text:
In an effort to control the length and size of my original barbell buyers guide, I've decided to create a separate guide for powerlifting bars. In this way I can cover a larger variety of bars and offer more information about each individual bar.
If you would like a refresher course on the basics of barbell construction; including rotation mechanisms, sleeve assemblies, finish options, and so forth; refer to the beginning section of my original guide.
Table of Contents
- Power Bars Defined
- What's Included in this Guide
- Economy Power Bars ≤$250
- Mid-Range Power Bars ≤$500
- Premium/Professional Power Bars >$500
- Fake Power Bars
- Summary
Power Bars Defined
Feel free to skip this section.
Power bars are intended for the big-3 lifts; the bench press, back squat, and deadlift. Due to the high amounts of weight used in these three lifts, and the fact that no one wants a lot of springiness (whip) in the bar when performing these lifts, power bars are designed to be much more rigid and stiff than Olympic WL bars. This rigidity is achieved by using very high tensile strength steel and larger diameter shafts (29 mm versus 28 mm.)
Power bars are always bushing bars; they have no need for high-spin needle bearings. This is one of the reasons a good power bar is less costly than an equally good Olympic WL bar. Power bars are also more aggressively knurled than the average Olympic bar. They have a center knurl and their own unique set of hash marks (in powerlifting, these marks indicated the maximum legal hand position for the bench press.)
To sum it all up, power bars are thick, rigid bars with little-to-no flex even under the heaviest of loads. They have sharp, aggressive knurling, a center knurl, and bushings for rotation.
Power Bar Guide – What's Included, What's Not
In order for a barbell to be included in this guide, it must be a legitimate power bar. It cannot just have 'power bar' in its name while having none of the characteristics of an actual power bar. Each bar must also be of a high enough quality that it won't easily permanently deform, and it should be safe when used with both light and heavy weights.
As is typical of most the guides on this site, my minimum quality standards tend to exclude the cheap, box-store quality barbells. I have however included a single, very low-cost option for those who refuse to spend more cash on their bar than they'd spend on a pair of kicks.
Power Bars <$250
There are not many quality options in the $250 or less category. Matter of fact, there is only one; the bare steel Rogue Ohio Power Bar. If your budget is low and you can't afford it new, buy it used. If you can't afford it used, keep saving. If you refuse to buy a Rogue product for some reason, I have listed the only box-store bar that I'd even consider recommending to a friend. You are my friend, right?
CAP OB-86B 20 kg Power Bar
I am not a fan of CAP Barbell products; not one bit. The vast majority of their products are just plain cheap. I also feel the same way about X-Training, Titan, XMark, Weider, and just about any barbell brand that you can buy in a Sears, Wal-Mart, Target, or Dick's.
That being said, I've included in this guide the one cheap barbell that I believe is your best option among all the low-end imports, and that barbell is the CAP OB-86B Olympic Bar. I realize that CAP didn't name it a power bar, but this bushing-based bar has IPF markings, aggressive knurl, a rigid (although weak) 28.5 mm, 130k PSI shaft, and black oxide finish. Other than having no center knurl, it's definitely a power bar.
The reason I prefer the CAP OB-86B over the other cheapo bars is because it has a normal shaft diameter, a good, firm knurl with the proper markings, no hex bolts, and it will actually survive a novice strength program. The lack of center knurl is not the biggest of deals in this case because the black oxide finish is super grippy; it sticks to shirts pretty effectively.
20 kg, 28.5 mm, 130k PSI, aggressive, made in China, $139 [review]
Rogue Bare Steel Ohio 45-lb Power Bar
The Rogue Ohio Power Bar is easily the most accessible, high-performance power bar on the market. At only $250 for the bare steel variant, you simply will not find a power bar this well-built for less money.
The Ohio Power Bar is a 45-lb, 29 mm, 205k PSI tensile strength bar with incredible and I dare say perfect [aggressive] knurling. The shaft is incredibly grippy as it is, but the lack of finish makes this bar feel even more secure in the hands; very natural.
The Ohio is a cast bronze bushing bar – the sleeves spin well enough for a power bar; not too fast, not too slow. It is kind of loud when set down, but unless you are concerned with noise in your gym because of sleeping babies or whiny neighbors, I think it's a minor thing that's worth overlooking since everything else is on point.
If your budget is limited and you're going to go the "economy" route and you're not wanting a kilogram bar, this is the bar to get. You'll need to oil and brush it unless you choose the $275 zinc version, but it's worth it. There is also a 20 kg, zinc-finished version that I'll cover in the next section.
45 lbs, 29 mm, 205k PSI, aggressive, made in USA, $250 [review]
Mid-Range Power Bars $250-$500
Obviously more feature heavy than the economy bars, these mid-range bars are where the majority of people will find a good match. These will all last a lifetime if cared for. Only very experienced, deep-pocketed athletes should consider venturing into the premium range of power bars in the section following this one.
Buddy Capps Texas Power Bar
Even after all these years, the 20 kg Buddy Capps Texas Power Bar is still one of the better bar options for lower to mid-range budgets. It features a 186k PSI tensile strength shaft that is 28.5 mm in diameter, aggressively knurled, and finished in a black zinc. The sleeves are raw steel, and they are a tad shorter than average at 15″. The TPB is a bushing bar.
Rarely will you hear anyone speak poorly of the Texas Power Bar. It's a legendary barbell that still sells for under $300. Now it is true that its shortcomings have been brought more into the light by the introduction of the Ohio Power Bar, but it's still a solid bar.
What shortcomings? Well the tensile strength rating is actually pretty low by current power bar standards, and the bar's overall rigidity is not helped by the narrower shaft. Black zinc is also not a very popular finish, and the shorter sleeves have the potential to be problematic if you're using bumpers. Powerlifters generally don't use bumper plates, but if you recently transitioned from CrossFit into powerlifting, you may.
I don't see this as often anymore, but there used to be a problem with companies like Troy using the "Texas" name for power bars when it wasn't really a Buddy Capps TPB. This led to people buying a bar that they thought was the Capps Texas Power Bar, but really wasn't. Like I said, don't see it much anymore, but be aware of it nonetheless.
