Larry Dane Brimner, Charron Kazunas, Thomas Kazunas
From the Publisher: Children's Press is pleased to introduce True Books for a new generation! Completely redesigned for today's young, investigative reader, True Books are an indispensable addition to any collection. Each book guides the reader through the facts that nurture their need to know. The new, dynamic True Books design features: -- an inviting and interactive page format -- a readable and attractive typeface -- large, bold, and brilliant full-color photographs The True Books series takes the young reader beyond the standard, fact-filled text by adding avenues for further discovery. Each book includes a variety of sidebars, highlighting extra facts that will fascinate children. In the Important Words section, young readers will find a glossary of words that will both challenge and expand their vocabulary. Each book includes a To Find Out More section, where every curious reader can find a list of related books to read and organizations to contact. True Books also point readers to the vast electronic universe of information on the Internet. Each book will list: -- e-mail addresses to help the reader contact individuals and organizations -- appropriate newsgroups and mailing lists -- FTP sites to download fun and useful software Begun in the 1950s, True Books are universally embraced as the definitive nonfiction series for young readers. Now in its third incarnation, the True Books series has once again evolved to meet the needs and tastes of modern readers and educators.
{"title":"WORLD WIDE WEB","authors":"Larry Dane Brimner, Charron Kazunas, Thomas Kazunas","doi":"10.3368/er.16.1.114c","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3368/er.16.1.114c","url":null,"abstract":"From the Publisher: \u0000Children's Press is pleased to introduce True Books for a new generation! \u0000Completely redesigned for today's young, investigative reader, True Books are an indispensable addition to any collection. Each book guides the reader through the facts that nurture their need to know. \u0000The new, dynamic True Books design features: \u0000-- an inviting and interactive page format \u0000-- a readable and attractive typeface \u0000-- large, bold, and brilliant full-color photographs \u0000The True Books series takes the young reader beyond the standard, fact-filled text by adding avenues for further discovery. Each book includes a variety of sidebars, highlighting extra facts that will fascinate children. In the Important Words section, young readers will find a glossary of words that will both challenge and expand their vocabulary. Each book includes a To Find Out More section, where every curious reader can find a list of related books to read and organizations to contact. \u0000True Books also point readers to the vast electronic universe of information on the Internet. Each book will list: \u0000-- e-mail addresses to help the reader contact individuals and organizations \u0000-- appropriate newsgroups and mailing lists \u0000-- FTP sites to download fun and useful software \u0000Begun in the 1950s, True Books are universally embraced as the definitive nonfiction series for young readers. Now in its third incarnation, the True Books series has once again evolved to meet the needs and tastes of modern readers and educators.","PeriodicalId":105419,"journal":{"name":"Restoration & Management Notes","volume":"16 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2000-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130661151","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Barry Lopez (Crossing Open Ground) A parallel series of academic debates has arisen in the conservation and restoration fields over the contention that predominant ideas of nature are merely social constructions that bias our experience of the rest of nature. In the area of conservation biology, for example, J. Baird Callicott (1994), William Cronon (1995), and others have argued that since our understanding of nature is a subjective, mental construction, the idea of "wilderness" is meaningless in every sense of the term. The proponents of this view usually point out that pre-Columbian peoples often deliberately manipulated their environments, and therefore there is really no such thing as a pristine place. They argue that the definition of wilderness as a wild, unmanipulated place "untrammeled by humans" obscures the natural history of the North American continent. Wilderness in their view is illusory, a myth reflecting our Euro-American beliefs of alienation from the rest of nature. In restoration circles, there is a growing belief that a true reintegration of humans with the rest of nature will require that people be involved in restoration activities. Recently, some restorationists (for example, Jordan, 1994; Windhager, 1994, 1997) have carried this idea to its logical extreme, arguing that humans will only have an authentic relationship with nature through the active manipulation of their environment, represented by activities such as restoration. The bottom line of this argument is that the idea of wilderness is incompatible with the belief that value in nature arises from social beliefs and actions, such as through deliberate manipulation in the activity of restoration. Unfortunately, for all of its good intentions, this anti-wilderness perspective is incomplete and inadequate. There are many reasons why wilderness (defined as a place where humans do not actively and deliberately manipulate the environment) is still needed for both psychological and ecological reasons, regardless of the need the skeptics feel to define it out of existence. However, I do think that these critics are well-intentioned, as they want to insure a reintegration of culture with nature. Their argument is that the idealization of wilderness, traditionally defined as nature without people, underlies the inability of environmentalism to bring about the reintegration of nature and culture. Indeed, many conservationists, myself included, agree that humans must become reintegrated into the rest of nature if we are to insure the health of global and local environments. And I also agree with the argument that "wilderness" as a pristine, nonhuman place is an invention of the Euro-American mindset. But at the same time I believe that the anti-wilderness view will not contribute to the reintegration of nature and culture, but, in fact, will hinder it for several reasons. I agree with the philosophers who believe that the power of language to change belief is strong, although
