communities and religious change. Social Compass 44 (3) 413-427.\nChapple, C.(2001) The Living Cosmos of Jainism: A Traditional Science Grounded in Environmental Ethics. In Carmichael, D. et. al., (eds) (1994) Sacred Sites, Sacred Places, London: Routledge.\nChristopherson, K.A. (1992) Highlights of Themes Discussed In Sullivan, G.M., et al., Financial and Economic Analyses of Agroforestry Systems.- Pia, H1: Nitrogen Fixing Tree Asociation, Hawaii\nCohen, J. M. \u0026amp; Uphoff, N.T. (1980) Participation\u0026rsquo;s Place in Rural Development: Seeking Clarity Through Specificity, World Development 8 213-235.\nComte, A. (1823) Systéme de politique positive. Countryside Agency (2000) The State of the Countryside 2000: working for people and places in rural England. Wetherby: The Countryside Agency Publications.\nDaniels, R. J. R., Malathi H., Joshi, N. V. \u0026amp; Madhav Gadgil, M. (1991) Assigning Conservation Value: A Case Study from India. Conservation Biology 5 (4) 464-475.\nDETR (1999) The UK Strategy for Sustainable Development: a better quality of life. London: DETR..\nDiZerega, G. (1996) A Critique of Ken Wilber\u0026rsquo;s Account of Deep Ecology \u0026amp; Nature Religions. Trumpeter- 13 ( 2) http://www.icaap.org  Access date: May 2002.\nDobbelaere, Karel, (1993) Church Involvement and Secularisation. Making Sense of the European Case. Secularisation, Rationalism and Sectarianism. Ed. by Eileen Barker, James A. Beckford, and Karel Dobbelaere. Oxford.\nEdwards-Jones, G.et al., (2000) Ecological Economics Blackwell, Oxford.\nEliade, M. (1968) The Sacred and the Profane; Harcourt, Brace and World, New York.\nErison, S.P. (1988) Diversification of Upland Farms into Environmentally Sensitive Productive Woodlands. MSc thesis UCNW.\nFairweather, J. R.\u0026amp; Swaffield, S. (1996) Preferences for Scenarios of Land Use Change in the Mackenzie/Waitaki Basin. New Zealand Forestry- 41 (1) 17-26.\nFawcett, R., Nkowani, K., Smith, C.J.N., (1997) Multiple objective Socio-economic models of agroforestry systems. Agroforestry Forum 8 42-45\nFC (2001) Forestry Commission: Woodlands Hold the Key, Farmers Tell Minister News Release - 3634\nFeuerstein, G. (1987) Structures of Consciousness: The Genius of Jean Gebser - an Introduction and Critique Lower Lake, CA: Integral Publishing.\nFrid, C. \u0026amp; Evans, P. (1995) In Managing Habitats for Nature Conservation, (ed) Sutherland.\nGadgil M., Achar K. P, Amba Shetty, Anirban Ganguly, Harini N., Harish R.\nGholz,H.L. pp 59-87. Martinus-Nijhoff, Dordrecht.\nGeertz, C. (1973) The Interpretation of Cultures. N.Y. Basic Books.\nGibbon, E.(1995) Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (XXVIII). In\nWomersley, D. (ed) The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. Penguin Classics.\nGleissman, S. (1990) Agroecology: Researching the Ecological Basis for Sustainable Agriculture. Ecological Studies. Springer-Verlag, New York. pp.380.\nGood, J., Thomas, T., Clough, D., Humphrey, J. (1999) The Potential for Expansion of Upland Woodlands and the Environmental and Agri-economic Constraints: A Welsh Case Study. Scottish Forestry- 53 (1) 47-52 Goodin, R. E. (1992) Green Political Theory. Cambridge: Polity Press.\nGore, R., (1996) Neandertals: The dawn of humans. National Geographic. 128 (1) p. 29.\nGreenbaum, A. (1999) Environmental Thought as Cosmological Intervention Environmental Values 8 485—497\nGritten, R.(1999) Woodland Grazing. Scottish Forestry - 53 (1)\nGrudens-Schuck, N. et al., (2002) Renovating Dependency and Self-Reliance for Participatory Sustainable Development Journal of Agriculture and Human Values- Revised accepted (finally submitted June 5, 2002)\nHabermas, J.(1984) The Theory of Communicative Action, vol 1: Reason and the Rationalisation of Society, Beacon Press.\nHall, B. L. (1977) Creating Knowledge: Breaking the Monopoly. Toronto, Canada: Participatory Research Group, International Council for Adult Education.\nHamilton, L. (2001) National Parks and Other Protected Areas in Mountains World Commission on Protected Areas, IUCN.International Journal of Wilderness. 7 (2)\nHaq, S. (2001) Islam and Ecology: Toward Retrieval and Reconstruction. Religion and Ecology - Daedalus 130 (4) www.daedalus.amacad.org  Access date: July 2002\nHardin, G. (1968) The Tragedy of the Commons. - Science 162 1243-1248\nHealey, P. (1997) Collaborative Planning: shaping places in fragmented societies. Basingstoke: Macmillan.\nHealey, P. \u0026amp; Shaw, T. (1994) Changing meanings of the “environment” in the British planning system, Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers,- N.S. 19 (4)\nHubert, J. (1994) Sacred beliefs and beliefs of sacredness Ch 1. In Carmichael, D. et. al., (eds) (1994) Sacred Sites, Sacred Places. London: Routledge.\nJames F., Casey, D., Mercer, E. \u0026amp; Snook, A. (1999) Evaluating Farmer Preferences for Agrofoestry Sytems: Survey Instrument design - by ICRAF www.icraf.cgiar.org  Access date: June 2002.\nJoshi, P. (2001) Culture, People and Nature in Context of Central Himalayas in India. International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development http://www.mtnforum.org/resources/library/ Access date: June 2002.\nKeat, R. (1994) Citizens, Consumers and the Environment, Environmental Values 3 333-49.\nKant, Immanuel. A Critique of Judgement: IN Crawford, D., Kant\u0026rsquo;s Aesthetic Theory (1974) Madison, WI: U Wisconsin Press.\nKropotkin, P.A. (1972) Mutual Aid: A Factor in Evolution. New York: NYU Press.\nKuhn, T.S.(1970) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. University of Chicago Press.\nLaird, S. (2001) Trees, Forests and Sacred Groves The Overstory 93 http://WWW.agroforester.com Access date: July 2002. LaPena, F. (1987) The World is a Gift. San Francisco: Limestone Press.\nLewin, K. (1948) Resolving Social Conflicts: selected papers on group dynamics. New York, Harper.\nLow, B. S. (1996) Behavioural ecology of conservation in traditional societies. Human Nature - an Interdisciplinary Biosocial Perspective 7 (4) 353-379.\nMAFF (2000) Agriculture in the United Kingdom: Agriculture Accounts, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, London: The Stationary Office.\nManale, A. (2000) Flood and Water Quality Management through Targeted, Temporary Restoration of Landscape Functions: Paying Upland Farmers to Control Runoff. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation - 55 ( 3)\nMatunga, H.(1994) Wahi tapu: Maori sacred sites. In Carmichael, D. et. al., (eds) Sacred Sites, Sacred Places. London, Routledge.\nMcAdam, J.\u0026amp; Hoppe, G. (1997) Sheep performance and production from a lowland silvopastoral system Agroforestry Forum.8 (3) 21-22\nMercer, D.E. (1992) Executive Summary in Central America. In Sullivan, G.M., et al., Financial and Economic Analyses of Agroforestry Systems.- Pia, H1: Nitrogen Fixing Tree Association, Hawaii\nMeutzfeldt, R. I. and Sinclair, F.L. (1993) Ecological Modelling of Agroforestry Systems. Agroforestry Abstracts- 6 (4) 207-247.\nMiller, J.(2001) Envisioning the Daoist Body in the Economy of Cosmic Power. Religion and Ecology, Daedalus 130 (4).www.daedalus.amacad.org  Access date: July 2002\nMilton, K. (1999) Nature is already sacred. Environmental Values- 8 (4) 437-449.\nMohs, G. (1994) Sto lo sacred ground. In Carmichael, D. et. al., (eds), Sacred Sites, Sacred Places. London, Routledge.\nNAW (1999) (National Assembly for Wales) Woodlands for Wales - Report of Consultation © Crown Copyright 2001\nNorton, B.(2001) Environmental Values and Adaptive Management, Environmental Values 10 473—506\nNussbaum, M. (1986) The Fragility of Goodness. Cambridge, C.U.P.\nNyborg, K. (2000) Homo Economicus and HomoPoliticus: interpretation and aggregation of environmental values. Journal of- Economic Behaviour \u0026amp; Organisation- 42 305-322.\nOlff, H., Vera, F., Bokdam, J., Bakker, E. S., Gleichman, J. M., Maeyer, K. de, Smit, R., Shifting mosaics in grazed woodlands driven by the alternation of plant facilitation and competition. Plant Biology, 1999, Vol.1, No.2, pp.127-137, 64 ref.\nOwens, S. (1994) Land, Limits and Sustainability: a conceptual framework and some dilemmas for the planning system. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers N.S.- 19 (4) 439—56.\nPaden, W. E. (1991) Before \u0026lsquo;The Sacred\u0026rsquo; Became Theological: Rereading the\nDurkheimian Legacy. Method \u0026amp; Theory in the Study of Religion - 3 pp. 10-23.\nPalmer, J. A. (1998) Spiritual ideas, Environmental Concerns and Educational Practice. Environmental Concern: London and New York: Routledge.\nParkin, D. (1991) Sacred Void. Spatial images of work and ritual among the Giriama of Kenya. Cambridge.\nPimental, D. \u0026amp; Pimental, M. (1979) Food, Energy and Society. Edward Arnold, London.\nPlieninger, T. \u0026amp; Wilbrand, C. (2001) Land Use, Biodiversity Conservation, and Rural Development in the Dehesas of Cuatro Lugares, Spain. Agroforestry Systems - 51 (1) pp.23-34.\nPosey, D. (1999) ed. and comp., Cultural and Spiritual Values of Biodiversity London: Intermediate Technology.\nPow, R. (1996) Managing Farm Woods-Costs and income. Q.J. forum. 90. 308-312\nPretty, J.N. \u0026amp; Chambers, R. (1993) Towards a learning paradigm: New professionalism and institutions for agriculture. Brighton, UK: IDS.\nPrice, N.(1994) Tourism and the Bighorn Medicine Wheel: how multiple use does not work for sacred land sites. In Carmichael, D. et al., (eds) - Sacred Sites, Sacred Places,- London, Routledge.\nPrior, M. (1998) Economic valuation and environmental values. Environmental Values 7 (4) 423-441.\nRamakrishnan, P. (2002) Sacred Mountain Forests and Biodiversity. International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development. www.icimod.org.sg/mtn_resource Access date: June 2002.\nRamakrishnan, P. (1992) Shifting Agriculture and Sustainable Development: An Interdisciplinary Study from North-Eastern India. UNESCO-MAB.Parthenon Publ., Lancs. U.K. 424 pp\nRapoport, R. N. (1970) Three dilemmas in action research. Human Relations- 23 499-514.\nRappaport, Roy A. (1999) Ritual and Religion in the Making of Humanity. Cambridge.\nRaz, J. (1986) The Morality of Freedom. Oxford, Clarendon.\nReiche, C. (1992) Economic Analyses of Living Fences in Central America. In\nSullivan, G.M., et al., Financial and Economic Analyses of Agroforestry Systems. Pia, H1: Nitrogen Fixing Tree Association, Hawaii.\nRescher, N. (1975) Introduction to Value Theory. London: Prentice Hall.\nRobbins, P. (2000) The practical politics of knowing: State environmental knowledge and local political economy. Economic Geography 76 (2) 126-144.\nRocheleau, D.E. (1987) The user perspective and the agroforestry research and action agenda. In Agroforestry: Realities, POssibilities and Potentials, ed.\nRöling, N. G. \u0026amp; M. A. E. Wagemakers (eds) (1998). Facilitating Sustainable Agriculture: Participatory Learning and Adaptive Management in Times of Environmental Uncertainty. C.U.P. Cambridge.\nRolston III, H.(1993) Challenges in Environmental Ethics, in Environmental Philosophy: From Animal Rights to Radical Ecology, edited by Michael E.\nZimmerman, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.\nRoss, K.(2000) The New Friesian Theory of Religious Value http://www.friesian.com/newotto.htm Access date: June 2002.\nRupp, G.(2001) Religion, Modern Secular Culture, and Ecology Religion and Ecology, Daedalus 1304 American Academy of Arts \u0026amp; Sciences, Cambridge, MA www.daedalus.amacad.org Access date: July 2002\nRydin, Y. (1999) Can We Talk Ourselves into Sustainability? The Role of Discourse in the Environmental Policy Process. Environmental Values 8 467—484\nSagan, D. \u0026amp; Margulis, L. (1994) Sustaining the Unsustainable: Toward a Slower Ecocide. In Chapple, C., (ed) Ecological Prospects: Scientific, Religious, and Aesthetic Perspectives.- New York: SUNY Press.\nSagoff, M. (1988)* The Economy of the Earth.* New York: Cambridge University Press.\nSen, A.K. (1977) Rational fools: a critique of the behavioural foundations of economic theory. Philosophy and Public Affairs- 6 317-344\nShrader-Frechette, K. (1998) First Things First: Balancing Scientific and Ethical Values in Environmental Science. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 88 (2) 287 (3 pages)\nShukadeb N., Senapati,B., Sahu, J., (2001) A Study of Three Hill Bhuiyan Tribal villages of Western Orissa. Integrating Mountain culture and Natural Resource Management, ICIMOD http://www.mtnforum.org/resources/library/ Access date: July 2002.\nSinclair, F.L. (2001) Professional Update on Agroforestry Department for International Development. Natural Resources Advisors Conference.\nSinclair, F.L.and Walker, D.H. 1999. A utilitarian approach to the incorporation of local knowledge in agroforestry research and extension: In: Buck L.E., Lassoie, J.P., Fernandes, F.C.M. (Eds.), Agroforestry in Sustainable Agricultural Systems. Lewis Publishers, New York, pp. 245-275.\nSingh, T.(1991)* Keep the Sharks out of the Mountains.* http://www. ourplanet.com Access date: June 2002.\nSpellerberg, I.F. (1992) Evaluation and Assessment for Conservation, Chapman and Hall, London.\nSusman, G., \u0026amp; Evered, R.(1978) An assessment of the scientific merit of action research. Administrative Science Quarterly,- 23 (4) 582-603.\nSwearer, D.(2001) Principles and Poetry, Places and Stories: The Resources of Buddhist Ecology. Religion and Ecology, Daedalus, 130 (4) www.daedalus.amacad.org Access date: July 2002\nSwift M., Vandermeer, J., Ramahrishnan, P.S., Anderson, J., Ong, C.K., Hawkins, B., (1996) Biodiversity and Agroecosystem Function. IN: Functional roles of biodiversity: a global perspective. Mooney, H., Cushman, J., Medina, E., Salas, O., Schulze, E., (Eds.), London, Wiley. p. 261-298.\nSylvan, R.(1973) Is There a Need for a New Environmental Ethic? Proceedings of the XV World Congress of Philosophy No. 1: Varna, Bulgaria 205-210. In\nZimmerman, M. (ed), (1998) Environmental Philosophy: From Animal Rights to Radical Ecology, 2nd ed. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.\nTacitus, Cornelius.(translated by H. Mattingly), The Agricola and the Germania, Penguin Books, Harmondsworth, 1970, p.109.\nTaylor, P. (1981) The Ethics of Respect for Nature, Environmental Ethics - 3 197-218\nTharpa, B. Sincalair, F.L., \u0026amp; Walker, D.H (1995) Incorporation of Indigenous Knowledge and Perspective Sin Agroforestry Development. 2: Case study on the impact of explicit representation of farmers\u0026rsquo; knowledge. Agroforestry Systems 30 249-261.\nThrupp, L. A. (1989) Legitimizing local knowledge: From displacement to empowerment for Third World people. Agriculture and Human Values 6 (3) 13-23.\nTucker, M.\u0026amp; Grim, J.(2001) The Emerging Alliance of World Religions and Ecology Religion and Ecology, Daedalus, 130 (4) American Academy of Arts \u0026amp; Sciences, Cambridge, MA www.daedalus.amacad.org  Access date: June 2002.\nUcko, P. (1994) Foreword, In Carmichael, D. et. al., (eds) Sacred Sites, Sacred Places, London: Routledge.\nUNESCO (1996) Sacred Sites - Cultural Integrity, Biological Diversity. Programme proposal, November 1996, Paris.\nUsher, M.B. (1986) Wildlife Conservation Evaluation. Chapman \u0026amp; Hall, London\nWall, D. (1999) Earth First! and the Anti-Roads Movement. London: Routledge.\nWarren, P. (2001, April).* Survey-at-a-Distance on Assessment of Stakeholder Participation in FAO Field Programmes*. Rome: FAO, Sustainable Development Department, Available: http://www.fao.org/sd/2001/PE0401a_en.htm.  Access date: June 2002.\nWong J., Ambrose-Oji, B., Lawrence, A., Lysinge, R., Healey, J, (2002) Development and promotion of improved methods for identification, assessment and evaluation of biodiversity for tropical mountain environments 2: Ranks, counts and scores as a means of quantifying local biodiversity values School of Agricultural and Forest Sciences, University of Wales Bangor Paper prepared for the ETFRN workshop on Participatory monitoring and evaluation of biodiversity: the art and the science. 7-25 January 2002. ERP project R7112 - European Tropical Forest Research Network. Available on the ETFTRN web site http://www.etfrn.org/etfrn/workshop/biodiversity/index.html Access date: May 2002.\nWelsh Office (1995): The way Ahead for Welsh forestry. Report to the Minister of State for Wales by the Minister\u0026rsquo;s Welsh Forestry Group. Welsh Office Cardiff.\nWerner, O. \u0026amp; Schoepfle, G.M. (1987)* Systematic Fieldwork 1 Foundations of Ethnography and Interviewing*. Sage Publications.\nWestra, L.(2000) The Disvalue of \u0026lsquo;Contingent Valuation\u0026rsquo; and the Problem of the \u0026lsquo;Expectation Gap\u0026rsquo;. Environmental Values 9 153—71\nWhyte, W.F. (1989) Advancing scientific knowledge through participatory action research. Sociological Forum 4 (3)- 367-385.\nWhite, L. (1967) The historical roots of our ecologic crisis. Science- 155 1203-1207.\nWilber, K. (1986) Up From Eden, Boston: Shambhala\nWilber, K. (1995) Sex, Ecology, Spirituality, Boston: Shambhala, p. 166.\nWorld Commission on Environment and Development.(1987). Our Common Future. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.\nYanggen, D., Antle J., Stoorvogel J., Bowen W.,, Charles Crissman C., (2002) Tradeoff Analysis as a Tool for Assessment of Economic and Environmental Impacts of Agricultural Research: www.cimmyt.org/Research/Economics/impacts.Access date: April 2002.\nZar, Jerrold H. (1996) Biostatistical Analysis. 3rd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.\nQ Methodology #  Arrindell and Van der Ende (1985) An Empirical Test of the Utility of the observations-to-Variables Ratio in Factor and Components Analysis. Applied Psychological Measurement- 9 165-178.\nBarchak, L. (1984) Discovering Communication Paradigms With Q Methodology : Ferment or Sour Grapes? Operant Subjectivity- 7 (4) 115-130.\nBrown, S. (1993) A Primer on Q Methodology Operant Subjectivity - 16 91-138.\nBrown, S.R. \u0026amp; Melamed, L.E. (1990) Experimental Design and Analysis (Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences series), 74 Newbury Park, CA: Sage.\nBrown 1, S.R. (1971) The Forced-Free Distinction in Q-Technique. Journal of Educational measurement- 8 283-287.\nBrown, S.R. (1971) Experimental Design and the Structuring of Theory. Experimental Study of Politics- 1 (1) 1-41.\nBrown, S.R. (1980) Political Subjectivity: Applications of Q-Methodology in Political Science. New Haven: Yale University Press.\nBrown, S.R.(Sep 2002) Reporting Results. Q Methodology Network Q-method@listserv.kent.edu Access date: June 2002.\nCottle, C.E. \u0026amp; McKeown, B. (1980) The Forced-Free Distinction in Q Technique: a Note on Unused Categories in the Q Sort Continuum. Operant Subjectivity 3 58-63.\nDurning, D. (1999) The transition from traditional to post positivist policy analysis: A role for Q-methodology. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 8 389-410.\nDurning, D. (1996) The Transition from Traditional to Post-Positivist Policy Analysis: A Role for Q Methodology. Paper presented at the Eighteenth Annual Research Conference of the Association of Public Policy Analysis and Management. Pittsburgh, PA.\nMcKeown, B. \u0026amp; Thomas, D. (1988) Q Methodology. London: Sage Publications.\nRosch, E. (1973) Natural Categories Cognitive Psychology - 7 573-605\nSen, A.K. (1977) Rational Fools: a Critique of the Behavioural Foundations of Economic Theory. Philosophy and Public Affairs- 6 317-344\nShands, W.E., Sample, V.A. \u0026amp; LeMaster, D.C. (1990) National Forest Planning: Searching for a Common Vision 2. In Critique of Land Management Planning, USDA Forest Service. Washington, D.C.\nSohn, D. (1991) The Interaction Concept in Scientific Discourse and in the Analysis of Variance. Journal of Psychology- 125 621-629.\nStainton Rogers, R. (1995) Q methodology. In J.A. Smith, R. Harré, \u0026amp; L. Van Langenhove (Eds.), Rethinking methods in psychology - Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage.\nStainton Rogers, R. \u0026amp; Stainton Rogers, W.(1990) What the Brits got out of the Q: And why their work may not line up with the American way of getting into it! http://www.cios.org  Access date: May 2002\nStephenson, W. (1953) The Study of Behaviour: Q-Technique and Its Methodology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. (Chap. 9), The Prior Analysis of Questionnaires, pp.190-218.)\nStephenson, W. (1963) Independency and Operationism in Q-Sorting. Psychological Record 13 269-272.\nStephenson, W. (1967) The Play Theory of Mass Communication. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.\nStephenson, W. (1977) Factors As Operant Subjectivity. Operant Subjectivity 1 3-16.\nStephenson, W. (1978) Concourse Theory of Communication. Communication - 3 21-40. (Cf. Protoconcursus: The concourse theory of communication. Operant Subjectivity 1986 9 37-58, 73-96.)\nStephenson, W. (1980) Newton\u0026rsquo;s Fifth Rule and Q Methodology: Application to Educational Psychology. American Psychologist - 35 882-889.\nStephenson, W. (1980) Consciring: a General Theory for Subjective Communicability. In D.Nimmo (Ed.), Communication yearbook 4 (pp. 7-36). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.\nStephenson, W. (1982) Q-methodology, interbehavioral psychology, and quantum theory.Psychological Record - 32 235-248.\nStephenson, W. (1987) William James, Niels Bohr, and complementarity: III - Schrodinger\u0026rsquo;s cat. Psychological Record 37 523-544.\nStephenson, W. (1963) Public Images of Public Utilities. Journal of Advertising Research 3 (4) 34-39.\nStephenson, W. (1953) The Study of Behaviour: Q-technique and Its Methodology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.\nStrauss, A. \u0026amp; Corbin, J. (1990) Basics of Qualitative Research.\nThomas, D.B. \u0026amp; Baas, L.R. (1993) The issue of generalization in Q methodology: Reliable schematics revisited. Operant Subjectivity - 16 18-3\nThompson, B. (2000): Q-Technique Factor Analysis: One Variation on the Two-Mode Factor Analysis of Variables. In L. Grimm \u0026amp; P. Yarnold (Eds.), Reading and understanding more multivariate statistics (pp. 207-226). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.\nVan den Berg, H. and C.G. Van der Vee. (1989) Ideologies in the News: on the Measurement of Ideological Characteristics of News Reports. Gazette - 14 159-194.\nBibliography #  Ackermann, R.J. (1985) Data, Instruments, and Theory. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.\nAltheide, D. L., \u0026amp; Johnson, J. M. (1994). Criteria for Assessing Interpretive Validity in Qualitative Research. In N. K. Denzin \u0026amp; Y. S. Lincoln (Eds), Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 485-599). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.\nAndrews J. \u0026amp; Rebane, M. (1994) Farming \u0026amp; Wildlife RSPB, Bedfordshire.\nApthorpe, R. and Des Gasper (eds) (1996) Arguing Development Policy: frames and discourses. London: Cass.\nBartlett\u0026rsquo;s F.C.Remembering. C.U.P. 1932\nBoulding, K. (1989) Three Faces of Power, Newbury Park, California, Sage.\nCarmichael, D., Hubert, J., Reeves, B. \u0026amp; Schanche, A.(1994) Sacred Sites, Sacred Places. London, Routledge.\nCarney, D. (ed.) (1998) Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: what contribution can we make? (papers presented at the Department for International Development\u0026rsquo;s Natural Resources Advisers\u0026rsquo; Conference, (July 1998) London: DFID\nCase, D.D. 1990. The Community\u0026rsquo;s Toolbox: The Idea, Methods and Tools for Participatory Assessment, Monitoring and Evaluation In Community Forestry. Bangkok: FAO.\nChapple, E. D. and C. S. Coon. 1942. Principles of Anthropology. Henry and Holt, New York.\nDennis, P., Bentley, C. \u0026amp; Jones, J.R.(1994) Impact of Grazing Systems on Insects and Spiders Livestock Farming Systems: research, develoment socio economics and land management. Third International Symposium Aberdeen, Scotland.\nEdwards-Jones, G.et al., (2000) Ecological Economics Blackwell, Oxford.\nGreene, D. \u0026amp; Cousins, S. (1996) Landscape Ecology and GIS Taylor \u0026amp; Francis.\nHaverkort B., Van der Kamp, J. \u0026amp; Waters-Bayer, A. (eds). (1991) Joining farmers\u0026rsquo; experiments: Experiences in participatory technology development. Intermediate Technology Publications, London.\nHolling, C. S. E. (1978) Adaptive Environmental Assessment and Management, Chichester, Wiley.\nICEP (2001) Institution of Civil Engineers Presidential Commission to review the technical approaches to flood risk management in England and Wales.\nIIED (1991) Participatory methods for learning and analysis. RRA Notes 14. International Institute for Environment and Development, London. International Institute for Environment and Development 1996. Participation, Policy and Institutionalisation. PLA Notes No. 27. London: IIED\nKey, C. (1994) Ecological Prospects: Scientific, Religious, and Aesthetic Perspectives. Ed. by Christopher Key Chapple. New York: SUNY Press, 236pp.\nKeynes, J.M. (1921) A Treatise on Probability. London: Macmillan.\nKuhn, T. S. (1962) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Chicago, Chicago University Press.\nLeopold, A. (1949) A Sand County Almanac and Sketches Here and There New York: Oxford University Press,\nLovegrove, R., Williams, G. \u0026amp; Williams, I. (1994) Birds in Wales. Poyser.\nLovelock, J. (1988) The Ages of Gaia.London: W.W. Norton \u0026amp; Co.\nMarsden, D., Oakley, P. and Pratt, B. 1994. Measuring the Process: Guidelines for Evaluating Social Development. INTRAC NGO Management and Policy Series No.3. Oxford: INTRAC.\nNelson, N. \u0026amp; Wright, S. 1995. Power and Participatory Development: Theory and Practice. London: Intermediate Technology Publications.\nOkali, C., Sumberg, J., \u0026amp; Farrington, J. 1994. Farmer Participatory Research: Rhetoric and reality. London: Intermediate Technology. 159 pp.\nPeterken, G. (1993) Woodland Conservation and Management Chapman \u0026amp; Hall, London.\nRackham, O. (1986) The History of the Countryside Dent.\nRamakrishnan P., Purohit, A., Saxena, K., Rao, K., and RK Maikhuri R. (eds.) (1998) Conservation and Management of Biological Resources in Himalaya IBH Publishing, New Delhi : Oxford and London.\nRescher, N. (1975) Introduction to Value Theory. Prentice-Hall, London.\nRobbins, L. (1935) An Essay on the Nature and Significance of Economic Science. Macmillan, London.\nSlocum, R., et al., Power, Process and Participation: Tools for Change, Intermediate Technology Publications.\nStewart, D. W. and Shamdasani, P.M. (1990) Focus Groups: Theory and Practice. Applied Social Research Methods Series Volume 20, Newbury Park: Sage Publications\nStriker, G. (1986) Antipater, or the Art of Living In. Schofield \u0026amp; Striker The Norms of Nature CUP London\nSullivan, G.M., et al., (1992) Financial and Economic Analyses of Agroforestry Systems. Pia, H1: Nitrogen Fixing Tree Association, Hawaii\nSutcliffe, S. \u0026amp; Bowman, M. (eds) (2000) Beyond The New Age: Exploring Alternative Spirituality. EUP: Edinburgh.\nSutherland W. (1995) Managing Habitats for Conservation CUP.\nVeldhuizen, L.V., Waters-Bayer, A., Zeeuw, H.D. (1997) Developing Technology with Farmers: A Trainer\u0026rsquo;s Guide for Participatory Learning. London and New York: Zed Books. 230 pp.\nWalters, C.J.(1986) Adaptive management of renewable resources. Macmillan, New York.\nWarren, D., Michael, L., Slikkerveer, J. \u0026amp; Brokensha, D. (1995) The cultural dimension of development: Indigenous knowledge systems. Intermediate Technology Publications, London.\nWilson, R. A., ed. (1997) Human Rights, Culture and Context. London: Pluto Press\nYoung, A. (1989) Agroforestry for Soil Conservation CAB.\n"});index.add({'id':12,'href':'/docs/cnrm/remote_sensing.html','title':"Remote Sensing",'section':"Land Management",'content':"Table of Contents\n1\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Remote Sensing and GIS 2\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Viewpoints and Surveys 3\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Remote Sensing Basics 4\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Absorption Spectra 5\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Absorption Spectra of Species   Remote sensing includes all methods, from aerial photography to satellite radiation sensing.\nRadiation patterns are interpreted to give useful information of landscape perspective. Absorption spectra of soils, rocks and vegetation differ, and knowledge of these differences enhance interpretation and use for planning.\n1\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Remote Sensing and GIS These are complementary systems and the software processes both. Can be used to answer quickly, quantitative questions of consequence to directives and grants.\nOrdnance survey maps may be based on aerial photographs and produced on computer processors Many are available on GIS data collections     Historical maps can aid interpretation Digital cartography differs from GIS, as it is simple manipulation. GIS produces new information through overlaying different information (e.g. polygon overlay) Data to a resolution of within a few cm is typically fed into GIS systems, these days.   2\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Viewpoints and Surveys Data to a resolution of within a few cm is obtained through satellite sensors and complimentary methods.\n2.1\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;High Viewpoint 36,000 km. Geostationary, following the earth's orbit. The view remains the same. For weather observation. Eg. at 36,000 km : GOES E, GOES W, MeteorSat. Views the globe. Crude. Global. Initially for clouds, but views plantations.   2.2\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Polar/Earth Orbiting 700 to 1000km. Regional. Sees fields, forests, urban patterns. E.g. LANDSAT, ERS1, RADARSAT  These have their own orbits, observe different zones. They observe changes over time, e.g. every 16 days or so in a repeat cycle.\n 2.3\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Ariel Photographs 10,000m to 1000m.   2.4\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Photography 2m   2.5\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Ground Surveys 1cm Radiometers: amount and quality of light, E.g. from a leaf. High resolution.   2.6\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Surveys Several technologies may be used in a survey, eg. LANDSAT to spot forests. Then, dig out ariel photographs    3\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Remote Sensing Basics Radiation is measured and interpreted to give useful information of landscape perspective. Absorption spectra of soils, rocks and vegetation, do differ, and knowledge of these enhance interpretation.\n3.1\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Uses interpretation stratification classification estimations of biomass from aerial stereo photographs, E.g. timber volumes.   3.2\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Radiation Light varies throughout the day in colour and intensity; it varies seasonally, apart from at the equator. In Summer, the Sun's declination is higher. In Winter, its declination is lower.\nReflectance: is proportional Radiance: is the absolute amount of reflected light. The Sun: Natural radiation: visible and middle red; thermal infra red. Synthetic radiation: Microwave or radar passes through clouds (i.e. an all weather system). Ultraviolet: (low end UV) frazzles plants and burns skins in spring when the hole in ozone layer opens   3.3\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Spectral Response of Green Vegetation 'Red Edge'... the absorption spectrum from visible red to infrared These two bands are the most important for vegetation.\n  4\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Absorption Spectra 4.1\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Ultraviolet and Infrared Data 4.1.1\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Infrared Film False colour infrared film:\nThe strongest signal of absorption (by vegetation) is infrared (45% reflectance), and is thus seen as Red and also about 1/3 blue (15% reflectance), so the colour approaches purple. Blue light is filtered out of the lens by a 'Ratan Filter'. (note: light meters use blue light, therefore adjust with tests). Vegetation when stressed gives 'pre-visual changes'... ie. is seen sooner. e.g. fungal attacks; drought stress; nutrient stress. The peak at 45 drops away when wilting, therefore the colour changes towards magenta/purple from cherry red, in infrared film in GIS sensors. Infrared can estimate grasslands and biomass.    4.2\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Wavelength Range of Sensors Waveband in series are chosen as bands; e.g. band 2 and band 1, to be useful. The French 'SPOT' chose just 3: green, red and infrared for observing everything on the planet.   4.3\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Combining red and infrared The two are given different values; IR/R gives a simple vegetation index. At 3 = healthy vegetation At 2 = stressed vegetation Normalised vegetation index: (IR-R)/(IR+R) this virtually measures the length of the red edge.   4.4\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Low frequency Light Below visible light is low frequency. Most is absorbed by the atmosphere. This gives the blue haze, scattered light. It doe snot have much information content for scientists, or use for vegetation.    5\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Absorption Spectra of Species 5.1\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Between species differences A real and measurable difference exists in the absorption spectrum of the species. This gives indication of Broadleaf vs. conifers by qualitative measures of reflectance at all points of the spectrum.   5.2\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Within species differences Eg. young and old leaves (and thus, mature canopy and young canopy). This is a seasonal attribute. The young leaf has less absorption in infra-red absorption areas.   5.3\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Absorption Spectra of Soils RS can only detect what is on the surface. Absorption generally increases with wavelength. Differences exist. Gypsum has a very uncharacteristic spectrum due to the presence of minerals, and is used by mineral prospectors.\nMoisture content: darkens, polarises. Iron Oxide: absorbs green, reflects red. (Opposite of plants) Organic matter darkens Texture: rough or diffuse Structure: sand, smooth, specular, polarising    "});index.add({'id':13,'href':'/posts/creating-a-new-theme.html','title':"Creating a New Theme",'section':"Blog",'content':"Introduction #  This tutorial will show you how to create a simple theme in Hugo. I assume that you are familiar with HTML, the bash command line, and that you are comfortable using Markdown to format content. I\u0026rsquo;ll explain how Hugo uses templates and how you can organize your templates to create a theme. I won\u0026rsquo;t cover using CSS to style your theme.\nWe\u0026rsquo;ll start with creating a new site with a very basic template. Then we\u0026rsquo;ll add in a few pages and posts. With small variations on that, you will be able to create many different types of web sites.\nIn this tutorial, commands that you enter will start with the \u0026ldquo;$\u0026rdquo; prompt. The output will follow. Lines that start with \u0026ldquo;#\u0026rdquo; are comments that I\u0026rsquo;ve added to explain a point. When I show updates to a file, the \u0026ldquo;:wq\u0026rdquo; on the last line means to save the file.\nHere\u0026rsquo;s an example:\n## this is a comment $ echo this is a command this is a command ## edit the file $ vi foo.md +++ date = \u0026quot;2014-09-28\u0026quot; title = \u0026quot;creating a new theme\u0026quot; +++ bah and humbug :wq ## show it $ cat foo.md +++ date = \u0026quot;2014-09-28\u0026quot; title = \u0026quot;creating a new theme\u0026quot; +++ bah and humbug $ Some Definitions #  There are a few concepts that you need to understand before creating a theme.\nSkins #  Skins are the files responsible for the look and feel of your site. It’s the CSS that controls colors and fonts, it’s the Javascript that determines actions and reactions. It’s also the rules that Hugo uses to transform your content into the HTML that the site will serve to visitors.\nYou have two ways to create a skin. The simplest way is to create it in the layouts/ directory. If you do, then you don’t have to worry about configuring Hugo to recognize it. The first place that Hugo will look for rules and files is in the layouts/ directory so it will always find the skin.\nYour second choice is to create it in a sub-directory of the themes/ directory. If you do, then you must always tell Hugo where to search for the skin. It’s extra work, though, so why bother with it?\nThe difference between creating a skin in layouts/ and creating it in themes/ is very subtle. A skin in layouts/ can’t be customized without updating the templates and static files that it is built from. A skin created in themes/, on the other hand, can be and that makes it easier for other people to use it.\nThe rest of this tutorial will call a skin created in the themes/ directory a theme.\nNote that you can use this tutorial to create a skin in the layouts/ directory if you wish to. The main difference will be that you won’t need to update the site’s configuration file to use a theme.\nThe Home Page #  The home page, or landing page, is the first page that many visitors to a site see. It is the index.html file in the root directory of the web site. Since Hugo writes files to the public/ directory, our home page is public/index.html.\nSite Configuration File #  When Hugo runs, it looks for a configuration file that contains settings that override default values for the entire site. The file can use TOML, YAML, or JSON. I prefer to use TOML for my configuration files. If you prefer to use JSON or YAML, you’ll need to translate my examples. You’ll also need to change the name of the file since Hugo uses the extension to determine how to process it.\nHugo translates Markdown files into HTML. By default, Hugo expects to find Markdown files in your content/ directory and template files in your themes/ directory. It will create HTML files in your public/ directory. You can change this by specifying alternate locations in the configuration file.\nContent #  Content is stored in text files that contain two sections. The first section is the “front matter,” which is the meta-information on the content. The second section contains Markdown that will be converted to HTML.\nFront Matter #  The front matter is information about the content. Like the configuration file, it can be written in TOML, YAML, or JSON. Unlike the configuration file, Hugo doesn’t use the file’s extension to know the format. It looks for markers to signal the type. TOML is surrounded by “+++”, YAML by “---”, and JSON is enclosed in curly braces. I prefer to use TOML, so you’ll need to translate my examples if you prefer YAML or JSON.\nThe information in the front matter is passed into the template before the content is rendered into HTML.\nMarkdown #  Content is written in Markdown which makes it easier to create the content. Hugo runs the content through a Markdown engine to create the HTML which will be written to the output file.\nTemplate Files #  Hugo uses template files to render content into HTML. Template files are a bridge between the content and presentation. Rules in the template define what content is published, where it\u0026rsquo;s published to, and how it will rendered to the HTML file. The template guides the presentation by specifying the style to use.\nThere are three types of templates: single, list, and partial. Each type takes a bit of content as input and transforms it based on the commands in the template.\nHugo uses its knowledge of the content to find the template file used to render the content. If it can’t find a template that is an exact match for the content, it will shift up a level and search from there. It will continue to do so until it finds a matching template or runs out of templates to try. If it can’t find a template, it will use the default template for the site.\nPlease note that you can use the front matter to influence Hugo’s choice of templates.\nSingle Template #  A single template is used to render a single piece of content. For example, an article or post would be a single piece of content and use a single template.\nList Template #  A list template renders a group of related content. That could be a summary of recent postings or all articles in a category. List templates can contain multiple groups.\nThe homepage template is a special type of list template. Hugo assumes that the home page of your site will act as the portal for the rest of the content in the site.\nPartial Template #  A partial template is a template that can be included in other templates. Partial templates must be called using the “partial” template command. They are very handy for rolling up common behavior. For example, your site may have a banner that all pages use. Instead of copying the text of the banner into every single and list template, you could create a partial with the banner in it. That way if you decide to change the banner, you only have to change the partial template.\nCreate a New Site #  Let\u0026rsquo;s use Hugo to create a new web site. I\u0026rsquo;m a Mac user, so I\u0026rsquo;ll create mine in my home directory, in the Sites folder. If you\u0026rsquo;re using Linux, you might have to create the folder first.\nThe \u0026ldquo;new site\u0026rdquo; command will create a skeleton of a site. It will give you the basic directory structure and a useable configuration file.\n$ hugo new site ~/Sites/zafta $ cd ~/Sites/zafta $ ls -l total 8 drwxr-xr-x 7 quoha staff 238 Sep 29 16:49 . drwxr-xr-x 3 quoha staff 102 Sep 29 16:49 .. drwxr-xr-x 2 quoha staff 68 Sep 29 16:49 archetypes -rw-r--r-- 1 quoha staff 82 Sep 29 16:49 config.toml drwxr-xr-x 2 quoha staff 68 Sep 29 16:49 content drwxr-xr-x 2 quoha staff 68 Sep 29 16:49 layouts drwxr-xr-x 2 quoha staff 68 Sep 29 16:49 static $ Take a look in the content/ directory to confirm that it is empty.\nThe other directories (archetypes/, layouts/, and static/) are used when customizing a theme. That\u0026rsquo;s a topic for a different tutorial, so please ignore them for now.\nGenerate the HTML For the New Site #  Running the hugo command with no options will read all the available content and generate the HTML files. It will also copy all static files (that\u0026rsquo;s everything that\u0026rsquo;s not content). Since we have an empty site, it won\u0026rsquo;t do much, but it will do it very quickly.\n$ hugo --verbose INFO: 2014/09/29 Using config file: config.toml INFO: 2014/09/29 syncing from /Users/quoha/Sites/zafta/static/ to /Users/quoha/Sites/zafta/public/ WARN: 2014/09/29 Unable to locate layout: [index.html _default/list.html _default/single.html] WARN: 2014/09/29 Unable to locate layout: [404.html] 0 draft content 0 future content 0 pages created 0 tags created 0 categories created in 2 ms $ The \u0026ldquo;--verbose\u0026rdquo; flag gives extra information that will be helpful when we build the template. Every line of the output that starts with \u0026ldquo;INFO:\u0026rdquo; or \u0026ldquo;WARN:\u0026rdquo; is present because we used that flag. The lines that start with \u0026ldquo;WARN:\u0026rdquo; are warning messages. We\u0026rsquo;ll go over them later.\nWe can verify that the command worked by looking at the directory again.\n$ ls -l total 8 drwxr-xr-x 2 quoha staff 68 Sep 29 16:49 archetypes -rw-r--r-- 1 quoha staff 82 Sep 29 16:49 config.toml drwxr-xr-x 2 quoha staff 68 Sep 29 16:49 content drwxr-xr-x 2 quoha staff 68 Sep 29 16:49 layouts drwxr-xr-x 4 quoha staff 136 Sep 29 17:02 public drwxr-xr-x 2 quoha staff 68 Sep 29 16:49 static $ See that new public/ directory? Hugo placed all generated content there. When you\u0026rsquo;re ready to publish your web site, that\u0026rsquo;s the place to start. For now, though, let\u0026rsquo;s just confirm that we have what we\u0026rsquo;d expect from a site with no content.\n$ ls -l public total 16 -rw-r--r-- 1 quoha staff 416 Sep 29 17:02 index.xml -rw-r--r-- 1 quoha staff 262 Sep 29 17:02 sitemap.xml $ Hugo created two XML files, which is standard, but there are no HTML files.\nTest the New Site #  Verify that you can run the built-in web server. It will dramatically shorten your development cycle if you do. Start it by running the \u0026ldquo;server\u0026rdquo; command. If it is successful, you will see output similar to the following:\n$ hugo server --verbose INFO: 2014/09/29 Using config file: /Users/quoha/Sites/zafta/config.toml INFO: 2014/09/29 syncing from /Users/quoha/Sites/zafta/static/ to /Users/quoha/Sites/zafta/public/ WARN: 2014/09/29 Unable to locate layout: [index.html _default/list.html _default/single.html] WARN: 2014/09/29 Unable to locate layout: [404.html] 0 draft content 0 future content 0 pages created 0 tags created 0 categories created in 2 ms Serving pages from /Users/quoha/Sites/zafta/public Web Server is available at http://localhost:1313 Press Ctrl+C to stop Connect to the listed URL (it\u0026rsquo;s on the line that starts with \u0026ldquo;Web Server\u0026rdquo;). If everything is working correctly, you should get a page that shows the following:\nindex.xml sitemap.xml That\u0026rsquo;s a listing of your public/ directory. Hugo didn\u0026rsquo;t create a home page because our site has no content. When there\u0026rsquo;s no index.html file in a directory, the server lists the files in the directory, which is what you should see in your browser.\nLet’s go back and look at those warnings again.\nWARN: 2014/09/29 Unable to locate layout: [index.html _default/list.html _default/single.html] WARN: 2014/09/29 Unable to locate layout: [404.html] That second warning is easier to explain. We haven’t created a template to be used to generate “page not found errors.” The 404 message is a topic for a separate tutorial.\nNow for the first warning. It is for the home page. You can tell because the first layout that it looked for was “index.html.” That’s only used by the home page.\nI like that the verbose flag causes Hugo to list the files that it\u0026rsquo;s searching for. For the home page, they are index.html, _default/list.html, and _default/single.html. There are some rules that we\u0026rsquo;ll cover later that explain the names and paths. For now, just remember that Hugo couldn\u0026rsquo;t find a template for the home page and it told you so.\nAt this point, you\u0026rsquo;ve got a working installation and site that we can build upon. All that’s left is to add some content and a theme to display it.\nCreate a New Theme #  Hugo doesn\u0026rsquo;t ship with a default theme. There are a few available (I counted a dozen when I first installed Hugo) and Hugo comes with a command to create new themes.\nWe\u0026rsquo;re going to create a new theme called \u0026ldquo;zafta.\u0026rdquo; Since the goal of this tutorial is to show you how to fill out the files to pull in your content, the theme will not contain any CSS. In other words, ugly but functional.\nAll themes have opinions on content and layout. For example, Zafta uses \u0026ldquo;post\u0026rdquo; over \u0026ldquo;blog\u0026rdquo;. Strong opinions make for simpler templates but differing opinions make it tougher to use themes. When you build a theme, consider using the terms that other themes do.\nCreate a Skeleton #  Use the hugo \u0026ldquo;new\u0026rdquo; command to create the skeleton of a theme. This creates the directory structure and places empty files for you to fill out.\n$ hugo new theme zafta $ ls -l total 8 drwxr-xr-x 2 quoha staff 68 Sep 29 16:49 archetypes -rw-r--r-- 1 quoha staff 82 Sep 29 16:49 config.toml drwxr-xr-x 2 quoha staff 68 Sep 29 16:49 content drwxr-xr-x 2 quoha staff 68 Sep 29 16:49 layouts drwxr-xr-x 4 quoha staff 136 Sep 29 17:02 public drwxr-xr-x 2 quoha staff 68 Sep 29 16:49 static drwxr-xr-x 3 quoha staff 102 Sep 29 17:31 themes $ find themes -type f | xargs ls -l -rw-r--r-- 1 quoha staff 1081 Sep 29 17:31 themes/zafta/LICENSE.md -rw-r--r-- 1 quoha staff 0 Sep 29 17:31 themes/zafta/archetypes/default.md -rw-r--r-- 1 quoha staff 0 Sep 29 17:31 themes/zafta/layouts/_default/list.html -rw-r--r-- 1 quoha staff 0 Sep 29 17:31 themes/zafta/layouts/_default/single.html -rw-r--r-- 1 quoha staff 0 Sep 29 17:31 themes/zafta/layouts/index.html -rw-r--r-- 1 quoha staff 0 Sep 29 17:31 themes/zafta/layouts/partials/footer.html -rw-r--r-- 1 quoha staff 0 Sep 29 17:31 themes/zafta/layouts/partials/header.html -rw-r--r-- 1 quoha staff 93 Sep 29 17:31 themes/zafta/theme.toml $ The skeleton includes templates (the files ending in .html), license file, a description of your theme (the theme.toml file), and an empty archetype.\nPlease take a minute to fill out the theme.toml and LICENSE.md files. They\u0026rsquo;re optional, but if you\u0026rsquo;re going to be distributing your theme, it tells the world who to praise (or blame). It\u0026rsquo;s also nice to declare the license so that people will know how they can use the theme.\n$ vi themes/zafta/theme.toml author = \u0026quot;michael d henderson\u0026quot; description = \u0026quot;a minimal working template\u0026quot; license = \u0026quot;MIT\u0026quot; name = \u0026quot;zafta\u0026quot; source_repo = \u0026quot;\u0026quot; tags = [\u0026quot;tags\u0026quot;, \u0026quot;categories\u0026quot;] :wq ## also edit themes/zafta/LICENSE.md and change ## the bit that says \u0026quot;YOUR_NAME_HERE\u0026quot; Note that the the skeleton\u0026rsquo;s template files are empty. Don\u0026rsquo;t worry, we\u0026rsquo;ll be changing that shortly.\n$ find themes/zafta -name '*.html' | xargs ls -l -rw-r--r-- 1 quoha staff 0 Sep 29 17:31 themes/zafta/layouts/_default/list.html -rw-r--r-- 1 quoha staff 0 Sep 29 17:31 themes/zafta/layouts/_default/single.html -rw-r--r-- 1 quoha staff 0 Sep 29 17:31 themes/zafta/layouts/index.html -rw-r--r-- 1 quoha staff 0 Sep 29 17:31 themes/zafta/layouts/partials/footer.html -rw-r--r-- 1 quoha staff 0 Sep 29 17:31 themes/zafta/layouts/partials/header.html $ Update the Configuration File to Use the Theme #  Now that we\u0026rsquo;ve got a theme to work with, it\u0026rsquo;s a good idea to add the theme name to the configuration file. This is optional, because you can always add \u0026ldquo;-t zafta\u0026rdquo; on all your commands. I like to put it the configuration file because I like shorter command lines. If you don\u0026rsquo;t put it in the configuration file or specify it on the command line, you won\u0026rsquo;t use the template that you\u0026rsquo;re expecting to.\nEdit the file to add the theme, add a title for the site, and specify that all of our content will use the TOML format.\n$ vi config.toml theme = \u0026quot;zafta\u0026quot; baseurl = \u0026quot;\u0026quot; languageCode = \u0026quot;en-us\u0026quot; title = \u0026quot;zafta - totally refreshing\u0026quot; MetaDataFormat = \u0026quot;toml\u0026quot; :wq $ Generate the Site #  Now that we have an empty theme, let\u0026rsquo;s generate the site again.\n$ hugo --verbose INFO: 2014/09/29 Using config file: /Users/quoha/Sites/zafta/config.toml INFO: 2014/09/29 syncing from /Users/quoha/Sites/zafta/themes/zafta/static/ to /Users/quoha/Sites/zafta/public/ INFO: 2014/09/29 syncing from /Users/quoha/Sites/zafta/static/ to /Users/quoha/Sites/zafta/public/ WARN: 2014/09/29 Unable to locate layout: [404.html theme/404.html] 0 draft content 0 future content 0 pages created 0 tags created 0 categories created in 2 ms $ Did you notice that the output is different? The warning message for the home page has disappeared and we have an additional information line saying that Hugo is syncing from the theme\u0026rsquo;s directory.\nLet\u0026rsquo;s check the public/ directory to see what Hugo\u0026rsquo;s created.\n$ ls -l public total 16 drwxr-xr-x 2 quoha staff 68 Sep 29 17:56 css -rw-r--r-- 1 quoha staff 0 Sep 29 17:56 index.html -rw-r--r-- 1 quoha staff 407 Sep 29 17:56 index.xml drwxr-xr-x 2 quoha staff 68 Sep 29 17:56 js -rw-r--r-- 1 quoha staff 243 Sep 29 17:56 sitemap.xml $ Notice four things:\n Hugo created a home page. This is the file public/index.html. Hugo created a css/ directory. Hugo created a js/ directory. Hugo claimed that it created 0 pages. It created a file and copied over static files, but didn\u0026rsquo;t create any pages. That\u0026rsquo;s because it considers a \u0026ldquo;page\u0026rdquo; to be a file created directly from a content file. It doesn\u0026rsquo;t count things like the index.html files that it creates automatically.  The Home Page #  Hugo supports many different types of templates. The home page is special because it gets its own type of template and its own template file. The file, layouts/index.html, is used to generate the HTML for the home page. The Hugo documentation says that this is the only required template, but that depends. Hugo\u0026rsquo;s warning message shows that it looks for three different templates:\nWARN: 2014/09/29 Unable to locate layout: [index.html _default/list.html _default/single.html] If it can\u0026rsquo;t find any of these, it completely skips creating the home page. We noticed that when we built the site without having a theme installed.\nWhen Hugo created our theme, it created an empty home page template. Now, when we build the site, Hugo finds the template and uses it to generate the HTML for the home page. Since the template file is empty, the HTML file is empty, too. If the template had any rules in it, then Hugo would have used them to generate the home page.\n$ find . -name index.html | xargs ls -l -rw-r--r-- 1 quoha staff 0 Sep 29 20:21 ./public/index.html -rw-r--r-- 1 quoha staff 0 Sep 29 17:31 ./themes/zafta/layouts/index.html $ The Magic of Static #  Hugo does two things when generating the site. It uses templates to transform content into HTML and it copies static files into the site. Unlike content, static files are not transformed. They are copied exactly as they are.\nHugo assumes that your site will use both CSS and JavaScript, so it creates directories in your theme to hold them. Remember opinions? Well, Hugo\u0026rsquo;s opinion is that you\u0026rsquo;ll store your CSS in a directory named css/ and your JavaScript in a directory named js/. If you don\u0026rsquo;t like that, you can change the directory names in your theme directory or even delete them completely. Hugo\u0026rsquo;s nice enough to offer its opinion, then behave nicely if you disagree.\n$ find themes/zafta -type d | xargs ls -ld drwxr-xr-x 7 quoha staff 238 Sep 29 17:38 themes/zafta drwxr-xr-x 3 quoha staff 102 Sep 29 17:31 themes/zafta/archetypes drwxr-xr-x 5 quoha staff 170 Sep 29 17:31 themes/zafta/layouts drwxr-xr-x 4 quoha staff 136 Sep 29 17:31 themes/zafta/layouts/_default drwxr-xr-x 4 quoha staff 136 Sep 29 17:31 themes/zafta/layouts/partials drwxr-xr-x 4 quoha staff 136 Sep 29 17:31 themes/zafta/static drwxr-xr-x 2 quoha staff 68 Sep 29 17:31 themes/zafta/static/css drwxr-xr-x 2 quoha staff 68 Sep 29 17:31 themes/zafta/static/js $ The Theme Development Cycle #  When you\u0026rsquo;re working on a theme, you will make changes in the theme\u0026rsquo;s directory, rebuild the site, and check your changes in the browser. Hugo makes this very easy:\n Purge the public/ directory. Run the built in web server in watch mode. Open your site in a browser. Update the theme. Glance at your browser window to see changes. Return to step 4.  I’ll throw in one more opinion: never work on a theme on a live site. Always work on a copy of your site. Make changes to your theme, test them, then copy them up to your site. For added safety, use a tool like Git to keep a revision history of your content and your theme. Believe me when I say that it is too easy to lose both your mind and your changes.\nCheck the main Hugo site for information on using Git with Hugo.\nPurge the public/ Directory #  When generating the site, Hugo will create new files and update existing ones in the public/ directory. It will not delete files that are no longer used. For example, files that were created in the wrong directory or with the wrong title will remain. If you leave them, you might get confused by them later. I recommend cleaning out your site prior to generating it.\nNote: If you\u0026rsquo;re building on an SSD, you should ignore this. Churning on a SSD can be costly.\nHugo\u0026rsquo;s Watch Option #  Hugo\u0026rsquo;s \u0026ldquo;--watch\u0026rdquo; option will monitor the content/ and your theme directories for changes and rebuild the site automatically.\nLive Reload #  Hugo\u0026rsquo;s built in web server supports live reload. As pages are saved on the server, the browser is told to refresh the page. Usually, this happens faster than you can say, \u0026ldquo;Wow, that\u0026rsquo;s totally amazing.\u0026rdquo;\nDevelopment Commands #  Use the following commands as the basis for your workflow.\n## purge old files. hugo will recreate the public directory. ## $ rm -rf public ## ## run hugo in watch mode ## $ hugo server --watch --verbose Here\u0026rsquo;s sample output showing Hugo detecting a change to the template for the home page. Once generated, the web browser automatically reloaded the page. I\u0026rsquo;ve said this before, it\u0026rsquo;s amazing.\n$ rm -rf public $ hugo server --watch --verbose INFO: 2014/09/29 Using config file: /Users/quoha/Sites/zafta/config.toml INFO: 2014/09/29 syncing from /Users/quoha/Sites/zafta/themes/zafta/static/ to /Users/quoha/Sites/zafta/public/ INFO: 2014/09/29 syncing from /Users/quoha/Sites/zafta/static/ to /Users/quoha/Sites/zafta/public/ WARN: 2014/09/29 Unable to locate layout: [404.html theme/404.html] 0 draft content 0 future content 0 pages created 0 tags created 0 categories created in 2 ms Watching for changes in /Users/quoha/Sites/zafta/content Serving pages from /Users/quoha/Sites/zafta/public Web Server is available at http://localhost:1313 Press Ctrl+C to stop INFO: 2014/09/29 File System Event: [\u0026quot;/Users/quoha/Sites/zafta/themes/zafta/layouts/index.html\u0026quot;: MODIFY|ATTRIB] Change detected, rebuilding site WARN: 2014/09/29 Unable to locate layout: [404.html theme/404.html] 0 draft content 0 future content 0 pages created 0 tags created 0 categories created in 1 ms Update the Home Page Template #  The home page is one of a few special pages that Hugo creates automatically. As mentioned earlier, it looks for one of three files in the theme\u0026rsquo;s layout/ directory:\n index.html _default/list.html _default/single.html  We could update one of the default templates, but a good design decision is to update the most specific template available. That\u0026rsquo;s not a hard and fast rule (in fact, we\u0026rsquo;ll break it a few times in this tutorial), but it is a good generalization.\nMake a Static Home Page #  Right now, that page is empty because we don\u0026rsquo;t have any content and we don\u0026rsquo;t have any logic in the template. Let\u0026rsquo;s change that by adding some text to the template.\n$ vi themes/zafta/layouts/index.html \u0026lt;!DOCTYPE html\u0026gt; \u0026lt;html\u0026gt; \u0026lt;body\u0026gt; \u0026lt;p\u0026gt;hugo says hello!\u0026lt;/p\u0026gt; \u0026lt;/body\u0026gt; \u0026lt;/html\u0026gt; :wq $ Build the web site and then verify the results.\n$ hugo --verbose INFO: 2014/09/29 Using config file: /Users/quoha/Sites/zafta/config.toml INFO: 2014/09/29 syncing from /Users/quoha/Sites/zafta/themes/zafta/static/ to /Users/quoha/Sites/zafta/public/ INFO: 2014/09/29 syncing from /Users/quoha/Sites/zafta/static/ to /Users/quoha/Sites/zafta/public/ WARN: 2014/09/29 Unable to locate layout: [404.html theme/404.html] 0 draft content 0 future content 0 pages created 0 tags created 0 categories created in 2 ms $ find public -type f -name '*.html' | xargs ls -l -rw-r--r-- 1 quoha staff 78 Sep 29 21:26 public/index.html $ cat public/index.html \u0026lt;!DOCTYPE html\u0026gt; \u0026lt;html\u0026gt; \u0026lt;body\u0026gt; \u0026lt;p\u0026gt;hugo says hello!\u0026lt;/p\u0026gt; \u0026lt;/html\u0026gt; Live Reload #  Note: If you\u0026rsquo;re running the server with the --watch option, you\u0026rsquo;ll see different content in the file:\n$ cat public/index.html \u0026lt;!DOCTYPE html\u0026gt; \u0026lt;html\u0026gt; \u0026lt;body\u0026gt; \u0026lt;p\u0026gt;hugo says hello!\u0026lt;/p\u0026gt; \u0026lt;script\u0026gt;document.write('\u0026lt;script src=\u0026quot;http://' + (location.host || 'localhost').split(':')[0] + ':1313/livereload.js?mindelay=10\u0026quot;\u0026gt;\u0026lt;/' + 'script\u0026gt;')\u0026lt;/script\u0026gt;\u0026lt;/body\u0026gt; \u0026lt;/html\u0026gt; When you use --watch, the Live Reload script is added by Hugo. Look for live reload in the documentation to see what it does and how to disable it.\nBuild a \u0026ldquo;Dynamic\u0026rdquo; Home Page #  \u0026ldquo;Dynamic home page?\u0026rdquo; Hugo\u0026rsquo;s a static web site generator, so this seems an odd thing to say. I mean let\u0026rsquo;s have the home page automatically reflect the content in the site every time Hugo builds it. We\u0026rsquo;ll use iteration in the template to do that.\nCreate New Posts #  Now that we have the home page generating static content, let\u0026rsquo;s add some content to the site. We\u0026rsquo;ll display these posts as a list on the home page and on their own page, too.\nHugo has a command to generate a skeleton post, just like it does for sites and themes.\n$ hugo --verbose new post/first.md INFO: 2014/09/29 Using config file: /Users/quoha/Sites/zafta/config.toml INFO: 2014/09/29 attempting to create post/first.md of post INFO: 2014/09/29 curpath: /Users/quoha/Sites/zafta/themes/zafta/archetypes/default.md ERROR: 2014/09/29 Unable to Cast \u0026lt;nil\u0026gt; to map[string]interface{} $ That wasn\u0026rsquo;t very nice, was it?\nThe \u0026ldquo;new\u0026rdquo; command uses an archetype to create the post file. Hugo created an empty default archetype file, but that causes an error when there\u0026rsquo;s a theme. For me, the workaround was to create an archetypes file specifically for the post type.\n$ vi themes/zafta/archetypes/post.md +++ Description = \u0026quot;\u0026quot; Tags = [] Categories = [] +++ :wq $ find themes/zafta/archetypes -type f | xargs ls -l -rw-r--r-- 1 quoha staff 0 Sep 29 21:53 themes/zafta/archetypes/default.md -rw-r--r-- 1 quoha staff 51 Sep 29 21:54 themes/zafta/archetypes/post.md $ hugo --verbose new post/first.md INFO: 2014/09/29 Using config file: /Users/quoha/Sites/zafta/config.toml INFO: 2014/09/29 attempting to create post/first.md of post INFO: 2014/09/29 curpath: /Users/quoha/Sites/zafta/themes/zafta/archetypes/post.md INFO: 2014/09/29 creating /Users/quoha/Sites/zafta/content/post/first.md /Users/quoha/Sites/zafta/content/post/first.md created $ hugo --verbose new post/second.md INFO: 2014/09/29 Using config file: /Users/quoha/Sites/zafta/config.toml INFO: 2014/09/29 attempting to create post/second.md of post INFO: 2014/09/29 curpath: /Users/quoha/Sites/zafta/themes/zafta/archetypes/post.md INFO: 2014/09/29 creating /Users/quoha/Sites/zafta/content/post/second.md /Users/quoha/Sites/zafta/content/post/second.md created $ ls -l content/post total 16 -rw-r--r-- 1 quoha staff 104 Sep 29 21:54 first.md -rw-r--r-- 1 quoha staff 105 Sep 29 21:57 second.md $ cat content/post/first.md +++ Categories = [] Description = \u0026quot;\u0026quot; Tags = [] date = \u0026quot;2014-09-29T21:54:53-05:00\u0026quot; title = \u0026quot;first\u0026quot; +++ my first post $ cat content/post/second.md +++ Categories = [] Description = \u0026quot;\u0026quot; Tags = [] date = \u0026quot;2014-09-29T21:57:09-05:00\u0026quot; title = \u0026quot;second\u0026quot; +++ my second post $ Build the web site and then verify the results.\n$ rm -rf public $ hugo --verbose INFO: 2014/09/29 Using config file: /Users/quoha/Sites/zafta/config.toml INFO: 2014/09/29 syncing from /Users/quoha/Sites/zafta/themes/zafta/static/ to /Users/quoha/Sites/zafta/public/ INFO: 2014/09/29 syncing from /Users/quoha/Sites/zafta/static/ to /Users/quoha/Sites/zafta/public/ INFO: 2014/09/29 found taxonomies: map[string]string{\u0026quot;category\u0026quot;:\u0026quot;categories\u0026quot;, \u0026quot;tag\u0026quot;:\u0026quot;tags\u0026quot;} WARN: 2014/09/29 Unable to locate layout: [404.html theme/404.html] 0 draft content 0 future content 2 pages created 0 tags created 0 categories created in 4 ms $ The output says that it created 2 pages. Those are our new posts:\n$ find public -type f -name '*.html' | xargs ls -l -rw-r--r-- 1 quoha staff 78 Sep 29 22:13 public/index.html -rw-r--r-- 1 quoha staff 0 Sep 29 22:13 public/post/first/index.html -rw-r--r-- 1 quoha staff 0 Sep 29 22:13 public/post/index.html -rw-r--r-- 1 quoha staff 0 Sep 29 22:13 public/post/second/index.html $ The new files are empty because because the templates used to generate the content are empty. The homepage doesn\u0026rsquo;t show the new content, either. We have to update the templates to add the posts.\nList and Single Templates #  In Hugo, we have three major kinds of templates. There\u0026rsquo;s the home page template that we updated previously. It is used only by the home page. We also have \u0026ldquo;single\u0026rdquo; templates which are used to generate output for a single content file. We also have \u0026ldquo;list\u0026rdquo; templates that are used to group multiple pieces of content before generating output.\nGenerally speaking, list templates are named \u0026ldquo;list.html\u0026rdquo; and single templates are named \u0026ldquo;single.html.\u0026rdquo;\nThere are three other types of templates: partials, content views, and terms. We will not go into much detail on these.\nAdd Content to the Homepage #  The home page will contain a list of posts. Let\u0026rsquo;s update its template to add the posts that we just created. The logic in the template will run every time we build the site.\n$ vi themes/zafta/layouts/index.html \u0026lt;!DOCTYPE html\u0026gt; \u0026lt;html\u0026gt; \u0026lt;body\u0026gt; {{ range first 10 .Data.Pages }} \u0026lt;h1\u0026gt;{{ .Title }}\u0026lt;/h1\u0026gt; {{ end }} \u0026lt;/body\u0026gt; \u0026lt;/html\u0026gt; :wq $ Hugo uses the Go template engine. That engine scans the template files for commands which are enclosed between \u0026ldquo;{{\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;}}\u0026rdquo;. In our template, the commands are:\n range .Title end  The \u0026ldquo;range\u0026rdquo; command is an iterator. We\u0026rsquo;re going to use it to go through the first ten pages. Every HTML file that Hugo creates is treated as a page, so looping through the list of pages will look at every file that will be created.\nThe \u0026ldquo;.Title\u0026rdquo; command prints the value of the \u0026ldquo;title\u0026rdquo; variable. Hugo pulls it from the front matter in the Markdown file.\nThe \u0026ldquo;end\u0026rdquo; command signals the end of the range iterator. The engine loops back to the top of the iteration when it finds \u0026ldquo;end.\u0026rdquo; Everything between the \u0026ldquo;range\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;end\u0026rdquo; is evaluated every time the engine goes through the iteration. In this file, that would cause the title from the first ten pages to be output as heading level one.\nIt\u0026rsquo;s helpful to remember that some variables, like .Data, are created before any output files. Hugo loads every content file into the variable and then gives the template a chance to process before creating the HTML files.\nBuild the web site and then verify the results.\n$ rm -rf public $ hugo --verbose INFO: 2014/09/29 Using config file: /Users/quoha/Sites/zafta/config.toml INFO: 2014/09/29 syncing from /Users/quoha/Sites/zafta/themes/zafta/static/ to /Users/quoha/Sites/zafta/public/ INFO: 2014/09/29 syncing from /Users/quoha/Sites/zafta/static/ to /Users/quoha/Sites/zafta/public/ INFO: 2014/09/29 found taxonomies: map[string]string{\u0026quot;tag\u0026quot;:\u0026quot;tags\u0026quot;, \u0026quot;category\u0026quot;:\u0026quot;categories\u0026quot;} WARN: 2014/09/29 Unable to locate layout: [404.html theme/404.html] 0 draft content 0 future content 2 pages created 0 tags created 0 categories created in 4 ms $ find public -type f -name '*.html' | xargs ls -l -rw-r--r-- 1 quoha staff 94 Sep 29 22:23 public/index.html -rw-r--r-- 1 quoha staff 0 Sep 29 22:23 public/post/first/index.html -rw-r--r-- 1 quoha staff 0 Sep 29 22:23 public/post/index.html -rw-r--r-- 1 quoha staff 0 Sep 29 22:23 public/post/second/index.html $ cat public/index.html \u0026lt;!DOCTYPE html\u0026gt; \u0026lt;html\u0026gt; \u0026lt;body\u0026gt; \u0026lt;h1\u0026gt;second\u0026lt;/h1\u0026gt; \u0026lt;h1\u0026gt;first\u0026lt;/h1\u0026gt; \u0026lt;/body\u0026gt; \u0026lt;/html\u0026gt; $ Congratulations, the home page shows the title of the two posts. The posts themselves are still empty, but let\u0026rsquo;s take a moment to appreciate what we\u0026rsquo;ve done. Your template now generates output dynamically. Believe it or not, by inserting the range command inside of those curly braces, you\u0026rsquo;ve learned everything you need to know to build a theme. All that\u0026rsquo;s really left is understanding which template will be used to generate each content file and becoming familiar with the commands for the template engine.\nAnd, if that were entirely true, this tutorial would be much shorter. There are a few things to know that will make creating a new template much easier. Don\u0026rsquo;t worry, though, that\u0026rsquo;s all to come.\nAdd Content to the Posts #  We\u0026rsquo;re working with posts, which are in the content/post/ directory. That means that their section is \u0026ldquo;post\u0026rdquo; (and if we don\u0026rsquo;t do something weird, their type is also \u0026ldquo;post\u0026rdquo;).\nHugo uses the section and type to find the template file for every piece of content. Hugo will first look for a template file that matches the section or type name. If it can\u0026rsquo;t find one, then it will look in the _default/ directory. There are some twists that we\u0026rsquo;ll cover when we get to categories and tags, but for now we can assume that Hugo will try post/single.html, then _default/single.html.\nNow that we know the search rule, let\u0026rsquo;s see what we actually have available:\n$ find themes/zafta -name single.html | xargs ls -l -rw-r--r-- 1 quoha staff 132 Sep 29 17:31 themes/zafta/layouts/_default/single.html We could create a new template, post/single.html, or change the default. Since we don\u0026rsquo;t know of any other content types, let\u0026rsquo;s start with updating the default.\nRemember, any content that we haven\u0026rsquo;t created a template for will end up using this template. That can be good or bad. Bad because I know that we\u0026rsquo;re going to be adding different types of content and we\u0026rsquo;re going to end up undoing some of the changes we\u0026rsquo;ve made. It\u0026rsquo;s good because we\u0026rsquo;ll be able to see immediate results. It\u0026rsquo;s also good to start here because we can start to build the basic layout for the site. As we add more content types, we\u0026rsquo;ll refactor this file and move logic around. Hugo makes that fairly painless, so we\u0026rsquo;ll accept the cost and proceed.\nPlease see the Hugo documentation on template rendering for all the details on determining which template to use. And, as the docs mention, if you\u0026rsquo;re building a single page application (SPA) web site, you can delete all of the other templates and work with just the default single page. That\u0026rsquo;s a refreshing amount of joy right there.\nUpdate the Template File #  $ vi themes/zafta/layouts/_default/single.html \u0026lt;!DOCTYPE html\u0026gt; \u0026lt;html\u0026gt; \u0026lt;head\u0026gt; \u0026lt;title\u0026gt;{{ .Title }}\u0026lt;/title\u0026gt; \u0026lt;/head\u0026gt; \u0026lt;body\u0026gt; \u0026lt;h1\u0026gt;{{ .Title }}\u0026lt;/h1\u0026gt; {{ .Content }} \u0026lt;/body\u0026gt; \u0026lt;/html\u0026gt; :wq $ Build the web site and verify the results.\n$ rm -rf public $ hugo --verbose INFO: 2014/09/29 Using config file: /Users/quoha/Sites/zafta/config.toml INFO: 2014/09/29 syncing from /Users/quoha/Sites/zafta/themes/zafta/static/ to /Users/quoha/Sites/zafta/public/ INFO: 2014/09/29 syncing from /Users/quoha/Sites/zafta/static/ to /Users/quoha/Sites/zafta/public/ INFO: 2014/09/29 found taxonomies: map[string]string{\u0026quot;tag\u0026quot;:\u0026quot;tags\u0026quot;, \u0026quot;category\u0026quot;:\u0026quot;categories\u0026quot;} WARN: 2014/09/29 Unable to locate layout: [404.html theme/404.html] 0 draft content 0 future content 2 pages created 0 tags created 0 categories created in 4 ms $ find public -type f -name '*.html' | xargs ls -l -rw-r--r-- 1 quoha staff 94 Sep 29 22:40 public/index.html -rw-r--r-- 1 quoha staff 125 Sep 29 22:40 public/post/first/index.html -rw-r--r-- 1 quoha staff 0 Sep 29 22:40 public/post/index.html -rw-r--r-- 1 quoha staff 128 Sep 29 22:40 public/post/second/index.html $ cat public/post/first/index.html \u0026lt;!DOCTYPE html\u0026gt; \u0026lt;html\u0026gt; \u0026lt;head\u0026gt; \u0026lt;title\u0026gt;first\u0026lt;/title\u0026gt; \u0026lt;/head\u0026gt; \u0026lt;body\u0026gt; \u0026lt;h1\u0026gt;first\u0026lt;/h1\u0026gt; \u0026lt;p\u0026gt;my first post\u0026lt;/p\u0026gt; \u0026lt;/body\u0026gt; \u0026lt;/html\u0026gt; $ cat public/post/second/index.html \u0026lt;!DOCTYPE html\u0026gt; \u0026lt;html\u0026gt; \u0026lt;head\u0026gt; \u0026lt;title\u0026gt;second\u0026lt;/title\u0026gt; \u0026lt;/head\u0026gt; \u0026lt;body\u0026gt; \u0026lt;h1\u0026gt;second\u0026lt;/h1\u0026gt; \u0026lt;p\u0026gt;my second post\u0026lt;/p\u0026gt; \u0026lt;/body\u0026gt; \u0026lt;/html\u0026gt; $ Notice that the posts now have content. You can go to localhost:1313/post/first to verify.\nLinking to Content #  The posts are on the home page. Let\u0026rsquo;s add a link from there to the post. Since this is the home page, we\u0026rsquo;ll update its template.\n$ vi themes/zafta/layouts/index.html \u0026lt;!DOCTYPE html\u0026gt; \u0026lt;html\u0026gt; \u0026lt;body\u0026gt; {{ range first 10 .Data.Pages }} \u0026lt;h1\u0026gt;\u0026lt;a href=\u0026quot;{{ .Permalink }}\u0026quot;\u0026gt;{{ .Title }}\u0026lt;/a\u0026gt;\u0026lt;/h1\u0026gt; {{ end }} \u0026lt;/body\u0026gt; \u0026lt;/html\u0026gt; Build the web site and verify the results.\n$ rm -rf public $ hugo --verbose INFO: 2014/09/29 Using config file: /Users/quoha/Sites/zafta/config.toml INFO: 2014/09/29 syncing from /Users/quoha/Sites/zafta/themes/zafta/static/ to /Users/quoha/Sites/zafta/public/ INFO: 2014/09/29 syncing from /Users/quoha/Sites/zafta/static/ to /Users/quoha/Sites/zafta/public/ INFO: 2014/09/29 found taxonomies: map[string]string{\u0026quot;tag\u0026quot;:\u0026quot;tags\u0026quot;, \u0026quot;category\u0026quot;:\u0026quot;categories\u0026quot;} WARN: 2014/09/29 Unable to locate layout: [404.html theme/404.html] 0 draft content 0 future content 2 pages created 0 tags created 0 categories created in 4 ms $ find public -type f -name '*.html' | xargs ls -l -rw-r--r-- 1 quoha staff 149 Sep 29 22:44 public/index.html -rw-r--r-- 1 quoha staff 125 Sep 29 22:44 public/post/first/index.html -rw-r--r-- 1 quoha staff 0 Sep 29 22:44 public/post/index.html -rw-r--r-- 1 quoha staff 128 Sep 29 22:44 public/post/second/index.html $ cat public/index.html \u0026lt;!DOCTYPE html\u0026gt; \u0026lt;html\u0026gt; \u0026lt;body\u0026gt; \u0026lt;h1\u0026gt;\u0026lt;a href=\u0026quot;/post/second/\u0026quot;\u0026gt;second\u0026lt;/a\u0026gt;\u0026lt;/h1\u0026gt; \u0026lt;h1\u0026gt;\u0026lt;a href=\u0026quot;/post/first/\u0026quot;\u0026gt;first\u0026lt;/a\u0026gt;\u0026lt;/h1\u0026gt; \u0026lt;/body\u0026gt; \u0026lt;/html\u0026gt; $ Create a Post Listing #  We have the posts displaying on the home page and on their own page. We also have a file public/post/index.html that is empty. Let\u0026rsquo;s make it show a list of all posts (not just the first ten).\nWe need to decide which template to update. This will be a listing, so it should be a list template. Let\u0026rsquo;s take a quick look and see which list templates are available.\n$ find themes/zafta -name list.html | xargs ls -l -rw-r--r-- 1 quoha staff 0 Sep 29 17:31 themes/zafta/layouts/_default/list.html As with the single post, we have to decide to update _default/list.html or create post/list.html. We still don\u0026rsquo;t have multiple content types, so let\u0026rsquo;s stay consistent and update the default list template.\nCreating Top Level Pages #  Let\u0026rsquo;s add an \u0026ldquo;about\u0026rdquo; page and display it at the top level (as opposed to a sub-level like we did with posts).\nThe default in Hugo is to use the directory structure of the content/ directory to guide the location of the generated html in the public/ directory. Let\u0026rsquo;s verify that by creating an \u0026ldquo;about\u0026rdquo; page at the top level:\n$ vi content/about.md +++ title = \u0026quot;about\u0026quot; description = \u0026quot;about this site\u0026quot; date = \u0026quot;2014-09-27\u0026quot; slug = \u0026quot;about time\u0026quot; +++ ## about us i'm speechless :wq Generate the web site and verify the results.\n$ find public -name '*.html' | xargs ls -l -rw-rw-r-- 1 mdhender staff 334 Sep 27 15:08 public/about-time/index.html -rw-rw-r-- 1 mdhender staff 527 Sep 27 15:08 public/index.html -rw-rw-r-- 1 mdhender staff 358 Sep 27 15:08 public/post/first-post/index.html -rw-rw-r-- 1 mdhender staff 0 Sep 27 15:08 public/post/index.html -rw-rw-r-- 1 mdhender staff 342 Sep 27 15:08 public/post/second-post/index.html Notice that the page wasn\u0026rsquo;t created at the top level. It was created in a sub-directory named \u0026lsquo;about-time/\u0026rsquo;. That name came from our slug. Hugo will use the slug to name the generated content. It\u0026rsquo;s a reasonable default, by the way, but we can learn a few things by fighting it for this file.\nOne other thing. Take a look at the home page.\n$ cat public/index.html \u0026lt;!DOCTYPE html\u0026gt; \u0026lt;html\u0026gt; \u0026lt;body\u0026gt; \u0026lt;h1\u0026gt;\u0026lt;a href=\u0026quot;http://localhost:1313/post/theme/\u0026quot;\u0026gt;creating a new theme\u0026lt;/a\u0026gt;\u0026lt;/h1\u0026gt; \u0026lt;h1\u0026gt;\u0026lt;a href=\u0026quot;http://localhost:1313/about-time/\u0026quot;\u0026gt;about\u0026lt;/a\u0026gt;\u0026lt;/h1\u0026gt; \u0026lt;h1\u0026gt;\u0026lt;a href=\u0026quot;http://localhost:1313/post/second-post/\u0026quot;\u0026gt;second\u0026lt;/a\u0026gt;\u0026lt;/h1\u0026gt; \u0026lt;h1\u0026gt;\u0026lt;a href=\u0026quot;http://localhost:1313/post/first-post/\u0026quot;\u0026gt;first\u0026lt;/a\u0026gt;\u0026lt;/h1\u0026gt; \u0026lt;script\u0026gt;document.write('\u0026lt;script src=\u0026quot;http://' + (location.host || 'localhost').split(':')[0] + ':1313/livereload.js?mindelay=10\u0026quot;\u0026gt;\u0026lt;/' + 'script\u0026gt;')\u0026lt;/script\u0026gt;\u0026lt;/body\u0026gt; \u0026lt;/html\u0026gt; Notice that the \u0026ldquo;about\u0026rdquo; link is listed with the posts? That\u0026rsquo;s not desirable, so let\u0026rsquo;s change that first.\n$ vi themes/zafta/layouts/index.html \u0026lt;!DOCTYPE html\u0026gt; \u0026lt;html\u0026gt; \u0026lt;body\u0026gt; \u0026lt;h1\u0026gt;posts\u0026lt;/h1\u0026gt; {{ range first 10 .Data.Pages }} {{ if eq .Type \u0026quot;post\u0026quot;}} \u0026lt;h2\u0026gt;\u0026lt;a href=\u0026quot;{{ .Permalink }}\u0026quot;\u0026gt;{{ .Title }}\u0026lt;/a\u0026gt;\u0026lt;/h2\u0026gt; {{ end }} {{ end }} \u0026lt;h1\u0026gt;pages\u0026lt;/h1\u0026gt; {{ range .Data.Pages }} {{ if eq .Type \u0026quot;page\u0026quot; }} \u0026lt;h2\u0026gt;\u0026lt;a href=\u0026quot;{{ .Permalink }}\u0026quot;\u0026gt;{{ .Title }}\u0026lt;/a\u0026gt;\u0026lt;/h2\u0026gt; {{ end }} {{ end }} \u0026lt;/body\u0026gt; \u0026lt;/html\u0026gt; :wq Generate the web site and verify the results. The home page has two sections, posts and pages, and each section has the right set of headings and links in it.\nBut, that about page still renders to about-time/index.html.\n$ find public -name '*.html' | xargs ls -l -rw-rw-r-- 1 mdhender staff 334 Sep 27 15:33 public/about-time/index.html -rw-rw-r-- 1 mdhender staff 645 Sep 27 15:33 public/index.html -rw-rw-r-- 1 mdhender staff 358 Sep 27 15:33 public/post/first-post/index.html -rw-rw-r-- 1 mdhender staff 0 Sep 27 15:33 public/post/index.html -rw-rw-r-- 1 mdhender staff 342 Sep 27 15:33 public/post/second-post/index.html Knowing that hugo is using the slug to generate the file name, the simplest solution is to change the slug. Let\u0026rsquo;s do it the hard way and change the permalink in the configuration file.\n$ vi config.toml [permalinks] page = \u0026quot;/:title/\u0026quot; about = \u0026quot;/:filename/\u0026quot; Generate the web site and verify that this didn\u0026rsquo;t work. Hugo lets \u0026ldquo;slug\u0026rdquo; or \u0026ldquo;URL\u0026rdquo; override the permalinks setting in the configuration file. Go ahead and comment out the slug in content/about.md, then generate the web site to get it to be created in the right place.\nSharing Templates #  If you\u0026rsquo;ve been following along, you probably noticed that posts have titles in the browser and the home page doesn\u0026rsquo;t. That\u0026rsquo;s because we didn\u0026rsquo;t put the title in the home page\u0026rsquo;s template (layouts/index.html). That\u0026rsquo;s an easy thing to do, but let\u0026rsquo;s look at a different option.\nWe can put the common bits into a shared template that\u0026rsquo;s stored in the themes/zafta/layouts/partials/ directory.\nCreate the Header and Footer Partials #  In Hugo, a partial is a sugar-coated template. Normally a template reference has a path specified. Partials are different. Hugo searches for them along a TODO defined search path. This makes it easier for end-users to override the theme\u0026rsquo;s presentation.\n$ vi themes/zafta/layouts/partials/header.html \u0026lt;!DOCTYPE html\u0026gt; \u0026lt;html\u0026gt; \u0026lt;head\u0026gt; \u0026lt;title\u0026gt;{{ .Title }}\u0026lt;/title\u0026gt; \u0026lt;/head\u0026gt; \u0026lt;body\u0026gt; :wq $ vi themes/zafta/layouts/partials/footer.html \u0026lt;/body\u0026gt; \u0026lt;/html\u0026gt; :wq Update the Home Page Template to Use the Partials #  The most noticeable difference between a template call and a partials call is the lack of path:\n{{ template \u0026quot;theme/partials/header.html\u0026quot; . }} versus\n{{ partial \u0026quot;header.html\u0026quot; . }} Both pass in the context.\nLet\u0026rsquo;s change the home page template to use these new partials.\n$ vi themes/zafta/layouts/index.html {{ partial \u0026quot;header.html\u0026quot; . }} \u0026lt;h1\u0026gt;posts\u0026lt;/h1\u0026gt; {{ range first 10 .Data.Pages }} {{ if eq .Type \u0026quot;post\u0026quot;}} \u0026lt;h2\u0026gt;\u0026lt;a href=\u0026quot;{{ .Permalink }}\u0026quot;\u0026gt;{{ .Title }}\u0026lt;/a\u0026gt;\u0026lt;/h2\u0026gt; {{ end }} {{ end }} \u0026lt;h1\u0026gt;pages\u0026lt;/h1\u0026gt; {{ range .Data.Pages }} {{ if or (eq .Type \u0026quot;page\u0026quot;) (eq .Type \u0026quot;about\u0026quot;) }} \u0026lt;h2\u0026gt;\u0026lt;a href=\u0026quot;{{ .Permalink }}\u0026quot;\u0026gt;{{ .Type }} - {{ .Title }} - {{ .RelPermalink }}\u0026lt;/a\u0026gt;\u0026lt;/h2\u0026gt; {{ end }} {{ end }} {{ partial \u0026quot;footer.html\u0026quot; . }} :wq Generate the web site and verify the results. The title on the home page is now \u0026ldquo;your title here\u0026rdquo;, which comes from the \u0026ldquo;title\u0026rdquo; variable in the config.toml file.\nUpdate the Default Single Template to Use the Partials #  $ vi themes/zafta/layouts/_default/single.html {{ partial \u0026quot;header.html\u0026quot; . }} \u0026lt;h1\u0026gt;{{ .Title }}\u0026lt;/h1\u0026gt; {{ .Content }} {{ partial \u0026quot;footer.html\u0026quot; . }} :wq Generate the web site and verify the results. The title on the posts and the about page should both reflect the value in the markdown file.\nAdd “Date Published” to Posts #  It\u0026rsquo;s common to have posts display the date that they were written or published, so let\u0026rsquo;s add that. The front matter of our posts has a variable named \u0026ldquo;date.\u0026rdquo; It\u0026rsquo;s usually the date the content was created, but let\u0026rsquo;s pretend that\u0026rsquo;s the value we want to display.\nAdd “Date Published” to the Template #  We\u0026rsquo;ll start by updating the template used to render the posts. The template code will look like:\n{{ .Date.Format \u0026quot;Mon, Jan 2, 2006\u0026quot; }} Posts use the default single template, so we\u0026rsquo;ll change that file.\n$ vi themes/zafta/layouts/_default/single.html {{ partial \u0026quot;header.html\u0026quot; . }} \u0026lt;h1\u0026gt;{{ .Title }}\u0026lt;/h1\u0026gt; \u0026lt;h2\u0026gt;{{ .Date.Format \u0026quot;Mon, Jan 2, 2006\u0026quot; }}\u0026lt;/h2\u0026gt; {{ .Content }} {{ partial \u0026quot;footer.html\u0026quot; . }} :wq Generate the web site and verify the results. The posts now have the date displayed in them. There\u0026rsquo;s a problem, though. The \u0026ldquo;about\u0026rdquo; page also has the date displayed.\nAs usual, there are a couple of ways to make the date display only on posts. We could do an \u0026ldquo;if\u0026rdquo; statement like we did on the home page. Another way would be to create a separate template for posts.\nThe \u0026ldquo;if\u0026rdquo; solution works for sites that have just a couple of content types. It aligns with the principle of \u0026ldquo;code for today,\u0026rdquo; too.\nLet\u0026rsquo;s assume, though, that we\u0026rsquo;ve made our site so complex that we feel we have to create a new template type. In Hugo-speak, we\u0026rsquo;re going to create a section template.\nLet\u0026rsquo;s restore the default single template before we forget.\n$ mkdir themes/zafta/layouts/post $ vi themes/zafta/layouts/_default/single.html {{ partial \u0026quot;header.html\u0026quot; . }} \u0026lt;h1\u0026gt;{{ .Title }}\u0026lt;/h1\u0026gt; {{ .Content }} {{ partial \u0026quot;footer.html\u0026quot; . }} :wq Now we\u0026rsquo;ll update the post\u0026rsquo;s version of the single template. If you remember Hugo\u0026rsquo;s rules, the template engine will use this version over the default.\n$ vi themes/zafta/layouts/post/single.html {{ partial \u0026quot;header.html\u0026quot; . }} \u0026lt;h1\u0026gt;{{ .Title }}\u0026lt;/h1\u0026gt; \u0026lt;h2\u0026gt;{{ .Date.Format \u0026quot;Mon, Jan 2, 2006\u0026quot; }}\u0026lt;/h2\u0026gt; {{ .Content }} {{ partial \u0026quot;footer.html\u0026quot; . }} :wq Note that we removed the date logic from the default template and put it in the post template. Generate the web site and verify the results. Posts have dates and the about page doesn\u0026rsquo;t.\nDon\u0026rsquo;t Repeat Yourself #  DRY is a good design goal and Hugo does a great job supporting it. Part of the art of a good template is knowing when to add a new template and when to update an existing one. While you\u0026rsquo;re figuring that out, accept that you\u0026rsquo;ll be doing some refactoring. Hugo makes that easy and fast, so it\u0026rsquo;s okay to delay splitting up a template.\n"});index.add({'id':14,'href':'/docs/hugo-book/menu/table-of-contents.html','title':"Table of Contents",'section':"Menu",'content':"Ubi loqui #  Mentem genus facietque salire tempus bracchia #  Lorem markdownum partu paterno Achillem. Habent amne generosi aderant ad pellem nec erat sustinet merces columque haec et, dixit minus nutrit accipiam subibis subdidit. Temeraria servatum agros qui sed fulva facta. Primum ultima, dedit, suo quisque linguae medentes fixo: tum petis.\nRapit vocant si hunc siste adspice #  Ora precari Patraeque Neptunia, dixit Danae Cithaeron armaque maxima in nati Coniugis templis fluidove. Effugit usus nec ingreditur agmen ac manus conlato. Nullis vagis nequiquam vultibus aliquos altera suum venis teneas fretum. Armos remotis hoc sine ferrea iuncta quam!\nLocus fuit caecis #  Nefas discordemque domino montes numen tum humili nexilibusque exit, Iove. Quae miror esse, scelerisque Melaneus viribus. Miseri laurus. Hoc est proposita me ante aliquid, aura inponere candidioribus quidque accendit bella, sumpta. Intravit quam erat figentem hunc, motus de fontes parvo tempestate.\niscsi_virus = pitch(json_in_on(eupViral), northbridge_services_troubleshooting, personal( firmware_rw.trash_rw_crm.device(interactive_gopher_personal, software, -1), megabit, ergonomicsSoftware(cmyk_usb_panel, mips_whitelist_duplex, cpa))); if (5) { managementNetwork += dma - boolean; kilohertz_token = 2; honeypot_affiliate_ergonomics = fiber; } mouseNorthbridge = byte(nybble_xmp_modem.horse_subnet( analogThroughputService * graphicPoint, drop(daw_bit, dnsIntranet), gateway_ospf), repository.domain_key.mouse(serverData(fileNetwork, trim_duplex_file), cellTapeDirect, token_tooltip_mashup( ripcordingMashup))); module_it = honeypot_driver(client_cold_dvr(593902, ripping_frequency) + coreLog.joystick(componentUdpLink), windows_expansion_touchscreen); bashGigabit.external.reality(2, server_hardware_codec.flops.ebookSampling( ciscNavigationBacklink, table + cleanDriver), indexProtocolIsp);  Placabilis coactis nega ingemuit ignoscat nimia non #  Frontis turba. Oculi gravis est Delphice; inque praedaque sanguine manu non.\nif (ad_api) { zif += usb.tiffAvatarRate(subnet, digital_rt) + exploitDrive; gigaflops(2 - bluetooth, edi_asp_memory.gopher(queryCursor, laptop), panel_point_firmware); spyware_bash.statePopApplet = express_netbios_digital( insertion_troubleshooting.brouter(recordFolderUs), 65); } recursionCoreRay = -5; if (hub == non) { portBoxVirus = soundWeb(recursive_card(rwTechnologyLeopard), font_radcab, guidCmsScalable + reciprocalMatrixPim); left.bug = screenshot; } else { tooltipOpacity = raw_process_permalink(webcamFontUser, -1); executable_router += tape; } if (tft) { bandwidthWeb *= social_page; } else { regular += 611883; thumbnail /= system_lag_keyboard; }  Caesorum illa tu sentit micat vestes papyriferi #  Inde aderam facti; Theseus vis de tauri illa peream. Oculos uberaque non regisque vobis cursuque, opus venit quam vulnera. Et maiora necemque, lege modo; gestanda nitidi, vero? Dum ne pectoraque testantur.\nVenasque repulsa Samos qui, exspectatum eram animosque hinc, aut manes, Assyrii. Cupiens auctoribus pariter rubet, profana magni super nocens. Vos ius sibilat inpar turba visae iusto! Sedes ante dum superest extrema.