Tundra

R. Harmsen , in Encyclopedia of Ecology, 2008

The Giant Lobelia and Its Insect Commensals on Kilimanjaro

Between 3000 and 4000 m on the slopes of Mount Kilimanjaro, the giant lobelia ( Lobelia deckenii) also has to face the stress of nightly frost, which can be severe due to parts of the Kilimanjaro alpine tundra being relatively dry. The plant has evolved into a ball-shaped rosette consisting of a fleshy center surrounded by concave spiky leaves, which are arranged in such a manner as to trap rainwater. A single plant can contain, trapped in its rosette, a compartmentalized mass of several liters of water. This volume is large enough to prevent it from freezing right to the middle in any one night. Indeed, the center of the plant where the growing tip is located maintains a very even temperature throughout the diurnal cycle. Not surprisingly, this water mass of the lobelia plants with its relatively even temperature has become the breeding environment for a few species of insects with aquatic larvae, the most abundant of which is a chironomid midge. The water in the lobelias also contains microorganisms, which feed on decomposing debris and are in turn the food for the insect larvae.

Read full chapter

URL:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780080454054003621

Available saffron formulations and product patents

Seyed Ahmad Mohajeri , ... Mehri Bemani-Naeini , in Saffron, 2020

33.4.42 Traditional Chinese medicine composition for treating ascites due to cirrhosis

This invention utilizes a traditional Chinese medicine formula for treating ascites due to cirrhosis. The composition is prepared from herbal medicines such as Chinese lobelia ( Lobelia chinensis), wrightia pubescens (Wrightia pubescens), Cynanchum paniculatum, semen cassia, Phyllodium pulchellum, Sculellaria barbata, rhizoma cyperi, L. wallichii, C. sativus, S. chinensis, Curcuma aromatica, etc. The invention treats cirrhosis-induced ascites by boosting qi circulation, clearing liver heat, alleviating depression, and detoxifying and promoting blood circulation. This results in removing blood stasis, inducing diuresis to relieve edema, dispelling wind, removing dampness, nourishing blood and liver, replenishing qi to invigorate spleen, modulating middle energizer, and tonifying qi. This product has the advantages of having great pharmacological function, exacting efficacy, quick effect, and compatibility with other drugs (Guohua, 2015).

Read full chapter

URL:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128186381000344

Veterinary Herbal Medicine: A Systems-Based Approach

Susan G. Wynn , Barbara J. Fougère , in Veterinary Herbal Medicine, 2007

BLOODROOT (SANGUINARIA CANADENSIS):

This plant has not been scientifically investigated for possible usefulness in respiratory disease. King's (Felter, 1898 ) describes its use in this way: "Its action upon the pulmonary organs is somewhat similar to that of lobelia. It is important as a stimulating expectorant, to be used after active inflammation has been subdued … It restores the bronchial secretions when scanty, and checks them when profuse … when … the secretions are checked, it restores them, and removes the dry, harsh cough. It is useful in both acute and chronic bronchitis, laryngitis, sore throat, and acute or chronic nasal catarrh. It acts as a sedative to the irritable mucous surfaces, promotes expectoration, and stimulates their functions … Pharyngitis, with red and irritable mucous membranes, and burning, smarting, or tickling, is cured by it … In pneumonia, after the inflammatory stage has passed, it may be given in 1- or 2-drop doses, frequently repeated, or it may be combined with wild cherry, lycopus, or eucalyptus." Bloodroot does not make an appearance in the old veterinary pharmacopoeias. The human dose recommended by the US Dispensatory (1918) is 0.13 g. This herb is more safely used as part of a formula.