20 kg, 28.5 mm, 186k PSI, aggressive, made in Texas, $289
American Barbell Power Bar
The American Barbell Power Bar is a very reasonably priced, feature-heavy power bar. It's built around a 190k PSI, precision-grade alloy shaft. That shaft is 29 mm in diameter, has a mild to moderate knurl with center knurling, and standard IPF hash marks. The sleeves spin on industrial composite bushings that are both durable, and reliable under any load.
This bar is unique in that it has a hard chromium finish on both the sleeves and the shaft. I say unique because the overwhelming majority of powerlifting bars are either a raw steel of some sort, black oxide, or in a few cases bright zinc. Chrome is just not a common finish on power bars like we see with Olympic WL bars.
The benefit of raw steel and black oxide bars is simply the feel. Not only is no neutering of the knurl done by applying a heavy finish over it, but the bar just feels much more natural in the hands; rough and grippy. Of course the trade-off for this improved grip is the oxidation, and not everyone wants to deal with the maintenance required to own raw bars or pay the premium for stainless steel. If that's you, the AB Power Bar is definitely worth considering.
The AB Power Bar is $155 less than the AB Elite Power Bar, and aside from the nicer feel of the Elite's stainless steel shaft these two bars will perform the same. I believe American Barbell makes some of the nicest bars in the industry; bars that will outlive all of us.
20 kg, 29 mm, 190k PSI, moderate, made in USA, $295
Vulcan Elite Powerlifting Bar
Like the AB Elite Power Bar, The Vulcan Elite Power Bar is another $295, American-made, rust-resistant power bar. It has a 29 mm, 196k PSI shaft that displays almost no elasticity, a bright zinc finish that is much more corrosion resistant than black oxide, and sleeves that spin beautifully on Oilite sintered bronze bushings.
Other than a few points of extra tensile strength, the big difference between the American Barbell Elite and the Vulcan Elite is the knurling; the AB is considered moderate compared to the Vulcan's aggressiveness. Of course some athletes just prefer a milder knurl, but the Vulcan't knurl is more akin to powerlifting bars and will probably be the preference for most.
Additionally; and I don't understand this at all; but the Vulcan Elite is dual-marked. I have no clue why a super rigid, 29 mm bar would have IWF marks, but it does. It doesn't matter, but it does create a small level of confusion for anyone who picks this bar up not knowing what it is. So it's not bad, it's just weird.
Overall this is one hell of a power bar. It's incredibly rigid, has the premium Oilite bushings, and priced very well for a domestic power bar. Never dismiss Vulcan Strength for barbells.
20 kg, 29 mm, 196k PSI, aggressive, made in USA, $295
Burgener and Rippetoe Barbell
The Burgener and Rippetoe Bar (or B&R Bar) is another dual-marked power bar. Neither Rogue or York (the original manufacturer of this bar) called it a power bar, but it absolutely is and always has been a power bar.
The B&R features a very stiff, 29 mm shaft rated at 205K PSI. It has cast bronze bushings, moderate knurling, a center knurl, and no finish whatsoever. This bar has a very old school feel to it – this is partially due to the specs and mostly because of the raw steel. Despite it not being as aggressive as something like the Ohio Power Bar, the natural feel of the bare steel and the quality of the knurl makes it very easy to grip – very secure in the hands.
I personally liked the sintered bushings and old school end cap of the York variant, but that bar is gone so it matters not. If you can find a used York B&R don't hesitate to pick it up; it's a fantastic bar, and one that will last a long damn time. Hell both of them will.
Rogue: 20 kg, 29 mm, 205k PSI, moderate, made in USA, $295
York: 20 kg, 29 mm, 190k PSI, moderate, made in Canada, $295
Rogue KG Ohio Power Bar
This version of the Rogue Ohio Power Bar is the IPF-approved, kilogram variant. While it uses the same 29 mm, 205k PSI shaft as the standard 45-pound variants, it does have a slightly different sleeve assembly.
Rather than being a single-piece sleeve, the Kilo Ohio has friction welded sleeves. Friction welding is just a fancy and precise way of bonding steel components. I don't think it has any major impact on life expectancy or anythign like that, but it does provide about an additional ½" of loadable sleeve length over the pound version.
The Rogue Kilogram Ohio Power Bar is offered only in a black zinc shaft/bright zinc sleeve finish. The knurl is still aggressive, the bushings are bronze, and like I mentioned the bar is certified for IPF-sanctioned meets. I personally prefer the price tag on the 45-pound variant, but if you need kilos or you plan to take the bar to a meet, this is the way to go. Also as you probably guessed, this is by far the least expensive IPF-approved bar available.
20 kg, 29 mm, 205k PSI, aggressive, IPF-approved, made in USA, $325 [review]
Westside Power Bar 2.0
The Westside Power Bar 2.0 is basically the Westside Barbell-branded version of the Ohio Power Bar. It shares all the same specifications as the 45-pound variant; that is same shaft diameter, tensile strength, knurl depth, bronze bushings, and so on. About all that makes it different is the custom end caps the totally blacked-out zinc finish. At $325 I still prefer the standard Ohio Power Bar, but this is a cool way to support Louie Simmons and his gang of elite powerlifters.
45 lbs, 29 mm, 205k PSI, aggressive, made in USA, $325
Vulcan Absolute Powerlifting Bar
The Vulcan Absolute Power Bar is one of the strongest and most rigid power bars available. At 221k PSI, I think only the $600+ Kabuki Strength Power Bar offers more tensile strength. Obviously the difference between $339 and $600 is worth paying attention to. I'd say that a few hundred bucks easily makes owning just the 'second strongest power bar' seem like an okay thing.
The Absolute Power Bar is a legitimate power bar in every sense of the word. It has a black oxide, very aggressive 29 mm shaft, bare steel sleeves, center knurl, and bronze bushings. What makes it stand out from the crowd is its classy, beveled shoulders and laser etched Vulcan USA logo.
I personally own this power bar and can attest to its feel, rigidity, beauty, and value. Keep in mind though that with a black oxide finish and bare steel sleeves, this bar will require some upkeep ir order to prevent oxidation. Absolutely worth it though.