\n"});index.add({'id':16,'href':'/posts/cabbalists.html','title':"Cabbalists and God with Abacus",'section':"Blog",'content':"Cabbalists try to get people, especially Christians nowadays, to learn their numerology mumbo jumbo in order to mislead them; so the short answer is, it depends if your calculaitons are in arabic numerals, or hebrew. Cabbalists become unstuck with that one. 11 cannot signify two pillars. It signifies just 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 + 1 . Numerical concepts depend only on ones (never zeros) . As concepts, they are baseless and signify nothing. God has no need to count. He sees everything and understands knows all without an abacus. He speaks directly without language, and may also employ human language. Why would he spek in numbers? Symbols don\u0026rsquo;t live, don\u0026rsquo;t exist. Everything created living thing is unique life. Forms may be speak \u0026lsquo;symbolicaly\u0026rsquo; like \u0026lsquo;down\u0026rsquo; or \u0026lsquo;up\u0026rsquo; and so forth, to you, and as in dreams.That\u0026rsquo;s as far as it goes. If symbols were a universal language, dreams wouldn\u0026rsquo;t need interpreting in the waking state. They would be self-apparent.\n"});index.add({'id':17,'href':'/posts/downtoyou.html','title':"Downtoyou",'section':"Blog",'content':"Time for you to step up. If you\u0026rsquo;ve lived long enough, you\u0026rsquo;ll know it\u0026rsquo;s down to you. Lonly You,\nEven death up here is different. We don\u0026rsquo;t have lifeboats.\nI\u0026rsquo;m saying this: If I say something it won\u0026rsquo;t help. If I say nothing it won\u0026rsquo;t help. It\u0026rsquo;s been down to you.\n"});index.add({'id':18,'href':'/docs/cnrm/agroforestry/upland_diversification_pontbren.html','title':"Agroforestry Upland Farm Diversification, Wales",'section':"Agroforestry",'content':"Table of Contents\n1\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Diversification of Agriculture 2\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Broad Objectives \u0026amp; Constraints 3\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Land use, Rural Poverty Problems 4\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Pontbren Land Use and Economics 5\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Desired Outcomes 6\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Objective Strategies, Land Use Changes 7\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Upland Diversification Options 8\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Finance Tools and Policy Levers for Change   1\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Diversification of Agriculture Integrating trees with agriculture is essentially agroforestry land use. Agroforestry practices are skilled and, integrate trees and woody shrubs to enhance sustainability and productivity in agriculture.\n 2\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Broad Objectives \u0026amp; Constraints Land Use Changes To enhance the natural capital and ecosystem functions. Best available specification and expertise required. The farms are specialised, unlikely to posses the skills without self training.     Cultural Constraints Farmers and locals think new woods should not restrict views to the higher ground. Conservationists favour planting on improved land. Farmers are reluctant to turn over better land to woodland.     Uptake and Management Support farms in change financially. Involve farmers in participatory and adaptive approach for effectiveness. Construct timed management plans with view to seasons and local labour, and co-operative initiatives. Support adaptive farm research in spacing, inter-cropping and selection of germ plasm for local provenance. Includes possibility of unusual species.       3\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Land use, Rural Poverty Problems 3.1\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Location Pontbren O.S. Map Coordinates 305.200 305.850 Designation: non-designated land. LFA. Elevation: Upland 300m. No of Farms: 10. Average age of Farmers: nearly all over 50.   3.2\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Landscape Dry heath:\nSome small pieces.  Pasture\nMix of improved, semi-improved and acid wetlands. Much draining taken place since 1960's.  Wetland\nMuch drained. Some remaining. Trees dry out the bog, since drainage works on mires.Riverine strips.   3.3\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Size, Type and Connectivity of the Woodland Planting is on basis of field boundaries. Have been able to carry out work with the help of the Countryside Council for Wales's hedgerow renovation scheme. Some linear broadleaf planting. Some small coniferous plantations.   3.4\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Field boundaries No longer effective (neglected boundary trees).    4\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Pontbren Land Use and Economics Tradition of sheep grazing with policy inducements for high stocking levels, and concomitant clearance of trees for open pasture and management of monoculture. Situation is now one of hardships in the current markets of over-production. Face losing precious agricultural grants if more trees are planted. Pontbren received financial support from Menter Powys and Manweb Rural Care, and has also been approved for the Forestry Commission's Woodland Grant Scheme.\n Diagram: Land Use and Flows, Pontbren.\n4.1\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Inputs Cost of straw from valley farms approximately £5,000 p.a. without transport. Cost of farm-produced wood chips approximately the same to transporting the straw. Costs of inputs to improved pasture.   4.2\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Markets Has sold a variety of hardwoods. Manweb, the energy company, is interested in biomass fuels.   4.3\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Farmers Interests and Land Use Objectives Desire to rationalise their traditional activities and expand the woodlands on their upland hill farms to provide shelter for their livestock. Decided the solution was to farm less intensively and in a more sustainable manner Improving livestock welfare and productivity (exposure and shelter). Interested in wood chips as alternative bedding for winter housed livestock. Increased production. Diversity in non-timber products.   4.4\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Technical Support Enlisted Coed Cymru for help with the management of existing woodlands and the use of home-grown timber.   4.5\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Home Productivity Put wood to good use around the farm.    5\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Desired Outcomes 5.1\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;On-Farm Processing of Products for Local Markets Boost annual income Boost long term viability   5.2\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Options for New Diversification Practices On-farm production of litter, mulch Diversification of stock Trees for fruit Trees for timber Complement existing biodiversity habitats Products for on-farm use Diversification of crops Trees for forage Biodiversity plans Improved shelter for livestock Improved water retention Improved soil formation Unusual products   5.3\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Ongoing Technical Advice On-farm adaptive trials Ground plans for new practices Grant assistance Plans for maintenance schedules Help with establishment of trees Help with maintenance of trees Help with finding suitable stock Economic appraisals of options   5.4\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Local farms co-operative production Planning to include local farms level Help with local farmer's action (in policy Influence and community) Community-wide consultations    6\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Objective Strategies, Land Use Changes 6.1\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Silvopastoral Agroforestry Woodland grazing provides over-wintering for livestock. Forage species include hazel, willow, beech, ash elm, alder, oak. Example is given by Dehesas (Spain) an extraordinarily high biodiversity land practice in Spain. The traditional use is characterised by mixed livestock raising at low stocking densities, employment of hardy regional breeds, and an elaborated maintenance and exploitation of holm oaks (Quercus ilex).\nLivestock production has traditionally been accompanied by arable crops with long rotations and closed nutrient cycles without external inputs. Wooded grassland landscapes increase biodiversity in intensive pastures, are found visually attractive, and improved the image of agriculture in society. Quality hardwood timber species suitable for the locality include, ash cherry sycamore. Also, Poplar.\nThe effect of competition with crops is likely to extend the period before the final harvesting of trees but possibly no more than that of minimally managed poplar in farm woodland plantings. Planting trees in established crop may help bring about niche differentiation. Trees and crops root very heavily where nutrients are likely to be, in the surface. Trees already with an established root system may have a competitive advantage.\n 6.2\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Acid Heathland Soils Open pastures provide little shade, and they also lack sufficient wind protection during the winter. The development of a diversely structured pasture positively impacts the well-being of the pasture animals, as well as the biodiversity of the ecosystem. 30% maximum of unimproved pasture/heath containing grasses such as Molinia caerulea is utilised.\nAction 1. Trees:\nTrees as fodder to increase yield  Action 2. Pasture Herbs:\nUnder trees, herbs like birds foot trefoil, burnet, sheep's parsley are exceptionally rich in nutrients, and would develop in succession.  Action 3. Unimproved acid grassland / Semi-improved acid grassland:\nBetula pendula for useful shelter, winter and UVB, up to 18 metres, fast growing.  Action 4. Mildly Acid Drier Soils:\nClumps of Hornbeam densest of all wood. To be coppiced, for fuel and timber for butchers blocks, crafts. Use indicator species to determine ph and suitability (e.g. bell heather).   6.3\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Improved Pasture Action 1: Dispersed Trees\nAsh, bird cherry; larch, poplar on lower areas. Fix with Individual guards. Bird cherry has good form for widely spaced tree planting in open exposed sites. Provides shelter. Poplar: 35-year-old Populus 'Serotina' at 200 stems/ha with L. perenne sward can be grazed continuously. L. perenne has been shown to be largely replaced by a mixed sward of indigenous grasses (mainly Agrostis, Poa and Holcus species). The seasonal pattern of production will be altered due to increased mid-season shading. Root distribution of poplar seems to respond to crop intensity, suggesting that its cultivation could reduce competition between tree and crop roots . Larch gives no heavy shadow and so benefits grasses underneath.  Action 2. Tree Clumps:\n Southern slopes - The aspect to sun offers possibilities\n Terracing for fruit trees, on pasture. Propagation of surviving on-farm fruit trees: Pear, Apple, Damson. Fenced to allow growth amongst livestock. Trials for selection of germplasm; Soft shell almond (prunus). Mixed species clumps to provide timber and cash crops on shorter rotation. 3m spacing in 25 x 25 m plots = 60 trees.    Commercial broadleaf mixture:\n Oak - 120/150 years rotation - at 2m spacing. Ash, cherry - 50 to 90 years rotation - at 2m spacing.    Native species and conifer mixture:\n European larch with oak and ash. Larch to be thinned and removed after 30 years. Timber interplanted with Norway spruce and noble fir on a 5 to 10 year rotation.    Native species mixture:\n Oak ash, birch and hazel, all of local provenance, at 2m spacing. Thinning and pruning to favour a final crop of oak and ash. Deadwood retained as habitat for invertebrates.    Protective fencing against livestock.\n  Action 3. Inter-Planting With Cash Crops:\nChristmas trees, fruit, farm timber and foliage is possible. Apple plum and pear rootstocks grafted with Newton Wonder. European Walnut and Black walnut. Norway spruce, noble fir and holly inter-planted with the fruit to provide an early cash crop. Several rotations of 5 to ten tears are possible. Near tree rows in silvo-arable agroforestry may encourage slugs. 14m wide rows preferred, containing a 12 metre wide strip. Cultivation kills slugs. The tree row understorey is not cultivated. The understorey could be mulched, alder leaf-mulch, or sown with clover sward to provide nitrogen and less cover for slugs. Forestry spacings develop less faults. Winter wheat, threshing peas, winter barley give good returns, less closer to the tree alley.   6.4\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Semi-Improved Pasture Action 1. Dispersed Trees:\nAsh: tree comes into leaf in late May, and maximum grass production peaks in May (temporal differentiation in resource capture).  Action 2. Shelterbelts:\npear trees, crab apple trees, geans wild cherry (Prunus avium), hazel. On exposed slopes, groups to form an A-shape, may be browsed occasionally. Young trees and saplings to be protected. Trials and for germ plasm selection: chestnut. Doesn't mind heavy rainfall. Turkish Hazel (Corylus colurna); filbert edible nut and timber.  Action 3. Woodland Blocks:\nLarger linked blocks to provide continuous cover. Good tree growth form is associated with higher planting densities. Pruned sessile oak under-planted with hazel. Oak and beech. The beech lures squirrels away from more valuable from oak, perhaps, and provides some shade for oak saplings. Beech mast for fodder. Oak acorns for fodder.  Action 4. Rotational Coppice:\nTimber trees to remain as stands. Rotational basis of compartments on a ten year rotation. Provides habitat for dormouse, nightjar, and diverse range of understorey plants, and fauna. Provides fuel for local biomass plant.   6.5\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Wetlands Species:\nPoplar, Alder; alders (Alnus spp.) and willows (Salix spp.) Grey willow traditionally in welsh uplands. Leaf mulches from nitrogen-fixing trees maintain yields (i.e. alder). Action 1. Riverine: Mixed species groups of trees on the edge of the river terrace. Elders (Sambucus nigra), snowberries (Symphoricarpos albus), Euonymus latifolius and wild roses (Rosa spp.) show good development as undergrowth. Some to be coppiced in flood plain. Action: 2. Flood Plain:* Individual grassland trees on the flood plain. Alder. Willow Action: 3. Mire:* Individual grassland trees on the flood plain. Alder. Willow   6.6\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Field Boundaries Action, Hedgerow trees:\nOak and ash transplants raised for timber in a layered hedgerow with Elder berries, Hawthorn, Field Maple, Holly. Trials of willow leaf buckthorn (hippophae salicifolia), imported from Himalayas*.* Combats erosion. Likes sun and is a nitrogen fixer. Euonymous augustifolia for forage, and fruit.   6.7\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Controlled Woodland Grazing Free-ranging large grazers, such as cattle and horses, are increasingly reintroduced into agricultural areas. Large grazers induce and maintain structural diversity in the vegetation (mosaics of grasslands, shrub thickets and trees).\nA spatial association of unpalatable plants enables palatable plants to establish in grasslands maintained by large grazers. They in turn shade the species that facilitate their recruitment. Established trees can, therefore, not regenerate under their own canopy. This contributes to shifting mosaics at the landscape scale for temperate flood plain and heathland ecosystems. Such shifts include the effects on nutrient transport within grazed landscapes, in the alternation of positive (facilitation) interactions between plant species at one life cycle stage, and competitive displacement at another stage. Grazing thus causes directional successional sequences to shifting mosaics.\nThe uplands produce hardy stock and their role is important in the overall sheep farming system, though considered to be overstocked by conservation bodies.\nAction, Controlled Grazing: * Welsh Black cattle for butter and meat * able to over-winter outside. * BSE -free and productive. * Good foragers, even in riverine areas. * Cattle may be increased * as the grazing opportunity permits. * A suitable grazing regime is sought * density and timing of grazing are critical in creating optimum conditions for seedling establishment and subsequent development.\n  7\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Upland Diversification Options 7.1\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;General Aims Review Continuing Practices\n Land use problems continue with unsustainable livelihoods.    Enhance productive flows\n Product diversity, plant density and water use efficiency. Reduce yield variance due to monocultures (including livestock diseases). Pest reduction through biodiversity.    Introduce Sustainable practices\n Maintenance of resources (sustainability). Production diversity. Enhance landscape for tourism and biodiversity.      7.2\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Agroforestry Agro-silvopastoral systems may be incorporated into current practices:\nTrees on farms allow for considerable diversification in production and management. Sustainable practices, flexibility and local production capability are enhanced. Lessons are drawn (worldwide) from tree crop interactions including facilitation and competition, nutrient cycling. Uptake from deeper layers of nutrients is enhanced. Recognition that plants and environment modify one another has implications for management. Inter-specific competition may enhance niche differentiation. Productivity may be enhanced through niche differentiation with inter-plantings, making a more efficient capture of limited resources (Monteith et al 1991). Roots show plasticity, a response to competition and management. E.g. Ash in response to L.perenne, a competitive grass sward, and the less aggressive trifolium repens. (Tomlinsons, H. PHD thesis). Reductions in pest losses are associated with inter-cropping systems. The importance of Agroforestry for controlling insect predators of livestock is less clear. Tree root-soil infiltration improves infiltration of water into soil. Reduces risk of floods in lower catchment area from run off. Aids flow into underground storage systems. Pruning has variable effects according to tree species, possibly enhancing niche differentiation. Implications for management. Experience, for example from Nigeria, makes clear that demand for cuttings, as in fuel wood, enhances the uptake of such management practices.   7.3\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Management for Biodiversity Management for biodiversity enhances flows and ecosystem function. It attracts various grants in accordance with policy, and is attractive for tourism. Opportunity exists to affiliate with Regional Biodiversity Action Plans.\nSignificant wildlife requirements exist whose solution lies in the provision of silvopastoral systems of agroforestry:\nMixed woodland.....for kite, pied flycatcher, pearl fritilliary, Continuous cover marsh tits (25 ha hedgerow and thickets). Nuthatch 50 hectare completely arboreal, preferring mature woods Dormouse 100 hectares woodland, including rotational coppice. Open farmland Lapwing and marsh fritilliary.  The nature of tree crop interactions in an agroforestry system will change with the life stage of the tree components, with implications for management.\n  8\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Finance Tools and Policy Levers for Change Advise governemnt on the examination of the structure of agricultural and woodland grants on behalf of the farmers.\n8.1\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Schemes Join schemes and associated campaigns to benefit, and improve them: Tir Gofal is a whole farm scheme. Countryside Commission for Wales Administers Woodland Grant Scheme (WGS), Common Agricultural Policy (CAP).   8.2\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Important Considerations Concerning the Schemes WGS requires minimum planting densities 2250, normally, and that natural regeneration is established. Fencing off favours the natural regeneration of woodland, but has disastrous effects on bryophytes. Stocking densities are liable to be pushed towards a ceiling with fenced-off woodland plantings in small farms. CAP structures and associated livestock headage payments and, Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowance payments; especially so concerning Less Favoured Areas (LFA) (within which category is Pontbren I assume, given its altitude and location). Agroforestry scheme allows for a density of 1100 trees per hectare: however, not eligible for the farm woodland premium scheme.   8.3\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Conclusion There is need for further integration of woods with farms at policy level to enable expansion of practice involving trees.\n  "});index.add({'id':20,'href':'/docs/cnrm/management/orme_archaeological_features.html','title':"Orme Archaeological Features",'section':"Management Plans",'content':"Table of Contents\n1\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Designation 2\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Description 3\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Current condition and status of feature 4\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Attributes selected as performance indicators 5\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Attributes and Operational Limits 6\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Management Rationale and Projects   1\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Designation Scheduled Ancient Monuments: (No.= 6) Regional and Local importance: (Numerous, \u0026gt; 70).   2\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Description There is much of archaeological interest here. Artefacts spanning from the Upper Paleolithic period to the Bronze Age have been recovered from caves. A megolithic burial chamber remains at Llety'r Filiast;\nThe Pyllau Valley site has been excavated to reveal a prehistoric open cast bronze mine. Underground prehistoric workings have been excavated to reveal the largest known Bronze Age mine in Europe; over four miles of tunnels dating between 1860 B.C. and 600 B.C. have been surveyed.\nA hill fort and hut circles remain from the Iron Age. Cairns, and bronze mines date from the Bronze Age, which the Romans are said to have later exploited. 65 undated, isolated huts and groups of long and round huts have been recorded on the headland. Just one piece of dating evidence exists, a shard of Samian ware. Burial mounds and megalithic tombs, and possibly other remnants in stone exist.\nSigns of strip farming and associated settlements and cart tracks from the prehistoric/mediaeval period exist, close to the twelfth century church of St. Tudno.\nThe industrial history of the Great Orme is dominated by the copper mines. Victorian mineworks leave evidence of a pumping house and associated pits for water (spring) -operated 'brammock rods', to clear the mines of water. Fine underground Victorian mine tunnels exist, with supported roofs. Two quarries exist, which share wildlife, fossil and geological interests (refer to feature: Quarries and Minespoil).\nRemains of WWII artillery school and defence emplacements exist on the N.Western corner of the headland. An early radar station was located on the summit.\nMaps: refer to: Gt Orme Country Park: Archeological Sites on facing page.\n 3\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Current condition and status of feature Total No. of sites: within LACs All archaeological deposits in site: within LAC Condition, all sites and their routes: within LAC  Current Status:\nFavourable Maintained, as of Dec. 2001. Based upon the 2000/2001 survey.   4\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Attributes selected as performance indicators 4.1\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Extent All sites, total number known to exist. All archaeological deposits in site; signs of those removed.  Quality/Condition: All sites and their walkways/routes,\nAt high risk from erosion. Damaged irreparably. Obscured. Under active threat of severe damage. Under active threat of moderate damage. Registering continued deterioration (low harm). Considered dangerous to visitors.    5\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Attributes and Operational Limits 5.1\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Objective statement Existing archaeological resources will be safeguarded and retained in favourable condition; conflicts with land-use objectives will be reconciled, WHERE:\n 5.2\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Extent All sites, numbers remain or increases at 2000 level. Lower Limits: Target level. All archaeological deposits in site remain. Lower Limits: All attributes = target levels. Monitor: extent all sites and archaeological deposits   5.3\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Quality/Condition All sites and their walkways/routes:\nTarget 1: Sites at high risk from erosion: Sites= None by years end, (exception of water/sea erosion). Target 2: Damaged irreparably: Sites=None Target 3: Obscured: 10% reduction in cover. Target 4: Under active threat of severe damage: Sites=None by years' end. Target 5: Under active threat of moderate damage: Sites=20% \u0026lt; year 2000 Target 6: Registering deterioration (low harm): Sites=20% \u0026lt; 2000 Target 7: Considered dangerous to visitors: Sites=None to remain open. Closed sites to reopen within two years. Lower limits all attributes :=target levels. Monitor: Condition all sites and their routes    6\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Management Rationale and Projects 6.1\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Policy and Protection Scheduled monuments are protected by law. Sites classified as being of local or district importance will be protected in the same manner.\nGuidelines of the Heritage Management Section of Gwynedd Archaeological Trust.\nAccess to underground caves is forbidden unless with the The National Caving Association, which has also published a National Cave Conservation policy (1995) in association with the statutory conservation agencies.  The Great Orme Copper Mine is under Licensed Private Commercial Management.\n 6.2\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;General management Threats to the overall condition and extent are identified and the sites will be protected from those threats. Threats vary according to the degree of damage threatened, from mild to severe.\nThe favoured approach towards positive management takes into account the archaeological site and all the elements of its landscape.\nParallel land use interests of nature conservation, farming, employment, and rural identity will be complemented where there is room. Archaeological remains, along with a recorded history of past land use, provides guidance for land management.\nPriorities will be set according to the nature of threat a site faces. This includes active or potential threats. Whether a threat is shared by sites, as is low grazing density, is a further consideration.\n 6.3\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Active Leisure pursuits Threats vary according to activity. Novel threats may emerge. Rock climbing and caving are self- regulated by club agreements. Currently little damage. Orienteering poses potential threats in hiding targets. Orienteering to be permitted with prior agreement only. Monitor impact of leisure activity, including access, upon sites.   6.4\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Erosion of earth banks and walls Earth structures may quickly erode, with severe damage.\nEarth structures will be maintained/rebuilt under expert advice.   6.5\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Drainage/water abstraction from boreholes Severe damage threatened because of risk of causing soil/strata instability,including damage to caves.\nNo drainage or water abstraction to be carried out without prior archaeological consultation   6.6\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Removal of archaeological material Damage potentially severe. Stone robbing for hardcore or walls may occur by accident and not by design. Repositioning limestone boulders for car parking restriction may affect sites.\nDevelopment to be supervised, Advice to be sought when identifying boulders for parking restriction.   6.7\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Development and Coastal defence Previous housing developments caused severe damage. Planning restrictions in force should prevent this, given sufficient knowledge.\nExpert assessments to be sought, regarding possible development impacts, including those upon the wider archaeological landscape. Proposed developments to be monitored. Coastal Protection works will require prior archaeological consultation.   6.8\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Heavy machinery Heavy machinery has the potential to easily cause severe damage to land and structures.\nNo heavy machinery shall move on the Great Orme without consent. Care will be taken with the movement of heavy machinery on the area.   6.9\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Storage/dumping May cause damage. It obscures and devalues the site anyway.\nNo materials will be allowed to be put or left upon sites.   6.10\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Ploughing and Reseeding Reseeding of Parc farm destroyed ridge and furrow visible in the 1940s. Ploughing damage is severe.\nNo land will be permitted change of use, to be ploughed, or cleared for improval and reseeding, without archaeological approval, and then only in accordance with the aims of management of the Gt Orme as a whole.   6.11\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Water erosion Threat: severe damage.\nSurface run-off and blow-outs forced the landslides in 1993, following heavy flooding after a great downpour, which caused damage to two sites.\nCoastal erosion is active on the south side of the Orme, resulting in the loss of mediaeval remains at Gogarth.\nMonitor sites of potential blowout. Inspect sites of former blowout for stabilisation works.   6.12\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Vehicle Erosion Threat: severe damage due to landscape scars and erosion.\nRefer to Feature: Recreation; vehicle congestion.   6.13\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Path erosion Threat: is mild to severe damage.\nConflict: in encouraging visitors and conservation, with high visitor numbers, an unknown threshold. It is compounded with vehicle access and erosion.\nIncreasing numbers of visitors may present new levels of damage or destabilising erosion. On the other hand, scrub invasion may be kept in check.\nIn a few places, footpaths cross archaeological features, causing minor erosion. Concentrations of people at sensitive areas may be deterred, in managing high numbers.\nTrails, footpaths and sites will be monitored for visitor erosion. A central information board will be constructed with alternative sites of interest. Archeological trail leaflets will be made available. Roads tracks and footpaths will be designed to avoid areas of archaeological significance.   6.14\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Bracken, Scrub and Trees Uprooted trees threaten severe damage to strata. Bracken and tree roots can disrupt the strata of sites and dislocate stone. Bracken poses a mild threat in the short term. Cairns and banks provide well-drained environments which correspond to bracken preferences (whose roots penetrate between 0.2m to 0.6m in depth).\nPotential conflict:\nTrampling of bracken by stock, and grazing of vegetation is preferred to spraying poison including 'Azulux', which is poisonous to orchids and fungi. Furthermore, without nutrient stripping and repeated spraying, the effectiveness of spraying bracken as a long term control is questionable. Scrub management as a valuable wildlife resource may conflict with management for Archaeology.  Solutions:\nRe-establish grass cover. Trees will be lopped to allow more light to encourage grasses. Vulnerable trees will be felled before they fall. Tree planting on the Orme will be assessed for impacts. Woody growth or bracken will be treated without disturbing the ground. Control of scrub will be undertaken, gradually. Bracken will be removed, controlled by stock trampling and grazing, and cutting, wherever possible.   6.15\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Grazing Archeological earthworks are best maintained under grass cover, which prevents erosion. Controlled grazing is a desirable means of maintaining a grass cover, and removing threats from bracken and scrub. Permanently fenced-of sites will be avoided, unless there is good reason for archaeological conservation purposes. Excessive grazing could cause erosion.\nA recent reduced grazing intensity means that scrub may spread and colonise sites where it once did not. Rank grasses and blackthorn are spreading. Fenced grazing regimes will be used to restore the grass cover.\nArtificial feed and licking blocks will not be allowed to be used on sites. Seek suitable grazing agreements, in conjunction with other grassland and heath objectives.\n 6.16\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Animal Burrowing Many remains are fragile enough to be vulnerable to animal burrowing; subsurface archaeological deposits may be damaged, sites may be destabilised, or disfigured. Field banks are particularly attractive to rabbits, which pose a great threat, should colonisation be allowed. Fox and rat pose a relatively low threat, while badger and mole pose an intermediate threat.\nMonitor activity of burrowing animals. Burrowing activity will be kept under control.   6.17\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Metal detecting Archeological significance of unreported and translocated finds is lost. Digging for finds may cause damage. It is an offence to use metal detectors on a Scheduled Ancient Monument without prior consent from the Secretary of State for Wales to whom written application must be made.\nMetal detecting will be monitored; local prohibition will be enforced.   6.18\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Lack of maintenance to buildings Un-maintained, old buildings with bricks/stone and mortar will quickly deteriorate, beyond repair.\nMaintain buildings in good condition Seek expert advice on repair Repair/renovate carefully and sympathetically   6.19\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Use of structures including caves Empty structures may be used for recreational, cultural or religious purposes. The archaeological marks and deposits within the caves may be damaged.\nVisitors may be discouraged; access to caves is dangerous. On the other hand, users are not known to intend damage, and may be good guardians. All users are not the same. Forbidding use may be impossible.\nConflict exists:\nThe caves may have always been used by local people, and access is free. Caves are limited in availability, and their use may not and perhaps should not, be denied. Otherwise, permission to build a new cave may have to be be found, or goodwill lost. Goodwill is important factor in conservation. The geological heritage may be threatened by building a new cave. It is unlikely that funds for the work could be easily found.  Solutions:\nDiscourage public entering caves along dangerous routes. Permit easy access to one cave, following excavation. Ensure structures are safe, or issue warnings. Co--operate with local/cultural use, extend conservation practices.   6.20\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Safety of archaeological remains Artefacts may pose threats to the health and safety of the public, who have free access. Their stability and access routes can pose dangers.\nMonitor all sites and routes for danger.    "});index.add({'id':21,'href':'/docs/cnrm/management/orme_brachypodium_sylvaticum.html','title':"Orme Brachypodium sylvaticum grassland",'section':"Management Plans",'content':"Designation Grade I SSSI, Candidate SAC). Natura 2000 NVC code = W21c.  Size: * 3.5 ha.\n Description An understorey grass sub-community found in deeper soils on dry warm slopes and associated with hawthorn scrub (NVC = W21) also comprising blackthorn and bramble.\nThe understorey of the Brachypodium sylvaticum grassland frequently includes Fragaria vesca and Hedera helix.\n Current condition and status of feature Brachypodium sylvaticum grassland:\nTotal Area: 3.5 ha. Frequency of constant and frequent species: within LACs. Species indicative of change: within LACs  Current Status:\nFavourable Maintained, as of December 2001. This assertion is based upon the 2000/2001 survey.   Attributes selected as performance indicators The Brachypodium sylvaticum grassland will be considered to be in favourable condition provided the following attributes are within LACs:\nExtent All Brachypodium sylvaticum grassland (W21c)\nAlthough these plant communities are influenced by climate and soil conditions, they are also also influenced by associated woodland scrub and maintained by grazing. These are not static factors, thus limits are set.   Quality Brachypodium sylvaticum grassland (W21c): Quality will be confirmed by presence of a range of typical species within the sub-community. A set of associated plants as indicators of change.    Attributes and Operational Limits Objective statement To maintain the Brachypodium sylvaticum grassland in favourable condition, WHERE:\n Extent All Brachypodium sylvaticum grassland (W21c):\nTotal area remains at the target level. Target level: 3.5 ha. of 323 ha Upper limit: None set. Lower limit: target level. Monitor/surveillance: Extent of Brachypodium sylvaticum grassland       Quality Brachypodium sylvaticum grassland (W21c)\nUpper and lower limits: As stated in NVC floristic tables Monitor frequency of Brachypodium sylvaticum.  A set of associated plants as indicators of change: All Limits,\nMonitor frequency of: Primula vulgaris, Mercurialis perennis, Festuca gigantia, Circaea x intermedia, Sanicula europaea, Geum urbanum, Fragaria vesca.        Management Rationale and Projects 1 to 9. Grazing and Threats Grazing and threats found in Calcicolous Grassland Management Rationale and Projects, refer equally to Fen Meadow, with the following exceptions:\n 2. Grazing intensity and Succession to scrub If grazing is lax, primary succession to woodland scrub will occur. The sward height will be monitored, and if necessary cut to maintain the grassland.\nOperational limits:\nTarget 1. Maintain limits to grass height Upper limit: 90 cm. Lower limit: 10 cm Monitor: Height of grass.    Management Options Continuously:\nA2: Limited intervention to maintain Brachypodium sylvaticum grassland, (according to grazing pressure). E4: Open access. Request walkers stay on paths.   "});index.add({'id':22,'href':'/docs/cnrm/management/orme_brackenpteridiumaquili.html','title':"Orme Bracken Pteridium aquilinum",'section':"Management Plans",'content':"Table of Contents\n1\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Designation 2\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Description 3\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Current condition and status of feature 4\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Attributes selected as performance indicators 5\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Attributes and Operational Limits 6\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Management Rationale and Projects 7\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Management Options   1\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Designation Pteridium aquilinum - Galium saxatile grassland (U20) is Grade I SSSI,\nCandidate SAC, UK BAP Key Habitat status (1995). Identified in Annex 1 of the EC Habitats Directive as a priority habitat and will form part of the Natura 2000 Network.  Size:\nPteridium aquilinum-Galium saxatile U20a (NVC)=29.7 ha. Dense bracken 1.8 ha.   2\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Description U20 Pteridium aquilinum-Galium saxatile, A low altitude type acid grassland with bracken as the sole dominant, which permits a sparse vernal contribution from low ground cover of associated flora before it casts its deep shade in mid-summer. A number of bryophytes may occur sometimes in local patches. Bracken is associated with important fauna of conservation interest. Bracken was a valuable resource traditionally, with uses for cuttings, including litter, soap making and composting for gardens.\n 3\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Current condition and status of feature Extent U20a, Within LACs Extent Dense bracken, within LACs Frequency of constant and frequent species: within LACs. Species indicative of change, within LACs Succession to Scrub: Within LACs  Current Status:\nFavourable Maintained, as of December 2001. This assertion is based upon the 2000/2001 survey.   4\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Attributes selected as performance indicators The bracken and communities will be considered to be in favourable condition provided the following attributes are within LACs:\n4.1\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Extent Pteridium aquilinum-Galium saxatile grassland (U20a). Dense bracken may invade grassland and heath. The bracken front may advance into grassland/heath, which is undesirable.   4.2\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Quality Pteridium aquilinum-Galium saxatile grassland (U20a):\nQuality will be confirmed by presence of the range of typical species within the sub-community    5\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Attributes and Operational Limits 5.1\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Objective statement To maintain the Pteridium aquilinum - Galium saxatile grassland community with its usual plants in favourable condition, and control an advancing front of dense Bracken WHERE,\n 5.2\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Extent Total area U20a community remains at the target level.\nTarget level: 29.7 ha. of 323 ha Upper limit: 110% of year 2000 level. Lower limit: 70% of year 2000 level. An increase in U20a is permitted only at the expense of dense bracken. A decrease in U20a is permitted only if lost to bracken-scrub. Monitor: woody species.  Total area dense bracken remains at target level\nTarget Level: There is no dense bracken Lower limit: 1O0% of year 2000 level. No increase in extent of dense bracken is permitted. Monitor/surveillance: Extent of U20a Extent of dense bracken   5.3\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Quality Target: U20a, The following conditions are met in 95% by extent\nUpper and lower limits: As stated in NVC floristic tables Monitor frequency of Pteridium aquilinum-Galium saxatile  A set of associated plants as indicators of change:\n Upper limit: None Set\n Lower Limits: 6 out of 7 species at 50% current frequency.\n Monitor frequency of:\n Gallium saxatile, Potentilla erecta, Vaccinium myrtillus, Agrostis capillaris, Viola riviniana, Campanula rotundiflora, Veronica chamaedrys, V. officianalis.       6\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Management Rationale and Projects 6.1\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Mapping the Bracken It is important to make a distinction between important bracken and scrub sites, and dense bracken colonising heathland and unimproved grassland, where control of invasion is required. (refer to Feature: Dense/Scattered scrub). Bracken on the northern slopes of the Gt. Orme has an understorey of violets, (food of heath fritillary butterfly), which indicates a former site of woodland. In the past, bracken habitats have been considered of low wildlife value, but this is not always the case.\nFestuca ovina, a constant grass of the U20a community, is particularly susceptible to being shaded out; a decline in its prevalence indicates a stand of increasing density of bracken.\nNote presence and % cover of Festuca Ovina amongst bracken. Identify and map U20a area, dense bracken and invasive bracken on grassland. Cut the bracken front of U20a community twice annually.   6.2\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Succession to woodland scrub Bracken habitats are transitional in nature, and cessation of grazing and bracken cutting results in succession to woodland. On these hard northern limestones, scrub replaces fern-dominated communities in primary succession, developing into Fraxinus excelsius-Acer campestre-Mercurialis perennis woodland (W8). Annual cutting will remove this threat.\nLarge areas may be cut with tractor-mounted-swipe, 4-5 ha on difficult terrain per 8 hour day. A more rapid re-establishment of heath on cut rather than sprayed ground is attributed to disturbance of the litter layer. Cut late 1st week of July if once, when less nourishment has reached the roots.\nCut U20a community once annually, 1st week of July, with tractor-mounted-swipe. Monitoring and Limits: refer to performance indicators; Extent.   6.3\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Controlling the Bracken front Bracken is rhizomous, and a prolific spore-producer, able to tolerate open sunlight and semi-shade, and thus able to spread.\nIt is possible that bracken stands have a limited life-span in a shifting mosaic, therefore the bracken front is where control of spread will be best targeted. Depletion by cutting and removal may take 10's of years or longer to achieve. Cutting once reduces biomass slowly, 20-30% in 7 years; cutting twice a year, mid June and late July, is more effective reducing biomass (to below 10% within 3 years and maintaining it at this level).\nGoats may feed on young bracken, and so help in the control of bracken.\nCut the bracken front twice annually with tractor-mounted-swipe. Monitoring and Limits: as for woodland scrub.  Restoring/protecting bracken invaded grasslands/heath:\nRefer to heathland and calcicolous conservation feature plans    7\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Management Options Continuously:\nA3: Active management to control bracken E4: Open access.   "});index.add({'id':23,'href':'/docs/cnrm/management/orme_broadleavedwoodland.html','title':"Orme Broad-leaved Woodland",'section':"Management Plans",'content':"Designation #  UK priority BAP, Conwy LBAP, LNR.\nSize: 10.4 ha (including W8d). SSSI W8d = 7.6 ha.\n.. image:: ../images/GtOrme9.jpg\nDescription #  A semi-natural mixed broad-leaved, deciduous woodland in a cool and wet climate, probably of ancient origin and largely composed of Fraxinus excelsior, Acer pseudoplatanus, and Ulmus glabra; represented by NVC categories W8d, Fraxinus excelsior - Sorbus aucuparia - Mercurialis perennis woodland. Also, Corylus avellana, Crataegus monogyna, Sambucus nigra and Ilex aquifolium, Sorbus aria, Malus sylvestris, Prunus avium, Taxus baccata. In the location Haulfre, with several localised areas dominated by conifers including Pinus sylvestris.\nAttributes selected as performance indicators #  The woodland will be considered to be in favourable condition provided the following attributes are within LACs:\nExtent #  The extent of woodland is vulnerable to decline where a continuity of growth through to old trees is not maintained, and scrub expands. Thus, limits are set to extent.\nQuality #   Tree and shrub canopy composition Canopy gap creation rate Tree regeneration Age structure of trees Volume of dead wood Field and ground layer composition Absence of invasive species. Target groundcover species  Attributes and Operational Limits #  Objective statement #  To maintain the existing woodland with natural-regeneration, and the full range of biodiversity, WHERE:\nExtent of woodland #   Total area remains at the target level. Target level: 10.4 ha. Upper limit: None set Lower limit: 9.36 ha. A 10% decline in extent is permitted only if it is lost to scrub communities Monitoring projects: Extent of NVC plant communities, by aerial and ground survey. Continuously by eye.  Quality of woodland #  Tree and shrub Composition:\n Target level: No decrease in the cover of Ash. Upper limit: as per NVC floristic tables. Lower limits: Presence of any locally native trees including Fraxinus excelsior (Ash), Ulmus glabra, Corylus avellana, Crataegus monogyna, Sambucus nigra and Ilex aquifolium, Sorbus aria, Malus sylvestris, Prunus avium, Taxus baccata Monitor: Extent and composition of trees and shrub layers by ground and aerial survey.  Tree canopy cover #  Changes in composition are allowed, providing not to invasive exotics.\n Target level: 80% Upper limit: 90% Lower limits: 65% Monitor: Composition of canopy by aerial photos every 50 years  Canopy gap creation rate:\n Target level:\t0.5% of woodland area per annum (where a gap is 1.5 times the height of the tallest adjacent tree). Upper limit:\t1.5% lower limits: 0.25% Monitor: Rate of upper storey tree loss, by ground and aerial survey.  Natural regeneration of native trees within canopy gaps over a 20 year period:\n Target: 5 saplings per 0.1 Ha of gap. Upper limit: None set Lower Limit: 3 saplings per 0.1 Ha gap. Monitor: Monitor tree regeneration on the ground.  Age structure: Maintain a balanced, mixed age structure through management techniques.\n Target level:\tBalanced, mixed age structure Upper limit:\tnone set lower limit:\tAll age classes represented in each O.5 ha. compartment. Monitor:\tAge range of trees within each hectare  Volume of dead wood present #  Consisting of fallen trees, broken branches, dead branches on live trees, and standing dead trees.\n Target level:\tNon-set Upper Limit:\tNon set. Lower limit:\t30 cubic metres per ha., with 2 fallen trees and two standing trees per ha. Monitor: dead wood volume on ground and standing (estimate)  Field ground layer composition #  Target level: A complex mosaic in composition and in structure, reflecting soil conditions, of the various NVC community or sub-community dominants of the NVC W9 and W8 ground layer communities.\n  Upper/lower limits: none set.\n  Monitor:\n Change in ground layer composition by ground survey, compared with NVC. Mecurialis Perrenis (acid soils), Deschampsia cespitosa (poorly drained irrespective of ph). Combined, these provide performance indicators for four broad site types.    Absence of invasive species:\n Target level: Non set. Upper limit: non set lower limits: 10% increase in current levels. Monitor: presence of invasive species  Current condition and status of feature #  Very little deadwood exists at this time, and natural regeneration is scanty. Tree canopy not dense. Little natural regeneration except some blackthorn at Pen Y D\nBoth woods are similar uneven age structure: 5% derelict, 15% over-mature, 50% mature, 20% semi-mature, 15% young canopy, 15% immature.\n Total Area: 10.4 ha. Frequency of target species: within LACs. Indicators of quality: all within LAC  Current Status:\n UNFAVOURABLE BUT RECOVERING, as of December 2001.  Management Rationale and Projects #  Continuity of growth #  At present, intervention is limited to footpath clearing and some blackthorn scrub clearance.\nActive management is needed to revive continuous practices where neglected, in order to ensure plant communities may persist through natural regeneration and promote the full range of woodland biodiversity.\nWoodland Birds and mammals require the maintenance of a mixture of age classes. Most species of woodland butterfly depend upon open spaces, including rides, glades and continuity of young growth. Epiphytes, flora and fungi require a continuity of mature trees. Saproxylic invertebrates depend upon dead, dying or living wood. (ash beech, oak, and elm particularly)\nFragmented woodlands, lacking natural populations of large predators and grazers, require human management to mimic natural processes (i.e semi-natural). Three options will be employed to assist natural processes in continuity of young through to old growth, and open spaces: Coppicing, Managed grazing and Thinning (see below for proscriptions).\nVegetation Maps and Compartmental management #  Compartmental management allows for heterogeneous management and maintenance of all phases of local populations; for example, epiphyte lichens could become excessively shaded with relaxation of grazing.\nIn order to monitor rate and change in performance indicators against baselines it is essential to relate management actions to tree or compartment. Vegetation maps in terms of stand types and structure (including fallen trees), and compartment, will be prepared. Glades, rides, paths, watercourses, rock faces/outcrops and artefacts will be recorded. Actions, using a simple map for each action, will be recorded.\nOrigins, and past management of the sites may be discovered by reference to earliest OS, and further back in time with bank and ditch maps and pollen analysis records of the woodland seed bank. This project may be linked to schools\u0026rsquo; projects.\nMonitoring and projects:\n Survey structural and species vegetation changes. Monitor vegetation with photographs from fixed points. Draw up compartmental maps with planned rotations.  Coppicing Hazel #  Historically, coppicing for smelting of ore from local mines is a possibility. Neglect of coppice leads to the loss of early successional species. Open woodland is required by some birds, such as Pied Flycatchers (Ficedula hypoleuca). Rotated management maintains continuity in succession. We will cut Hazel on a 15 year rotation.\nOperational limits:\n Target:\tCoppice hazel in rotation Upper limit: 10% of hazel cut per year lower limit:\t5% of hazel cut per year  Monitor/Surveillance:\n Survey location of hazel. Coppice and retain single stem where possible, protecting the stool with brashings. Layer or replant from seed of local provenance, where neglected stools are lost.  Managed Grazing #  Light grazing by both sheep and goats occurs in both woods, but there is little natural regeneration. Some initial light grazing benefits natural tree regeneration; there will be no more than 1 sheep per acre per year.\nStock will be removed from about 50% of the area within the next 5 years, for a period of at least 5 years, stock-grazing limited to periods of twice annually over five years. This will reduce trampling in nesting and early growth seasons, and promote a varied understorey structure. A fenced compartment for the purpose will be constructed. Effects of stocking rates are poorly understood, and changes in practice will be carefully monitored.\nIn order to control grazing all boundary and other fences must be maintained in a stock proof condition. Post and rail stock fencing in cleaved local oak is strong and cost effective, and will allow free movement of wild animals.\nConcern that goats strip the bark of saplings and so prevent natural regeneration will be examined, and populations controlled accordingly.\nOperational limits:\n Target 1:\tperiodical grazing= Upper limit. Upper limits:\t2 sheep grazing periods per year in grazed zone. Lower limit:\t1 sheep grazing periods per year in grazed zone. Target 2 :\tDensity= upper limit Upper limit: 1 sheep per acre per year. lower limit:\t1 sheep per acre per year (or equivalent).  Monitor/Surveillance, Projects:\n Monitor and control presence of wild grazers, including goats. Inspect and repair all fences. Establish grazed and un-grazed zones with provision of extra fencing.  Thinning in blocks - Gap creation #  Non-native species of conifer and sycamore are likely to interfere with natural-regeneration of native woodland. Their gradual removal by felling offers an opportunity to aid gap creation, and restore the natural -regenerative capacity of the woodland by allowing light to reach light-demanding seedlings. Spread of Sycamore (Acer psuedoplatanus) will be resisted, as it may disrupt semi-natural communities of trees. However, old sycamore is host to about 40 species of insect associated with elm, thus large old trees may be retained.\nOperational limits:\n Target 1: No non-native conifers to remain in ten years. Upper limit: none Lower limit: none Target 2: Gradual reduction in density of young sycamore to 1/ha. over ten years. Upper limit: Remove four sycamore trees per year. Lower limit: Non set.  Monitor/Surveillance Projects:\n Monitor growth of Sycamore seedlings and cut stems. Restore conifer to broadleaf, or fell to create gap (but not Scots pine), gradually. Remove sycamore, gradually, but retaining larger, old trees. Uproot sycamore seedlings. Encourage new seedling growth  In order to ensure continuity of young growth succeeding to mature trees, native seedlings may be nursed from local seed, within the wood if desired. Self-seeded young trees may be given the opportunity to flourish by protecting them from grazing.\nMonitor/Surveillance Projects:\n Plant seeds in gaps. Monitor and protect growth of all seedlings, including self-seeders.  Deadwood piles #  Deadwood provides habitat to fauna, and decaying wood in the cycle of nutrients, essential in the ecological flows of woodland. In addition to fallen trees, any cut material will be stacked in a pile and not burnt, except for material removed as a local resource.\nMonitor/Surveillance Projects:\n Monitor fallen trees and decaying wood on ground. Construct deadwood piles with cuttings from trees. Construct deadwood fences, which could also compartmentalise grazing.  Old trees #  The alkaline bark old ash (and elm where it still survives) supports important lichen flora, particularly the Lobarion community, and dying trees provide habitat for rare beetles, flies and other invertebrates. Pollarding tends to prolong the life of a tree, if young or middle-aged, and not heavily shaded.\nPollarding protects trees from grazing animals. Trees will be selected for pollarding. Ancient trees will be perpetuated by sympathetic management.\nMonitor/Surveillance Projects:\n Monitor age of trees. Liaise with local Tree Officer, concerning ancient trees and perpetuation/protection. Monitor condition of old trees, leaf and stem, for disease. Select trees for pollarding to extend life. Monitor effects of grazing upon old trees. Monitor compaction of ground at foot of old trees.  Scrub #  UK priority BAP/ LBAP designation\nOld scrub at edges will be controlled by grazing in preference to cutting because it perpetuates scrub which otherwise turns to coppice. We will promote hawthorn scrub which is in early and middle stages of growth, for a full range of insects and birds. Blackthorn spreading by suckering will be controlled at existing limits, in order to permit semi-natural growth of Ash woodland. Operational limits:\n Target: No decrease in extent of scrub. Limits: refer to grass and heath and woodland features for limits to expansion  Monitor/Surveillance Projects:\n Monitor condition and growth and extent of scrub within woodland. Regenerate old leggy scrub by cutting, or by grazing by ponies. Perpetuate old scrub at edges with cattle or pony grazing. Control spread of Blackthorn by cutting.  Invasive non-native shrubs #  Cotoneaster spp. will be uprooted. The presence of other ornamentals and their spread, particularly near to the edges of woodland, will be resisted.\nMonitor/Surveillance Projects:\n Refer to performance indicators, plus: Obtain best available advice, and plan removal of identified alien species, with care to determine whether the plant is rhizomatic or not.  Banks and ditches #  Banks and ditches are to be protected from scrub encroachment.\nOperational limits: none set.\nMonitor/Surveillance Projects:\n Monitor physical condition, and signs of change Scrub control. Ditch clearance.  Rides and glades #  These support light-demanding species, perhaps absent elsewhere in the wood, including grassland plants, grassland and scrub invertebrates, flowering plants and feeding insects.\nRides and glades may link openings within stands, and so allow re-population of new gaps.\nThe majority of species depend upon warm, sunny conditions, and shading will be kept to a minimum with a cutting/grazing regime incorporating three rotational zones, from inner to outer edge. Rides will be maintained at minimum width: Rides not in an east-west orientation, enjoying less sun, need to be wider. Any widening will be carried out over several years, to minimise negative impact to populations.\nNew glades may be created in conjunction with rides by removing corners at intersections, or as scallops alongside rides. Rides may serve as paths. New rides, where needed, may be constructed from existing paths.\nOperational limits:\n  Target 1: Ride width.\n Upper limit:\t2 times height of adjacent trees. Lower limit:\t1.4 times height of adjacent trees.    Target 2:\tRotational cutting of glade.\n  Upper limit:\tOuter edge zone: cut every 8 years.\n Mid-zone: cut piecemeal every 2 years Inner zone: cut twice a year.    Lower limit:\tOuter edge zone: cut every 20 years.\n Mid-zone: cut piecemeal every 4 years Inner zone: cut once a year.      Projects:\n Identify and map rides and glades Identify any need for new rides or glades. Plan cutting in rotation, according to minimum of four compartments  Species Surveys #  Surveys of the main groups of taxa will be continued, encouraging the participation of a local college of further education, and relevant local or branch societies.\nSurveys:\n Groundcover species lists: The last vegetation survey of Haulfre Wood was carried out in March 1982 . Epiphytic flora and fungi, species Saproxylic invertebrate, species Butterfly, species Woodland bird, species Woodland mammal, species  Visitor and community access #  Visitors can cause excessive trampling and disturbance. Visitors will be requested to stick to footpaths/rides. Local people use the woods frequently.\nThe long-term success in planned management probably depends upon a form of Community Woodland Management. Harm from undesired felling and removal of trees for firewood would be effectively curtailed. Thinnings could be useful to local gardeners and craftsmen, who may assist with cutting, after appropriate training. Protective actions, monitoring and regeneration may be most effectively implemented. Extra sources of funding may available, and will be requested.\nOperational Limits: Non set.\nMonitoring Projects:\n Identify short cuts through woodland. Monitor areas of trampling Monitor illegal wood cutting or removal Notify local communities of availability of wood resource, with permission and guidance. Liaise with Landowners and local community concerning Community Woodland Management. Build deadwood piles at shortcuts from paths. Construct deadwood fence alongside paths. Plant hawthorn alongside paths, at strategic places.  Management Options #   A3: Active management to maintain and regenerate semi-natural woodland. E4: Open access. Request walkers stay on paths.  "});index.add({'id':24,'href':'/docs/cnrm/management/orme_calcicolousheath.html','title':"Orme Calcicolous Grass Heath",'section':"Management Plans",'content':"Table of Contents\n1\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Designation 2\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Description 3\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Current condition and status of feature 4\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Attributes selected as performance indicators 5\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Attributes and Operational Limits 6\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Management Rationale and Projects 7\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Management Options   1\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Designation Grade I SSSI, Candidate SAC, UK BAP/LBAP Key Habitat status (2001) EU Habitats Directive Annex 1 types; Dry heaths (all sub-types) Southern Atlantic wet heaths  Size:\nLowland Heath; 48 ha. Calcicolous grass Heath mixture: 33.9 ha.   2\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Description  The heathland on the Great Orme is of international importance occupying approximately one quarter of the site. Traditional heathland was once covered by limewoods, hazelwoods or oakwoods at 6 000 BC. Some Mesolithic clearings develop into heath. Heaths may support rich assemblies of plants, insects, birds and reptiles. About one third of the heathland is species-rich, of short stature (35 cm height or lower), another third of the heath is of intermediate height (20-45 cm) and less species-rich,, supporting herbs such as Tormentil and Harebell indicative of more acidic conditions possibly due to leaf litter accumulation and leaching. A third area is species-poor heath approaching 50 cm in height, entirely dominated by dense stands of the three dwarf shrubs.\nA transitional calcicolous grass heath (CGH) community occurs. It comprises grassland similar to the short closed sward of the species-rich Sheep's Fescue (Meadow Oat-grass), grassland and a high proportion of Heather and Bell Heather, with the absence of Western Gorse.\n 3\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Current condition and status of feature Total area: 42 ha. Frequency of constant and frequent species (all communities): within LACs Species indicative of change: within LAC Species indicative of quality: within LAC  Current Status:\nFavourable Maintained as of December 2001. This assertion is based upon the 2000/2001 survey.   4\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Attributes selected as performance indicators The heathland will be considered to be in favourable condition provided the following attributes are within LACs:\n4.1\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Extent Extent of heathland and of CGH. Component plant communities (NVC classification) The extent and distribution of heathland type and CGH are largely governed by edaphic and climatic conditions. These are relatively static factors and therefore no area limits need to be set.   4.2\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Quality All sub-communities (NVC):\n These are likely to remain fairly consistent under continued grazing pressures. Quality will be confirmed by presence of the range typical species within each sub-community type, which are:\n H8a Ulex gallii and Calluna vulgaris without other indicators H8b Danthonia decumbens is frequent with Calluna vulgaris, Ulex gallii heath H8c Sanguisorba minor with Calluna vulgaris, Ulex gallii heath H10c Festuca ovina and Anthoxanthum odoratum is frequent within Calluna vulgaris, Erica cinerea dwarf heath. CGH a mix of dwarf shrubs and chalkland grassland species     All communities, growth phase of Calluna V\nA set of associated herbacious species of value as indicators of change. All communities, growth phase of Calluna vulgaris:. A set of associated plants as indicators of change.    5\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Attributes and Operational Limits 5.1\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Objective statement To maintain the Lowland Heath and CGH in favourable condition, with a full range from bare ground and pioneer Calluna through to mature and degenerate phases, WHERE:\n 5.2\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Extent Total heath area remains at the target level:\nTarget level: 42 ha. (13% of SSSI) Upper limit: None set. Lower limit: 38 ha (12% of SSSI). A 10% decline in extent is permitted only if it is lost to a grassland community, or to dense scrub.  Total CGH area remains at target level:\nTarget level: 33.9 ha. (10.4% of SSSI) Upper limit: None set. Lower limit: 30.5 ha (9.4% of SSSI) Tolerate expansion or change of 10% cover to calcicolous grassland or heathland only.  Monitoring Projects:\nMonitor extent of NVC communities, and CGH, By aerial /ground survey and GIS interrogation, continuously by eye.   5.3\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Quality Following management by burning or mowing, in short time species such as nettles and thistles may develop. The following objectives therefore apply to any areas of heath that have not been burnt or mown for five years:\nTargets: all component heathland NVC communities and CGH\nLower limit: 90% Upper limit: none set.   5.4\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;H8a Ulex gallii, Erica cinerea and Calluna vulgaris Without other indicators.\n Upper limit and Lower Limit: As stated in NVC floristic tables.\n Monitor:\n Ulex gallii, Erica cinerea and Calluna vulgaris.      5.5\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;H8b Danthonia decumbens Frequent with Erica cinerea, Calluna vulgaris, and Ulex gallii.\n Upper limit and Lower Limit: As stated in NVC floristic tables.\n Monitor:\n Danthonia decumbens is frequent with Erica cinerea, Calluna vulgaris, and Ulex gallii.      5.6\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;H8c Sanguisorba minor with Erica cinerea, Calluna vulgaris, and Ulex gallii  Upper limit and Lower Limit: As stated in NVC floristic tables.\n Monitor:\n Sanguisorba minor with Erica cinerea, Calluna vulgaris, and Ulex gallii.      5.7\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;H10c Festuca ovina and Anthoxanthum odoratum is frequent within Calluna vulgaris, and Erica cinerea  Upper limit and Lower Limit: As stated in NVC floristic tables.\n Monitor:\n Festuca ovina and Anthoxanthum odoratum, frequency within Calluna vulgaris, and Erica cinerea.      5.8\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;CGH Calcicolous Grass Heath  Upper limit and Lower Limit: As stated in NVC floristic tables.\n Monitor:\n Festuca ovina, Calluna vulgaris, and Erica cinerea, with the absence of Western Gorse      5.9\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;All communities, growth phase of Calluna vulgaris There is limit to C. vulgaris in the degenerate growth phase.\n Target level: 6% in degenerate stage (2.5 ha).\n Upper limit: 6% in degenerate stage\n Lower Limit: 4% in degenerate stage\n Monitor:\n Growth phases of calluna in each compartment.     Indicator set: associated plants as indicators of change:\n Target level: None set\n Upper limit: None set\n Lower limits: Continued annual flowering.\n Monitor:\n Frequency and distribution of: Helianthemum nummularium, Thymus praecox, Lotus corniculatus, Potentilla erecta, Campanula rotundiflora, Lobelia urens, Viola canina, Viola lactea.       6\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Management Rationale and Projects 6.1\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;General Management of Calluna There is a concern that some areas are in decline in the regeneration and growth of Calluna, brought about through under-management and uncontrolled burning. Heaths have a limited lifespan, and must be rejuvenated through cutting, burning or grazing combinations. Heaths on the Gt. Orme have been maintained through the continual practice of low intensity grazing. Generally, heather and bracken were traditionally cut for use, which also removed nutrients. Cutting or burning in rotated patches can help prevent conversion of species-rich heath to species-poor heath through nutrient build up. Management will aim to maintain a poor nutrient status, by preventing build up.\nA full range from bare ground and pioneer Calluna through to mature and degenerate phases is required in order to preserve the full spectrum of heathland species. The pioneer phase of Calluna v. is 3-10 years, building 7-13 years, mature phase 12-30 years, degenerate phase over 30 years.\nCompartmentalising the heathland will assist this task. It will also assist with heterogeneous practices to maintain conditions for a wide range of fauna and flora. An appropriate long term plan of 40 years rotation will be developed, in map form, with attention to monitoring factors of a heterogeneous regime. The proposal will introduce an element of adaptive research and surveillance into management and recovery.\nProjects:\nResearch past heathland management. Identify and map current growth phases of heath. Compartmentalise, the heathland with zones for rotational management of four distinct phases of Calluna growth, taking into account existing growth stages. Block, size number shape and rotation will be identified within a long term plan of 40 years rotation. Repair and extend walls in stone or, consider post and rail fences.   6.2\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Burning and cutting Calluna regeneration by seed amongst degenerate plants is important, but is slow, leaving bare ground and may allow invasion. It is because of this that short burning rotations have been advocated to keep Calluna in the early to mature phases. Burning has been prohibited by the Local Authority. Skilled assistance is required to manage and plan burns. Firebreaks may be created by cut or rotovated strips.\nOn older Calluna burning frequently kills plants. Alternatively, single-cut forage-harvesters cut cut and remove cuttings. On rougher ground, swiping or flailing may be only practicable method.\nProjects:\nIdentify areas of calluna that would benefit from a first round of burning. Campaign locally and within the Management Committee, for limited burning of heath. Identify areas where cutting is is feasible and desired   6.3\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Rotovation  Rotovation of old Calluna, after stripping litter to avoid nutrient build up, aids seed regeneration and creates areas of open ground.The practice must be restricted to 7-31 May to minimise risk to hibernating or egg laying reptiles. Suitable areas may be used as firebreaks for burns. Sites for rotovation must not contain archaeologically valuable old field sites; they will be damaged by rotovation. Projects:\nIdentify areas of old calluna that may be useful as firebreaks. Identify small areas of old calluna that may be regenerated by rotovation.   6.4\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Grazing Intensity Undergrazing does not maintain Calluna in the building phase, allowing it to over-mature. Calcicolous plants become overwhelmed by coarse grasses, and succession to woodland. Relaxation of grazing intensity favours litter accumulation and possibly development of more complete heath and shrub cover. If more than 30-40% of the annual growth is grazed, it may be replaced by poor-species grassland or Bracken.\nOperational Limits:\nTarget 1: Limit the amount of annual growth that is grazed Upper limit: no more than 35% of the annual growth is to be grazed. Lower limit: no less than 20% of the annual growth is to be grazed in each compartment.  Monitor:\nGrowth increments of calluna. Grazing pressure will be monitored in situ. for zones of overgrazing and undergrazing by animal selective feeding. Existing stocking levels. Population of goats, annually.  Projects:\nLimit grazing mainly to autumn and winter; liaise with farmer/landowners.   6.5\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Grazing season Calluna is susceptible to grazing damage during Sept-Oct and is least vulnerable in winter. Winter grazing favours wildlife.\nProjects:\nSeek agreement with farmer to graze Calluna mainly in the winter, turning stock to grass in summer. Examine walls and possibilities of compartmentalising heath and grassland.   6.6\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Grazing animals Hill breeds can cope with more coarse vegetation, and cope better with exposed condition throughout the year. Moderate trampling by ponies or cattle of degenerate stands favour Calluna regeneration by regrowth layering and seedling.\nMonitoring/Surveillance:\nBreeds of sheep. Conversion of heath to grassland or bracken by sheep grazing.  Projects:\nGraze ponies to increase poaching on soils and remove rank grasses and purple moor grass (Molinia caerulea). Liaise with local farmers whom may provide hill cattle for restorative grazing episodes. Identify old leggy stands of calluna, and restore by grazing ponies within temporary fencing.   6.7\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Wild Animal grazing Rabbits tend to graze only within 30 m. from cover. Rabbits create a mosaic of micro-habitats including areas of disturbed soil they can create Lichen-rich heath with many annuals and winter annuals. Effective in suppressing regeneration of Gorse. Goats are useful as they browse Birch and Pine, and Purple Moor Grass. They may kill old leggy bushes of Calluna Goats may ring bark young Pine and Birch.\nOperational Limits: None set\nMonitoring/Surveillance\nWild animal grazing habits (rabbits and goats), by fixed-point (hidden) camera. Goats for their possible feeding on old calluna. Rabbit predators.  Projects:\nProvide cover for rabbits (refer to factor 7. Mature stands for flora and fauna).   6.8\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Mature stands for flora and fauna Grazing will also be excluded from some areas to allow development of tall untrampled Calluna, to provide habitat for reptiles and ground-nesting birds. Mature stands of heather provide thick litter, mosses and lichens, Cover, feed, temperature and humidity for reptiles.\n In the absence of a shepherd, wall extension is required, in stone, post and rail, or temporary fences. Projects: * Calluna which is left to over-mature, will be separated to minimise loss through accidental fire, by rotovated strips. * Two or three strips of tall calluna to be left untrampled by fencing off (total = 2.5 ha.) * Examine possibilities of (re)introducing shepherding on the Great Orme.\n 6.9\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Scrub and trees Patches of scrub and scattered trees are also an integral part of heathland, though without management these spread to the detriment of the open heath. Control of their spread is necessary in areas not subject to burning or cutting, or with low grazing levels.\nNightjars will occur where bracken and scrub forms a mosaic with lowland heath. Birch is valuable, as it particularly supports invertebrate fauna, and its mature roots of scattered trees serve as passage and hibernation of reptiles. Different species are associated with scrub of different ages, others specialise on isolated trees (Kirby, 1992). Sheep may graze Birch, and declining stock levels may permit an increase of birch scrub.\nOperational limits:\nTarget 1: Scattered birch trees limited to 3 per ha. Upper limit: 3 per ha. Lower limit: 1 per hectare Target 2: Dense Scrub is to be limited to 1% in open heath. Upper limit: 1% in open heath Lower limit: 0.3%. Target 3: There will be no new stands of dense scrub exceeding 10 m across. Upper limit: As for target. Target 4: No existing small stands will exceed 1 ha. Upper limit: As for target. Lower limit: None set.  Monitor/Surveillance:\nDistribution of Purple moor grass Encroachment of trees, and shrubs for density and species. Spread of scrub frontier. Goat browsing of emergent scrub.  Projects:\nLeave isolated birch and scattered scrub; protect with guards if necessary. Coppice Birch on 15 year rotation. Manage emergent scrub by cattle/pony browsing or cutting sections in rotations of 15 years. Bracken/scrub mosaics to be encouraged on borderzones of heath.   6.10\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Dense Bracken invasion Bracken may invade burnt or overgrazed heath. Young bracken is able to colonise base-rich ash. Existing dense stands may be cut, trampled or grazed to control spread. Deep litter removal;/nutrient depletion is advisable following cutting, or nitro-filous species such as Yorkshire Fog, Wavy-Hair Grass, False Oat Grass and Rosebay Willow Herb may establish themselves.\nOperational limits:\nTarget 1: There will be no new stands of bracken. Target 2: Dense Bracken is to be allowed no extension to its front. Upper limit: No extension of bracken fronts. Lower limit: None set. Target 3: Smaller stands of bracken will not exceed 1 ha.  Monitor:\nBracken  Projects:\nControl invasive bracken by cutting twice annually, when not burning. Control invasive bracken with stock (ponies or cattle) for restoration trampling. Strip deep litter accumulation.   6.11\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Non-Native Invasive species Control of invasive vegetation, particularly non-native cotoneasters and rhododendron.\nOperational Limit:\nTarget: complete elimination Upper limit: Target level Lower limit: Present level  Monitoring \u0026amp; Projects:\nMonitor presence of invasive species Control invasive species   6.12\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Atmospheric pollution and climate change Air pollution increases nitrogen concentration in rain, and thus nutrient enrichment, Leading to replacement by grassland; e.g. Wavy-hair Grass (Deschampsia flexuosa), especially on heathland adjacent to roads.\nMonitor/Surveillance:\nVolume of motor vehicles. Idling engines.   6.13\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Erosion Areas of heath are prone to trampling and compaction by visitors. Fences may protect eroded areas from further damage and permit recovery. Use of existing accepted walkways limits damage.\nOperational limits:\nTarget: No additional trampling of heath. Existing areas to be allowed to recover. Upper limit: As present Lower limit: Target level  Monitoring/Surveillance:\nMonitor level of erosion of heath community.  Projects:\nErect fences to protect existing badly eroded areas.   6.14\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Illegal and accidental burning These may lead to uncontrolled and over-frequent burning, and so lead to a decline. Uncontrolled burning is dangerous to fauna, and to old heather, causing reversion to grassland, or domination by Ulex Gallii.\nOperational limits:\nTarget: No illegal fires on heathland. Upper limit: No fires. Lower limit: No fires  Monitoring/Surveillance:\nThe heathland will be patrolled by staff on Halloween, as a deterrent. heath for fires. areas of mature Ulex Gallii  For the following four threats and their Management, refer to Feature: Calcicolous Grassland, Threats: 3-6, which equally apply here.\nArtificial fertilisers Ant-parasitic drugs Supplementary feeding Fly-tipping    7\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Management Options Continuous:\nA3 Active management to maintain and regenerate heathland, including initiating rotation of burning.  Access:\nE4: Open access. Request walkers stay on paths.   "});index.add({'id':25,'href':'/docs/cnrm/management/orme_calcifugousgrass.html','title':"Orme Calcifugous Grasslands",'section':"Management Plans",'content':"Table of Contents\n1\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Designation 2\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Description 3\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Current condition and status of feature 4\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Attributes selected as performance indicators 5\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Attributes and Operational Limits 6\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Management Rationale and Projects 7\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Management Options   1\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Designation Grade I SSSI, Candidate SAC, UK BAP Key Habitat status (1995).  Size: 8.4 ha.\n 2\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Description Lowland acid grassland, managed as pasture, on nutrient-poor, free-draining acid soils with (pH 4 to 5.5) overlying superficial deposits. They are dominated by Sheeps' Fescue and Common Bent (Agrostis capillaris), with some acid loving plants such as Tormentil (Potentilla erecta), and without the herbs typical of the calcicolous grasslands. Dwarf shrubs such as heather Calluna vulgaris and bilberry Vaccinium myrtillus can also occur but at low abundance. Acid grassland is variable in terms of species richness .\nMany of the invertebrates that occur in acid grassland are specialist species which do not occur in other types of grassland.\n 3\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Current condition and status of feature Total Area: 8.4 ha. Frequency of constant and frequent species: within LACs. Species indicative of change: within LAC  Current Status:\nFavourable Maintained, as of December 2001. This assertion is based upon the 2000/2001 survey.   4\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Attributes selected as performance indicators The calcifugous grassland will be considered to be in favourable condition provided the following attributes are within LACs:\n4.1\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Extent, All calcifugous grassland  Component plant communities are largely governed by edaphic and climatic conditions. These are relatively static factors and so no area limits need be set.  4.2\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Quality Target: All sub-communities (NVC):\nThese are likely to remain fairly consistent under continued grazing pressures. Quality will be confirmed by presence of the range of typical species within each sub-community type, which are: U4a: Festuca ovina- Agrostis capillaris-Galium saxatile grassland, 0.3 ha. U4b: Holcus lanatus- Trifolium repens sub-community, 8.1 ha. Acidity largely governed by edaphic conditions, so no limits need be set. A set of associated plants as indicators of change. A minimum cover of bare ground (soil or rock), lichens and bryophytes.            5\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Attributes and Operational Limits 5.1\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Objective statement To maintain the calcifugous grassland with its typical plants in favourable condition, WHERE:\n 5.2\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Extent All calcifugous grassland.\nTotal area remains at the target level. Target level: 8.4 ha. of 323 ha Upper limit: None set Lower limit: 7.6 ha. A 10% decline in extent is permitted only if it is lost to a grassland or heath community, or 3% to existing dense scrub.  Monitor/surveillance:\nExtent of calcicolous grassland.   5.3\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Condition All existing plant communities.\nTarget: The following conditions are met in 95% Lower limit: 70% Upper limit: none set.   5.4\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;U4a: Festuca ovina- Agrostis capillaris-Galium saxatile grassland Size, 0.3 ha.\nTarget level: None set Upper and lower limits: As stated in NVC floristic tables Monitor frequency of Festuca ovina- Agrostis capillaris-Galium saxatile   5.5\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;U4b: Holcus lanatus- Trifolium repens sub-community Size, 8.1 ha.\nTarget level: None set Upper and lower limits: As stated in NVC floristic tables Monitor frequency of Holcus lanatus- Trifolium repens  A set of associated plants as indicators of change:\n Limits: none set\n Monitor frequency of:\n Potentilla erecta. Rumex acetosella, Deschampsia flexuosa, Vaccinium myrtillus, Agrostis curtisii.     There is a minimum cover of bare ground: soil or rock, lichens and bryophytes, of 10%\nMonitor:\nExtent of bare ground in samples.    6\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Management Rationale and Projects At present, almost continuous unfenced sheep grazing prevents succession to woodland scrub, and will continue. Relaxed grazing may lead to changes towards successionary species. We shall maintain the typically close-cropped sward, by grazing. The acid grassland exists in close association with lowland heathland and calcicolous grassland, and it is well advised that acid grasslands are taken into account during implementation of their plans.\n6.1\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;1 - 8. Calcicolous Grassland Projects The feature Calcicolous Grassland Management Rationale and Projects 1-8 are relevant, and refer equally to Calcifugous grassland. The one exception is monitoring the succession of rank grasses (Tor-grass, Upright Brome and False Oat-grass), which is expected perhaps, to follow a different course.\n 6.2\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Burning Acid grasslands can have a high cover of bryophytes and parched acid grassland can be rich in lichens. Burning of these areas will be guarded against.\nMonitor/Surveillance Projects:\nGuard against burning   6.3\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Litter stripping Litter stripping may counteract acid conditions, and will be prohibited.\nMonitor/Surveillance Projects:\nProhibit litter stripping   6.4\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Surveys of rare plants Detailed surveys of rare vascular plants shall be continued.\nMonitor/Surveillance Projects:\nSurvey vascular plants.    7\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Management Options  Continuously:\n A3: Active management to maintain calcicolous grassland, (according to grazing pressure). E4: Open access. Request walkers stay on paths.      "});index.add({'id':26,'href':'/docs/cnrm/management/orme_densescatteredscrub.html','title':"Orme Dense/Scattered Scrub",'section':"Management Plans",'content':"Table of Contents\n1\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Designation 2\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Description 3\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Current condition and status of feature 4\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Attributes selected as performance indicators 5\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Attributes and Operational Limits 6\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Management Rationale and Projects 7\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Management Options   1\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Designation NVC: W23/W21c\nGrade I SSSI, Candidate SAC, UK BAP Key Habitat status. Identified in Annex 1 of the EC Habitats Directive as a priority habitat and will form part of the Natura 2000 Network. Scrub: Conwy HAP Juniper: listed as Endangered on the GB Red List and is protected under Schedule 8 of the WCA 1981. LBAP; UK SAP .  