Read full chapter

URL:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B978032302998850024X

Toxic Encephalopathies I: Cortical and Mixed Encephalopathies

Tracy J. Eicher , in Clinical Neurotoxicology, 2009

Plant Toxins

Many plants have long been recognized for their mind altering potential. Cannabis sativa (marijuana) and Lophophora williamsii, from which mescaline is derived, are well known for the pleasant encephalopathy they produce. Lobelia inflata (lobelia) and Argemone mexicana (prickly poppy) are euphoriants. Nicotiana (tobacco) species, Passiflora incarnata (passion flower), and Catha edulis (khat) are strong CNS stimulants that can, at higher doses, produce an acute encephalopathic state marked by agitation, confusion, and decreased attention. 128 Juniperus macropoda (juniper), Nepeta cataria (catnip), Piper methysticum (kava), Mandragora officinarum (mandrake), and Catharanthus roseus (Madagascar periwinkle) have hallucinogenic properties and can all be found in herbal supplements. Benign at low doses, they can each produce an acute encephalopathy at higher doses. The widely used kitchen spice nutmeg (Myristica fragrans) also has hallucinogenic properties at high doses. 129 Artemisia absinthium (wormwood), Valeriana officinalis (valerian), and Rauwolfia serpentina (snakeroot) have sedative properties and produce an encephalopathic state at moderate to high doses. 128 Scopolamine is a plant alkaloid that is active in the CNS. It is present in varying quantities in plants belonging to the Datura genus. Among the most notable are D. stramonium (jimsonweed) and D. snaveolus (angel's trumpet). "Datura tea," brewed from the leaves of some Datura plants, has been used as a home remedy for decades and has been a source of acute CNS toxicity. Symptoms of confusion, abnormal behavior, and hallucinations result. 130

The direct neurotoxic effects of these plants are generally fully reversible, and full recovery from acute encephalopathy is expected if effects from systemic compromise do not cause permanent CNS damage. The potential for long-term effects after repeated exposures to some of these agents remains under debate.

Read full chapter

URL:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780323052603500137

Safe Substitutes for Endangered Herbs: Plant Conservation and Loss of Our Medicines

Susan G. Wynn , in Veterinary Herbal Medicine, 2007

Picrorrhiza (Picrorrhiza kurroa)

Culture: Used in both Ayurvedic and traditional Chinese medicine. Often sold with (and not differentiated from) Neopicrorrhiza scrophulariifolia; the IUCN estimates that up to 80% of internationally traded picrorrhiza is actually neopicrorrhiza. Recent work on this herb has concentrated on identifying the actual amount exported.

Traditional uses: Indigestion, bitter tonic, constipation, periodic fever, liver problems, upper respiratory tract disorders, diarrhea, scorpion sting, and snakebite.

Unique or predominant chemical constituents: Unique constituents of this plant include kutkoside, kutkin and picrorrhizin, and glycosidic picrosides, as well as cucurbitacin glycosides.

Veterinary indications: Asthma, rheumatoid arthritis, gastrointestinal tract problems, hepatoprotection, immune modulator, vitiligo.

Suggested substitutes:

•

Gastrointestinal tract disorders: Gentian (Gentiana lutea), quassia (Picraena excelsa), barberry (Berberis vulgaris), wormwood (Artemisia spp).

•

Asthma: Coleus (Plectranthus barbatus), petasites (Petasites formosanus) , lobelia (itself on the UPS threatened list), English ivy, Ma huang (Ephedra sinica), tylophora (Tylophora indica, T. asthmatica), boswellia (Boswellia serrata).

•

Rheumatoid arthritis: Boswellia (Boswellia serrata), devil's claw (Harpagophytum procumbens), turmeric (Curcuma longa), meadowsweet (Filipendula ulmaria).

•

Hepatoprotection: Milk thistle (Silybum marianum), phyllanthus (Phyllanthus niruri), turmeric (Curcuma longa).

Read full chapter

URL:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780323029988500226

Introduction

De-Yuan Hong , in A Monograph of Codonopsis and Allied Genera (Campanulaceae), 2015

Systematic Position of Codonopsis and Allied Genera

There has been a common view that Codonopsis and allied genera belong to the Campanulaceae. The circumscription of the Campanulaceae, however, has involved different views. De Candolle (1839) treated it in a narrow sense, separating it from the Cyphiaceae (including Lobelia ), but including Pentaphragma with a question marker. Bentham and Hooker (1876) were the first to circumscribe the family broadly, including Lobelieae and Cyphieae. From then on botanists have been divided into two schools. Endlicher (1841), Baillon (1880), Wettstein (1924), Hutchinson (1973), Thulin (1975), Kovanda (1978), Dahlgren (1983), Takhtajan (1987, 1997), Lammers (1992), Cosner et al. (1994), and Gustafsson and Bremer (1995) hold the narrow view, whereas Schönland (1889), Bessey (1915), Wagenitz (1964), Cronquist (1981), Thorne (1992), Lammers (1998, 2007) Lammers 1998 Lammers 2007 , and Brummitt (2007) hold the broad view.