20 kg, 29 mm, 221k PSI, aggressive, imported, $339 [review]
Troy Power Bar
The Troy Power Bar is a power bar, but it's quite weak in the tensile strength department considering the nearly $360 price tag. At only 177k PSI, it's the lowest rated barbell on this page save for the Chinese CAP OB-86B that sells for only $139. It also has a 28 mm shaft, which is a peculiar move from a company that's been making bars for so long.
The Troy Power Bar has an aggressive knurl, a center knurl, and oil-impregnated bronze bushings, It even has a grippy, black oxide shaft finish, but I think this bar is worth ignoring at its current price point. It just doesn't have enough going for it with bars like the Vulcan Absolute selling for less, and bars like the Texas Power Bar and Ohio Power Bar selling for much, much less.
20 kg, 28 mm, 177k PSI, aggressive, made in USA, $359
York Power Bar #32004
The #32004 York Power Bar is kind of reminiscent of the original B&R bar in terms of both design and specifications. It's built around a North American (Canadian), 29 mm, 190k PSI steel shaft. It has oil-impregnated bronze bushings, moderate knurl, and the classic bolt-on end cap. Unlike the B&R though, the 32004 is chrome finished, and has York's famous split sleeve. It also sells for a bit more than the B&R sold for.
It's not an awful power bar, but it doesn't really stand out either. The York version of the B&R was not only more affordable, but it was bare steel. Bare steel is just so appropriate for a power bar, whereas chrome may be great for oxidation protection, but it doesn't feel as good in the hands. It doesn't matter anyway, this bar is too expensive for the specs.
20 kg, 29 mm, 190k PSI, moderate, made in Canada, $380
Titex Competition Powerlifting Bar
Much like the Rogue Kilo Ohio Power Bar, the Titex Competition Power Bar is yet another reasonably-priced, IPF-approved competition power bar.
For $399, you get a 220k PSI tensile strength shaft (29 mm), sintered bronze bushings, and chrome finished sleeves. Because it's IPF-approved, it has the center knurl and IPF marks. The finish on the shaft is black magnetite; which I'm pretty sure is just a fancy way of saying black oxide (correct me if I'm wrong); and the knurling is more mild than other IPF bars like the Rogue Ohio.
The Titex Comp is a great choice if you need a certified power bar with milder knurl then the Rogue Ohio, and lower price than the Swedes. The specs are solid and the price is very fair. For training purposes I still think the Ohio Power Bar is a better deal overall, and that $399 price tag really is pushing into stainless territory, and stainless is tough to ignore. The Titex does have chrome sleeves, which is nice.
20 kg, 29 mm, 220k PSI, moderate, made ?, $399
American Barbell Elite Power Bar
The American Barbell Elite Power Bar is a precision-grade stainless steel power bar. It has a 190k PSI stainless shaft, good rigidity with minimal flex, mild to moderate knurling typical of an AB bar, and hard chrome-plated sleeves that spin on high-load composite bushings. The shaft is 29 mm; it has IPF hash marks, a center knurl, and it's made in the USA.
The Elite Power Bar is similar to the old AB Super Power Bar. Other than the Super having a 28.5 mm shaft that was heated treated and sort of purplish in appearance, it's the same bar. Well one other thing makes the Elite different from the Super, and that's the price tag. The Elite Power Bar is $450 while the Super was $595.
The Elite is a beautiful and functional barbell. It lacks the higher tensile strength of some of the other power bars discussed here, but the fact that it's stainless steel makes up for that. Truthfully the only disadvantage of the 190k tensile strength versus say a 205k bar is that it will flex more at extreme weights. It's certainly not that the Elite can't handle anything you can throw at it.
The AB Elite Power Bar has 23 reviews; 22 of which are 5-star ratings. The 23rd is a 4-star rating that would be 5-star if the reviewer understood sleeve finishes. I'd say that's a pretty solid track record. This is a very nice power bar.
20 kg, 29 mm, 190k PSI, moderate, made in USA, $450
Premium and/or Professional Power Bars >$500
The following power bars are expensive, premium power bars. With all of these bars you are paying for higher-grade steel (like stainless steel), precision manufacturing, calibration, certification, or all of the above. For all but the most of experienced athletes, these barbells should be considered a luxury; not a necessity.
Excluded from this list are some of the less-common IPF competition powerlifting bars that are not easily accessible in the United States. This includes bars made by Pallini (France), Leoko (Finland), and Zaoba (Japan). Uesaka is also on the IPF-approved list, but even the Uesaka website doesn't list any power bars. If anyone knows anything about Uesaka power bars, feel free to educate me on their whereabouts in the comments.
American Barbell Mammoth Power Bar
The American Barbell Mammoth Power Bar is the bar that replaced the infamous Super Power Bar; a personal favorite of mine. In a time when your only stainless steel power bar option was a $1200 Ivanko or a $1000 Iron Wolfe, the $600 price tag of the Super Power Bar seemed like a no-brainer. The Super was amazing; it's a shame that it's gone.
In any case, we now have the Mammoth. It sports a very rigid 210k PSI stainless steel shaft with a Savage Stainless Cerakote finish. Cerakote offers good grip and corrosion resistance that is more effective than any other applied finish. The shaft is 29 mm in diameter, it has a mild-moderate knurl, a center knurl, and IPF hash marks. The sleeves are two-piece with a unique, recessed weld, and they spin on industrial-grade composite bushings.
The Mammoth Power Bar is a beautiful piece of equipment. AB's assembly tolerances are so tight, and you'll notice this instantly when you pick one up. There is no lateral play in the sleeves and the bars make hardly a peep when dropped. I dare say that no other American barbell manufacturer makes a nicer, quieter, or more precise barbell.
Unfortunately, where the Super Power Bar was all pros and no cons, the Mammoth Bar has a con, and it has everything to do with the price. American Barbell took the most expensive shaft material available; stainless steel – with its perfect grip and great corrosion resistance; then applied a finish to it. Now as good as Cerakote may be, in my personal opinion it still falls short of stainless.