Size:\n16.1 ha. Total (SSSI = 14.5 ha)   2\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Description There are three main areas of dense scrub, the south-western tip, and south-western slopes.\nOn the hard northern limestone, Crateagus monogyna-Hedera helix (NVC = W21) scrub replaces fern-dominated communities, heath and grassland in primary succession. This scrub community has a large range in composition and thickness, and includes a canopy of hawthorn, blackthorn and bramble. Mixed calcareous scrub may include rose, hawthorn, buckthorn, privet, dogwood, roses, whitebeam, and wayfaring tree. Scrub provides shelter for invertebrates, feed and roosting for birds, and scrub edge conditions. Gorse scrub (W23) exists in intimate mosaics with acid grasslands (U4, MG6), heaths and understorey communities. Though of low botanical diversity, it is integral in the formation of heath on calcareous soils, and it has temporary value for small birds, providing habitat for the stonechat, UKSAP (Saxicola torquata).\nBracken-scrub is a characteristic feature of sheltered combes on un-enclosed heathland, associated with European gorse and hawthorn, blackthorn, hazel or, birch.\nHazel scrub also exists in pockets of soil, valuable for its lichen assemblies.\nJuniper is found scattered, rarely attaining to true scrub.\n 3\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Current condition and status of feature Dense/Scattered Scrub:\nTotal Area 16.1 ha. Indicators of quality: all within LAC Species indicative of change: within LAC  Current Status:\nFavourable Maintained, as of December 2001. This assertion is based upon the 2000/2001 survey.   4\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Attributes selected as performance indicators The Dense/scattered scrub and communities will be considered to be in favourable condition provided the following attributes are within LACs:\n4.1\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Extent All Dense/scattered scrub: Component plant communities are communities of dynamic seral succession and so area limits need be set.\n 4.2\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Quality Mixed age structure Presence of scrub seedlings, suckers, or saplings. Complex vertical and horizontal structure Tree canopy cover High boundary/area ratio Well-developed marginal vegetation. Scattered juniper A set of associated plants as indicators of change.    5\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Attributes and Operational Limits 5.1\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Objective statement To maintain the Dense/Scattered Scrub with its usual plants in favourable condition WHERE,\n 5.2\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Extent All Dense/Scattered Scrub:\nTotal area remains at the target level. Target level: 16.1 ha. of 323 ha Upper limit: 20.1ha. Lower limit: Target level.   5.3\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Quality All Dense/Scattered Scrub:\nMixed age structure Maintain a balanced, mixed age structure through management techniques. Target level: Balanced, mixed age structure Upper limit: none set lower limit: All age classes represented in each O.3 ha. compartment. Monitor: Age range of trees within each hectare  Presence of scrub seedlings, suckers, or saplings:\nTarget: Non set. Lower limit: One per 10 sq. metre stand Monitor: Monitor regeneration on the ground.  Complex vertical and horizontal structure:\nTarget: Complexity both dimensions in each stand. Limits: non set.  Canopy cover:\nTarget level: 50% of extent of scrub. Upper limit: 80% Lower limits: 20% Monitor: Extent of canopy by aerial photos every 50 years; by eye annually.  High boundary/area ratio:\nTarget level: 8:1 Upper limit: non set Lower limits: 3:1 Monitor: boundary/are ratio  Well-developed marginal vegetation:\nAerial structures of plants and grassland litter is allowed to develop. Target level: 50% of boundary distance. Limits: Non set. Monitor: marginal vegetation.  Scattered Juniper:\nTarget 1: Number of patches remain at current levels, or increases. Target 2: Both male and female plants exist. Target 3: There is a continuity of growth of Juniper Limits, All 3 Targets: non set. Monitor/survey: Number of occupied sites. Age structure of plants Number of seedlings. Male and female plants Being dioecious, Juniper's persistence depends upon the presence of male and female plants.      A set of associated plants as indicators of changes:\nLimits: non set. Monitor: frequency of Birch (Betula spp.), Oak (Quercus spp.)    6\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Management Rationale and Projects 6.1\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Regenerating Scrub Characterisation of the age structure of lowland seral scrub will inform decisions for its management. Mixed age structure promotes diversity. Hawthorn scrub can be rich in insects and birds in early and middle stages of growth, and warblers and nightingales live in the earlier stages of growths. Presence of seedlings, suckers or saplings, indicates whether a patch will succeed to woodland or degenerate to herbaceous communities.\nDegenerating and dense scrub patches will be positively managed: Uniformly dense canopies will be opened up to permit light; A varied vertical and horizontal structure, and a mixed age structure will be the aim of any intervention. Scrub will be restored with cattle to knock down vegetation, poach the ground, and open up areas to light, and graze, in conjunction with cutting.\nMonitoring \u0026amp; Projects:\nIdentify scrub patches without natural regeneration, of uneven age structure, and over-dense Graze and cut to achieve balance in age, structure and density.   6.2\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Marginal vegetation Balanced site management will include maintenance of boundary zones, important for associated scrub and grasslands.\nCompetitive grasses will be allowed to dominate in these boundary zones, so favouring invertebrates which depend on aerial structures of plants and those found in grassland litter, including some rare species where the litter is mature. This also provides suitable conditions for small mammals. To prevent succession to scrub, the marginal vegetation will be cut in rotations of 5-10 years.\nProjects:\nFencing off small areas from grazing to permit marginal growth by excluding grazing. Cut or graze marginal vegetation annually, if necessary.  Juniper Scrub (UK BAP/LBAP Priority species)\nJuniper may be seen as climax vegetation at high altitudes, but here, except in exposed conditions, it is a primary seral community towards woodland, protecting other trees with its prickles. Grazing by feral goats, sheep or rabbits may hinder Juniper's regeneration, or succession to woodland.  Monitoring \u0026amp; Projects:\nMonitor grazing by goats, and sheep upon juniper, by observation, and by faecal analysis. Monitor presence of saplings amongst Juniper.   6.3\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Non-Native Invasive species Invasive vegetation, particularly non-native cotoneasters, rhododendron, and sycamore may inhibit regeneration of native communities. Such invasives will be controlled.\nOperational Limit:\n Target: complete elimination\n Upper limit: Target level\n Lower limit: Present level\n Monitoring \u0026amp; Projects:\n Monitor presence of invasive species Control invasive species      6.4\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Controlling Scrub Advancement A balance between scrub and grassland needs to be attained. With low grazing levels scrub may advance. Since 1947 Calluna-Ulex scrub and heath has coalesced and expanded, partly over old ridge-and-furrow cultivation. It shows transition to blackthorn or hawthorn scrub in places. Onward succession to woodland (birch, oak) will be prevented by grazing or burning.\nIn removing gorse by cutting, the possible colonisation by rhododendron of acid litter will be monitored. Bracken finds refuge amongst gorse, protected from grazing, from which it might spread. Advancing fronts will be repelled (refer to Feature: Bracken).\nGoats feed upon gorse. Blackthorn and gorse may benefit from cutting,or targeted burning, where encroachment has occurred. Cattle and ponies will graze and trample scrub.\nOperational limits:\nTarget 1:There will be no new stands of dense scrub exceeding 10 m across.  Projects:\n Restorative grazing\n Cutting and burning\n Monitor/Surveillance Projects:\n Advance of Scrub by aerial photographs every five years.       7\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Management Options A3: Active management to maintain the Dense/Scattered Scrub E4: Open access. Request walkers stay on paths.   "});index.add({'id':27,'href':'/docs/cnrm/management/orme_quarries.html','title':"Orme Disturbed ground, Quarries, Rock outcrops",'section':"Management Plans",'content':"Table of Contents\n1\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Designation 2\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Description 3\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Current condition and status of feature 4\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Attributes selected as performance indicators 5\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Attributes and Operational Limits 6\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Management Rationale and Projects 7\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Management Options   1\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Designation Grade I SSSI, Candidate SAC.  Size:\nArmeria vegetation: 4.ha (largely on quarry and minespoil) Non Maritime Cliff: 0.5 ha Disused Quarry and Minespoil: 4.2ha Rock outcrops and Inland cliffs: 3.2ha   2\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Description  Two stone quarries were formerly worked: Rock Studio quarry, and Pigeon's Cave, stone from which is said to have been used to construct the Conwy Cob, Telford's Suspension Bridge at Conwy (1826) and later Stephenson's Tubular Bridge at Conwy (1848). Ground disturbed by mining and quarrying activities, or wartime construction works provide warm and sheltered micro-climates which hold communities of of insects. They are generally poorly vegetated with much bare ground, Armeria maritima, and a variety of flowering plants, including the nationally scarce Marrubium vulgare.\nReptiles such as common lizard and adder may bask in the warmth. Horseshoe bats (UKBAP/LSAP) may roost in cave-like quarries, where feeding opportunities are often good, due to the abundance of insects.\nGreat Orme was once at the bottom of the sea, and the area is abundant in fossil remains. The quarries provide an opportunity for geological study and are a feature of archaeological interest.\nRock outcrops and inland cliffs also hold Paleontological and nature conservation interest with comparable vegetation.\n 3\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Current condition and status of feature Disused Quarries and Mine spoil\nTotal Area: 4.2 ha.  Current Status:\nFavourable Maintained, as of December 2001. This assertion is based upon the 2000/2001 survey. All within LAC .   4\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Attributes selected as performance indicators The Disturbed ground, Non Maritime Cliff, Rock outcrops and Inland cliffs will be considered to be in favourable condition provided the following attributes are within LACs:\n4.1\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Extent All Disturbed ground, Non Maritime Cliff, Rock outcrops and Inland cliffs:\nExtent is not likely to change as a result of factors under human control; monitoring extent is not appropriate for this feature. Component plant communities are largely governed by edaphic and climatic conditions. These are relatively static factors and so no area limits need be set.   4.2\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Quality All sites\nAssociated plants as indicators of change Fossils Bare ground Cover of Scrub species Safety recommendations are complete    5\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Attributes and Operational Limits 5.1\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Objective statement To maintain the Disturbed ground, Non Maritime Cliff, Rock outcrops and Inland cliffs with its species and fossils in favourable condition, WHERE:\n 5.2\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Quality Associated plants as indicators of change:\n Lower Limits: The four of the five species exist at 50% of year 2000 cover.\n Monitor frequency of:\n Armeria maritima, Hornungia petraea, Sedum album, Erodium maritimum, Marrubium vulgare.     Fossils:\nsigns non removal = zero Lower limit: No more signs than year 2000. Monitor: signs of fossil removal  Bare ground:\n% of bare ground over extent of feature = 50% Lower limit= 60% Monitor: % cover bare ground  Cover of Scrub species:\n% cover = 10% Lower limit = 20% Monitor: % cover scrub species.  Safety recommendations are complete:\nLower Limits: none set. Monitor: Implementation of safety recommendations.    6\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Management Rationale and Projects 6.1\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Visitor use Trampling by visitors causes significant wear, prevents growth of plants, and disturbs breeding birds. Heavy usage may cause a site to become unstable, and therefore, unsafe. Substantial visitor access is not desirable\nMonitor/Surveillance Projects:\nLimit use, to use with permission only. Monitor erosion.   6.2\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Scrub encroachment and Invasive exotics Scrub encroachment and invasion by exotics may replace unique assemblages of quarry species, if complete. Bare ground must be maintained, if necessary, and scrub controlled. There is the target to increase Juniper: See Feature, Dense/Scattered Scrub.\nMonitor/Surveillance Projects:\nMonitor scrub encroachment. Cut scrub gradually to limit growth. Monitor and control Invasive exotics. Preserve Juniper.   6.3\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Natural deterioration A quarry face may be gradually eroded by weathering and slippage. The face of one mine is considered unstable, with a projected high cost of £10-20,000 to excavate, every five years, in order to make it safe for visitors. Limiting activity to Geological associations is a useful consideration. Re-excavation, may be carried out through a process of gradual and sound working practice by members.\nMonitor/Surveillance Projects:\nRefer those interested to clubs, through the Geological Association.   6.4\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Fossil collecting Collection of the fossil is illegal according to local bylaws. Damage occurs to deposits by irresponsible specimen collecting. Irresponsible collecting may destroy an entire site.\nMonitor/Surveillance Projects:\nMonitor for signs of illegal collecting, regularly on rounds. Enforce prohibition   6.5\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Safety and access Safety on quarries normally requires adequate footwear, and a helmet. Access to quarry edges from above presents danger of falls.Fencing off a whole quarry is expensive to construct and maintain, and possibly not in keeping with the landscape.\nA stone wall restricting access from below may be visually acceptable and effective in restricting access; Advice will be sought. Mine dumps are safer, and could be be visited, with permission.\nNon Maritime Cliff, Rock outcrops and Inland cliffs present danger to walkers, and visitors will be requested to stay on the paths.\nMonitor/Surveillance Projects:\nClose off access to the quarries from below, with temporary fences. Erect warning signs from above and below. Monitor use. Consider stone wall restricting access from below and seek funding. Refer to expert safety inspectors of quarries fro recommendations. Issue obvious warning to all visitors to stay on paths, away from Disturbed ground, Non Maritime Cliff, Rock outcrops and Inland cliffs.   6.6\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Paleontological interest Exposure sites reveal new rock surfaces to be analysed. Interests of geological societies, and researchers will be accommodated, subject to considerations of safety, and with permission (see safety and access).\n  7\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Management Options Continuously:\nA3: Active management E2: Restricted access.   "});index.add({'id':28,'href':'/docs/cnrm/management/orme_educationinterpretation.html','title':"Orme Education, Interpretation, Facilities",'section':"Management Plans",'content':"Table of Contents\n1\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Evaluation 2\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Description 3\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Current Status 4\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Attributes selected as performance indicators 5\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Attributes and Operational limits 6\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Management Rationale and Projects   1\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Evaluation  \u0026quot;A Policy Statement for the Great Orme\u0026quot;(1976), states an objective:\n\u0026quot;to Create opportunities for people to enjoy and appreciate the qualities of the Country Park without compromising the conservation objectives.\u0026quot;\n The Good Practice Guidelines for country parks (CCW, 1995) states, \u0026quot;country parks offer an excellent opportunity to provide and nurture environmental awareness for people of all ages...\u0026quot;  We shall continue to provide educational opportunities in Gt Orme Country Park because:\nOne of the statutory purposes of the Country Park is realised by the continued service . Existing provision is consistent with CCW guidelines for country parks.   2\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Description The site is used by school and university groups in the study of geographical, geological, biological, archaeological and historical topics. Country Park staff assist in the provision of environmental education with slide talks, guided walks, trails and events. Schools may take part in a full day of activities at the Great Orme. Links with the Copper Mines and Victorian Tramway have been established.\nThe Great Orme Country Park Visitor Centre was opened in 1983. It contains displays on the history, wildlife and management of the Great Orme. Information about the Country Park in the form of a variety of leaflets and booklets, produced by Conwy Countryside Service, is available in the gift shop (run by the North Wales Wildlife Trust). A multi-purpose room at the visitor centre provides facilities for educational groups, and is also useful during periods of bad weather.\nResearch is continuously carried out on the history, archaeology, geology and natural history of the site individuals, agencies and educational establishments.\nInterpretation panels, information boards and leaflets are available.\n 3\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Current Status Favourable Maintained, As of December 2001. This assertion is based upon the 2000/2001 survey.   4\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Attributes selected as performance indicators The Education/Interpretation/Research services and facilities will be considered to be in favourable condition provided the following attributes are within LACs:\n4.1\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Quantity An appropriate number of study days are offered Schools request the services Targeted groups are found and use the service Appropriate income is generated   4.2\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Quality Welsh language opportunities exist Satisfaction levels from surveys, comment books, external verifiers are positive Capacity of facilities to meet demand are likely to continue to exist for the foreseeable future. Access for all standards are met    5\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Attributes and Operational limits 5.1\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Objective statement The Education/Interpretation/Research services and facilities at Gt Orme Country Park will be at favourable status WHERE,\n 5.2\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Quantity Days of operation in a year\nUpper limit: 250 days Lower limit: 190 days  Numbers of users\nUpper limit: year2000+10% Lower limit: 70 groups  Numbers from targeted groups: Schools and Care Homes,\nUpper limit: year2000+10% Lower limit: 1999  Net/gross cost per visitor\nUpper limit: year2000+10% Lower limit: none set   5.3\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Quality Satisfaction levels from surveys, comment books, external verifiers etc.\nUpper limit: None set Lower limit: satisfied  Capacity of facilities to meet demand by groups (Number of seats; No. of groups turned away)\nUpper limit: year 2000+10% Lower limit: none set Access for all standards  Service Delivery Outcomes and Status:\nAttributes indicative of quantity: within LAC Attributes indicative of quality: within LAC    6\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Management Rationale and Projects 6.1\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Educational use/facilities Facilities are adequate. An education pack for the Great Orme aimed at children aged 7-11 years is available, and this service and associated activities will be extended in order to meet wider needs. Incidents of damage by groups to sensitive areas are now rare, due to increasing environmental awareness in general, and due to specific information provided in the Visitor Centre; this will continued and.\n 6.2\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Monitoring \u0026amp; Projects Educational packs for older groups will be developed for 11-16 year olds in conjunction with curricula in Geography and Biology and Physics. Develop environmental learning activities in conjunction with local services for learning difficulties. Update leaflets on environmental awareness, including successes. Extend woodland history project to local schools. Involve schools in monitoring projects, such as woodland ground flora indicator plants.   6.3\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Research use/facilities Many specific projects have been completed and the results made available to the County Borough Council. Much is carried out without the involvement or knowledge of the wardening staff.\nMonitoring \u0026amp; Projects:\nEnsure research projects are carried out with permission and, recorded. Request outcomes/productions of all research to made available. Prepare list of projects with which the Country Park would find assistance useful, in its management.   6.4\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Leaflets A free promotional information leaflet with wide distribution, available of charge at local Tourist Information Centres and the Country Park Visitor Centre, is handed to all visitors arriving by car via the Marine Drive. Leaflets concerning grazing trials will be prepared for evaluation by the public, in order to extend the opportunities for informal education.\nMonitoring \u0026amp; Projects:\nPrepare leaflet outlining grazing variation trials, with expectations concerning wildlife.   6.5\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Interpretation panels An interpretation panel explains what can be seen on Pen y Dinas and its historical significance. Another, found on the Gunsite, explains the significance of the remains of remaining wartime buildings. A further interpretation panel is located at the Cromlech (Scheduled Ancient Monument). Many interpretation panels would spoil the wilderness qualities, and possibly be an unwelcome overload of information to many. The combination of a small number of panels will be reviewed for comprehensiveness as well as utility, such as avoidance of hotspots. A need for one interpretation panel to divert interest from the Pen y Dinas site has been identified (see archaeological features).\nMonitoring \u0026amp; Projects:\nDesign one archaeological interpretation board to serve several archaeological features, with trail route. Consider utility and balance of all interpretation panels together.   6.6\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Focal points Surveys revealed intensive use of the quarries and limestone pavement areas by study groups. However, the quarries are dangerous for school groups. An exhibition of finds for the quarry will be prepared. The quarry will be closed off, and guided tours will be permissible, possibly using a fixed point telescope to examine the quarry surface.\nMonitoring \u0026amp; Projects:\nPrepare exhibition of quarry finds. Plan guided tour of quarry in conjunction with safety measures (see Feature: Disturbed ground...)   6.7\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Information boards These are located at the entrances to the Country Park i.e. North Shore Tollgate on Marine Drive, entrance on Ty Gwyn Road, summit car park. At this time they are considered sufficient in number and detail.\n 6.8\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Trails The site has an established Nature Trail, which is way-marked and interpreted through a Nature Trail booklet. There are two Historical Trails around the site, self guided with the use of the Historical Trails booklet. Three Summit Trails are way-marked to encourage people to visit the Great Orme on foot; a leaflet gives directions. There is also a short way-marked route from the Ski Slope to the top of Pen y Dinas (Iron Age Hillfort). No further trails are considered necessary at this time beyond plans for an additional Summit Trail and a new leaflet.\n 6.9\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Guided walks and Events There is a year round programme of guided walks and children's events. Country Park staff lead guided walks for organised groups mainly during the summer months, with interpretations of the Great Orme and its environmental features. Walks will be constantly improved with knowledge. Wider audiences than school groups are welcome, and disadvantaged groups will be contacted. New events will be selected and tried.\nMonitoring \u0026amp; Projects:\nUpdate guided tours with feedback from participating staff, local experts, and public. Select and try new events with opportunities to learn about the Country Park management. Contact socially disadvantaged groups offering guided walks.   6.10\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Slide Talks Country Park staff give 10 - 15 slide talks groups during the Autumn and Winter months.\nTo extend this facility would be desirable, but staff levels will not permit this at this time. A part-time opportunities for environmental education staff will be sought, in order to increase the facility on a self-funded basis.\nMonitoring \u0026amp; Projects:\nPrepare self-funded scheme for environmental talks and offer these to groups in land management and education.    "});index.add({'id':29,'href':'/docs/cnrm/management/orme_fauna.html','title':"Orme Fauna",'section':"Management Plans",'content':"Table of Contents\n1\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Designation 2\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Description 3\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Current condition and status of feature 4\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Attributes selected as performance indicators 5\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Management Rationale and Projects 6\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Management Options   1\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Designation UK BAP, LBAP species:\nBadger (Meles Meles), Lesser horseshoe bat (Rhinolophus hipposideros), Brown hare (Lepus europaeus), Skylark (Alauda arvensis) Songthrush (Turdus philomelos), Bullfinch (Pyrrhula pyrrhula), Lapwing (Vanellus vanellus), Linnet (Carduelis cannabina), Curlew (Burhinus oedicnemus), Chough (Pyrrhocorax pyrrhocorax) See also, feature: The silver-Studded Blue, Plebejus Arjus.  The stone curlew is listed on Annex I of the EC Birds Directive and Appendix II of the Bern Convention.\nThe Song Thrush and Skylark are protected under the EC Birds Directive;the WCA 1981.\nBrown Hare and Chough are Red Data Book Species.\nSize:\nRefer to data on baseline populations, based upon the 2000/2001 survey..   2\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Description Approximately 30 species of birds are truly resident. Passage migrants include Golden Plover, Dotterel, Snow Bunting, Lapland Bunting and Ring Ouzel, Snow Bunting, Black Redstart and Chough.\nA wide variety of insects are supported by a diverse flora. Twenty-one species of butterfly have been recorded including six rare species of Lepidoptera (two are endemic to the site).\nMammals supported within this community include Fox, Rabbit, Badger and Weasel. Common Reptiles recorded are Lizard, Slow Worm and Common Toad.\n 3\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Current condition and status of feature All performance indicators are within LACs.\nCurrent status:\nFavourable maintained based upon the 2000/2001 survey.   4\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Attributes selected as performance indicators The Fauna will be considered to be in favourable condition provided the following attributes are within LACs:\n4.1\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Extent Species' populations. No of Sites occupied by each species   4.2\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Quality Age structure Fertility   4.3\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Objective statement Maintain the populations of selected BAP species in a favourable condition, WHERE:\n 4.4\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Extent Species' populations remains at or above current levels.\nTarget level: 120% year2000 Upper limit: None set. Lower limit: Target level  Number of occupied sites remain at current levels, or increases.\nTarget level: None set. Upper limit: None set Lower Limit: current numbers.  Monitoring Projects:\nLBAP/BAP Species' populations Number of occupied sites.   4.5\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Quality Age structure remains of even distribution\nLimits: none set  Fertility is not decreasing * Limits: none set.\nMonitor/survey:\nAge structure of species' populations Number of offspring.    5\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Management Rationale and Projects 5.1\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Surveys The fauna has not been surveyed comprehensively, therefore lists of the various groups should not be considered as complete. Information on different groups is added to on an almost annual basis, mainly as a result of independent survey work. Monitoring of butterfly populations, using a transect method developed by the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology, has been undertaken since 1991.\nMany of the invertebrates that occur in acid grassland are specialist species which do not occur in other types of grassland.\nFungi may include LBAP species, such as ballerina wax-cap. Surveys will be extended.\nSurvey acid grassland invertebrates Survey Fungi   5.2\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Manageable threats common to all Habitat fragmentation. Loss of feeding grounds (grasslands, heath, bog, copse), loss of mixed farming, loss of mixed grazing, stock density (disturbance and grazing competition), loss of structural diversity, predators (cats, dogs, crows, magpies, stoats, weasels), habitat fragmentation. Changes from spring to autumn sowing of cereals. Egg collecting. Poisons.\n 5.3\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Habitat Some species, like the chough, require a range of habitats for feeding within its' range. In general, sound management of the habitat features has included structural diversity in its objectives and plans, to the benefit all species. Management for invertebrate diversity in all habitats benefits birds in general, as well as bats. Reseeding of pastures with pure stands of rye grass will be opposed because it reduces the diversity of insect prey. Mixed grazing, a range of compartments, and mosaic grasslands increases invertebrate diversity.\nRequirements of sward structure vary across species. Chough prefers short swards allow access to soil invertebrates. Reduced grazing by livestock and rabbits on the remaining grasslands is also associated with loss of curlew. Skylarks nest in treeless, short grassland less than 25 cm tall, yet intensive grazing of pasture can create a sward that is too short for nesting skylarks. Volume of weed seeds available to linnets is held responsible for their recent steep decline. Changes from spring to autumn sowing of cereals, applies less to Gt Orme in recent history, though introduction of some cereal growing (mixed farming), and an area of 'set aside' will benefit feeding linnet, chough and skylark. Reintroduction of hay meadows may benefit sky lark.\nA reduction in woodland edge, scrub habitat and, understorey is associated with loss of food supply, dry soils and, loss of suitable nesting opportunities, concerning the songthrush and bullfinch.\nBadger favour wooded areas with grassland alongside. Food taken includes worms, frogs, birds' eggs, small mammals, carrion, roots and berries.\nMonitoring \u0026amp; Projects:\nSeek to Introduce mixed grazing, and varied compartmentalised grazing rotations. Maintain grassland areas with required sward conditions for Skylark. Maintain grassland areas with required sward conditions for Chough. Maintain grassland areas with required sward conditions for Curlew. Monitor all ground nesting populations and map according to grazing regime. Monitor and map roost and feed sites of sensitive bird species occur. Seek opportunities to introduce small set aside areas of winter food for birds on farmland Seek opportunities to reintroduce two areas of hay meadow. Enforce prohibition of grassland 'improvements' Reduce grazing intensity i woodland. Encourage and manage marginal woodland vegetation. Monitoring wintering birds Encourage marginal and understorey vegetation favourable to small mammals. Ensure the provision of grass/woodland edge habitat. Monitor badger population   5.4\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Disturbance Disturbance of ground nesting and cliff nesting birds is associated with their decline. Disturbance by rock climbers, is now under control, and coincides with an increase in kittiwake. Badger hibernate and live in setts comprising a complex system of tunnels, from October to February. High stock density may cause disturbance to ground nesting birds and Hare.\nMonitor levels of disturbance, according to zone and season. Protect setts from disturbance.   5.5\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Grazing Competition High stock densities, or rabbits may compete with hare for grazing. Hares will no mix with rabbits.\nMonitoring \u0026amp; Projects:\nMonitor hare populations and grazing intensity of stock and rabbits per zone. Monitor and control rabbit population.   5.6\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Predation An increase in predation rates on nests and chicks is associated with their decline, especially by foxes.\nMonitoring \u0026amp; Projects:\nMonitor the effects of fox predation on nesting populations and hare and control if necessary. Monitor effects of crow predation birds and hare. Monitor hare population, counted in spring.   5.7\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Poisons Effects of chemical treatments can reduce invertebrate species and numbers, and will be vigorously opposed. Animal Injection is preferable to bolus treatment, because levels of the drug will decline, before deposition in dung.\nMonitoring \u0026amp; Projects:\nMonitor and enforce the prohibition of chemical treatments. Liaise with farmers and vets concerning bolus treatments.   5.8\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Collision Utility lines and fences are associated with loss of some birds species, including curlew.\nMonitoring \u0026amp; Projects:\nMonitor incidents of collision with overhead cables.   5.9\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Cover Brown hare require daytime cover in addition to feeding grounds (grasslands, heath, bog, copse).\nMonitoring \u0026amp; Projects:\nCreate cover of old heather and, marginal vegetation.   5.10\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Roost Sites Lesser horseshoe bat requires roost sites for hibernation, with stable winter temperatures (e.g.underground sites such as cave/mines); nursery roost sites and roost sites for males during spring and summer (e.g.roof spaces, hollows in mature trees).\nMonitoring \u0026amp; Projects:\nProvide nursery and male bat roost boxes. Protect old standing trees. Ensure underground entrances are not sealed off; liaise with Cave exploration society.   5.11\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Habitat Fragmentation Populations need to disperse or be colonised by populations on the mainland in order to thrive. Development of Llandudno town threatens remaining connectivity of by the causeway, with ensuing isolation of of mammals, reptiles and insect populations of the Gt Orme. Further development will be challenged on this issue. Existing developments will be surveyed for possible measures which may improve connectivity.\nConnective strip to mainland through sand bar to be defined and managed with suitable cover.\nMonitoring \u0026amp; Projects:\nLiaise with Planning departments for Llandudno. Campaign to raise awareness of the local issue of connectivity.    6\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Management Options Continuously:\nA3: Active management to create habitat mosaics and roost sites E4: Open access. Request walkers stay on paths.   "});index.add({'id':30,'href':'/docs/cnrm/management/orme_fenmeadow.html','title':"Orme Fen Meadow",'section':"Management Plans",'content':"Table of Contents\n1\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Designation 2\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Description 3\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Current condition and status 4\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Attributes selected as performance indicators 5\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Attributes and Operational Limits 6\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Management Rationale and Projects 7\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Management Options   1\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Designation Grade I SSSI, Candidate SAC, UK BAP Key Habitat status (1995).\nSize:\n0.4 ha.   2\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Description The Calcicolous Molinia pasture-Cirsium dissectum (M24) community is found in warm conditions on moderately mesotrophic, dry, peaty soils associated with mires.\nA considerable number of flowering herbs and sedges are able to maintain themselves under a frequent grazing regime, with some patched structural diversity. Sub-shrubs, Erica tetralix, Calluna vulgaris, and Ulex gallii make a slight appearance. The bryophyte cover is generally low and shade-tolerant, with inhibited development.\n 3\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Current condition and status Fen Meadow:\nTotal Area: 0.4 ha. Frequency of constant and frequent species: within LACs. Species indicative of change: within LAC A set of sub-shrubs indicative of grazing activity.  Current Status:\nFavourable Maintained, as of December 2001. This assertion is based upon the 2000/2001 survey.\n 4\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Attributes selected as performance indicators The Fen Meadow will be considered to be in favourable condition provided the following attributes are within LACs:\n4.1\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Extent All Fen Meadow Calcicolous Molinia - dissectum (M24 b/c)\nComponent plant communities are influenced by climate and soil conditions, but this is essentially a secondary vegetation type, derived from a variety of precursors and maintained by grazing. These are not static factors and area limits are thus set.   4.2\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Quality/condition M24b Calcicolous Molinia pasture-Cirsium dissectum sub-community M24c Juncus acutiflorus-Erica Tetralix sub-community Grass sward height A set of sub-shrubs indicative of grazing activity A set of associated plants as indicators of change.    5\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Attributes and Operational Limits 5.1\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Objective statement To maintain the Fen Meadow with its usual plants in favourable condition, WHERE:\n 5.2\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Extent All Fen Meadow\nTotal area remains at the target level. Target level: 0.4 ha. of 323 ha Upper limit: None set Lower limit: target level. Monitor/surveillance: Extent of Fen Meadow       5.3\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Condition All existing NVC plant communities:\nTarget: The following conditions are met in 95% by extent Lower limit: 70% Upper limit: none set.   5.4\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;M24b Calcicolous Molinia pasture-Cirsium dissectum sub-community Monitor: frequency of Calcicolous Molinia and Cirsium dissectum Upper and lower limits: As stated in NVC floristic tables   5.5\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;M24c Juncus acutiflorus-Erica Tetralix sub-community Monitor frequency of Juncus acutiflorus-Erica Tetralix Upper and lower limits: As stated in NVC floristic tables  Grass sward height: is maintained between limits\nTarget: Maintain limits to grass height Upper limit: 60 cm. Lower limit: 20 cm Monitor: Sward height  A set of sub-shrubs indicative of grazing activity\nThese sub-shrubs are kept in check by adequate grazing regime. Monitor: Erica tetralix, Calluna vulgaris, and Ulex gallii     Upper limit: cover = 10%  A set of associated plants as indicators of change:\nMonitor: frequency of: Angelica sylvestris, Cirsium palustre, Schoenus nigricans, Hypericum undulatum, viola dioica, Deschampsia cespitosa, Festuca rubra,Carex panicea        6\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Management Rationale and Projects 6.1\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;All factors, grazing and threats 1 to 9, Calcicolous Grassland Those found the Management Rationale and Projects in the feature, Calcicolous Grassland, are relevant, and refer equally to Fen Meadow, with the following exceptions:\nGrazing intensity\nTypical sward height tends to be taller in Fen meadow than in calcicolous grassland. The grazing regime here needs to be specifically monitored for effects upon sward height. Associated sub-shrubs Erica tetralix, Calluna vulgaris, and Ulex gallii are kept in check by an adequate grazing regime.  Operational limits: (refer to Quality indicators)\nProjects:\nTarget grazing as necessary to maintain sward height and control sub-shrubs.    7\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Management Options Continuously:\nA3: Active management to maintain Fen Meadow E4: Open access. Request walkers stay on paths.   "});index.add({'id':31,'href':'/docs/cnrm/management/orme_limestonepavement.html','title':"Orme Limestone Pavement",'section':"Management Plans",'content':"Table of Contents\n1\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Designation 2\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Description 3\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Current condition and status of feature 4\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Attributes selected as performance indicators 5\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Attributes and Operational Limits 6\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Management Rationale and Projects 7\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Management Options, Continuous   1\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Designation Grade I SSSI, Candidate SAC, UK BAP Key Habitat status (1995). Identified in Annex 1 of the EC Habitats Directive as a priority habitat and will form part of the Natura 2000 Network. Regionally Important Geological Site (RIGS) within Gwynedd for its Limestone Pavement and soils around Bishop's Quarry.  Size:\n2.4 ha.   2\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Description Limestone pavement is a globally rare habitat. Gt. Orme has exposed pavements consisting of bare clints and unusual combinations of plants in between. Shade tolerant and woodland species in sheltered, shaded grikes grow alongside plants of more open environments.\nLimestone pavement here exists as part of a grassland/heath mosaic. The pavement is not species rich and no mammals or reptiles have been recorded on the site.\n 3\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Current condition and status of feature Limestone pavement:\nTotal Area: 2 .5 ha. Species indicative of change: within LAC  Current Status:\nFavourable Maintained, as of December 2001. This assertion is based upon the 2000/2001 survey.   4\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Attributes selected as performance indicators The limestone pavement and communities will be considered to be in favourable condition provided the following attributes are within LACs:\n4.1\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Extent Component plant communities are largely governed by edaphic and climatic conditions. These are relatively static factors and so no area limits need be set.\n 4.2\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Quality Plant communities vary even within separate grikes. There are no limits of defined component species.\nA set of associated plants as indicators of change.\n  5\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Attributes and Operational Limits 5.1\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Objective statement To maintain the limestone pavement with its usual plants in favourable condition, WHERE:\n 5.2\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Extent All Limestone pavement:\nTotal area remains at the target level. Target level: 2.5 ha. of 323 ha Upper limit: None set Lower limit: target level.  Monitor/surveillance:\nExtent of limestone pavement   5.3\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Condition A set of associated plants as indicators of change:\n Monitor: frequency of,\n Hoary Rockrose (Helianthemum canum) and Dark Red Helleborine (Epipactis atrorubens), Spring squill (Squilla verna), Black Spleenwort (Asplenium adiantum-negrum), Wall-rue (A. ruta - muraria), Maidenhair Spleenwort (A. trichomanes), Sanicle (Sanicula europea), Dogs Mercury (Mercuralis perennis) and occasional Brittle Bladder Fern (Cystopteris fragilis), Low blackthorn (Prunus spinosa).       6\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Management Rationale and Projects  Threats of enrichment by fertiliser application and supplementary feeding on or around open pavement, but these are prohibited according to tenancy land use agreements. The local use of 'asulam' herbicide for bracken control may kill any ferns in the grikes, and such use will be discouraged. Monitor/Surveillance Projects:\nProhibit use of 'asulam' herbicide for bracken control nearby.  6.1\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Grazing Grazing pressure will be monitored and controlled. The optimum long term stocking level to maintain the conservation interest of open pavement will be maintained at less than one ewe per hectare (or cattle equivalent based on 5 ewes=1 cow), and temporary fencing considered if this conflicts with other grazing needs on the Gt. Orme. Rehabilitation of heavily grazed pavement may occur with present reduction in stocking rate, and change will be noted.\nSpring squill (Squilla verna) is associated with Festuca ovina, and may be colonising in response to past excessive grazing pressure. Existing dwarf Prunus spinosa may be indicative of invasive scrub, or an endemic species. Trials of variation in grazing pressure of one area by total removal of grazing animals, for a period of five to ten years, will be carried out.\nMonitor/Surveillance Projects:\nMonitor density and distribution of Prunus spinosa, festuca ovina Monitor grazing habit of wild animals on the pavement. Monitor stock densities Initiate research into rehabilitation and grazing pressure immediately Monitor use of supplementary feeds in situ.   6.2\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Erosion Trampling by visitors causes significant wear and prevent growth of plants, and occurs in hot spots where visitors are attracted, by its appearance. This is not harmful to the pavement as a whole, and prohibition is neither considered necessary nor well advised, given the function of a Country Park.\nMonitoring and Projects:\nMonitor erosion.    7\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Management Options, Continuous A3 Active management to maintain limestone pavement, (according to grazing pressure). E4: Open access. Request walkers stay on paths.   "});index.add({'id':32,'href':'/docs/cnrm/management/orme_seacliffslimestone.html','title':"Orme Limestone Sea cliffs and maritime communities",'section':"Management Plans",'content':"Table of Contents\n1\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Designation 2\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Description 3\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Current condition and status of feature 4\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Attributes selected as performance indicators 5\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Attributes and Operational Limits 6\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Condition, All existing plant communities 7\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Management Rationale and Projects 8\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Management Options   1\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Designation Heritage coast, Grade I SSSI, Candidate SAC. UKBAP priority habitat.\nThe Great Orme is a Regionally Important Geological Site (RIGS) and of national geological significance, included in the Geological Conservation Review (GCR).\nSize:\nHeritage Coast, 7 km Cliffs and crags 8.1 ha Shingle/boulders 4.2 ha. Scree: 3.6 ha. Maritime grassland: 3.7 ha.   2\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Description The Great Orme coastline is rugged and cliff-lined to the north characterised by a mosaic of vegetation habitats between the sea and cliff top in a transition from maritime communities and flushed grassland largely within the spray zone around the North and West shorelines, to terrestrial communities. A marine splash zone supports inter-tidal algae. Lichens cling to boulders laced with shingle, above high tide mark. Areas of scree are found.\nThe cliffs provide a suitable habitat for a variety of nesting birds and bird colonies and, rare vascular plants. There are a number of caves, some inaccessible without ropes.\n 3\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Current condition and status of feature The populations of the two breeding Auk species markedly declined in the past. This trend has shown signs of reversing, coincidental with climbing restrictions and a period without major oil pollution affecting the North Wales Coast. Recolonisation by Peregrines and by Choughs has met with varied success.\nTotal Area maritime plant communities: 11.8 ha. Frequency of constant and frequent species: within LACs. Species indicative of change: within LAC There is an absence of visitor erosion There is an absence of pollution. There is an absence of disturbance  Current Status:\nFavourable Maintained, as of April 2002. This assertion is based upon the 2000/2001 survey.   4\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Attributes selected as performance indicators The limestone cliffs and maritime communities will be considered to be in favourable condition provided the following attributes are within LACs:\n4.1\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Extent Extent all maritime plant communities is likely to remain fairly consistent, being a self-perpetuating and largely governed by climatic conditions and gradual erosive processes, where existing grazing pressures remain constant.\nCliffs and slopes are neither threatened by development nor anthropogenic. Thus monitoring extent of cliffs or plant communities is not applicable.\nMarine splash zone/inter-tidal algae and nesting bird populations may face problems with pollution or disturbances.\n 4.2\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Quality Condition of the Maritime cliff communities and flushed grassland Sub-communities (NVC)\nQuality will be confirmed by presence of the range typical species within each sub-community type, which are:\nMC4 Festuca rubra, Brassica oleracea, Dactylis glomerata, Daucus carota ssp.gummifer MC8 Festuca rubra- Armeria maritima grassland MC9 Festuca rubra- Holcus lanatus grassland Geology and geomorphology; absence of visitor erosion Supralittoral zone; absence of pollution. Sea bird colonies; absence of disturbance    5\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Attributes and Operational Limits 5.1\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Objective statement To maintain the limestone cliffs and its communities of flora and fauna in a favourable condition, WHERE:\n 5.2\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Extent 5.2.1\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Target 1 Marine splash zone/intertidal algae remains unaffected by oil. This zone may be adversely affected by pollution such as oil, which must not be allowed to build up or remain because birds and invertebrates would be adversely affected.\nLimits: None set.  Monitor/surveillance:\nExtent of zone by aerial and fixed-point photography.   5.2.2\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Target 2 Nesting bird populations remain at least at current levels. Limits: none set  Monitor/surveillance:\nThe following birds are monitored, or have been noted in the recent past: Guillemot, Razorbill, Kittiwake, Fulmar, Cormorant, Auks, Choughs, Peregrines.     Birds are monitored according to nesting pairs, seasonally. The distribution of breeding pairs. The populations of breeding pairs. Sightings of visiting feeders.     6\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Condition, All existing plant communities Target: The following conditions are met in 95% by extent:\nLower limit: 70% Upper limit: none set.  6.1\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;MC4 Festuca rubra, Brassica oleracea, Dactylis glomerata, Daucus carota ssp.gummifer Extent=8.1 ha. Target level: None set Upper and lower limits: As stated in NVC floristic tables Monitor: frequency of Festuca rubra, Brassica oleracea, Dactylis glomerata, Daucus carota ssp.gummifer   6.2\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;MC8 Festuca rubra- Armeria maritima grassland and MC9 Festuca rubra- Holcus lanatus grassland  Extent = 3.7 ha.\n Target level: None set\n Upper and lower limits: As stated in NVC floristic tables\n Monitor: frequency of constant species,\n Festuca rubra- Armeria maritima, Festuca rubra- Holcus lanatus, Plantago lanceolata, Armeria maritima.      6.3\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;A set of associated plants as indicators of changes  Target level: None set\n Upper limit: None set\n Lower limits: Continued annual flowering.\n Monitor: Frequency of,\n Brassica oleracea, Cotoneaster cambricus, silene vulgaris, Sedum maritimum, Silene nutans, Armeria maritima, Epipactis atrorubens, Helianthemum canum, Hypochoeris maculata.      6.4\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Geology and geomorphology There is an absence of visitor erosion\nMonitor: signs of erosion   6.5\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Supralittoral zone There is an absence of pollution.\nMonitor: for oil pollution   6.6\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Sea bird colonies There is an absence of disturbance\nMonitor: Populations, demographic factors, signs of disturbance.    7\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Management Rationale and Projects The plant communities are largely edaphic and soils are maintained in a state of immaturity by substrate instability thus, ungrazed, the plant communities are self-perpetuating, and bear no threat from succession. (Brassica oleracea may be associated with manurial enrichment by sea-birds roosting above). Little active management is needed but the management of generalist predators for sea birds and threats to natural functioning.\n7.1\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Grazing of maritime grassland Maritime grasslands lies ungrazed on steep to moderate slopes, generally up to 50 m above sea level. Feral goats have greater access to these than sheep, and their increasing numbers may pose a threat to the maritime grasslands.\nMonitoring:\nMonitor diet of goats by faecal analysis. Monitor grazing habits of goats, on rounds.   7.2\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Non-native Invasive shrubs  Cotoneaster integrifolius and Centranthus ruber have become locally dominant in places. Their spread will be controlled. Uprooting invasives may destabilise fragile soil deposits, so we will cut stems in preference. Operational limit:\nTarget : elimination of invasives Upper limit: As present Lower limit: Target level. Monitoring \u0026amp; Projects: Monitor distribution of invasives. Eradicate invasives by containment of dispersal and cutting stems, but not uprooting.     7.3\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Breeding Success of Sea cliff birds  Visitor disturbance and predators can have severe impacts on breeding success, or expansion of colonial nesting bird populations, which are predated upon by badgers, fox, grey squirrel, oyster catcher, kestrel, brown rats, cats, feral cats, ferret and mink. Their presence will be monitored and if necessary controlled. In order to minimise disturbance, controls must take place while birds and food are scarce; ie. winter. Rock climbing is controlled by British Mountaineering Council (BMC) voluntary restrictions; so disturbance should be minimal now. Walkers' access to colonies is restricted by the cliffs. Monitoring \u0026amp; Projects:\nMonitor predator populations. Control predator populations if necessary. Climbing activities   7.4\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Fishing The abundance of food has an impact on breeding performance of all birds.\nDiscarded waste from commercial fisheries may be linked to population increases in some sea bird species. However, fishing for sandeels can have a negative impact on food availability, and entanglement with fishing equipment causes drowning. These threats can be curtailed by spreading awareness, especially amongst fishermen and future fishermen.\nProjects:\nLiaise with local fishermen   7.5\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Pollution Contaminants from illegal oil discharges, and other toxic chemicals, can reduce condition and survival of birds and intertidal species. Plans have been floated to contain future spillages at sea, and bring them to shore, at the foot of the Gt. Orme. These methods will be resisted, and better alternatives sought.\nProjects:\nLiaise with Coastal Services   7.6\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Egg collecting and hunting Are controlled through legislation.\nMonitoring \u0026amp; Projects:\nMonitor activity on cliffs by inspection on rounds. Enforce prohibition by prosecution.   7.7\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Recreational pressure The cliffs, which are dangerous to visitors, are not under great pressure from passive activities. Climbing may cause degradation of any fragile plant communities and disturb cliff-nesting birds. Rock climbing in sensitive areas is limited by agreement and will be monitored. Scuba diving for food or sea urchins has an effect on the food resources of sea birds, and so local scuba clubs will be informed.\nMonitoring and Projects:\nMonitor climbing activities by inspection on rounds. Monitor climbing erosion Liaise with local scuba diving clubs Path Erosion   7.8\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Geology, geomorphology/coastal processes and fossils Whilst the southern part of Wales is sinking as a result of isostatic factors resulting from the end of the last glaciation, the north is static. Erosive reformation is probably not taking place through slippage. The exposed hard limestone is irreplaceable and internationally rare. Geological forms are susceptible to erosion or damage by specimen collecting. Fossil collection is illegal, according to Bylaw. The removal of geological specimens (including fossils) is a Potentially Damaging Operation (SSSI) and may result in a reduction in the value of the quarries as an educational asset.\nMonitoring and Projects:\nPrepare leaflet for visiting geological societies/groups, outlining bylaws and responsibilities. Enforce prohibition    8\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Management Options A2 Passive management of the Limestone Sea cliffs and maritime communities. E4: Open access. Request walkers stay on paths. MS00/01 Manage species, invasives- Control Exotic Cotoneaster/Red Valerian.   "});index.add({'id':33,'href':'/docs/cnrm/management/orme_calcicolousgrass.html','title':"Orme Lowland Calcicolous Grassland",'section':"Management Plans",'content':"Table of Contents\n1\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Designation 2\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Description 3\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Current condition and status of feature 4\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Attributes Selected As Performance Indicators 5\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Attributes and Operational Limits 6\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Management Rationale and Projects 7\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Management Options   1\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Designation Grade I SSSI, Candidate SAC, UK BAP Key Habitat status (1995).\nSize:\n108 ha. (note: area discrepancies exist from GIS calculations and ground surveys. This is expected due to ground undulations missed by GIS.   2\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Description Lowland calcareous grasslands are developed on shallow lime-rich soils generally overlying limestone rocks, including chalk. The semi-natural calcicolous grassland lies unfenced, mainly on sloping ground, adjoining lowland heath, scrub and woodland, dense bracken, and other grassland types. Generally on the Gt. Orme, strongly calcicolous grassland CG1d and CG2d lie south facing on the steeper slopes. More mesophytic CG2c and CG6 lie on gentler slopes. CG10 lies on moderate, north facing slopes. CG2 sub-communities are extremely rare in Britain.\n 3\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Current condition and status of feature Total Area: 108 ha. Frequency of constant and frequent species: within LACs. Species indicative of change: within LAC Species indicative of quality: within LAC  Current Status:\nFavourable Maintained, as of December 2001. This assertion is based upon the 2000/2001 survey.   4\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Attributes Selected As Performance Indicators The calcicolous grasslands will be considered to be in favourable condition provided the following attributes are within LACs:\n4.1\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Extent All calcicolous grassland Component plant communities (NVC classification); Largely governed by edaphic and climatic conditions. These are relatively static factors and so no area limits need to be set.   4.2\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Quality All sub-communities (NVC): These are likely to remain fairly consistent under continued grazing pressures. Quality will be confirmed by presence of the range of typical species within each sub-community types, which are: CG1 Festuca ovina- Calluna vulgaris, 23 ha . CG1d: Helianthemum canum sub-community . CG1e: Koeleria macrantha sub-community. CG2: Festuca ovina-Avenula pratensis, 77 ha CG2d Dicranum scoparium, 32 ha. CG2c Holcus Lanatus- Trifolium repens, 44ha. CG6 : Avenula pubescens grassland, 6 ha. CG6a: Dactylis glomerata- Briza media co-dominant sub-community CG10: Festuca ovina- Agrostis capillaris - Thymus praecox, 2 ha. A minimum cover of bare ground (soil or rock), lichens and bryophytes. A target set of associated vegetation species of high conservation value; i.e. according to Red Book data. Continued downward trends for the listed species may be early indications of a negative factor's influence, effects of management strategy. A target set of vegetation species which have little power to spread. Plants which are largely restricted to centuries-old turf, having little power to spread.    5\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Attributes and Operational Limits 5.1\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Objective statement To maintain the calcicolous grassland a rich herb sward and its full range of biodiversity WHERE,   5.2\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Extent All grassland:\n Total area remains at the target level. Target level: 108 ha. of 323 ha (33% of SSSI) Upper limit: None set Lower limit: 97 ha. (30 % of SSSI) A 10% decline in extent is permitted only if it is lost to a grassland community, or 3% to dense scrub.   Monitor/surveillance:\nExtent of NVC plant communities, by aerial and ground surveys, fixed-point photography, continuously by eye.  Condition: All existing all component NVC plant communities:\nTargets: The following conditions are met in 95% by extent Lower limit: 70% Upper limit: none set.       5.3\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;CG1 Festuca ovina- Calluna vulgaris British Xerobromion grassland\nSize: 23 ha.\nConstant species:\nCalluna vulgaris. Dactylis glomerata, Festuca ovina, Hieracium pilosella, Lotus corniculatus, Plantago lanceolata, Sanguisorba minor, Thymus praecox.  CG1d: Helianthemum canum sub-community\nTarget level: None set Upper and lower limits: As stated in NVC floristic tables Monitor: frequency of Festuca ovina, Calluna vulgaris and Helianthemum canum      CG1e: Koeleria macrantha sub-community\nTarget level: None set Upper and lower limits: As stated in NVC floristic tables Monitor: frequency of Festuca ovina, Calluna vulgaris and Koeleria macrantha,       5.4\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;CG2: Festuca ovina-Avenula pratensis British Mesobromion grassland:\nSize: 77 ha.  CG2d Dicranum scoparium\nSize: 32 ha. Target level: None set Upper and lower limits: As stated in NVC floristic tables Monitor: frequency of Festuca ovina, Avenula pratensis and Dicranum scoparium      CG2c Holcus Lanatus- Trifolium repens\nSize: 44ha. Target level: None set Upper and lower limits: As stated in NVC floristic tables Monitor frequency of Festuca ovina, Avenula pratensis, Holcus Lanatus and Trifolium repens.       5.5\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;CG6 : Avenula pubescens grassland CG6a: Dactylis glomerata- Briza media co-dominant sub-community,\nSize: 6 ha. Target level: None set Upper and lower limits: As stated in NVC floristic tables Monitor frequency of Avenula pubescens and Dactylis glomerata- Briza media co-dominants.       5.6\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;CG10: Festuca ovina- Agrostis capillaris - Thymus praecox grassland CH10a: Trifolium repens-Lazula campestris sub-community,\n Size: 2 ha..\n Target level: None set\n Upper and lower limits: As stated in NVC floristic tables\n Monitor frequency of Festuca ovina, Agrostis capillaris, Thymus praecox, Lazula campestris.\n Indicator set 1: associated plants as indicators of changes: * Upper limit: None Set * Lower Limits: None set. * Monitor:\n frequency of : Scabiosa columbaria, silene nutans, veronica spicata, Potentilla neumanniana, Hypochocris maculata, Cerastium pumilum, Helianthemum canum.    Indicator set 2: vegetation species which have little power to spread * Upper limit: None set * Lower limits: Continued annual flowering of 3 out of 4 species at 50% current frequency. * Monitor:\n frequency of Hippocrepis comosa, Thesium humifusum, Gentian amerella and Polygala calcarea.      5.7\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Bare ground Is 10% cover, i.e. soil or rock, lichens and bryophytes\nMonitor:\nExtent of bare ground in samples.    6\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Management Rationale and Projects 6.1\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Grazing Trials The continued presence of calcicolous grasslands, and Xerobromion especially, is in part dependent upon the existing exposed conditions. Almost continuous unfenced sheep grazing prevents succession to woodland, so sheep grazing is to be continued, in the e short term. Effects of grazing depends on method; rotational, continuous, seasonal or spasmodic; grazing animal and, intensity.\nSummer grazing by cattle or ponies enhances structural diversity, and so supports species that require diverse habitats, as well as increasing overall biodiversity. It is better for invertebrates and poaching the ground, than grazing by sheep. Cattle may be difficult to manage with open visitor access; then ponies are to be preferred. Milking cows especially have educational value also. Native pony breeds are good at opening up rank vegetation and browsing scrub that cattle and sheep have left . Cattle grazing can be used to reduce the dominance of Upright Brome and False Oat grass on grassland.\nSheep bite close to the ground which, with low densities, can result in combination of under-and over-grazing, to produce varied sward structure which is good for invertebrates, including many warmth loving species.\n6.1.1\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Adaptive trials (variations in grazing) Initiate with aims to better determine optimal grazing levels for sward structure and biodiversity. Mixed grazing regimes will be tried and grazing variations monitored .  Monitor/Surveillance Projects:\nConduct local research to establish past stock grazing history on the Gt. Orme, including cattle and horses. Initiate adaptive trials of seasonal and mixed-grazing where existing stone walls allow. Explore possibility of summer pony trekking with local enterprise agencies, in conjunction with restorative grassland and heaths. Explore long term possibility keeping a small number (two to four) hardy milking cows with the farms, which might serve the local community.    6.2\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Grazing intensity and succession to scrub At high grazing levels, except on tussocky grassland, sheep produce a tight springy sward, poor for invertebrates, and which can encourage bracken invasion (Pteridium aquilinum). Ponies and cattle can open up rank vegetation and browse scrub. Cattle grazing can be used to reduce the dominance of Upright Brome and False Oat grass on CG and break up litter.\nSigns of succession will be monitored, and controlled by grazing. Hill breeds can cope with more coarse vegetation, better at preventing succession, and cope better with exposed conditions throughout the year. Sheep grazing produces the short conditions preferred by Stone Curlews, Woodlarks and Wheatears. Sheep grazing at current levels will be continued in the short term. At night sheep often congregate on areas of short sward, causing nutrient enrichment which may be harmful to flora, and lead to succession of rank grasses, avoided by sheep.\nOperational limits:\nTarget 1: Maintain limits to grass height Upper limit: 12 cm. Lower limit: 2 cm     Target 2: No decline in current stocking levels Target 3: No additional rank swards, unless specified as borderzones. Target 4: No additional spread of bracken and over-tight swards. Target 5: No new stands of dense scrub exceeding 10 m across. Target 3: No existing small stands of scrub will exceed 1 ha.  Monitor/Surveillance:\nCongregation of sheep for areas of nutrient enrichment, with changing plant composition. Height of grass. Ensure compliance with existing stocking levels. Distribution and density of Tor-grass, (Brachypodium pinatum), Upright Brome (Bromopsis erecta) and False Oat-grass. Spread of bracken in tight swards. Overall structural mosaic.  Projects:\nReduce dominant rank grasses with targeted grazing by cattle or ponies, with temporary fencing. Control spread of bracken by relaxing sheep grazing in patches by use of electric fencing or flexi-netting. Cut bracken, trample by cattle and ponies. (refer to feature: Bracken) Liaise with owners/occupiers, concerning grazing agreements.   6.3\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Grazing by wild animals 6.3.1\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Rabbits Rabbits make significant contributions on grassland grazed by other stock, feeding only within 30 m boundary zones of cover, and concentrating on areas of short vegetation, ignoring rank swards. These are suitable conditions for butterflies. The actions of rabbits and moles (Talpa europae) in disturbing the soil can help maintain continuity and diversity. Rabbits can be be beneficial on grassland that receives little under cutting, or on sheep grazing regimes, and can be beneficial to invertebrates on thin, sandy, acid or calcareous soils. Their populations fluctuate, large populations overgraze and will be controlled.\n 6.3.2\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Goats Their feeding preferences are not well known. They are able to browse scrub, and consume coarse grasses, such as Tor-grass (Brachypodium pinnatum). Goats may help to keep down any invasives which seed in the protective company of juniper. The goats potential for benefit and harm may depend upon population density, and their contributions will be precisely determined. Their numbers have increased substantially in recent years.\nOperational Limits: Non set.\nMonitoring/Surveillance:\nMonitor grazing habits by fixed-point (hidden) camera, and observation of vegetation. Monitor feral Goat feeding habits to be determined by faecal analysis. Monitor populations. Monitor rabbit feeding areas.  Projects\nSeek the continual advice of a local warrener Control populations Ensure adequate levels of cover for rabbits.    6.4\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Erosion  Sheep cause little trampling except on very loose soils. Where trampling by visitors and livestock is excessive, flowering herbs become lost and are replaced by invasive coarser grasses such as Yorkshire Fog (Holcus lanatus) and White Clover (Trifolium repens). Trampling on slopes in winter or wet conditions is especially erosive. It will destroy nests and young birds in spring. Vehicle Erosion can scar grassland. Thus motorcycle scrambling, is prohibited and will be guarded against. Operational Limits:\nTarget 1: No additional trampling; permit recovery. Target 2: No new footpaths, no increase in footpath width.  Monitor/surveillance:\nLevel of erosion of vulnerable calcicolous grasslands, using quadrats. Trails and footpaths will be monitored for visitor erosion.  Projects:\nCasual parking of cars will be prevented. Restrictions will be enforced. Restrict visitor access on eroded areas, livestock in areas of loose soil, particularly in wet months. Encourage visitors to follow waymarkers. Restrict visitor access to vulnerable/eroded areas on slopes by extending walls,or roping off . Employ the restoration areas in the educational and interpretative processes.   6.5\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Non-native Invasive plants  In certain areas the grassland has been invaded by non-native shrubs and trees including Cotoneaster integrifolius, C. horizontalis, C. simonssi, Strawberry Tree (Arbutus undo), Buckthorn (Rhamnus alaternus), Corsican Pine (Pinus radiata) and Scots Pine (P. sylvestris). These alien species, in particular bird sown C. integrifolius, have smothered some areas and the grassland communities and rare species; Xerobromion grasslands are considered to be under threat being smothered. Operational Limits:\nTarget: complete elimination Upper limit: Target level Lower limit: Present level  Monitor/surveillance:\nDistribution, especially exotic Cotoneaster spp.  Projects:\nCommunity education to contain the bird sown dispersal of Cotoneaster spp. by seasonal de-budding, and replanting with native alternatives in local residential areas. Eradication by containment of dispersal and uprooting. Research restorative grazing regimes where invasive species are present, possibly with ponies.   6.6\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Artificial fertilisers, pesticides The grasslands are nutrient poor, and fertilisers would be a threat. Pesticides may poison vascular plants, bryophytes or fungi. Local use is forbidden in the Bylaws. The Orme is fortunate in lying exposed, and isolated by the sea, minimising risks of spray carryover.\nOperational Limits:\nTarget: None used within 10 kilometres. Upper limit: As present Lower limit: Target level.  Monitor/surveillance:\nUse of artificial fertilisers by local farmers, (none as per agreement).  Projects:\nCampaign for farmers in the nearby district to join sympathetic land-use schemes.   6.7\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Supplementary feeding Supplementary feeding of animals causes local nutrient enrichment, to the detriment of grassland by encouraging invasive competitive grasses.\nOperational Limits:\nTarget: No supplementary feeding in situ Upper and Lower limit: None set.  Monitor/surveillance:\nUse of supplementary feeds in situ.  Projects:\nObtain information and consult with farmers, seeking co-operation.   6.8\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Fly-tipping Adjacent habitations spur fly tipping from time time. Damage is to plants. The activity is illegal. Damages and fines may be imposed.\nOperational limits: none set.\nMonitoring/Surveillance:\nMonitor land for fly tipping.  Projects:\nPublicise any incidents in local newspapers in order to discourage repetition.   6.9\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Ant-parasitic drugs Concerns for persistent use of Ivermectin, anti-parasitic drugs, excreted in dung; residues can reduce insect fauna. Alternative drugs for internal nematode parasites exist (Madsen et al., 1992).\nOperational Limit:\nTarget: No use of Ivermectin Upper limit: None set Lower limit: None set.  Monitoring/Surveillance:\nMonitor use of ant-parasitic drugs used by local farmers.  Projects:\nBring notice of concerns to local farmers, and report the existence of alternatives.    7\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Management Options A3: Active management to maintain calcicolous grassland. E4: Open access. Request walkers stay on paths. MS00/01: Manage species, tree/shrub- Control Exotic Cotoneaster.   "});index.add({'id':34,'href':'/docs/cnrm/management/orme_management_plan.html','title':"Orme Management Plan",'section':"Management Plans",'content':"Table of Contents\n1\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Summary of the Functions of the Plan 2\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Introduction to the Gt Orme Management Plan 3\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Description 4\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Policy 5\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Confirmation of Features 6\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;All Confirmed Management Features 7\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Rationale: Grouping and selection of Confirmed Features for Management 8\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Factors of Influence 9\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Potential Conflicts 10\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Funding 11\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Farming Future and Grazing 12\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Management of Features 13\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Appendices   1\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Summary of the Functions of the Plan To identify the objectives of site management. To identify the factors which affect or may affect the features. To resolve any conflicts. To identify and define the monitoring and surveillance requirements. To identify and describe the management required to achieve the objectives. To maintain continuity of effective management. To obtain resources. To enable communication within and between sites and organisations. To demonstrate that management is effective and efficient or appropriate.   2\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Introduction to the Gt Orme Management Plan The Plan's standard format is approved at organisational level. The Plan has been prepared for the entire site, and is no larger than the site requires. The plan meets, as far as resources allow, the requirements of the site and your organisation. Brief maps accompany the text. Ordnance survey maps are useful. Full plans may be referred to, held at the Countryside Council for Wales (CCW) offices.\nManagement planning has been regarded as a continuous, adaptable, long-term process. The adaptable process enables conservation managers to:\nTake account of, and respond to, the varying factors that affect the features. Continually develop or refine management processes. Demonstrate whether or not management is appropriate.  A confirmed list of features for management purposes has been drawn up with due regard to previously recognised conservation features, according to designations of a local, national,or international, kind. The plan also includes Country Park features in order to meet Country Park objectives. Appropriate management is implemented with respect to each feature The features are monitored in order to determine whether or not the current condition meets the required condition. Shortfalls are recorded. Where objectives are not being met, the management processes are reviewed, and if necessary modified. Occasionally, it may be necessary to modify the objectives. The cycle is repeated at appropriate intervals.\nNo one individual possesses sufficient expertise in all areas, and opinion is sought. The plan is produced with team effort and overall responsibility for the production of the plan rests with the site manager. Where consultants are employed, this is in consultation with the site manager.\n 3\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Description 3.1\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Summary Description National Grid Reference:\nSH 767 833  The Great Orme is a headland surrounded by sea, connected to the mainland by a causeway, situated in the community of Llandudno in the county of Conwy The site is bounded by cliffs, farmland, municipal gardens, residential developments and the sea coast.\nThe Great Orme is a syncline of Carboniferous Limestone comprising 314 ha., its cliffs rise from sea level to 207 m. (679 ft.) at its summit, and of sufficient interest to be included in the national Geological Conservation Review (GCR).\nThere are a number of freshwater springs and wells on the headland, which is characterised by intricate inter-grading zones of mainly calcicolous grassland and heath. Areas of limestone pavement and scrub also occur, in addition to two areas of mixed ash woodland, which are probably ancient. The site is rich native in flora and fauna of conservation interest. There are also underground mines.\n 3.2\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Designation The vast majority, 321 ha. of the site, is included within the SSSI and Nature Conservation Review (NCR). 309 hectares are candidate Special Area of Conservation (cSAC) Natura 2000 site. A Local Nature Reserve (LNR) boundary of 151 hectares was defined in 1981 in order to include all prime sites of biological or geological importance and, as far as practical, match that of the Country Park boundary of 291 hectares. 7 km is defined as Heritage coast.\nSome independent businesses on the Gt. Orme, for example the Summit Complex and Rectory Tea Gardens, are situated outside the designations of Country Park and Local Nature Reserve, but within the same area boundaries: Refer to Map: 'Great Orme, Overlapping Designations').\n 3.3\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Past Land-Use History Archaeological evidence of human occupation dates back to the Upper Palaeolithic. The Viking influence that spread throughout the Irish Sea is evident in the name Orme (Norse: ' Great serpent'), and in coinage of King Cnut found in the church.\nEnclosure had advanced by the Mid 18th century. Un-enclosed land (218 ha) in 1840 was held in common by the Bishop of Bangor, transferred to private ownership by a parliamentary enclosure award in 1848.\nSheep rearing has been prevalent agriculture on un-enclosed land for over 2 centuries prior to the Great Orme becoming a Victorian recreational area. With the decline of the copper industry, after 1843. A golf course after WWI, the land became farmland in WW2. The site had been used by a small number of local people for hunting and shooting.\n 3.4\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Present Use There are no common rights on the Country Park. The County Borough Council, as manager of the land, has rights of access to all parts of the site. Management of the Country Park and Local Nature Reserve since 1980 has sought to promote conservation, public recreation or enjoyment and education. The Great Orme's head, a resort since Victorian times, attracts a large number of visitors. The site is open access to the public. Visitors can gain access to the summit of the site by motor vehicle, a cable car, Victorian tramway, or public footpath.\nGreat Orme's Head is of low agricultural quality, with a little arable land. The majority of the site is sheep grazed by Mr. J T Jones of Parc Farm (Great Orme). The grazing density, now 1.4 sheep per hectare, has declined over the past 20 years from the order of 1,000 down to 416 sheep. The sheep are grazed all year round, with about nine weeks of gathering onto the improved pasture land for weaning (August), shearing (June), tupping (October) and lambing (March). There is a herd of grazing feral goats.\nPrivate land on the headland is mainly used for either residential (nearer the town of Llandudno) or agricultural purposes, these lie outside the Country Park and LNR boundaries.\n 3.5\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Zones Zones, according to usage, may be geographic or seasonal, determined by management compartments of habitats, and positions of paths and and boundaries; zones will be identified, mapped, and monitored for management purposes.\nZones are not easily separated for grazing purposes, and therefore may need to be combined for the purpose. In the past it is likely that shepherds exercised 'management options' by targeting the grazing.\n  4\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Policy 4.1\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Land Ownership and Policy The majority of the land is owned by Mostyn Estates Ltd and the remainder of the land is in the possession of Conwy County Borough Council.\n 4.2\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Policy Statement Within the Landscape Conservation Area, including the Heritage Coast, the (Site of Special Scientific Interest) SSSI's, Local Nature Reserves (LNRs) and Country Park, it is the policy [1] of the two major landowners, Mostyn Estates Ltd and Conwy County Borough Council, to:\nEnsure co-ordination of conservation objectives of the two major landowners guided by a comprehensive management plan agreed with the Countryside Council for Wales (CCW). Safeguard and conserve the scenic beauty, relative remoteness, the wild flora and fauna, and geological features. Safeguard the interests of farming, and nearby residents. Retain and protect a representative selection of of regional, local or academically important archaeological sites and monuments, including their settings. Withhold planning consent until provision has been made for an appropriate archaeological response . Resist development proposals if this conflicts with nature conservation interests of SSSI or LNR, or developments which conflict with the existing character of the landscape or appearance of the Great Orme. Create opportunities for people to enjoy and appreciate the qualities of the Country Park without compromising the conservation objectives. Provide for recreation activities for a variety of tastes and degrees of solitude, that are based on the resources of the area and which do not conflict. Endeavour to ensure enjoyment of the individual is not spoilt by overcrowding. Encouraged schemes for development of facilities which help in the objectives above provided they comply with the policies, and where: The design and materials reflect the built form of the locality Development takes into account both the landscape effect and views . It is capable of being satisfactorily integrated into the landscape.   