According to Gustafsson and Bremer (1995) the Campanulaceae clade includes five families: Campanulaceae, Nemacladaceae, Cyphiaceae, Cyphocarpaceae and Lobeliaceae. Lammers (1998, 2007) Lammers 1998 Lammers 2007 , however, treated these five families as five subfamilies in the Campanulaceae s. l.

Regardless of whether one accepts the family broadly or narrowly, the Campanulaceae (Gustafsson & Bremer, 1995) or the Campanuloideae ( Lammers (1998, 2007) Lammers 1998 Lammers 2007 ) is a monophyletic group. Therefore, it is a matter of taste to take either view. As we prefer to recognize the family in the strict sense, Codonopsis and its allies are members of the Campanulaceae s. s. Codonopsis and its allies have been placed in the Campanulaceae since de Candolle (1830, 1839) Candolle 1830 Candolle 1839 .

Phylogenetic relationships of the genera within the Campanulaceae s. s., however, are far from well established. As stated by Kovanda (1978), "The family Campanulaceae……is rather natural and homogeneous but its subdivision presents serious problems……". De Candolle (1839) divided the family into three tribes, Wahlenbergieae Endl., Campanuleae G. Don and Mercieae A. DC., and placed Campanumoea, Codonopsis, Canarina and Platycodon together with Wahlenbergia in Wahlenbergieae. His Codonopsis is actually Cyclocodon, while he treated true Codonopsis, including the first described three species of Codonopsis, i.e. C. viridis, C. thalictrifolia and C. purpurea, as members of Wahlenbergia. Two issues have been involved in the systematic position of Codonopsis and allied genera. First, since de Candolle (1839), Codonopsis and its allies have been placed together with Wahlenbergia primarily because they share a loculicidal capsule. Second, the circumscription of Codonopsis and its phylogenetic relationships with its allies have been unclear. They were distantly separated and placed in different groups. Schönland (1889) divided the tribe Campanuleae (= Campanulaceae s. s.) into three subtribes, with Codonopsis, Campanumoea, Leptocodon and Cyananthus along with Wahlenbergia in the Wahlenberginae, Platycodon, Microcodon and Musschia in the Platycodinae, and Canaria and Ostrowskia together with Campanula and Adenophora in the Campanulinae. Some authors went even further. For example, Kolakovsky (1987 & 1994) Kolakovsky 1987 Kolakovsky 1994 partitioned Codonopsis and its allies into two groups and placed Codonopsis, Leptocodon and Platycodon, all with capsular fruit, together with Wahlenbergia in the Wahlenbergioideae, while he placed Canarina and Campanumoea with baccate fruit in the separate subfamily, Canarinoideae. Although Takhtajan (1997) was the first botanist who separated Codonopsis, Leptocodon, Campanumoea, Cyananthus, Platycodon from Wahlenbergia, he also separated Canarina and Ostrowskia as two independent subfamilies, Canarinoideae and Ostrowskioideae. Recent molecular work (Eddie et al., 2003; Haberle et al., 2009) have provided insights into the phylogenetic relationships within the Campanulaceae s. s., but unfortunately sampling in those studies was not adequate enough to clarify the systematic position of Codonopsis and its relationships with its allies, which remains our present task. Chapter III provides a detailed discussion of this issue.

Read full chapter

URL:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128019337000015

FILAMENTOUS AND PLANTLIKE GREEN ALGAE

David M. John , in Freshwater Algae of North America, 2003

VII. GUIDE TO LITERATURE FOR SPECIES IDENTIFICATION

The majority of freshwater algal genera have a world-wide distribution. For this reason, floristic works covering other regions of the world can be used in identifying North American algae. Many of the more useful and comprehensive works dealing with green algae are frequently in languages other than English. For example, Starmach's series of volumes on the freshwater algae of Poland are very useful since coverage is world-wide. These are written in Polish, although the volume dealing with filamentous green algae (Starmach, 1972) has a key in English. Very few libraries or institutions hold more than a fraction of these works, some of which are difficult to use even by specialists possessing a working knowledge of the language. Most of the most useful monographs, flora's and identification guides on freshwater algae are listed in "Key Works to the Fauna and Flora of the British Isles and North-western Europe" (Sims et al., 1988).