With the Mammoth Bar you pay for both the stainless steel and the Cerakote finish, but you don't get any benefit from the stainless (the more expensive of the two) save for some extra oxidation resistance IF you blow through the Cerakote finish somehow. I'm of the opinion that the Mammoth should have been alloy steel if it was going to have that Cerakote finish, as the bar would cost closer to $400 rather than the $550 it currently sells for.
Truth be told, I absolutely love American Barbell. I think the Mammoth is an incredible bar, I just think that it's far too costly being that you'll be gripping the Cerakote and not stainless steel. Fortunately, AB offers the Elite Power Bar which is unfinished stainless steel. It's not the same 210k shaft, but it is a 29 mm power bar that is almost exactly like the old Super Power Bar only without the heat-treated, purplish steel. The Elite is $100 less than the new Mammoth, and $150 less than what the Super sold for.
Mammoth: stainless/Cerakote, 20 kg, 29 mm, 210k PSI, moderate, made in USA, $550
Super: heat-treated stainless, 20 kg, 28.5 mm, 190k PSI, moderate, made in USA, $595
Kabuki Strength New Gen Power Bar
By all accounts, the new Kabuki Strength Power Bar is going to be a beast of a bar. It's not currently released at the time of this writing, but it looks like it will be retailing for about $600 to $700 depending on the finish. Finish options will include zinc, black oxide, and nickel.
The Kabuki Power Bar is a 20 kg, 29 mm power bar with firm, aggressive knurling typical of power bars. It has a tensile strength is excess of 250,000 PSI, a center knurl, and bushings of an unknown type; I assume bronze. This bar is made in the USA and is no doubt a solid bar, but the price is quite high. We'll see soon enough.
20 kg, 29 mm, 250k PSI, aggressive, made in USA, $600+
Eleiko Performance Powerlifting Bar NxG
The NxG Performance Powerlifting Bar is just a new name for the classic Training Powerlifting Bar. The name changed, but none of the specifications changed. It's still a 29 mm, 20 kg power bar built around a 215k PSI Swedish steel shaft. This bar has very aggressive knurl, a center knurl, bronze bushings, and a galvanized zinc finish. This bar adheres to all IPF specifications.
20 kg, 29 mm, 215k PSI, very aggressive, made in Sweden, $849
Ivanko OBXS-20KG Powerlifting Bar
The Ivanko OBXS-20KG is another stainless steel power bar; a very expensive one at that. Part of what makes Ivanko bars so expensive is that they put each and every bar through a number of tests before shipping them out. They go through a mag test, an ultra-sonic test, and a straigthness test. They do this to ensure that each barbell leaves the factory without a single imperfection.
The Ivanko OBXS adheres to all IPF specifications. The 218,000 PSI stainless steel shaft is aggressively knurled and then left unpolished as to not take the edge off that knurl. It's a very aggressive bar, and it has a very unique blueish/purplish color to it because of how it's worked and left unfinished. Beautiful, but extremely expensive.
20 kg, 29 mm, 218k PSI, very aggressive, made in USA, $1259
Fake Power Bars
At the start of this article I discussed what makes a power bar a power bar. It's important to note that there are a lot of bars out there that are called power bars, but really are not. This means that unless you are paying attention to those product specs, you may end up buying a bar that won't meet your needs. Here are some things to look for:
- power bars should have bronze or composite bushings, not needle bearings.
- power bars should have IPF hash marks, not IWF.
- power bars should have a center knurl.
- power bars should be 29 mm in diameter; 28.5 in rare cases.
- power bars should have fairly aggressive knurling.
- power bars should have at the very least a 190k PSI shaft.
- No power bar description should have the words "snatch" or "jerk" in it.
In some very rare cases, one of these specs may be off. Like the Vulcan Elite is very much a power bar, but it has dual-marks; or the American Barbell bars tend to have milder knurl, but are in every other way legitimate power bars. But if you stumble across a 28 mm bar with no center knurl or a 165k PSI bar with a 32 mm shaft, move on. I mean you're free to buy it, but it's not a power bar.
Power Bar Guide – Summary
I'd love to give some recommendations, but so much of selecting a power bar comes down to personal preference; mostly the finish/feel, and the aggressiveness of the knurl. Then of course your options are dictated by your budget. I will say though that for the typical budget of say a few hundred bucks, the Vulcan Absolute really stands out. It's incredibly strong and stiff, has a solid knurl, and an extremely grippy black oxide finish. The laser etched sleeves are a nice touch too.
For lower budgets I think the Rogue Ohio Power Bar in bare steel is the obvious choice. It's just so much bar for the money. High tensile strength, great knurl and feel. Like I said in the beginning, if you can't afford it new, I'll bet you can find it used. Trying to get much cheaper than the cost of this bar is probably a mistake in the long term.
My least favorite bars in this guide are the York and Troy because of features vs price, the CAP because it's just not a very good bar in general, and the Ivanko; which I believe is just ridiculously overpriced considering the availability and price of other power bars.
It's possible I've overlooked a bar or two. Did I leave your favorite power bar out? Leave a comment and let me know. I also appreciate those shares.
* image no doubt belongs to Mark Bell. Just trying to show some love – I will remove upon request.


text:
In what is hopefully not going to become a long series I am today dealing with the joys of compliance reporting in the context of HEFCE's Policy for open access in the post-2014 Research Excellence Framework (REF). The policy requires that conference papers and journal articles that will be submitted to the next REF – a research assessment through which funding is allocated to UK universities – have to be deposited in a repository within three months of acceptance for publication. Outputs that are published as open access ("gold OA") are also eligible, and during the first year of the policy the deposit deadline has been extended to three months of publication. The policy comes in force on 1st April and considering the importance of the REF the UK higher education sector is now pondering the question: how compliant are we?
As far as Imperial College is concerned, I can give two answers: '100%' and 'we don't know'.