4.3\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Policy, Candidate Sac Habits and Species OBJECTIVE:\nTo maintain biodiversity by conserving natural habitats and wild flora and fauna in the European territory of the Member States, WHERE ALSO: As amended by Council Directive 97/62/EC of 27 October 1997(7) [2] MEMBER STATES MUST ALSO: Encourage the management of features of the landscape which are essential for the migration, dispersal and genetic exchange of wild species. Take the requisite measures to establish a system of strict protection for those animal and plant species which are particularly threatened (Annex IV) and study the possibility of reintroducing those species on their territory. Prohibit the use of non-selective methods of taking, capturing or killing certain animal and vegetable species (Annex V).      4.3.1\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;FOOTNOTES  [1]A Policy Statement for the Great Orme, produced by the Borough Council, November 1976.    [2]Llandudno/Conwy District Council Plan (1982) and its 1993 revision.      5\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Confirmation of Features 5.1\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Previously Recognised Features 5.1.1\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;A. Qualifying Features Table: independently qualifying features, SSSI habitat features of interest.\n  5.2\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Geology \u0026amp; Geomorphology SSSI Features of Interest Great Orme (GCR No. 960). It is an important locality for studies of Welsh paleaogeography, sedimentology and late Dinatian faunas.\n 5.3\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Priority UK Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) habitats  5.4\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;SSI Features of Interest: Plants \u0026amp; Animals Refer to tables 1-3 in appendix 1\nScheduled Ancient Monuments/sites, of national Importance\nPeny dinas Hwylfa'r Ceirw Kendrick's Cave Bishop's palace Llety'r Filiast Great Orme copper Mine   5.5\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Non-Qualifying components habitats  5.6\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Non-Qualifying Archaeological features There are a number of sites of regional, and local importance, including Hut circles, Hut Platforms, Field systems, caves and artefacts, banks, as well as damaged sites and those requiring further investigation. There are also a number of unconfirmed wartime and early industrial sites and buildings.. Incorporate all SSSI habitat features, those which meet all objectives of the Country Park.\n 5.7\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Red Data Book Endangered Status Wild Cotoneaster Schedule 8 Cotoneaster cambricus; Introduced-naturalised, W.Kent, Surrey, Isle of Man. Also, Priority Biodiversity Action Plan species/ Local BAP (LBAP).    6\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;All Confirmed Management Features 6.1\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Features Selected for the Purposes of This Management Plan Bracken Brachypodium sylvaticum grassland Broad-leaved Woodland Calcicolous Grassland Calcicolous Heathland Calcifugous Grassland Dense/Scattered Scrub Fen Meadow Mesotrophic Grassland Limestone Sea cliffs and maritime communities (including: Cliffs and crags; Shingle/boulders; Scree; Maritime grassland) Limestone Pavement Wild Cotoneaster Fauna Silver-studded blue butterfly Quarries, Disturbed ground, Non Maritime Cliff, Rock outcrops and Inland cliffs Archeological Sites Education, Interpretation, Research use \u0026amp; Facilities Recreation Use \u0026amp; facilities Specific site management issues\n  7\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Rationale: Grouping and selection of Confirmed Features for Management 7.1\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Grasslands and Heath The grasslands and heath together form complex mosaics based largely upon edaphic soil factors. They have been treated separately within this plan due to different attributes and monitoring, need for different grazing limits, and in the case of heath maintenance, of calluna in all growth stages.\n 7.2\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Flora and Fauna Refer to appendix 1 and 2 for lists\nGenerally, diversity of fauna and flora are promoted by optimal habitat management techniques for diversity. Unless, the habitat needs special adaptation, there is no call for special individual treatments. Two individual species have been selected, due to rarity and threatened status:\nCotoneaster; Silver-studded blue butterfly  BAP fauna and fungi species populations will be monitored and positively managed, referred to in Feature 16: Fauna and fungi.\n 7.3\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Disturbed ground: Quarries and mine spoil; inland cliffs, rock outcrops, and non-maritime cliff These are amalgamated because they share similar flora and factors of management.\n  8\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Factors of Influence 8.1\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Summary of Factors which may influence features Owner/Occupiers objectives:\nRefer to policy, Appendix 5  8.1.1\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Internal Natural Herb species, Herb coverage, Herb height, succession (rank grasses, scrub/trees), Insect life and pollination, microclimate, water table, fauna, slopes, climate, hydrological, aspect, soils, predation, dispersal, succession, grazing by wild animals, animal erosion, animal Burrowing.\n 8.1.2\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Internal anthropogenic Grazing (cycle, density/ intensity, species), livestock feeding preferences, shepherd-control, compartments, visitor trampling, visitor disturbance, fencing, farmers.\n 8.1.3\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;External natural Invasion by competitive species, poisons (herbicides and pesticides), fertilisers, seed sowing, genetic modified seed, air pollution, resource constraints, climate and change, water erosion, natural erosion.\n 8.1.4\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;External human induced SSSI designations, management constraints, resource constraints (money, staff, information, agreements, local policy, archaeological policy, adjacent land-use, supplementary animal feeding, artificial feed and licking blocks, artificial fertilisers \u0026amp; pesticide, anti-parasitic drugs, proximity of similar habitats, local exotic collections, fires, fly-tipping, activities (rock climbing, caving expeditions, etc.), past land use, loss of habitat, species exploitation, access by humans, aerial pollution, vehicular access on slopes, agricultural practices, recreational activities, pollution, spillage, drainage, heavy machinery, ploughing and reseeding, collectors, storage/dumping, commercial development, illegal and accidental burning.\n   9\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Potential Conflicts 9.1\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Potential Conflicts of factors in Management Projects The following specific conflicts cross reference to the relevant features. Solutions, or partial solutions, are offered below:\n9.1.1\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Bracken Control Timing of bracken control measures could conflict with a possible dependency on bracken of the silver-blue butterfly, in which it may lay eggs. Cut scattered bracken before flight time, in mid-June.\n 9.1.2\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Asulam Desired use of chemical formula, asulam, by archaeologists for bracken control (trampling -free), and fragility of limestone pavements. Prohibit use of asulam near limestone pavements.\nDesired use of asulam by archeologists for bracken control (trampling trampling -free) is poisonous to orchids and fungi. This conflicts with conservation aims, for which trampling of bracken by stock, cutting and grazing of vegetation is preferred to spraying.\nConsider and offer alternative controls See Feature: Bracken     9.1.3\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Burns on heathland Concerning Silver-studded blue butterfly and all reptiles: Summer burns can be beneficial to the butterfly because they remove more of the litter layer than winter burns and promote re-colonisation of heathers of open ground (Ravenscroft 1994). Summer burns may be granted permission under licence. Yet, to reduce chances of reptile loss, cut or burn on a small scale mid-October to mid-February. Compartmental rotations give room to solve this conflict.\n 9.1.4\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Grazing levels For limestone pavement. grazing levels may be lower than open grassland. Actually, grazing preferences and present flora have probably co-evolved. First, variations in grazing levels need to be monitored in their effects .\n 9.1.5\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Encouraging visitors Encouragement of visitors conflicts with conservation aims. With high visitor numbers, an unknown threshold exists to disturbance and erosion to habitats before recovery is compromised. The problem is compounded with vehicle access. Action to limit numbers of cars or visitors on peak days before recovery is compromised.\n 9.1.6\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Scrub management A valuable wildlife resource may conflict with management for archaeology. Gradual and limited scrub control.\n 9.1.7\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Customary use by locals With free access to the caves, and to archaeological remains, there is some history and prospect of damage. The overall aim is to foster local goodwill See Feature: Archaeology.\n   10\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Funding 10.1\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Designated funding SSSIs and BHSs* Receive appropriate levels of protection through the designations' development control systems.   SSSIs are also subject to a regulatory system for land management operations under the Wildlife \u0026amp; Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). English Nature (EN ) provides advice to SSSI land managers, and promotes the conservation of important habitats, including calcareous grassland, through Natural Area profiles (8, 9). A number of funded conservation grazing and scrub control projects are underway on nature reserves in the Silverdale area. MAFF's Countryside Stewardship Scheme* provides potential sources of payment for appropriate land management on a range of habitats, including calcareous grassland.   Country Parks: The Caernarfonshire County Council considered designation of the Great Orme's Head as a Country Park a good means of achieving the objectives of their study. The status attracts considerable grant aid available from the Countryside Commission.     10.2\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;General Funding Schemes Although none of the following is specific to calcareous grassland, all incorporate the habitat where it occurs:\nThe Biological Heritage Sites (BHS) project promotes agri-environment schemes. The project prioritises grasslands of conservation importance when giving advice to land managers. The Farming \u0026amp; Wildlife Advisory Group (FWAG) offers advice to farmers on any land irrespective of designations. Heathland attracts grants for its management through Tir Gofal as part of a whole-farm scheme.    11\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Farming Future and Grazing General reduction in stock and rabbit grazing, and selective feeding by sheep, may result in grassland becoming dominated by coarse swards. These changes are usually rapid, within 4 years. The litter of ranker grasses appears to inhibit growth of grassland species, succeeding to scrub.\nMedium level stocking rates for Calcerous Grassland = 30 sheep /ha/year. The current levels are low at 1.4 sheep per ha. However, the sheep may feed on grassland in preference to heath, giving a rate of over 4 per ha. Also, exposed sites need lower rates. Although much grassland is in a favourable condition, suggesting continued sheep grazing at current levels, practices of the past 50 years are relatively recent and may represent sub-optimal management. There are signs of lax grazing. There are implications for current heath renewal.\nThe future is unclear, given the economic state of upland sheep farming. One farmer has given up grazing rights. Also, The attraction to farmers of keeping sheep on the Gt. Orme may be diminished by large visitor numbers. Should no grazing rights be taken up, or the farms relinquished, then current Management will have to assume responsibility for keeping stock.\nUnder the current state of affairs, trials in variations in grazing are important. Options for mixed low intensity farming may have beneficial effects on the Gt. Orme's heath and grassland, and yet attract Tir Gofal ('Land Care') grants. Mixed grazing regimes may have been lost on the Orme, and may be explored, using cattle and ponies for targeted grazing effects. The productivity of these beasts, may boost the farms and benefit the local community.\n11.1\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Zones According to usage, may be geographic or seasonal, determined by management compartments of habitats, and positions of paths and and boundaries; zones will be identified, mapped, and monitored for management purposes. Zones are not easily separated for grazing purposes, and therefore may need to be combined for the purpose. In the past it is likely that shepherds exercised 'management options' by targeting the grazing.\n  12\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Management of Features 12.1\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Flora Bracken  Brachypodium sylvaticum grassland Broad-leaved Woodland Calcicolous Grassland Calcicolous Heathland Calcifugous Grassland Dense/Scattered Scrub Fen Meadow Mesotrophic Grassland Limestone Sea cliffs and maritime communities Limestone Pavement Wild Cotoneaster   12.2\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Fauna Fauna Silver-studded blue butterfly   12.3\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Other Features Quarries, Disturbed ground, Rock outcrops Archeological Sites Education, Interpretation, Research use \u0026amp; Facilities Recreation Use \u0026amp; facilities Specific site management issues    13\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Appendices 13.1\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Appendix 2: Local Species Action Plans CONWY LOCAL SPECIES ACTION PLAN (SAP)\nSPECIES FOR INCLUSION IN FIRST TRANCHE\n 13.2\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Appendix 3: Biodiveristy Action Plans UK BAP And Conwy Habitat Action Plans Compared\n 13.3\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Appendix 4: Threatened Plants EN Endangered\nWild Cotoneaster * Schedule 8 Cotoneaster cambricus * Introduced-naturalised, W.Kent, Surrey, Isle of Man. LBAP  NS Nationally Scarce\nSpiked Speedwell Schedule 8  NT Near threatened\nGoldilocks Aster  VU Vulnerable\nSpotted Catsear  NS Nationally Scarce\nRock Sea-lavender Limonium binervosum  LBAP widespread\nNS Sea Cabbage NS Seaside Centaury NS Dwarf Mouse-ear NS Dark Red Helleborine NS Hoary Rock-rose NS Hutchinsia NS White Horehound NS Spring Sandwort NS Ivy Broomrape NS Spring Cinquefoil NS Nottingham Catchfly NS A Whitebeam  Wild cotoneaster, Red Data Book status is 'Endangered', with a threat to its survival in the medium to long term. Measures are currently underway to increase the population to a more secure level as stated in the Summary Species Implementation Plan for Wild Cotoneaster (CCW 1998). The Wild Cotoneaster is also a priority Biodiversity Action Plan species.\nAll wild plants are protected against unauthorised uprooting under section 14 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act however plants listed under Schedule 8 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981) are given special protection against picking, uprooting, destruction and sale. Those species on the Red List are species that are threatened with extinction. The threat of extinction has been assessed for these species and they are classified as Extinct, Extinct in the Wild, Critically Endangered, Endangered or Vulnerable (using IUCN criteria).\nSome other plants fall in to lower risk categories such as near-threatened and nationally scarce species. Near-threatened species are defined as native plants which are not included in the Red List (because they are not declining or threatened but are simply localised in their distribution) but occur in 15 or fewer 10\u0026amp;yen;10km squares in Great Britain. Nationally Scarce species are defined as native plants which occur in 16 to 100 10\u0026amp;yen;10km squares in Great Britain and do not qualify for inclusion in the Red List. However, those plants classified as Nationally Scarce would be included on the Red List if they were judged to be sufficiently threatened.\nSurveys and monitoring regimes have been undertaken (and continue) in order to monitor the status of selected rare plants, monitor habitat change and monitor the effects of grazing.\n 13.4\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Appendix 5: Policy Policy, management decisions and Implementation:\nResponsibility for day to day site management and the implementation of this plan rests with the Country Park Warden within the Countryside Service. The Local Nature Reserve was declared in November 1981 under sections 19 and 21 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act (1949).\nThe first strategic planning study of the area, The Great Orme - A Conservation Study, was produced in 1971 by the former Caernarfonshire County Council, \u0026quot;to ensure co-ordination of conservation efforts to achieve both immediate aims and longer term objectives of the two major landowners\u0026quot;, Mostyn Estates and what was then the Llandudno Urban District Council. Full time wardens were also considered essential for these provisions to be effective. Considerable grant aid was to be made available from the Countryside Commission to facilitate implementation of proposals.\nGreat Orme's Head received official Country Park status through designation by the Countryside Commission in 1978. The site has been managed as a Country Park from August 1980 commencing with the appointment of a Warden.\nPolicy and management decisions are channelled through the Working Party. The Working Party comprises representatives from:\nConwy County Borough Council (Officers and Councillors) Mostyn Estates Countryside Council for Wales Gwynedd Archaeological Trust Llandudno Town Council Local Grazier  The management of the site as a recreational resource became more structured following the introduction of the initial comprehensive Management Plan in 1985. The Management Plan is updated and revised on a five-yearly basis.\n 13.5\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;APPENDIX 6 BYLAWS BYLAWS Made under Section 41 of the Countryside Act 1968 by Aberconwy Borough Council with respect to a Country Park.\nThroughout these bylaws the expression \u0026quot;the Council\u0026quot; means the Aberconwy Borough Council and the expression \u0026quot;the land\u0026quot; means the Great Orme Country Park, Llandudno, in the County of Gwynedd. No persons shall on the land:   Without reasonable excuse climb any rock face, wall or fence on or enclosing the land or any tree or any barrier, railing post or any other erection. Without reasonable excuse remove or displace any barrier, railing post or seat, works or drainage, steps or any part of any erection or ornament or any implement provided for use in the laying out or maintenance of the land. Without reasonable excuse remove, break open or interfere with rocks, fossils, ancient remains or monuments save where for a scientific purpose, the written consent of the Council having first been obtained. Pluck, damage or destroy any bush, blossom, flower leaf or branch of any wild tree, shrub or plant which is not already scheduled by any statutory enactment as a protected species. Use any device designed or adapted for detecting or locating any metal or mineral in the ground. Remove or displace any soil or plant or use any implement for the purpose of archaeological excavation.   No person shall affix or cause to be affixed any advertisement, bill, placard, or notice upon any building, wall, fence, gate, door pillar, post, tree, rock or stone on or enclosing the land. No person shall light a fire on the land or place or throw or let fall a lighted match or any other thing so as to be likely to cause a fire.    This bylaw shall not prevent the lighting or use of a properly constructed camping stove or cooker in any area set aside for the purpose in such a manner as not to cause danger of or damage by fire.   No person shall ride or drive a mechanically propelled vehicle on any part of the land where there is no right of way for vehicles.    This bylaw shall not extend to invalid carriages conforming to the provisions and regulations made under the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970.    If the Council has set apart a space on the land for use by vehicles of any class, this bylaw shall not prevent the riding or driving of those vehicles in the space so set apart, or on the direct route between it and the entrance of the land.   Where the Council indicates, by a notice conspicuously exhibited on or alongside any gate on the land, that leaving the gate open is prohibited, no person having opened that gate or caused it to be opened shall leave it open. No person shall, without the consent of the Council, erect a tent or use any vehicle, including a caravan or any other structure, for the purpose of camping on the land except on any area which may be set apart and indicated by Notice as a place where camping is permitted.  8. No person shall, except in the exercise of any lawful right or privilege, have in his possession while he is on the land any firearm unless it is so covered with a securely fastened gun cover that it cannot be fired. In this bylaw the expression \u0026quot;firearm\u0026quot; means any lethal barrelled weapon of any description from which any shot, bullet or other missile can be discharged. This bylaw shall apply to all parts of the land except any thereof which is a Public Right of Way.\nNo person shall cause or suffer a dog belonging to him or in his charge to remain on the land unless such dog be and continue to be under proper control, and be effectually restrained from causing annoyance to any person and from worrying or disturbing any animal. (a)No person shall, without lawful excuse or authority on the land, kill, molest, or intentionally disturb any animal, bird or fish, or engage in hunting, shooting or fishing, or the setting of traps or nets or the laying of snares.  This bylaw shall not prohibit any fishing or shooting which may be authorised by the Council or any person authorised by the Council.   No person shall on the land, sell or offer or expose for sale or hire, or offer or expose for letting or hire, any commodity or article except in pursuance of an agreement with the Council or from any establishment specifically set aside for such purpose. No person shall on the land intentionally obstruct, disturb, interrupt or annoy any other person in the proper use of the land or intentionally obstruct, disturb or interrupt a warden or other officer of the Council in the proper execution of his duty, or any person or servant of any person employed by the Council in the proper execution of any work in connection with the laying out or maintenance of the land. Any act necessary to the proper execution of his duty on the land by an Officer of the Council or by any person or servant of any person employed by the Council shall not be deemed an offence against the bylaws.    Nothing in or done under any of the provisions of these bylaws shall in any respect prejudice or injuriously affect any public right of way through the land or the rights of any person acting legally' by virtue of some estate, right or interest in, over or affecting the land or any part thereof.   Every person who shall offend against any of these bylaws shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding Fifty Pounds.   13.6\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Appendix 7 SSI Potentially Damaging Operations Great Orme Site of Special Scientific Interest:\nPotentially Damaging Operations pertaining to Section 28 Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981):\nCultivation, including ploughing, rotovating, harrowing and reseeding. Any alteration to the present pattern or frequency of grazing by farm stock. Introduction of mowing or other methods of cutting vegetation. Application of manure, fertilisers and lime. Application of pesticides, including herbicides (weed killers). Dumping, spreading or discharge of any waste materials. Burning of vegetation. The destruction, removal or pruning of any plant or plant remains, including tree, shrub, herb, moss, lichen or turf. Tree planting including afforestation. Changes in woodland management, including clear and selective felling, thinning, coppicing, modification of the stand or underwood and changes in species composition. Erection of sea defences or coast protection works. Extraction of minerals including limestone pavement. Construction of roads, tracks, walls, fences, hard-stands or banks. Storage of materials on or against rock-faces. Erection of permanent or temporary structures, or the undertaking of engineering works, including the laying, maintenance or removal of pipelines and cables. Clearance of boulders or loose rock and battering, buttressing or grading rock-faces and cuttings. Removal of geological specimens, including fossils. Use of motor vehicles likely to erode vegetation on grassland or heath; use of aircraft (including helicopters) likely to disturb breeding or roosting birds. Climbing on sea cliffs, within the control of the owner or occupier, except as voluntarily agreed with the British Mountaineering Council.**   13.7\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Appendix 8: Selected References Agate, E. (1983) Footpaths. A Practical conservation Handbook. Reading, Berkshire: British Trust for Conservation Volunteers.\nAndrews J. \u0026amp; Rebane, M. (1994) Farming \u0026amp; Wildlife RSPB, Bedfordshire\nBiodiversity: The UK Steering Group Report - Volume II: Action Plans (December 1995)\nButterfly Conservation (1996). *Species Action Plan: The Silver-Studded Blue Plebejus argus.\nFrid C, and Evans P, in Managing Habitats for Nature Conservation, ed. Sutherland, 1995.\nEcological Site Clssification (ESC) Bioclimatic Classification Bandlow \u0026amp; Hartnup (1981)\nDolman P, \u0026amp; Land, R. Lowland heath in Sutherland et al., 1995 Managing Habitats for Conservation CUP\nFuller \u0026amp; Peterken Woodland and Scrub, in Managing Habitats for Conservation (Sutherland \u0026amp; Hill eds.) CUP 1995\nFuller,R.J.(1993)*Farmland Birds in Trouble.* BTO News 184:1.\nFuller R.M. (1987) The changing extent and conservation interest of lowland grasslands in England and Wales: a review of grassland surveys 1930-84. Biol Conserv. 40, 281-300.\nJefferson, R.G. \u0026amp; Robertson, H.J. (1996). Lowland grassland - a strategic review and action plan. English Nature Research Report No.163, Peterborough.\nLovegrove,R.,Williams,G.\u0026amp; Williams,I.(1994) Birds in Wales Poyser.\nO 'Connor,R.J.\u0026amp;Shrubb,M.(1986) Farming and Birds. Cambridge University Press.\nPeterken G, (1993) Woodland Conservation and Management Chapman \u0026amp; Hall, London\nRavenscroft, N.O.M. (1994). Silver-studded Blue Butterfly: status, management and recovery. Unpublished report to English Nature (East Region).\nRodwell, J.S. (Ed.) (1992). British Plant Communities Volume 3, Grasslands and Montane Communities. University Press, Cambridge.\nTapper, S. C. \u0026amp; Barnes, R. F. W.(1986). Influence of farming practice on the ecology of the brown hare (Lepus europaeus). Journal of Applied Ecology 23 39-52.\nThomas, C.D. (1985). The status and conservation of the butterfly Plebejus argus L. (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae) in North West Britain. Biological Conservation, 33, 29-51.\nThomas, C.D. and Harrison, S. (1992). Spatial dynamics of a patchily distributed butterfly species. Journal of Animal Ecology, 61, 437-446.\nVickery, j. Access in Sutherland et al., 1995 Managing Habitats for Conservation CUP\n 13.8\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Appendix 9: Web Sites RSPB Species Action Plan (1995): www.rspb.com Improvement and Development Agency website (2001). http://www.idea.gov.uk UK Biodiversity Habitat Action Plans 2001 www.ukbap.Com\n  "});index.add({'id':35,'href':'/docs/cnrm/management/orme_mesotrophicgrasslands.html','title':"Orme Mesotrophic Grasslands",'section':"Management Plans",'content':"Table of Contents\n1\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Designation 2\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Description 3\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Current Condition and Status of Feature 4\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Attributes selected as performance indicators 5\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Attributes and Operational Limits 6\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Management Rationale and Projects 7\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Management Options   1\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Designation Grade I SSSI, Candidate SAC, UK BAP Key Habitat status (1995). Identified in Annex 1 of the EC Habitats Directive as a priority habitat and will form part of the Natura 2000 Network.  Size:\n22.7 ha.   2\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Description Mesotrophic grassland species prefer soils neither too basic nor too acidic. MG1 and MG6 are species rich semi-improved dry grasslands supporting flowering herbs, grasses and sedges and fungi. MG6 is relatively unmodified and occurs mainly on steep North-east facing slopes, and it is able to support a wide variety of fauna.\n 3\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Current Condition and Status of Feature Mesotrophic grassland:\nTotal Area: 22 .7 ha. Frequency of constant and frequent species: within LACs. Species indicative of change: within LAC  Current Status:\nFavourable Maintained, as of December 2001. This assertion is based upon the 2000/2001 survey.   4\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Attributes selected as performance indicators The Mesotrophic Grasslands and communities will be considered to be in favourable condition provided the following attributes are within LACs:\n4.1\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Extent All Mesotrophic Grasslands:\nComponent plant communities are largely governed by edaphic and climatic conditions. These are relatively static factors and so no area limits need be set.   4.2\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Quality/condition All sub-communities (NVC): These are likely to remain fairly consistent under continued grazing pressures. Quality will be confirmed by presence of the range typical species within each sub-community type, which are:\nMG1: Arrhenatherum elatius-Dactylis glomerat grassland, 10 ha. MG6 Lolium perenne-Cynosurus cristatus grassland, 13 ha A set of associated grasses and sedges as indicators of change: A set of associated vascular plants as indicators of change.    5\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Attributes and Operational Limits 5.1\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Objective statement(10): To maintain the Mesotrophic Grasslands in favourable condition, WHERE:\n 5.2\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Extent All Mesotrophic Grasslands:\nTotal area remains at the target level. Target level: 2.5 ha. of 323 ha Upper limit: None set Lower limit: target level.  Monitor/surveillance:\nExtent of Mesotrophic Grasslands   5.3\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Condition All existing plant communities.\nTarget: The following conditions are met in 95% Lower limit: 70% Upper limit: none set.       5.4\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;MG1: Arrhenatherum elatius-Dactylis glomerat community Target level: None set Upper and lower limits: As stated in NVC floristic tables Monitor: frequency of Arrhenatherum elatius-Dactylis glomerat.   5.5\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;MG6 Lolium perenne-Cynosurus cristatus community Target level: No increase in extent of MG6 community. Upper and lower limits: As stated in NVC floristic tables  Monitor:\n frequency of Lolium perenne-Cynosurus cristatus.\n A set of associated grasses and sedges as indicators of change:\n Cocksfoot (Dactylis glomerata), Quaking grass (Briza media), Heath grass (Danthonia decumbens), Yellow oat-grass (Trisetum flavescens), Spring sedge (Carex caryophyllea) Limits: non set.    A set of associated vascular plants as indicators of change:\n Cerastium fontanum (Common Mouse-Ear)and Bellis perennis (Daisy), Centaurea nigra,Plantago lanceolata (Ribwort Plantain),Hypochaeris radicata (Cat 's Ear),Rumex acetosa (Common Sorrel),and Rhinanthus minor (Yellow Rattle).Common spotted-orchid Dactylorhiza fuchsii Limits: non set.       6\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Management Rationale and Projects All factors 1 to 9, their rationale and projects, of Management Rationale and Projects in the feature Calcicolous Grassland are relevant, and refer equally to Mesotrophic grassland; and Additionally,\n6.1\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Grazing Continuously high levels of grazing can also prevent flowering herbs from setting seed. Absent grazing or infrequently grazed grassland is factor in the development of MG6. A increasing goat population grazing on these grasslands may pose a threat, whereas current declining sheep numbers remove a threat.\nCurrent grazing levels will be allowed to continue and the effect upon sward height monitored throughout the year. MG1 grassland may benefit from mixed pony grazing restore improve structural and biodiversity. In the past some hay making may have maintained its nutrient-poor status. A trial restorative grazing, and trail hay-meadow programmes will be implemented. The more species-poor mesotrophic grasslands are particularly well developed in areas where visitor pressure is high in an area subject to soil compaction; trial resorative grazing will be implemented.\nOperational limits: none set.\nMonitoring and Projects:\nmonitor grazing by feral goats monitor sward height each month. Identify species-poor areas of MG1 Implement and monitor restoration trial in species-poor MG1 grassland with seasonal pony or cattle grazing; area = 2 ha. Implement and monitor restoration trial in species-poor MG1 grassland with seasonal mixed grazing; area = 2 ha. Implement a hay cutting area (2 ha) In MG1 grassland   6.2\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Artificial fertilisers Sedges, orchids and some fungi are poisoned by artificial fertilisers. Mesotrophic grassland supports Ballerina waxcap (Hygrocybe calyptriformis), of UK SAP L SAP designation.\nMonitoring \u0026amp; Projects:\nOccurrence of Ballerina waxcap   6.3\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Protected areas The mesotrophic grasslands are valuable habitats for mammals and ground-nesting birds, eg. Skylark (Alauda arvensis), and Brown hare (Lepus europaeus), Lapwing (Vanellus vanellus) - all priority BAP/L BAP species.\nProtected areas will deter disturbance, trampling of nests, and over -grazing.\nMonitor/Surveillance Projects:\nEstablish protected areas of fenced-off strips (post and rail) for ground-nesting birds, with limited seasonal grazing in suitable areas of MG1. Monitor effects of seasonal grazing Monitor sward height Monitor populations of nesting birds Monitor populations of brown hare    7\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Management Options A2 Limited intervention MG6 A3 Active management to maintain MG1 mesotrophic grasslands, (grazing). B3 Enourage ground nesting birds and brown hare- PROTECTED STRIPS C Research trials of hay-meadow, and restorative grazing, seaasonal grazing, MG1 sub- community. E4 Open access. Request walkers stay on paths. E2 Restricted Access, in protected strips, and restoration grazing trials.   "});index.add({'id':36,'href':'/docs/cnrm/management/orme_recreationalfacilities.html','title':"Orme Recreational Use and Facilities",'section':"Management Plans",'content':"Table of Contents\n1\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Designation 2\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Description 3\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Current condition and status of feature 4\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Attributes Selected as performance indicators 5\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Management Rationale and Projects 6\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Management Options   1\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Designation Country Park.  1.1\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Evaluation The primary purpose of country parks, as stated in the Countryside Act (1968), is \u0026quot;to provide informal opportunities for countryside recreation\u0026quot;.  We shall continue to promote recreational opportunities in Gt Orme Country Park because:\nOne of the statutory purposes of the Country Park is realised by the continued service . Existing provision is consistent with CCW guidelines for country parks.    2\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Description The headland is a renowned tourist attraction receiving in excess of 500,000 visitors each year. The Country Park offers extensive value in passive and active recreational activities. There also exist a number of commercial attractions. Pedestrian access around the site is unrestricted. There are a number of public rights of way and un-adopted footpaths. Restrictions to vehicles include a Pay and Display charge was introduced on a year round basis (reduced charges during the winter period).\nAssociated with recreational development, but lying outside the Country Park on land that is leased from the Council, are a number of enterprises. These included a golf course, Marine Drive, the gardens at Happy Valley. A dry ski slope, operated by Ski Llandudno since 1987, and attracts an additional large number of people for skiing and tobogganing. A Summit Complex includes gift shop, bar and amusement facilities.\nWithin the Country Park on land leased by the Council, lies the Great Orme Copper Mines Ltd., opened in 1991, which now attracts about 33,000 visitors per annum, and the Victorian Tramway about 119,000 visitors per season (Easter to the end of October).\nIdeal objectives: to optimise the opportunities for recreation.\n 3\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Current condition and status of feature All performance indicators are within LACs.\nHowever, congestion on peak days is reaching limits for vehicles.\nCurrent status:\nFavourable maintained, as of April 2001.   4\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Attributes Selected as performance indicators 4.1\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Quantity Number of visitors Net cost per visitor Days of operation in a year Numbers from targeted groups   4.2\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Quality Access Recreational value =number of permitted and actively engaged pursuits visitor satisfaction levels passive recreation litter Vehicles reaching the Summit repeat visits   4.3\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Objective statement Ensure opportunities for increased recreational use are provided without detrimental effects to the landscape, or wildlife, historic and farming interests and maintain these opportunities in Favourable Status, WHERE:\n 4.4\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Extent Visitor Numbers per annum Target: year2000 level upper \u0026amp; Lower Limits: None Set  Net cost per visitor including travel is,\nlimits: none set.  Days of operation in a year is,\nTarget: year 2000 level upper \u0026amp; Lower Limits: None Set  Numbers from targeted groups is,\nTarget: Set targets Lower Limits: Target level  AND WHERE,\n 4.5\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Quality Access paths:\nTarget: are clear from brambles Target: recover from year-round use.  Recreational value:\nTarget: number of permitted and actively engaged remains year 2000 levels  Passive recreation,\nTarget: no disturbance  Litter:\nTarget: no accumulation  Visitor numbers: to present no conflicts with habitat or wildlife, or legitimate pursuits.\nTarget: year 2000 level  Vehicles reaching the Summit to have adequate and suitable car parking without conflicts.\nTarget: year 2000 level  Repeat visits:\nTarget: = year 2000 level  Monitoring Projects:\nNet cost per visitor including travel. Numbers from targeted groups Paths for obstruction Paths for recovery of use/erosion. Number of active pursuits. Conflicts of disturbance and erosion. Car Parking levels on peak days. Sample repeat visits.    5\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Management Rationale and Projects 5.1\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Vehicle access and congestion The car park is set out with a low boundary wall, and a bank screens it from view, needing no further disguise. There are signs of vehicle congestion, with erosion which remove and scar old land surfaces. Past unrestricted vehicular access is now prohibited in the Bye-laws. Provision of services for increasing numbers of cars causes problems. Alternative means of access will be sought, and no increases in parking capacity will be allowed. Access roads are narrow, these will not be widened. Boulders placed alongside the access road has to discouraged overflow of vehicles. More may need to be placed. An overflow area onto amenity grassland is set aside for peak times. On hot sunny days, and bank holidays, car park management, including overspill arrangements and restrictions need management.\nWhere heathland has been fragmented by vehicle erosion, sheep have gained access and by grazing, slow down or prevent re-growth.\nMonitoring \u0026amp; Projects:\nMonitor grasslands for signs of vehicle erosion Extend parking restrictions with boulders as necessary. Motorcycle scrambling is prohibited and will be guarded against. Casual parking of cars will be prevented. Restrictions will be enforced. Erect temporary fencing to permit regrowth of eroded areas where sheep need to be excluded.   5.2\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Bank Holidays Bank holidays are the most popular days of the year. It is desirable to provide an additional level of service on these days as the volume of visitors receiving corporate messages can be maximised.\nOperational Limits:\nLower limit: interpretive activities to take place on Bank Holidays Easter - August inclusive.   5.3\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Pedestrian Access Walking and associated activities such as sightseeing, bird watching and photography are detrimental to the landscape and wild life interests only in areas which are biologically sensitive and unable to withstand high levels of disturbance. Sensitive areas of limited extent will be restricted where practical. For the most part these are protected by a barriers of fenced farmland and steep cliffs.\nWalking activities on the site may have adverse effects on ground-nesting birds, particularly in heathland where disturbance during the spring and summer could lead to nest desertion.\nVisitors will be requested to stay on paths. Trampling along footpaths and the most heavily used parts of the site can lead to a reduction in the species-richness of the grassland. Trails of different lengths are needed by different users. A figure of eight gives walkers alternative route lengths. 0.9 m paths serve walkers, 1.2 m for two way use; 1.2 - 1.7 for wheel chairs. Routes potentially suitable for wheelchair users will be identified.\nMonitoring \u0026amp; Projects:\nGrade zones use in terms of noise and activity levels, according to season. Monitor signs of excessive trampling refer to grassland, and adapt paths. (refer to Features: Calcicolous grasslands and, Heathland). Monitor width of paths at erosion points and widen as necessary, to permit two way use. Fix small, portrait-sized strategic signs, where necessary, concerning disturbance. Install finger-post way-marks. Identify \u0026amp; Protect severely eroded areas, in order to allow regeneration. Design Figure of eight path into existing walkways. Identify potential of walkways for wheelchair paths of 1.7 m width, and of \u0026lt; 1:4 slope.   5.4\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Passive recreation The most popular forms of recreation are passive in nature i.e. enjoyment of the scenery, picnicking, sunbathing etc. The impact of passive recreation per se is not great. No measures need be taken.\n 5.5\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Active pursuits Activities include walking, rock climbing, sea angling, hang gliding, paragliding, model glider flying, jogging, mountain biking, orienteering and bird-watching, cave exploration. They threaten excessive disturbance to wildlife and, erosion. Active pursuits appear to have slight impact, but cause no accumulating deterioration.\nRock climbing in biologically sensitive areas is limited by agreement and is also controlled elsewhere in terms of public safety. Hang gliders/paragliders are restricted to one take-off point, and with no vehicular access. A \u0026quot;code of conduct\u0026quot; exists for model-glider flyers and is enforced with the help of local club members. The Great Orme Exploration Society leases all underground workings from the Council and Mostyn Estates. Their entry is otherwise forbidden, and this ensures safety and codes of congenial use.\nMonitoring \u0026amp; Projects:\nMonitor and enforce codes of conduct, and restrictions.   5.6\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Vulnerability of features Grasslands have been covered by erosion; archaeological remains - See the feature Archaeological Sites. .\n 5.7\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Litter bins Monitoring \u0026amp; Projects:\nMonitor litter points, and identify usefulness and need for litterbins. Liaise with Summit complex, concerning litter.   5.8\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Toilets These exist at the Visitor Centre, and below Marine Drive on the Northern side. The Visitor Centre toilets may be inadequate on peak days.\nMonitoring \u0026amp; Projects:\nMonitor toilet use at Visitor Centre on peak days.   5.9\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Benches \u0026amp; picnic tables Their provision is not considered necessary, as litter due to picnicking is minimal. A picnic area situated close to the Car park is a possibility for consideration.\n 5.10\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Health and safety, visitor advice Access to certain caves is becoming increasingly dangerous as time passes. Warning signs/ improved access is being planned: Refer to Feature, Archaeology. Cliff approaches will be surveyed for adequacy of warning signs.\nMonitoring \u0026amp; Projects:\nLimited numbers of warning signs to be placed near paths by cliffs. Access to quarries is dangerous and will be restricted.  Special needs. Wheelchair access to the Visitor Centre is possible. No other restricted access by design has been identified.\nMonitoring \u0026amp; Projects:\nCanvas public for views on disabled access to and on the site.   5.11\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Vandalism There is no substantial problem to the Park or facilities, which are designed to minimise opportunities for vandalism when unstaffed.\n 5.12\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Illegal Pursuits Under the Country Park Bylaws The site has been used for activities which are illegal under the bylaws: All detrimental to the landscape and/or wild life interests. The principal quarry of hunting and shooting have been rabbits. It seems birds and goats were also shot at. Collecting wild plants has presented a threat to plants. Uncontrolled use of metal detectors may lead to damage of archaeological and biological features. Following the introduction of a warden service, all these activities declined and continue to do so.\nThe removal of rock or turf causes damage to historical and biological features. It is difficult to control as the activity is carried out discretely. Fly tipping is conducted in dark evenings of during autumn and winter. Lighting fires has caused damage to heathland, especially on Halloween.\nMonitoring \u0026amp; Projects:\nMonitor illegal activities,and enforce.   5.13\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Dogs Dogs allowed to roam can worry sheep, and this will be cautioned against.\nMonitoring \u0026amp; Projects:\nRequest dogs to be kept on a lead, with sign at car park/footpath intersection and, in leaflet. Enforce requirement.    6\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Management Options Continuously:\nA3: Active management to improve opportunities and overcome conflicts.  Access:\nE4: Open access. Most of the Country Park E2: Some seasonally restricted areas. and for health and safety.  Study/Research:\nC3 Controlled facilities   "});index.add({'id':37,'href':'/docs/cnrm/management/orme_silverstuddedblue.html','title':"Orme Silver-Studded Blue Butterfly",'section':"Management Plans",'content':"Table of Contents\n1\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Designation 2\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Description 3\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Current condition and status of Silver Studded Blue Butterfly 4\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Attributes selected as performance indicators 5\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Management Rationale and Projects 6\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Management Options   1\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Designation Priority UK/LBAP.  In Great Britain the silver-studded blue is classified as Nationally Scarce. It is protected under Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, with respect to sale only.\nSize:\n250,000 adults occur at the peak of the flight period; 10 discrete colonies   2\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Description The silver-studded blue butterfly (Plebejus Arjus) has severely declined in its UK range.\nOn the Gt. Orme the species is represented by dwarf races (P. a. caernensis), considered to be endemic to the site. It occurs on lowland heathland and calcareous grassland, requiring populations of ants of the genus Lasius, possibly benefiting by protection from parasites and predators; ants gain sugar and nutrition in return.\nThe egg is the over-wintering stage; larvae hatch in Spring and are able to feed on a wide range of buds, flowers, growing tips or young leaves of plants plants from three families, the Leguminosae, Ericaceae and Cistaceae. Adults feed on nectar of fructicosus agg. and Lotus corniculatus, Helianthemum nummularium and H. canum, and occasional, Thymus drucei.\n 3\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Current condition and status of Silver Studded Blue Butterfly All performance indicators are within LACs. These populations appear stable (Thomas 1993).  Current status:\nFavourable maintained based upon the 2000/2001 survey.   4\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Attributes selected as performance indicators The species will be considered to be in favourable condition provided the following attributes are within LACs:\n4.1\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Extent Number of discrete colonies Population overall, numbers Distribution of population   4.2\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Quality Distance between colonies Density of ants nests in sites   4.3\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Objective statement Maintain and expand the population of Silver-Studded Blue Butterfly in a favourable condition, WHERE:\n 4.4\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Extent Number of discrete colonies remain at current levels, or increases.\nCurrently there are ten discrete colonies Target level: None set. Upper limit: None set Lower Limit: 10  Population, overall number of adults remains at current levels or increases\n250,000 adults occur at the peak of the flight period Target level: None set. Upper limit: None set Lower Limit: current levels  Distribution of population remains at current levels or increases\n The ten populations occupy patches between 0.1 and 8 ha;\n just one site is larger than 8 ha.    Target level: None set.\n Upper limit: None set\n Lower Limit: current levels\n  Monitor/survey:\nlarval web transects Standardised recording walk or 'transect' at flight times. Calcicolous populations usually emerge in June. Heath populations mid-July to August. The flight period lasts 4-5 weeks.  AND WHERE,\n 4.5\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Quality Distance between colonies patches is sufficiently close. Most adults do not disperse to lay eggs further than 50 m.\nTarget level: None set. Upper limit: None set Lower Limit: 60 m for half the colonies Density of ants nests in sites \u0026gt; 30.ha  Silver-Blue butterflies do not occur where ant nest density falls below 30 nests/ha.\nTarget level: None set. Upper limit: None set Lower Limit: 30 nests/ha Monitor/survey: distance between colonies Density of ant nests on sites colony sites    5\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Management Rationale and Projects 5.1\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Ants Females respond to the presence of ants when selecting sites to lay eggs. Mixed grazing regimes and old grasslands favour ants.\nMonitoring and Projects:\nMonitor areas and density of ant nests. Monitor effects of mixed grazing trails upon populations of ants.   5.2\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Bracken Bracken can have extra-floral nectaries attended by ants. Sometimes the Silver-blue butterfly eggs are laid high on grasses or in clusters under the fronds of sparse Bracken Pteridium aquilinum at heights in excess of 30 cm.\nPossible Conflict:\nWith timing of bracken control measures.  Monitoring and Projects:\nDetermine butterfly's dependency upon bracken Set aside area of bracken to be cut (ie. cut in bi- annual rotation)   5.3\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Heathland Ants are largely absent (\u0026lt;10 nests/ha) from dense or mature stands of heather. The exact conditions required by ant and butterfly are satisfied by heath vegetation in early successional stages of regrowth (2-5 years), usually \u0026lt;7 cm above the ground. The preferred conditions produce warm microclimates at ground level for the larvae.\nA mosaic of heathland of different stages and a continual presence of early successional vegetation will be produced. Rabbit grazing and digging will prolong conditions on heathland (Thomas 1985).\nMonitoring and Projects:\nManage rabbit population, and provide feeding cover. Maintain continual presence of early successional stages of heath.   5.4\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Calcicolous grassland Females lay eggs on low vegetation \u0026lt;3 cm above the ground on calcicolous grassland in N. Wales. Moderate grazing by sheep will maintain suitable conditions on calcicolous habitats indefinitely.\nOperational Limits:\nTarget 1: Maintain sufficient patches of grass height within 3 cm limit.  Monitoring and Projects:\nMonitor grazing levels. Survey grassland sward height, to identify area of sward \u0026lt; 3 cm at least monthly. Target grazing to maintain sufficient areas of low sward.   5.5\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Disturbed ground Where topsoil is disturbed by grazers, or where burning of heath occurs, or firebreak is prepared, suitable conditions are produced.\nMonitoring and Projects:\nMonitor bare ground on heathland (refer to Feature: Heathland). Monitor bare ground on grasslands   5.6\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Dispersal and Isolation of habitat Habitat patches shift. New patches of suitable habitat can be colonised by local dispersal of adult butterflies, but most individuals move less than 50 m over their life-span. Within heathland colonies, extinctions are confined to colonies of \u0026lt;0.9 ha. On limestone habitats, extinctions and re-colonisations most often occur on smaller patches \u0026lt;0.2 ha, where suitable conditions persist for shorter periods..\nMonitoring and Projects:\nMonitor isolation of suitable and known sites, on heath and grassland. Monitor creation of suitable habitat, according to grazing variations.   5.7\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Trampling Sites and potential sites will not be permitted disturbance from trampling by visitors. Path detours will be resisted.\nGrazing larger stock requires lower numbers to maintain sward conditions with less trampling, and to produce ideal structural conditions, with poached soil. Stock grazing will be carried out at time when trampling has minimal effects.\nMonitoring and Projects:\nSafeguard areas from visitor disturbance. Determine optimum season for pony/cattle grazing according to butterflies' ecology. Introduce seasonal grazing with cattle and ponies on heathland.  Note: Implementation of this action plan could benefit other species of lowland heathland and grasslands, including the silky wave moth Idaea dilutaria.\n  6\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Management Options Continuously: * A3: Active management to maintain populations * E2: Restricted access. Discourage walkers from straying off the paths\n "});index.add({'id':38,'href':'/docs/cnrm/management/orme_specificsitemanagement.html','title':"Orme Specific Site Management Projects",'section':"Management Plans",'content':"Table of Contents\n1\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Use of Structures 2\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Use of Caves and Severe Erosion 3\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Sites Dense With Archaeological Remains 4\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Overspill car park 5\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Management Options   Appropriate management is a product of the site specific resource and the values set upon it. These values include cultural, educational, economic, resource (E.g. as in occupied building), recreational, and aesthetic.\n1\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Use of Structures Sites severely threatened, or damaged and repairable:\nAt the Pen y Dinas hillfort, close to woodland, uprooted trees have damaged ramparts, and the canopy is quite dense. The scrub is part of the woodland edge, and of nature conservation value.  Projects:\nEarth structures will be maintained/rebuilt under expert advice. Limited and gradual scrub will be removed, without disturbing the ground   2\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Use of Caves and Severe Erosion Visitor erosion is high in Skeleton Cave and Bear's cave/Ogof Arth. The caves have recently been promoted with booklets and commercial guided tours by LLandudno Heritage Trust. Signs exist of recent increased activity include fires, candles, and artwork in pebbles.\nProjects as for 'Use of Structures' above, PLUS:\nAdvise organisations promoting use.   3\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Sites Dense With Archaeological Remains Areas containing a high density of archaeological sites include Mynydd Isaf, Pant y Eglwys, and Hwylfa Ceirw. Their density allows a greater appreciation of the sites within the landscape, and provides a greater potential for archaeological research and interpretation. Appropriate management plans can only be drawn up after identification of the nature and extent of the resource.\nConduct Topographical survey Conduct geophysical survey/trial excavation, where doubt remains.   4\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Overspill car park The overflow car park at Pant y Eglwys overlies mediaeval field strips, is an intrusion, and has damaged an earthwork.\nProjects as for factor: Vehicle access and congestion - in Recreational Facilities, PLUS:\nThe overspill car park will be reviewed for closure, possibly re-sited.   5\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Management Options Continuously:\nA3 Active management to maintain sites.  Access:\nE4: Open access.   "});index.add({'id':39,'href':'/docs/cnrm/management/orme_wildcotoneaster.html','title':"Orme Wild Cotoneaster",'section':"Management Plans",'content':"Table of Contents\n1\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Designation 2\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Description 3\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Current condition and status of feature 4\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Attributes selected as performance indicators 5\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Management Rationale and Projects 6\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Management Options   Cotoneaster (cambricus/C. integerrimus)\n1\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Designation listed as Endangered on the GB Red List and is protected under Schedule 8 of the WCA 1981.  Size:\nPopulation= 33 plants   2\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Description Wild cotoneaster is restricted to this one locality in the UK, where it is considered to be endemic. The site is protected as an LNR and an SSSI.\n 3\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Current condition and status of feature All performance indicators are within LACs.\nHowever, natural recruitment to the site is poor, but one seedling plant was found in 1993 in an area where seeds were sown 10 years previously.\nCurrent status:\nFavourable maintained, based upon the 2000/2001 survey.   4\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Attributes selected as performance indicators The species will be considered to be in favourable condition provided the following attributes are within LACs:\n4.1\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Extent Numbers of plants. Number of occupied sites.   4.2\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Quality Age structure Fertility   4.3\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Objective statement Maintain the population Wild Cotoneaster in a favourable condition, WHERE:\n 4.4\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Extent Numbers of plants remain at current status\nTarget level: 33 plants Upper limit: None set Lower limit: 24 plants  Number of occupied sites remain at current levels, or increases.\nTarget level: None set Upper limit: None set Lower Limit: current numbers; Remains Secret  Number of potentially suitable sites to not decrease.\nlimits: none set. Monitor/survey: Numbers of plants Number of occupied sites.   4.5\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Quality Age structure remains of even distribution Limits: none set  Natural regeneration by seed is possible:\n Limits: none set\n Monitor/survey:\n Age structure of plants Number of seedlings.       5\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Management Rationale and Projects 5.1\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Regeneration A population of six has been increased to 33 plants by the introduction of plants grown in cultivation. Propagation of plants will be continued in cultivation, but translocation into the wild will cease until taxonomic and genetic studies determine its status.\nProjects:\nUndertake genetic research to clarify the taxonomy of the species. Undertake ecological research to develop a better understanding of the species. If found to be an established introduction, monitor the effects of the existing 33 plants (and progeny) on the native flora. Identify, map and safeguard potentially suitable sites.   5.2\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Invasive species Promote appropriate habitat management, including the control of invasive vegetation, particularly non-native cotoneasters.  Monitoring \u0026amp; Projects:\nMonitor and control plant arrivals at the locations of Wild Cotoneaster   5.3\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Illegal collection Ensure that local botanical groups and other relevant organisations are aware of the legal and ecological implications of collecting this species. The precise location of this species will remain secret because of the risk from collectors.  Monitoring \u0026amp; Projects:\nMonitor location for signs of disturbance Conceal the plants whereabouts. Ensure that offenders are prosecuted   5.4\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Grazing Grazing by feral goats, sheep or rabbits may hinder regeneration.\nMonitor:\nGrazing by goats, and sheep, by faecal analysis and observation.   5.5\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Erosion/damage Damage by climbers is a threat, though rock climbing is currently controlled by voluntary agreement with local clubs who co-operate with safeguarding the plant.\nMonitoring \u0026amp; Projects:\nMonitor locations for activity of climbing    6\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Management Options Continuously:\nA3: Active management to maintain populations  Access:\nE2: Restricted access by permission.   "});index.add({'id':40,'href':'/docs/cnrm/survey/woodland_walnut_connect.html','title':"Establishing Walnut and Connecting Woodland",'section':"Surveying",'content':"Objectives #  To find suitable sites within the Snowdonia National Park for provenance trials with walnut trees.\nThe trees are to be grown for timber and fruit and contribute to sustainable and biodiverse land use systems with structured woodland corridors.\nIntroduction, Land-use Diversification, Wales #  UK farming is experiencing problems of economics and sustainability. This includes ‘less favoured’ areas, which cover much of Wales.\nLess favoured areas are over 240 metres, a category of hills and uplands which are less suitable for arable farming and prime pasture. Uplands represent 32% of Britain.\nThe Welsh uplands produce hardy stock and their role is important in the overall sheep farming system. They are considered to be overstocked by conservation bodies. Keeping the status quo as a production system or museum is unsustainable. It is probably undesirable overall. Diversification has a number of avenues. Productive woodlands can be profitable on some uplands. Farmers’ strategic decisions may favour diversification. They need the best available advice in making changes. Alternative low intensive, bio-diverse, silvo-agriculture brings long term benefits and are appealing. Farmers need alternative income to headage payments.\nThere are funding issues however, with loss of headage subsidies, and lack of agricultural and forest integration, with policy divides. Land use modification Incentives for trees are aimed mainly at fenced large continuous woodland. Policy levers lies in the hands of NAW, and Manweb, Maff and Mentor Powys and Tir Gofal (meaning, \u0026lsquo;land Care’) in administering the Woodland Grant Scheme. Most land is \u0026ldquo;undesignated\u0026rdquo; status. These problems are increasingly recognised, along with the fact that tourists visit Wales for reasons of nature, biodiversity and woodland.\nA Shelterwoods Trees Scheme is part of an agroforestry initiative, to allow dispersed trees on farmland for animal welfare and biodiversity. They do not have to be fenced, and so do not consequentially increase stocking densities. Individual trees may need protection in their early establishment.\nPrevalence of Walnut #  Origins of the Walnut lies in Central Asian Himalayas, China, Kyrgyzstan, the Caucasus and, Persia.\nMoldavia #  Since the 1970\u0026rsquo;s Walnut trees have only been planted in agroforestry systems such as protective strips of 1-2 rows, in alleys for soil protection, along roads, around farms, along irrigation canals and around field borders (spacing in alleys at 8-10m). These are now well developed, have strong balloon shaped crowns, fruits well and are not prone to pests and disease.\nKyrgyzstan #  Nut fruit forests form a forest zone within the altitude band of 800-2400 m above sea level (walnut, pistachio, malus spp., pyrus spp.) In Snowdonia, \u0026lsquo;Farm Garden Mix\u0026rsquo; final crop : apple and plum, holly, Noble fir. in leaf for two months in the summer\nEurope wide #  Walnut is considered indigenous in mainland Europe, now.\nSwitzerland #  Provenance trials were established in several parts of Switzerland just after the First and Second World Wars. They were not successful and abandoned early on, with one exception. It was clear the genetic material was poor. It is believed that the genetic material has deteriorated in Europe because of selection for fruit growing in orchards. Great variety in germplasm exists in the natural fruit forests of Central Asia. This is suitable for trials. Now Switzerland aims to create highly structured, economically valuable and biologically diverse forests using walnut. Other functions include the protection of dangers found in alpine country, such as erosion, flooding, avalanche, and nature conservation. At lower elevations (below 800 m above sea level) sites are fertile and provide excellent growing conditions for broadleaf timber such as oak (quercus spp.), ash (fraxinus excelsior), maple (Acer spp.) and cherry (Prunus avium). Small provenance experiments in Britain were not conclusive (Kerr 1993).\nGermany #  It is grown between latitudes 44 and 52o N. (Rebmann 1912).\nUnited Kingdom #  Grown everywhere except the Scottish Highlands but most frequently in Lincolnshire, S.Yorks, Devon, Somerset, Dorset (Mitchell \u0026amp; Joblin 1984). Sheltered mid slope south or south west aspect. Where Beech grows. Soils to be avoided are light sandy or heavy soils, shallow soils, peaty soils damp situations (Klemp 1979).\nBenefits of Walnut #  Walnut (Juglans regia) is interesting because it may contribute to a high biodiversity and higher value production. Suitable for top storey of multi-storey systems, walnut’s fruits are nutritious. The plant has medicinal properties. The timber is valuable. It is used in silvopasture, offering livestock shade and protection, as well as excellent forage for livestock..\nIts fruits were carried by the Roman Army. The Romans are perhaps responsible for naming British people \u0026lsquo;Welsch\u0026rsquo;, meaning keepers of the welsch, the Germanic name for the walnut tree, and the name given to walnut-growing people and district in North Italy today.\nWalnut has medicinal properties. Bark and leaves have alterative, laxative, astringent and detergent properties. It is used for skin troubles (E.g. herpes, eczema), and as a purgative for irritable bowel. It is said to delay hardening of arteries, indigestion, eczema, inflamed eyelids\nWalnut has other uses: Crushed walnut leaves are an insect repellent. Its oil was once used instead of butter and olive oil in France, and it is popular as salad and cooking oil. The husks produce a dark yellow dye for colouring wood, hair and wool. It was used by fictional heroes for disguise. The lemon scented leaves deter insects. In England and Wales, horses were once commonly rested under Walnut trees away from annoying flies.\nTimber Properties #  Walnut timber is pliable, has high tensile strength, medium weight, fine and fibrous but inelastic it requires long seasoning it is easily worked, polishes well. Trees were lost to Britain with imports and fashions in mahogany.\nTimber Value #  Walnut produces the most demanded and valuable timber. Its price has been stable for the last fifty or more years. Prices are always at least three times as high than for oak or cherry. Walnut is faster growing than all other high quality timber. Stems of 60 cm at breast height may be produced in a 60 to 70 year rotation. Cherry and ash need 80-90 years and oak 140-50 years. Thus compared to oak 200% of volume and 600% of value in the same time.\nWhy Is Walnut Not Grown? #  Walnut is not considered a forest tree. Naturally seeded walnuts trees have often not fulfilled hopes and expectations. Experience regarding its management is rare.\nSolving the Problem, Connecting Walnut #  A Three Stage Process:\n Determine suitable land for upland conversion and walnut. Prepare a sub-map to determine where existing woodland may be connected. Add context to a final map, the location of rivers, farmsteads and contours.  MFworks GIS Programme #  The GIS rasta-based programme \u0026lsquo;MF Works 2.63\u0026rsquo; was chosen. Mac OS 7-9. (Also PC versions). Map Info \u0026amp; Arc Info compatible. Available from Canadian firm Keigan Systems Inc.. It is downloadable. Price approximately $900 Canadian in 2001. Developed from MAP II and MapFactory. Fully supported.\nMF Works has a pull-down menu system and a script system. It is possible to learn the scripts, as these are provided while using the menu. The script for this cartographic design follows.\nFig 1. Table: Functions in Iddrissi and MFworks Compared.\n============ ======== ==================================================== Iddrissi MFworks Comments ============ ======== ==================================================== fuzzy orient\ncrosstabs cross surface grade window subscene reclass/ass recode boolean \u0026lsquo;constraint mapping\u0026rsquo; in MFworks none spread Functions to define distance zone from target pixels distance clump overlay cover (+ \u0026lsquo;reclass\u0026rsquo;) boolean constraint mapping in Idrissi ============ ======== ====================================================\nDetermining Suitable Land #  A map was required with the following characteristics: potentially suitable soils, below a maximum altitude of 600 metres, facing in a southerly aspect, and on slopes within a specified slope of between 5 and 35%.\nUse of Ecological Site Classification(ESC) and Natural Vegetation Class (NVC) is a way of proceeding. These are entered into a GIS system. However, for walnut trials, the ESC is not definite in the UK. Instead, parameters were taken from research world-wide. Area data files were used for land use, soils, and demography, from the dataset \u0026lsquo;SNP\u0026rsquo;, covering Snowdonia National Park, North Wales. Refer to Appendix: \u0026lsquo;Map Legends\u0026rsquo; for full legend, before the extraction sub-maps.\nA map was prepared in six stages, as follows:\nA gradient map and an aspect map #  Two maps were prepared from a demographic rasta map, \u0026lsquo;SNPdem\u0026rsquo;, with the following script:\n SNPgradient = grade SNPdem SNPaspect = Orient SNPdem  Map Display 1: Determining suitable land for upland conversion and walnut.\n.. image:: ../images/SNPWN2.jpg\nDesired slope was set at between 5 and 35% slope #  The desired aspect was set between south ( = 4) and south east ( = 5) facing slopes. This includes a 45 :sup:o overlap either side of each direction, i.e between E (90 :sup:o) and SSW (225 :sup:o). These were chosen because of the Sun\u0026rsquo;s path, east to west, and the desire for morning sun in particular.\n SNPWNslope = ( SNPaspect = 4) OR ( SNPaspect = 5) AND ( SNPgradient \u0026gt; = 5) AND (SNPgradient \u0026lt; = 35) AND (SNPdem \u0026lt; 600)  Four categories of soil were selected from seventeen #  .. image:: ../images/SNPWN3.jpg\nThese were categories 3-6 in the \u0026lsquo;SNPsoil\u0026rsquo; rasta data map (see Appendix 1: Legends), and their areas in hectares were calculated. Note: The \u0026lsquo;BuildText\u0026rsquo; command copies the legends from donor to component map.\n SNPWNsoil = Recode \u0026ldquo;SNPsoil\u0026rdquo; Assigning 3 to 3, Assigning 4 to 4, Assigning 5 to 5, Assigning 6 to 6 BuildText  Boolean search to determine the suitable soil #  Our two prepared maps were maps were interrogated, to select only those areas of suitable soils which were found in the correct aspect The aspect map was used as a Boolean mask, with just two codes (\u0026lsquo;SNPaspect\u0026rsquo; code = 1, void = 0).\n SNSPWNground = Cross SNPWNsoil AND SNPWNslope Assigning 3 to 3 with 1, Assigning 4 to 4 with 1, Assigning 5 to 5 with 1, Assigning 6 to 6 With 1  Remove noise #  The pixels in the maps represent 40 m :sup:2 on the ground. A certain amount of \u0026lsquo;noise\u0026rsquo; is introduced when coupled to vegetation survey techniques. Thus scatted pixels need to be grouped (command: \u0026lsquo;clump\u0026rsquo;), and the isolated pixels or, \u0026lsquo;noise\u0026rsquo; removed.\nFor the purpose, areas of less than two hectares were removed by creating a Boolean mask (\u0026lsquo;WNg4\u0026rsquo;) from the map \u0026lsquo;SNPground\u0026rsquo;. The map WNg4 was then crossed back to remove undesired areas (coded 0) from SNPground,, the desired areas\u0026rsquo; value = 1 being reassigned with values for each soil class so as not to lose information on soil type.\n WNg2 = Clump SNPWNground WNg3 = Measure WNS2 Hectares Ignore Void WNg4 = (WNS3 \u0026gt; = 2) AND (WNS3 \u0026lt; 600) SNPWNsite = Cross WNSite AND WNS4 Assigning 3 to 3 with 1, Assigning 4 to 4 with 1, Assigning 5 to 5 with 1, Assigning 6 to 6 With 1 The difference of (18807 - 17748) = 1,059 ha. were removed.  Place selected soils on a silhouette, \u0026ldquo;Base Map\u0026rdquo; #  The resulting map, SNPWNsite, was then placed on a silhouette, \u0026lsquo;Base Map\u0026rsquo; in order to define the whole of SNP, and highlight the selected soils. Before Covering the \u0026lsquo;Basemap\u0026rsquo; I geo-referenced the map using six co-ordinate points from the OS map for Snowdonia. These and the error is are given as follows:\n BaseMap = Recode landuse Assigning 1 to 1, SNPWNsuit = Cover BaseMap With SNPWNsite    72/844 377800/277400    860/1160 360100 / 281200    528 / 324 59800 / 256600    372/508 3657/363955    344/812 36700/376600    676/ 1040 23537/3852      Margins of Error\n Avg. error: R: 0.000017 C: .000006* Max error: R: 0.000001 C: .000009  Connecting Woods #  Existing woodland is to be connected by walnut where suitable conditions exist.\nFour stages accomplish the task:\nPrepare a Subscene of the Whole SNP #  The vegetation map (SNPlanduse), was prepared using phase 1 mapping and NVC, in conjunction with aerial photographs and OS land surveys.\n FPTWNsu = Subscene SNPWNsuit Rows 493\u0026hellip;795 Columns 409\u0026hellip;784 FPTcontours = Subscene Contours_50 Rows 493\u0026hellip;795 Columns 409\u0026hellip;784 FPTrivers = Subscene SNPrivers Rows 493\u0026hellip;795 Columns 409\u0026hellip;784 FPTlanduse = Subscene SNPlanduse Rows 493\u0026hellip;795 Columns 409\u0026hellip;784 Field Provenance Trials (FPTL)  MAP DISPLAY B.1:Preparing a sub-map where existing woodland may be connected. .. image:: ../images/SNPWN4.jpg\nDetermine Where Existing Woodland May Be Connected by Plantings #  Five categories of woodland were selected from the land-use map.\n.. image:: ../images/SNPWN5.jpg\nThe areas were categorised as value = 7, and the woodland zones spread to 500m. This creates a zone of 500m around the woods (Value = 40).\n\u0026lsquo;Spread\u0026rsquo; is a command to expand the area adjoining the target pixels. The spreading operation after selecting a woodland mask made the task of clumping pixels and masking for noise unnecessary.\n FPTwoodland = Recode FPTlanduse Assigning 7 to 1\u0026hellip;5 FPTwoodspread = Spread FPTwoodland to 500m  Perform a Boolean Interrogation #  The zones suitable for woodland connection were crossed with suitable soils, reassigning soil values to suitable zones, and void areas = 0. The resulting map was covered with the existing woodland in order to add context:\n ConnectWNa = Cross FPTWNsu And FPTwoodspread Assigning 3 to 3 with 40; Assigning 4 to 4 with 40; Assigning 5 to 5 with 40; Assigning 6 to 6 with 40; ConnectWNb = Cover ConnectWNa with FPTwoodland.  MAP DISPLAY B.2:Preparing a sub-map where existing woodland may be connected.\n.. image:: ../images/SNPWN6.jpg\nPrepare a Mask of Farms from the Land-use Map #  These were spread them in order to make them appear larger. Rivers were likewise spread, in preparation for adding context. Their central pixels (value = 0), were reassigned a value of 36. Void is automatically re-coded as 0.\n FPTfarms = Recode FPTlanduse Assigning 36 to 36 buildtext FPTWNfarmmask = Spread FPTfarms to 70m FPTrivers2 = Spread FPTrivers to 75m  .. image:: ../images/SNPWN7.jpg\n.. image:: ../images/SNPWN8.jpg\nAdd Context to the Walnut Map #  To finish, context was added. Rivers are added after contours, so they are not covered by contour lines. Refer to Map Display 3, below.\n ConnectWNc = Cover ConnectWNb with FPTWNfarmmask ConnectWNd = Cover ConnectWNc with FPTcontours ConnectWNe = Cover ConnectWNd with FPTrivers2  Cartographic Models: Two maps summarise the process of the map construction\n.. image:: ../images/SNPWN9.jpg\n.. image:: ../images/SNPWN10.jpg\nGIS Results, Potential Walnut #  The legends below for the sub-scened maps give areas in hectares, before and after the soils were interrogated for suitability and woodland connectivity.\n.. image:: ../images/SNPWN11.jpg\n.. image:: ../images/SNPWN12.jpg\nAbout 90% of the humic brown soils were \u0026lsquo;lost\u0026rsquo;, and only about 10% of the brown earth and brown alluvial soils.\nAbout 2, 218 ha of existing woodland can be connected through 650 acres of land.\nThere are approximately 40 farmsteads adjoining suitable land of 490 ha. which meets the specific criteria.\nConclusions, Potential for Woodland #  There exists some potential in the area for planting walnut. Forest has become fragmented over centuries. The outcome is a cultural landscape. Radical change may not be an plausible or desirable. However, Economic pressures and unsustainable monoculture do require change.\nDiversification of land use needs to include products which are in demand, where value can be added, and which have by- products. Demands are changing.\nThere are good reasons for trying Walnut. There are objections, because of expectations concerning walnuts growth. Trials should be aimed at testing new germplasm. Potentially suitable sites need to be found. Interrogation of land maps with GIS has helped to broadly find our targets. Owners could be approached. Walnut may serve as livestock shelter in any case.\nGrass communities may diversify with the addition of trees in clumps, and the micro-climatic variations that occur with trees. Quality of pasture is an issue here.\nThe size of plots would need to be determined before trials, and this could be achieved by interrogating the resultant maps. Suitability should be determined, finally, on the ground.\nObjectives of conservation can be served at the same time, by linking woodland with corridors, and build upon what is already there. Dormice require 50 ha of uninterrupted woodland, the Marsh Tit, 25 ha; the Nuthatch 100 ha., species which are on the conservation lists.\nZones of existing scrub and mixed woodland could be protected with buffer zones of scattered trees. At this time 15% of the land is wooded and over 70% of that is conifer plantation.\nReferences, Walnut Expansion #  J. Blaser, J. Carter, D. Gilmour eds. Biodiversity and Susutainable Use of Kyrgyztan\u0026rsquo;s walnut-fruit forests\tIUCN Cam. 1998\nD. Greene, S. Cousins\tLandscape Ecology and GIS Taylor\u0026amp;Francis 1996\nM. Grieve\tA Modern Herbal\tPeregrine Books 1978\nK. Fern\tPlants for a future Permanent Publications: Hamps.,1997\nJ. Sholto \u0026amp; R. Hart,\tForest Farming\tWatkins, Lon: 1976\nP.Saville - The silviculture of Juglans regia in Great Britain Oxford Forestry Institute U.of Oxford\nWatkins R.T. - The use of ecological Site Classification and Natural Vegetation Class in the Creation of New Upland Wood Communitites (Watkins R.T. MSC Thesis UCNW 1995)\nA.R. Sibbald et al Tree Growth Form in the Establishment Phase of a Silvopastoral Sysytem\tAgroforrestry Forum Dec 1997 Vol 8 No 3\nM. Naeem et al Agroforestry Forum Dec 1997 Vol 8 No 3\nBurgessP.J., et al Agroforestry Forum Dec 1997 Vol 8 No 3\nPlieninger, T.; Wilbrand, C. Land use, biodiversity conservation, and rural development in the dehesas of Cuatro Lugares, Spain. Agroforestry Systems, 2001, Vol.51, No.1, pp.23-34, 43 ref.\nHoppe, G. M.; Crowe, S. R.; McAdam, J. H. Changes in pasture composition in establishing and mature silvopastoral systems. Proceedings of the International occasional symposium of the European Grassland Federation, Thessaloniki, Greece, 27-29 May, 1999.\nOlff, H.; Vera, et al Shifting mosaics in grazed woodlands driven by the alternation of plant facilitation and competition. Plant Biology, 1999, Vol.1, No.2, pp.127-137, 64 ref.\nA. Gkaraveli1, J. H. Williams, and J. E. G. Good Fragmented native woodlands in Snowdonia (UK)* Forestry, Vol. 74, Issue 2 . L.D. Incoll et al\t*Temperate silvoarable agroforestry with quality hadwood timber species.* Agroforestry Forum Dec. 1997 Vol 8 No.3\nL.D. Incoll et al\tTemperate silvoarable agroforestry with poplar Agroforestry Forum Dec. 1997 Vol 8 No.3\nJim McAdam and Gerry Hoppe\tSheep performance and production from a lowland silvopastoral system Agroforestry Forum Dec. 1997 Vol 8 No.3\nR Gritten Woodland Grazing Scottish Forestry Vol 53 No.1 1999\nM Donnelly Mixed Species Clumps and Hedgrow Trees on an Upland Farm Vol 53 No.1 1999\nControlled Grazing in Woodlands: benefits for conservation farmers Agroforestry Forum December 1996 Vol.7 No. 3\nJ.E. Good et al\tThe Potential for Expansion of Upland Woodlands and the Environmental and Agri-economic Constraints: A Welsh Case Study. Scottish Forestry Vol 53 No.1 1999.\nT.Bartram\tEnclocyclopaedia of Herbal Medicine Constable, Lon: 1995\nAppendix, Walnut Connecting Woodland #  .. image:: ../images/SNPWN13.jpg\n"});index.add({'id':41,'href':'/docs/cnrm/agroforestry.html','title':"Agroforestry",'section':"Land Management",'content':"collapsible: when not set, gives a link in the menu but without submenu's; they do appeatr on this (_index) page.\nfilename must be _index.md or .rst etc - if just index, it will not work to give unfolding menu.\nrst subtitle is set\nAgroforestry addresses a wide range of needs at the household/farm level. It has potential for sustainable resource management. Agroforestry (AF) programs must be economically attractive to farmers and sponsors, and fit the context if they are to be successful.\n"});index.add({'id':42,'href':'/docs/cnrm/agroforestry/economics_agroforestry.html','title':"Economics of Agroforestry",'section':"Agroforestry",'content':"Subtitle:Key Issues from a Socio-economic perspective    Table of Contents\n1\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Introduction 2\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Rationale of Economic Valuation 3\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Interpretation, Agroforest Economic Evaluation 4\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Agroforest Socioeconomic Analysis 5\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Analysis and Viability 6\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Adoptibility of Agroforest Systems 7\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Conclusion, a Concern for Equity 8\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;References, Economics of Agroforestry   1\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Introduction Agroforestry addresses a wide range of needs at the household/farm level. It has potential for sustainable resource management. Agroforestry (AF) programs must be economically attractive to farmers and sponsors, and fit the context if they are to be successful.\nEconomic analysis seeks to improve decisions regarding choice and uptake of technologies, and the efficient use of scarce resources. Socioeconomic analysis includes, in addition to financial analysis, impacts upon sustainability of livelihoods and integrity of ecosystems. Project definitions define the boundaries of impacts, and populations affected. Classification of impacts includes timing.\n 2\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Rationale of Economic Valuation i.e. current neoclassical economics\nWith limited budgets and with conflicts, the maximum welfare, or utility overall is sought. A primary assumption is that total value of a change is the sum of effects, good minus bad, concerning all individuals. Lacking direct personal knowledge of goals and preferences of the individuals, analysts use valuation techniques for non-marketable goods, or environmental changes, determined on a single scale. This is essentially a cost-benefit analysis (CBA) enabling straightforward comparisons between alternative resource uses. It extends the utilitarian and democratic principle of the free market into decision making.\nThe various costs and benefits are over time are made commensurate through the process of discounting which converts them into present values.\nFor the analysis of AF, there are no baffling theoretical issues (Gregersen, 1992). There is no difference from agricultural and forestry economics. However, perceived methodological problems have restricted funding of economic studies of agroforestry (Scher, S.J. 1992), and raises various methodological issues.\n 3\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Interpretation, Agroforest Economic Evaluation 3.1\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Level of Analysis \u0026amp; Transfers A technology which pays at the farm level may not pay at a regional level. For example, planting trees in Nepal to prevent erosion deprives Bangladesh of silt. These are not included in a cost-benefit analysis, the purpose of which is to determine performance of resource use.