The majority of the green algal genera considered in this chapter are mentioned in Smith's classical work Fresh-water Algae of the United States (Smith, 1933, 1950) and various regional floristic works (e.g., Prescott, 1951; Tiffany and Britton, 1952; Whitford and Schumacher, 1963). The regional floristic works are useful for species level identification since they contain descriptions, keys, and are profusely illustrated. Sometimes the charophytes are not included in these treatments, one of the few major algal groups for which there exists a complete world-wide review. This review by Wood and Imahori (1964, 1965) still remains the most comprehensive treatment of the group and includes much data on North American charophytes. The first author also published a useful guide to the charophytes of North America, Central America, and the West Indies (Wood, 1967) and 20 years earlier had reviewed the genus Nitella in North America (Wood, 1948). One of the first comprehensive treatments of North American green filamentous algae was Hazen's monograph The Ulothricaceae and Chaetophoraceae of the United States (Hazen, 1902) with many considered in The Green Algae of North America by Collins (1904). Another monographic treatment was Tiffany's monumental work on North American Oedogoniales (Tiffany, 1937) following an earlier publication dealing with the order world-wide (Tiffany, 1930). Unfortunately, all these useful identification works are unobtainable except through secondhand booksellers. The most useful modern series of identification guides for North American algae has been written by Dillard and covers the southeastern part of the United States. The volume dealing with the filamentous green algae was published in 1989 and like others in the series mentions taxa known elsewhere in the United States. The most useful and comprehensive volume on filamentous and parenchymatous freshwater green algae is undoubtedly Die Chaetophoralean der Binnengewässer (Printz, 1964). Like the major of works mentioned above, it has been long out of print and only obtainable through the secondhand book trade.

The following is a list of works dealing with North American genera; often these cite references to earlier literature. Sometimes no modern treatment exists, and the most comprehensive account is to be found in earlier, sometimes obscure, and often out of print works (e.g., Printz, 1964; Smith, 1950; Starmach, 1972). Otherwise, identification has to be based on keys, descriptions, and illustrations in more general floristic works such as John et al., (2002).

1.

Apatococcus—Ettl and Gartner (1995), Gartner and Ingolic (1989), Prescott (1983), Printz (1964).

2.

Aphanochaete—Dillard (1989), Prescott (1962), Printz (1984), Starmach (1972), Tupa (1974).

3.

Basicladia—Dillard (1989), Prescottt (1983).

4.

Binuclearia—Dillard (1989), Prescott (1983).

5.

Bulbochaete—Dillard (1989), Mrozinska (1985), Tiffany (1930, 1937, 1944).

6.

Cephaleuros—Dillard (1989), Printz (1964), Thompson and Wujek (1997).

7.

Chaetomorpha—Faridi (1962).

8.

Chaetonema—Dillard (1989), Prescott (1983), Printz (1964), Tupa (1974).

9.

Chaetophora—Dillard (1989), Prescott (1983), Printz (1964), Stamarch (1972).

10.

Chaetosphaeridium—Dillard (1989), Prescott (1983), Printz (1964).

11.

Chamaetrichon—Tupa (1974).

12.

Chara—Wood (1967), Wood and Imahori (1964, 1965).

13.

Chlorochytrium—Chapman and Waters (1992), Prescott (1983).

14.

Chlorotylium—Dillard (1989), Prescott (1983), Printz (1964).

15.

Cladophora—Hoek (1963, 1982).

16.

Cloniophora—Dillard (1989), Islam (1961), Prescott (1983), Starmach (1972).

17.

Coleochaete—Dillard (1989), Prescott (1983), Printz (1964), Szymanska and Spalik (1993).

18.

Conochaete—Prescott (1983), Printz (1964), Smith (1933, 1950).

19.

Ctenocladus—Blinn and Stein (1970), Prescott (1983).

20.

Cylindrocapsa—Dillard (1989).

21.

Dermatophyton—Prescott (1983), Printz (1964), Smith (1933, 1950), Starmach (1972).

22.

Desmococcus—Ettl and Gartner (1995), Gartner and Ingolic (1989), Printz (1964).

23.

Dicranochaete—Dillard (1989), Matula (1992), Prescott (1983), Printz (1964).

24.

Dichotomosiphon—Dillard (1989), Prescott (1983).

25.

Dilabifilum—Johnson and John (1990).

26.

Draparnaldia—Dillard (1989), Forest (1976), Prescott (1983), Printz (1964), Starmach (1972).

27.

Draparnaldiopsis—Forest (1976), Printz (1964), Prescott (1983), Starmach (1972).

28.

Entocladia—Dillard (1989), Prescott (1983), Printz (1964), Smith (1933, 1959).