{"title":"Toward Reconciling the Cultures of Wilderness and Restoration","authors":"D. Barry","doi":"10.3368/er.16.2.125","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3368/er.16.2.125","url":null,"abstract":"Barry Lopez (Crossing Open Ground) A parallel series of academic debates has arisen in the conservation and restoration fields over the contention that predominant ideas of nature are merely social constructions that bias our experience of the rest of nature. In the area of conservation biology, for example, J. Baird Callicott (1994), William Cronon (1995), and others have argued that since our understanding of nature is a subjective, mental construction, the idea of \"wilderness\" is meaningless in every sense of the term. The proponents of this view usually point out that pre-Columbian peoples often deliberately manipulated their environments, and therefore there is really no such thing as a pristine place. They argue that the definition of wilderness as a wild, unmanipulated place \"untrammeled by humans\" obscures the natural history of the North American continent. Wilderness in their view is illusory, a myth reflecting our Euro-American beliefs of alienation from the rest of nature. In restoration circles, there is a growing belief that a true reintegration of humans with the rest of nature will require that people be involved in restoration activities. Recently, some restorationists (for example, Jordan, 1994; Windhager, 1994, 1997) have carried this idea to its logical extreme, arguing that humans will only have an authentic relationship with nature through the active manipulation of their environment, represented by activities such as restoration. The bottom line of this argument is that the idea of wilderness is incompatible with the belief that value in nature arises from social beliefs and actions, such as through deliberate manipulation in the activity of restoration. Unfortunately, for all of its good intentions, this anti-wilderness perspective is incomplete and inadequate. There are many reasons why wilderness (defined as a place where humans do not actively and deliberately manipulate the environment) is still needed for both psychological and ecological reasons, regardless of the need the skeptics feel to define it out of existence. However, I do think that these critics are well-intentioned, as they want to insure a reintegration of culture with nature. Their argument is that the idealization of wilderness, traditionally defined as nature without people, underlies the inability of environmentalism to bring about the reintegration of nature and culture. Indeed, many conservationists, myself included, agree that humans must become reintegrated into the rest of nature if we are to insure the health of global and local environments. And I also agree with the argument that \"wilderness\" as a pristine, nonhuman place is an invention of the Euro-American mindset. But at the same time I believe that the anti-wilderness view will not contribute to the reintegration of nature and culture, but, in fact, will hinder it for several reasons. I agree with the philosophers who believe that the power of language to change belief is strong, although ","PeriodicalId":105419,"journal":{"name":"Restoration & Management Notes","volume":"27 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1998-12-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127862862","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
as performance? Dttual and performance are two ̄ ~words increasingly heard in discussions of ecological restoration, but they are terms that tend to create a lot of unease in a secular society. For those who like their ecology "straight," the idea of incorporating ritual and/or performance into restoration may sound like eccentricity at best, and quasi-religious propaganda at worst. However, for those who have a broader idea of what might constitute restoration practice, ritual and performance present intriguing elements that could serve to enhance the discipline. Claims for the potential of ritual in restoration have varied from the suggestion that it might be possible to create an ecological equivalent to the sacrament of Communion, to the more modest conviction that "giving back" to one’s place fosters a sense of humility and respect for the land. In both of these examples, however, the common underlying assumption is that to fulfill its potential, restoration must include a conscious renegotiation of the relationship between nature and culture, and that ritual and performance are means of effecting that. We propose that ritual and performance could be of considerable importance to the ongoing development of ecological restoration. There are, however, serious issues regarding its use that need clarification and discussion before ritual practice ought to embraced by restorationists. In this paper, therefore, we discuss a number of observations1 and claims about the potential of ritual in ecological restoration from the perspective of two schools of anthropological theory. As a