\n 3.2\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Long term and environmental impacts Ecological critiques are concerned with damaging effects of unrestrained competition on public goods and consider all biological entities to have moral consideration. Physical outputs are only one sub-set of the system. Certain assumptions of economic valuation and environmental change are rejected, including:\nMoney can exactly substitute for some given decline, in air quality, leave the individual no worse off than before. Different kinds of impact are commensurable. Environmental goods of equal value may be substituted for each other with no loss of welfare.  Long-term benefits of resource conservation are minimised in discounting calculations. Given that knowledge of ecological process is poor in detail, use of the environment should be moderated by an awareness of risk, a 'precautionary principle' (Edwards-Jones, 2000). 'Steady state' models, used for resource-conserving interventions, assume a requirement to maintain the resource base regardless of discounting. Decisions not to discount are made through policy, after considering all information that analysts provide, including opportunity costs and trade-offs ~ Christopherson, 1992.   3.3\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Optimisation and Aggregate Effects The availability and opportunity cost of each resource is used to determine which resource is to be optimised. Thus, if land is relatively cheap and labour expensive, one would choose to use labour more efficiently than land. But, should quantative indicators alone be relied upon to make decisions, or should resources be organised to satisfy strategic objectives? For example, where women are target beneficiaries, equity appraisal, may reveal that integrating trees into home gardens may be more appropriate than introducing windbreaks.\nIn the Java Social Forestry Program, it is precisely those participants most in need who tend to fall below the average level of returns. Aggregate economic effects can be mistakenly taken as evidence of overall programme success in meeting social welfare goals (Sunderlin, W., 1990). A need exists to stratify farmers' groups to assess allocation of resources, and differences in financial benefits.\n 3.4\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Strategic decisions Scale of Impact Assessment and type of analysis: Priorities for groups at each level ( household, local, regional, global) are not mutually exclusive, but indicators are chosen to match the objectives of the decision-makers, upon which adoption of a project depends. Indicators guide data collection and interpretation, such as micro or macro analysis, economic\nPriorities at household and local levels feature household profits, deforestation, erosion control, sedimentation, soil fertility, water cycling. National and regional policy-makers' goals relate to productivity, income and foreign exchange, nutrition, food security, employment, distributions of income, land, and social structure. Donors desire rapid and widespread impact on sustainable food production and basic commodities in less developed regions. An example of global impact assessment is within the framework of an 'Alternatives to Slash and Burn' programme which (1: ICRAF, 2000,) includes increased carbon sequestration and enhanced biodiversity conservation.\n 3.5\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Subsistence economies Raynor, (1992) reports an AF system which is extremely productive and socio-culturally viable in the context of a subsistence economy, but not in the context of the transition to a market orientated economy. Pohn Pei Island, Micronesia, with an emphasis on community, expands the criteria of value in analysis. Community relationships lie outside the market system; their impact is real. Comparisons of other land-use options should be made within household livelihood strategies. (Reiche, 1992). Social welfare measured in terms of consumption and production may inhibit social sources of value by focussing narrowly on utility and individual choice. Simplistic cost benefit calculations fail to capture the goals and motivations of local participants.\n 3.6\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Assessing Impacts on multiple levels In order to assess the impacts of research in multiple dimensions and communicate that information to decision-makers and stakeholders Trade-Off Analysis (TOA) links inputs and outputs from the various disciplinary simulation models on a site-specific basis (Yanggen et al., 2002).\nScientists in AF programmes come from the disciplines of economics, anthropology, ecology, and systems agronomy. Constraints in implementing standardised methods exist with conflicting objectives of researchers. With several objectives at different levels, and alternative technologies to consider, a multiple objective modelling approach was advocated by Wojtkowski (1988), integrating socio-economic models with biophysical models. Minimum displacements from the ideal, within a hierarchal approach is advocated (Fawcett R. at al. 1997). 'Multi Criteria Appraisal' identifies a set of objectives, and weights criteria in order to identify solutions. It assumes a level of similarity between techniques, which in fact depend of the value judgments of those involved in the analysis.\nThe Participatory Rural Appraisal approach concentrates on capacity building for problem solving at the local level. The emphasis is on adaptive planning, and a focus on context specific thought rather than a search for universals.\n  4\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Agroforest Socioeconomic Analysis 4.1\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Context Socioeconomic analysis addresses four broad questions; Diagnosis and design of solutions as agroforestry alternatives to farmers' problems can be defined in the context of ecozone, farm, or plot levels, in order to determine (Avila, M, 1992):\nimpact upon agriculture and the environment, land-use systems and constraints of labour and biophysical kind Identify household priorities market forces and incentives   4.2\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Ex-ante analysis Ex-ante data are useful in broadly defining objectives for regions. ICRAF's Natural Resources Strategies and Policies Programme 2000 (1) conducts ex ante analyses on potential interventions, to set research and development priorities. Good ex-ante economic analysis requires good data. Detailed monitoring is costly but decisions made upon inadequate analyses lead to high incidences of failure, more costly than relevant monitoring (Christopherson, 1992).\nComprehensive assessment has been inconsistent (Scher and Muller 1990). Inconsistent methods among projects limit cross comparisons and hence collection of baseline data. Reiche (1992), confirms the practical value of developing standardised field-based bio-economic coefficients ('minimum sets)' for agroforestry technologies. Benchline yield data needs improvement, eg. data for trees is usually from forest plantations, and not dispersed trees.\nSector analysis, describing regional structure and variation of AF production, use and markets provide context, but are notably lacking (Christopherson, 1992).\nA secondary data assessment at the beginning of the trial/analysis will enhance the overall quality of the evaluation (Mercer 1993). This alone, however, is not sufficient. The main objective of research and development is to improve efficiency and productivity of the technology. Complex AF technologies may have to be optimised locally in order to generate meaningful production coefficients.\nOff-farm trials allows identification technical potentials but constraints exist to the use of experimental data. Growth and yield data do not reflect conditions in the field, commonly overestimating by 20% to 40% (Christopherson, 1992). Growth is related to soil profiles, but local soil may vary considerably from one plot to another. Nitrogen fixation may be best drawn from field data. Data on soil erosion, nutrition, digestibility and response to levels of management intensity may be better collected under controlled situations.\n 4.3\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Assessment on farms Technologies may be affected by land-use systems, labour constraints, or agro-ecological constraints. Realistic farm management and market data needed. Trials on farmer's fields better represent target households, their farming systems and local constraints to performance criteria.\nLocal variations include distribution of miccorhiza, willingness, and seasonal availability of labour. Tree species should be suited to the local area. Food preferences of animals and humans should be considered. Where agroforestry fields are close to the farm house, animals may be easier to watch. There is a need to understand the needs of the animal; close by the sea, salt may be licked off tree trunks, damaging bark. Laws may treat AF products as public commodities, excluding tenants from rights to harvest.\nBecause existing AF systems may be improved with greater ease and success than new ones, it is useful to evaluate their management and performance in all their complexity. Farmers may be surveyed during field reconnaissance, AF activities may be collected and compared to benchmark data, so far as limitations permit.\nCase studies are useful for identifying distributions of a land, particular variables or social groups, practises, income, management techniques,and plot yields. Panel surveys can capture variations over time. Studies may be exploratory, or extrapolative, in which case they must be selected for representativeness. Understanding of the system is required in order to design surveys. Given the variability between farms, correlations between variables cannot necessarily be explained. Sampling can be difficult. Local extension people and farmers may not view local problems the same way. Focus groups and informal interviews with farmers could determine whether this is the case or not.\n  5\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Analysis and Viability Uncertainties and estimations pervade CBA. In calculating performance indicators, valuation of inputs and outputs is based upon opportunity cost, and examines the value of alternative resource uses. Indicators are expressed in terms of 'net margins' which include labour and machinery costs. All significant assumptions and estimated variables should be subjected to sensitivity analysis to determine which estimations Net Present Value (NPV) is relatively sensitive to. Research into into better estimations may then be targeted. However, Applying values presents various problems.\n5.1\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Prices Not necessarily reasonable indicators of value. Prices signal scarcity, but only when markets for goods are functioning properly, and competition is imperfect if suppliers (or governments) have power to set prices.\n 5.2\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Price Trends Farmers respond to market prices. Seasonal variations and cycles may be determined, necessitating use of local price trends. Local diversification will have consequences for local and regional market supply and demand, entailing prediction of trends at all levels. At the subsistence level, diversification increases flexibility as well as resources, which is hard to assign meaningful integer value.\nLabour Ascribing realistic labour costs is tricky (Von Platen, 1992). Co-operative labour exchange groups (eg Kombit in Haiti) and family labour supply labour a times of low demand, and enable jobs to be easily accomplished. Costs are not included when harvest is achieved with excess labour. As regards forest-pasture, a farmer may act differently from a company because living on the farm it is reasonable to charge oneself nothing considering opportunity costs. Thus in winter, when no other demands exist for labour, in temperate environments pruning may be done. Non family labour costs would reduce net returns.\n 5.3\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Stock Seedlings performance is variable, and may have hidden costs. Clonal material, though uniform, is susceptible to disease. Transport of seedlings has an injurious effect upon viability. Spatial, performance and management criteria depend upon stock. For example, Teak trees grown in Java from clonal material give less bushy trees, need less pruning, have less knotting, and permit more light for the understorey crop. Initial planting at low density of good seed may be cheaper long term. Tree nurseries may be necessary to kick start a project. Grazers Putting animals in with trees can increase basal area growth by 25% prior to canopy closure, and their presence or absence must be accounted for. Animals may have multiple uses, including power for tillage.\n 5.4\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Non-marketable commodities What is a product? Is a root stump, used for fuel wood a product? Minor, non-market things may be more valuable locally, because they are 'there now' and meet daily needs. Eg. banana leaves as plates.\n 5.5\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Non wood forest products (nwfp) NWFP meet household needs and market potential. Examples are; oils/tannins, waxes, medicines, spices, flavourings, honey. Street, D. (1992) relates how participants presented problems in quantifying costs and benefits of woodlot and borders. Comparisons of yield depend on comparative technology, for example, charcoal production and traditional kilns.\nYields may be variable, unstandardised (Eg. Poles, fuel wood and commercial fodder), and depend upon maturity of the system. Where nwfp are not offered by agricultural production, comparisons with exportable agricultural produce are misleading in terms of value. Local market values for Af products may exist in competition with unmanaged harvests of primary forest, natural re-growth, or forests on common land. Estimates of poles can be made on stumpage prices, but more appropriate is soil expectation value Soil Expectation Value.\n 5.6\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Non-market values Many environmental and social impacts are not traded and therefore have no explicit market price. Soil conservation may, in addition to increased production, benefit sustained production. Such benefits, which are not product, may be added to the resource in analysis, but are difficult to calculate. Monoculture options do not take into account soil conservation, and comparisons cannot be made in this respect. Items difficult to quantify can be qualitively valued, and user -weighted. Examples are physical protection (sun, wind, animals, thieves), aesthetics, land reclamation, live-staking, and soil conservation, environmental impacts.\nCommon criteria for environmental impacts are extent and frequency, reversibility, possibility of reduction, social acceptance, legal limits, future developments in the same environment. Impacts that cannot be be converted into money are not supposed to signal that they are insignificant, but there is an undeniable tendency for this to happen (Edwards-Jones et al., 2000). The benefit due to micro-climatic changes and diversity, which offer protection from threats such as drought and pests, may be subsumed in yield increases, but data must be based on long-term monitoring. These benefits should not be counted twice by assigning values according to non-tangible benefits.\n 5.7\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Analytic Efficiency AF systems are complex, but analytical efficiency is improved with bio-economic modelling (Christopherson, 1992). The models can employ ex-ante or post-ante data. (Thomas, 1994). Production functions and budgeting data are integrated to indicate the relative magnitude of the outputs and financial trade-offs over time.\nAlternative designs of the same system, contrasting AF systems, or monocultures may be compared. Users have been put off by the difficulty in providing numerous values needed to tune the models for specific soil, crop, tree, climate, and management regime. Development of common libraries of soil/tree/crop parameter values makes things easier.\n 5.8\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Discounted cash flows \u0026amp; Long term analysis Farmers' desire for immediate returns to labour is a case of high discounting. An argument for a low interest rates is that farmers have in fact a long term view, the only explanation for farmers' perpetual desire to purchase more land, accumulate livestock, or educate their children, even when such investments may not yield the highest returns. High interest rates for poor farmers with short-term planning horizons would screen out poor projects, perhaps. Low interest rates would enhance long term objectives, increase uptake of AF technologies, but if generally applied, may have adverse environmental consequences in agriculture, encouraging wide investment in resources with cheap capital.\nFarmers in Mexico saw agroforestry as a way to diversify outputs and combine short-term returns, (i.e. crops), with long-term investment, i.e. timber production (Casey et al., 1999). The combined short and long-term investment makes it difficult to assign an appropriate uniform discount rate.\nComparisons of alternatives for opportunity costs can be made with either traditional or improved systems, with different results. For example, trees which are not N-fixers, Ash pasture treated with low inputs of fertiliser at about 200 units per ha. tends to optimise production. Comparison could be made with improved systems.\n  6\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Adoptibility of Agroforest Systems 6.1\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Evaluating Farmer preferences A positive on-farm economic analysis provides a necessary, but not sufficient, indication of the successful introduction of an agroforestry project. Technologies should address problems in such a way that farmers will actually consider implementing them within their overall production strategy. Evaluation of any technology must begin with understanding relevance, impacts and implications at the household/farm level (Avila M. 1992). For example, farmers may have a preference for flexibility in planting schedules, having seasonal trends in available labour.\n 6.2\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Ability to choose technical alternatives Seven or eight sets of land use choices appeared to be the limit for those farmers in Casey et al.'s farmers survey (1999). They seemed to consider the entire system, and not just focus in on one attribute. Eight attributes seemed to be too much information for farmers to evaluate at once, and this to was narrowed to five attributes:\nThe extra number of workdays to manage the system, Years of technical assistance the farmer will receive, Types of products from each system, Availability of seedlings The environmental effects  How choices are to be limited, is not clear. Analysis of what farmers are doing with trees, which trees, and rationale, provides information (Avila, M., 1992). Farmers could limit their own choice in a task of ranking attributes. Illiterate farmers, unable to scrutinise choices at their leisure, may be assisted with pictorial matrices devised for the purpose. Conjoint analysis permits the measurement of preferences on several attributes when surveying farmers.\n 6.3\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Manageability or Risk Lack of resources, lack of (transportation, water, technical training, farmer and technical experts), and neglect of management regimes adds to risk of failure. A survey of local infrastructure is required, in addition to farm surveys. Limits to flexibility may exist in switching inter-crops under trees. Less perishable products, wood, allow the farmer to assume some risk management, harvesting and selling when prices are most favourable. Smooth operation of the project can hindered under political and social instability (Street, 1992).    7\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Conclusion, a Concern for Equity Adoptability of Af technologies depend upon appropriate and thorough participant surveys in the first instance.\nA concern for equity exists in assessing technologies, calling for prediction of distribution of cost-benefit and social impacts. Making social impact analyses (SIA) count is problematic. Measurable aspects of SIA may still fail to take into account their effect on the perceptions of affected communities; in this regard, SIA is impossible without contact with the affected individuals and communities.\nFeasibility of projects showing low Net Present Values (NVPs) need not be automatically rejected. There is the issue of whether something is to be learnt and applied from developed countries to developing countries, regarding loss of biodiversity and moves to less intensive agriculture remains. The assumption of consumption decisions, that the future will be richer than the present, and that productivity of capital (natural and man-made) can compensate for damage to ecological services, is not necessarily true. Uncertain outcomes should be treated differently from to costs and benefits.\nMethodological questions remain on how to evaluate AF as a land-use strategy in rural development. Non-market commodities and non-market values remain difficult to express in equivalent monetary terms in CBAs comparing Af with monoculture systems. Also, a conflict of goals exists concerning improvement of subsistence farming versus commercial production. Difficulties arise due to the absence of robust techniques for comparing financial, ecological and social data, and good working definitions of words such as significant and important. Analytic efficiency has improved with computer tools which are useful as assistants but not a replacement for decision-making. It is important decision-making frameworks remain transparent and consistent.\nIt is doubtful whether adapting the discount rate can bring about social improvement when applied to CBA without parallel political criteria being adopted separately as constraints upon development.\n 8\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;References, Economics of Agroforestry David Yanggen, John Antle, Jetse Stoorvogel, Walter Bowen, Charles Crissman Tradeoff Analysis as a Tool for Assessment of Economic and Environmental Impacts of Agricultural Research (2002): www.cimmyt.org/Research/Economics/impacts.\nEdwards-Jones, G. et al, Ecological Economics Blackwell, Oxford 2000\nJames F. Casey, D. Evan Mercer, and Ann Snook Evaluating Farmer Preferences for Agroforestry Sytsems: Survey Instrument Design ICRAF 1999 www.icraf.cgiar.org\nICRAF Impact Assessment Workshop organised by the Standing Panel on Impact Assessment (SPIA) of the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) of the CGIAR 3 - 5 May 2000, FAO, Rome www.icraf.cgiar.org\nFawcett, R. et al. Multiple Objective Socio-Economic Models of Agroforestry Systems Agroforestry Forum Vol 8:42-45 June 1997\nWojtkowski P., et al (1988) Using Multiple Objective Linear Programming to Evaluate Multi-Participant Agroforestry Systems. Agroforestry Forum Vol 7: 185-195\nThomas, T. 1997, Linking Bio-Economics to biophysical Agroforestry Models Agroforestry Forum Vol 8:40-42 June 1997\n*Note:* The remaining are references from Sullivan, G.M., et al., Financial and Economic Analyses of Agroforestry Systems. Pia, H1: Nitrogen Fixing Tree Association, Hawaii 1992:\nAvila M., 1992 Economics of Agroforestry systems in Central America in Sullivan, G.M., et al., Financial and Economic Analyses of Agroforestry Systems. Pia, H1: Nitrogen Fixing Tree Association, Hawaii 1992\nChristopherson, K.A., 1992 Highlights of themes discussed: In Sullivan, G.M., et al., Financial and Economic Analyses of Agroforestry Systems. Pia, H1: Nitrogen Fixing Tree Association, Hawaii 1992\nGregersen H., 1992 Foreword in Central America: In Sullivan, G.M., et al., Financial and Economic Analyses of Agroforestry Systems. Pia, H1: Nitrogen Fixing Tree Association, Hawaii 1992\nMercer D.E. Executive Summary in Central America: In Sullivan, G.M., et al., * Financial and Economic Analyses of Agroforestry Systems*. Pia, H1: Nitrogen Fixing Tree Association, Hawaii 1992\nRaynor w. 1992 Economic Analyisis of Indigenous Agroforestry: A case study on Pohnpei Island, Federated Sates of Micronesia: In Sullivan, G.M., et al., Financial and Economic Analyses of Agroforestry Systems. Pia, H1: Nitrogen Fixing Tree Association, Hawaii 1992\nReiche C., 1992 Economic Analyses of Living Fences in Central America: In Sullivan, G.M., et al., Financial and Economic Analyses of Agroforestry Systems. Pia, H1: Nitrogen Fixing Tree Association, Hawaii 1992\nScher S.j., Financial and Economic Analyses of Agroforestry Systems: An Overview of Case Studies: In Sullivan, G.M., et al., Financial and Economic Analyses of Agroforestry Systems. Pia, H1: Nitrogen Fixing Tree Association, Hawaii 1992\nStreet, D. (1992) Haitian Tree Farm Financial Case Studies in Central America. In Sullivan, G.M., et al., Financial and Economic Analyses of Agroforestry Systems. Pia, H1: Nitrogen Fixing Tree Association, Hawaii 1992\nSunderlin, W., 1990 Benefits Costs and Equity: Analysis of A Social forestry Site in Central Java: In Sullivan, G.M., et al., Financial and Economic Analyses of Agroforestry Systems. Pia, H1: Nitrogen Fixing Tree Association, Hawaii 1992\nThomas et al. 1992 Bioeconomic Modelling of Agroforestry Systems: in Sullivan, G.M., et al., Financial and Economic Analyses of Agroforestry Systems. Pia, H1: Nitrogen Fixing Tree Association, Hawaii 1992\nVon Platen H.H., 1992 Economic Analyses of Agroforestry Systems of Cacao with Laurel and Poro in Costa Rica: In Sullivan, G.M., et al., Financial and Economic Analyses of Agroforestry Systems. Pia, H1: Nitrogen Fixing Tree Association, Hawaii 1992\n "});index.add({'id':47,'href':'/docs/cnrm/agroforestry/ecosystemproductivity_oda.html','title':"Enhancing ecosystem and productivity in Oda",'section':"Agroforestry",'content':"Subtitle:Key Issues from a Socio-economic perspective  Designation:MSc.    Table of Contents\n1\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Introduction 2\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Causal Analysis 3\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Expected Benefits of Agroforestry Interventions 4\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Adoption Methods for Agroforestry 5\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Follow up   Enhancing the sustainability of natural assets to alleviate land-use problems, and thereby reverse decreasing financial and social capital.\n1\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Introduction Householders report serious problems concerning land use and livelihoods in Oda. Causal analysis indicates poor cycling of nutrients and water with the consequences of soil infertility and flooding. A depletion of natural assets, particularly through removal of trees, threatens the Sustainability of many livelihoods there. This has led to insufficient food production, ill health, and worsening roads with attendant market problems in a cycle of deepening poverty.\nA depletion of financial and human capital has led to labour shortages, and weeding of food crops is neglected by men and women. Crop pests are a problem, I assume more so with decreased biodiversity and predators, and a reported weakening of planting material. Hybrid varieties of cocoa are being cultivated without trees, and farms extended for the purpose. I assume this increases land shortages.\nWithout financial resources, the young lack the education necessary for alternative employment. Instead, they turn to the planting of unsuitable marginal lands for planting cocoa as a cash crop. In a shifting agricultural culture, fallow is increasingly reduced with availability of food crop land.\nThe trend is for decreasing natural assets, including food production. Manufactured off-farm nutrients are expensive, really beyond reach, and not economically viable, even for the extended cocoa farms. Social cohesion is threatened between young and old, men and women, as it appears groups have conflicting separate agendas in coping. Causal analysis of the problems shows that solutions lie in agroforestry interventions to enhance the sustainability of natural assets and alleviate land-use problems, and thereby reverse decreasing financial and social capital.\n 2\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Causal Analysis Refer to the following causal diagram of Oda for analysis of the problems unsustainable livelihoods. he causal links demonstrate specific problems at household and landscape levels and the effective problems that emerge. From such an analysis, useful interventions are suggested.\n Diagram: Oda Causal Links\n 3\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Expected Benefits of Agroforestry Interventions Integrated biological control of pollination and pests through bio- and genetic diversity. Increased marketing opportunities through control of flooding on road, Financial capital and health through enhanced food production and diversification of products. More equitable availability of land for poorer and young through adoption of intensive, rather than extensive cocoa production methods. Employment and educational opportunities through financial capital.\n 4\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Adoption Methods for Agroforestry Advice upon the range of technologies to combat partial advice. Theses are dependent upon social context for transformation of natural assets. Methods are to include the whole range of stakeholders in community activities and organisation (i.e., collective action). Community and household level livelihoods and land use needs to be examined in a participatory meetings of local community, along with causal diagrams of stated problems. Education towards locally sustainable natural resource management is needed to combat lack of knowledge. Combine institutional agroforestry research knowledge with farmer field schools, farmer -to farmer dissemination and partnership with development NGOs. Consider enhancing social, human, physical and financial assets simultaneously (e.g. through community credit exchange system), without relying on external funding. Establish a tree nurseries. Encourage seed production. Design policy implementation instruments at community and national levels. District/National law concerning prohibition of tree removal should be made known and enforced. Encourage good management practices after establishment.   5\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Follow up Follow up with impact assessments of the adoption of interventions, within natural capital and systems hierarchy framework.\nAdopt a learning approach towards knowledge, with support. Government extension agents need to be brought on board in partnership, fares paid for their. Increased local tax revenue or income might justify this.\n "});index.add({'id':48,'href':'/docs/cnrm/man_nature/hnrstudy.html','title':"Human Nature Relationship Questionnaire",'section':"Man-Nature Values Study",'content':"Participate Participate and reflect in a study of Human-Nature Relationship. It a reflective experience. The focus is on world view, values and, ecosystem health.\nThe study uses statements drawn from a wide area including traditional and modern, eastern and western thought. The method of analysis is the excellent Q Methodology. [1]\nThe study's aim is to raise awareness and widen the scope of values to be accounted for in conservation and land use change.\nThis is a question sort, in which you are asked to rank and re-rank 56 statements from \u0026quot;Least Agree\u0026quot;, to \u0026quot;Most Agree\u0026quot;. You may work offline.\nPondering on questions is OK, it gives YOUR preferences or understanding, so it is worth the effort to make your sort easy, proceed as follows:\nGo through all 56 statements, to sort them into piles. Examples are provided. The result of sorting them is that each statement is rated relative to each other. See help on the page to get you going.\n Go To The Study \u0026gt;\u0026gt; FOOTNOTES  [1]See also, wikipedia's page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_methodology    "});index.add({'id':49,'href':'/docs/cnrm/agroforestry/soil_change_scuaf.html','title':"Soil Changes Under Agroforestry",'section':"Agroforestry",'content':"Designation:M.Sc. 532    Table of Contents\n1\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Objective 2\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Introduction 3\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Modelling Intercropping with SCUAF 4\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;How the Model Works in the Simulation 5\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Inputs SCUAF 6\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Universal Soil Loss Equation 7\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Erosion \u0026amp; Fertility 8\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Analysis of Results 9\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Nutrient Cycle 10\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Plant growth 11\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Conclusion 12\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;References SCUAF 13\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Appendix 2   1\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Objective Compare soil erosion, loss of top soil, and nutrients (N and P) between Glyricidia hedgerow inter-cropped with maize, and maize mono-cropping systems in Lampung, Indonesia.\nAgroforestry can enhance nutrient cycling when compared to agriculture, and minimise losses to the system.\n 2\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Introduction  \u0026quot;Balanced ways go on and on, unbalanced ways disappear in harmonious times.\u0026quot; ~ From the I Ching (hexagon No.11) Sustainable practices of agriculture are not perpetual practices. Population growth has put pressure upon traditional crop-fallow land-use systems, to cause declining soil fertility an soil erosion with reduced fallow periods.\nBeing unsustainable, such practices must eventually be abandoned. Yet timely interventions may alleviate suffering brought about by failing crop yields.\nTo this end, study of crop interactions and soil changes is important in assessing the likely impact and sustainability of interventions upon land-use systems. Scuaf is a model developed as an aid to prediction in agroforest intervention, the effect of introducing trees on agricultural soils. Data is limited. The model demonstrates that trees can improve soil.\nA more immediate effect of soil erosion than loss of soil quantity is loss of organic matter and nutrients. Soil fertility is the capacity of soil to support plant growth, in the given environment. By reducing soil erosion and runoff, trees are viable as agroforestry if acceptable to farmers in terms of yield and competition. A high degree of internal recycling maintains fertility towards equilibrium,in the manner of natural ecosystems of diverse vegetation communities.\nInter-cropping may increase yields through facilitation, or by mutual interactions, as well as prevent soil erosion.\nDecline, as opposed to low soil fertility caused by natural soil conditions, is brought about by past land use. Shifting cultivation is sustainable provided that the fallow periods are of adequate length. The necessary rest-period requirement 'R-factor', (i.e. years under cultivation/ years under cultivation plus fallow), depends upon the type of soil under consideration. Estimates of rest periods required are difficult to make, particularly if it is not known to what extent soils are e degrading under current land use. However, with intermediate inputs, one and two years under fallow are required.\nRenewal of nutrients by minimum tillage, fertiliser, green manuring, fallowing, return of crop residues, manures/composts and flood irrigation may have constraints in type or extent of land, and supply. Naturally sustainable soils are those derived from nitisol rocks that have the capacity to renew fertility by weathering. They are of limited extent and carry high populations.\n 3\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Modelling Intercropping with SCUAF Inter-cropping is considered to have a crop cover total of 1.0 (100%). In the model the cover can be higher, which represents a multi strata system, as opposed to discrete inter-plantings. Crop cover affects soil erosion by protecting soil from exposure.\n17 elements are considered essential to growth. C, H and O are obtained from the air. 1 to 6% of plant composition is the 14 essential elements of the soil.\nOther macro nutrients essential to growth, (i.e. sulphur, calcium and magnesium, as well as the micro nutrients of Zen, Fe, Cu, Mn, Cl, and Co, are not modelled. They may in some respects be expected to follow a similar pattern cycling as the nutrients under observation, with exceptions under special circumstances, beyond the scope of the model, or the present study.\nBased on studies of forest, savanna, and semi-arid ecosystems, the Scuaf model has been developed so that trees-only give a steady-state soil. The model sets default values based on the user-defined land Use system and environmental conditions as a whole. Unless specified, default values were accepted. Default values for temperate climate are provisional.\nPlant composition in Kg DM per/ha/yr was calculated and specified for each species, from the fraction of NPP.\nLeaf, wood and fruit 66%, 33% and 1% for Glyricidia. NPP for Glyricidia = 10650 Kg DM per/ha/yr.     Leaf and fruit 67% and 33% from maize. NPP for Maize = 555 Kg DM per/ha/yr.      Annual rainfall was set at 3200 mm. Climate; lowland humid\nTwo soil horizons were set 0-20 a, and 20-40 cm, forming the lower boundary of the soil, or the approximate depth reached by the crop roots.\nAll wood and fruit were removed for fuel and human consumption. Changes in status of soil and plant components are calculated as end of year values, and are applied to stores and flows, in kg/ha or kg/ha/yr, or fractions.\n 4\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;How the Model Works in the Simulation 4.1\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Carbon \u0026amp; Nutrient Flows The model adds plant residues to the soil according to removals as prunings, harvest, conversion losses, and standing biomass. No additions of fertiliser or manure to soil were entered in this simulation. Non-harvested tree prunings, are returned to soil. It is assumed that erosion losses of C, N and P come from labile humus; the soil mineral fraction is assumed to be below the soil surface, unaffected by erosion. The rates of gains and loss in the cycling process were left in default values, proposed by the model according to the land use system.   4.2\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Soil Carbon Cycle  Nutrients are stored in soil and plants, minerals are in addition stored in soil solution.\n Carbon in the soil is gained through humification. Losses through oxidation: 'active fractions' of elements present in soil meso- and micro-fauna, are subsumed within litter-to-humus conversion losses through oxidation.  humification = litter* (1-fractional LITTER TO HUMUS OXIDATION)\n   Initial values are 67% humus in stable form. Stable humus annually transformed as 1% of labile.\n Decomposition of humus is 0.03 under trees and 0.04 under crops by default.\n labile carbon is given a life of 10 years in the specified temperate soils. Stable carbon: Has a half life \u0026gt; 50 years.\n    5\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Inputs SCUAF Plant composition was specified for each species.\nland Use systems area under trees and crops: Area under tree = 0.20; Area under crop= 0.80 Area under trees = 0; Area under crop = 1.0  Initial rates of growth (NPP) were input as:\nGlyricidia: 10560 kg DM per ha/yr. Maize: kg DM per ha/yr.   6\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Universal Soil Loss Equation Erosion (A) = R * K * L * S * C * P (kg/ha/yr)*, WHERE:\nR = The power of rainfall to cause erosion by amount and intensity (less intense in temperate climates). Kinetic energy, though measurable through drop size, it is an expensive machine, and it is approximated by taking half the local annual rainfall; 1/10 in temperate areas. K is Soil erodibility factor, and represents type of texture and structure; it is lowered by improving these. It represents also, the soil's water holding capacity. Measured by taking the ratio betweeen erosivity and erosivity representative factor soil. Li, and Si, are Slope length and Slope gradient taken in relation to 'standard plot gradient'. C is cover or, management of land under consideration / bare soil . P is erosion control practice. Compared with land ploughed against contour, without structures.   7\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Erosion \u0026amp; Fertility Leaching rates are generally higher for lowland humid climates, as are rainfall, decomposition rates, atmospheric input of nutrients, and supply of phosphorous by soil parent material (i.e. felsic, in this case). These varibles are factoredinto the model.\nTrees can protect soil from erosion. With slope, trees as permeable barriers prevent runoff where aligned to contours. Tree roots promote infiltration of water and hold soil in place. Tree prunings will check raindrop impact and runoff .\nThe advantages given by trees may be determined by the tree proportionality factor, which may be user-defined. Intercropping is a spatial design, and this was modelled by,\nArea under tree (TPF) = 0.20 Area under crop (ie. 0.80)  Erosivity can in fact sometimes increase with the cover of trees, due to raindrop splash. This depends upon leaf characteristics. In intercropping with multi-stemmed pruned trees, the raindrop velocity would be checked.\nSoil texture affects the leaching of nutrients, is improved by root infiltration. Below ground influences of tree roots upon adjacent soil under crops (default= 0.1), are calculated.\nIt has been reported that depression in crop yields are found to be competition for water close to the hedgerow, although effects are sometimes positive. Glyricidia sepium has been reported to reduce potential evapotranspiration in crop alleys for most of the season. Prunings help to conserve water too, as well as reduce weed biomass and competition.\nLabile carbon is given a life of 10 years in the specified temperate soils. Stable carbon has a half life \u0026gt; 50 years. Long term formation would add stability or equilibrium to the cycle of nutrients, under constant input. However availability of nutrients is mainly from the active fractions (1-2% of soil OM) in the fine litter,and some from labile humus, or from minerals. In temperate climates some may be carried over to the next year.\nCrop cover reduces exposure and hence erosion and gaseous escape of nutrients, including carbon dioxide. The greater the soil cover the less the cover factor in the Universal Soil loss Equation.\nThere is a high tree-crop interface in intercropping due to the spatial design. This is considered in the input data which allows the system to be defined as 'alleycrop\u0026amp;hedgerow'. The percentage cover by components doesn't specify inter-row distances, and I assume single rows are an assumption of the model.\nGenerally between hedgerow spacing should be at 4-8 m; at greater than 10 m then there is insufficient biomass production.\n 8\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Analysis of Results Interpretation of the Graphs 1a-10 in Appendix 1: Refer to Appendix 2 for Raw data Tables. Discussion of results follows.\n8.1\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Soil and Carbon Erosion (A) A sustained decrease in soil depth in both conditions:\n agroforestry (Af) \u0026lt; maize only (MO). Fig.1 shows the soil losses. The soil loss is explained by the Soil erosion factor (K) which has a sustained increase, and is grater for Af than MO.\nA = R x K x L x S x C x TPF x 1000 (kg/ha/yr)\n Where R = The power of rainfall to cause erosion by amount and intensity (less intense in temperate climates);\n K = Soil erodibility factor; LxS = slope factor (length and slope)\n these are less than the original USLE values;    C = cover factor, treated separately for tree and crop.\n (L x S) and R are fixed for climate and physical conditions.\n K and C are themselves modified by the simulation of changes in plant and soil.\n  |Esystem| = (|Etree| x TPF) + (|Eproportional| x (1-TPF)\nEproportional = (Etree x Atree (+ (Ecrop + Acrop)*\nWhere, E = erosion, and A = fractional area under cover. Erosion under trees is usually less than under crops: The trees may exert an influence greater than area they cover, an effect covered by the tree proportionality factor (TPF, Young \u0026amp; Mayura 1990), (default=0.8). K represents type of texture and structure, and is lowered by improving these. It also represents the soil's water holding capacity. The model decreases K by 0.069% with each 1% increase in soil organic matter content (based on Wischmeier and Smith 1978), and hence soil erosion.  Cn = Co x (NPPo/NPPn) where n = year n, 0 = year 0\nThe model decreases crop cover factor (C) with increase in plant growth, to reduce erosion. Default values of 0.006 and 0.300 for tree and crop respectively, reduce erosivity for agroforestry (Af).  From Fig. 3,\n% carbon decreases, and more for monocrop maize. Erosive loss of soil organic matter (OM), represented by carbon, is based on topsoil content, with an added enrichment factor for eroded sediment (This is true for and nutrient cycling too). It is assumed that erosion losses of C, N and P come from labile humus; the soil mineral fraction is assumed to be below the soil surface, unaffected by erosion.  Losses of C, N, P: = erosion rate x proportion present in soil x enrichment factor.\nDecrease in carbon is followed by a rise in agroforestry. A high loss from the start in Mo continues at a declining rate along with declining carbon content. (See the raw data table 1b, erosion in MO). There are losses through oxidation. The model's decomposition factor of humus is 0.03 under trees and 0.04 under crops by default; reduced erosivity in agroforestry by comparison. Crop cover for both conditions shows an initial decrease in the first three years; greater sole crop. Subsequent increases are observed in agroforestry only. This modifies the crop cover factor. Organic matter (OM) in the soil is gained through humification of the plant residues ( ie. 'litter'). The model adds the plant residues of non-harvested as prunings to the soil. No additions of fertiliser or manure to soil were entered in this simulation. In maize-only, the leaf was returned to soil, being a 'non-harvested crop pruning'. In agroforestry both maize and tree leaf prunings were returned to the soil. Favouring the monoculture, maize roots are returned to the soil, as they do not remain as standing biomass. Root turnover in trees is not explicitly considered, and may be underestimated. Pruning may increase the root turnover. There are conversion losses through oxidation, in which 'active fractions' of elements present in soil meso- and micro-fauna, are subsumed. Losses are alsao through leaching in addition to erosion.  humification = litter x (1-fractional LITTER TO HUMUS OXIDATION)\nHarvests, conversion losses, and standing biomass are losses to the internal flows of the system. Conversion losses differ between above ground and root residues, and so prunings are not equivalent in nutrient status to additions as tree fodder through manure. Default values suggested by Nye \u0026amp; Greenland (1960). For the top soil horizon, initial carbon and nitrogen status (1.7% and 0.14%) were set from field data. Dynamically, the proportion of OM present includes additions to the soil. (See, Soil carbon cycle, Appendix Figure 4). Soil carbon changes in the model are sensitive to rates of conversion loss. (Young 1997).    9\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Nutrient Cycle Generally - Refer to Charts of Results, in Appendix,\nGenerally, soil organic N changes run in parallel with carbon. Short and medium-term changes to occur within the topsoil where most of the carbon is in the labile form. Elements arising from decomposition of plant residue are added to labile humus and mineralised fractions. A substantial loss in N occurs at the star of the model run. It is assumed that only 0.1 of the mineralised nitrogen is carried over to the next year, and the pool must be reformed each year. The model proposes no nutrients arising from litter mineralisation in the first year, as in a shifting cultivation system. Thus substantial nitrogen deficiency occurs at the start of the model run, by default.  Soil Organic Phosphorous (Charts 4 A-B),\nChange is roughly parallel with carbon, with the addition of rock weathering as a mineral source of phosphorous. Immobilisation onto clay causes loss to the cycling system.  Humification of N and P (Chart 2A-B, Charts 4A-B),\nBoth rise then fall to similar levels in both crop conditions by year 19, and at a greater rate in agroforestry over first five years. N \u0026amp; P formation shows a sustained decrease, greater in maize only than agroforestry. Mineralisation of stable and labile N shows no change for agroforestry, a slow sustained decrease in monocrop maize. Stable P remains at the same level in both conditions. Labile N shows a sustained decrease, greater for monocrop than agroforestry * C:N ratio shows a sustained slow decrease in agroforestry and a zero value for crop only. Nitrogen may also be leached. Erosion of organic P and N is greater in MO, and reaches the same level after 19 years. If growth is nitrogen limited, all is taken up by the plant (after losses), in the simulation.  From Fig 5 Above, plant uptake of N is is greater in agroforestry, though declines to reach same level as declining N in monoculture in year 20. Losses are less, and there is additional symbiotic fixation in agroforestry.     From Chart (5A-B), Available soil mineral phosphorous is much greater in agroforestry (after an initial decline), with less leaching, increased litter mineralisation, and fixation in the long term. Litter content falls below humus content of N in both conditions, indicating reduced availability for growth. Labile organic N and P decline at a faster rate in maize-only. P in littermineral form is available only in agroforestry. Nutrient availability (figure 5, Appendix 1) is calculated for soils under trees and under crops. Symbiotic fixation with Glyricidia only, favours agroforestry conditions. Flows of N and P through plants return to soil though humification and mineralisation of litter, throughfall and stemflow, which are greater for trees. N and P are gained by the soil and trees through atmospheric deposition (rain and dust), non-symbiotic fixation (N), symbiotic fixation (N), deep capture by trees, from below the modelling depth, and rock weathering. Losses through humus decomposition are less for trees, by default. Gains of phosphorous are not greater for trees by weathering. N and P loss by leaching is less under tress, but not clay fixation and gaseous loss, according to the model. Additionally, there are losses due to soil removal, which is greater in maize only soils. Phosphorous immobilisation onto clay minerals is known higher in strongly acid soil. By default,this is the same for both conditions, However, trees can regulate acidity. Root infiltration is known to aid aeration and hence, productivity of the soil. There are two paths for transfer of nutrients to to crop via the soil, through mineralisation and trough humification; mineralisation is faster, and prone to leaching. For organic matter to increase, prunings would need to humify.       10\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Plant growth Growth rates are modified in the simulation by the effects of changes in nutrients, carbon, and soil depth. Rates may be higher or lower under trees.\nRequirements are estimated from initial growth rates of composition and growth. If either N or P is deficient plant growth is reduced proportionally (i.e. availability/requirements), using the law of the minimum.\nHigh fertility favours growth of herbaceous plants, but may be offset by competition for resources such as light or water.\nTree-crop competition is calculated on the basis of relative root densities specified. I calculated these as a fraction of NPP before entering as initial annual root growth; 40% for trees, 25% for maize.\nOM facilitation of root development and water holding-capacity is modelled through a feedback factor.\n10.1\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Trees and Phosphorous and Micorrhiza Trees had a clear ability to assist in the cycles of phosphorous. Phosphorous has poor solubility. P organic pool, as sugars, acids, DNA is unavailable. Acquisition of P can is by solubilizing through change in ph, or by chelating. Examples include ALFeP and H+ exchange, or through release of organic acids (citrates, malates, oxalates), the ability to take up phosphate in the area which the plant can exploit (rhizoshpere) is 2-3 mm.\nAcquisition of nutrients, such as phosphorous, is aided by tree root micorrhiza. Organic phosphatase enzymes have greater reach than trees themselves. Thus higher yields are maintained or aided, through greater uptake with low soil P. They exploit a much larger soil volume through hyphae spread. The phosphorous is taken up, stored in chains and transported to the xyloplasm in the hyphae. This is passed on to the plant in amounts to allow increased plant growth. Although micorrhiza have a high P need themselves, hyphal turnover is expected. Carbon is requested from the plant in exchange. Again, the higher bulk growth, and stores, contribute to higher root turnover.\nMicorrhiza contribute to 10- 30% of total photosynthesis. Thus they can help to add total carbon biomass to the system. Pathogen resistance and drought resistance are further plant benefits. It has been reported that michorrhizal plants may grow at the expense of non-michorrizal plants, which is issues for management and selection.\n  11\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Conclusion The simulation compares two systems as a nutrient cycling system. Gliricidia sepium is fast growing, and known to be less competitive than N-fixing Leucaena leucocephala, and so the results concerning crop cover are reasonable.\nLosses to the system were at a slower rate in agroforest than monocrop, indicating longer term sustainability of soil fertility. This is due to the k erosion factor of the model. Many advantages or disadvantages are subsumed in the TPF. Trees have the capacity to reduce erosion through maintenance of higher biomass and cover, reflected by the model. Trees in agroforest are able to contribute atmospheric and soil nutrients to plants directly, and through the soil, as well as prevent leaching. This is due in part to symbiotic associations with bacteria.\nWhere data can be specified from the trial under consideration, the model becomes more useful. User defined variables are its strength,as a research and educational tool. It is not designed to give simple answers. Scuaf may also help to refine our assumptions, in the use of ecophysiological models. Observed results of agroforest systems have been checked by simulation, and SCUAF's calibration has been adjusted accordingly.\nGiven an unprecedented and worrying scale of soil degradation in our times, inter-cropping may be useful in a range of alternative practices. Particular combinations and micro-climatic effects, and long term equilibrium need be examined.\nData input may now be used to calibrate factors in less well known conditions, such as temperate climates. Default values may be adjusted against observed soil changes under experimental conditions, until the model simulates the results. For example, root to shoot ratio increases with low nutrient supply and root hairs promote P uptake. The additional factor (P), for erosion, representing erosion control practice could be added to the model by comparing with land ploughed against contour, without structures.\nScuaf does not represent competition for water. This is a shortcoming. However, water availability is dependent upon seasonal climatic variations.\n 12\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;References SCUAF C.K.Ong,\u0026amp;P. Huxley Tree-Crop Interactions A physiological Approach CAB International: Oxford. 1996.\nC.K. Ong A framework for quantifying the Various efects of Tree-Crop Interactions.\nC.K. Ong, C.R. Black, F.M. Marshall and J.E. Corlett Principles of LIght Resource Capture and Utilization of Light and Water.\nA.J. Brenner Microclimate Modifications In Agrofoestry.\nJ.S. Wallace The Water Balance of Mixed Tree-Crop Systems.\nAvery et al. Biophysical Research for Asian Agroforestry Winrock International, USA 1991.  Fukai S. Intercropping-bases of productivity Field Crops research, 34 (1993) 239-245.\nC.K.Ong,\u0026amp;P. Huxley Tree-Crop Interactions A physiological Approach CAB International: Oxford. 1996.\nC.K. Ong A framework for quantifying the Various effects of Tree-Crop Interactions.\nC.K. Ong, C.R. Black, F.M. Marshall and J.E. Corlett Principles of Light Resource Capture and Utilization of Light and Water.\nA.J. Brenner Microclimate Modifications In Agrofoestry.\nJ.S. Wallace The Water Balance of Mixed Tree-Crop Systems.\nL.D. Incoll* et al* Temperate silvoarable agroforestry with quality hardwood timber species.* Agroforestry Forum Dec. 1997 Vol 8 No.3.\nL.D. Incoll* et al Temperate silvoarable agroforestry with poplar Agroforestry Forum Dec. 1997 Vol 8 No.3.\nJim McAdam and Gerry Hoppe Sheep performance and production from a lowland silvopastoral system Agroforestry Forum Dec. 1997 Vol 8 No.3.\nHoppe, G. M.; Crowe, S. R.; McAdam, J. H.*Changes in pasture composition in establishing and mature silvopastoral systems.* Proceedings of the International occasional symposium of the European Grassland Federation, Thessaloniki, Greece, 27-29 May, 1999.\nSchalitz, G.; Behrendt, A.; Fischer, A. Advantages of Trees and Shrubs Contribute to Fen Pasture Landscapes. Folia Universitatis Agriculturae Stetinensis, Agricultura, 1999, No.75.\nOlff, H.; Vera, et al*Shifting mosaics in grazed woodlands driven by the alternation of plant facilitation and competition.* Plant Biology, 1999, Vol.1, No.2, pp.127-137, 64 ref.\nSinclair Ecological Interactions in agroforestry systems Agroforestry Abstracts CAB International, 1993.  Avery et al. Biophysical Research for Asian Agroforestry Winrock International, USA 1991.  Young Agroforestry for soil Management ICRAF/ CAB International 1997.   13\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Appendix 2 13.1\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Charts 1-10   "});index.add({'id':50,'href':'/docs/cnrm/agroforestry/silvopasture_light_Water_growth.html','title':"Modelling Silvopasture Light, Water and Growth",'section':"Agroforestry",'content':"Table of Contents\n1\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Objective 2\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Design 3\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Introduction \u0026amp; Background 4\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Models 5\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Results and Analysis 6\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Conclusions, Silvopasture light and water 7\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Interpretation \u0026amp; Discussion of AF SP Model 8\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;References, Silvopasture Light, Water   1\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Objective To investigate light and water availability in interactions, facilitatory or competitive, in growth of silvopasture.\n 2\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Design Silvopasture with monocrop control conditions, at the Henfaes Research centre, N. Wales.\nSpecifically, Sycamore (Acer Pseudoplatinus) and Rye (L. Perrene) in 10 x 10 meter spacing./ Rye undercrop, grazed by sheep and Rye pasture only. Atmospheric variables were measured the period of March to September, in 2001.   3\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Introduction \u0026amp; Background Plant growth depends upon characteristics of plant, climate and soil. The relationship of dry matter production to transpiration and radiation capture can be used to examine how availability of water or light may be limiting to plant growth, where specific trees are grown with specific crops. (e.g. Squire et al. 1987). Complementarity, and competitive interactions between species rest on plant abilities to to capture the most limiting essential growth resources.\nComposed of 95% water, plants rely on the water transpiration from soil to leaves for support, transport of metabolic sugars and minerals, and cooling.\nThe influence of environmental factors can be quantified. Plant responses are manifest in growth and development. By the modelling of plant growth, using data from actual plantings, it is hoped to asses priorities, pinpoint gaps, and increase our understanding of interactions. This process underlies the objectives of agroforestry as an answer to unsustainable monocrop agriculture, within economic constraints.\nIn a holistic model, where species do not grow in monocultures, plant interactions modify individual factors of the environment.\n 4\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Models 4.1\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Parameters S radiation (MJ/m\u0026lt;sup\u0026gt;2\u0026lt;/sup\u0026gt;/day) es saturated vapour pressure e rate of change of latent heat content of air ea vapour pressure of air   4.2\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;The Modelling equations 4.2.1\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;1. Capture of light Light capture as dry matter production (kg/ha/year) depends upon interception of photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) and the conversion efficiency. (see Corlett et al. 1992)\nUsing Lambert-Beer Extinction Law, W = Sfet: * S represents means incident daily solar radiation (MJ m -2 / day) * e = the light conversion efficiency coefficient * t = canopy duration in days. * f= Mean seasonal Fractional Light Interception   4.2.2\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;2. Fractional interception When water is freely available fractional interception is related to leaf area index (L):\nf = 1 - exp(-kL), * Where k is an extinction co-efficient for leaf angle and distribution   4.2.3\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;3. Penman's model of water use and dry matter produced The ratio of dry matter produced to water transpired is known as the water use ratio (ew). The quantity produced is often linearly related to the quantity of water transpired.\nDry matter production (W) = e w Et, * e w = uptake of CO2/transpiration from a leaf * Et = actual transpiration.  Once the radiation intercepted by the component canopies is known, we can use this to calculate transpiration using a modified version of the Penman-Montieth equation:\nE0= (0.622/P) x (rga(es - ea)) x (1/e + 1)) mm/sec, * E0 = potential evaporation * P = the atmospheric pressure = 97 locally. * p = the density of air = 1.2 locally. * ga = the boundary layer conductance = 0.04 in the absence of trees/ 0.03 under trees. * es = the saturated vapour pressure at the surface (measured seasonally see table 1 in appendix) * ea = the vapour pressure of the air at standard height above the surface (measured seasonally see table 1 in appendix) * e = the rate of change of latent heat content of the air with respect to the sensible heat content (measured seasonally see table 1 in appendix)     5\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Results and Analysis 5.1\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Overall results in dry matter production Rye dry matter production is \u0026gt; for sole Rye condition throughout the seven month period.\nThe LER is may be an effective tool to assess the light interaction in mixed canopies. Marshall \u0026amp; Willey (1983), demonstrate how temporal sharing of resources is a cause of higher productivity in intercropping groundnuts and millet.\nLER Yield in sole cropping/ component crop yield in intercropping\n= 13,419.97/10,258.11 = 0.76   5.2\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;The LER evaluates the effectiveness of intercropping When LER \u0026gt; 1, there is no advantage to intercropping over sole cropping.\nThe conversion efficiencies el and ew predict this growth pattern, modified by light interception (f), and water use efficiency. Water use efficiency depends upon actual measured atmospheric conditions, through their effect on boundary layer conductance (ga). Whether or not the values for these factors employed in our models are valid is a subject for discussion.\n 5.3\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Limits to growth Pure pasture and silvopasture follow the same trends in limits to growth.\nSeasonal differences in growth trends are observed due to the effect of the two factors, transpiration and radiation. A unique value for each factor of boundary layer conductance (ga), water use efficiency (ew), and light conversion (el) is employed for each condition (refer to Appendix 1, table 1a). Thus transpiration growth and radiation capture in each condition run in parallel.\nMonths 2 to 5: transpiration appears to limit growth months 5-7 and 1 radiation appears to limit growth.  Are the limiting factors availability of light and water or not? Saturation vapour pressure deficit (D) is expected to influence growth because of its influence on transpiration. Stomatal conductance may have a part to play, in micro-climatic fluxes. Plant growth responses to temperature in maintaining equilibrium may also be involved.\nIt is likely that water is not limited in the present circumstances. The 1 meter high water table at Henfaes offers a plentiful supply of water to all soil horizons. Water availability in the sense of proximity should not be limited.\nA closer look at the atmospheric and seasonal variables could be fruitful.\n  6\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Conclusions, Silvopasture light and water (ga) can be used to predict water, heat and carbon transfer assuming the conductance for all three are equivalent. However the specific monocrop conditions are rarely found in agroforestry systems with complex canopy structures, and (ga) would be in constant transition between agroforest and surrounding vegetation in small systems.\nDirect measurement of (ga) are needed, and can be done using a saturated blotting paper replica of the leaf and exposing it to air, or measuring the cooling curve of a metal replica. Direct measurement of production would assist our observations.\nCompetition for water need not be to the detriment of either plant. Instead, niche differentiation may be enhanced. Roots show great plasticity, and crown/root management is an issue here. The planting of trees into mature pasture may facilitate niche differentiation. Pruning can stimulate roots to shed when nutrients are most needed, or to offset canopy demands from water.\nThe species of tree considered has its own characteristics, and these may vary seasonally. Research can guide us in choice combinations and planting regimes of species, particularly where micro-climatic factors are observed.\nIn the case of silvopasture, the desirability of maintaining a monocrop on the ground layer in pursuit of livestock nutrition, is questionable.\nModelling constitutes a valuable exercise in applying our knowledge. It is discovered that there are limitations to models drawn from monocrop studies in face of micro-climatic change through tree-crop interactions. However, they are useful and constitute a starting point. Caution is needed in drawing conclusions from LER in silvopasture. There are less visible outcomes and potential benefits in resource exploitation. In addition there is the benefit of more stable soil fertility.\nCompetition and facilitation in micro-climatic adjustments is likely to be occurring and could be enhanced. We need to continue to develop our ability to perceive signs in already established systems.\n 7\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Interpretation \u0026amp; Discussion of AF SP Model In August saturation deficit of air (D, = es - ea) is high, radiation average, and I presume the air temperature is relatively hot. How the plants would respond to such atmospheric changes is not predicted by the component models.\n7.1\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Microclimate, Transpiration, Conductance and Growth Actual evaporation (Et)is smaller than potential evaporation (Eo). Atmospheric conditions determine Eo, but vegetation attributes, such as stomata closure determine (Et).\n 7.2\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Shading Shading by overstoreys reduces (D) and leaf temperature (Tl), causing changes in (gs). Sub-canopy heat fluxes arise from both crop and soil (Wallace et al 1995), and may be important in agroforest interactions. So plants growing under trees can have different conductances from those in monocultures, changing their evaporation and photosynthetic rates. When a vegetation canopy is dry evaporation is under the control of the plants.\nShelter increases daytime vapour pressure, so reducing boundary layer conductance, yet vapour deficits may increase or decrease. (gs) may modify the boundary layer conductance. Higher and lower values of (gs) are reported for sheltered crops. Where (D) decreases in shelter, (gs) increases for bean, turnips and sugar beet and wheat under irrigation. With an Increase in (D) at the understorey surface, (gs) generally decreases causing a decrease in plant carbon fixation.\nIn August transpiration appears to rise with a decrease in (D), according to the model.\nIf there is a decrease in (D) then (gs) generally increases, and the mass of carbon fixed per unit water transpired increases. There is a close interdependence of CO2 and water vapour exchange during photosynthesis and transpiration.\n 7.3\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Partial Stomatal Closure Stomatal closure may not reduce transpiration though, because of corresponding increasing leaf temperature.\nPlants must lose the same amount of energy they absorb to keep constant temperature, mainly by evaporation and convection. Stomata respond to various factors, including pressure deficits, leaf water status (y), leaf temperature (Tl) and internal CO2 concentration (Ci).\nAt low stomatal conductance, decreasing ga causes a larger decrease in heat transfer than water transfer. The leaf heats up until a new equilibrium is established and the conductance, dominated by stomata (gs), stays the same. In months 3-4 and 1-2, transpiration decreases with D according to the model, and radiation is not a limit to growth. In months 2-3 transpiration rises with D with no limit to radiation capture.\nIn a similar way to evaporation and vapour pressure deficit (D),\nuptake of CO2 (Al) = (Ca - Ci) / r * where Ca - Ci are the atmospheric and intercellular CO2 concentrations and r is the diffusive resistance to CO2 uptake.  Therefore:\new = Al / El = (Ca-Ci) / \u0026amp;szlig;(vi-va) where \u0026amp;szlig; is the ratio of the diffusive resistances for CO2 and water vapour ( approx. 1.6:1), and Et = actual transpiration from a leaf. vi and va are the intercellular and atmospheric water vapour concentrations    (ew) does show change. Water use efficiency may vary with shade and climate. Drought studies indicate that (ew) and (D) may not be conservative, decreasing possibly due to stress-induced photosynthetic inhibition (e.g groundnut, Ong et al 1987).\nIt is possible that shading may be beneficial at times in the season, with certain species combinations, enhancing the growth rate of pasture under trees through efficiency in transpiration and Co2 under hot conditions.\nGiven a plentiful supply of water, prediction of growth according to transpiration based on generalised boundary layer conductance, may not be accurate where micro-climatic modifications occur.\n 7.4\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Water Use and Availability Availability of water to crops in drying soil depends on the rate at which roots extend through the profile. Grasses possess a dual root system with the ability to cope wit changing conditions of water supply. Seminal roots give low conductivity, and adventitious roots which grow rapidly in the surface horizon following re-wetting. The idea that annual crops cannot utilise available water and that agroforest systems can improve productivity by using a larger proportion of the annual rainfall has much support.\nWater and nutrients can be stored or lost before absorbed. Agroforest offers increased infiltration of the soil and better water retention. If established and managed sympathetically, trees exhibit root plasticity and have the ability to exploit water reserves from deeper horizons. Adaptive responses include increasing root:shoot ratio.\nThe wind break and shading effect of taller plants in AF systems tends to reduce air temperature and wind speed and increase atmospheric humidity, and so decreasing evaporative demand for the ground species. Soil evaporation may account for 30-60% of rainfall in semi-arid areas. Reduction in soil evaporation, run off or deep drainage resulting from increased shading, reduced soil surface temperature, physical barriers on slopes, increased abstraction in the surface horizons, deeper reserves and off season rainfall are potentials offered by agroforest to increase water used for transpiration. Rainfall intercepted by the canopy may range from 10-30% (Ong \u0026amp;Black 1994).\nShelter can bring about an increase in leaf area as well as increased transpiration per unit leaf area. Rapid early growth of sheltered plants may stimulate increased rooting with increased soil water availability.\n 7.5\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Wind Pattern Wind is also a consideration in comparing agroforestry to monocultures. Dixon \u0026amp; Grace, (1984) report 3 tree species' transpiration rates decreased with increasing wind speed due to a reduction of D in consequence of reduced leaf temperature. Our Intuitions might invite surprise, thinking the opposite. (ga) depends on surface roughness, extent of surface, speed and turbulence of air flow. Trees change the speed and turbulence. The resultant airflow profile influences the boundary layer and so affects the fluxes of energy and mass.\nIt seems in agroforestry turbulence would be expected to increase. Sparse canopies in dry land Spain show temperature variants (0.6 C) and vapour pressure deficit variants (0.2 kPa) between open areas and within canopies. Changes in air turbulence affect the ga in cereal leaves.\n 7.6\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Direct Measurement of (Ga) Whole Sitka spruce canopies showed that (ga) per tree increased with spacing from 2-8m (Teklehaimanot et al 1991). In the case of agroforestry, particular local microclimate needs to be assessed, below and above canopy, at various levels of the vapour pressure gradient in order to model light and water in regulating growth.\n 7.7\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Radiation (LAI) and Sub Canopies The assumption that the canopy is spatially homogeneous is not suitable for agroforestry. Trenbath's agroforestry model of 1974 takes account of varying solar angle and foliage distribution. Sinoquet \u0026amp; Andrieu 1993 describe the gap frequency concept, fundamental to models of radiation penetration and interception by discontinuous canopies. The more simple models require information on leaf inclination and light scattering properties as well a fraction of leaf area in each canopy. This is rarely available. Wallace 1995 requires only individual values of K and LAI for each species along with their relative heights this applies to horizontally uniform species mixtures. Nielsen 1971, requires the distribution and leaf area index, (non random distribution).\nThus, figures for (LAI) in the present study would could be adjusted seasonally. The quality of light might be taken into account. Overall measures of dry matter production in the same study would be particularly useful in interpretation.\n 7.8\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Soil Temperatures and Understorey Leaves These may be reduced by shading, may increase or decrease productivity depending on temperature relative to a specific plant optimum. For example, winter cereals respond to shelter more than spring cereals (Kort, 1988).\nSoil temperature particularly effects germination and early growth. The season of rye growth may be altered, with earlier cropping.\nPositive interactions influencing growth under shelter include temporal sharing of light resources. The late leaf production of Ash facilitates the early season rapid growth phase of pasture grasses.\nShading also reduces the risk of frost because of increased downward flux of longwave radiation, and it reduces energy available for evaporation from soil and crop.\nFor alley-cropped millet e was 32% greater than sole crop, possibly because the reduced light saturating photon flux density for photosynthesis associated with drought was reduced under conditions of partial shade.\n 7.9\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Extinction Coefficient Strong gradient in light interception exist across alleys for crops. A unique value for k is often limited in Agroforestry systems with rows or clumps. An influence of drought on extinction coefficients within specific crops has been reported (Azam-Ali et al. 1993). For same species differences between sole and intercrops, little information exists.\nThe assumption that the light passed on to the sub canopy is unaltered in PAR constituents is unfounded. In fact, shade varies throughout the day, seasonally, and with lattitude. Such variation may have species specific effects on the value k.\n 7.10\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Productive Silvopasture Diversity is increased by a simple introduction of trees. Micro-climatic changes are diverse, and may favour growth of mixed grass communities and increased complexity for niche differentiation. This can have advantages for the nutrition of livestock, and reduce losses to the system through pest and disease. L. perenne sward with 35-year-old Populus Serotina at 200 stems/ha had been grazed continuously. L. perenne had been largely replaced by a mixed sward of indigenous grasses (mainly Agrostis, Poa and Holcus species). The seasonal pattern of production had been altered due to increased mid-season shading.\n 7.11\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Fattening Grazers Lamb growth rates on silvopasture with sycamore have been unaffected by the presence of sycamore trees (J. McAdam and G. Hoppe, 1997). This could be due to comparable pasture growth or, change in quality. More palatable pasture, and less fibrous oats with higher protein content, higher sugar content in beet, and in citrus, (Baldwin 1988) are improvements noted with shelter on crops. Thus, the incorporation of sub-models such as the two under consideration, into agroforest trails, must be done with care. In particular, the (ga) data and dry matter production assessed should be direct gained, and so the particular plant-environment interactions described.\n  8\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;References, Silvopasture Light, Water Avery M. et al. (1991) Biophysical Research for Asian Agroforestry Winrock International, USA\nFukai S. (1993) Intercropping-bases of productivity Field Crops research 34 239-245\nC.K.Ong,\u0026amp;P. Huxley (1996) Tree-Crop Interactions A physiological Approach CAB International: Oxford.\nL.D. Incoll et al (1997) Temperate silvoarable agroforestry with Poplar Agroforestry Forum Dec. Vol 8 No.3\nJim McAdam and Gerry Hoppe (1997) Sheep performance and production from a lowland silvopastoral system Agroforestry Forum Vol 8 No.3\nHoppe, G. M.; Crowe, S. R.; McAdam, J. H. (1999) Changes in pasture composition in establishing and mature silvopastoral systems. Proceedings of the International occasional symposium of the European Grassland Federation, Thessaloniki, Greece.\nSchalitz, G.; Behrendt, A.; Fischer, A. (1999) Advantages of trees and shrubs contribute to fen pasturelandscapes. Folia Universitatis Agriculturae Stetinensis, Agricultura No.75.\nOlff, H.; Vera, et al (1999) S*hifting mosaics in grazed woodlands driven by the alternation of plant facilitation and competition.* Plant Biology Vol.1, No.2, pp.127-137, 64 ref.\nSinclair F. (1993) Ecological Interactions in Agroforestry Systems Agroforestry Abstracts CAB International\nYoung A. (1997) Agroforestry for soil Management ICRAF/ CAB International\n "});index.add({'id':51,'href':'/docs/cnrm/values/thesis_Q_values.html','title':"Adaptation of Sacred Land",'section':"Thesis Human-Nature Values",'content':"Table of Contents\nSummary Abstract Aim The Problem Definitions Farmers Interests and Land-Use Objectives Woodland Expansion Environmental Benefits Strategic Decisions, Protection and Adaptation Evaluating Farmer Preferences Biodiversity, Land-Use and Livelihoods Human Values for Nature Environmental crisis, sacred and sacred values Social progress, spiritual progress and differentiation Living Nature and Transformative Experience Sacred and heritage values in Britain Human Welfare Human Welfare, Economic Decisions, and Environmental Risks Environmental Values and Cost-Benefit Analysis Participatory Management and Sustainable Development Participatory Approaches to Environmental Management Method of Investigation Aim Problems and choice of method Q-Method Overview The Q-Sample Classification The Q-sample Structure Procedure Results Analysis and Discussion Demographic Variables Summary of the 5 Viewpoints Future Research and Applicability of the Findings On Farm Analysis Participatory Planning Research Opportunities Q Methodology and Local Viewpoints Review of Q and Recommendations The Five Viewpoints Discussion Conclusions References Articles Q Methodology Bibliography   Summary The primary purpose of this investigation was to assess the potential of Q methodology as a tool for participatory planning in the adoption of agroforestry practices. Aesthetic landscape values in unprofitable Welsh upland sheep ranges are thought to be the main constraint to farmers' adoption of agroforestry techniques, and the diversification of farming practice, which offers potential benefits to livelihoods and environment. The range of commonly held viewpoints towards adaptation and protection of a sacred landscape in Upland Wales was investigated using Q methodology. Five viewpoints were discovered, two of the five permitting transformation, in principle, of a sacred landscape in face of need and progress. The study found that aesthetic preferences, when separated from a whole viewpoint, can be misconstrued and prevent adoption of agroforestry practices.\nThe promise of Q methodology as a tool for action research was found to be high because because it retains richness of information, whilst aiding analysis. It was concluded that the technique could be incorporated with data from on-farm analysis in participatory decision making.\n Abstract  Aim To probe for adaptive and protective principles of established viewpoints concerning farmers' agroforestry adoption decisions in an upland open Welsh Landscape.\n The Problem Aesthetic landscape values, in a cultural preference for an open landscape in an unprofitable and overgrazed Welsh uplands are thought to be the main constraint in the uptake of planned expansion of woodland (Good et al., 1999), and options for adoption of diverse agroforestry techniques in an integration of woodland and farming.\nRecommendations to farmers, towards the adoption of new methods, requires dialogue (Welsh Office, 1995), where few local examples of proposed diverse farm practices exist, and a change to agroforestry represents a sudden transformation of the landscape. Aesthetic landscape values might be considered to be pure appreciation of form (Brady, 1998), but if they are situated in the context of the viewers life (Berleant, 1994), such values are likely to be modified by considerations of livelihood needs, or notions of progress. In upland Wales divergent viewpoints may exist which remain masked by publicly held aesthetic preferences, rooted in cultural experience.\nAesthetic preference may therefore be elevated to an inviolable sacred status and become an obstacle to sustainable development, and the expression of human adaptability. The alternative is that aesthetic values exist alongside belief that the open sheep ranges could soon be sustainable. With these points in mind, the following question was asked: In the face of need and progress in upland Wales, what principle viewpoints exist towards protecting or transforming a sacred landscape?\n Definitions nature - is consistently defined throughout this thesis as other than human, for the purpose of discussing human-nature relationship.Nature encompassing human nature is not denied, however. All things- come from nature, and so nature- as a term in this thesis, includes products fashioned by humans.\n'sacred nature values' - refers to (1) to cultural practices denoting a human-nature relationship, and (2) to personal numinous experience with nature. - The meaning is explored in the thesis, and defined as work progresses. Sacred, - I leave undefined until then.\n'sacred nature beliefs' refers to (1) belief in nature's forms as sacred; (2) nature as an aspect of Being, rather than inert matter, and therefore, possible to relate to as a Being.\nheritage - is defined as coming from the past, possibly incorporating cultural meanings. Heritage, situated in the present, is acknowledged to have affective associations.\nculture - refers to social customs.\n Farmers Interests and Land-Use Objectives  Woodland Expansion A key aim in woodland expansion in Wales is to integrate woodland management with farm businesses (MAFF, 2000), so much of the proposed woodland expansion is effect agroforestry. Agroforestry offers several benefits to farmers through farm diversification practices, including environmental benefits (Erison, 1988). Production of hardwood timber and wood products for industry will increase flexibility, provide income and, aid employment. An enhanced landscape is good for for tourism and biodiversity. Woodlands on upland hill farms enhance animal welfare, by providing shelter for livestock, and giving reductions in yield variance due to monocultures, which includes livestock diseases (McAdam et al., 1997). These advantages can offset costs of reduced stocking rates. The cost of farm-produced wood chip is approximately the same as transporting straw, which commands significant purchase costs. Wood can also be put to good use around the farm. Wooded grassland landscapes are found visually attractive, and improve the image of agriculture in society. Because of the benefits to the land, grants for whole farm management may be attracted through the Tir Gofal (Land care) scheme, administered under the The Wales Rural Development Plan (MAFF, 2000). Trees offer scope for the reintroduction of hardy cattle like the Welsh Black, raised for butter and meat, are productive, able to over-winter outside and, good foragers, but they require some tree shelter. Open pastures provide little shade, and lack sufficient wind protection during the winter.\n Environmental Benefits Enhanced productive flows from silvopasture agroforestry (see Fig. 1) include biodiversity, plant density and water use efficiency (Sinclair, 2001). Presence of litter at the surface improves water infiltration, reduces evaporation and runoff. Tree root-soil infiltration improves infiltration of water into soil, which aids flow into underground storage systems. This reduces risk of floods in lower catchment area from run off (Manale, 2000).\nThere are positive effects on nutrient transport, in the alternation of positive (facilitative) interactions between plant species at one life cycle stage, and competitive displacement at another stage. Increased interspecific competition may enhance niche differentiation (Olff et al., 1999). Fencing off woodland favours natural regeneration, but has disastrous effects on bryophytes (Gritten, 1999). Mixtures of excluded and open woodland can be built into optimal grazing regimes. Creating buffer zones around existing woodland would considerably increase the area of interior or core habitat and connectivity between the presently fragmented native woodland (Gkaraveli, 2001), and woodlands may be linked. There is a significant need for mixed woodland which favours birds such as kite, pied flycatcher, pearl fritilliary butterflies. Continuous cover is necessary for marsh tits which are associated with 25 hectare blocks of hedgerow and thickets. Nuthatch require 50 hectare of complete arboreal land, preferably mature woods. Dormice require 100 hectares woodland, including rotational coppice. In a system of diverse practices, open farmland would favour species such as lapwing, chough, and marsh fritilliary (Andrews et al. 1994). Silvopasture grazing regimes can produce biodiversity benefits, where fencing off favours the natural regeneration of woodland, but has disastrous effects on bryophytes (Gritten, 1999). Free-ranging large grazers, such as cattle and horses, are increasingly reintroduced into agricultural grasslands (Frid et. al., 1995), to induce and enhance vegetative structural diversity, with mosaics of grasslands, shrub thickets and trees. A spatial association of unpalatable and palatable plants contributes to shifting mosaics at the landscape scale (Plieninger et al., 2001). Large grazers poach the ground which assists shifting plant mosaics and overall, they are better than sheep for invertebrates. Sheep bite close to the ground, which in low densities, can result in a combination of under- and over-grazing, to produce varied sward structure which is good for invertebrates (Andrews et al., 1994). Thus mixed regimes of cattle and sheep offer most potential.