29.

Elakatothrix—Prescott (1983), Printz (1964).

30.

Entermorpha—Prescott (1983), Bliding (1963).

31.

Filoprotococcus (=Trichosarcina)—Nichols and Bold (1965), Prescott (1983), Thompson and Wujek (1996).

32.

Fridaea—Prescott (1983), Printz (1964).

33.

Fritschiella—Prescott (1983), Printz (1964).

34.

Geminella—Dillard (1989), Prescott (1983).

35.

Gloeotila—Printz (1964), Ramanthan (1964), Smith (1933, 1950).

36.

Gloeotilopsis—Ramanthan (1964).

37.

Gomontia—Dillard (1989), Prescott (1983).

38.

Gongrosira—Dillard (1989), Printz (1964), Starmach (1972), Tupa (1974).

39.

Hazenia—Bold (1958), Prescott (1983).

40.

Helicodictyon—Dillard (1989), Biebl (1968), Prescott (1983), Whitford and Schumacher (1969).

41.

Hormidiopsis—Prescott (1983).

42.

Klebsormidium—Dillard (1989), Ettl and Gartner (1995), Lokhorst (1996), Ramanthan (1967).

43.

Koliella—Hindak (1983), Prescott (1983).

44.

Leptosira—Dillard (1989), Ettl and Gartner (1995), Starmach (1972), Steil (1944), Tupa (1974), Wujek (1971).

45.

Microspora—Dillard (1989), Prescott (1983), Lokhorst (1999), Ramanthan (1964).

46.

Microthamnion—Dillard (1989), John and Johnson (1987), Printz (1964).

47.

Monostroma—Bliding (1968), Prescott (1983), Taft (1964).

48.

Nitella—Wood (1948, 1967), Wood and Imahori (1964, 1965).

49.

Oedocladium—Dillard (1989), Ettl and Gartner (1995), Mrozinska (1985), Tiffany (1930, 1937).

50.

Oedogonium—Dillard (1989), Hoffman (1967), Tiffany (1930, 1937), Yung et al. (1986).

51.

Oligochaetophora—Prescott (1983), Printz (1964).

52.

Phycopeltis—Printz (1994), Prescott (1983).

53.

Phyllosiphon—Dillard (1989), Prescott (1983).

54.

Pithophora—Dillard (1989), Prescott (1983).

55.

Pleurastrum—Groover and Bold (1969), Starmach (1972), Tupa (1974).

56.

Polychaetophora—Prescott (1983), Smith (1933, 1950).

57.

Prasiola—Ettl and Gartner (1995), Rindi et al. (1999), Smith (1933, 1950).

58.

Printzia—Thompson and Wujek (1992).

59.

Protoderma—Dillard (1989), Printz (1964), Starmach (1972), Tupa (1974).

60.

Protosiphon—Dillard (1989), Whitford and Schumacher (1967).

61.

Pseudendoclonium—Dillard (1989), John and Johnson (1989), Printz (1964), Tupa (1974).

62.

Pseudochaete—Prescott (1983), Smith (1933, 1950).

63.

Pseudoschizomeris—Deason and Bold (1960), Ettl and Gartner (1995), Prescott (1983).

64.

Pseudulvella—Dillard (1989), Prescott (1983), Printz (1964).

65.

Radiofilum—Dillard (1989), Prescott (1983), Printz (1964).

66.

Raphidonema—Dillard (1989), Hindák (1963), Hoham (1973), Prescott (1983), Printz (1964).

67.

Raphidonemopsis—Deason (1969), Ettl and Gartner (1995).

68.

Rosenvingiella—Edwards (1975).

69.

Rhizoclonium—Dillard (1989), Prescott (1983).

70.

Schizomeris—Campbell and Sarafis (1972), Dillard (1989), Prescott (1983), Printz (1964).

71.

Sphaeroplea—Dillard (1989), Prescott (1983).

72.

Stichococcus — Dillard (1989), Ettl and Gartner (1995), Hindák (1996), Printz (1964), Ramanthan (1964).

73.

Stigeoclonium—Dillard (1989), Cox and Bold (1966), Islam (1963), Printz (1964), Starmach (1974).

74.

Stomatochroon—Thompson and Wujek (1997).

75.

Thamniochaete—Dillard (1989), Prescott (1983), Printz (1964), Starmach (1974).

76.