first step we draw from literature in the anthropology of landscape, with its focus on the manner in which the relationship between nature and culture is constructed, to consider the claim that the Western relationship with nature needs to be, or even can be, reworked. Second, we use anthropological theories of performance to investigate how the various functions of ritual, such as creating meaning out of experience, and sparking creative and transformative power, could perhaps be applied to enhance restoration projects. However, this same body of theory raises concerns about such applications of ritual: if one accepts the view that ritual and performance are powerful enough to effect social change, then clearly they have political implications which must be grappled with before restorationists adopt them. There are four closely-connected terms used in this essay that require clarification: performance, ritual, rite and focal practice. We take performance to be the broadest term. For many anthropologists-notably Victor Turner, whose name is often associated with ideas about ritual-theories of performance have included discussions of rituals and rites. For our purposes "performance" means any planned, consensual set of actions. This very wide definition gives rise to all manner of public and private activity, from established practices such as theater to private rites of p
{"title":"The Rites of Spring (and Other Seasons)","authors":"Lisa Meekison, E. Higgs","doi":"10.3368/er.16.1.73","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3368/er.16.1.73","url":null,"abstract":"as performance? Dttual and performance are two ̄ ~words increasingly heard in discussions of ecological restoration, but they are terms that tend to create a lot of unease in a secular society. For those who like their ecology \"straight,\" the idea of incorporating ritual and/or performance into restoration may sound like eccentricity at best, and quasi-religious propaganda at worst. However, for those who have a broader idea of what might constitute restoration practice, ritual and performance present intriguing elements that could serve to enhance the discipline. Claims for the potential of ritual in restoration have varied from the suggestion that it might be possible to create an ecological equivalent to the sacrament of Communion, to the more modest conviction that \"giving back\" to one’s place fosters a sense of humility and respect for the land. In both of these examples, however, the common underlying assumption is that to fulfill its potential, restoration must include a conscious renegotiation of the relationship between nature and culture, and that ritual and performance are means of effecting that. We propose that ritual and performance could be of considerable importance to the ongoing development of ecological restoration. There are, however, serious issues regarding its use that need clarification and discussion before ritual practice ought to embraced by restorationists. In this paper, therefore, we discuss a number of observations1 and claims about the potential of ritual in ecological restoration from the perspective of two schools of anthropological theory. As a first step we draw from literature in the anthropology of landscape, with its focus on the manner in which the relationship between nature and culture is constructed, to consider the claim that the Western relationship with nature needs to be, or even can be, reworked. Second, we use anthropological theories of performance to investigate how the various functions of ritual, such as creating meaning out of experience, and sparking creative and transformative power, could perhaps be applied to enhance restoration projects. However, this same body of theory raises concerns about such applications of ritual: if one accepts the view that ritual and performance are powerful enough to effect social change, then clearly they have political implications which must be grappled with before restorationists adopt them. There are four closely-connected terms used in this essay that require clarification: performance, ritual, rite and focal practice. We take performance to be the broadest term. For many anthropologists-notably Victor Turner, whose name is often associated with ideas about ritual-theories of performance have included discussions of rituals and rites. For our purposes \"performance\" means any planned, consensual set of actions. This very wide definition gives rise to all manner of public and private activity, from established practices such as theater to private rites of p","PeriodicalId":105419,"journal":{"name":"Restoration & Management Notes","volume":"158 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1998-06-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115633174","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
procedures. T he vast majority of prairies in the lowlands around Puget Sound in Washington State have been lost to development, fire suppression (which has led to encroachment of woody plants), and other anthropogenic disturbances. Those fragments of prairie that do remain are highly vulnerable to additional fragmentation and invasion by exotic plants. In an attempt to reverse these trends, a number of conservation groups have recently begun intensive restoration efforts on remnant prairies in the Puget Sound lowlands (see map). A primary objective of this work is to expand and upgrade existing remnants of prairies, which requires large-scale planting projects. This, however, involves working with some 150 species, including many whose germination requirements are not well understood. It was the need for better techniques for germinating seeds of these species, whether for production of nursery stock or when seeding directly in the field that prompted this study.