'100%' is the correct answer as until 1 April all College outputs remain eligible for the next REF. While correct, the answer is not very helpful when trying to assess the risks of non-compliance and for understanding where to focus communications activities. Therefore we have recently gone through a number crunching exercise to work out how compliant we would be if the policy had been in force since May last year. In May 2015 we made a new workflow available to academics, allowing them to deposit outputs 'on acceptance'. The same workflow allows academics to apply for article processing charges for open access, should they wish to.
You would imagine that with ten months of data we would be able to give an answer to the question for 'trial' compliance, but we cannot, at least not reliably. In order to assess compliance we need to know the type of output, date of acceptance (to work out if the output falls under the policy), the date of deposit and the date of publication (to calculate if the output was deposited within three months). Additionally it would help to know whether the output has been made open access through the publisher (gold/immediate open access).
Below are eight issues that prevent us from calculating compliance:
- Publisher data feeds do not provide the date of acceptance
Publishers do not usually include the date of acceptance in their data feeds, therefore we have to rely on authors manually entering the correct date on deposit. Corresponding authors would usually be alerted to acceptance, but co-authors will not always find out about acceptance, or there may be a substantial delay. - Deposit systems do not always require date of acceptance
The issue above is made worse by not all deposit systems requiring academics to enter the date of acceptance. In Symplectic Elements, the system used by Imperial, the date is mandatory only in the 'on acceptance' workflow; when authors deposit an output that is already registered in the system as published there is currently no requirement to add the date – resulting in the output listed as non-compliant even if it was deposited in time. Some subject repositories do not even include fields for date of acceptance. - Difficulties with establishing the status of conference proceedings
Policy requirements only apply to conference proceedings with an ISSN. Because of the complexities with the publishing of conference proceedings we often cannot establish whether an output falls under the policy, or at least there is a delay (and possible additional manual effort). - Delays in receiving the date of publication
It takes a while for publication metadata to make it from publishers' into institutional systems. During this time (weeks, sometimes months) outputs cannot be classed as compliant. - Publisher data feeds do not always provide the date of publication
This may come as a surprise to some, but a significant amount of metadata records do not state the full date of publication. The year is usually included, but metadata records for 18% of 2015 College outputs did not specify year or month. This percentage will be much higher for other universities as the STEM journals (in which most College outputs are published) tend to have better metadata than arts, humanities and social sciences journals. - Publisher data feeds usually do not provide the 'first online' date
Technically, even where a full publication date is provided the information may not be sufficient to establish compliance. To get around the problem that publishers define publication dates differently, HEFCE's policy states that outputs have to be deposited within three months of when the output was first published online. This information is not usually included in our data feeds. - Publisher data feeds do not usually provide licence information
Last year, Library Services at Imperial College processed some 1,000 article processing charges (APCs) for open access. We know that these outputs would meet the policy requirements. However, when the corresponding author is not based at Imperial College – last year around 55% of papers had external co-authors – we have no record on whether they requested that the output be made open access by a publisher. For full open access journals we can work this out by cross-referencing the Directory of Open Access Journals. However, for 'hybrid' journals (where open access is an (often expensive) option) we cannot track this as publisher metadata does not usually include licence information. - We cannot reliably track deposits in external repositories
Considering the effort universities across the UK in particular have put into raising awareness of open access there is a chance that outputs co-authored with academics in other institutions have been deposited in their institutional repository. Sadly, we cannot reliably track this due to issues with the metadata. If all authors and repositories used the ORCID identifier it would be easier, but even then institutional repositories would have to track the ORCID iD of all authors involved in a paper, not just those based at their university. If we had DOIs for all outputs in the repositories it would be much easier to identify external deposits.
Considering the issues above, reliably establishing 'compliance' is at this stage a largely manual effort that would take too much staff time for an institution that annually publishes some 10,000 articles and conference proceedings – certainly while the policy is not yet in force. Even come April I would rate such an activity as perhaps not the best use of public money. Arguably, publisher metadata should include at least the (correct) date of publication and also the licence, although I cannot see a reason not to include the date of acceptance. If we had that, reporting would be much easier. If we had DOIs for all outputs (delivered close to acceptance) it would be even easier as we could track deposits in external repositories reliably.
Therefore I call on all publishers: if you want to help your authors to meet funder requirements, improve your metadata. This should be in everyone's interest.
Colleagues at Jisc have put together a document to help publishers understand and implement these and other requirements: http://scholarlycommunications.jiscinvolve.org/wp/2015/03/26/how-publishers-might-help-universities-implement-oa/
What we can report on with confidence is the number of deposits (excluding theses) to our repository Spiral during 2015: 5,511. Please note: 2015 is the year of deposit, not necessarily year of publication.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
ETA: And the winner is -- Mombrose aka Heather!
Amazing art! So beautiful! :) I love the Ocean Surf Scarf colors! :D They are all so beautiful but my closet is fairly monotone in the blue family :D!You should have an email from me - Congratulations!!
Hi There! My name is Candy, an art quilter working exclusively with my own hand dyed fabrics – they're "Candied Fabric"! Amy's asked me to tell you folks a little bit about what I do, and I'm honored to share a bit of my process with you.
With the roots of a traditional quilter, I LOVE taking smaller units and composing them into larger pieces. What I'm enjoying most these days is making small quilts that can be arranged and rearranged for display, rather than having to commit to just one arrangement and sewing them into one large unit! (You know - that stage where you've got the blocks on the working wall and you keep rearranging them 'til you go insane?)
My latest series is inspired by the work of the awesome Skinny LaMinx, whose 2 color silkscreen designs often feature a sketch on a large, irregular patch of color. I had a lot of fun picking 2 different palettes of colors to work with (the "Jewel Tones" and the "Warm Colors"), then cutting nicely irregular patches from pre-fused fabric and ironing them onto a backing fabric. I then centered these over 6" x 8" layers of batting then peltex (used to stiffen baseball cap brims). I wrap the background fabric around to the back and carefully fuse it to the back. The peltex adds a bit more definition to the quilting, and makes the quilts stiff enough to stand propped up anywhere, and hang nice and flat.