\n Strategic Decisions, Protection and Adaptation Farmers are required to make strategic decisions (see Fig 1), in response to changing markets and environment. There are clearly many advantages to diversification, which involve a transformation of the landscape. 'Sacred values' in upland Wales involve aesthetic and heritage values for open landscape which, in this case, is an association of integrated livelihoods and land-use practices and, qualities of the landscape. Sacred values may allow for adaptation, but they may also prevent change. Semi-natural woodlands were once the dominant land cover, persisting beyond mediaeval times, with their removal from the landscape an adaptation to external economic leverage, and not to ecology, or out of preference for open landscape. It is likely that adaptation features in farmers' strategic decisions. However, suddenly changing practices, wholesale, without necessary knowledge, or desired assurances may be daunting. Changes to economic incentives in the balance between livestock and woodland subsidies are sought (NAW, 1999), yet the main loss to uptake in possible planting areas was reported to be on landscape grounds and not on ecological or agri-economic grounds (Good et al., 1999). Uptake of diversification practices requires dialogue with farmers, landowners, and interested parties to foster a more favourable attitude to the potential of integrating farming and forestry (Welsh Office, 1995).\n Evaluating Farmer Preferences There are options for agroforestry, and technologies should address problems in such a way that farmers will actually consider implementing them within their overall production strategy (Avila, 1992). They have to fit the local context, and so evaluation of any technology must begin with understanding relevance, impacts and implications at the household/farm level. A positive on-farm economic analysis provides a necessary, but not sufficient, indication of the successful introduction of an agroforestry project.\nThe implications of the technologies themselves, such as technical assistance, products, inputs, planting schedules and labour are relevant but, so too are humanistic values and environmental impacts. Developing and testing models that predict farm household land-use decisions is essential, and priority areas for research include empirical analysis of agroforestry adoption decisions, which leads the list in identified knowledge gaps in agroforestry research (Mercer et al, 1998). The example of Welsh upland aesthetic preferences shows that, in a dialogue with farmers it would be useful to assess viewpoints that express the whole range of adaptive and, protective concerns, including aesthetic values.\nA situated aesthetic has power to explain local preferences for an open landscape. According Kant, in his Critique of Judgement, aesthetic appreciation and attention to nature is 'a judgement of taste' and is free from any interest or desire. A judgement of taste is a 'free liking' which arises through the mere contemplation of an object. Brady (1998) reasons that this is a 'situated aesthetic', embedded in a person's own context, which includes values, beliefs, desires, life experience, feelings and associations.\nBy contrast formalist aesthetics are detached, an exclusive attention to form, associated with combinations of lines, colours, and shapes, where 'we need bring with us nothing from life' (Bell, 1931). If that this were to be to true within upland Wales, local people might not be particularly attached to their local vista, when faced with a need to adapt farming practices. In 1999 a group of 10 farms Pontbren in Powys, Wales, at an elevation of 300 m., decided to commence with diversification as a strategic economic decision and as an expression of land care (FC 2001).\nFrom the example provided by Pontbren, there may be local viewpoints involving strategic decisions that lie alongside aesthetic values, in a whole human-environment relationship, involving the capacity to adapt just as our ancestors had. However, to move from shape ranging in an open landscape to agroforestry is a transformation of the landscape. To whittle away at clearing the woods is probably easier to start, and continue, than to be the first to plant a tree in the middle of the open landscape. Starting from scratch, farmers may also be cautious, because existing agroforestry systems may be improved with greater ease and success than new ones (Christopherson, 1992).\n Biodiversity, Land-Use and Livelihoods It is reasonable to desire that a mosaic of natural ecosystems coexisting with a wide variety of agro-ecosystem models is maintained in fragile mountain environments. Biosphere reserves, reserves for the world, incorporate Tolcha Bhotia (Joshi, 2001). Traditional uses of the land were prohibited and villagers were excluded from its management, from its inception as a reserve.\nPoachers were able to enter the jungle and villagers, from their perspective of human and biodiversity, or nature interaction, came to see conservationists as enemies of nature. Lessons have been learnt, and principles of management that incorporate traditional stewardship roles of mountain communities, as opposed to distant control, are thought to be promising. Such thinking has international support, and is recognised in the UNESCO's 1992 Earth Summit's Agenda 21, chapter 13 \u0026quot;Managing Fragile Ecosystems: Sustainable Mountain Development\u0026quot;.\nThe involvement of mountain peoples in Protected Area planning and management is imperative since they know how to live with mountains (Hamilton, 2001). Management of these complex systems includes concerns for increased production, yet any developments to build on the current systems must fit into the ecological and social contours, taking into account the Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK). Serious disruptions occur in middle intensity of monocropping management systems, where biodiversity decline is sharp (Swift et al., 1996).\nBased on principles of reciprocity, a kind of give and take with an animated nature parallels the reciprocal relations within the social sphere. Acculturation, through development, tourism, migration and market expansion, will compromise indigenous peoples' ability to manage a fragile environment (Price, 1994). This is because TEK cannot be separated from cultural life and the associated pattern of livelihoods. Traditional cultures may be equally, or even more threatened than biological diversity (Byers, 1995), where mountain communities are very often among the world's poorest and most marginalised. It is because \u0026quot;Conflicts between ecology and economy, dependency and autonomy in mountain tourism remain unresolved\u0026quot; (Singh 1991), that initiatives to safeguard communities must not exacerbate the process of marginalisation.\nTraditional economies tend to suffer from unfavourable terms of trade (Mountain Institute, 2002), an external pressure forcing communities to over-exploit their resource base for survival. Appropriate technological innovations in on-farm processing, and labour-reducing applications has potential to improve the welfare of highland communities. The implications for land use and livelihoods in traditional mountain cultures parallel, and contrast with those for upland Wales. One main difference is that in Wales land-use has to be adapted to external market changes which occur in the context of a centralised market structure, unless maintenance payments are made in some form. Another difference is the open landscape in Wales, to which adaptation may necessitate a transformation, which is adaptation on another scale, outside of local traditional knowledge. Possibly the most important lesson for conservation in Welsh uplands, though not new, is given by the notions of stewardship and symbiosis.\nHumanising the landscape is a feature that lies behind sacred landscapes. They appear to involve a reciprocal relationship between man and nature with the element of a sacred ethos. This allows for environmental protection, adaptability, and a capacity for sustainable livelihoods. The integrity of culture is critical for their continued management. Cultural mythologies together with their management systems, that have led to the conservation of sacred landscapes cannot easily be incorporated into the Western cultural conservation ethos (Laird, 2001), and so it unlikely that complex traditions can be operationalised as a tool or model for transfer in conservation efforts. But the well-being, in terms of diversity, of anthropogenic agro-ecosystems still depends upon a creative cultural relationship, where custodians can earn a livelihood, and rural communities survive. Because sustainable development more specifically demands sustainable management of natural resources, a need for close interaction between planners and local communities is recognised. In order to achieve this, development strategies have to be based upon a value system that people can understand and appreciate, and therefore participate (Ramakrishnan, 2002).\n Human Values for Nature The worldwide significance of sacred values in natural resource management is recognised (Ramakrishnan, 1992), and there is reason to believe that in Britain people may have equivalent sacred values. Sacred values are categorised as moral values in environmental value philosophy (Edwards-Jones, 2000), where morals play a part in determining how we should act.\n Environmental crisis, sacred and sacred values Lynn White (1967) suggested a worsening environmental crisis until we reject the axiom that nature has no reason for existence save to serve man. According to White, the dominant strain of Western theism is the root cause in the exploitation of nature. He identified that dogma as representing God transcending a 'fallen' world, and humanity as exercising dominion over the world viewed as lacking intrinsic value. There are calls for a 're-sacralisation of nature' in the West. Posey (1999, pp. 103) urges we must 'discover how the balance sheet of economic and utilitarian policies', which characterise Western society's dealings with nature, can be countered by the 'sacred balance'. In general, what is held to be sacred is thought to be worthy of respect (Tucker, 2001).\nSacralisation of nature encounters questions of its compatibility with transcendental monotheism. Ancient and mediaeval Indo-european Celts and Germans practised nature mysticism. Cornelius Tacitus, in the 1st Century C.E. writes of the Ingaevones tribes of Germany, \u0026quot;they judge that gods cannot be confined within walls, nor portrayed in likeness to any human countenance; they consecrate groves and woodland glades, applying the names of deities to that hidden presence only sensed by the eye of reverence\u0026quot;. Christianity, in the rise of the Roman Church was fiercely opposed to paganism, as a heresy: \u0026quot;The ruin of Paganism, in the age of Rufinius, is perhaps the only example of the total extirpation of any ancient and popular superstition\u0026quot;, writes (Gibbon, 1995). An incongruity of monotheism and pantheism is not to be assumed, because Christianisation and Islamicisation of many countries has often resulted in a dual system of beliefs and practices (Mohs, 1994).\nExploitation of nature is not the only tendency amongst Christians, because nature, as God's creation, calls for respectful stewardship (Rupp, 2001).A retreat by traditional theism has led to a secular science where the 'sacred/spiritual' has become an other-worldly domain, rurally separate from nature and society. This in particular has allowed instrumental values to dominate, according to Apffel-Marglin (1998).\n Social progress, spiritual progress and differentiation Social and spiritual evolution are equated by George Feuerstein, (1987) and Wilber embraces that theory (Wilber, 1995), in an argument against the authenticity of nature mysticism in its relationship with nature. According to Wilber, dissatisfaction with the promise and state of the modern world, while in some respects well founded, can lead to a powerful regressive temptation. The reasoning behind this is as follows: Personal states of awareness are mistaken for transpersonal states and, as such, nature mysticism is more spiritually limited than the secular rationalism against which its adherents rebel. The secular West is at a higher stage of spiritual development than earlier mythic societies, a shift which depended on the emergence of rational language. Beginning perhaps 200,000 year ago the boundaries between self and world were fluid. While this kind of consciousness may sound mystical, Wilber believes that they simply \u0026quot;can't tell the difference between the part and the whole to begin with.\u0026quot; ( Wilber, 1986 p.41). They would be at the mental level Wilber ascribes to children two and four years old, lacking \u0026quot;Impulse delay and control, the ability to postpone, channel, sublimate, and offset otherwise instinctive body-bound activities and typhonic magic.\u0026quot; ( Wilber, 1986 p. 88). Contrary to Wilber's views, foresight was perhaps more important for people in those times than for us moderns, cushioned as we are against misfortunes by welfare and health care systems (DiZirega, 1996).\nCro-Magnon people, who flourished during an ice age in Europe, Asia, and North America, prepared for winters in a world populated by sabertooth cats, cave bears, and lions. They produced paintings and finely worked and sophisticated tools, sewing hide clothing, making bone needles, fish hooks. The claim that Cro-Magnon were barely able to speak is probably untrue, because it is known that the delicate hyoid bone, from which the voice box hangs to make human speech possible, is indistinguishable between Neanderthals and modern humans (Gore, 1996). Social progress, rather than depending upon individual spiritual evolution, may be simply the extension of the breadth of human cooperation; spiritual evolution develops primarily through an increase in the depth of co-operation with others (DiZirega, 1996)\n Living Nature and Transformative Experience Transcendental religious dogma is not inevitably a view of a fallen world. In the Islamic Correct Hadith, we read the saying of the Mohammed: 'The earth has been created for me as a mosque and as a means of purification' (Haq, 2001). The word mosque literally means a place of prostration, and prostration involves touching the ground, thus the earth in its entirety manifests sacrality. Buddhism generally sees the natural world as conjoined on four levels: existentially, morally, cosmologically, and ontologically (Swearer, 2001). Similar in holistic view of life is Daoism, which professes the Unity of Mankind, Nature and and Heaven, and so nature becomes a source of inspiration Mutuality of the human heart and Heaven is mediated by cultivating a harmonious relationship with nature, and so humans fully realise their potential (Miller, 2001). In Jainism, a contemplative tradition, the supposedly inert world abounds with sensuousness (Chapple, 2001).\nCosmological interventionists view the environmental crisis as a problem of our metaphysical relationship to nature, a dysfunctional cosmology (Greenbaum, 1999). There is evidence that behaviour is more effectively motivated by identification than by beliefs and obligation, regarding beneficence toward humans (Monroe 1998), and is most likely true regarding beneficence toward or protection of the non-humans as well. How could a new world view supplant an old one if, as Geertz (1973) believes, world view and ethos are mutually reinforcing? The appeal of a cosmology must be in its appeal to genuine human experience with nature. Buber's insight (1996), is that human life is only fully realised when the 'self' establishes itself in a genuine 'I-thou' relationship with the 'other'. This relationship is nothing except a reciprocity of Being. The industrial revolution and the rise of modern technology which has brought about a change in humankind. Humanity itself is alienated from nature, and individuals are alienated from one another by relating in the 'I-It' mode. A genuine relationship with nature allows natures' intrinsic potentials to be seen, and prevents its interpretation as a standing-reserve or a mere means (Buber 1996).\nBuber's views of a human-nature relationship ties up with universal models of sacred experience (Rappaport, 1999) and widely reported transformative values with nature (Palmer, 1998). Since pe-history, the sacred-making activity has been an anthropological constant, meaning 'to set apart' (Paden 91). Sacred activities involve visible and invisible boundaries, conventions of behaviour, and ritual (Parkin, 1991; Anttonen 1996). These activities may refer to natural forms, invisible agents, or human creations, such as the marks on a flag, or a football game (Bell, 1997). All sacred symbols are acquainted with a numinous component which denotes non-discursive, affective, ineffable, inconceivable, mysterious, awesome- qualities (Rappaport, 1999: 23). Numinous character exists in the immanent (or ordinary) things, the supernatural, and states of consciousness. Thus, according to Mircea Eliade (1968), sacred realities represent an appearance of Being, a real existence,- while profane or mundane realities are in an ultimate sense merely non-existent. In contrasting the sacred with the mundane,- religious theory of values holds that mundane experiences lack numinous sensation whereas, sacred does (Ross, 2000).\nAmidst calls for re-sacralisation of nature, the impression that sacredness is missing from our understanding of nature in the West, may be false; Milton (1999) thinks it is a fundamental and well established part of it, where environmental discourses contain personal statements and analytical observations which link nature with spirituality and affective experience. Milton provides the example of the care taken by a conservationist where they walk carefully across grassland, out of respect for nature. In Europe, times are now comparable to procuration times, where unconventional forms of sacralisation are invented (Dobbelaere, 1993), and ritualised 'sacred moments' created within personal cosmologies (Anttonen, 1999).\nIn an analysis of environmental education in Britain, Palmer (1998) investigated whether spiritual ideas, attitudes and experiences held or encountered by individuals may strongly influence their awareness of and concern for the environment. Of the participants, 211 (91 per cent) cited experiences of being 'outdoors in the natural world' as formative influences. Many of these were described in spiritual or affective terms, using expressions such as 'awe and wonder', 'mystery', 'transcendence' and referring to experiences of solitude and freedom (Palmer, 1998: 150-1). Adams expresses the relationship: 'Nature is something that can be experienced, very directly, and this experience is the spark from which wider concerns about nature can grow - it is a vital root of conservation' (Adams 1996: 104). This being so, living nature could generally be experienced as spiritual and sacred, in the absence of religious dogma.\n Sacred and heritage values in Britain A grove of Thor can be traced from the Eleventh century at Thundersley in Essex (Herbert, 1994), but sacred groves exist mainly in name only. Forty six existing names relating to sacred groves are listed in Roman-Britain.ORG's web site (2002) This doesn't include the Cornish and Welsh names Lann- and Llan, a holy or sanctified place or community, which later became sites of Christian churches. Where I live on Anglesey in the village, Llangoed, means church in the woods. It could be that heritage values express sacred values, but to custodians of sacred places such as Maori people,their sacred places are more than heritage, possessing a living dimension, a metaphysical and physical whole, where the past is viewed as part of the living present (Matunga, 1994). It might be fairer to say, sacred values could include heritage values, but more specifically, sacred values involve a numinous relationship. In Britain we protect heritage structures, and to a certain extent, our land as heritage. Yet, in Britain, cultural practices concerning sacred land practices that serve to bind together the past, present, and future of living communities, are largely lost (Hubert, 1994).\nGoodin (1992), in a green theory of value reasons that, though society and history give context to our lives, non-human nature is on an altogether different scale. It lies outside human history and culture, and therefore provides a context, not just for the lives of individuals, but for humanity (Milton, 1999). From Matunga's observations, heritage value is separated from the sacred nature values, but it is likely that heritage values are mixed with sacred value for a person who is connected to place. With this in mind, and noting that qualities in nature, such as colour in place or region, are attributed sacred value cross-culturally (LaPena, 1987), it is possible, then to see how aesthetic preferences in upland Wales could be situated alongside sacred and heritage values. It is harder to think of them as formal aesthetics values. As, according to observation, sacred values permit adoption of the environment (Shukadeb et al. 2001; Ramakrishnan, 1992) and can be differentiated from protective heritage values (cf.Matunga, 1994), viewpoints concerning the protection of a sacred landscape, in face of need or progress, may vary. In the living world there is always a new aesthetic, a new colour, and nature is alive and ever changing. There is also the need to be pragmatic.\n Human Welfare  Human Welfare, Economic Decisions, and Environmental Risks Evidence exists that there are barriers to public participation in public planning (Norton, 2001). Public values may not be expressed or understood, and they may change.\nCan a satisfactory aggregative form of valuation be devised which includes humanistic environmental values? Cost-benefit analysis (CBA) is a method frequently employed (Shrader-Frechette, 1998) in environmental planning, which depends upon the claim that neoclassical value theory can maximise welfare. A neoclassical revolution in value theories of economics at the end of the nineteenth century extended the definition of economic commodities as those things which embodied, for example, human labour or corn, to include anything which could form the focus of human desire (Rescher, 192.41). An Eighteenth century tool of social reform, utilitarianism is defined against a duty-oriented theory (\u0026quot;deontology,\u0026quot;) developed by the Eighteenth eighteenth-century philosopher Immanuel Kant. Utilitarianism holds that the morally best action, in each given situation, lies in its consequences, which should bring about the greatest amount of pleasure or happiness to the greatest amount of people (Bentham, 1789). Economic analysis seeks to improve decisions regarding choice and uptake of technologies, and the efficient use of resources. Lacking direct personal knowledge of goals and preferences of the individuals, policy analysts use valuation techniques for non-marketable goods, or environmental changes, determined on a single scale. This is essentially a CBA enabling straightforward comparisons between alternative resource uses.\n Environmental Values and Cost-Benefit Analysis  \u0026quot;A cynic is a man who knows know the price of everything and the value of nothing.\u0026quot; ~ Oscar Wilde. Preservationists are concerned that, if humankind has no instrumental use for nature, a risk will exist permitting the extinction of scientifically or aesthetically unremarkable, and commercially worthless species that do not seem to be vital to any ecosystem processes. According to anthropocentric philosophers rational humans confer value, and natural things lack intrinsic value. Imprudent and morally condemned practices may be restricted by means of appropriate legislation, education, and policy. However prohibitions and taboos associated with taking human life reveal an intrinsic value which separates it from virtually all other human value. Intrinsic value can be carried over into activities which knowingly cause the death of non-human organisms with goals or ends of their own and, by further extension, the elimination of species (Taylor, 1981). The value of \u0026quot;holistic entities\u0026quot; such as biotic communities and ecosystems which have no goals or ends of their own (Sylvan, 1973) remains unaccounted for, and conflicts exist between the welfare of domestic or feral animals and endangered plant species or overall ecosystem health; and also conflicts of interests between both domestic and feral animals, with wild animals.\nRolston III (1993) attempted a synthesis of individualism and holism by awarding a value dividend to species and to ecosystems upon which species depend. Many of the problems faced by CBA are monetary incommensurability. The effect of money as a common measuring rod is misleading or even harmful (Nussbaum, 1986) because for some things, the meaning of their value is corroded or destroyed. They simply are not convertible when difficult to recreate, replace or restore. Constitutive incommensurability is the idea that to put a price on things like life support functions of environmental services, is to be incapable of standing in the appropriate relationship to it (Raz, 1986).\nEnvironmental Assessment (EA) has its foundations in practical problems of decision-making, in which economic valuation forms one component of the wider preference-based systems now commonly deployed in the EA. Contingent valuation (CV) is achieved by assessing 'willingness to pay' to avoid environmental hazards (Westra, 2000), where people's preferences are explicitly stated, rather than inferred. In a standard contingent valuation exercise a certain proportion of the sample will always reply 'everything' or 'nature is too valuable to be treated like this' or similar formulations (Sagoff, 1988). Such questionnaires are discarded because the analytic procedure doesn't recognise those answers, and neither can the underlying theory of contingent valuation. Otherwise, the possibility has to be acknowledged that the survey is aborted.\nThe assumption is only certain rational values are valid, and yet rationality falters in neoclassical theory, and may be totally misleading (Arrow, 1987). However, willingness to pay appears to be motivated by altruism in public contexts (Sen, 1977). This is especially the case with non-use values (Nyborg, 2000), and so contingent valuations fail to represent a viewpoint. For CBA, and probably for all preference-based value systems including CV, intrinsic value poses a problem of logical inconsistency exposed by asking, 'How much do I have to pay to kill someone?' (Prior, 1998). The answer is that the right to purchase an intentional act of murder is simply forbidden. In any case numbers of environmental vetoes, each similar in weight to the ultimatum 'Thou shalt not kill', is logically ridiculous. The trouble is, all environmental CBA evaluation, and probably all preference-based evaluation, is at odds with beliefs in the existence of objective and intrinsic values (Prior, 1998).\nSince nature will always be useful for human welfare, the main problem with an instrumental approach does not lie with the contingency of nature's utility for humankind, but in cost-benefit value theory. Prudentially, an instrumental approach might achieve protection for nature as well as, or even better than other approaches, if guiding values permit. It is possible, even inevitable, that economic preferences along with other social preferences are incorporated in any practical decision making process (Keat, 1994).\nHowever, claims of neoclassical valuation to be rational and general fall if breached by only one technical assumption, and environmental 'externalities' which cause conditions of market failure is a serious breach. Value theories do not provide ethical framework and economic valuation and its rules rely upon social market agreements (Edwards-Jones, 2000) not immutable laws of the market.\n Participatory Management and Sustainable Development Sustainable development Sustainable development represents an approach that merges environment and economics, in a concern for the well-being of the ecological system and the human social system (Edwards-Jones, 2000 p.3-4; WCED, 1987). The concept of sustainable development has been a catalyst for new types of agricultural development programs (Thrupp, 1989), though it is still highly contested how to translate this principle of reform into practice (Edwards-Jones, 2000 p.4), but it is overly simplifying to say either, (1) that there is a conflict between economic and environmental goals which the sustainable development concept is trying to avoid, or (2) that the concept manages to effect a synergy between all dimensions (Rydin, 1999).\nLynne White's (1967) analysis of environmental problems concluded in parallel to Hardin (1968), a modern predicament of conflict between social freedoms and ecological constraints. Harding's solution appeals to humans self interest in the interests of survival and, demands coercion, White proposes transcending self interest where the principle problem is a loss of benign cultural relationship to the natural world which encourages voluntary restraint. There are advocates who endorse a new economics of sustainable development, but suppose that attitude changes toward nature will not come from individuals or communities: \u0026quot;Only science has the international status to induce human behavioural changes on a global scale\u0026quot; (Sagan et al., 1994). Their outlook is reminiscent of Comte (1823), who thought democracy was incompatible with social order, which could only be advanced by the \u0026quot;Priests of Humanity,\u0026quot; scientists, engineers, and technocrats, in control of the new secular \u0026quot;Religion\u0026quot;. Perhaps strong leadership is called for, but decisions involving values lie firmly in the public domain, whilst claims to ultimate knowledge and objectivity of orthodox science have been undermined (Kuhn, 1970). Science is not an autonomous activity standing outside history, and is a need for a reciprocal dialogue between science and citizen (Habermas, 1984).\n Public involvement Social ecology, for which Bookchin (1982) argues, views ecological problems emerging in failures in institutional and social relations. Rather than personal change, social change is considered necessary to bring about sustainable lifestyles, achieved primarily through participatory local democracy and decentralised economic systems. Effective communication is stressed. Pragmatists believe that one should tackle issues in a local context with the involvement of all the various interested parties (conservationists, planners, stakeholders, farmers, residents etc.). Public involvement is widely thought to be essential for a truly sustainable community, by government, non-governmental advisory bodies, and academics (DETR, 99; The Countryside Agency, 2000; Healey, 1997). A broad spectrum of views, visions and values is welcomed, which are to be heard and exert authority in decision-making. This is so, because participatory abstinence threatens the democratic process (Healey and Shaw, 1994), but there are systematic limitations. Protests against developments, after a planning decision has been taken, have encompassed deeply felt expressions of environmental violation (Wall, 1999). Genuine engagement of the public remains a profound challenge (Owens (94: 1142.4).\n  Participatory Approaches to Environmental Management Participation in planning is associated with collaborative decision making, and the ability of people to move themselves toward a desirable future, in dignity, with an understanding of different viewpoints. A typical scenario would engage stakeholders in the generation of ideas, collective analysis, co-operative learning, and critical reflection--activities formerly believed to be the territory of experts and researchers (Roumlling et al., 1998). Participatory rural appraisal arose in response to problems of outsiders mis-communicating with local people in the context of development work (Chambers et al, 1989) and action research (Hall, 1977). The participatory approach presented itself as a solution to the challenge of operationalising the concept of sustainability, by focussing on the need to negotiate, through dialogue, how local meanings will shape projects (Chambers, 1997).\nChambers noted the power of participation to catalyse positive effects in rural areas outside the developing world, such as in Europe and North America. Small farm co-operatives and organised sustainable agriculture farming organisations have been an outcome (Allen et al., 2001; Grudens-Schuck, 2000). In industrialised countries, participation is appreciated as an organising framework for environmental management challenges, because otherwise programs largely mirror the values of science-based organisations and dominant voices in the community (Thrupp, 1989). Its' purpose in helping communities identify and adopt more sustainable natural resource management practices remains a fundamental (Pretty \u0026amp; Chambers, 1993).\nThe challenge of gaining insight into people's various viewpoints to reaching compromise, may seem daunting, but it is a participatory approach, and a process. The methods are distinct from a one-time aggregation of individual interests like simple cost-benefit calculations, which fail to capture the goals and motivations of local participants. The outcomes of participatory processes can enable practitioners to agree upon a coherent local reality on which to base a program. And at the level of the individual as well as the group, participation drives commitment, which is necessary to longevity of results as well as to short-term success (Cohen et al., 1980). Q-methodology was to be assessed for its potential to contribute to a participatory process.\nStructured or semi-structured interviews depend upon content analysis. Van den Berg and Van der Veer (1989) assert, \u0026quot;Content analysis is not capable to analyse communications as discourses\u0026quot; (p. 161). Content analyses are limited because they succeed or fail depending upon the categories used. Simple rank ordering with no attempt to scale between the ranks presents problems of comparison, and ranking can only be performed with relatively few items.\nAll the conditions set out here are met in the methodology provided by Stephenson's (1932.4) 'Q-method'. No alternative exists at present, and in that sense the method is ground-breaking.\n Method of Investigation  Aim To probe for established viewpoints involving adaptive and protective values, concerning farmers' agroforestry adoption decisions in an open upland Welsh Landscape.\n Problems and choice of method A method is required to incorporate sacred/secular beliefs, transformative values and protective, adaptive responses to issues of environmental management. By establishing participants' values within their viewpoint, problems of incommensurability of values are avoided. The values under consideration lie in the field of human-nature relationship. To probe for values and beliefs associated with a person's viewpoint in the field of 'human-nature relationship', a methodology is needed that solves a certain problems. Failure to obtain information about beliefs and values within the whole topic places limits upon statistical analysis where several viewpoints exist. The method should be able to represent the views communicated by all people within the topic specified; It should put the individual at the centre of the point of view, and not be bound to any particular ideology. The method should reveal genuine schemata, which should not be artefacts of the instruments by which they were measured. It should use its mathematics, not to count but to chart the structure and shape of thinking (Barchak, 1984). The method should be hypothesis-generating. And finally, its' procedure and content should interesting to the judges.\nStructured or semi-structured interviews depend upon content analysis. Van den Berg and Van der Veer (1989) assert, \u0026quot;Content analysis is not capable to analyse communications as discourses\u0026quot; (p. 161). Content analyses are limited because they succeed or fail depending upon the categories used. Simple rank ordering with no attempt to scale between the ranks presents problems of comparison, and ranking can only be performed with relatively few items.\nAll the conditions set out here are met in the methodology provided by Stephenson's (1935) 'Q-method'. No alternative exists at present, and in that sense the method is groundbreaking.\n Q-Method Overview Brief Introduction Developed in the 1930s by William Stephenson (1935; 1953), Stephenson used factor analysis to correlate people with the viewpoints to reveal prevailing common viewpoints. There are always fewer viewpoints than persons (Stainton Rogers \u0026amp; Stainton Rogers, 1990). Fundamentally, Q methodology provides a foundation for the systematic study of human subjectivity.\nThe generalisability of a factors' structure in representing viewpoints is now well established. (Brown, 1980.p. 67; Thomas and Baas, 1993), shows that the same Q sample administered to different P sets in six USA states will produce essentially the same results. The robustness of factors across and within populations, regardless of alternative Q samples [1] from a concourse, has been convincingly demonstrated (Thomas \u0026amp; Bass, 1993).\n Previous Studies Q-methodology is used in diverse fields from decision-making in medicine, through to European Union policy studies. More recently it has emerged into the environmental field with studies on perspectives on forest use in America (Hooker-Clarke, 1989); Forest planning (Shands et al, 1990); Preferences for land use change in the Mackenzie/Waitaki Basin (Fairweather \u0026amp; Swaffield, 1996); State environmental knowledge and local political economy (Robbins, 2000); and, residents of the Upper Great Lakes USA, debating the ethics and meanings of living with wolves (Byrd, 2002).\n The Instrument: Q Sorting In Q methodology items are gathered, usually in the form of statements, but it can pictures, cards or music, and referred to as a 'Q sample'. The sample is taken from the flow of communication surrounding any topic, referred to as a \u0026quot;concourse\u0026quot; (Stephenson, 1978), and should be representative of that concourse. The term is traceable to Cicero. Literally, concourse means a 'gathering or collection' (Brown, 1993). In an operation referred to as \u0026quot;Q sorting\u0026quot;, the participants are asked to rank each item from \u0026quot;strongly disagree\u0026quot; to \u0026quot;strongly agree\u0026quot;, according to a scale which may range from five point to ten points.\nExample: a five point rating scale (-2 to +2), looks like this: 2 -1 0 +1 +2 where strongly disagree is -2 is strongly agree is +2\nA forced-choice format requires a specified number of statements to be placed in each slot. So, a finished sort for 'Harry' with 24 statements, employing the 5 point scale, may produce an array like this:\nTABLE: 'Harry's viewpoint'\n  2 1 0 1 2  5 24 8 4 19  20 15 21 10 12  14 18 2 13 22     17 16 23           1          This example has a symmetrical format, and gives a mean of zero. This means that responses by different participants may be quantified and compared, because of a mean of zero, and rank orderings which are, unusually, scalar.\nA person's point of view is given by the sorting process, because in sorting, each item is ranked in relation to every other statement (see 6.5. Procedure for details on how this achieved)\n Sampling the Concourse Primary considerations in the construction of the Q-sample are:\nTo reflect the breadth and diversity of communication contained therein. Cost-relevance: A fixed budget will dictate that only the most relevant items be selected Coverage/redundancy: A final set of items which has maximum 'conceptual coverage' and minimum redundancy (in the sense of having multiple items address the same concept) is desired.  A factor in Q is a schematical design, where each Q sort should make sense and be homologous with what the person wants to say. Stephenson (1953) pointed out that the key to achieving this is in the diversity of the Q sample. If no statements reflecting factor C's viewpoint are in the Q sample, factor C will not appear no matter what size the factor ratio. Q differs from R-factorisation because it studies qualitative differences, on which quantity has no effect.\n Analysis of Factors Statistical analysis of variation in the ordering of the statements reveals factors representing a version of the world that is commonly held. These factors show how individuals with like views perceive an issue (Durning, 1996), and how individuals with different views see the issue, in a given prevailing situation. These factors are 'natural categories of thought' (Rosch, 1973; Stephenson, 1980).\nThe meaning of each statement will ultimately depend on what is imposed onto it by the Q sorters, to which factor analysis, and not variance analysis, is sensitive (Stephenson, 1953). Factor analysis examines a correlation matrix and determines how many different Q sorts emerge on the basis of resemblance.\nRarely more than 40 Q sorts are needed because the factors become highly stable by that time, if the participants were selected so as to reflect the finite diversity of available accounts (Stephenson, 1963; Stainton Rogers, 1995).\nDiscovered factors can be subsequently tested with demographic data, such as age, if desired.\n Size of Q-Sample and Judge Comfort It is important to keep in mind Q-sample size and the extent to which it may tax the mental capacities of participants (especially the elderly).\n Length of Statements Q factor interpretation does not rely on the interpretation of single statements in isolation from others, used as independent variables to test people. Instead the statements are being tested. Therefore, consensus meaning are irrelevant to Q. Both short and long statements can be vague, or convey different meanings to participants. With short statements it is less clear what exactly respondents do not agree with (if there is disagreement). In Q factor analysis, classification of long statements is not an obstacle. \u0026quot;Excess meaning\u0026quot; can be tolerated in the statements, so that people can interpret them in ways that are personally meaningful. In addition to the researcher's inference, holistic understanding of context and the participants' world-views is required. In other words, meaning is best understood if the participant(s) explain their sort(s).\n FOOTNOTES  [1]\u0026quot;The sample is taken from the flow of communication surrounding any topic, referred to as a concourse\u0026quot; (Stephenson, 1978), and should be representative of that concourse.     The Q-Sample Classification Tools: The Q-sample A sample of 56 statements was ultimately selected from a shortlist of 535 statements under the theme of Human-Nature Relationship and arranged in a structured design to form the Q sample.\n Classification Deriving the concourse to represent human relationship to nature was the first step. The concourse of statements was developed from relevant environmental and philosophical books and journals, and mass media sources.\nExamination of the shortlist was conducted with two assistants in a hierarchal sort. They were asked to arrange the items into piles according to similarity, giving each item an arbitrary label, number 1 to 4 This exercise was repeated in two runs, and then the assistants were asked to name their discovered categories. Following discussion and examination of hierarchies, the assistants were asked to sort them into four categories: Involvement, Relationship, Responsibility and Significance. At this stage, the assistants had completed their task. The groups were examined for equivalent items; these were were culled to leave 56 statements, 14 statements in each category. The four categories employed were chosen in order to obtain a heterogeneous sample, representative of the whole concourse and were not to be tested as theory or used to test people. They were to be of no further interest, beyond assisting in post hoc tests for balance of the Q-set.\nFurther inspection of the Human-Nature Relationship statements gave 9 sub-topics: humanistic, intrinsic, goals, relationship, responsibility, management, origin, sacred, and, - signs.- Sub-topics did not have equal numbers of statements.\nSpecific statements of interest belonging to sub-topics humanistic, relationship, management, response, and sacred,- were to be the focus of the study, in answering research questions. Their presentation within the 'concourse' of Human-Nature Relationship ensured that the items of interest were judged in that whole context, and the valuations represented a person's- point of view according to that context\nSub Topics The classification of statements has paralleled those common to environmental evaluation with humanistic and intrinsic categories. The rest suit the topic of Human-Nature relationship. An example of statements belonging to each sub-topic follows Table 1 which describes their orientation. .. image:: ../images/dissrt2.jpg\n   The Q-sample Structure Structure The sample of 56 items were arranged in a Fisher grid (Table 2), with a 2 x 2 design with two Levels(A) = (a) and (b); and two Effects (B)= (c) and (d). This design was chosen in order to balance to the Q sample, not in an attempt at factorial analysis of the results. The terms are hierarchies which give theoretical comprehensiveness and makes the starting point explicit.\n Design of scale: shape and length A five point scale was decided upon (Table 3). -2 represents 'strongly disagree', through to +2 for 'most agree'. A specified number of statements was required to be placed in each slot (i.e. the 'forced choice format').\nThe forced-choice format induces subjects to be more careful in their sorting than does a free format sorting approach since he/she has to make decisions on their placement. Also, it gives a common procedure for all the participants. Cottle \u0026amp; McKeown (1980) specifically tested the impact of the shape of the distribution by comparing numerous different shapes and factoring them; they all ended up with correlations in excess of + 0.9.\nA rectangular distribution was chosen because it affords more discriminations at the extremes of agreement and disagreement. Studies report no substantial differences between the two rank distributions in production of factors; (Brown1, 1971; Cottle McKeown, 1980). Virtually all information is contained in the statement ordering and none in the surface features of the distribution. This stands to reason, as correlation effects a normalisation of all variables (Q sorts), hence nullifies differences in means and variances.\nA 7 point scale can be too fine, for some topics, requiring unrealistic distinctions between statements to be made (Branden Johnson, Q-List communication).\n Post Q-sort questions Three post-Q sort questions (postQ 1-3) were put to judges after their sorts were completed. These tapped demographic information age, and region, and permitted free response.\npostQ (1) \u0026quot;Which country and region do you belong to, or come from?\npostQ (2) \u0026quot;What is your age\u0026quot;\npostQ (3) \u0026quot;Please feel free to add your comments about the exercise\u0026quot;\n  Procedure The P sample (participants) Participants were of two groups, within Wales, and outside Wales. Countries outside Wales to which judges belonged were restricted to within the Western World, and included USA and Canada, Australia, and England.\nIn September 2002, participants were were approached in three ways; (1) Outside Wales by contact through the World Wide Web; (2) by direct approach in Llangoed and Llanberis, Wales.\nA web survey was placed within the reach of search engines and publicised through 4 forums: Q-method, Archeological Forum, Ancient Philosophy, Classicists, and Environmental Ethics whose addresses were:\nQ-METHOD\u0026#64;LISTSERV.KENT.EDU http://www.stonepages.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi SOPHIA\u0026#64;liverpool.ac.uk CLASSICISTS\u0026#64;liverpool.ac.uk ENVIROETHICS\u0026#64;listserv.tamu.edu  The welsh participants were born in Wales. The Web forums represented a diverse range of interests. It was hoped that with this varied approach, the participants would produce all relevant factors representative of the general population. It was not the aim of the study to determine the distribution of factors, but merely their existence. Loadings on factors were to be compared between Wales and outside Wales, and for age effects.\n Administering the Q sorts The participants are referred to as judges, and the set of judges is referred to as the P sample.\nJudges were asked to reflect upon and rank a 56 item Q-sort. The sorting was done within a forced- response grid. The participants were either provided with a pack of cards, or a web-based programme containing the Q-set \u0026lt;a href=\u0026quot;http://nrm.lilylakshmi.com/HNRwebq/intro2wq.htm\u0026quot; \u0026gt;which is available here to try\u0026lt;/a\u0026gt;.\nWritten instructions for completing the sort were provided along with a sort scale. This required the participants to order the statements into five piles from \u0026quot;most agree\u0026quot; to \u0026quot;least agree\u0026quot;, according to the sort scale provided, with neutral or unsure responses to items placed in the middle, zero slot. Each participant was instructed to begin the sorting process by dividing the statements into three piles: those statements experienced as agreeable in one pile, those disagreeable in a second pile, and the remainder in a third pile.\nThis was so as to enable the participant to be able to get an impression of the range of opinion at issue and to permit the mind to settle into the situation. This initial step also facilitates the sorting process. The more detailed discriminations then proceeded from this position, with judges free to reposition statements at any time. When the judges were happy with the final configuration, a record detailing each each statement's position was taken. Finally, each judge was asked three post-sort questions.\n  Results Download or open the attached pdf for results.\n Analysis and Discussion Five factors were found.\n Demographic Variables Demographic Variable: Region No significant effects of region upon factor loadings suggests that, - A comprehensive selection of participants in the P Sample and that, - Both zones, within Wales and outside Wales, reflect similar structures of thought in this concourse. If this were not so, then any one region would be expected to offer less factors in either case, (1) or (2).\n Demographic Variable: Age No effects of age upon factor loadings suggests that the types are not age dependent. The factors are therefore robust in that sense. Implications are that environmental education or experience of historic change have played little part in their formation. That being so, then the beliefs and values in this study would tend to form strong schema, where views and values are mutually reinforcing, confirming (Geertz, 1973).\nChanges in environmental education may be potent and reach all ages, or individual background and formative experiences could be factors of equal strength.\n  Summary of the 5 Viewpoints The interpretation of the factor 'types' is primarily based upon the array of factor statement scores, given in Appendix A.6. and standard errors for factor scores in Appendix A.7. The summaries here have been drawn from statements which follow below, with full analyses.\nThose who believe in science and the law's ability to manage the environment, are labelled 'administrator'. Belief in modern technology's ability to enhance environmental management may be labelled 'technologist'. Those who offer protection to sacred landscapes from development may be referred to as 'protector'. Those types that permit development of sacred landscapes for human welfare may be referred to as 'adaptive'.\nSacred beliefs covered in this study are of two types; the sacred in nature's forms, and a sacred source of nature. Those types with a belief in sacrality of nature's forms are referred to as 'sacred'. From the statements of interest, the five types can be characterised as follows:\nF1 'Sacred Adaptive' (SA) = Sacred-nature beliefs and adaptive. F2 'Technologist' (T) = technology values. F3 'Sacred Protector' (SP) = Sacred-nature beliefs, protector. F4 'Protector' (P) = protector. F5 'Administrator' (A) = belief in Sacred-source of nature and technology beliefs.   Future Research and Applicability of the Findings The implications of the divergent viewpoints for Welsh Uplands communities are:\nAn expressed aesthetic cultural preference for open landscapes is bound in a persons' whole viewpoint, where beliefs and values exist which permit transformation of a valued landscape for need or progress. This is true for two of the four viewpoints.\nLocal concerns for sustainable livelihoods may lie alongside aesthetic values.\nAesthetic preferences separated from a viewpoint, involving adaptive and protective values, can misconstrue their meaning, and in so doing, may prevent adoption of agroforestry practices. Stakeholders may still hope that sheep farming will become profitable again, and therefore think this is not the time to adapt farm practices.\nAn open landscape as an amenity for tourism may increasingly serve to maintain livelihoods. Tourism is not a land use practice, and will not maintain the land. In the future, headage payments may be removed, and sheep farming may not become profitable again, at present levels of stocking. If stock is to be reduced, it is also possible that policy incentives may emerge which serve to integrate woodland with farming. Farmers may have a sense of 'waiting for something to happen', in terms of policy. In an open landscape, effectively a farming monoculture, adaptation of farm practices represents a transformation. Aesthetic preferences to maintain the status quo may represent an uncertainty, not only for the future but also in how to adapt. Both these ideas need to be addressed in dialogue with farmers. Upland communities, without assistance in participatory action research, may have a slim chance of adapting, as a community, to a situation which requires conscious moves towards a transformation.\nAlthough potential benefits are recognised, it is not a view of the author that open upland Wales should be transformed through farm land use practices, and that is a matter for stakeholders. There is a concern that aesthetic preferences are a reason to delay adaptive trials, or cover a need for assistance in participatory action research. Dialogue is needed, and presentation of the outcome of dialogue in the form of commonly held local viewpoints has potential to catalyse change, or strengthen resolve.\n On Farm Analysis In this study, only principles were of interest, but in actual consultation a Q sample might be expanded to include relevant local values, sampled from the population, and possibly some added, for a specified purpose. An analysis of viewpoints incorporating material from farm surveys and focus groups, landowners and tenants, would stimulate local discussions. A framework for farmer preferences could include the following:\nOn-farm economic analysis Existing Traditional ecological Knowledge (TEK) and, flows (e.g. from AKT5) local biodiversity values local constraints to land use and livelihoods Local aspirations concerning land use.  Additionally constraints to adoption might include,\nAvailability of technical assistance Implications of technologies upon the number and seasonality of workdays.  Subject to the chosen framework, knowledge elicitation strategies which are designed to access insider's knowledge without relying on assumptions and presumptions, known as the 'emic' approach (Werner, 1987), are considered useful because they capture the insider's knowledge. Relevant programmes are more likely to be achieved where planned with due regard to the farmers' perspectives (Rocheleau, 1987). Traditional approaches to dealing with complex agro-ecosystems systems, by abstraction as quantative simulation models have had limited impact on their development (Meutzelfeldt and Sinclair, 1993).\nExplicit representation of farmers' knowledge has been developed (Tharpa et al, 1995) methods of representing farmer's preferences and goals has not. Values are incorporated into Knowledge based system, AKT5 (Sinclair and Walker, 1997), but not preferences which are needed for agroforestry adoption studies. These are normally elicited through ranking methods normally, which are limited. Seven or eight sets of land use choices appeared to be the limit for those farmers in Casey et al.'s farmers survey (1999). Systems diagrams can help farmer's make decsions, but eight attributes seemed to be too much information for farmers to evaluate at once, and this to was narrowed to five attributes (Casey. et al, 1999). How choices are to be limited, is not clear (Avila, M., 1992). Within an emic appraoch, aspirations, constraints and values may be elicited, and subsequently assessed in Q methodology, without severe limits upon number of choices. Assessment of local biodiversity values, used for assessing the local value of local habitats for conservation, also relies upon rank scores, but cannot be sued predictively due to the constraints of non-scalar scores, detached from a viewpoint which includes competing values. If biodiversity values were to be incorporated in the framework of one concourse, the predictive value would be enhanced. Methods of elicitation are well established (Gadjil et al., 2002).\nIn order to assess the impacts of research in multiple dimensions and communicate that information to decision-makers and stakeholders Trade-Off Analysis (TOA) links inputs and outputs from the various disciplinary simulation models on a site-specific basis (Yanggen et al., 2002). When attempting socio-economic appraisals, because the long-term benefits of resource conservation are minimised in discounting calculations,'Steady state' models, might be employed for changes to agroforestry as a resource-conserving interventions. This assumes a requirement to maintain the resource base regardless of discounting (Christopherson, 1992), and is a matter for policy makers.\nStephenson's (1953) chapter on \u0026quot;The Prior Analysis of Questionnaires\u0026quot; shows that the results of a Q study can be built into a questionnaire for purposes of nose-counting, by selection of particular statements. In that way, consultations can progress to aggregate summaries, to be employed for consensus decision-making.\n Participatory Planning The Participatory Rural Appraisal approach often has the dual aims of of action and research, a methodology which has the action to bring about change in some community or organisation Data on evaluation processes for assessing the products of participation have been thin (Warren, P. 2001), and action research provides a means by which participative consultancy is more rigourous. There are four basic themes: i) collaboration through participation; ii) acquisition of knowledge; iii) social change; and iv) empowerment of participants (Allen, 2001). It employs the assumption that effective social change depends on the commitment and understanding of those involved in the change process (Lewin, 1946 p.14).Lewin's concern with science and social reality, was that science was not helping in the resolution of critical social problems (Susman \u0026amp; Evered 1978). Surveys and other social research results are useful, but so is information on why different people see things as they do.\nWhen using an action research approach, the results of the Q analysis are discussed by participants. When Q is melded with group work, the Q factors are contrasted, and the structure of their own thought is wavers more, or is more open (Grudens-Schuck, personal comm.)\nQ methodology has the capacity to evaluate use and non-use values, without reduction to a single dimension, yet permit comprehension of the rich information. A philosophical shift from social facts as objective- facts to the idea of facts as subjectively and socially constructed- has come to be associated with the concept of qualitative- research. Thinking in action research seems to take the social construction of reality seriously. The emphasis seems to be on possibility rather than prediction. From this perspective of action research, it can contribute to people realising their values, and so envisaging a preferred future and organising effectively to achieve it. Hence, action research is a science of practice.\n Research Opportunities Diversification of Upland Wales land-use is currently a planning option. Reluctance to by outsiders to intervene is understandable, out of respect for local self-reliance. A dichotomy of, either dependence or, self-reliance, is unrealistic, and interdependence is more the way things are. Yet adaptive research should not determine an outcome.\nIn proposing action research a worry exists, where local communities reject change, because adaptive research is costs money. Such an intervention would have to be justified, and calls for assistance from within communities are perhaps a primary justification for such action. A preliminary survey to see if local people want help in decision-making could assist. Adaptive research for mainly academic purposes has been done, and limited trials in any case could be taken forward, employing values, goals and options from real farm studies.\nIt is notable that conservation staff are said to favour protection of open moorland and valley sides as habitat, mainly for birds. Some areas are SSSI and proposed SAC (good et al, 1999). If farmers were to express strong desires for diversification, a case for protection would need to be reviewed, against the benefits of change to biodiversity. In that case, farmers would also have a case for maintenance payments, in order to maintain the status quo. This would have to depend upon budget forecasts, which are a good idea in any case when assessing farmers' viewpoints on the issues of planning.\n Q Methodology and Local Viewpoints Because the interpretation is explicit and based upon actual statements in a context of a viewpoint, reduction to a priori assumptions have been avoided. With the structure of a topic, it has been able to test the hypothesis that sacred nature beliefs are associated with transformative environmental values and, thereby, contribute to an understanding of humanistic environmental values. It has also been able to test the hypothesis that divergent viewpoints exist toward sacred aesthetic values.\nWith method in balancing a Q sample, ideology has been avoided, and so representations of actual viewpoints obtained with no idea beforehand how many viewpoints would be revealed, or what their structure was. Both the differences and the Complementarity of viewpoints are revealing, and of relevance to planners, in understanding the values of stakeholders. They were compared as phenomena, and for that purpose only a few participants were required to define each viewpoint.\nThere is no guarantee that the factors discovered in the sample of respondents will be exhaustive for the future, and so they were contemporary expressions. The same factors cannot be assumed to appear in each and every locality, an empirical matter where relevance depends upon the representativeness of responders to a locality. Comparisons between Wales, and outside Wales, of a principled set of beliefs and values, do support the generalisability of their existence as principles across the larger population, and within the chosen localities in Wales. They do not represent responses to environmental issues concerning a particular location, field or mountain for example. For that purpose concourse samples from the locality, involving all relevant and specific issues would be necessary. The findings as generalities do serve to instruct some relevant dimensions in constructing such a concourse, in response to a specific public consultation exercise.\n Review of Q and Recommendations Q methodology's ability to represent viewpoints, is born out in the robustness of the factors found in this study, their meaning, and their fit within a framework. Confirmation of Hooker-Clarke's(2002) findings in Q research into roles in sustainable development, where changes had taken place in people since the preservationist administrative rationale came into being, with steward- perspectives in evidence.\nThe potential therefore of Q methodology to use local values and make sense of them, recommends itself for action research.\nThere are skills needed in the employment of Q methodology, which is a limit upon its use on the one hand, and a benefit in its rigourous method on the other hand. Considerable time was needed to interpret factors for presentation. Interpretation was made easier by reference to internally structured sub-topics, for which reflection and insight into the whole area is required. Some statements were not useful for interpretation according to the present aims, but provided the context for those statements, and so a point of view within human nature relationship, could be represented.\nExamining the whole viewpoint would be fascinating, but would not answer the research questions. A purpose, and knowledge of relevant issues is required to sample a concourse. Interpreter bias could occur at that point. If the Q sample cannot represent a particular viewpoint, than it has failed. Procedure should follow caution, in obtaining all relevant viewpoints, and that is a skilled facilitator's task.\nHomogeneity of statements is crucial in balancing of the sample, which is an aid in removing such interpreter bias. Therefore a pre-trial with a small number of participants of about five participants is to be recommended in order to complete post-hoc tests, and make adjustments. As an additional safeguard the concourse may be completed in a consortium. Employing Q methodology for consultation is best done under guidance because it involves skill. In this respect it recommends itself to action research because public participation in planning is important and should be of high quality. Action research aims to contribute both to the practical concerns of people in an immediate problematic situation and to the goals of social science in advancing knowledge, by joint collaboration within an ethical framework' (Rapoport, 1970:499; Whyte, 1989). The interpretations in Q and the method are transparent, because the whole Q sample provides the context.\n The Five Viewpoints Management Values Table 9 displays management statements illustrating belief in science, law, and recent technology, as a solution to environmental problems. No type is certain that scientific technologies in environmental management can solve problems under current economic conditions. Administrators view scientific/legal administration as useful regardless of culture. They are alone in viewing human technical ability as a distinct advantage in living with nature. Three types (SA, SP, P) do not think that scientific/legal administration can manage environmental problems regardless of culture or economy; nor do they do believe modern technology an enhance management.\nTechnologists value modern technology in order to manage the environment, they do not believe scientific/legal administrations can solve ecological problems, irrespective of cultural conditions.\n Transformative Experience Statements of transformative experience and communication with nature are shown in Table 10. Administrators and Technologists, do not report transformative experience. Belief in sacred value of nature's forms corresponds with transformative experience and communication with nature, as reported by Sacred Adaptives and sacred Sacred Protectors. Protectors report the same.\nThus, transformative experience, corresponds to a close relationship with nature, (cf. Buber's 'I-Thou' relationship (1996), and sacred nature beliefs, but not sacred cosmological belief, in the case of Administrators and Protectors. The case of Protectors suggests that secular views, and views of a fallen world, may inhibit belief in sacred nature, whilst a fundamental relationship continues. In that case the truth value of sacred human-nature relationship is strengthened.\nWhether transformative experience depends on opportunities for wilderness experience, and what kind of of opportunity, remains open to question, and could be followed up. How much it depends upon environmental education is another question. In fostering a benign cultural attitude towards the environment, these are important questions for the quality of environmental education.\n Sacred Views Table 11 displays statements relating to sacred beliefs and sacred land values. There is a acknowledgement of a general public respect towards sacred places, which is in agreement with the calls by a union of scientists 'An Appeal for Joint Commitment in Science and Religion' (1990). It is the sacred-minded as a whole, who show most flexibility toward transformation of a landscape, though generally supporting local sacred values. Sacred beliefs are of two types; sacred in nature's forms, and sacred source of nature. Sacred Adaptives and Sacred Protectors share believe in the sacrality of nature's forms, as well as as a sacred source of life. Administrators believe in a sacred source of life. The structures of sacred belief and values concerning protection and adaptation of sacred landscapes are illustrated in Fig 4 overleaf. Three points emerge:\nProtection for sacred landscapes is offered only with sacred beliefs, or values for human creative sacred practices. Technologists, who offer no protection to sacred sites, have no sacred beliefs themselves, and do not value sacred creative practices. Those who have sacred beliefs are flexible in questions of adapting land use for welfare, more so than Protectors who offer support for cultural heritage, as a sacred landscape to be preserved.  Sacred Adaptives, and Administrators would allow development of a sacred landscape in the name of sustainable developments or need, but support local aesthetic values. Sacred Protectors support sacred landscapes facing transformation, but may allow limited aesthetic change. The observation concerning flexibility accords with Matunga's (1994) reports of Maori people's values for sacred places being associated with a present living spiritual dimension, which differentiates it from cultural heritage. Sacred beliefs appear to engender values for the cultural, spiritual, and instrumental dimensions. This implies that sacred values are not simply non-use values, and are different from intrinsic or heritage values. Such flexibility equates with Low's (1996) cross-cultural study in which resource practices were found to be ecologically driven, and did not correlate with sacred prohibition.\nA consistent point of view is held by Sacred Mystics and Sacred Protectors in their seeing potential in sacred land practices. This is revealing in answer to the question concerning the potential of sacred values for conservation in the UK. Sacred land practices denote symbiotic relationships between habitats and culture (Ramakrishnan et al., 2002). These two types, Sacred Adaptives and Sacred Protectors, have sacred values which support such a relationship in three ways, which indicate a stewardship role in sustainable developments.  Their sacred values appear to lie in a present living spiritual dimension, as noted in their protective attitudes.   They demonstrate flexibility in instrumental land uses for human welfare.   Sacred land practices also imply complementary environment and cultural practices (Shukadeb et al. 2001), with slow change, through adaptive management techniques , suggested by Ramakrishnan et al. (1989). The rejection of modern environmental technologies by the two types suggests that sacred land values embrace such practices. Sacred land practices may be suited to appropriate technologies, including traditional ecological knowledge, and management tools.   Sacred Adaptives and Sacred Protectors, unlike Administrators, do not agree that an administrative rationale is adequate for management of the environment.     Consensus Statements Consensus statements, which all types agree on, are shown in Table 12. The general view of the human welfare efficiency of a free market economic culture is notable. Moral rights are given to animals. All see a connected world in nature, a Giain view, and this view itself doesn't evoke sacred belief.\n  Discussion Technology Recent technologies in environmental management, towards which the participants expressed views, could include an assortment of powerful landscape-changing technologies, including bio-technologies, harvesting, and extraction machinery, as well as maintenance machinery. In conservation work in Britain, it is traditional technologies, such as spiling for riverbank maintenance, hand cutting in hedge maintenance, coppicing, and continuous cover forestry that are utilised, and promoted in NVQ and voluntary work. Recent technologies may, arguably, include appropriate technologies. A range of specific technologies could be put forward for evaluation in a local context.\n Administrative rationale The present administrative rationale is a conservationist approach which includes protection of 'rare' communities, such as ancient forest. In public administration, ecological assessments of species and land are required in designating land as valuable for nature reserves, each category of which is carefully selected from all of the land in the UK (Spellerberg, 1992). Species are selected for protection under the law, in the compilation of red data books of the International Union for Conservation of Natural Resources. In addition much effort is made toward protection of agricultural land, with with schemes to encourage enhanced landscape and conservation benefits (Edwards-Jones, 2000). The implication in all viewpoints, that administrative rationale is insufficient in facing the current environmental crisis, does not imply by that rare communities are not valued. It may imply that human values are thought to be important in land planning, education and matters of policy.\nValues are inevitably attached to the ecological criterion employed (Usher, 1989) by scientists. Some criterion are used more often than others, for example richness of habitats may be used more than extent, fragility, threat or amenity value, landscape characteristics, or intrinsic human appeal. These viewpoints imply commitment,or belief in creative community engagements in environmental management. Investigation of specific values of this type are important for local action research.\n Sacred beliefs Sacred beliefs in the West, according to present findings appear to engender values for the cultural (protective), spiritual (transformative), and instrumental (adaptive) dimensions. The sacred values for nature demonstrate in general, a flexible approach, with an orientation towards a stewardship role. The flexibility shown with sacred values differentiates them from protective heritage values and formal aesthetic land values. Indications of a stewardship are relevant to conservation, not as a model for site conservation, but for their relevance in participatory planning. The five viewpoints described, mirror findings in a previous study by Hooker-Clarke (2002) who found, in addition to 'Traditional Conservationists', who accepted the conservative administrative rationale, perspectives of 'Traditional Stewardship'. This, plus a general robustness of the viewpoints found here across region and age strengthens the implication that, for planning, these viewpoints are considered in the planning agenda. A stewardship role is also shared in some respects by Protectors and Administrators, as shown in their views on technology and administration.\n  Conclusions A potential danger was found to exist where the meaning of aesthetic or heritage preferences is misconstrued, when separated from a person's whole viewpoint, to become an obstacle to sustainable development. This study has attempted to illuminate principled viewpoints in protecting, or transforming, a sacred landscape in Upland Wales. Five divergent viewpoints were found to exist in Upland Wales which were consistent with viewpoints outside of Wales.\nCherished aesthetic values were situated within a person's whole view of human-environment relationship, of which two viewpoints permitted transformation of a sacred landscape in face of need and progress.\nCommunity-based natural resource management, in a local context, requires tools which can assess all points of view on a topic, in order to remove barriers to participation. Commonly held points of view are actually limited in number, and Q methodology is able to reveal these, whilst retaining richness of information, without reduction to a single dimension.\nQ method was proposed as a tool for agroforestry adoption studies. A next step in that direction would involve a test using a framework, incorporating economic analysis, TEK, livelihood and land-use constraints, biodiversity values and, aspirations of participants.\nQ method was proposed as a tool for consulting the public, by collecting views and feeding them back to the public for discussion. Its special ability to make transparent environmental values and beliefs within commonly held viewpoints, without reduction to a priori assumptions, recommends itself for stakeholder discussion in action research when planning sustainable development.\nViewpoints embodying beliefs in the sacrality of nature were confirmed to exist, and contrast with secular viewpoints. Sacred nature beliefs were underpinned by transformative experiences with nature, rather than cosmological belief. This finding may have implications for the opportunities education provides. Sacred nature beliefs were, in particular, associated with a stewardship role and flexibility concerning adapting the environment. Four viewpoints out of five in all, amongst the public, demonstrated a stewardship orientation toward environmental management, which offers opportunities to planners in enhancing the environment.\nThis investigation concerning human environemental values confirms how sacred dimensions to environmental values are universal, and bear on a human relationship with the environment They are relevant to conservation and adaptation in community-based natural resource management.\n References  Articles Adams, W. M. (1996) Future Nature: A Vision for Conservation. London, Earthscan.\nAllen, W., Bosch, O, Gibson, R., \u0026amp; Jopp, A., (2000) Benefits of collaborative learning for environmental management: Applying the Integrated Systems for Knowledge Management approach to support animal pest control. Environmental Management 27 (2) 215-223.\nAndrews, J. \u0026amp; Rebane, M. (1994) Farming \u0026amp; Wildlife.RSPB, Bedfordshire.\nAnttonen, V. (1999) The Sacred Critical Guide to the Study of Religion. (eds William Braun \u0026amp; Russell T. McCutcheon). London.\nApffel-Marglin, F. (1998) Secularism, Unicity and Diversity: The case of Haracandi's grove. Contributions to Indian Sociology - 32 (2) 217-235.\nArrow, K. (1987) Economic Theory and the Hypothesis of Rationality. In Eatwell, et al., (ed),The New Palgrave, London, Macmillan.\nAvila M., (1992) Economics of Agroforestry Systems in Central America. In\nSullivan, G., et al., Financial and Economic Analyses of Agroforestry Systems. Nitrogen Fixing Tree Association, Hawaii.\nBell, Catherine (1997) Ritual. Perspectives and Dimensions. Oxford.\nBell, Clive (1931) Art. London: Chatto and Windus.\nBentham, J. (1970/1789) Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. Methuen, London.\nBerleant, A. (1994) Beyond Disinterestedness British Journal of - Aesthetics - 34 (3) 242-254.\nBhat, Jayashree V.,, Krishna K.., Krushnamegh K.., Kunjeera, M., Laxman N.,, Nayak M., Ranjit D., Shankar J., Shridhar P., Shrikant G., Subramanian K., Suri V., Utkarsh, G., Yogesh G., (2000) Participatory Local Level Assessment of Life Support Systems A Methodology Manual. Technical report No.78.Centre for Ecological Sciences Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore.\nBookchin, M. (1982) The Ecology of Freedom: The Emergence and Dissolution of Hierarchy, Palo Alto California, Chesire Books.\nBrady, E. (1998) Don't Eat the Daisies: Disinterestedness and the Situated Aesthetic Environmental Values 7 97-114\nBrookfield, H. \u0026amp; Paddoch, C. (1994) Appreciating Biodiversity: A Conservation Paradox. In Bormann, F.H. \u0026amp; Kellert, S.R. (eds) Ecology, Economics, Ethics: The Broken Circle. pp. 26-39. Yale Univ. Press, New Haven.\nBuber, M.(1996) I and Thou (Walter Kaufmann, trans.), New York, Touchstone.\nByers, E. (1995) Mountain Agenda: Environmentally Sustainable and Equitable Development Opportunities. The Mountain Institute, Franklin, USA.\nByrd, K. (2002). Mirrors and Metaphors: Contemporary Narratives of the Wolf in Minnesota. Ethics, Place, and Environment: 5 (1 )\nCarmichael, D. et. al., (1994) Introduction. In Carmichael, D. et. al., (eds) to Sacred Sites, Sacred Places, London: Routledge.\nChambers, R.et al., (1989).Thrupp (eds.). Farmer First: Farmer Innovation and Agricultural Research. London: Intermediate Technology Publications.\nChandran, M. \u0026amp; Hughes, J. (1997) The sacred groves of South India: Ecology, traditional communities and religious change. Social Compass 44 (3) 413-427.\nChapple, C.(2001) The Living Cosmos of Jainism: A Traditional Science Grounded in Environmental Ethics. In Carmichael, D. et. al., (eds) (1994) Sacred Sites, Sacred Places, London: Routledge.\nChristopherson, K.A. (1992) Highlights of Themes Discussed In Sullivan, G.M., et al., Financial and Economic Analyses of Agroforestry Systems.- Pia, H1: Nitrogen Fixing Tree Asociation, Hawaii\nCohen, J. M. \u0026amp; Uphoff, N.T. (1980) Participation's Place in Rural Development: Seeking Clarity Through Specificity, World Development 8 213-235.\nComte, A. (1823) Syst\u0026amp;eacute;me de politique positive. Countryside Agency (2000) The State of the Countryside 2000: working for people and places in rural England. Wetherby: The Countryside Agency Publications.\nDaniels, R. J. R., Malathi H., Joshi, N. V. \u0026amp; Madhav Gadgil, M. (1991) Assigning Conservation Value: A Case Study from India. Conservation Biology 5 (4) 464-475.\nDETR (1999) The UK Strategy for Sustainable Development: a better quality of life. London: DETR..\nDiZerega, G. (1996) A Critique of Ken Wilber's Account of Deep Ecology \u0026amp; Nature Religions. Trumpeter- 13 ( 2) \u0026lt;u\u0026gt;http://www.icaap.org \u0026lt;/u\u0026gt; Access date: May 2002.\nDobbelaere, Karel, (1993) Church Involvement and Secularisation. Making Sense of the European Case. Secularisation, Rationalism and Sectarianism. Ed. by Eileen Barker, James A. Beckford, and Karel Dobbelaere. Oxford.\nEdwards-Jones, G.et al., (2000) Ecological Economics Blackwell, Oxford.\nEliade, M. (1968) The Sacred and the Profane; Harcourt, Brace and World, New York.\nErison, S.P. (1988) Diversification of Upland Farms into Environmentally Sensitive Productive Woodlands. MSc thesis UCNW.\nFairweather, J. R.\u0026amp; Swaffield, S. (1996) Preferences for Scenarios of Land Use Change in the Mackenzie/Waitaki Basin. New Zealand Forestry- 41 (1) 17-26.\nFawcett, R., Nkowani, K., Smith, C.J.N., (1997) Multiple objective Socio-economic models of agroforestry systems. Agroforestry Forum 8 42-45\nFC (2001) Forestry Commission: Woodlands Hold the Key, Farmers Tell Minister News Release - 3634\nFeuerstein, G. (1987) Structures of Consciousness: The Genius of Jean Gebser - an Introduction and Critique Lower Lake, CA: Integral Publishing.\nFrid, C. \u0026amp; Evans, P. (1995) In Managing Habitats for Nature Conservation, (ed) Sutherland.\nGadgil M., Achar K. P, Amba Shetty, Anirban Ganguly, Harini N., Harish R.\nGholz,H.L. pp 59-87. Martinus-Nijhoff, Dordrecht.\nGeertz, C. (1973) The Interpretation of Cultures. N.Y. Basic Books.\nGibbon, E.(1995) Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (XXVIII). In\nWomersley, D. (ed) The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. Penguin Classics.\nGleissman, S. (1990) Agroecology: Researching the Ecological Basis for Sustainable Agriculture. Ecological Studies. Springer-Verlag, New York. pp.380.\nGood, J., Thomas, T., Clough, D., Humphrey, J. (1999) The Potential for Expansion of Upland Woodlands and the Environmental and Agri-economic Constraints: A Welsh Case Study. Scottish Forestry- 53 (1) 47-52 Goodin, R. E. (1992) Green Political Theory. Cambridge: Polity Press.\nGore, R., (1996) Neandertals: The dawn of humans. National Geographic. 128 (1) p. 29.\nGreenbaum, A. (1999) Environmental Thought as Cosmological Intervention Environmental Values 8 485\u0026amp;mdash;497\nGritten, R.(1999) Woodland Grazing. Scottish Forestry - 53 (1)\nGrudens-Schuck, N. et al., (2002) Renovating Dependency and Self-Reliance for Participatory Sustainable Development Journal of Agriculture and Human Values- Revised accepted (finally submitted June 5, 2002)\nHabermas, J.(1984) The Theory of Communicative Action, vol 1: Reason and the Rationalisation of Society, Beacon Press.\nHall, B. L. (1977) Creating Knowledge: Breaking the Monopoly. Toronto, Canada: Participatory Research Group, International Council for Adult Education.\nHamilton, L. (2001) National Parks and Other Protected Areas in Mountains World Commission on Protected Areas, IUCN.International Journal of Wilderness. 7 (2)\nHaq, S. (2001) Islam and Ecology: Toward Retrieval and Reconstruction. Religion and Ecology - Daedalus 130 (4) \u0026lt;u\u0026gt;www.daedalus.amacad.org \u0026lt;/u\u0026gt; Access date: July 2002\nHardin, G. (1968) The Tragedy of the Commons. - Science 162 1243-1248\nHealey, P. (1997) Collaborative Planning: shaping places in fragmented societies. Basingstoke: Macmillan.\nHealey, P. \u0026amp; Shaw, T. (1994) Changing meanings of the \u0026amp;#8220;environment\u0026amp;#8221; in the British planning system, Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers,- N.S. 19 (4)\nHubert, J. (1994) Sacred beliefs and beliefs of sacredness Ch 1. In Carmichael, D. et. al., (eds) (1994) Sacred Sites, Sacred Places. London: Routledge.\nJames F., Casey, D., Mercer, E. \u0026amp; Snook, A. (1999) Evaluating Farmer Preferences for Agrofoestry Sytems: Survey Instrument design - by ICRAF \u0026lt;u\u0026gt;www.icraf.cgiar.org \u0026lt;/u\u0026gt; Access date: June 2002.\nJoshi, P. (2001) Culture, People and Nature in Context of Central Himalayas in India. International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development \u0026lt;u\u0026gt;http://www.mtnforum.org/resources/library/\u0026lt;/u\u0026gt; Access date: June 2002.\nKeat, R. (1994) Citizens, Consumers and the Environment, Environmental Values 3 333-49.\nKant, Immanuel. A Critique of Judgement: IN Crawford, D., Kant's Aesthetic Theory (1974) Madison, WI: U Wisconsin Press.\nKropotkin, P.A. (1972) Mutual Aid: A Factor in Evolution. New York: NYU Press.\nKuhn, T.S.(1970) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. University of Chicago Press.\nLaird, S. (2001) Trees, Forests and Sacred Groves The Overstory 93 \u0026lt;u\u0026gt;http://WWW.agroforester.com\u0026lt;/u\u0026gt; Access date: July 2002. LaPena, F. (1987) The World is a Gift. San Francisco: Limestone Press.\nLewin, K. (1948) Resolving Social Conflicts: selected papers on group dynamics. New York, Harper.\nLow, B. S. (1996) Behavioural ecology of conservation in traditional societies. Human Nature - an Interdisciplinary Biosocial Perspective 7 (4) 353-379.\nMAFF (2000) Agriculture in the United Kingdom: Agriculture Accounts, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, London: The Stationary Office.\nManale, A. (2000) F*lood and Water Quality Management through Targeted, Temporary Restoration of Landscape Functions: Paying Upland Farmers to Control Runoff*. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation - 55 ( 3)\nMatunga, H.(1994) Wahi tapu: Maori sacred sites. In Carmichael, D. et. al., (eds) Sacred Sites, Sacred Places. London, Routledge.\nMcAdam, J.\u0026amp; Hoppe, G. (1997) Sheep performance and production from a lowland silvopastoral system Agroforestry Forum.8 (3) 21-22\nMercer, D.E. (1992) Executive Summary in Central America. In Sullivan, G.M., et al., Financial and Economic Analyses of Agroforestry Systems.- Pia, H1: Nitrogen Fixing Tree Association, Hawaii\nMeutzfeldt, R. I. and Sinclair, F.L. (1993) E*cological Modelling of Agroforestry Systems*. Agroforestry Abstracts- 6 (4) 207-247.\nMiller, J.(2001) Envisioning the Daoist Body in the Economy of Cosmic Power. Religion and Ecology, Daedalus 130 (4).\u0026lt;u\u0026gt;www.daedalus.amacad.org \u0026lt;/u\u0026gt; Access date: July 2002\nMilton, K. (1999) Nature is already sacred. Environmental Values- 8 (4) 437-449.\nMohs, G. (1994) Sto lo sacred ground. In Carmichael, D. et. al., (eds), Sacred Sites, Sacred Places. London, Routledge.\nNAW (1999) (National Assembly for Wales) Woodlands for Wales - Report of Consultation \u0026amp;copy; Crown Copyright 2001\nNorton, B.(2001) Environmental Values and Adaptive Management, Environmental Values 10 473\u0026amp;mdash;506\nNussbaum, M. (1986) The Fragility of Goodness. Cambridge, C.U.P.\nNyborg, K. (2000) Homo Economicus and HomoPoliticus: interpretation and aggregation of environmental values. Journal of- Economic Behaviour \u0026amp; Organisation- 42 305-322.