{"title":"Techniques to Promote Germination of Seed from Puget Sound Prairies","authors":"D. Drake, K. Ewing, P. Dunn","doi":"10.3368/er.16.1.33","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3368/er.16.1.33","url":null,"abstract":"procedures. T he vast majority of prairies in the lowlands around Puget Sound in Washington State have been lost to development, fire suppression (which has led to encroachment of woody plants), and other anthropogenic disturbances. Those fragments of prairie that do remain are highly vulnerable to additional fragmentation and invasion by exotic plants. In an attempt to reverse these trends, a number of conservation groups have recently begun intensive restoration efforts on remnant prairies in the Puget Sound lowlands (see map). A primary objective of this work is to expand and upgrade existing remnants of prairies, which requires large-scale planting projects. This, however, involves working with some 150 species, including many whose germination requirements are not well understood. It was the need for better techniques for germinating seeds of these species, whether for production of nursery stock or when seeding directly in the field that prompted this study.","PeriodicalId":105419,"journal":{"name":"Restoration & Management Notes","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1998-06-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131307684","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
northern Florida. projects being undertaken in behalf of restoration of longleaf pine forests range from burning of fire-suppressed longleaf sites to wholesale restoration of entire communities. One of the most ambitious is the longleaf pine/wiregrass (sandhill) community restoration at The Nature Conservancy’s (TNC) Apalachicola Bluffs and Ravines Preserve (ABRP) in the Florida panhandle’s Liberty County, about 80 kilometers (50 miles) west of Tallahassee. This project is of special importance to the longleaf restoration effort because it represents leading edge research in the use of wiregrass reintroduction combined with prescribed burning to restore the community’s dominant groundcover and ecological processes. The longleaf pine/wiregrass community at ABRP is of special interest to restorationists in part because it offers a severely degraded and fragmented ecosystem in an ecological and institutional context that is ideal for a well-coordinated, long-term restoration effort. This is true despite the fact that the 2,540-hectare (6,300-acre) preserve was not acquired because of the ecological value of the upland forests. The conservation target was the slope forest community that threads through the site and the host of rare species found there. The steep slopes shelter northern species such as mountain laurel ( Kalmia latifolia ) , oak-leaf hydrangea (Hydrangea quercifolia ) , trailing arbutus ( Epigea repens), and southern copperhead (Agkistrodon contortrix)--all of which reach their southern limits here. The slopes also harbor a number of endemics including Florida torreya (Torreya taxifolia), Florida yew (Taxus floridana) and Apalachicola dusky salamander (Desmognathes apalachicoli). The sandhill community is found on hilltops and on the slopes of gently rolling hills. Their soils are composed of deep, marine-deposited, yellowish sands that are well-drained and relatively sterile. Water moves through these porous sands rapidly, so there is little runoff and minimal evaporation. Historically, the sandhill community supported an open canopy of longleaf pines, scattered oaks (Quercus laevis, Q. geminata, Q. incana, and Q. minima), wiregrass, and other grasses and forbs. The longleaf pine on the area that is now the preserve was selectively logged through the 1940s. Vigorous fire suppression at this time greatly reduced the frequency and number of fires, allowing gaps to close. Without fire, litter accumulated, eliminating the patches of bare soil needed for longleaf regeneration. Myers (1990) notes that foraging by hogs also limited pine regeneration as open range laws allowed domestic hogs to roam free, feeding on young trees throughout the longleaf sandhill areas. Clear cutting began in the mid-1950s and was followed by the mechanical clearing of all remaining vegetation into windrows, linear heaps of logging debris, other vegetation and topsoil. By 1958, the majority of the preserve’s sandhills had been cut and cleared. These heavily scari