Then comes the funnest part (is funnest a word? Spell check says NO! but I say YES!), the sketching! I free motion quilt a botanical motif on the quilt, going over the quilting 2-3 times, purposefully trying NOT to follow the lines – this gives me a nice bold line that emphasizes the fact that this indeed is a sketch done by hand, even though a mechanical tool was used. Here are videos of me doing 2 of them (apologies for the random sounds, on my LONG list of things to do is to learn how to set music to a video…)
I had these playing in my booth at one of the art shows I did this Fall, and the videos got lots of attention. Here are answers to some frequent questions I got:
1. The speed of the video is not altered, it's in real time.
2. There is nothing sketched on the fabric, I lower the feed dogs, decide what I want to sketch and go!
3. Practice Practice Practice! ;-) I've been doing free motion quilting for 15 years. Harriet Hargrave's book got me started; a weekend with Melody Johnson at QSDS 11 years ago set me free.
4. A Juki TL-98 Q. It has a bit more space under the arm than regular home machines and is super fast, but it's a pretty simple, straightforward machine.
After the quilting is done, a layer of fabric on the back covers it up, I then stitch on a hanging loop. And then the fun begins, playing around with arranging them. Although they could be hung directly on the wall in a grouping or individually, I had envisioned them hung on a mini clothesline, and luckily, I love the execution as much as I had imagined it.
As this is the giving season, I'd love to share some Candied Fabrics with you. Go take a look at all the different palettes I use for dyeing my scarves and pick your favorite one. Come back here and let me know and you could be the lucky person to win either a Habotai scarf or ½ yard of fabric custom dyed by ME for YOU!
It's been fun sharing my sketches with you, feel free to drop by and visit my sweet spot on the internet when you have a free moment!
**Amy again - you have a week to leave a comment to win a beautiful scarf - I will select a winner December 17!
Next steps:
Subscribe to parkcitygirl
Shop with Amy
Email me


text:
Home | Archives | About | Login | Submissions | Notify | Contact | Search | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Copyright © 1999 by The Resilience Alliance* The following is the established format for referencing this article: Daily, G. C. 1999. Developing a scientific basis for managing Earth's life support systems. Conservation Ecology 3(2): 14. [online] URL: http://www.consecol.org/vol3/iss2/art14/ A version of this article in which text, figures, tables, and appendices are separate files may be found by following this link. Perspective, part of Special Feature on McDonnell Centennial Essays Developing a Scientific Basis for Managing Earth's Life Support Systems Gretchen C. Daily Stanford University
Here, I review the motivation and science behind efforts to characterize and manage ecosystems as capital assets. I then describe some recent work to evaluate the potential for sustaining biodiversity and ecosystem services in human-dominated landscapes. KEY WORDS: biodiversity conservation, countryside biogeography, ecological economics, Ecosystem Services Framework, global change, interdisciplinary collaboration. Published: October 27, 1999 It is by now well known in the environmental science community that human transformations of the biosphere are unprecedented in scale, dramatically altering important characteristics of the atmosphere, the oceans, and terrestrial systems. It is also clear to this community that the rates and directions of these changes are not sustainable, and that many pose serious threats to human well-being. The level to which people outside the environmental science community are informed of these circumstances varies tremendously, however. Thus, some segments of the private sector, the government, and the general public are deeply concerned, whereas others remain skeptical even of the existence of serious environmental problems. Similarly, some countries have adopted bold policy changes to address certain issues, but the prospects of others doing so remain very dim. In sum, a few problems, such as certain forms of tropospheric air pollution and stratospheric ozone depletion, are being addressed very effectively (all things considered), yet many are hardly being addressed at all. Indeed, a chronicler of human activities from outer space would likely conclude that next to nothing was being done to arrest or reverse fundamental aspects of environmental degradation. Since the early 1970s, an impressive array of global and regional agreements has been negotiated to protect ecosystem assets. They target wetlands (the Ramsar Convention 1971); forests (e.g., the Tropical Forest Action Plan 1985, the International Tropical Timber Agreement 1990, the Rio Forest Principles 1992, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Forests 1995); marine resources (e.g., the Law of the Sea 1994, the Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks Treaty 1995); biodiversity (the Convention on Biological Diversity 1992); and exceptionally valued natural sites (the World Heritage Convention 1972). On the whole, however, these agreements are weak and ineffective, variously lacking in participation, resources, and institutional mechanisms needed to bring about the protection they are designed to achieve. Thus, most trends continue to go in the wrong direction, many at accelerating rates. It is not surprising that effective action on such complex problems has not been generated overnight. On the other hand, one wonders whether the human cultural evolution required to solve these problems will occur at the required pace. Many ongoing changes are essentially irreversible on a time scale of interest to society. As Peter Vitousek puts it, we are the first generation with tools to understand changes in the Earth's system caused by human activity, and the last with the opportunity to influence the course of many of these changes. Clearly, neither science nor scientists will be able to solve all of these problems. But there are at least three key areas to which science and scientists, as individuals and collectively, must contribute. The first is in the establishment of standard metrics and systematic monitoring of the magnitude and rates of change of human impacts on ecosystems. Such information is not sufficient, but it is usually necessary to induce policy action. In a number of discussions, I have found my economist colleagues appalled at how little systematic monitoring there is in ecology. After the great stock market crash in 1929, macroeconomists initiated close monitoring of a few statistics (e.g., unemployment rate, GNP, etc.); they have argued about the utility and interpretation of these statistics ever since, but at least they have something to argue about! Certainly, the ecological metrics that we might choose today will not be perfect and will not suit all needs, but they will amount to something. The second is to use these metrics in projecting future courses of change in the structure and functioning of ecosystems. The third is to translate such possible trajectories into meaningful social terms, concerning basic economic, health, and other aspects of human well-being. My work is oriented around developing the scientific basis for, and public support of, institutions and policies needed to sustain Earth's life support systems. Many different individuals and approaches are needed to address these problems. Here, I offer a personal overview of some important areas warranting further attention. I first present a general conceptual framework, the Ecosystem Services Framework, which I find helpful in structuring work in this complex area. Second, I describe a metric of ecosystem change that requires development: the capacity of human-dominated lands to support biodiversity, a research area that I call "countryside biogeography." Finally, I briefly describe the great need (and some progress that has been made) to foster communication and interaction between scientists and other key sectors of society. Before going any further, I should state here that my views have been influenced by many people; most of the ideas presented here are derived from the insights of others (who are fully cited in other publications!). Before getting into any of this, I would like to begin with a story. At a global scale, our present situation is unprecedented; at the microscale, however, human