Tolypella—Wood (1946, 1967), Wood and Imahori (1964, 1965).

77.

Trentepohlia—Dillard (1989), Ettl and Gartner (1995), Printz (1964), Starmach (1972).

78.

Trichodiscus—Printz (1964), Starmach (1974).

79.

Trichophilus—Bourrelly (1988), Printz (1964), Starmach (1974).

80.

Ulothrix—Dillard (1989), Lokhorst (1979), Printz (1964), Starmach (1972).

81.

Uronema—Dillard (1989), Ettl and Gartner (1995), Prescott (1983), Printz (1964), Starmach (1972).

Read full chapter

URL:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B978012741550550009X

Buffer Zones

J.S. Schou , P. Schaarup , in Encyclopedia of Ecology, 2008

Case Study – Ammonia Buffer Zones in Denmark

On 1 January 2007 a new integrated environmental accreditation scheme for all livestock farms was passed in Denmark. According to this scheme all farms with more than 75 animal units (one animal unit correspond to the nitrate production of one jersey cow) have to be approved based on their extra loss of nutrients when applying for an increase of the number of animal units. The integrated approach means that all environmental emissions have to be considered in the application including ammonia emissions from the stables and manure containers.

The general accreditation rule is that all the ammonia emissions from the new stables have to be generally reduced with more than 15% compared to the best available stable system. This general rule is supplemented by an individual regulation regarding the contribution of ammonia emission from the farms (if these are adjacent, i.e., situated within a buffer zone around) to the following types of nitrogen vulnerable areas: (1) raised bogs; (2) lobelia lakes; (3) moors larger than 10  ha and all moors in NATURA 2000 areas; (4) uncultivated, dry meadows larger than 2.5   ha and all uncultivated, dry meadows in NATURA 2000 areas; and (5) nitrogen vulnerable lakes in NATURA 2000 areas. Around these areas the regulation is divided into three parts:

1.

Buffer zone I. If just one of new or modified stable or manure container of the farm is situated less than 300   m from the vulnerable area no increased emission is approved.

2.

Buffer zone II. If just one of new or modified stable or manure container of the farm is situated less than 100   m from the nitrogen vulnerable area, a standardized emission calculation has to be carried out. The total contribution of ammonia deposition from the new or modified stables in the vulnerable area may not exceed 0.7   kg   N   mminus;2. In order to take the cumulating aspects into account the maximum accepted increase in the ammonia deposition descends if another farm with more than 75 animal units is situated close to the nitrogen vulnerable area; if only one farm is situated closer than 1000   m from the new or modified stables then the contribution of ammonia from the new or modified stables in the vulnerable area may not exceed 0.5   kg   N   mminus;2. If two or more farms with more than 75 animal units are situated closer than 1000 m from the new or modified stables, the threshold is 0.3   kg   N   mminus;2.

3.

Outside the buffer zones. No individual regulation of the ammonia emissions from the farms under environmental approval.

The nitrogen vulnerable areas were pointed out by a national committee (Wilhjelm-udvalget). Afterwards the areas were adopted as part of the third Aquatic Action Plan, and the regulation related to the ammonia buffer zones was implemented as part of the new law on environmental approval of livestock farms as the primary basis for the individual regulation of ammonia emissions.

The scope for making this graduate regulation with two buffer zones is to make a differentiated incitement for the farms to locate new or extended stables at a proper distance from the vulnerable areas. Further, buffer zones are considered as a cost-effective way to focus the regulation in areas where the environmental effect is significant. Furthermore, one of the scopes is to ease the administrative costs because only in buffer zone II the more complicated and costly calculations of emissions are needed. Furthermore, in order to reduce the administrative burdens and to ensure the quality of the applications all environmental calculations (including ammonia emission calculations) and other information needed for the application for an integrated environmental approval are integrated in a new internet-based digital application system (www.husdyrgodkendelse.dk).

Read full chapter

URL:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780080454054000409

Challenging Behavior

Darragh P. Devine , Frank J. Symons , in International Review of Research in Developmental Disabilities, 2013

2 Early Behavioral Development of SIB

As mentioned above, the behavioral technology of ABA provides a powerful tool with which to identify putative reinforcing social stimuli that function to maintain some forms of SIB for individuals with I/DD. From a purely practical standpoint, knowing details about the etiology of an individual's SIB may (1) not be possible once it is well established, and (2) not be relevant to design an intervention if the current maintaining variables (i.e. functional reinforcers) can be identified. The ABA approach is not in dispute; but nothing in the approach necessarily relates to or accounts for the origins of the behavior disorder in the first place. But, given the clear evidence that the SIB of many individuals with I/DD is sensitive to reinforcement contingencies, a logical theoretical starting point in considering the etiology and early development of SIB would be to consider their role in the onset of the disorder.