\nOlff, H., Vera, F., Bokdam, J., Bakker, E. S., Gleichman, J. M., Maeyer, K. de, Smit, R., Shifting mosaics in grazed woodlands driven by the alternation of plant facilitation and competition. Plant Biology, 1999, Vol.1, No.2, pp.127-137, 64 ref.\nOwens, S. (1994) Land, Limits and Sustainability: a conceptual framework and some dilemmas for the planning system. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers N.S.- 19 (4) 439\u0026amp;mdash;56.\nPaden, W. E. (1991) Before 'The Sacred' Became Theological: Rereading the\nDurkheimian Legacy. Method \u0026amp; Theory in the Study of Religion - 3 pp. 10-23.\nPalmer, J. A. (1998) Spiritual ideas, Environmental Concerns and Educational Practice. Environmental Concern: London and New York: Routledge.\nParkin, D. (1991) Sacred Void. Spatial images of work and ritual among the Giriama of Kenya. Cambridge.\nPimental, D. \u0026amp; Pimental, M. (1979) Food, Energy and Society. Edward Arnold, London.\nPlieninger, T. \u0026amp; Wilbrand, C. (2001) Land Use, Biodiversity Conservation, and Rural Development in the Dehesas of Cuatro Lugares, Spain. Agroforestry Systems - 51 (1) pp.23-34.\nPosey, D. (1999) ed. and comp., Cultural and Spiritual Values of Biodiversity London: Intermediate Technology.\nPow, R. (1996) Managing Farm Woods-Costs and income. Q.J. forum. 90. 308-312\nPretty, J.N. \u0026amp; Chambers, R. (1993) Towards a learning paradigm: New professionalism and institutions for agriculture. Brighton, UK: IDS.\nPrice, N.(1994) Tourism and the Bighorn Medicine Wheel: how multiple use does not work for sacred land sites. In Carmichael, D. et al., (eds) - Sacred Sites, Sacred Places,- London, Routledge.\nPrior, M. (1998) Economic valuation and environmental values. Environmental Values 7 (4) 423-441.\nRamakrishnan, P. (2002) Sacred Mountain Forests and Biodiversity. International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development. www.icimod.org.sg/mtn_resource Access date: June 2002.\nRamakrishnan, P. (1992) Shifting Agriculture and Sustainable Development: An Interdisciplinary Study from North-Eastern India. UNESCO-MAB.Parthenon Publ., Lancs. U.K. 424 pp\nRapoport, R. N. (1970) Three dilemmas in action research. Human Relations- 23 499-514.\nRappaport, Roy A. (1999) Ritual and Religion in the Making of Humanity. Cambridge.\nRaz, J. (1986) The Morality of Freedom. Oxford, Clarendon.\nReiche, C. (1992) Economic Analyses of Living Fences in Central America. In\nSullivan, G.M., et al., Financial and Economic Analyses of Agroforestry Systems. Pia, H1: Nitrogen Fixing Tree Association, Hawaii.\nRescher, N. (1975) Introduction to Value Theory. London: Prentice Hall.\nRobbins, P. (2000) The practical politics of knowing: State environmental knowledge and local political economy. Economic Geography 76 (2) 126-144.\nRocheleau, D.E. (1987) The user perspective and the agroforestry research and action agenda. In Agroforestry: Realities, POssibilities and Potentials, ed.\nR\u0026amp;ouml;ling, N. G. \u0026amp; M. A. E. Wagemakers (eds) (1998). Facilitating Sustainable Agriculture: Participatory Learning and Adaptive Management in Times of Environmental Uncertainty. C.U.P. Cambridge.\nRolston III, H.(1993) Challenges in Environmental Ethics, in Environmental Philosophy: From Animal Rights to Radical Ecology, edited by Michael E.\nZimmerman, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.\nRoss, K.(2000) T*he New Friesian Theory of Religious Value* \u0026lt;u\u0026gt;http://www.friesian.com/newotto.htm\u0026lt;/u\u0026gt; Access date: June 2002.\nRupp, G.(2001) Religion, Modern Secular Culture, and Ecology Religion and Ecology, Daedalus 1304 American Academy of Arts \u0026amp; Sciences, Cambridge, MA \u0026lt;u\u0026gt;www.daedalus.amacad.org \u0026lt;/u\u0026gt;Access date: July 2002\nRydin, Y. (1999) Can We Talk Ourselves into Sustainability? The Role of Discourse in the Environmental Policy Process. Environmental Values 8 467\u0026amp;mdash;484\nSagan, D. \u0026amp; Margulis, L. (1994) Sustaining the Unsustainable: Toward a Slower Ecocide. In Chapple, C., (ed) Ecological Prospects: Scientific, Religious, and Aesthetic Perspectives.- New York: SUNY Press.\nSagoff, M. (1988)* The Economy of the Earth.* New York: Cambridge University Press.\nSen, A.K. (1977) Rational fools: a critique of the behavioural foundations of economic theory. Philosophy and Public Affairs- 6 317-344\nShrader-Frechette, K. (1998) First Things First: Balancing Scientific and Ethical Values in Environmental Science. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 88 (2) 287 (3 pages)\nShukadeb N., Senapati,B., Sahu, J., (2001) A Study of Three Hill Bhuiyan Tribal villages of Western Orissa. Integrating Mountain culture and Natural Resource Management, ICIMOD \u0026lt;u\u0026gt;http://www.mtnforum.org/resources/library/\u0026lt;/u\u0026gt; Access date: July 2002.\nSinclair, F.L. (2001) Professional Update on Agroforestry Department for International Development. Natural Resources Advisors Conference.\nSinclair, F.L.and Walker, D.H. 1999. A utilitarian approach to the incorporation of local knowledge in agroforestry research and extension: In: Buck L.E., Lassoie, J.P., Fernandes, F.C.M. (Eds.), Agroforestry in Sustainable Agricultural Systems. Lewis Publishers, New York, pp. 245-275.\nSingh, T.(1991)* Keep the Sharks out of the Mountains.* \u0026lt;u\u0026gt;http://www. ourplanet.com\u0026lt;/u\u0026gt; Access date: June 2002.\nSpellerberg, I.F. (1992) Evaluation and Assessment for Conservation, Chapman and Hall, London.\nSusman, G., \u0026amp; Evered, R.(1978) An assessment of the scientific merit of action research. Administrative Science Quarterly,- 23 (4) 582-603.\nSwearer, D.(2001) Principles and Poetry, Places and Stories: The Resources of Buddhist Ecology. Religion and Ecology, Daedalus, 130 (4) \u0026lt;u\u0026gt;www.daedalus.amacad.org \u0026lt;/u\u0026gt;Access date: July 2002\nSwift M., Vandermeer, J., Ramahrishnan, P.S., Anderson, J., Ong, C.K., Hawkins, B., (1996) Biodiversity and Agroecosystem Function. IN: Functional roles of biodiversity: a global perspective. Mooney, H., Cushman, J., Medina, E., Salas, O., Schulze, E., (Eds.), London, Wiley. p. 261-298.\nSylvan, R.(1973) Is There a Need for a New Environmental Ethic? Proceedings of the XV World Congress of Philosophy No. 1: Varna, Bulgaria 205-210. In\nZimmerman, M. (ed), (1998) Environmental Philosophy: From Animal Rights to Radical Ecology, 2nd ed. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.\nTacitus, Cornelius.(translated by H. Mattingly), The Agricola and the Germania, Penguin Books, Harmondsworth, 1970, p.109.\nTaylor, P. (1981) The Ethics of Respect for Nature, Environmental Ethics - 3 197-218\nTharpa, B. Sincalair, F.L., \u0026amp; Walker, D.H (1995) Incorporation of Indigenous Knowledge and Perspective Sin Agroforestry Development. 2: Case study on the impact of explicit representation of farmers' knowledge. Agroforestry Systems 30 249-261.\nThrupp, L. A. (1989) Legitimizing local knowledge: From displacement to empowerment for Third World people. Agriculture and Human Values 6 (3) 13-23.\nTucker, M.\u0026amp; Grim, J.(2001) The Emerging Alliance of World Religions and Ecology Religion and Ecology, Daedalus, 130 (4) American Academy of Arts \u0026amp; Sciences, Cambridge, MA \u0026lt;u\u0026gt;www.daedalus.amacad.org \u0026lt;/u\u0026gt; Access date: June 2002.\nUcko, P. (1994) Foreword, In Carmichael, D. et. al., (eds) Sacred Sites, Sacred Places, London: Routledge.\nUNESCO (1996) Sacred Sites - Cultural Integrity, Biological Diversity. Programme proposal, November 1996, Paris.\nUsher, M.B. (1986) Wildlife Conservation Evaluation. Chapman \u0026amp; Hall, London\nWall, D. (1999) Earth First! and the Anti-Roads Movement. London: Routledge.\nWarren, P. (2001, April).* Survey-at-a-Distance on Assessment of Stakeholder Participation in FAO Field Programmes*. Rome: FAO, Sustainable Development Department, Available: \u0026lt;u\u0026gt;http://www.fao.org/sd/2001/PE0401a_en.htm. \u0026lt;/u\u0026gt; Access date: June 2002.\nWong J., Ambrose-Oji, B., Lawrence, A., Lysinge, R., Healey, J, (2002) Development and promotion of improved methods for identification, assessment and evaluation of biodiversity for tropical mountain environments 2: Ranks, counts and scores as a means of quantifying local biodiversity values School of Agricultural and Forest Sciences, University of Wales Bangor Paper prepared for the ETFRN workshop on Participatory monitoring and evaluation of biodiversity: the art and the science. 7-25 January 2002. ERP project R7112 - European Tropical Forest Research Network. Available on the ETFTRN web site \u0026lt;u\u0026gt;http://www.etfrn.org/etfrn/workshop/biodiversity/index.html\u0026lt;/u\u0026gt; Access date: May 2002.\nWelsh Office (1995): The way Ahead for Welsh forestry. Report to the Minister of State for Wales by the Minister's Welsh Forestry Group. Welsh Office Cardiff.\nWerner, O. \u0026amp; Schoepfle, G.M. (1987)* Systematic Fieldwork 1 Foundations of Ethnography and Interviewing*. Sage Publications.\nWestra, L.(2000) The Disvalue of 'Contingent Valuation' and the Problem of the 'Expectation Gap'. Environmental Values 9 153\u0026amp;mdash;71\nWhyte, W.F. (1989) Advancing scientific knowledge through participatory action research. Sociological Forum 4 (3)- 367-385.\nWhite, L. (1967) The historical roots of our ecologic crisis. Science- 155 1203-1207.\nWilber, K. (1986) Up From Eden, Boston: Shambhala\nWilber, K. (1995) Sex, Ecology, Spirituality, Boston: Shambhala, p. 166.\nWorld Commission on Environment and Development.(1987). Our Common Future. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.\nYanggen, D., Antle J., Stoorvogel J., Bowen W.,, Charles Crissman C., (2002) Tradeoff Analysis as a Tool for Assessment of Economic and Environmental Impacts of Agricultural Research: \u0026lt;u\u0026gt;www.cimmyt.org/Research/Economics/impacts.\u0026lt;/u\u0026gt;Access date: April 2002.\nZar, Jerrold H. (1996) Biostatistical Analysis. 3rd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.\n Q Methodology Arrindell and Van der Ende (1985) An Empirical Test of the Utility of the observations-to-Variables Ratio in Factor and Components Analysis. Applied Psychological Measurement- 9 165-178.\nBarchak, L. (1984) Discovering Communication Paradigms With Q Methodology : Ferment or Sour Grapes? Operant Subjectivity- 7 (4) 115-130.\nBrown, S. (1993) A Primer on Q Methodology Operant Subjectivity - 16 91-138.\nBrown, S.R. \u0026amp; Melamed, L.E. (1990) Experimental Design and Analysis (Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences series), 74 Newbury Park, CA: Sage.\nBrown 1, S.R. (1971) The Forced-Free Distinction in Q-Technique. Journal of Educational measurement- 8 283-287.\nBrown, S.R. (1971) Experimental Design and the Structuring of Theory. Experimental Study of Politics- 1 (1) 1-41.\nBrown, S.R. (1980) Political Subjectivity: Applications of Q-Methodology in Political Science. New Haven: Yale University Press.\nBrown, S.R.(Sep 2002) Reporting Results. Q Methodology Network \u0026lt;u\u0026gt;Q-method\u0026#64;listserv.kent.edu\u0026lt;/u\u0026gt; Access date: June 2002.\nCottle, C.E. \u0026amp; McKeown, B. (1980) The Forced-Free Distinction in Q Technique: a Note on Unused Categories in the Q Sort Continuum. Operant Subjectivity 3 58-63.\nDurning, D. (1999) The transition from traditional to post positivist policy analysis: A role for Q-methodology. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 8 389-410.\nDurning, D. (1996) The Transition from Traditional to Post-Positivist Policy Analysis: A Role for Q Methodology. Paper presented at the Eighteenth Annual Research Conference of the Association of Public Policy Analysis and Management. Pittsburgh, PA.\nMcKeown, B. \u0026amp; Thomas, D. (1988) Q Methodology. London: Sage Publications.\nRosch, E. (1973) Natural Categories Cognitive Psychology - 7 573-605\nSen, A.K. (1977) Rational Fools: a Critique of the Behavioural Foundations of Economic Theory. Philosophy and Public Affairs- 6 317-344\nShands, W.E., Sample, V.A. \u0026amp; LeMaster, D.C. (1990) National Forest Planning: Searching for a Common Vision 2. In Critique of Land Management Planning, USDA Forest Service. Washington, D.C.\nSohn, D. (1991) The Interaction Concept in Scientific Discourse and in the Analysis of Variance. Journal of Psychology- 125 621-629.\nStainton Rogers, R. (1995) Q methodology. In J.A. Smith, R. Harr\u0026amp;eacute;, \u0026amp; L. Van Langenhove (Eds.), Rethinking methods in psychology - Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage.\nStainton Rogers, R. \u0026amp; Stainton Rogers, W.(1990) What the Brits got out of the Q: And why their work may not line up with the American way of getting into it! \u0026lt;u\u0026gt;http://www.cios.org \u0026lt;/u\u0026gt; Access date: May 2002\nStephenson, W. (1953) The Study of Behaviour: Q-Technique and Its Methodology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. (Chap. 9), The Prior Analysis of Questionnaires, pp.190-218.)\nStephenson, W. (1963) Independency and Operationism in Q-Sorting. Psychological Record 13 269-272.\nStephenson, W. (1967) The Play Theory of Mass Communication. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.\nStephenson, W. (1977) Factors As Operant Subjectivity. Operant Subjectivity 1 3-16.\nStephenson, W. (1978) Concourse Theory of Communication. Communication - 3 21-40. (Cf. Protoconcursus: The concourse theory of communication. Operant Subjectivity 1986 9 37-58, 73-96.)\nStephenson, W. (1980) Newton's Fifth Rule and Q Methodology: Application to Educational Psychology. American Psychologist - 35 882-889.\nStephenson, W. (1980) Consciring: a General Theory for Subjective Communicability. In D.Nimmo (Ed.), Communication yearbook 4 (pp. 7-36). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.\nStephenson, W. (1982) Q-methodology, interbehavioral psychology, and quantum theory.Psychological Record - 32 235-248.\nStephenson, W. (1987) William James, Niels Bohr, and complementarity: III - Schrodinger's cat. Psychological Record 37 523-544.\nStephenson, W. (1963) Public Images of Public Utilities. Journal of Advertising Research 3 (4) 34-39.\nStephenson, W. (1953) The Study of Behaviour: Q-technique and Its Methodology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.\nStrauss, A. \u0026amp; Corbin, J. (1990) Basics of Qualitative Research.\nThomas, D.B. \u0026amp; Baas, L.R. (1993) The issue of generalization in Q methodology: Reliable schematics revisited. Operant Subjectivity - 16 18-3\nThompson, B. (2000): Q-Technique Factor Analysis: One Variation on the Two-Mode Factor Analysis of Variables. In L. Grimm \u0026amp; P. Yarnold (Eds.), Reading and understanding more multivariate statistics (pp. 207-226). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.\nVan den Berg, H. and C.G. Van der Vee. (1989) Ideologies in the News: on the Measurement of Ideological Characteristics of News Reports. Gazette - 14 159-194.\n Bibliography Ackermann, R.J. (1985) Data, Instruments, and Theory. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.\nAltheide, D. L., \u0026amp; Johnson, J. M. (1994). Criteria for Assessing Interpretive Validity in Qualitative Research. In N. K. Denzin \u0026amp; Y. S. Lincoln (Eds), Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 485-599). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.\nAndrews J. \u0026amp; Rebane, M. (1994) Farming \u0026amp; Wildlife RSPB, Bedfordshire.\nApthorpe, R. and Des Gasper (eds) (1996) Arguing Development Policy: frames and discourses. London: Cass.\nBartlett's F.C.Remembering. C.U.P. 1932\nBoulding, K. (1989) Three Faces of Power, Newbury Park, California, Sage.\nCarmichael, D., Hubert, J., Reeves, B. \u0026amp; Schanche, A.(1994) Sacred Sites, Sacred Places. London, Routledge.\nCarney, D. (ed.) (1998) Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: what contribution can we make? (papers presented at the Department for International Development's Natural Resources Advisers' Conference, (July 1998) London: DFID\nCase, D.D. 1990. The Community's Toolbox: The Idea, Methods and Tools for Participatory Assessment, Monitoring and Evaluation In Community Forestry. Bangkok: FAO.\nChapple, E. D. and C. S. Coon. 1942. Principles of Anthropology. Henry and Holt, New York.\nDennis, P., Bentley, C. \u0026amp; Jones, J.R.(1994) Impact of Grazing Systems on Insects and Spiders Livestock Farming Systems: research, develoment socio economics and land management. Third International Symposium Aberdeen, Scotland.\nEdwards-Jones, G.et al., (2000) Ecological Economics Blackwell, Oxford.\nGreene, D. \u0026amp; Cousins, S. (1996) Landscape Ecology and GIS Taylor \u0026amp; Francis.\nHaverkort B., Van der Kamp, J. \u0026amp; Waters-Bayer, A. (eds). (1991) Joining farmers' experiments: Experiences in participatory technology development. Intermediate Technology Publications, London.\nHolling, C. S. E. (1978) Adaptive Environmental Assessment and Management, Chichester, Wiley.\nICEP (2001) Institution of Civil Engineers Presidential Commission to review the technical approaches to flood risk management in England and Wales.\nIIED (1991) Participatory methods for learning and analysis. RRA Notes 14. International Institute for Environment and Development, London. International Institute for Environment and Development 1996. Participation, Policy and Institutionalisation. PLA Notes No. 27. London: IIED\nKey, C. (1994) Ecological Prospects: Scientific, Religious, and Aesthetic Perspectives. Ed. by Christopher Key Chapple. New York: SUNY Press, 236pp.\nKeynes, J.M. (1921) A Treatise on Probability. London: Macmillan.\nKuhn, T. S. (1962) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Chicago, Chicago University Press.\nLeopold, A. (1949) A Sand County Almanac and Sketches Here and There New York: Oxford University Press,\nLovegrove, R., Williams, G. \u0026amp; Williams, I. (1994) Birds in Wales. Poyser.\nLovelock, J. (1988) The Ages of Gaia.London: W.W. Norton \u0026amp; Co.\nMarsden, D., Oakley, P. and Pratt, B. 1994. Measuring the Process: Guidelines for Evaluating Social Development. INTRAC NGO Management and Policy Series No.3. Oxford: INTRAC.\nNelson, N. \u0026amp; Wright, S. 1995. Power and Participatory Development: Theory and Practice. London: Intermediate Technology Publications.\nOkali, C., Sumberg, J., \u0026amp; Farrington, J. 1994. Farmer Participatory Research: Rhetoric and reality. London: Intermediate Technology. 159 pp.\nPeterken, G. (1993) Woodland Conservation and Management Chapman \u0026amp; Hall, London.\nRackham, O. (1986) The History of the Countryside Dent.\nRamakrishnan P., Purohit, A., Saxena, K., Rao, K., and RK Maikhuri R. (eds.) (1998) Conservation and Management of Biological Resources in Himalaya IBH Publishing, New Delhi : Oxford and London.\nRescher, N. (1975) Introduction to Value Theory. Prentice-Hall, London.\nRobbins, L. (1935) An Essay on the Nature and Significance of Economic Science. Macmillan, London.\nSlocum, R., et al., Power, Process and Participation: Tools for Change, Intermediate Technology Publications.\nStewart, D. W. and Shamdasani, P.M. (1990) Focus Groups: Theory and Practice. Applied Social Research Methods Series Volume 20, Newbury Park: Sage Publications\nStriker, G. (1986) Antipater, or the Art of Living In. Schofield \u0026amp; Striker The Norms of Nature CUP London\nSullivan, G.M., et al., (1992) Financial and Economic Analyses of Agroforestry Systems. Pia, H1: Nitrogen Fixing Tree Association, Hawaii\nSutcliffe, S. \u0026amp; Bowman, M. (eds) (2000) Beyond The New Age: Exploring Alternative Spirituality. EUP: Edinburgh.\nSutherland W. (1995) Managing Habitats for Conservation CUP.\nVeldhuizen, L.V., Waters-Bayer, A., Zeeuw, H.D. (1997) Developing Technology with Farmers: A Trainer's Guide for Participatory Learning. London and New York: Zed Books. 230 pp.\nWalters, C.J.(1986) Adaptive management of renewable resources. Macmillan, New York.\nWarren, D., Michael, L., Slikkerveer, J. \u0026amp; Brokensha, D. (1995) The cultural dimension of development: Indigenous knowledge systems. Intermediate Technology Publications, London.\nWilson, R. A., ed. (1997) Human Rights, Culture and Context. London: Pluto Press\nYoung, A. (1989) Agroforestry for Soil Conservation CAB.\n "});index.add({'id':52,'href':'/docs/cnrm/agroforestry/agricultural_policies_flooding.html','title':"Agricultural Policies to Mitigate Flooding",'section':"Agroforestry",'content':"Table of Contents\n1\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Abstract 2\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Flooding, Current Perceptions and Objectives 3\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Strategic Issues in Sustainable Land-Use 4\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Integrating Agriculture With Policy to Mitigate Flooding 5\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Conclusions 6\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;References, Flooding   Advising the Welsh National Assembly\n1\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Abstract With the cost of flood damage and defense, loss of biodiversity and over-exploitation of soils, present intensive development of flood plains and drainage of wetlands is not sustainable. Moreover, livelihoods are threatened by over production in farming.\nAgroforestry practices can be used to mitigate flooding, especially from upland run off. Integrating trees with agriculture is essentially agroforestry land use. Skilled integration of trees and woody shrubs enhance sustainability and productivity in agriculture.\nFarm wetland management with agroforestry techniques can mitigate flooding and contribute to sustainable livelihoods. In this respect, conflicts exist with grants for woodland and for agriculture in existing policy levers. An integrated forest and agri-environmental policy is required.\n 2\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Flooding, Current Perceptions and Objectives From the submissions to the ICEP Presidential Commission (2001) to Review the Technical Approaches to Flood Risk Management, it is clear that the present intensive development of flood plains is not sustainable.\nThe creation of drainage systems which move water quickly off the land and away through deepened and straightened rivers has increased downstream flood risk and required the construction of further defences. The contribution of these wetlands to flood defence through the absorption and retention of flood water, has also been lost. Water that enters the ground will either travel very slowly into the rivers or remain in underground aquifers. Water that enters the drainage system will flow relatively quickly downstream.\nEnvironment Agency Wales, is primarily concerned to provide for flood defences and warnings. Following recent severe flooding in excess of £10.0 million is to be spent.\nCAUSAL DIAGRAM: Policy leverage, local land use practices and landscape level alluvial flows\n The cumulative effects of encroachments into flood plains and increased runoff from developments are massive. More water enters the rivers and the size of the flood plain increases. Properties that could once be considered outside the flood plain are brought into it. Reducing risks of flood in developed areas and its consequences fall into six main categories: Flood warning, Increased flood storage, Raised defences, Increased channel capacity, Diversion of flood flows. However, the construction of flood embankments can actually exacerbate flooding, with sudden releases through breaches, and, when river levels recede, flood waters can become trapped behind the banks.\n 3\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Strategic Issues in Sustainable Land-Use If a watercourse is left in its natural state, it tends towards a size which floods onto the flood plain in the order of once every one to two years. There is a need for a change in attitude with greater emphasis on sustainable, preventative flood alleviation methods rather than the reactive post-flood alleviation measures generally practised today (CIWEM).\nPressure on urban flood defences can be eased by retaining rainfall in the upper catchment and so moderating the movement of water, by spreading peak flows over a longer period. Avoiding development in flood-risk areas allows flood plains to store water and control its movement. This can be done by the restoration of canalised streams, the re-creation of meadows, fens, pasture and wet woodland. Restricted drainage and arable cultivation in sensitive areas allows rivers to follow their natural course.\nTrees on agricultural land provide long term environmental benefits to soil, biodiversity and, climate. Trees also allow for diversification of farming practices and product flows. Trees in a wet woodland landscape attenuate flows, and enhance the infiltration of water into soil through root penetration and control runoff with leaf litter.\nThe Environment Agency recognises the utility of catchment level flood strategies. Washlands may be created into which water can be diverted at times of peak river flow. In order to maximise the environmental benefits, land needs to be managed as wet grassland between flooding events, rather than arable land with compensation for loss of crops due to flooding. Restored wetlands receiving crop field drainage water are shown to lower concentrations of both nitrogen and phosphorus. Wetlands can remove up to 68% of nitrate-nitrogen and 43% of phosphorus from drainage water.\nThe creation of holding ponds on agricultural land would store water and improve water quality. They may provide ecological benefits through reduced sediment runoff, soil carbon loss, and loading of nutrients to surface waters. Runoff may be stored by the temporary plugging of ditches, drainage systems, and similar practices until the flood threat has passed. In return, farmers would be paid an amount covering the loss of potential net revenue and the opportunity cost.\nTo integrate trees at field and landscape levels, changes in land-use are needed. Policy levers are required to bring this about, even where farmers are already willing to make such strategic decisions.\nEnglish Nature commissioned a study into the use of washlands as flood defence (English Nature, 2001). The report concludes that a figure of £300 per hectare per annum provides a reasonable minimum that reflects the additional value of washlands to their flood defence function. They provide the same reduction in flood damage to the built environment as hard engineering options, but also provide additional benefits in terms of biodiversity, recreation, and water quality.\n 4\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Integrating Agriculture With Policy to Mitigate Flooding Integrating trees with agriculture is essentially agroforestry land use, in place of intensive sheep farming. Agroforestry practices are skilled and integrate trees and woody shrubs to enhance sustainability and productiivity in agriculture.\nFrom Woodlands for Wales - Report of Consultation 2001, objectives endorsed by various agencies seek integrated agriculture and environmental schemes. Tir Coed and the Forestry Contracting Association seek close linkages between woodlands and other land uses, particularly agriculture. The National Trust state \u0026quot;We are keen to see a shift in the CAP towards greater support for agri-environmental and rural development programmes.\nThe Royal Forestry Society point out that, \u0026quot;If forest expansion is to take place in rural areas this will be on agricultural land - hence the need to establish clear links with agricultural policy, and the CAP\u0026quot; This raises the issue of policy levers and funding.\nTir Gofal total budget was £13 million. for the 2001/2001. CCW administrates WGS funds under this scheme. (See appendices 2 a) - 2 c)). Compared to this, even the larger figure of £38 million on WGS, \u0026quot;Is small fry considering the objectives\u0026quot;, according to Coed Cymru. Moreover,\nAvailable grant aid for forestry, particularly in the less favoured areas of Wales, 'has done little to encourage uptake by farmers of forestry production '(FUW). The reason for this lies in what is seen as competing policy levers, for agriculture and on the other hand, for woodland. The Farmers' Union of Wales (FUW)... \u0026quot;could not support a (woodland) strategy, which would effectively reduce agricultural support\u0026quot;\nFarm incomes continue to fall. Conversion involves loss of income in the short to medium term.\nUnder the Woodland Grant Scheme (WGS), Agroforestry schemes applicants are not eligible for the farm woodland premium (FWPS) scheme to offset losses from reducing headage. Farmers fear loss of farm income under Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowance payments; especially so concerning Less Favoured Areas (LFA). Stock densities are liable to be pushed towards a ceiling with fenced-off woodland plantings in small farms. Farmers are permitted a lower planting density of 1100 trees ha-1. This density is probably unrealistic.\n 5\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Conclusions It is clear that policy levers in the integration of agricultural policy and woodland has further to go, and can benefit the mitigation of upper alluvial flows, as wellas contribute to sustainable livlihoods.\nSignificant opportunities exist for improved integrated soil/water/land management.\nPerceived divisions between forestry and agriculture present barriers to progress to integrated Land management.\nInsufficient funds/mechanisms are available to encourage farmers to manage their woodlands particularly on marginal agricultural land.\n 6\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;References, Flooding Balanced decision making (MAff FCDPAG1 Flood and Coastal Defence Project Appraisal Guidance Consultation Draft Version 1.0a 6 (Oct 2000).\nInstitution of Civil Engineers Presidential Commission to review the technical approaches to flood risk management in England and Wales (2001).\nManaging floodplains to reduce flood risk and enhance biodiversity English Nature (2001).\nCIWEM Comments to ICE Presidential Commission on Flood Risk Management. (April 200).\nWoodlands for Wales Report of Consultation Crown Copyright 2001\nInstitution of Civil Engineers Presidential Commission to review the technical approaches to flood risk management in England and Wales Submission by English Nature\nSinclair F.L. (2001) Professional Update on Agroforestry Deptartment for International Development Natural Resources Advisors Conference\nManale A. Flood and Water Quality Management through Targeted, Temporary Restoration of Landscape Functions: Paying Upland Farmers to Control Runoff Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 2000 Vol.55, No.3\nC.J. Woltemade Ability of Restored Wetlands to Reduce Nitrogen and Phosphorus Concentrations in Agricultural Drainage Water Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, Vol.55, No.3\n "});index.add({'id':54,'href':'/docs/cnrm/species-conservation/cheetah.html','title':"Cheetah Decline",'section':"Species Conservation",'content':"Table of Contents\nGenetic uniformity In Cheetah Cheetahs Low genetic variability (LGV) Individual Differences As Artefact of Captivity Behavioural Aspects of Fertility Conclusion   REF: Michele Merola, 1994 A Reassessment of Homozygosity and the Case for Inbreeding Depression in the Cheetah, Acinonyx jubatus: Implications for Conservation Conservation Biology, Volume 8, Number 4 pp961-971\nThis story urges caution. Wild population estimated 20,000, possibly as few as 10,000. What began as a case of genetic vulnerability became a story involving husbandry, predation and habitat modification.\nGenetic uniformity In Cheetah Importance of Genetic diversity represented by polymorphism (P), the proportion of loci known to vary in the population, and heterozygosity (H), the proportion of loci which vary in the average individual.\nPositive relationship between H and fitness, as longetivity, growth rates, fecundity, metabolic efficiency and developmental stability (MItton \u0026amp; Grant, 1984). Genetic diversity is thus viewed as contributing to the fitness of individuals as well as the evolutionary potential of a species. Lerner (1954) suggested hetrozygote superiority as a buffering capacity to overcome environmental challenges and develop toward a phenotypic optimum for the species, termed developmental homeostasis. This is reflected in the symmetry of bilaterally paired traits. However the level of P and H corresponding to homeostasis varies between species (Kat, 1982). Average levels of P and H vary dramatically between species (Baccus et al., 1983).   Cheetahs Low genetic variability (LGV) Cheetahs exhibit high uniformity at the major histo-compatibility complex (MHC), normally the most polymorphic cluster of genes in the mammalian genome (O'Brien, 1990).\nPerception of LGV in the cheetah as extreme is influenced by comparisons of cheetah with other animal groups, but these vary widely, and appear to conform to taxonomic grouping to some degree (Nevo, 1978). It is more appropriate to compare within carnivora. Large mammals tend to have LGV than other mammals.\nTerrestrial carnivores significantly LGV than other mammals. 8 of carnivores examined show no polymorphism. Cheetah Polymorphism = 0.02 - 0.04, heterozygosity = 0.0004 - 0.0014 LGV is equivalent to low heterozygosity generally believed to result from population bottleneck followed by high level of inbreeding (O'Brien et al., 1983). Sighted as posing a critical threat the future of the species. Led to emphasis upon captive breeding programmes. Evidence: present level of genetic variability and symptoms of inbreeding depression in captive populations. Fluctuating asymmetry and variation in other carnivores challenges the usual assumption. Several carnivores exhibit lower levels than cheetah. Phenotypic effects attributed to inbreeding depression. Infertility, reduced litter size, susceptibility to disease are limited to captive individuals. Comparison of presumptive fitness based on H are valid only within species. Within the Felidae there is a wide range of H and P. In the Leopard Panthera parldus (H = 0.029), H is less than 1/2 of the Ocelot Leopardus parldalus (H = 0.072). Yet this is not considered as evidence for genetic impoverishment. DNA fingerprinting and mitochondrial DNA sequencing calculations supports the hypothesis of an ancient bottleneck about 10,000 years ago O'Brien et al., (1987), proposed a recent bottleneck due to overhunting at the turn of the century to be responsible for the relatively lower GV of the South African Cheetah A.J. jubatus than the East African Cheetah A.J. rayneyi . There is no evidence for high GV prior to the hypothetical bottleneck. The case of the Eastern Barred Bandicoot demonstrates the need for caution with assumptions. An extreme bottleneck reduced to just 2 individuals can result in 75% conservation of original GV (Frankel \u0026amp; Soule, 1981). It is possible for variation to increase following such and event (Carson, 1990). A formerly polymorphic population is unlikely to be reduced to one of near-monomorphism following a bottleneck (Pimm et al., 1989). Gradual reduction in invariability eliminates deleterious recessives by selection; though homozygous, without inbreeding effects (Lande, 1988). Persistence of LGV species assisted by metapopulation dynamic (Gilpin, 1991). GV as soluble protein not necessarily equivalent to LGV in inheritance characters, nor necessarily idicative of inbreeding. Fluctuating asymmetry (FA), i.e. deviations from perfect symmetry in bilaterally paired traits (Van Valen, 1962), and morphological variants. FA shown to reliably indicate environmental and genetic stresses across various taxa (Parsons, 1990). LGV is reflected in a decrease in homeostasis, which is expressed as increase in FA and phenotypic variants. Also, both increase with inbreeding. 16 characters of skull and dentition were compared with large cats (Wayne et al., 1986). Correct analysis showed no difference. Repeated studies. Suggests cheetah have not suffered depletion of GV, but exhibit developmental stability at present level of variability. Also contradicts notion that cheetahs are seriously inbred.   Individual Differences As Artefact of Captivity Reproductive success varies dramatically between captive facilities. Striking difference in management skills. 9-12% of mature females produced live cubs in North American zoos, compared to 60-80% at a South African research centre (Brand, 1980). North American record improved with changes in husbandry. In S.Africa cheetahs fed whole animal carcasses, in N.America cat food. Cat food is high in phyto-oestrogens and has been linked with liver disease, the leading cause of death for adult cheetahs in N.A. zoos (Munson, 1993). Several products contain toxic levels of vitamin A. Change in diet led to resumption of normal oestrous cycle and a marked reduction in liver pathologies (Setchell et al., 1987).   Behavioural Aspects of Fertility In the wild males and females associate only briefly, at the time when the female comes into oestrous in a period of courtship. Keeping males and females together leads to suppression of oestrous in the female. The cheetah is an induced ovulator, ovulating only under the correct conditions. Confines of captivity prevent performance of ritual courtship chases (Eton, 1973), contributing to reluctance to breed. Absence of male courtship groups and lack of male to male competition may contribute to low levels of testosterone (Wildt et al., 1993). Small litter sizes (mean 1.5) compare to 3,4 and even 6 young in the wild. Reproductive capacity is equal or greater than other large felids. High fecundity, rapid rates of litter production in wild cheetahs (Caro \u0026amp; Lorensen, 1994). Fewer than 0.5% of 48 cub deaths could be attributed to genetic defect. High level of sperm abnormalities (70.9%, O'Brien et al.) doesn't appear to impair fertility in the cheetah, though such levels are associated with extremely inbred livestock and mice. 83.3% of male cheetahs produce pregnancies; 89.5% of these achieved during a single oestrous (Lindberg et al., 1993). 5 species of great cat show high sperm abnormality levels (Rasch, 1990). Increased susceptibility to disease confounded by information from captive populations. The coroner virus, feline infectious peritonitis in an Oregon wild animal park; mortality rate 50-60% of captive cheetah compared to 1-10% in domestic cats. These captive cheetah were 24 individuals in 3.5 acre area. In the wild bands of males roam 12-36 square km; solitary females range 60-800 square km (Schaller, 1972). Wild cheetah scrupulously avoid contact with con specifics. Cheetah in their behaviour would not need to develop an immune system for the context of high population density and con specific contact. Cheetah are slow to reject skin grafts from con specifics, indicating high compatibility at the MHC complex. Variability at the MHC is a critical defence against pathogens. Disease transmission appears to be exacerbated under captive conditions. No evidence of elevated susceptibility to disease in wild populations. In the presence of the fatal virus, feline infectious enteritis, cheetah in the wild did not suffer devastating mortality seen in the wild animal park Half the cheetah did survive the virus; they are not incapable of immune defence. Wild cheetah tested sero-positive to a variety of pathogens and parasite.     Cheetahs great similarity at the MHC may be a liability as the species is increasingly relegated to populations of artificially high density in game reserves and captive breeding programmes.   Conclusion  Decline by 50% in the wild between 1960-75 (Myers, 1975) is likely due to loss of native habitat and to its genetic composition. Restricted to high density populations 1 per 6 km square, instead of the usual 1 per 100 km square. Increased disease transmission. Increased predation by lions, leopards and hyena is primary cause of death (Eton, 1974). 73% of cheetah cub deaths observed, due to predation. Range lands for native ungulates depleted by growth of cattle ranching. Cheetahs hunted by farmers, and for international markets. No factor has genetic basis for interaction. Genetic invariability of the cheetah raises questions: traditionally considered perilous. Reproductive viability suggests homozygosity may not be universally deleterious. Population fluctuation asymmetry indicates no genetic stress. Other terrestrial carnivores also have genetic uniformity, exists in viable populations. Reproduction and survival of wild cheetah is unimpaired, and suggests problems attributed to inbreeding in captive cheetah are behavioural and physiological consequences of the captive environment. Cheetah survived LGV for 1,000's of years only last century, a marked decline. Short term effect of LGV on survival unwarranted. Genetic concerns distract from the real issue of natural habitat, and relegate the species to parks and institutions. Where emphasis is on captive propagation experience shows genetic composition and behaviour of cheetah may be detrimental under artificial conditions. Long term effects of cheetahs genetic uniformity on its evolutionary future as a natural population most likely will remain unanswered. Unless priorities shift to the protection of habitat, it is certainly human impact, not homozygosity that will lead the cheetah to extinction.    "});index.add({'id':55,'href':'/docs/cnrm/species-conservation/conservation_species.html','title':"Conservation of Species",'section':"Species Conservation",'content':"Table of Contents\nSpecies Conservation Reintoduction   Species Conservation One of the main players, legally and conceptually in conservation is the species.\nConvention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES). US. Endangered Species Act (ESA). Conservation effort from fund-raising to to recovery programmes and reserve design, dewell on species.  The typological viewpoint follows Plato's view of species as representations of eternal types (eidos), or, species as immutable creations of God. Individual variation is viewed as unimportant or unfortunate imperfections of the material world.\nMost of us have an intuitive feeling for species. Definition of the species is problematic, and species are viewed various ways. Ambiguity in species stems from the fact that the biological world is a continuium of organisation, from atoms to through cells,organs, individuals, communities, populations, and landscapes. Geographic variation in features may be well-marked and used as a basis for subspecies designations. Less obvious but perhaps more important differences may go unrecognized.\nBiodiversity is not the same as species diversity. Biological varatiation within species is important. Distinctions exist between bioogical and legal definitions of species. Populations and landscapes may be more significant or practical concerns as levels of bbiological organisation. Asexual reproduction challenges the concept of individual (eg worms and lizards; rhizomatic plants). Species represent either evoloutionary continuity, that can interbreed. Also a level of discontinuity (eg ducks and Green woodpeckers). What of Mallard Ducks (Anas platyrynchos) and Mexican Duck (Anas diazi), which sometimes interbreed? Distinctness and fixity are central features of the typological viewpiont. The populational view recognizes that species c omprise a group expresssing morphological, physiological and behavioural variation, the basis of evoloutionary change and adaptation. Overlap of traits may exist betwenn geographically isolated populations. Geographic variation may reflect local adaptation; is this a step towards speciation?   Reintoduction Outcome of reintroduction depends on case specifics,\nBiological and anthropological factors, including diet and life history Number of animals released Duration of release and level of organisational commitment Success may vary with time elapsed between capture and release Availability of suitable habitat is the strongest determinant of success (Griffith et al., 1989)   "});index.add({'id':56,'href':'/docs/cnrm/species-conservation/zoos.html','title':"Ex Situ, In Situ Conservation and Zoos",'section':"Species Conservation",'content':"Table of Contents\n1\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Consider... 2\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Messages from Zoos 3\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Research in zoos 4\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Species in Zoos 5\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Education and Zoos 6\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Captive-breeding 7\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Questions 8\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Conclusion 9\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;References   1\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Consider... Role in linking in situ and ex situ conservation. Challenge posed by expanding human and declining wildlife population and eco systems. Conservation of wildlife requires mutually reinforcing links between in situ and ex situ conservation recognised by the convention on biological diversity e.g. for critically small population fragments. Insufficient knowledge for many species to determine the extent of extinction risk, or informed management decisions. Research is integral to development of recovery plans and management of sustainable populations. Zoos as High technology germ plasm banks: gene banks including semen, ova, fertilised embryos, somatic cells and DNA collections increases options for future conservation action (Ryder \u0026amp;Feistner 1995)     Public expectations of seeing charismatic animals. Limitations of space Financial resources. Only a small proportion of vertebrate taxa will be included in zoos (Soule et al., 1986) What is a good zoo?   2\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Messages from Zoos Zoo professionals regard themselves as stewards rather than masters of nature. But a distance exists between zoo animals and visitors. The message zoos wish to convey should be clear* e.g. global or local; relevant to local zoo visitors. Messages as issues, problems or neutral subjects. What is the zoo trying to achieve. Message effective when considering cultural norms of the audience. Transmission of messages: variety of methods; species choice for exhibition, exhibit design as eco-system, brochures, scientific reports, graphics, audio-visual interactive, signs, labels, talks etc. total ambience of a conservation concious organisation: contradictory messages - look in the cafes at the packaging. Practise what you preach. Crucial to know whether the messages are received Most people still visit zoos for recreation. Is this compatible?   3\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Research in zoos Identification of species or sub-species for conservation management (Ryder, 1986) benefits from genetic techniques e.g. Orang-u-tang (Jancie Wiczi et al., 1990) Early taxonomic and anatomical research carried out in zoos. Comparative studies of behaviour, reproductive physiology and evolutionary genetics. e.g. Sex determination in many reptiles is influenced by egg-incubation temperature. Are the Wild Asses of Mongolia different from those of Tibet? Zoos have been criticised, they are willing, but what is their effective role? Geneticists emphasise research; but PVA's uncertainty point to need for habitat management The idea that technology will conserve but not ecosystem maybe deviates from urgency required in protecting landscapes now Research is feasible in a wild setting. Monitoring reintroductions is at least as informative, and offers captives for tissue samples. Determination of gestation length requires knowledge of timing. But oestrous cycles etc. are interrupted in captivity. Ability to establish the composition of groups: social behaviour affected by captivity (density dependent). New technologies should compliment direct observation of animal behaviour Behavioural research limited in zoos When is a zoo not a zoo? Is a reserve a zoo? Let's say no it isn't Reason language Reproductive events increasingly monitored non-invasively - understanding the sociobiology (Klieman, 1980) Contributes to greater breeding success ex situ e.g. Cheetah, density and smell. Scent marks and spatial distribution. Non-invasive genetic sampling of wild populations uses the polymerase chain reaction: (slime, hair, epithelium in faeces; Woodruff 1989).   4\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Species in Zoos Current priorities stress the importance of large vertebrates, they are less likely to breed well than smaller organisms, more costly to maintain in long term breeding programmes.     Zoos aren't targeting species for which habitat availability makes reintroduction a realistic prospect Imaginative exhibits of smaller animals can increase zoo attendance (Yajima 1991) Should target species threatened by factors other than irreversible habitat loss. No evidence that existing programmes focus on taxa that face threats other than irreversible habitat loss (Balmford et al., 1995). Potentially rewarding but neglected groups are invertebrates, fish, amphibians and reptiles. Among mammals, fast breeding social species such as bats. Displaying a more representative sample of fauna diversity will provide zoos with a more balanced framework for biodiversity education, and improve the welfare of animals in captivity. If biological requirements cannot be met in captivity, ex situ breeding is ethically unacceptable. Rhinos are given high priority for ex situ conservation (Foose, 1993), yet they are notoriously poor breeders in zoos. The Black-Footed Ferret breeding programme (Mustela nigripes) has been remarkably successful in biological terms, a good basis for reintroduction, all within the local area (Miller et al., 1994) Field Crickets in the London Zoo (Gryllus campestris), which has significantly contributed to their recovery programme.   5\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Education and Zoos Importance of conservation and biodiversity in education (Whitehead et al 1995). Outlined in Agenda 21 and the global biodiversity strategy, at the 1992 UNCED in Rio de Janero. Depends on answering certain criticisms: behavioural distortion, ecological context and people/animal relationships.     Zoos are the only institutions to keep living wild animals from all over the world. Since policy makers activists cannot reduce biodiversity loss without wider public support, a multi-faceted effort is required to expand public awareness estimated 600 million, 10% of global human population, visit the worlds 1000 plus federated zoos each year (WZCS). Film makers use zoos for close ups Various target audiences Contributions to formal school education from art through to zoology tertiary education: training programmes. Outcomes should be memorable compared to classrooms Zoos reflect the power of people over other sentient beings Distortions of behaviour: some species more than others Natural behaviour patterns: facilitated by good practise in husbandry, welfare and enclosure design Enclosures that reflect the faunal and floral bio diversity of eco systems, holistic displays, is a trend. e.g. Coimbatore Zoological Park offers visitors a chance to take a potted walk through the Nilgiri Hills. Also takes in culture of local people working in traditional crafts (Rangaswami \u0026amp; Walker, 1992). In a sense zoos are becoming bigger as the wild shrinks. Actually this is a zoo and a reserve joined together, reflecting local conservation aims.   6\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Captive-breeding A vital role for in-situ conservation (Alney et al.,1994): exhibition of flagship species, public education, training fundraising events internationally coordinated Captive breeding programmes. Many are evolving into conservation centres (Rabb, 1994). Zoos can help conserve only a small minority of the species threatened with extinction (Balmford et al., 1995) Clear criteria are needed to identify which taxa zoos should focus on. Criteria should reflect the economic and biological realities of captive breeding and reintroduction Preferences of zoo visitors indicate they need not adversely affect zoo attendance     Advantages associated with small size could be compromised because their shorter generations would lose genetic variability more quickly. Small species must be maintained in larger captive populations than bigger taxa (Soule et al., 1986) The notion of zoos as arks has been amended Long term captives are unlikely ever to be returned to the wild.     Captive breeding aimed at reintroduction has a greater impact because it helps to restore eco systems, and frees resources for more efforts.   7\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Questions Can In situ management of populations shed light on management of habitats and natural ecosystems?   Do zoos help progress in conservation science in the field? Many genetic samples and studies taken from zoos.     8\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Conclusion Optimise resource use minimise duration of each programme address the needs of more species conserve maximum biodiversity through conservation of landscapes we will save what we value. Genetic fine tuning should follow habitat availability. Genetic factors do not figure amongst the causes of extinction.   9\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;References RYDER O.A., FEISTNER A.T.C. Research in Zoos: a growth area in conservation, Biodiversity and Conservation 4, 671-677 (1995).\nWHITEHEAD M., Saying it with genes, species and habitats: biodiversity education and the role of zoos Biodiversity and Conservation 4, 664-670 (1995).\nBALMFORD A., MACE G.M., LEADER-WILLIAMS N. Designing the Ark: Setting Priorities for Captive Breeding Conservation Biology, Pages 719-727 Volume 10, No.3, June 1996.\n "});index.add({'id':57,'href':'/docs/cnrm/agroforestry/mosaics_cdfu.html','title':"Modelling Interactions in Shifting Mosaics",'section':"Agroforestry",'content':"Designation:MSc. 531    Table of Contents\n1\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Objective 2\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Rationale 3\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;The Crop Down Fallow Up Assumptions 4\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Structure of CDFU Model 5\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Af Intervention 6\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Testing Interventions 7\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Third Run 8\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Fourth Run 9\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Fifth Run 10\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Conclusions CDFU Model 11\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;References, Shifting Mosaic Models   Investigation of the extent to which AF Interventions may allow for a higher population density whilst maintaining a food sufficiency of 100%.\n1\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Objective Using Van Noordwijk's Crop Down Fallow Up (CDFU) model, to investigate the extent to which interventions may allow for a higher population density whilst maintaining a food sufficiency of 100%.\n 2\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Rationale Increased pressure on land is reflected in an intensification of crop fallow rotations, with shorter fallow cycles. In these circumstances, production will fall short of requirements, with increasing soil degradation (e.g. Ruthenberg, 1976). Decline in soil fertility, sometimes expressed as low crop yields, is one of the most frequent problems observed over a wide range of environments (Young, A. 1990).\nThis investigation was conducted with regard to cultivation systems, where a long tree fallow phase alternating with a few years of cropping can sustain crop production at acceptable levels and with favourable returns to labour.\n 3\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;The Crop Down Fallow Up Assumptions 3.1\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Sustainable Use of Natural Resources Use of natural resources can be sustained if it balances the rate of replenishment. Use of most resources including fisheries, forestry, rubber tapping and soil fertility replenishment by natural vegetation in crop-fallow rotations, share the two dynamics of:\nA diminishing return ('asymptotic) to maximum resource availability when not harvested. Resource availability decreases due to harvesting, leading to decreasing returns for harvesting effort.  Up to medium level land use intensities, a negative trade-off exists between farmer's interest in crop productivity per unit area, and landscape ecological functions, which are related to the age of fallow.\nLand use at intensities beyond a critical point, cause land degradation from both farmers and environmental perspectives.\n## Trebanth's (1984, 1989) Model of Crop-Fallow Rotations and Soil Fertility ## This algebraic model is based at field level. The consequences modelled are:\nA possible initial increase in crop yield per area under rotation, while reducing yield per cropped area. The impacts on returns to labour depend upon the ratio of labour costs for clearing fallow land and those for tending crops.  The model predicts the highest returns to land are obtained where soil fertility under fallow is allowed to return to around 55% of the maximum for a given soil.\n## Van Noordwijk's Crop Down Fallow Up (CDFU) ## Van Noordwijk (1999) believes the Trebanth model is not sufficient for judging transition periods in crop-fallow rotations when part of the landscape still has a relatively high fertility as a remnant of past fallow lengths. At the landscape level intensification would,\nInitially increase yields while decreasing terrestrial carbon stocks in soil and aboveground vegetation. Beyond the critical intensity, both would decrease. Diversity of vegetation may initially increase with fallow of various ages, and the simultaneous persistence of mature forest. At the field scale level average species richness may decrease. Further intensification is likely to reduce all aspects of biodiversity.  Thus non-linear relationships are expected between local productivity and both global (Carbon stock) interests, and biodiversity.\nGlobal environmental interests, as ecological functions at the landscape level (i.e. productivity, biodiversity and carbon stocks) depend upon:\nSpatial variability and spatial patterns within the landscape Lateral flows and neighbourhood effects Impacts of 'actors' and agents'.    4\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Structure of CDFU Model Four main modules reflect the fate at plot-level :\n4.1\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;1. Soil fertility Restoration is described by two parameters:\nMaximum level (at F-infinity) = F_inf_Avg Half-recovery time (y) during fallow = K_fert  Decline in fertility :\nCalculated as a simple proportion of F_infAvg and K_fert.  Variability between plots:\nFinf_Range Initial Variation= Init RFL-InitRFH (i.e. high and low). No of years cropping before fallow =TimeCrop  Soil fertility decreases during 1 year of cropping\nThis fraction = FertDepletion  Conversion from soil fertility units to crop yields (mg ha-1 per unit), crop type 1, 2 or 3:\nDefault values are 0.5, 0.8, 1.2, and 2.  Impacts of variable weather:\nDepends upon the power of crop sensitivity Default values are given for each crop type.   4.2\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;2. Crop Intensity (Fraction of Land Cropped in a Single Year) Decisions are simulated on food in store, expected gain per field, relative to annual food requirement.\nBased on rice store only RegulMeth=1 Based on rice store and consumption and yield estimates Regulmeth=2   4.3\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;3. The Rice Store and Consumption Rice is produced on the basis of soil fertility restoration during fallow, and consumed on the variable basis of:\nPopulation density PopDensInit (persons per KM square) Pro-capita food demand ProCapFoodReq (default = 0.5 Mg per annum).  All yields are added, including AF outputs.\nDecisions on 'intensification' are based on the store relative to annual consumption, with thresholds defined by the model user:\nHigh RiceStTargH Low RicestTargL  Parameters here include Labour (person days) for growing (LabCrop) and clearing (LabClear).\n 4.4\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;4. Best_Field_Selector This represents spatial decisions of which fields to be used are based upon rules (determined by the user):\nDerived from current cropping intensity Field Rule=1 Derived from Partial knowledge of the actual fertility of each field, simulating farmer's knowledge, and distance from the village. Field Rule=2.    5\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Af Intervention Three modules exist on consequences of farmers' land use at plot level:\nBiodiversity   changes through pioneer and early and late secondary vegetation into primary forest. This depends upon the influence (determined by the user) of the variables: Degree of species overlap The time frames for these transitions     Trade-Off Between Carbon Stock and Crop Productivity   This can shift by a factor of two. This depends upon the influence of one variable, Between-plot variation.   Food Security Sector  Gives the degree to which annual food demand could be met during a simulation run.   6\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Testing Interventions Five runs of the model of 100 years in ten year increments were attempted. NOTE. Numbers of the paragraphs in this section covering five runs correspond to the numbers given in 'Intervention No.' Column in results tables.\n6.1\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;First Run A preliminary run for 100 years at default values, with a static populations of 34 per Km 2, to test whether or not a higher population than 17 per Km 2 (the default value) with the same soil and crop conditions. At a higher population density of 34 Km 2 and not 17 Km 2, growing crop type two, led to a crash scenario in which food sufficiency dropped to 21% (less than 100%). Such circumstances allow the influence of soil and crop parameters to be studied, through attempting interventions and running the programme.\n 6.2\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Second Run Starting from a population density of 10 per Km 2, a population growth rate was chosen to allow for growth and migration ( =0.3). The model was run for 10 year cycles. Crop type 2 was retained initially. The conditions should be sustainable over a time of ten years, but not with a sustained population increase. Conversion from soil fertility units to crop yields (mg ha-1) depends on selected crop type 1, 2 or 3, with conversion values of 0.5, 0.8, 1.2 and 2 respectively. Higher yields of type 2 supported a population growth to 24 per Km 2, after which it could not support a further rise. Carbon stock was low.\nA higher yielding Crop type =3 was selected to see if the constraint on yield was not due simply to returns to labour. Food sufficiency rises to 100% for a limited period, the population stabilises with the constraints of an initially low carbon stock, from which recovery was slow.\nThe same rational was employed in selecting crop 4. Food sufficiency rose to 100% again, and supported a higher population of 26.8 per Km 2, before failing to support either a further population increase, or raised carbon stock.\nTable: Values For Inteventions at Second Run.\n  Graph Intervention No. Intervention Description At Year G.Rate P.Dens F.Suff. C.Stock Bio 3   2 2 Field Rule = 2 0 0.3 10 100 \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;  \u0026quot; \u0026quot; crop two 10 0.3 13 100 \u0026quot; \u0026quot;  \u0026quot; \u0026quot; crop two 20 0.3 18 100 95 273  \u0026quot; \u0026quot; crop two 30 0.3 24 41 \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;  \u0026quot; \u0026quot; crop two 40 0.3 23 83 10 7  \u0026quot; 3 crop 3 50 0.3 15 100 12 19  \u0026quot; \u0026quot; \u0026nbsp; 60 0.3 15 52 16 85  \u0026quot; \u0026quot; \u0026nbsp; 70 0.3 15 100 24 119  \u0026quot; 4 crop 4 80 0.3 20 100 47 143  \u0026quot; \u0026quot; \u0026nbsp; 90 0.3 27 89 42 180    Graph 2: Values of Population and Food Sufficiency For Second Run.\n  Legend:\nSeries 1: Population in persons per Km 2. Series 2: Food Sufficiency (%)\n   7\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Third Run A low yield crop type=1 was chosen at a low population density, assuming it could support only a modest rise in population, and to permit a possible increase in C.Stock. Carbon stock increased more than threefold as the population tumbled, and food sufficiency returned to 100% by the tenth year. But thereafter carbon stock fell as the population rose. Food sufficiency remained at 100% 'Best field selector' is derived from knowledge of the actual fertility of each field; i.e. Field Rule = 2. This was chosen, because it selects fields for cropping based upon total cropping intensity required, according to highest current soil fertility. Carbon stock continued to decrease, and sufficiency remained at 100% with lowest yield crop 1, allowing for a 24 per Km 2 population density. Field Rule = 1 (the default value): Intensity decisions of how many fields to be cropped, based on cycle length. This was selected to see whether food sufficiency would drop, or carbon recover. Food sufficiency and population dropped significantly within ten years. A switch back to Field Rule 2 in order to observe the effects upon food sufficiency and carbon stock. Food sufficiency rises slowly over 40 years to 100% with just 8 per Km 2 population, but then food sufficiency falls. A higher crop value of 2 was chosen in order to test yields under field rule 2 against a rising population. Population rises and food sufficiency returns to 100% within ten years. Population reaches 58 per Km 2 in 60 years. Carbon stock rises too, but has began to fall by the 50th year, and dramatically by the 60th year.  Table: Values For Inteventions at Third Run.\n  Graph Intervention No. Intervention Description At Year G.Rate P.Dens F.Suff. C.Stock Bio 3   3a,3b 5 crop 1 10 0.3 13 100 199 358  \u0026quot; \u0026quot; \u0026nbsp; 20 0.3 18 100 79 118  \u0026quot; 6 Field Rule = 2 30 0.3 24 100 53 102  \u0026quot; 7 Field Rule = 1 40 0.3 23 64 10 35  \u0026quot; 8 Filed Rule = 2 50 0.3 9 70 9 52  \u0026quot; \u0026quot; \u0026nbsp; 60 0.3 8 93 10 82  \u0026quot; \u0026quot; \u0026nbsp; 70 0.3 8 97 11 105  \u0026quot; \u0026quot; \u0026nbsp; 80 0.3 7 64 11 119  \u0026quot; \u0026quot; \u0026nbsp; 90 0.3 8 100 11 130  \u0026quot; 9 Crop 2 100 0.3 10 65 11 144    Graph 3a: Population and Food Sufficiency For Second Run.\n Legend: Series 1:Population in persons per Km 2. Series 2:Food Sufficiency(%)\nGraph 3b. Biodiversity, Carbon and Food Sufficiency For Third Run.\nLegend: Series 1: Population in persons per K2. Series 2: Carbon Stock. Series 3: Biodiversity.\n 8\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Fourth Run Crop intensity (fraction of land cropped in a single year), was reduced (i.e. RegMeth =1). Decisions in the model are simulated relative to annual food requirement. Parameters here include Labour (person days) for growing and clearing. The default value, based on rice store, consumption and yield estimates (RegMeth = 2), permits a more intensive practice would therefore increase yields and reduce labour. Based on rice store only (RegMeth = 1), a higher population might not be supported. The population growth slowed over ten years. Carbon continues to fall. Kfert = 2 years was selected. Within the model structure, a higher population density could possibly be sustained with sufficient food, depending on type of fallow vegetation or soil restoration capacity (K\u0026lt;sub\u0026gt;fert\u0026lt;/sub\u0026gt;), and inherent soil qualities (K\u0026lt;sub\u0026gt;inf\u0026lt;/sub\u0026gt;). An improved fallow of two years cover crop restores food sufficiency to 100% and the population remains stable, but with population growth at less than 2%, and carbon growth of 25%. 'Improved' fallow vegetation plus Crop Cover = 4; yet higher yields might be possible with this combination, to support an even higher population, but for how long? A more intensive crop maintains food sufficiency of 100% for ten years, at a slightly raised population density, after which it falls dramatically by 83%. Initial slight Carbon stock rises remain the same until the population falls, after which carbon stock rises by 729%.  Table: Values For Interventions at Fourth Run.\n  Graph Intervention No. Intervention Description At Year G.Rate P.Dens F.Suff. C.Stock Bio 3   4a,4b \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; 10 0.3 13 100 253 360  \u0026quot; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; 20 0.3 18 100 210 390  \u0026quot; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; 30 0.3 24 100 164 377  \u0026quot; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; 40 0.3 31 100 137 360  \u0026quot; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; 50 0.3 43 100 90 271  \u0026quot; 10 Reg Meth=1 60 0.3 58 100 26 12  \u0026quot; 11 Fallow Cover crop=2 70 0.3 61 37 12 11  \u0026quot; 12 Crop 4 80 0.3 62 100 15 59  \u0026quot; \u0026quot; \u0026nbsp; 90 0.3 65 100 17 90  \u0026quot; \u0026quot; \u0026nbsp; 100 0.3 74 75 17 110    Graph 4a. Population and Food Sufficiency For Fourth Run\nLegend:\n  Series Chart   Series 1 Population in persons per Km 2  Series 2 Food Sufficiency(%)      Graph 4b. Biodiversity, Carbon and Food Sufficiency For Second Run\nLegend:\n  Series Chart   Series 1 Population in persons per Km 2  Series 2 Carbon Stock  Series 3 Biodiversity       9\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Fifth Run No of years cropping before fallow (Time crop = 2). The restoration period may be reduced, whilst increasing yields. Food sufficiency returns again to 100%. Carbon stock continues to rise, as does the population density. An improved fallow=1 (using fertiliser), gives high returns for labour, and should give further room for prior intensification decisions, including time crop = 2. A yet higher population than with Crop 4 than before (see intervention No. 9) might be supported. The population rises to a high of 133 per Km 2. Carbon stock falls considerably over 70 years, though not smoothly.  Table: Values For Inteventions at Fifth Run.\n  Graph Intervention No. Intervention Description At Year G.Rate P.Dens F.Suff. C.Stock Bio 3   5a,5b 13 Time Crop = 2 10 0.3 13 100 124 210  \u0026quot; \u0026quot; \u0026quot; 20 0.3 18 100 224 388  \u0026quot; 14 Fallow, fertilizer = 1 30 0.3 24 100 148 375  \u0026quot; \u0026quot; Fallow, fertilizer = 1 40 0.3 32 100 117 \u0026nbsp;  \u0026quot; \u0026quot; \u0026quot; 50 0.3 43 100 82 239  \u0026quot; \u0026quot; \u0026quot; 60 0.3 57 100 107 248  \u0026quot; \u0026quot; \u0026quot; 70 0.3 74 67 91 97  \u0026quot; \u0026quot; \u0026quot; 80 0.3 98 100 36 21  \u0026quot; \u0026quot; \u0026quot; 90 0.3 133 100 131 11  \u0026quot; \u0026quot; \u0026quot; 100 0.3 79 100 17 44    Graph 5a. Population and Food Sufficiency For Fifth Run\nLegend:\n  Series Chart   Series 1 Population in persons per Km 2  Series 2 Food Sufficiency(%)      Graph 5b. Biodiversity, Carbon and Food Sufficiency For Third Run\nLegend:\n  Series Chart   Series 1 Population in persons per Km 2  Series 2 Carbon Stock  Series 3 Biodiversity       10\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Conclusions CDFU Model Low yield crops can support only lower population densities and not a growing population. Thus, carbon stock does not build up. Shifting cultivation tends to be degrading where fallow is shortened by pressure of population on land.\nField rule 2, allowing for choice of fields according to fertility, with low yield crop 1, demonstrated the complexity. When soil fertility remained low, a low yield crop supports as many as a higher yield crop. Field rule=2 contributed to the regeneration of the soil when fertility was low, allowing for considerably more intense practise and higher productivity, when higher yielding crop=2 was used, though for a limited time of sixty years, by which time the carbon stocks had fallen dramatically.\nAccording to Trebanth's algebraic model of fallow, higher yielding crops will reduce the need for reducing fallow lengths and so contribute to the maintenance of higher soil fertility levels. If the soil can recover to levels of around 55% (rather than more), a higher return to labour from more intensive practices can be supported. Van Noordwijk (1999) argues that when part of the landscape still has a relatively high fertility as a remnant of past fallow lengths, at the landscape level intensification would initially increase yields while decreasing terrestrial carbon stocks in soil and above ground vegetation. Beyond the critical intensity, both would decrease. That is what appears to have happened in this simulation.\nBy reducing the threshold of intensity practices at this point (i.e. decisions made according to rice store and not consumption and yield), carbon stock and food sufficiency fell. Following this, improved fallow vegetation led to significant improvement in food sufficiency at a high population, though here with only slight increase in carbon stock, probably because the Carbon Stock = 15 is about the critical limit for the model.\nStill higher yielding crops, in combination with the improved fallow, maintained food sufficiency and permitted a slight rise in C stock for only ten years in these circumstances, when the population could no longer be sustained. Increasing the number of years of cropping at this point, allowed for an increase in C stock and population, with restored food efficiency. I assume this is so, because improved fallow leads to a more rapid restoration of the soil fertility. The application of fertiliser quickly allowed for intense practise to continue and support the largest growth in population so far, for over 80 years in all, before falling again along with carbon stock, somewhat erratically.\nSoil degradation not only lowers the crop yields on the basis of intrinsic soil fertility; it can also substantially reduce the response to fertilisers or other inputs.\nLand productivity is not a product of soil alone. Complex physical, erosive and biological influences, cannot easily be predicted. I do not suppose the model in any way simulates these processes. Chemical degradation of soil fertility, as lowering of nutrient content is mainly used in the model. Again, a critical limit had been reached.\n 11\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;References, Shifting Mosaic Models Trenbath BR (1984) Decline of soil fertility and the collapse of shifting cultivation systems under intensification. AC Chadwick and SL Sutton (eds.) Tropical Rain-Forest: the Leeds Symposium, Leeds Philosophical and Literary Society, Leeds. pp 279-292.\nTrenbath BR (1989) The use of mathematical models in the development of shifting cultivation. In: J. Proctor (Ed.) Mineral Nutrients in Tropical Forest and Savanna Ecosystems, Blackwell, Oxford. pp 353-369.\nVan Noordwijk, M (1999) Productivity of intensified crop fallow rotations in the Trenbath model Agroforestry Systems (in press).\n "});index.add({'id':58,'href':'/docs/cnrm/agroforestry/silvopasture_model.html','title':"Modelling Silvopasture Canopy and Growth",'section':"Agroforestry",'content':"Table of Contents\n1\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Aim of the Assignment 2\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;The Agroforestry Trial 3\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;How a Model of Silvopasture Was Built 4\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Evaluation of Running the Model 5\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Further Considerations of Silvopasture Model   1\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Aim of the Assignment Growth data from current agroforestry trials in Columbia were to be modelled using AME's Simile object - based computer programme. The trails included three strata of shrub, arboreal (i.e. fruit trees) and timber trees, over pasture.\n 2\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;The Agroforestry Trial Shrubs had been planted at a density of 625 ha-1, arboreal trees at 144 ha-1, and timber at 36 ha-1.\nThe species included in the trial were,\nShrubs: Crescentia cujete (Cc), Glyricidia sepium (Gs) and Leucocephala leucocephala (Li);   Arboreals: Cassia grandis;   Timber trees: Pachira quinata.    These planting densities were represented in the model. I constructed a sub-plot of 5 species and twelve trees. Their layout in the plantation appears as in the grid:\n  Cc Gs Li Cc  Gs Pq Cc Cg  Li Cc Gs Li     3\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;How a Model of Silvopasture Was Built A model of a tree Twelve instances of tree Locating the fixed population on a grid A sub model 'pasture'  3.1\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;A model of a tree This was constructed and enclosed in a sub-model box, entitled 'tree'. One container represented accumulating growth as 'biomass'. Initial values were entered. The containers' value is used as a multiplier of growth, and should not be zero.\nGrowth rate ('gr'), maximum size ('maxsize') and, loss ('loss') variables were created to model growth of a tree, given by the flow equation 'photo'. The relative figures for growth and loss were gave a balanced growth over time:\nphoto = gr x biomass x (1-biomass/maxsize)  A loss equation gives decreasing exponential and limited growth:\nloss = 0.2 x biomass   3.2\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Twelve Instances of Tree These were created by 'generated set', 'dimensions = 12', in the sub-model population window. Each species was assigned a code 1 to 5. In our layout, the Index appears as,\n  1 2 3 1  2 4 1 5  1 1 2 1    The species code was indexed as an array within the modelling programme. An array variable was created named 'species', and the equation entered:\nspecies = element((1,2,3,1,2,4,1,5,1,1,2,1)),index(1))  With this array I could assign growth rates to each species as in our array:\n  1.4 1.59 1.2 1.4  1.59 0.5 1.4 0.4  1.4 1.59 1.2 1.4    The growth rates (gr) were entered into the equation:\nif species = 1 then 1.4 else if species = 2 then 1.59 else if species = 3 then 1.2 else if species = 4 then 0.5 else if species = 5 then 0.4 else 0  Maximum heights (not true heights) were assigned as:\n  10 17 15 10  17 40 10 30  15 25 17 15    This gives the equations for the array (maxsize):\nif species = 1 then 10 else if species = 2 then 17 else if species = 3 then 15 else if species = 4 then 40 else if species = 5 then 30 else 0   3.3\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Locating the Fixed Population on a Grid The modelling environment offers a default 10 x 10 grid, giving 100 cells to which all instances of a model may be located through x, y co-ordinates. I ran the sub model 'tree' with random co-ordinates, using the function rand (0,100) for each of Xposn and Yposn variables. Selecting the Lollipop tool gave a dynamic 3-d representation. The sub model ran successfully.\nI wished to specify the planting arrangement, and therefore indexed their locations. By default, each cell is divided in to 10 by 10 co-ordinates giving 100 x 100 point co-ordinates.\nI calculated the cell co-ordinates for each member of the array of twelve using the following grid. I calculated central values. For example in cell 1 (0 to 10) central value is 5, for the first square's central co-ordinates.\n  x/y 5 15 25 35  5 \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;  15 \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;  25 \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;    This gives the two equations for x, y variables:\nXposn = element((5,15,25,35,5,15,25,35,5,15,25,35),index(1)) Yposn = element((5,5,5,5,15,15,15,15,25,25,25,25),index(1))  The formula 'element(array)' gives the selected array of values. The function index (1), returns those values to each member in the population, in order. The sub model ran successfully.\n 3.4\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;A sub model 'pasture' This model was built with one compartment, 'height', representing growth above ground. It was placed upon a sub model 'quadrat'. The quadrat represents the grid square so the x and y equations were used to provide 12 cells for pasture to correspond with the trees.\nIn the quadrat a 'distance' variable was created to give the distance of each cell on the quadrat to each tree position in the array, by the equation,\nDistance = hypot((Xposn) - x,(yposn) - y)  Tree 'biomass' as a variable gives an indication of light interception. A 'stratalight' variable was produced to give a reduction in light according to the strata in which the tree 'biomass' was positioned. Thus, timber at the top is simply biomass; fruit is biomass/2; shrubs are biomass/4. This makes the assumption that strata 1 is most light demanding, and strata 3 (i.e. shrubs), less so.\nA 'shade' variable placed on the pasture sub model calculates shade for each cell at grass level. It is relative to the distance from each tree biomass and position in the array, and is given by the equation,\nshade = stratalight/1 + Distance  The values given by the shade variable were then transformed into available light by the variable 'light' whose equation was,\nLight = var2/(var2 + shade)  Some modelling involved adjusting figures. Units are relative only. 'var2' allowed me to match the scale of values for shade to the scale of values of pasture growth, given by 'photo'.\nThe division by shade for a second time gives a more suitable proportion of available light to shade for pasture growth in the range of 1:3, rather than 1:100. This proportion bears upon the growth rate.\nThe equation and its values for var2 was arrived at by calculations on paper, and then rerunning the model until a balance between light and shade was arrived at.\nThe flow equation for pasture growth (photo) was given the exponential form:\nphoto = gr x light x height x (1 - height/maxheight)    4\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Evaluation of Running the Model Instruction: Use a lollipop diagram for tree growth and for pasture growth, and plot value pasture height against time: run for 60 time units.*  I found that 'division by zero' prevented me from running the model with AME's equation, shade = sum(biomass/distance ^ 2), in the disaggregated agroforestry model.\nUsing the denominator 1 + distance, didn't solve the problem, and I had to resort to a suitable equation of my own making, which gives a relationship between distance and shade.\nAdditionally, I experienced problems with the equation sum(stratalight/distance ^ 2) as \u0026quot;ERROR unit expression array(1,size(tree)) has array dimensions 1 which are incompatible with the array it represents, whose dimensions are ()\u0026quot;. This AME equation worked when applying random positions to the x,y coordinates of the tree population, but not with fixed coordinates as I intended.\nThe 3d viewer did not work with my model with fixed rasta coordinates. I suspect overall the problems emerge with my selecting a sub-plot of 4 x 3 and not 10x10. To realistically model agroforestry trails of a chosen plot size seems important to me, and that is why I persisted.\nI also modelled loss flow for trees using the conditional equation,\nif biomass \u0026gt; 20 then 0.1 x biomass else 0.  This loss flow only operates if tree biomass is greater than the specified amount. This may represent care taken in establishing seedlings, or replanting. Alternatively, perhaps cutting fodder for cattle after the plant has reached some maturity.\nInvestigating the dynamics of the model, the following table records my results when manipulating variables. Here, I kept the trees' maximum height and growth rates the same, once I had a useful representation for different species.\nTable: Pasture height and pasture photosynthesis, with manipulations of variables\n  var2 gr(pasture) respiration(pasture) init.tree biomass initial photo(range) photo;time=60 pasture height after time=60 max height(pasture)/time   50 1 0.01 3 0.50-0.95 0.001-0.47 21.07-23.4 24/10  20 1 0.01 3 0.34-0.93 0.040-0.4 14.00-15.8 17/5  20 1 0.04 3 0.34-0.93 0.070-0.55 06.50-07.5 10/3  20 2 0.04 3 0.34-0.93 0.130-1.1 13.00-14.4 19.5/3  20 2 0.04 4 0.34-0.93 0.130-1.1 13.00-14.4 18.2/4    When 'var2' was changed from 20 to 50, increases are noted in initial growth quantity ('photo'), maximum 'height' attained, and 'height' of pasture when time (t) = 60. This is because the shade factor weighting is reduced by increasing var2.  Notably at t=60, range in growth quantity increased whilst range in pasture 'height' decreased, with this manipulation.\nWhen the loss function ('respiration') of pasture was increased the growth quantity ('photo') decreased along with the resultant pasture height in time.Maximum height also decreased. 'photo' is a function here of pasture height. When the variable pasture growth rate ('gr') was doubled to gr = 2, the growth quantity ('photo') increased along with maximum 'height' and height at t = 60. 'Height' and 'photo' ranges were both greater than when gr = 1. When initial tree biomass was increased from 3 to 4, the growth quantity and pasture heights when t = 60, remained the same as when biomass = 3. The maximum pasture height decreased however, and took longer to reach. This result represents a consequence of increased shade at an earlier time, but where final shade remains the same. This is because the tree maxheights were not changed.   5\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Further Considerations of Silvopasture Model The model's equation concerning distance from a tree to give shade by the hypotenuse function assumes that shade is denser at the centre of the tree. The equation is neither shade given by spread, nor density of crown. However, biomass is a useful variable for shade and could be modified for the species.\nSpread of crown also needs to be modelled within a layer in order to predict competitive limits to spread.\nTrees specialise in light usage. Within each layer of trees, relative shade tolerance or light demand of a tree needs to be taken into account in order to assess its growth, and subsequently the growth of strata below.\nModels of 'spread of a substance' from one cell to surrounding cells from a centre offer this possibility. Competition for water and nutrients in pairs and hence complex arrangements may similarly be explored.\nMovement of the sun, and time of day, are additional factors of light intensity and length of tree shadow. The natural environment might appear complicated, but I suppose that all these factors could be modelled.\nThe slide control is particularly useful for balancing variables, but gives duplicate sliders for each member in a population, which isn't convenient when the members share one common variable, as with uniform grass.\nEntering species and planting data in tables would be useful for approved models.\nOne reason for exploring models, is to assist with planting and management decisions. We consider models existing in our head even when in the field. An experienced caretaker, in a tradition of sustainable natural resource management, in some way responds immediately when visiting the site. That person's model reflects the site. Management decisions change the site. It is ongoing.\nSimulation models could be useful, as an explorative tool, in guiding and planning research. Research trials may take considerable time. In a short space of time we may explore the models in our heads, given access to a computer modelling environment.\nThis Silvopastoral model is at the plot level, and is useful as such. Such models may also be built into landscape level models, such as the (recently renamed) Fallow Model of Meine van Noordwij.\n "});index.add({'id':59,'href':'/docs/cnrm/species-conservation/oryx.html','title':"Reintroduction Arabian Oryx",'section':"Species Conservation",'content':"Table of Contents\nPressures on Oryx populations Oman The Arabian Oryx sanctuary Conservation strategy, Saudi Arabia Solutions References   Conservation Aim: To re-establish self-sustaining free-ranging populations Arabian Oryx (Oryx leucoryx).\nPressures on Oryx populations persecuted for trophies and for meat bearing automatic weapons and travelling in motorised fleets. Held captive in private collections throughout the Middle East, led to the formation of a world herd. Bedouin see hunting their right. last wild Oryx killed in 1972 probably (Henderson, 1974).  Former range The former range of the species consisted of vast deserts, which were linked by gravel corridors and plains. Basis for the conservation programmes is The National Commission for Wildlife Conservation and Development protected area system plan (Child \u0026amp; Grainger, 1990.) Details: status of areas of interest, physio-geography, management objectives.\n  Oman 1982 first 10 found Oryx reintroduced in Central Oman. One of just 16 of 145 reintroductions were considered successful. Further releases followed by 1996 the herd reached over 400 inside 16,000 square km. Poaching resumed February 1996. September 1998 numbers reduced to 138 of which 28 were females. Wild population was no longer considered viable. Some rescued to form a captive herd.   The Arabian Oryx sanctuary Field headquarters at Jaaluni. 30 local bedoiun are rangers to monitor the herds.\nCovers 25,000 square km. A flat or undulating plateau, depressions are a sink for surface water, typically well vegetated.\nTrees Acacia spp. and Prosopis spp. provide shade and browse, perennial shrubs and grasses.  Predators include:\nArabian Wolf Canis lupus arabs Caracal Lynx Caracal caracal Honey Badger Melivora capensis Ruppell's Sand Fox Vulpes rueppellii, and Red Fox Vulpes vulpes.  Release Followed feasibility studies. Founder Oryx from a World Herd arrived in Jaaluni 1980. Two years of captive management. 