populations have confronted many of today's pressing issues before. The tiny, remote islands in the South Pacific, in particular, are well-replicated microcosms, many with nicely preserved records of how human interactions with the environment played out. Their human histories shared very similar initial conditions, with small groups of people of similar cultural origins (from Polynesia) colonizing the islands, introducing to each island the same basic agricultural practices. Yet, what happened from there varied tremendously. The most perversely intriguing outcome occurred on Easter Island. The original inhabitants, who colonized it 1500 years ago, apparently lived well. Their meat came from porpoises, hunted from ocean-worthy canoes that they fashioned from giant palm trees. Before long, however, the forest was cleared, inducing soil erosion and drying of streams, along with an abrupt halt to the hunting and cooking of porpoise meat (both the canoes and fuel wood were derived from the forest). People next wiped out coastal marine and avian food resources (every species of native land bird became extinct), then resorted to eating rats, and finally turned on one another. The population, thought to have numbered between 7000 and perhaps as many as 20,000 at its peak, comprised only about 2000 people when the island was discovered by a Dutch explorer in 1722. A taunt that survived the population bottleneck was "The flesh of your mother is sticking in my teeth." Easter Island was not a completely isolated case. Remains on other islands, such as Mangareva and Mangaia, suggest a similar fate for their inhabitants: unchecked population growth, destruction of natural resources, social terror, and cannibalism. Meanwhile, Polynesian societies on other islands also underwent an initial period of environmental degradation, but then, in stark contrast, developed sustainable economies that have persisted to today in relative peace and comfort. What caused the divergence in environmental and social trajectories? Anthropologist Patrick Kirch (1997) attributes it to "conscious choices," documented in oral history and archeological remains. These choices would not have been easy, nor would their enforcement have been pleasant. They involved eliminating culturally prized pigs from the agricultural production system and imposing rigid population control measures, such as celibacy, abortion, infanticide, and even expulsion of some of the population. Interestingly, these may have been influenced by island size. Evidence is scanty, but it suggests that populations on the tiniest of islands were more likely to persist. All of the islands are small. In fact, Tikopia, a relative success story in both ecological and social terms, is only about 1.7 mi2 (4.4 km2) in land area. Kirch proposes that in conditions where everyone was more closely related and where everyone knew everyone else's face, cooperation was more likely; conversely, the slightly bigger islands (Easter is 64 mi2 or 166 km2) were just enough larger to have made the population prone to dividing into "them" and "us." (Kirch 1997). Two issues stand out as relevant to present global circumstances. First, scientific understanding of human interactions with the environment is necessary, but insufficient, to prevent irreversible destruction of life support systems. We, presumably like the islanders cutting down the last trees on Easter Island, know more than enough scientifically to recognize trouble and start moving in the right direction. We face tremendous scientific uncertainties: no one has ever run remotely as massive an experiment on any planet before. Reducing these uncertainties would pay off greatly in designing effective policies. Clearly, however, most of the action is on the social side. Second, human beings evolved as a small-group animal. Our future prospects seem to depend on whether we can foster enough of a small-group feel to forge cooperatively the economic, legal, and other social institutions needed to bring human impacts into balance with what the biosphere can sustain. The task is tremendous, and the huge size of our "island" population may prove a distinct social disadvantage. Again, the action is on the social side. This is why initiatives on the part of scientists to foster substantive communication on environmental issues with leaders in the social sciences, business, and government are so important. When human activities approach or exceed the environment's capacity to sustain them, growth in those activities is rarely brought to an immediate, grinding halt. Rather, the people so engaged suddenly find themselves confronted with a set of trade-offs in the allocation of resources to competing uses and users. These trade-offs are becoming increasingly vexing and difficult to resolve, from both ethical and practical perspectives. They involve our most important ideals (such as ensuring a prosperous future for our children), our oldest tensions (such as between individual and societal interests), and sometimes our bloodiest tendencies. At the local level, allocation of land or water to competing activities often involves a zero sum game. This is apparent in the widespread loss of water and land from native habitat to farms and, increasingly, to urban and industrial purposes. On what basis should such allocations be decided? How can individual preferences for alternative allocations be aggregated fairly? How can the costs and benefits of alternative schemes be distributed fairly? And how can future generations, the parties with the most at stake, be represented at the bargaining table? At the international level, these questions are writ large. Consider efforts to allocate among nations permits to produce chlorofluorocarbons, to harvest certain marine fish stocks, or to use the global carbon dioxide sink. How these questions are decided will profoundly influence the willingness of nations and individual actors to make and comply with agreements. Many of the trade-offs facing us today arise in novel circumstances, without precedent or institutional framework to provide guidance for their wise and peaceful resolution. Society is poorly equipped to handle them. Throughout most of human history, environmental impacts were local and reversible, but they are now increasingly regional or global and irreversible on a time scale of interest to society. Many people do not have to wait for resource constraints to take on crisis proportions: they face such crises every day, with poor prospects for escape. Trade and innovation make possible escape from local resource constraints, and often thereby forestall the appearance of such trade-offs. When trade-offs do appear, they are usually not as stark as was suggested in some early writings. Nonetheless, the approach of natural limits is becoming ever more apparent at the global scale: humanity has heavily transformed about 40-50% of the ice-free land surface, has co-opted about 50% of accessible, renewable fresh water, has fully expoited or overexploited about 65% of marine fisheries, has increased the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere by about 30%, has increased the rate of fixation of atmospheric nitrogen by > 100% over natural terrestrial sources, and has driven about 25% of bird species to extinction (Vitousek et al. 1997). Moreover, escape from local resource constraints is, by definition, temporary in a world in which population and per capita consumption are growing. The projected rapid global increase in demand for food, fresh water, energy, and other resources over the next few decades implies a world much closer to, and more places in excess of, such limits (Daily et al. 1998). In collaboration with others, I am developing a conceptual framework for helping to resolve these trade-offs (Daily 1997). The framework recognizes natural ecosystems and their biodiversity as capital assets that, if properly managed, will yield a stream of life-support goods and services over time. Society derives a wide array of important benefits from biodiversity and the ecosystems in which it exists. As outlined in Table 1, these ecosystem services include the production of goods, regeneration processes, stabilizing processes, life-fulfilling functions, and conservation of options. Ecosystem services are essential to human existence and operate on such a grand scale, and in such intricate and little-explored ways, that most could not be replaced by technology. Yet, escalating impacts of human activities on natural ecosystems imperil their delivery.