{"title":"A Longleaf Pine Sandhill Restoration in Northwest Florida","authors":"G. Seamon","doi":"10.3368/er.16.1.46","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3368/er.16.1.46","url":null,"abstract":"northern Florida. projects being undertaken in behalf of restoration of longleaf pine forests range from burning of fire-suppressed longleaf sites to wholesale restoration of entire communities. One of the most ambitious is the longleaf pine/wiregrass (sandhill) community restoration at The Nature Conservancy’s (TNC) Apalachicola Bluffs and Ravines Preserve (ABRP) in the Florida panhandle’s Liberty County, about 80 kilometers (50 miles) west of Tallahassee. This project is of special importance to the longleaf restoration effort because it represents leading edge research in the use of wiregrass reintroduction combined with prescribed burning to restore the community’s dominant groundcover and ecological processes. The longleaf pine/wiregrass community at ABRP is of special interest to restorationists in part because it offers a severely degraded and fragmented ecosystem in an ecological and institutional context that is ideal for a well-coordinated, long-term restoration effort. This is true despite the fact that the 2,540-hectare (6,300-acre) preserve was not acquired because of the ecological value of the upland forests. The conservation target was the slope forest community that threads through the site and the host of rare species found there. The steep slopes shelter northern species such as mountain laurel ( Kalmia latifolia ) , oak-leaf hydrangea (Hydrangea quercifolia ) , trailing arbutus ( Epigea repens), and southern copperhead (Agkistrodon contortrix)--all of which reach their southern limits here. The slopes also harbor a number of endemics including Florida torreya (Torreya taxifolia), Florida yew (Taxus floridana) and Apalachicola dusky salamander (Desmognathes apalachicoli). The sandhill community is found on hilltops and on the slopes of gently rolling hills. Their soils are composed of deep, marine-deposited, yellowish sands that are well-drained and relatively sterile. Water moves through these porous sands rapidly, so there is little runoff and minimal evaporation. Historically, the sandhill community supported an open canopy of longleaf pines, scattered oaks (Quercus laevis, Q. geminata, Q. incana, and Q. minima), wiregrass, and other grasses and forbs. The longleaf pine on the area that is now the preserve was selectively logged through the 1940s. Vigorous fire suppression at this time greatly reduced the frequency and number of fires, allowing gaps to close. Without fire, litter accumulated, eliminating the patches of bare soil needed for longleaf regeneration. Myers (1990) notes that foraging by hogs also limited pine regeneration as open range laws allowed domestic hogs to roam free, feeding on young trees throughout the longleaf sandhill areas. Clear cutting began in the mid-1950s and was followed by the mechanical clearing of all remaining vegetation into windrows, linear heaps of logging debris, other vegetation and topsoil. By 1958, the majority of the preserve’s sandhills had been cut and cleared. These heavily scari","PeriodicalId":105419,"journal":{"name":"Restoration & Management Notes","volume":"150 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1998-06-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133747430","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：