Several authors have provided such conceptual accounts (Guess & Carr, 1991; Kennedy, 2002; Richman, 2008). There have also been corresponding empirical analyses of the early development of SIB in line with operant/functional models including Richman and Lindauer (2005) and Oliver and colleagues (Hall, Oliver, & Murphy, 2001; Oliver, Hall, & Murphy, 2005). Two general approaches have more or less followed. In one, young children with some type of developmental delay or specific genetic condition with SIB already in their repertoire are studied by applying behavior analytic assessment technology and testing/demonstrating whether the SIB that is occurring early in the child's development is already sensitive to reinforcement contingencies (Oliver et al., 2005; Richman & Lindauer, 2005). In the other approach, relatively short time scale natural-history type studies have been conducted (Berkson & Tupa, 2000; Berkson, Tupa, & Sherman, 2001) in which children with developmental delays/disabilities with or without specific genetic syndromes are followed using repeated measures to monitor for the emergence of SIB.

The results of the former approach generally show that reciprocal social (operant) reinforcement processes may well function as a mechanism through which the expression of SIB emerges. For example, Oliver et al. (2005) utilized a prospective study design to describe early social interactions among children (N = 16) with I/DD who had recently started to show SIB. Increased SIB over the 2-year period was correlated with a distribution of adult social contact relative to SIB bouts in patterns consistent with social reinforcement processes. In the field of developmental psychopathology, one perspective is that early socialization mechanisms may potentiate the expression of a specific trait. The notion of socialization mechanisms functioning as "potentiators" for the etiology and expression of SIB in children with I/DD and particular biological vulnerabilities is consistent with the variability of observed expression and environmental moderation. On the other hand, Richman and Lindauer (2005) in a study using experimental analysis to test early social reinforcement effects on a cohort of young children (N = 12) with I/DD did not find clear experimental evidence for social learning variables influencing the majority of the observed motor stereotypy, proto-SIB (topographically similar but with no tissue damage), or SIB. Although, over the course of the study one child's SIB did differentiate by social reinforcement condition into a clear pattern of SIB being regulated, in part, by maternal social reinforcement. This child, however, already had SIB in his repertoire prior to the differentiation. Here, again, we see that etiology and maintenance may be different processes.

In the limited number of descriptive natural-history studies specific to children with I/DD or at risk for I/DD, results tend to suggest that a range of distinct repetitive movements including SIB, stereotyped motor behavior, and proto-SIB emerge between birth to three, and that these topographies may resolve developmentally or persist along a different developmental trajectory as pathological behaviors (Berkson et al., 2001; Berkson & Tupa, 2002). Despite this innovative labor-intense work by Berkson and colleagues, we still know very little about the early developmental course of SIB, how it relates to naturally occurring early rhythmic or repetitive behavior, or its relation to any forms of early aberrant repetitive behavior such as motor stereotypies (Symons, Sperry, Dropik, & Bodfish, 2005). Richman (2008) extended a behavioral model outlined by Guess and Carr (1991) in which specific features of the social context can acquire discriminative, reinforcing, and evocative functions supporting and shaping early forms of SIB and, perhaps, the evolution of early repetitive behavior into SIB (Kennedy, 2002). Although behavioral mechanisms appear to provide a parsimonious model as to why some forms of SIB persist, they do not adequately account for the initial emergence of SIB. In the original description of what has become the standard experimental (i.e. functional analysis) technology for the assessment of SIB, Iwata, Dorsey, Slifer, Bauman, and Richman (1982) stated that the purpose of the approach was not to address the issue of environmental vs physiological determinants of self-injury in regard to etiology or maintenance. The authors went on to suggest that applying functional analysis might be helpful in reducing the effects of environmental variance in biobehavioral investigations of self-injury even in cases where the maintenance of SIB appeared to be largely biological.