1984, 1988, 1995 further release of founders: total = 40  1982\n10 animals released January, provided with feed and water. New releases began to slowly explore the desert. After rainfall in August it moved 20 km, switching to feed on desert grasses and herbs.  1984\nA second herd of 11 released. The desert was dry, the herd stayed put, by June was joined by the first herd. Seldom mixing they remained for 24 months in Jaaluni area. r = 0.22; slow because of drought, and sterile dominant founder male monopolising fecund females.  1986\np = 31. Wide spread rainfall Both herds moved 50 km to fresh grazing.  1987-89\nr = 0.35 p reaches 92.  1987\nSterile male castrated, losses dominance shortly after.  1992\nFirst prolonged drought since 1986, no supplementary feed. Youngest and oldest increased mortality mainly due to malnutrition, dietary protein low. Drought broken, widespread conception, clear seasonal trends of reproduction absent.  1994\nHeavy rainfall in south east corner led to expansion of range; 57% female. Skewed sex ratio was typical; males are often solitary and more difficult to locate.  1995\n16% ageD less than 1 year, r=0.25.  1996\nP= 400?   Poaching 17 years after first release wild population collapsed due to poaching.\n1996 track evidence:\nCalves targeted then switched to adults. Poor survival rates? Adult female targets resulted in abandoned calves, some returned to Jaaluni for hand rearing. Method short high speed chases vehicles turning on targets until exhausted or knocked down. Oryx tends to run straight and avoid cover, easy to capture in open country. Fallen Oryx caught by hand or net, no cases of shooting, ear tags remove. Poached usually late afternoon, cover of darkness would allow escape, also moonlit nights. Dead Oryx abandoned by poachers... capture myopathy.  1997\nPopulation fell 330 A proportion decreased with increasing population.  1998\np=310, m:f=216:90 reflects, targeting females for captive breeding programmes. Increased competition amongst males for females with probable negative consequences for calf survival - competing males were more aggressive towards following calves.     Aug 1998 Wild population no longer considered viable all but 5 male Oryx removed from southern parts of sanctuary, patrols withdrew to protect the few females central and north.      40 Oryx including a single breeding male, herded and chemically immobilised, returned to pre-released enclosure at Jaaluni. Bachelor herds common, est 20 breeding females in wild, most solitary or in small male dominated herds. Difficult to locate or effectively guard. Probable that most founder lineages are represented in the wild remnant herds; 11 f and 85 m. Further founder females required to speed up recovery.\n Social organisation June 1986 herds broke up, more dynamic hierarchal dominance based on mainly female groups and following calves, group size varied and frequently changed.\nMales left maternal groups at maturity. First signs of territoriality. Range = 12,000 square km, December 1989.  1990-92\nr=0.14 fecundity high mortality of calves and adult males increased, primary cause aggressive males coinciding with increased territoriality.   Monitoring Strategy: detailed information of a sample. A monthly transect census. Individual identities of all Oryx known until 1993; accuracy of surveys were checked. Breeding performance, genetic profile, health screening. Sex ratio in calves. Herd dynamics: Low level monitoring of others, twice yearly surveys for numbers and structure. 20-30% of animals ear tagged to facilitate by mark-recapture method. Accuracy of mark-recapture technique improves with proportion of marked animals (Krebs 1989). Confidence limits increased. Daily patrols : rangers and light aircraft. Prediction of future populations based on observed births and deaths.   Genetic analysis Confirmed reintroduced population had less genetic variation than the aboriginal population (Marshall, 1998). Inbreeding coefficients from stud book data not associated with fitness components; although micro satellite DNA variation indicates both inbreeding and outbreeding depression associated with juvenile survival. Higher growth rates suggests these depressions were not major threats to PV.   Conclusion Threats increasingly demographic. Confidence limits enabled the declining popualtion to be monitored effectively. Sex ratio demonstrated targetted poaching. Success of reintroduction attributed to favourable bio-political conditions and adequate long term funding, recognised to be as or more important than biological factors for success (Kleiman et al., 1994). Feasibility study concluded hunting threat had been eliminated, and absence of security threat during early years of reintroduction supported this. Threat lay dormant. Poachers exploited demand outside the country, the primary threat. This programme testifies to the success of captive breeding programmes. This and the establishment of a second wild population in 1995 in the Uruq bani mar arid protected area, kingdom of Saudi Arabia (Ostrowski et al., 1998) shows that Oryx can be successfully returned to the wild. Re-habilitation of degraded habitats and control of hunting should produce more suitable areas for re-introduction. Meta-population strategy will secure long term survival for the species. The challenge is to protect the species in the wild. Project tested the ability of the animals to adapt and thrive in their ancestral habitat, several generations removed from the wild.    Conservation strategy, Saudi Arabia Captive breeding facility Framework of protected areas throughout the historical range. Adequate personel, appropriate facilities Re-introduction: Translocation.. Re-inforce released populations  Cause for regional co-operation across borders Promotion of public awareness campaigns and encouragement of public support\nCaptive- Breeding Captivities worldwide, 1,600 animals in 1992 Saudi Arabia 28% died of TB: Sanitary measures taken, anti-biotic treatment, annual testing, '3 generation management', maintained even for the TB free herd. isolated breeding,   hand-reared,   mother reared offspring used for re-introduction.       Reared with minimal contact with human beings The NWRC herd has the greatest diversity of all captive and wild herds Includes the world herd, Original Saudi, Qatari and Abu Dabbi lineages Capable of providing for large scale releases throughout Saudi Arabia New release sites were not ready: captive breeding of second generation animals had to be reduced MVP needed to conserve 90% of polymorphism after 200 years estimated at 250 B- generation Oryx. Some genetic lineages are under-represented. Breeding of these founder lineages is necessary. Genetic research and management continues   Re-introduction into Reserves Entire reserves in Saudi Arabia were fenced to exclude poachers and grazing livestock. Supported by government Remoteness and inaccessibility facilitate protection in some areas. Degraded grazing land recovered rapidly after fencing. Hunting is forbidden in 2 zones and controlled in a third zone, a special core area excludes human settlements, activities and livestock.   A resource use reserve 5000 square km with regulated livestock use by locals.   Controlled hunting reserve, activities apart from hunting are not controlled.         Field studies Metabolism and water requirements carrying capacities of protected areas alongside livestock grazing. Studies on behavioural recovery and reproductive physiology continue.   Maximised population genetics Avoiding artificial selection increasing effective population size, Reaching MVP as quickly as possible Equalisation of founder contribution. Sub-populations : there should be some differentiation, interactions should be allowed, and consider urban and agricultural development Number of metapopulations are specified as 2 in Saudi Arabia.   Threats Capture appears to be a very old tradition. need to enforce the hunting ban strictly. poaching, can the rangers be given policing powers. long term local participation and more benefits to the local people could help controls. Illegal trade might be prevented by flooding the market with captive bred Oryx but side effect might be rapid increase in poaching. Interspecific competition tolerable during times of good rain : ok, while the population is still small. Camel grazing affects distribution of Gazelles, maybe Oryx, Exclusion of livestock often not feasible - herdsmen consider these areas as their own. Habitat degredation depends upon numbers of grazers. Exclusion of domestic grazers is of doubtful long term conservation value. Regulations limiting livestock would be difficult to enforce during poor rain. Consistent grazing control requires agricultural reform. Non-fenced protected area management must consider the tribal social structures. Eco-tourism could be a management tool Accessibility of the area to vehicles and density of surrounding settlements. Wood fuel is a major source of energy for the Bedouin, the ban on tree cutting must be enforced . Trees are the main source of shade for Oryx during the summer OR, AF management.     Good winter rain results in large numbers of people entering the reserve to harvest edible fungus known locally as 'Fagga'. Carrying capacity may be exceeded risking disease in small area reserves. Social structure male competition.  Captive management problems are serious due to a lack of suitable release sites related to overpopulation, disease and fighting. Solution: Contraceptive control suggested.\nCaptive herds required to support wild herd and, in case of population collapse.\n  Solutions Debate over the validity of data remains (Gill, 1991; Chambers, 1994). However it can be impossible to check formal surveys for a numerator bias whereas PRA is constantly open to verification.\nThe PRA approach concentrates on capacity building for problem solving at the local level. The emphasis is on adaptive planning, and a focus on context specific thought rather than a search for universals.\nMulti Criteria Appraisal identifies a set of objectives, and weights criteria in order to identify solutions. These techniques are maybe seen as rigid. The results depend of the value judgements of those involved in the analysis. It assumes a level of similarity between techniques.\n References Spalton et al. (1999) Arabian Oryx reintroduction in Oman* Successes and setbacks Oryx 33:168 to 175\n(EES), The Adaptive Environmental Assessment and Management (AEAM).\n "});index.add({'id':60,'href':'/docs/cnrm/agroforestry/agroforest_systems_baltistan.html','title':"Representing Agroforest Systems Baltistan",'section':"Agroforestry",'content':"Table of Contents\n1\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Representing the Livelihood System 2\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Analysis of Agroforest 3\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Analysis of Pasture, Silvopasture 4\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Household Activities On and Off-farm   Baltistan is characterised by diversity in land use, self-sufficiency and sustainable agricultural practices in an environment constrained by short growing seasons, fragile mountain environment and small land holdings.\nMovement of dung, produced by seasonal grazing of herds at higher altitudes, maintains fertility and structure of the lower cropland soils. Exhaustion or destabilisation of soils would take at least two hundred years to recover. As a largely subsistent farming economy, imports of external fertilisers would compromise overall sustainability.\nDiagram: Land Use, Altitude Zones\n 1\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Representing the Livelihood System 1.1\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Land Use at Community level Rainfall is low, and crop irrigation depends upon constructed channels fed from ice melt-water of higher altitudes. This system depends upon communal effort in construction and maintenance of channels. A limited amount of pasture is shared to some extent amongst households. Communal rights of access exist.\nCo-operation by both sexes between households contributes to a community labour pool, and enables more extensive community-wide work to be conducted, such as irrigation. Irrigation systems contribute to overall stability of the present soils and landscape, as well as to crop irrigation. Men and women have specialised, as well as overlapping tasks.\n 1.2\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Land Use at Household level Individuals within one household contribute to a mixed farming system, with dispersed household crop fields situated close to village settlements. This presumably allows for their care. Irrigation and extends the growing season. Sharecropping does exist, on behalf of elderly or absent. Owned land is passed on in a patriarchal lineage, possibly divided amongst brothers.\nLand use categories at household level:\nHigher altitude common pasture, unowned Alpine grass after snow melts, for a short grazing season Agroforestry at intermediate altitudes: Silvopasture, possibly owned Silvopasture, unowned Agroforestry, owned     Crop Fields, owned Home Gardens, owned Settlements, owned    2\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Analysis of Agroforest 2.1\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Silvo-arable Agroforest Trees on crop land; crop fields are surrounded by zoned trees, planted on boundaries, as windbreaks, timber belts and for produce. Species are mainly temperate fruit trees and produce apricots, almonds, peaches and nuts. Fruits are dried. Grain crops such as wheat, barley, rice, millet and buckwheat are grown mainly for fodder. The trees act as windbreaks and recycle soil nutrients. Leaves are composted. Traditional rice growing has been to some extent replaced by vegetable cash crops such as potatoes (cheaper rice bought in, since the advent of a modern link road). Maize is grown mainly for silage. Double cropping zones exist, mainly as millet after wheat or potatoes. Dung is carried from stables and possibly pastureland above for spreading on the crop fields.   2.2\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Trees on Cropland - Home Gardens Vegetables such as tomatoes, spinach and spices are grown in home gardens Home gardens are surrounded by trees of adjoining crop fields, and with dispersed trees within.   2.3\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Trees and Cattle Cattle forage on field edges as fodder banks, in alleyways, and on fodder cut from hedges. Caretakers, particularly women and children control the foraging cattle. All cattle return to the village for winter. A bull is retained all year for plough power. Sharecropped land shares these practices.    3\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Analysis of Pasture, Silvopasture High pasture is communal, arable land is owned: Owned land as crop land allows for crop growing decisions at the household level. These and home or vegetable gardens are situated relatively close to the households quarters, allowing their tending and, winter stabling, at a low altitude.\nLand use is determined by altitude. Presumably, soil fertility and altitude are factors in a scattered spatial arrangement of land for crop use. Altitude is a factor of winter and summer pasture. Therefore spatial and temporal (i.e. seasonal) practices are according to altitude, as are land use categories, in the following diagram.\n3.1\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Pasture Grazing of cattle by shepherds in summer on unimproved grassland.\n 3.2\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Silvopasture - trees and pasture Alfalfa grown on tree land. Trees dispersed, irregular, diverse. Trees for timber, fuel, and forage are intercropped with alfalfa for fodder, and with tare. Species include Russian Olive(Eleagnus augustifolia), willow and poplar. Indigenous Juniperus and Betula species are used for fuel wood. Some grazing occurs by cattle, sheep and goats.\n 3.3\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Silvopasture - shrubs and animals Land predominantly characterised by artemesia on less fertile soil, lacking irrigation. Privately owned cattle, sheep and goats are grazed on common grazing land moving with the seasons. Milking and butter making are activities carried out here. Sheep and goats remain on the village border ranges in winter. Dung is removed to lower crop fields by women.\n  4\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Household Activities On and Off-farm Activities may be characterised by human role, and relate to land use practices.\nDiagram: Oda Causal Links\n 4.1\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Sources of labour Community exchange is Integrated with common resources, but extends to privately owned land and harvesting. Conclusion: a co-operative and communal system of households, responsive to the environment.\n 4.2\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Gender roles Migration is usually of young males. There is a pressure on available land. Fallow crop rotations are reduced. Purdah prevents women migrating.\nDivision of labour according to gender in crop cultivation and in marketing less mobility to further markets of women, lower cash dealings. Young boys and girls may work with women.\nConsiderable overlap does exist between gender roles, when co-operation is needed. Separated activities include heavier work by men such as ploughing and channel digging, parenting roles, craft work.\n  "});index.add({'id':61,'href':'/docs/cnrm/species-conservation/development.html','title':"Species and Development",'section':"Species Conservation",'content':"Table of Contents\n1\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Challenge: 2\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Moral imperative: 3\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Development and Change   (Ref: william M. Adams in Conservation and Action ed. W.Sutherland 1998 Blackwell, Oxford\n1\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Challenge: Scale of human impacts on biodiversity and accelerating pace of species extinction demand attention (see Heywood 1995)   2\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Moral imperative: Conservation and development as concepts are often assumed to be unproblematic, looking from outside. Yet the problems, goals and methods of achieving them are not agreed, ad there is debate within the fields, E.g., usefulness of ex situ conservation techniques implications of protected area biogeography for protected area planning appropriate consumptive use as a strategy for conservation. development is ambiguous term involve both moral and technical ideas complicated debates, changing over time.       3\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Development and Change Development is a Euro-centric word. Notions of progress, success and improvement. Implies social, economic and environmental change is inevitable and, desirable.\nColonial Development and Welfare Acts 1940 and 1945, focussed on accelerated exploitation and better management of resources, particularly in Africa.\nThe World Bank (International Bank for Reconstruction and Development) and the International Monetary Fund sought to fund infrastructure development of the globe in an analogous manner to Post-war reconstruction off Europe after the Second World War. Built on western ideologies.\nEmphasis on economic growth, measured by GNP, by 'G7' countries, or Organisation for Economic Cooperation and development (OECD).\nAlso, recognition of the need to balance needs of the poor and distribute wealth actively.\nAlternative measures of development: GNP per capita and United Nations Development Programme's Human development Index UNDP 1992).\n "});index.add({'id':62,'href':'/docs/cnrm/agroforestry/localknowledge_atwima.html','title':"Representing Local Knowledge, Atwima",'section':"Agroforestry",'content':"Designation:MSc.    Table of Contents\n1\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;A Computer Knowledge Base 2\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Boolean Searches 3\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Further Querying the Data 4\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Overview of Interviewees and Knowledge 5\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Appendices   1\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;A Computer Knowledge Base The knowledge base 'Atwima' was constructed to address constraints brought about by declining soil fertility because of shortening bush fallows. It represents local knowledge. Thereby, it may enable identification of requirements for agroforestry interventions in participatory technology development. Soil fertility management, soil classification, weed management and cocoa shade trees are the particular concerns identified by its authors.\nThe knowledge base comes from the people of Kyereyase and Gogoikrom, of the Atwima district of Ghana. The computer programme named KT5 was used in a compilation of unitary statements to expressing single assertions in a 'definite clause grammar'.\nThere are seven topic hierarchies in the knowledge base 'Atwima'. Sub-topics may contain numerous statements, as for example, 201 statements are given for the topic 'weeds'.\n1.1\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;References to Statements in the Database With each statemet is recorded the origin (interviewee) and a interviewer; For example, E.K. Kru, Kwaku Antwi and George Chadea made the statement number 4. They were interviewed by Agbo, R., Frost, W., Angleere, L. We also know from the knowledge base that their interview was conducted at Kyereyase 6th June 2000. Their age was greater than 35. Their ethnic group is Ashanti, and their gender is male.\n 1.2\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Local terms and knowledge structures Local terms are used and by querying the data, relationships are found. For example, Nwura_bone is a general Ashanti name for a bad or problem weed. Nyana is the local name for a creeping weed (N.O. Cucurbitaceace: species; Momordica balsamina, M. charantia) found after clearing nfofoa kwae. Dedenyaa is the local term for a weed that is difficult to uproot. Tweta is the local term for a weed that is difficult to clear.\nEsre is the local name for the species Panicum maximum. Panicum maximum is found where birds and timber machinery disperse seeds, on clay soil when near a river, on sandy loams, on low fertility soils, and where the growth rate of trees is low. c) Farmers know that when Panicum maximum is at the young sprouting stage, herbicide use is effective. An increase in age of Panicum maximum lowers the effectiveness of herbicide use. Panicum maximum is harder to clear when herbicide use is less effective.\n  2\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Boolean Searches From a Boolean search of the knowledge base, 'Panicum maximum and Chromolaena odorata' (local names esra and acheampong, respectively), four knowledge statements by the farmers are found. The four statements are:\nAn increase in density of acheampong causes an increase in shade intensity of acheampong. An increase in the shade intensity of acheampong causes increase in intensity of acheampong shading esra. An increase in the shade intensity of acheampong causes a decrease in growth rate of esra. A decrease in growth rate of esra causes a decrease in density of esra.  The farmers' knowledge about ecological interactions of the two plant species may be inferred from these statements. Thus, it may be concluded that Chromolaena odorata' controls the growth and spread of Panicum maximum through shading, where the two occur together.\nFurther computer searches of causal relationships concerning these four statements (shaded boxes in the diagram) and all other directly associated statements give the computer generated diagram in Appendix 1: Atima knowledge statements, 'Esra and Acheampong' - causal relationship.\nThe boxes, or nodes, may represent objects, processes, attributes, values or actions of unitary statements. Each node may contain one or more knowledge statements.  The relevant knowledge statements associated with nodes in the diagram are given in Appendix 2: Knowledge statements concerning Esra and Acheampong.\nFrom the diagram it can be seen that tree density and shade, soil type and soil fertility are implicated in the two plants' interactions. From the associated knowledge statements, it is known locally that both Panicum maximum and Chromolaena odorata colonise soils of reduced fertility. However, Chromolaena odorata' is also known to cause an increase in fertility of the soil after three years fallow, unlike esra which causes a decrease in soil fertility. Thus where Chromolaena odorata' development in fallow is strong it may help to control colonisation by Panicum maximum through soil fertility changes.\nBoth plants are known locally to have a low tolerance of tree shade. However, as it is known locally that the density of Panicum maximum increases where tree growth rate is slow, I assume that the shade condition favours Chromlaena odorata growth over the growth of Panicum maximum. This may include conditions where the two grow together in low fertility soils.\nAfonywie (sandy loam) is known locally to favour the growth of Panicum maximum. I deduce the possibility that this is so because afonywie causes the density of trees to be low (and I infer thereupon, the growth rate of trees is low with afonywie).\n 3\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Further Querying the Data No statements are found under the search string 'esra and acheampong and weed crop interactions'. It appears that the interviewees were not explicitly asked about such knowledge. However, statements were found for the Boolean search strings 'weed management and esra', 'weed management and acheampong', 'weed control and esra', 'weed control and acheampong' (See Appendix 3: Knowledge Statements concerning Esra and Acheampong, and Weed Management). In addition, some knowledge statements found under Boolean search string 'esra and acheampong ' are useful in answering the question concerning which weed is more of a problem to the farmers.\nFrom these knowledge statements, I see Panicum maximum decreases soil fertility, unlike Chromolaena odorata which enriches the soil. Thus, the presence of Panicum maximum defeats the purpose of fallow. It has no locally reported benefits. Furthermore, its presence is known to decrease rice yields. When found amongst crops, I assume Chromolaena odorata is unwelcome by farmers because its stump sprouts and seedlings are reported to cause unwanted shading to crops.\nI note that Chromolaena odorata is thought locally to be harder to clear from fallow than esre. If the task of clearing it is given to one group, then it I assume it would be more of a problem to that group only. As noted previously, Chromolaena odorata appears to control the spread of Panicum maximum. Therefore from a purposeful point of view, I believe Panicum maximum is less welcome to farmers than Chromolaena odorata in fallow land.\n 4\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Overview of Interviewees and Knowledge It is possible to gain information regarding the interviewees according to demographic variables, by querying the database. For example, in the present database, Six Ashanti men over 35 years and seven Ashanti women over 35 years were interviewed for the knowledge base. Older Ashanti women know more about weeds than trees, it appears from the statements in the knowledge base. They offered 11 statements about trees and 56 statements about weeds. The assumption here is that they were equally able to make explicit knowledge of trees and weeds.\nNote: Definite and indefinite articles have been added here for ease of reading. These articles were absent in the computer versions.\n 5\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Appendices 5.1\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Appendix 1 Not available\n 5.2\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Appendix 2 Knowledge statements concerning Esra and Acheampong.\nAcheampong development time is three years causes an increase in fertility of the soil. Acheampong development in fallow causes an increase in fertility of the soil. A decrease in the fertility of soil causes an increase in density of esre. A decrease in the fertility of soil causes an increase in density of acheampong. The fertility of fallow acheampong is greater than the fertility of fallow esre. Esre development fallow causes decrease in fertility of the soil.  A decrease in the growth rate of trees causes an increase in density of esre. The tolerance of tree shading acheampong is low causes decrease in density of acheampong. Acheampong has a low tolerance of tree shade. Esra has a low tolerance of tree shade.  Ateche (clay) causes the increase in density of esre, if the farm position is near river. Afonywie causes the density of esre is high An increase in the leaching rates of afonywie causes a decrease in fertility of the soil. Afonywie causes the density of trees is low.   5.3\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Appendix 3 Knowledge Statements concerning Esra and Acheampong, and Weed Management.\nThe clearing ease of fallow acheampong is greater than fallow esre. The density of esre causes a decrease in the yield of rice. The ease of clearing of acheampong is low. The toughness of acheampong stump sprouts is low causes the ease of clearing of acheampong is high. An increase in intensity of acheampong stump sprouts shading crop causes a decrease in rate of growth of crop. An increase in intensity of acheampong seedling shading crop causes a decrease in rate of growth of crop. The toughness of acheampong seedling is low causes the ease of clearing of acheampong is high.    "});index.add({'id':63,'href':'/docs/cnrm/survey/hnrwebq/samplejs.html','title':"Samplejs",'section':"Surveying",'content':"   Human Nature Relationship  // Edit the following lines for your purposes //*** study_title will be displayed at the center of the top frame // (may contain also short instruction. Use for line break) study_title = 'Human Nature Relationship WebQ-Sort'; //*** address that will accept results // (nobody@localhost is standard for copy to Trash on Mailserver) recipient = 'bollybosh@gmail.com'; //*** email subject line: subject = 'Human Nature Relationship WebQ-Sort'; //*** URL of the 'help page' and name of button for 'help page'; help_url=\"webqhelp.htm\"; help_button=\"Help\"; forcedchoice = true ; //set 'false' to permit sending sorts that //do not match the prescribed response distribution //(usually set 'true') randomsort = true; //set 'false' if statements are to be ordered //in original sequence (usually set 'true') //*** Name of the extremist categories: rightanchor = 'Most agree'; leftanchor = 'Least agree'; //*** No. of statements: numstatements = 56; //*** No. of categories: categories = 5; cat = new Array(categories); //don't change this line!! //*** Distribution of the categories. If you have more categories add it. // (and adjust the 'categories=' above) cat[1] = 9; cat[2] = 12; cat[3] = 14; cat[4] = 12; cat[5] = 9; //*** Your statements. You can adjust it to the no. of your statements. statement = new Array(numstatements); //don't change this line statement[1] = \"The good life is not the consumer life: Opportunities for creativity and meaningful work, time for family and friends, green spaces in cities, and wilderness for other creatures, are more important elements.\"; statement[2] = \"I especially feel transformed, with a sense of belonging in old forest groves.\"; statement[3] = \"I often feel confused or strange, or sad, when in a forest grove.\"; statement[4] = \"Even when I see tiles and stones shattered and crushed, I cannot help a feeling of regret; when I see plants broken and destroyed, I cannot help a feeling of pity.\"; statement[5] = \"I feel easily connected with ancestors in old forest groves.\"; statement[6] = \"Forests are especially valuable for their beauty.\"; statement[7] = \"The lessons nature teaches me lead to a deep sense of calm.\"; statement[8] = \"All creatures are here for reasons other than serving human beings, and each has a moral right to space and freedom.\"; statement[9] = \"Mountains have a right to to exist in beauty without being transfigured by mining for raw materials.\"; statement[10] = \"In the free-market each individual acts to maximise his or her own interest, and by so doing benefits fully exploits natural resources. This creates the greatest possible benefit to us all.\"; statement[11] = \"Religious lifestyles that aim to transcend nature create carelessness about our environment.\"; statement[12] = \"I understand that what is regarded as sacred is more likely to be treated with care and respect.\"; statement[13] = \"If we create sacred areas, then increased damage to the non-sacred areas would occur.\"; statement[14] = \"When transcendent heaven is not the central goal of human life, then forceful claims by humans for dominating nature become evident.\"; statement[15] = \"Human superiority lies in technological progress and sustained economic growth.\"; statement[16] = \"Plants respond to human communication.\"; statement[17] = \"Forests contain NEITHER nasty NOR helpful spirits.\"; statement[18] = \"Cultural diversity and biological diversity are hardly related.\"; statement[19] = \"All things in nature are interconnected and depend upon each other for life.\"; statement[20] = \"Life force is in a breathing animal, growing plant AND inorganic matter.\"; statement[21] = \"To knowingly destroy rain forest, or any other unique feature of the natural world, restricts our ability to contemplate and communicate with nature.\"; statement[22] = \"Where rituals have been enacted for many years great reservoirs of power are built up.\"; statement[23] = \"The Universe, I regard as my body and, that which directs the universe I consider as my nature.\"; statement[24] = \"From the water we drink, to the air we inhale, to the elements themselves, all can feel us.\"; statement[25] = \"The Creative life-force and Earth are my parents, and even a small creature like myself finds an intimate place in their midst.\"; statement[26] = \"Natural or Cosmic law is never violated as things run their customary course.\"; statement[27] = \"Nature is so neatly integrated, that if good is done within it, good will return; if harm is done within it, we hurt ourselves.\"; statement[28] = \"Legends which say a place has a guardian spirit or muse usually contain some truth.\"; statement[29] = \"Because the costs of reducing greenhouse gas emissions outweigh the benefits to the economy, climate-change programs are not justified.\"; statement[30] = \"Most of us enjoy the consumer lifestyle, but we need to overcome our addiction to it because it is damaging ourselves and the environment.\"; statement[31] = \"An environmental policy based on loss and profit accounting procedures should work.\"; statement[32] = \"People these days generally possess no more than they need.\"; statement[33] = \"Solutions to environmental problems are found with a commitment to social justice.\"; statement[34] = \"An environmental crisis requires personal self-cultivation, and change in personal values.\"; statement[35] = \"With each culture or nation keeping its own world view and rule, eventually sustainable lifestyles and on earth will come about.\"; statement[36] = \"Rituals, like thanksgiving, can help the land to flourish and enhance our intimacy with nature.\"; statement[37] = \"Human greed leads to division and ownership of the land, and this in turn promotes violent conflict, destruction of nature, and chaos.\"; statement[38] = \"The unique position of humankind amongst creatures lies in the fact that humankind are accountable for its actions.\"; statement[39] = \"The advantage of humankind lies in its ability to deal with nature, more than any other creature.\"; statement[40] = \"Science and the Scientific/Legal fraternity will be able to reconcile our economy and the natural environment: We can solve any ecological problem.\"; statement[41] = \"Recent developments in technology enable us to better manage natural resources.\"; statement[42] = \"Scientific ecological knowledge, and the law, can deal adequately now with complex ecosystems, regardless of societies' culture.\"; statement[43] = \"Science gives the only comprehensive, and realistic story of the natural world.\"; statement[44] = \"While a man was riding a bull, it turned toward him and said: 'I have not been created for this purpose (of riding)' I have been created for plowing.\"; statement[45] = \"I do not believe that scientific theory explains the universe or our environment; it is one more story like the rest.\"; statement[46] = \"Our ecosystem includes the sacred source of life as well as such things as the light of the Sun and the Earth.\"; statement[47] = \"I would allow the transformation of a sacred landscape for the sake of sustainable developments or, need.\"; statement[48] = \"Local residents protest against a TV transmitting mast on Tory Hill, Waterford in Ireland because the site is sacred: This protest is foolish.\"; statement[49] = \"Nature is a genuine source of understanding for transcendental life, and so cannot be considered secondary to human whims.\"; statement[50] = \"A model cardboard church cannot be a sacred site.\"; statement[51] = \"land use practices cannot be made sacred.\"; statement[52] = \"Cosmologists create a world of meaning from raw data.\"; statement[53] = \"To better understand the cosmos we require an understanding of higher mathematics, electron microscopes and telescopes that penetrate deep into distant galaxies.\"; statement[54] = \"Plant and animal life are like Natures frescoes, both beautifying and exemplifying the transcendental, Natural Law.\"; statement[55] = \"Plants signify birth, death AND rebirth.\"; statement[56] = \"Nature in all its forms cannot explain its own being; nature stands as a sign of something beyond itself.\"; //*** No. of post-sort questions: numpostq = 3; postq = new Array(numpostq); //don't change this line!! postansw = new Array(numpostq); //don't change this line!! //*** Your post-sort questions: postq[1] = \"Which country and region do you belong to, or come from?\"; postq[2] = \"What is your age?\"; postq[3] = \"\tPlease feel free to add your comments about the exercise.\"; //*** Additional (hidden) form elements // The string variable morehidden will be pasted between the  and //  tags of the final form that will be sent away. morehidden= \" \"; //study definitions part ends here (do not delete next line)    "});index.add({'id':64,'href':'/docs/cnrm/survey/hnrwebq/tutorjs.html','title':"Tutorjs",'section':"Surveying",'content':"   Sample WebQ Application  // Edit the following lines for your purposes //*** URL of the help page; //help_url=\"tutorhlp.htm\"; help_button=\"Back\"; help_url=\"javascript:if(opener){opener.focus();self.close()}else history.back(2)\"; forcedchoice = false ; //set 'false' to permit sending sorts that //do not match the prescribed response distribution //(usually set 'true') randomsort = false; //set 'false' if statements are to be ordered //in original sequence (usually set 'true') recipient = ''; //address is empty here (Tutor example!) //if there is no recipient the Submit-button will be suppressed! subject = 'Q-Sort data for Sample WebQ'; //email subject line //*** Name of the extremist categories: leftanchor = 'Least of ... (whatever)'; rightanchor = 'Most of ... (whatever)'; //*** will be displayed at the center of the top frame: study_title = 'WebQ-Sort Tutorial - Mark statements as indicated\nClick Update as often as you wish ...' //*** No. of statements: numstatements = 9; //*** No. of categories: categories = 5; cat = new Array(categories); //don't change this line //*** Distribution of the categories. If you have more categories add it. // (and adjust the 'categories=' above cat[1] = 1; cat[2] = 2; cat[3] = 3; cat[4] = 2; cat[5] = 1; //*** Your statements. You can adjust it to the no. of your statements. statement = new Array(numstatements); //don't change this line statement[1] = \"Mark me +2 and click UPDATE\"; statement[2] = \"Leave me at 'don't know': 0\"; statement[3] = \"Give me a positive mark: +1\"; statement[4] = \"Move me down to: -1\"; statement[5] = \"Move me up to: +1\"; statement[6] = \"Put me to the lowest rank!\"; statement[7] = \"Another 'neither/nor': 0 \"; statement[8] = \"No opinion to that\"; statement[9] = \"Where is my empty 'slot'?\"; //*** No. of post-sort questions: numpostq = 2; postq = new Array(numpostq); //don't change this line!! postansw = new Array(numpostq); //don't change this line!! //*** Your post-sort questions: postq[1] = \"Please tell me how you like the WebQ Tutorial\"; postq[2] = \"Did you experience any difficulties?\"; //study definitions part ends here (do not delete next line)    "});index.add({'id':65,'href':'/docs/hugo-book/menu/collapsed/3rd-level/4th-level.html','title':"4th Level",'section':"3rd Level",'content':"4th Level of Menu #  Caesorum illa tu sentit micat vestes papyriferi #  Inde aderam facti; Theseus vis de tauri illa peream. Oculos uberaque non regisque vobis cursuque, opus venit quam vulnera. Et maiora necemque, lege modo; gestanda nitidi, vero? Dum ne pectoraque testantur.\nVenasque repulsa Samos qui, exspectatum eram animosque hinc, aut manes, Assyrii. Cupiens auctoribus pariter rubet, profana magni super nocens. Vos ius sibilat inpar turba visae iusto! Sedes ante dum superest extrema.\n"});index.add({'id':66,'href':'/docs/hugo-book/menu/collapsed/3rd-level.html','title':"3rd Level",'section':"Collapsed",'content':"3rd Level of Menu #  Nefas discordemque domino montes numen tum humili nexilibusque exit, Iove. Quae miror esse, scelerisque Melaneus viribus. Miseri laurus. Hoc est proposita me ante aliquid, aura inponere candidioribus quidque accendit bella, sumpta. Intravit quam erat figentem hunc, motus de fontes parvo tempestate.\niscsi_virus = pitch(json_in_on(eupViral), northbridge_services_troubleshooting, personal( firmware_rw.trash_rw_crm.device(interactive_gopher_personal, software, -1), megabit, ergonomicsSoftware(cmyk_usb_panel, mips_whitelist_duplex, cpa))); if (5) { managementNetwork += dma - boolean; kilohertz_token = 2; honeypot_affiliate_ergonomics = fiber; } mouseNorthbridge = byte(nybble_xmp_modem.horse_subnet( analogThroughputService * graphicPoint, drop(daw_bit, dnsIntranet), gateway_ospf), repository.domain_key.mouse(serverData(fileNetwork, trim_duplex_file), cellTapeDirect, token_tooltip_mashup( ripcordingMashup))); module_it = honeypot_driver(client_cold_dvr(593902, ripping_frequency) + coreLog.joystick(componentUdpLink), windows_expansion_touchscreen); bashGigabit.external.reality(2, server_hardware_codec.flops.ebookSampling( ciscNavigationBacklink, table + cleanDriver), indexProtocolIsp);  "});index.add({'id':67,'href':'/docs/hugo-book/menu/collapsed/hidden.html','title':"Hidden",'section':"Collapsed",'content':"This page is hidden in menu #  Quondam non pater est dignior ille Eurotas #  Latent te facies #  Lorem markdownum arma ignoscas vocavit quoque ille texit mandata mentis ultimus, frementes, qui in vel. Hippotades Peleus pennas conscia cuiquam Caeneus quas.\n Pater demittere evincitque reddunt Maxime adhuc pressit huc Danaas quid freta Soror ego Luctus linguam saxa ultroque prior Tatiumque inquit Saepe liquitur subita superata dederat Anius sudor  Cum honorum Latona #  O fallor in sustinui iussorum equidem. Nymphae operi oris alii fronde parens dumque, in auro ait mox ingenti proxima iamdudum maius?\nreality(burnDocking(apache_nanometer), pad.property_data_programming.sectorBrowserPpga(dataMask, 37, recycleRup)); intellectualVaporwareUser += -5 * 4; traceroute_key_upnp /= lag_optical(android.smb(thyristorTftp)); surge_host_golden = mca_compact_device(dual_dpi_opengl, 33, commerce_add_ppc); if (lun_ipv) { verticalExtranet(1, thumbnail_ttl, 3); bar_graphics_jpeg(chipset - sector_xmp_beta); }  Fronde cetera dextrae sequens pennis voce muneris #  Acta cretus diem restet utque; move integer, oscula non inspirat, noctisque scelus! Nantemque in suas vobis quamvis, et labori!\nvar runtimeDiskCompiler = home - array_ad_software; if (internic \u0026gt; disk) { emoticonLockCron += 37 + bps - 4; wan_ansi_honeypot.cardGigaflops = artificialStorageCgi; simplex -= downloadAccess; } var volumeHardeningAndroid = pixel + tftp + onProcessorUnmount; sector(memory(firewire + interlaced, wired));  "});index.add({'id':68,'href':'/docs/hugo-book/menu/section.html','title':"Section",'section':"Menu",'content':"Section #  Section renders pages in section as definition list, using title and description.\nExample #  {{\u0026lt; section \u0026gt;}}   Page1   Page 1 #   Page2   Page 2 #   "});index.add({'id':69,'href':'/docs/hugo-book/menu/section/page1.html','title':"Page1",'section':"Section",'content':"Page 1 #  "});index.add({'id':70,'href':'/docs/hugo-book/menu/section/page2.html','title':"Page2",'section':"Section",'content':"Page 2 #  "});index.add({'id':71,'href':'/docs/hugo-book/shortcodes/buttons.html','title':"Buttons",'section':"Shortcodes",'content':"Buttons #  Buttons are styled links that can lead to local page or external link.\nExample #  {{\u0026lt; button relref=\u0026#34;/\u0026#34; [class=\u0026#34;...\u0026#34;] \u0026gt;}}Get Home{{\u0026lt; /button \u0026gt;}} {{\u0026lt; button href=\u0026#34;https://github.com/alex-shpak/hugo-book\u0026#34; \u0026gt;}}Contribute{{\u0026lt; /button \u0026gt;}}  Get Home  Contribute  "});index.add({'id':72,'href':'/docs/hugo-book/shortcodes/columns.html','title':"Columns",'section':"Shortcodes",'content':"Columns #  Columns help organize shorter pieces of content horizontally for readability.\n{{\u0026lt; columns \u0026gt;}} \u0026lt;!-- begin columns block --\u0026gt; # Left Content Lorem markdownum insigne... \u0026lt;---\u0026gt; \u0026lt;!-- magic sparator, between columns --\u0026gt; # Mid Content Lorem markdownum insigne... \u0026lt;---\u0026gt; \u0026lt;!-- magic sparator, between columns --\u0026gt; # Right Content Lorem markdownum insigne... {{\u0026lt; /columns \u0026gt;}} Example #  Left Content Lorem markdownum insigne. Olympo signis Delphis! Retexi Nereius nova develat stringit, frustra Saturnius uteroque inter! Oculis non ritibus Telethusa protulit, sed sed aere valvis inhaesuro Pallas animam: qui quid, ignes. Miseratus fonte Ditis conubia.  Mid Content Lorem markdownum insigne. Olympo signis Delphis! Retexi Nereius nova develat stringit, frustra Saturnius uteroque inter!  Right Content Lorem markdownum insigne. Olympo signis Delphis! Retexi Nereius nova develat stringit, frustra Saturnius uteroque inter! Oculis non ritibus Telethusa protulit, sed sed aere valvis inhaesuro Pallas animam: qui quid, ignes. Miseratus fonte Ditis conubia.   "});index.add({'id':73,'href':'/docs/hugo-book/shortcodes/details.html','title':"Details",'section':"Shortcodes",'content':"Details #  Details shortcode is a helper for details html5 element. It is going to replace expand shortcode.\nExample #  {{\u0026lt; details \u0026#34;Title\u0026#34; [open] \u0026gt;}} ## Markdown content Lorem markdownum insigne... {{\u0026lt; /details \u0026gt;}} {{\u0026lt; details title=\u0026#34;Title\u0026#34; open=true \u0026gt;}} ## Markdown content Lorem markdownum insigne... {{\u0026lt; /details \u0026gt;}} Title Markdown content Lorem markdownum insigne\u0026hellip;   "});index.add({'id':74,'href':'/docs/hugo-book/shortcodes/expand.html','title':"Expand",'section':"Shortcodes",'content':"Expand #  Expand shortcode can help to decrease clutter on screen by hiding part of text. Expand content by clicking on it.\nExample #  Default #  {{\u0026lt; expand \u0026gt;}} ## Markdown content Lorem markdownum insigne... {{\u0026lt; /expand \u0026gt;}}   Expand ↕  Markdown content Lorem markdownum insigne\u0026hellip;    With Custom Label #  {{\u0026lt; expand \u0026#34;Custom Label\u0026#34; \u0026#34;...\u0026#34; \u0026gt;}} ## Markdown content Lorem markdownum insigne... {{\u0026lt; /expand \u0026gt;}}   Custom Label ...  Markdown content Lorem markdownum insigne. Olympo signis Delphis! Retexi Nereius nova develat stringit, frustra Saturnius uteroque inter! Oculis non ritibus Telethusa protulit, sed sed aere valvis inhaesuro Pallas animam: qui quid, ignes. Miseratus fonte Ditis conubia.    "});index.add({'id':75,'href':'/docs/hugo-book/shortcodes/hints.html','title':"Hints",'section':"Shortcodes",'content':"Hints #  Hint shortcode can be used as hint/alerts/notification block.\nThere are 3 colors to choose: info, warning and danger.\n{{\u0026lt; hint [info|warning|danger] \u0026gt;}} **Markdown content** Lorem markdownum insigne. Olympo signis Delphis! Retexi Nereius nova develat stringit, frustra Saturnius uteroque inter! Oculis non ritibus Telethusa {{\u0026lt; /hint \u0026gt;}} Example #  Markdown content\nLorem markdownum insigne. Olympo signis Delphis! Retexi Nereius nova develat stringit, frustra Saturnius uteroque inter! Oculis non ritibus Telethusa  Markdown content\nLorem markdownum insigne. Olympo signis Delphis! Retexi Nereius nova develat stringit, frustra Saturnius uteroque inter! Oculis non ritibus Telethusa  Markdown content\nLorem markdownum insigne. Olympo signis Delphis! Retexi Nereius nova develat stringit, frustra Saturnius uteroque inter! Oculis non ritibus Telethusa  "});index.add({'id':76,'href':'/docs/hugo-book/shortcodes/katex.html','title':"Katex",'section':"Shortcodes",'content':"KaTeX #  KaTeX shortcode let you render math typesetting in markdown document. See KaTeX\nExample #  {{\u0026lt; katex [display] [class=\u0026#34;text-center\u0026#34;] \u0026gt;}} f(x) = \\int_{-\\infty}^\\infty\\hat f(\\xi)\\,e^{2 \\pi i \\xi x}\\,d\\xi {{\u0026lt; /katex \u0026gt;}}     \\[f(x) = \\int_{-\\infty}^\\infty\\hat f(\\xi)\\,e^{2 \\pi i \\xi x}\\,d\\xi\\]    Display Mode Example #  Here is some inline example:  \\(\\pi(x)\\)  , rendered in the same line. And below is display example, having display: block  \\[f(x) = \\int_{-\\infty}^\\infty\\hat f(\\xi)\\,e^{2 \\pi i \\xi x}\\,d\\xi\\]  Text continues here.\n"});index.add({'id':77,'href':'/docs/hugo-book/shortcodes/mermaid.html','title':"Mermaid",'section':"Shortcodes",'content':"Mermaid Chart #  Mermaid is library for generating svg charts and diagrams from text.\nExample #  {{\u0026lt; mermaid [class=\u0026#34;text-center\u0026#34;]\u0026gt;}} sequenceDiagram Alice-\u0026gt;\u0026gt;Bob: Hello Bob, how are you? alt is sick Bob-\u0026gt;\u0026gt;Alice: Not so good :( else is well Bob-\u0026gt;\u0026gt;Alice: Feeling fresh like a daisy end opt Extra response Bob-\u0026gt;\u0026gt;Alice: Thanks for asking end {{\u0026lt; /mermaid \u0026gt;}}     mermaid.initialize({ flowchart: { useMaxWidth:true } });  sequenceDiagram Alice-Bob: Hello Bob, how are you? alt is sick Bob-Alice: Not so good :( else is well Bob-Alice: Feeling fresh like a daisy end opt Extra response Bob-Alice: Thanks for asking end   "});index.add({'id':78,'href':'/docs/hugo-book/shortcodes/tabs.html','title':"Tabs",'section':"Shortcodes",'content':"Tabs #  Tabs let you organize content by context, for example installation instructions for each supported platform.\n{{\u0026lt; tabs \u0026#34;uniqueid\u0026#34; \u0026gt;}} {{\u0026lt; tab \u0026#34;MacOS\u0026#34; \u0026gt;}} # MacOS Content {{\u0026lt; /tab \u0026gt;}} {{\u0026lt; tab \u0026#34;Linux\u0026#34; \u0026gt;}} # Linux Content {{\u0026lt; /tab \u0026gt;}} {{\u0026lt; tab \u0026#34;Windows\u0026#34; \u0026gt;}} # Windows Content {{\u0026lt; /tab \u0026gt;}} {{\u0026lt; /tabs \u0026gt;}} Example #  MacOS MacOS This is tab MacOS content.\nLorem markdownum insigne. Olympo signis Delphis! Retexi Nereius nova develat stringit, frustra Saturnius uteroque inter! Oculis non ritibus Telethusa protulit, sed sed aere valvis inhaesuro Pallas animam: qui quid, ignes. Miseratus fonte Ditis conubia.\nLinux Linux This is tab Linux content.\nLorem markdownum insigne. Olympo signis Delphis! Retexi Nereius nova develat stringit, frustra Saturnius uteroque inter! Oculis non ritibus Telethusa protulit, sed sed aere valvis inhaesuro Pallas animam: qui quid, ignes. Miseratus fonte Ditis conubia.\nWindows Windows This is tab Windows content.\nLorem markdownum insigne. Olympo signis Delphis! Retexi Nereius nova develat stringit, frustra Saturnius uteroque inter! Oculis non ritibus Telethusa protulit, sed sed aere valvis inhaesuro Pallas animam: qui quid, ignes. Miseratus fonte Ditis conubia.\n "});index.add({'id':79,'href':'/docs/hugo-book/menu/collapsed.html','title':"Collapsed",'section':"Menu",'content':"Acerbo datus maxime #  Astris ipse furtiva Est in vagis et Pittheus tu arge accipiter regia iram vocatur nurus. Omnes ut olivae sensit arma sorori deducit, inesset crudus, ego vetuere aliis, modo arsit? Utinam rapta fiducia valuere litora adicit cursu, ad facies  Suis quot vota Ea furtique risere fratres edidit terrae magis. Colla tam mihi tenebat: miseram excita suadent es pecudes iam. Concilio quam velatus posset ait quod nunc! Fragosis suae dextra geruntur functus vulgata.   Tempora nisi nunc #  Lorem markdownum emicat gestu. Cannis sol pressit ducta. Est Idaei, tremens ausim se tutaeque, illi ulnis hausit, sed, lumina cutem. Quae avis sequens!\nvar panel = ram_design; if (backup + system) { file.readPoint = network_native; sidebar_engine_device(cell_tftp_raster, dual_login_paper.adf_vci.application_reader_design( graphicsNvramCdma, lpi_footer_snmp, integer_model)); }  Locis suis novi cum suoque decidit eadem #  Idmoniae ripis, at aves, ali missa adest, ut et autem, et ab?\n"});index.add({'id':80,'href':'/docs/cnrm/survey/JNCC_habitat_survey.html','title':"JNCC Habitat Survey Mynnd Llangednai",'section':"Surveying",'content':".. contents:: Table of Contents :depth: 1\nJNCC habitat mapping is a rapid though fairly detailed mapping of vegetation habitats on the ground.\nSurvey Notes #  .. Figure:: ../images/OS_mynyddllangednai_smll.jpg :width: 300 :height: 453\nFig: Sketch map, survey area, Mynndd Llangednai\nAccess #  Restricted to paths. Varied vantage points were selected to map the area. Distances were gauged by pacing.\nSoil #  Brown earth, podzoidal, thin. Rocks break upon surface in places. Cambrian age sedimentary mudstone, and siltstone.\nBoundaries #  Upper slope boundary adjacent to conifer plantation, including some deciduous trees. Some stone walls. Semi-improved grassland at lower northern boundary. Well marked pathways at edge, indicating frequent or habitual use. Nearby small settlements and farm houses. Springs at the edge of boundaries.\nFeatures #  Sheep and ponies. One grazing pony visible. Narrow animal track running through the N. W. corner and occupying 3-4% of area. Apparently a sheep track.\nOther small trees and shrubs, close to quadrat; Hawthorn, Sycamore and Sloe. These indicate succession of invasive scrub, and possibly associated species.\nVegetation Sampling, Mynydd Llangedai #  Method #  10 metre square and larger homogeneous vegetation habitats were recorded. Ecotones not surveyed.\nThis NVC survey was conducted according to the methodology described in Rodwell, 1998. Our group was split into 5 teams and each team surveyed one quadrat each on three types of vegetation cover. We endeavoured to survery only homogeneous vegetation and avoid edge areas (ecotones), where vegetation is beginning to change into a different phytosociological community. Where it was felt that the quadrat may not fully represent the vegetation type additional notes were recorded, according to features present, or adjoining vegetative cover.\nQuadrat 1 #  2x 2m Gorse and Heather Heathland\n=================== =================== ======= ========= Common Name Scientific Name % Cover Dominant =================== =================== ======= ========= Common Heather Calluna vulgaris 65 8 Western Gorse Ulex gallii 40 7 Purple Moor-grass Molinia coerulea 25 5 Moss spagnum sp. 6 4 Cross-leaved Heath Erica tetralix 1 1 Sheeps Fescu Festuca ovina 1 1 Bell Heather Erica cinerea 1 1 Bilberry Vaccinium myrtillus 1 1 =================== =================== ======= =========\nQuadrat 2 #  2x2m Narrow strip of Bog sloping eastwards\n===================== ========================= ======= ========= Common Name Scientific Name Cover% Dominant ===================== ========================= ======= ========= Sheeps fescu Festuca ovina 50 7 Purple Moor-grass Molinea coerulea 40 7 Cross-leaved Heath Erica tetralix 20 5 Bog Asphodel Narthecium ossifragum 15 5 Moss Sphagnum sp. 15 5 Carnation Sedge Carex panicea 10 4 Tormentil Potentilla erecta 1 1 Devil\u0026rsquo;s-bit Scabious Succisa pratensis 1 1 Bulbous Rush Juncus bulbosus 1 1 Heath Milkwort Polygala serphyllifolia 1 1 ===================== ========================= ======= =========\nQuadrat 3 #  4x4m Heath with scattered trees and shrubs sloping south east\n=================== ==================== ======= ========= Common Name Scientific Name % Cover Dominant =================== ==================== ======= ========= Downy Birch Betula pubescens 20 5 Bracken Pteridium aquilinum 15 5 Moss Shagnum sp. 15 5 Yorkshire Fog Holcus lanatus 15 5 Bramble Rubus fruticosus 10 4 Creeping Bent Agrostis stolonifera 5 4 Wood Sorrel Oxalis acetosella 5 4 Tormentil Potentilla erecta 3 3 Heath Bedstraw Galium saxitile 3 3 Common Sorrel Rumex acetosa 1 1 Wood Sage Teucrium scorodonia 1 1 Ivy Hedera helix 1 1 Foxglove Digitalis purpurea 1 1 Slime Mould unclassified 1 1 =================== ==================== ======= =========\nManagement Notes, Mynydd Llangedai #  The Mynydd Llangedai Common is small, possibly a fragmented remnant. Scrub invasion indicates reduced use as a grazed heath in the past fifty years. Bracken indicates former woodland. The adjacent conifer woodland appears to have been replanted, containing some deciduous species.\nTarget notes #  Bold alphanumeric codes in brackets denote Phase 1 NVC designations, according to dominant species and abundance as % coverage. These codes are used on the schematic map attached Appendix 1). The notes includes species of interest, plus dominant species.\nMire, flush acid (E2.1) #   Thinner soil, flushes with small water courses. Indicators: Potamogetan polygonifolius (Bog pondweed), acid pools. * Nasturtium officinale (Watercress), prefers running water. Absence of Bog asphodel (Narthecium ossifragrum). Some Ulex galii, (Summer gorse) in clumps. Hypericum elodes (Bog St. John\u0026rsquo;s wort), Juncus effusus (Soft rush) Lotus alginosus (Larger Birds foot trefoil). Other species of note: Ranunculus flamula (Lesser spearwort), R. lingua (Greater spearwort), Prunella vulgaris (Selfheal), Cirsuim palustra (Marsh thistle).  Grassland, acid, unimproved with scattered bracken (B1.1/C1.2) #   This area shows evidence of recent grazing, possibly by sheep, and clearing of bracken by hand. Fairly uniform.  Heath, dry Acid dwarf shrub/Scrub, scattered (D1.1/A2.2) #   Dominated by gorse. Some common heather.  Heath, dry Acid dwarf (D1.1) #   A small number of Betula pubescens (Downy birch) stand here. Stream passes at edge.  Dense scrub (A2.2) #   Salix spp. includes Goat willow (Salix caprea),  Dry Acid dwarf shrub heath (D1.1) #  Wet heath/acid grassland mosaic (D.6/A2.2) #   Half acid grassland with some dwarf gorse (less than 25%), Juncus bulbosus; half wet heath with Molinea caerulea.  Mire, flush acid (E2.1) #   Sphagnum spp. small water course, some scattered gorse and, visible boulders.  Grassland, acid unimproved/Scrub, scattered\t(B1.1/A2.2, AG) #  Continuous bracken (C1.1) #   Scattered gorse.  Dense scrub (A2.2) #   Goat willow, edged with Blackthorn (Prunus spinosa).  Heath, dry Acid dwarf shrub/Scrub, scattered (D1.1/A22) #   Ulex galli (40%), Calluna vulgaris. Pteridium aquilinum (10%) (Bracken). Scattered downy birch (Betula pubescens) Hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna) Sycamore (Acer psuedoplatanus) and Blackthorn (Prunus spinosa). Other species of interests: Sphagnum sp (in places), Holcus lanatus. Rubus fruticosus, Agrostis stolonifera, Oxalis acetosella, Galium saxitile, Rumex acetosa, Teucrium scorodonia, Hedera helix, Digitalis purpurea.  Heath, dry Acid dwarf shrub (D11) #   Calluna vulgaria (65%), Ulex gallii (40%), Molinia coerulea, Erica tetralix, Festuca ovina, Erica cinerea, Vaccinium myrtillus, Sphagnum moss.  Mire, Flush acid (E2.1) #   Festuca ovina (50%), Molinea coerulea (40%), calluna vulgaris (40%), erica tetralix (10%) indicates acidity, erica cinerea 5%. Narthecium ossifragum (20%), Sphagnum sp. Carex panicea (10%), Potentilla erecta. Other species of interest: Succisa pratensis, Juncus bulbosus, Polygala serphyllifolia  Continuous bracken (C1.1) #  Dry Acid dwarf shrub heath (D1.1) #  Dry Acid dwarf shrub heath (D1.1) #   60% ericoids, including erica cinerrea (60%) and scattered gorse (ulex galii).  Grassland, acid unimproved/Scrub, scattered (B1.1/A22) #   Blackthorn, Sycamore, Hawthorn.  Bracken, continuous/Scrub, scattered (C1.1/A2.2) #   Some scattered gorse, scrub species of Hawthorn, Blackthorn, Sycamore and one Oak seedling at 3 metres. Signs of grazing at the edge of the conifer plantation.  "});index.add({'id':81,'href':'/docs/cnrm/agroforestry/mountain_culture.html','title':"Mountain Culture, Natural Resources and Tourism",'section':"Agroforestry",'content':"Table of Contents\n1\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Introduction 2\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Sustainable Tourism and Development 3\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Case Study, Annapurna 4\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Economic Initiatives 5\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Case Study, Mustang 6\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Case Study, Bhutan 7\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Case Study, Ghale Kharka Siklis 8\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Lessons From Case Studies 9\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Conclusion, Culture, Tourism and Natural Resources 10\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Discussion, Cultural Integrity 11\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Markets and the Resource Base 12\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Degeneration and Safeguards   Case studies from the Himalayan mountains in which the potential of sustainable tourism as a means to help safeguard rural communities is discussed.\n1\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Introduction Environmental Conservation is Cultural Conservation.\n \u0026quot;Tourism is a very dynamic industry. It is a goose that lays golden eggs if it is properly managed. Otherwise it also fouls its own nest.\u0026quot; ~ (Chandra Gurung) The present essay focuses on communities inhabiting Himalayan mountains, where tourism poses threats to sustainability due to a fragile environment and indigenous human culture. Nepal provides a number of interesting case studies. Eighty-two percent of an rising population in Nepal works in agriculture. The 1959 closure of Nepal/Tibet border destroyed traditional trade routes and induced migration from Tibet. Tourism is now seen as significantly contributing to the economy of Nepal. As many as Eighty- percent of 270,000 international tourists in Nepal could have engaged in some form of permit-based trekking in 1991, concentrated within the regions of Annapurna, Khumbu and Langtang Helambu.\nExternal pressures can force mountain communities to overexploit their resource base for survival. A low resilience of mountains arises due to steepness, low temperatures and thin, young soils. The time scale of ecosystem recovery may be hundreds of years.\n \u0026quot;The involvement of mountain peoples in Protected Area planning and management is especially imperative since they know how to live with mountains.\u0026quot; ~ (Lawrence S. Hamilton, 2002). The significance of culture for natural resource management is apparent in a diversity of cultures and subsistence strategies including multiple production zones, emerged as a response to the niche-specificity of mountains and the necessity to skilfully maximise production whilst at the same time minimising risk and conserving resources. Mountain cultures and environment are complementary, and in various stages of evolution (Shukadeb et al. 2001).\nBased on principles of reciprocity, a kind of give and take with an animated nature parallels the reciprocal relations within the social sphere. Thus cultural dissolution into dominant societies will have consequences for the indigenous people's ability to manage a fragile environment. Agents of cultural dissolution include resource-extraction, market expansion, tourism, immigration and emigration and population growth.\nHowever, mountain communities are among the world's poorest and most marginalised. Traditional economies suffer from unfavourable terms of trade (Mountain Institute, 2002). Traditional cultures of indigenous groups may be equally, or even more threatened than biological diversity (Byers, 1995).\n 2\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Sustainable Tourism and Development Decisions by many less Less developed Countries (LDC's) to place a high priority on tourism includes the willingness of the World Bank and others to fund projects. Tourism is viewed as an agent of regional development. Tourism to LDC destinations is steadily increasing (WTO 1995).\nMost if not all forms of tourism could be, with application, 'sustainable tourism', e.g. Disney World. Sustainable tourism facilitates sustainable tourism development (Butler, 1980), but not necessarily rural communities. Alternative tourism (AT) represents a shift in focus from the well-being of the tourist industry to the well-being of the host community. AT is characterised as small scale and low impacts. Ecotourism, a subset of AT, has the natural environment as main motive for travel (Cater, 1994).\nTrends exist towards synthesis of socio-cultural AT and environmental AT, as apparent in the community-based approach of Murphy (1985) to tourism planning. This approach offers potential for the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity (Moutain-Forum 1998), as a means for retaining limited-use zones, with sustainable harvests. Ecotourism as \u0026amp;#8220;a practical and effective means of obtaining social and economic improvement for all countries... \u0026amp;#8221; (Ceballos-Lascurain, 1991), offers more.\nThere is little extensive research on possible negative impacts (Singh, 1999). Where site-specific indicators exist, there is a difficulty in determining the extent to which tourism, as opposed to other forces, is culpable for any impact.\n 3\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Case Study, Annapurna Annapurna Conservation Area Project (ACPAP):\n3.1\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Planned Tourism Tourism came to Annapurna in the mid-1970's. King Mahendra Trust for Nature Conservation (KMTNC) initiated the ACPAP to minimise the negative impact from unplanned tourism and promote conservation and socio-economic development of the region. Change in status to a multiple use area in 1986 in place of the restrictive National Park recognised the need to accommodate traditional life styles. Environmental protection was to be combined with sustainable community development, in consultation with communities (Gurung, 1992).\nKMTNC studied and systematised a tradition of zones, including intensive-use, limited-use, and wilderness areas. A zone with traditions and cultures largely unchanged excluded tourism. A high impact-zone was marked for recovery-management where local communities had responded to emergent tourism with uncontrolled developments and deteriorating standards of accommodation.\n 3.2\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Reducing friction and negative impacts Lodges within ACPAP were moved to seven central sites, currently restricted to twenty-six lodges housing a maximum of fifteen guests each per night. To compensate for a decreased number of lodges, at least two households must share the ownership of each lodge. Social friction brought on by unhealthy competition among lodge owners was curtailed. Most lodges remained in the Sherpa hands, though a minority.\nCapacity-building measures brought improvements in waste disposal, reduced firewood consumption, improved food preparation,economic diversification, revenue retention. Traditional forest management committees, and lodge committees were made responsible for enforcing regulations, with success.\nFinancial sustainability to be achieved through user fees. Revenue sharing is used for community development and conservation. Demand for wood-fuel was having a severe impact upon forests close to trails and lodges. Key users of fuel wood were lodge-owners. All lodges today use kerosene and not wood for energy. Micro-hydro electricity was not available in the short time required.\n 3.3\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Immigration In ACPAP tacit agreements exist which to prevent outsiders to buy property, which prevents a mushrooming of second homes as has occurred in rural Alpine areas, and which presents another threat to physical and social environments: most of the new settlers who migrate to them differ from the indigenous people in both behaviour and economic activity (Singh 1999)\n  4\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Economic Initiatives Outside donors met 50% of initial ACPAP costs. Local contributions in money or in kind of a minimum 50% of the costs of a project promoted serious initial intent and ensure long term community commitment. In Syabru Besi, Nepal, tourism activities declined sharply when financial support was withdrawn (Banskota, 1998b). Grants can jump-start ecotourism initiatives. With free money, there is often a tendency to rush into tourism projects without a sound business plan.\nThe Asian Development Bank (ADB) provided loans to Nepal's KMTNC to develop micro-hydro electricity, campsites, and community lodges in the GKSEDP. Revenue-generating activities can repay loans. Loans were also provided to fund the development of trails, community drinking water, and waste management. Such activities enhance the experience for tourists but provide no direct benefits to the community, making these these loans difficult to manage. Grants may have been more appropriate for enhancing such public goods (Chandra Gurung (1998b).\nPermit fees should be able to recover direct costs and indirect cost such as trail maintenance, preservation of religious and sacred sites, and even support for local schools where government support is inadequate.\nADB is convinced that increasing the economic benefits from (or attributable to) protected areas may be the optimum strategy to avoid jeopardising the viability of natural resource systems (McNeely, 1994). However, the strategy will only succeed where ecotourism does not appropriate the environment and human societies, subtly redefined as universal property, through the imposition of elitist management plans.\nCombinations of grants, and NGO external assistance appear to be useful, if not essential to community initiatives. A royal trust proved effective in implementation of the ACAP because of its connections, autonomy from government, a uniquely Nepalese NGO (Wells \u0026amp; Brandon, 1992).\n 5\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Case Study, Mustang Upper Mustang Conservation and Development Project (UMCDP):\nUpper Mustang was opened to tourism in March 1992, a government policy of incremental increase in order to offset pressure in established sites. Mustang's capital Lo-Manthang, is 10 days hard walking from the nearest road-head. There is no communication linkage. Situated in a rain-shadow, with short growing season and under snow for 4 months. 70% emigrate for trade during winter, leaving only young and old. Fuel-wood is scarce.\nTrekkers were limited to 200 per year, compelled to join self-contained tenting groups and pay a fee of US$ 1000 per ten day trek. Fuel-wood was limited with a kerosene-only policy and tourists were required to carry waste out of Mustang.\nIn August 1992 the KMTNC was called in to identify needs and priorities. Time was spent establishing rapport with local people, and on environmental awareness activities, and UMCDP was established to develop infrastructure, build capacity and regulate tourism.\nPressure from the private sector: Unplanned Tourism Within two months of opening to tourism, lobbying by the tourist industry brought an initial US$1000 per ten day Mustang trek down to $700 ; expansion of a 200 persons per year limit to 400, and six months later to 1,000 tourists per year, in spite of perceived carrying capacities. Yet it was in response to such criticism that the ACAP was extended into Upper Mustang.\nThe Nepal government withheld money; only 41% instead of 60% promised given in 1992; this declined to 4.5% by 1997. Expectations of local people raised beyond realistic levels. Local people initially received no income (Shackley, 1996). Insistence upon self-contained tent treks employing non-local Sherpa and others incited local resentment, as revenues were negligible. Local people went in for quick money rather than long term returns.\nRules were set for tourists concerning fuel and waste, but not for porters and guides. With 4 staff per tourist on average, tourism has contributed to resource degradation and litter problems.\nThe number of horses kept has increased for hire to tourists, one of the few ways locals can profit from tourists. Numbers of yaks has declined. Horses are advised as pack animals, since they are (wrongly) advised to consume less of the rare food grains than porters.\nKeeping horses introduces competition between men and horses for grain, where only 55% of local food grains are met by local production. The price of grain has risen by three times in four years, since the opening of Mustang to tourism. Horse cannot graze at higher pastures; under-utilisation of high pastures and rangelands, coupled with collection of dung for fuel from rangelands, which are not suitable for horses, will contribute to overgrazing in the vicinity of villages (Blamont, 1996).\nThe KTMNC lobbied hard not to open Mustang for three years. The rapid pace at which tourism was brought in without infrastructure development or proactive community planning and training led to problems. Creation of economic disparity has brought about social disharmony. Clearly the private sector lacked long-term vision. Government policies changed often.\nAn officer was required to accompany each trek to ensure no smuggling of valuable artefacts out of Mustang, and that a proscribed route is followed. This failed to continue.\nFive international donor agencies in the UMCDP region have created problems with duplication, contrary methods and competition for community support. KMTC then led meetings with the government and these NGOs to improve co-ordination.\n 6\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Case Study, Bhutan 6.1\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Tourism as A Political Tool in Bhutan A policy of 'low-volume, high-yield' tourism (Sharma 1998d) has allowed for significant control over environmental and social impacts in Bhutan. The tourists are required to spend a minimum fee per day, 10% and 35% allocated respectively, to foreign travel agents and as a government royalty.\nMotivated by concerns over the Indian annexation of adjacent Sikkim, restrictive policies in Bhutan were ended in 1974, and tourism employed as a political tool to gain international recognition (Richter, 1989), and thereby tourism safeguards communities.\n  7\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Case Study, Ghale Kharka Siklis 7.1\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Ghale Kharka-Siklis Ecotourism Development Project (GKSEDP) ACAP organised Village Development Committees in the GKSEDP in advance. Committees responsible for managing natural resources, lodges, campsites, electricity, and a Mothers Group were duly established. The strength of each committee lies in a relatively broad community representation. The GKSEDP fostered community-owned lodges and campsites.\nA Langtang-Helambu exchange visit spurred the creation of a women's dance program for tourists, and a revolving loan program. The funds they generated are used to restore a local monastery. Participatory Rural Appraisal techniques and appreciative inquiry helped community members gain a better understanding of women's roles. Crafts are sold to tourists, but local markets are not well developed for such micro-enterprise.\n  8\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Lessons From Case Studies UMCDP Mustang, demonstrates how carrying capacities are difficult to gauge, frequently apparent only after they have been exceeded. Attempts to control visitation were thwarted because of lucrative revenues. Although a UMCDP work plan was drawn up, and infrastructure has been improved and established, the KMNTC had no well defined role, and was not authorised to enforce rules within the protected area. Development projects and licences were issued by the government without the knowledge of KMNTC. Overall responsibility for organisation and co-ordination of development activities remained in question, and for which the project suffered.\nACPAP is a fair example of deliberately planned AT designed to negate a boom and stagnation cycle, described by Butler (1980). However, increased tourist use of mountains also inevitably means increased biophysical and cultural impacts (Mountain Forum 1995). Zoning and regulation of a tourist region are essential for protecting the fragile environments and local culture ecology.\nGKSEP demonstrates how community-owned enterprises may safeguard social cohesiveness. Decentralised co-ordination and control, as opposed to consensus and independent action, were key to success in terms of equity and social cohesion. This appears to negate formation of a local elite. Community benefits were achieved through trusts. Outcomes in terms of status of the cultural relationship to the productive land base is yet to be determined.\nACPAP, UMCDP and GKSEP together demonstrate how without local participation in the design of development activities, benefits are less likely to provide widespread community benefits.\n 9\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Conclusion, Culture, Tourism and Natural Resources The case studies under examination indicate that a favourable national or regionally co-ordinated policy environment is central to the success of community-based mountain tourism. They indicate the potential of a decentralised approach. An understanding of local ecosystem processes, the organisational mechanisms through which communities interact with their physical environments, social dynamics at both the household and community levels, and local priorities are crucial to external aid.\nPlanned tourism cannot itself safeguard a mountain rural community, except perhaps temporarily, as in the case of Bhutan. Tourism is potentially ruinous to cultural integrity and resource.\nEquitable social improvements can be achieved through improved local infrastructure, by revenue sharing. Tourism can bring limited financial benefits and intercultural exchange if negative impacts can be avoided. To do so impacts must be considered in advance planning at a local level, in a principled way with deep appreciation of local culture.\nPrinciples that focus on traditional stewardship roles of mountain communities, as opposed to external and distant control, appear particularly promising. Such thinking has been greatly assisted by Chapter 13 of the 1992 Earth Summit's Agenda 21, entitled \u0026amp;#8220;Managing Fragile Ecosystems: Sustainable Mountain Development,\u0026amp;#8221;\nAny initiative to safeguard communities, must reverse existing processes of marginalisation of mountain cultures, and not exacerbate them. Appropriate technologies and capacity-building are essential.\n 10\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Discussion, Cultural Integrity There are signs the integrity of a culture in degeneration, and the examples which follow point to market forces, where, in addition to artefacts and practices, intrinsic values at at stake.\nSelling authentic and possibly sacred artefacts through desperation equals loss of culture, or because earning revenue is a higher priority equals devaluation of culture. Competition with cheap imitators lowers the value of original crafts where poor marketing skills exist. Culture is something that the people believe in implicitly; turning it into a pay performance, and it can no longer be believed in, in the way it was before. In effect this robs people of the very meanings by which they organise their lives (Greenwood, 1989). Where a small women's co-operative generates revenue that exceeds the combined income of all men in the village, for example, the situation is more likely to generate resentment than appreciation. Marginalisation occurs in terms of core-periphery relationships (highland - lowlands), and equity. A collaborative local elite reinforces the power of the local elite at the cost of wider community disempowerment (Hall, 1995). Of 56 larger trekking and travel agencies in Katmandu, 26 were controlled by Sherpas despite very small numbers (Robinson, 1994). Micro-enterprises can play a part in deculturisation through commodification; nature -based opportunities exist which may not have that effect. Alton Byers (1998), related the case of a Rai shikari (hunter) in Nepal who earned income from tourists as a naturalist after his hunting grounds were declared a national park. His many skills included the ability to call in several species of birds using grass blades, hollow reeds or whistles and identify the \u0026amp;#8220;thoughts\u0026amp;#8221; of a leopard by its pug marks.   11\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Markets and the Resource Base 11.1\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Markets and Relationship to the Resource Base Improved access to external markets is viewed by development experts in a positive light because of the access to jobs and cash incomes, but it means that communities no longer need to be self-sufficient. Shortfalls in subsistence production no longer need be disastrous as foodstuffs can now be purchased in local markets. Increasing dependence upon markets for agricultural inputs and food items erodes's traditional roles and knowledge, which in turn affects a households' ability to adjust to emergencies.\nWomen are now increasingly viewed simply in terms of their roles as providers of labour as opposed to managers of the land. Men increasingly migrate to seek employment in the foothills and plains to bridge the growing gap between subsistence production and consumption.\n 11.2\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Relationship to the subsistence base An altered relationship to the subsistence base is transforming patterns of natural resource use and management. With changes in dietary habits erosion of traditional genetic diversity has occurred. Hybrid wheat seeds produce shorter and thicker stalks which are not favoured as animal feed. As a consequence, in many areas women must rely heavily on forest leaves and grasses.\nOnce freely available grasses or wood have now been converted into commodities, making people dependent on access to cash for essential inputs. Women routinely travel considerable distances in order to exploit non-local natural resources, which generates tensions leading to a more proprietary attitude toward forest resources, a trend which emphasises competition between user groups rather than stressing similar interests and concerns.\nRenegotiation of work schedules erodes traditional household labour exchanges. Much work is conducted in isolation, which has affected the women's ability to perform traditional tasks. Lack of labour is leading to neglect of fields, terraces and irrigation channels and, collection of dung for use on agricultural fields. The collected dung normally ensures a minimum level of fertilisation for thin mountain soils, a crucial contribution to the sustainable use of resources in the mountains (Denholm, 1990).\n 11.3\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Tourist Enclaves It is feasible to consider that tourist enclaves may protect traditional life from intrusion. Most mountain tourism is concentrated within a limited space inside a few major trekking regions. Tourist may be influenced by the lifestyle of the hosts, but there is a tendency of tourists to adhere to their own cultural norms. Contact of small numbers of visitors may be insidious over time, and in a more invasive manner, as the alternative tourist seeks out a more \u0026amp;#8220;authentic\u0026amp;#8221; form of interaction with that community (MacCammall, 1976).\nStevens (1993) reports that although Sherpas have become more westernised, they have an enhanced ethnic pride because of valuation of their services and culture by tourists. Pride does guarantee safety for a cultural ecology. Cultural identities are intimately bound up with cultural ecologies which tend to be holistic (Croes, 2002).\n 11.4\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Leakage Only 20 cents for 3 dollars spent daily by trekkers was obtained by local villages in Annapurna (Gurung, 1992), due largely to the tendency of lodges to import foodstuffs and goods. Food imports designated for tourist consumption, but available to locals, provide a disincentive for local production. However, growth of tourism usually coincides with acquisition of mass media access, believed to be more persuasive than exposure to tourists, in encouraging a taste for imported products (Weaver, 1988).\nEntry-fees are a useful way to reduce leakage. An alternative of land use fees is provided by the Masai in Kenya, who are not interested in business, which in any case would damage their culture, were they to become vendors.\n  12\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Degeneration and Safeguards 12.1\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Identifying forces of degeneration Tourism is not the sole cause of degeneration of mountain livelihoods. The extent of the impact and degree of tourisms' culpability in deforestation is contentious; deforestation occurred long before the introduction of tourism (Stevens, 1993). A forest nationalisation decree accelerated deforestation 1957, undermining constraints imposed by communal and sacred stands, a measure which ironically was taken in order to prevent the continued conversion of forest into farmland (IUCN, 1991).\nHimalayan mountain cultures were once engaged in caravan trade through a continent-wide network. Introduction of Indian salt has severely reduced the once lucrative trans-Himalayan trade of Tibetan salt for Himalayan grains.\nSigning in 1983 of a pact between Nepal and China forbade transhumance patterns taking full effect in 1989 Affected winter pasture for yaks, which also accounts for their decrease. Unless Lobas can produce enough locally or through trade to support themselves, the few tourists entering Lo will behold a desert and ruins. (Blamont 1996). A Nepali government should engage in negotiations with China regarding mutual access to pastureland. Tourism cannot suffice as the main source of local income. Technological innovations in on-farm processing, and labour-reducing applications has potential to improve the welfare of highland communities.\n 12.2\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Safeguards Can tourism safeguard rural communities, with appropriate and effective planning and management? The case of Bhutan shows it can, as a political tool. However, this example also points to tourism's vulnerability to political instability, a reason why tourism cannot be relied on to safeguard communities. The Nepali government withheld funds, which jeopardises a project relying on fees, and serves to exacerbate marginalisation in terms of core-periphery relationships. It is unsurprising therefore, that concerns are raised about ACAP's future in the face of political problems (Shackley, 1996). Zurich (1992) provides a further warning: Remote areas are places where indigenous people traditionally reside; expanded tourism occurs precisely where the traditional interests of local people intersect with resource frontiers for national development.\nUMCDP further demonstrates how tourism may accelerate the decline of marginal activities, bringing negative impacts which outweigh financial returns to conservation and community development. A local strategic plan is required to establish and manage tourism in such a manner that maximises benefits to the community and equitably distributes those benefits is properly developed and executed. Local tourism strategic plans should aim only for the degree and type of change desired by the local community. Prior Informed Consent enables local people to enter into partnerships whilst being fully informed of the intentions and purposes of any programs, the possible benefits and risks, the documentation and ownership of cultural information, and legal means to opt out. (Croes, 2002). Who decides and who benefits and loses from decisions, should be explicit issues of discussion and debate among the people whose culture is at issue.\nIt should be noted, however, that local people have their own ways of categorising, valuing, and exploiting their natural surroundings. This means that local people and scientifically trained natural resource managers from outside do not know how to \u0026quot;talk\u0026quot; with each other - even when they speak the same national language. The creation of mutual, context-specific vocabularies would therefore seem necessary. (Croes, 2002). Should communities become dependent on outside experts who impose an AT model and re-educate the local people, the entire issue of local decision making control is called into question (Weaver, D. 1998). Conservation is likely to be most effective when it reinforces traditional rights and conservation practices (IUCN, 1980).\n  "});})();