Herein lies an additional important point – the problem of "either/or" thinking with respect to SIB - either it is "behavioral" or it is "biological". The original report's purpose was not to argue for such a dichotomy. Behavior is the property of a biological system; arbitrarily dichotomizing SIB makes no more sense than outdated arguments about nature vs nurture. Contemporary accounts turn on nature and nurture and so must our thinking on self-injury. What we are left with, then, is still the issue of what makes any one child with significant impairments and repetitive behavior any more or less likely to be susceptible to reinforcement mechanisms and social context effects than the next? What seems to be missing, at least in part, is an account linking the putative biological vulnerabilities with potentiating environments (i.e. risk factors) that leads to a behavior disorder as debilitating as SIB.

Read full chapter

URL:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780124016620000026

Conserving the Flora of Limestone Cedar Glade Communities of the Southeastern United States

Ashley B. Morris , ... Clayton J. Visger , in Reference Module in Earth Systems and Environmental Sciences, 2021

Introduction

Calcareous glades and associated barrens of the southeastern United States (US) are highly fragmented habitats supporting unique floristic communities. The geological substrates underlying these glades and barrens vary (primarily Paleozoic limestone and dolomite formations) and support a diverse array of plant species assemblages across sites (Lawless et al., 2006). The Central Basin of Middle Tennessee has the greatest concentration of limestone glade habitats in the Southeastern US, and as such, has been recognized as a center of rare vascular plant endemism within the region (Estill and Cruzan, 2001). According to Baskin and Baskin (1986), such glades harbor as many as 400 vascular plant taxa, 22 of which are endemic to these habitats.

While these sites are often referred to as 'cedar glades' due to the presence of eastern redcedar (Juniperus virginiana L.; Cupressaceae) near the edges, they are traditionally described as being open, thin-soiled habitats with very few trees (Fig. 1). Middle Tennessee glades are found on exposed Stones River Group Limestones of Ordovician age, with soil depths ranging from essentially zero to less than 30   cm (Quarterman, 1950). Gattinger (1901) was one of the earliest to write about these unique habitats, emphasizing the herbaceous floristic diversity that he observed:

Fig. 1

Fig. 1. John & Hester Lane Cedar Glades State Natural Area, Wilson County, Tennessee, USA.

 Image credit: D Lincicome.

The somber tint of the cedar delineates a cedar barren from its surroundings at a distance, and serves within its environs to bring out with dazzling vividness the beautiful green of the glade grass, aglow with rose-colored petalestemons, sky-blue lobelias, golden Leavenworthias, Schoenoliriums and shrubby hypericums… Cream-colored and blue astragals ( Astragalus plattensis and Astragalus caryocarpus), and a purple, large-flowered, and prostrate psoralea (Psoralea subacaulis)… And many more assemble—a natural conservatory that could fearlessly challenge any flower garden in the combined effect of gayety and luxuriance. For truth, my honored Tennessee friends, go and see, and learn to appreciate and to preserve such great ornaments of your native land.

Interestingly, many of the taxa mentioned by Gattinger (following modern taxonomic revision) are recognized today as glade endemics of conservation concern. Quarterman (1950) estimated that cedar glades only covered about 5% of the Central Basin of Middle Tennessee, highlighting the fact that cedar glades are relatively small in area and few in number. Unfortunately, much of this rare habitat occurs near the large and growing metropolitan centers of Nashville and Murfreesboro, Tennessee. Thus, urban growth and other development pose a major threat to cedar glade communities, resulting in the continued loss of these unique ecosystems to habitat destruction. Off-road vehicle traffic and the dumping of trash further degrade many glades. Additionally, the encroachment of woody vegetation and invasive species, perhaps due to alteration of historic and pre-historic fire regimes, is a threat and major management issue for most glades and the adjacent barrens and open woodlands (Noss et al., 2021). Fire, along with other natural and anthropogenic disturbances, likely played a role in maintaining open grassland and woodland systems within the Southeast. However, there is still much to learn about historical fire regimes within the region and how they relate to limestone cedar glades and associated natural communities.

Climate change also serves as a potential threat to glade systems, in that shifts in both temperature and moisture regimes could negatively impact these communities. Calcareous glades, as noted above, are essentially islands of open, shallow-soiled habitat within an otherwise forested ecosystem that was likely more open in the past. This island system poses novel challenges to species forced to respond to a changing climate, in that movement between islands may be nearly impossible for species with limited dispersal capabilities. With these threats in mind, steps need to be taken to protect and conserve these fragile ecosystems and their unique occupants.

Read full chapter

URL:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128211397001781