Relative to physical, human, or financial capital, renewable natural capital (embodied in ecosystems) is poorly understood, typically undervalued, scarcely monitored, and, in many important cases, is undergoing rapid depletion. Until now, there has been little incentive to measure or manage natural capital: it has been treated as essentially inexhaustible. The Ecosystem Services Framework offers a fresh paradigm for resolving trade-offs. Although the concept of ecosystem services is certainly not new (Plato pondered their loss to careless land management, and he was doubtless not the first) it is relatively new in the context of today's environmental issues. Moreover, a growing number of recent policy decisions to protect ecosystem services has made the concept much more operational. One of the best known cases is New York City's efforts to restore natural water purification services in lieu of constructing a more expensive water filtration plant. This amounts to an investment in natural capital rather than physical capital, on economic grounds (Chichilnisky and Heal 1998). Could this model be extended to other places and to other services? In other places, water quality is certainly a growing concern: the United Nations Environment Programme reports that most diseases in the developing world are caused by contaminated water, and that 50% of people in developing countries suffer from one or more water-related diseases. An estimated 10-15% of the U.S. population consumes water from systems that violate U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) contaminant standards. The U.S. EPA forecasts having to spend U.S.$140 billion over the next 20 years to maintain drinking water quality at minimum required standards. To evaluate the potential for extending the NYC model, Walter Reid posed the question, how much land could be protected with an economic justification, using water quality as a major goal? A first-order approximation suggests that the area would be significant: 10% of U.S. land area and 14% of global land area under current population sizes (Reid, in press). In the New York City case, a complex of existing and new financial and legal mechanisms are permitting (officials hope) the capture of ecosystem service values for a win-win-win outcome: New York City taxpayers will receive clean water at the lowest cost; stewards of the watershed in the Catskill Mountains, about100 miles (160 km) away, will be compensated for the purification services that they provide to the City; and those concerned with other services supplied by the Catskills ecosystem (e.g., aesthetic benefits, flood control) will see these better protected under the umbrella of water purification. To extend this model to other places and other services, appropriate educational, financial, and legal institutions, tailored to cultural and economic circumstances, will be required. Without these, notice from ecologists and economists that ecosystems are important and valuable assets will do nothing. Promising new institutions for safeguarding ecosystem services have emerged in a wide array of cultures and economies (e.g., Australia, Madagascar, the United States, Vietnam); at a variety of scales, from local to international; and in government, NGO (nongovernmental organization), and private sector contexts (e.g., Castro and Tattenbach 1998). The services safeguarded by these emerging institutions include: pollination; pest control; water supply for drinking, irrigation, and hydropower generation; maintenance of soil fertility; sustainable harvesting of tropical timber; provision of aesthetic beauty; and even decomposition (of orange peels produced by Del Oro, an orange juice company in Costa Rica). Tremendous payoff could result from further research in the characterization (biophysical and economic) of ecosystem services, and in the development of institutions for their safeguarding (Daily et al., in review). A series of basic questions, spanning a wide array of disciplines, begs addressing in this area. Questions emphasizing ecology include:
Further development of case studies addressing these issues would be most helpful. Such work would define the envelope of opportunities and limitations in applying this conceptual framework; it would illuminate how general are the findings from specific localities; and it would serve as a guide to policy development. In the New York City case, for instance, officials are purchasing land and changing agricultural and municipal practices in the hopes of restoring the natural water purification services of the Catskills, all with quite limited scientific information. Careful studies are underway to determine the effectiveness of the measures, but the political window of opportunity for pursuing this approach (as opposed to building a physical filtration plant) may close soon. In this particular case, and generally, success in the policy arena hinges on whether the scientific underpinnings of policies are sound. There exist on the books today many laws that could be used for environmental protection, but whose application awaits better scientific information. Ecology tends to be a retrospective science. In contrast to fields such as climatology, there is very little tradition of anticipating (ecosystem) responses to future perturbation. Instead, effort is devoted to explaining what happened in the past, and why. Society is essentially flying blind, with little understanding of its dependence, or impacts, on ecosystems. There thus exists an urgent need for careful scientific assessment and scenario-making of the societal consequences of ecosystem change. How might human health and economic prosperity be affected by the loss of 30-50% of Earth's species? By a 2oC rise in Earth's average surface temperature? By a doubling of the rate of nitrogen fixation? By the cooption of > 50% of Earth's accessible, renewable fresh water by the human enterprise? By human domination of half of the ice-free land surface? By a rapid, sequential collapse of the world's major marine fisheries? Most of these circumstances already are with us; others lie just over the horizon. I will now turn to one question embedded in this set in a bit more detail. Food production is arguably humanity's most important activity. It is also the most important proximate cause of biodiversity loss worldwide, involving major direct and indirect impacts, including: (1) conversion of natural habitat to agricultural use; (2) facilitation of biotic invasion through trade (thereby increasing the rate of introduction of species) and through habitat alteration (thereby increasing the susceptibility of native communities to invasion); and (3) application of chemical fertilizers and pesticides. Global demand for food is expected to double over the period 1990-2030. In Asia and Africa, food needs are projected to increase by a factor of 2.3 and 5, respectively, with a sevenfold increase or more in some countries (Daily et al. 1998). It is difficult to forecast how these needs will be met. Whatever course is taken, it is fair to expect that growing human pressures will put biodiversity at great risk. These circumstances beg the question, What is the capacity of human-dominated landscapes to support biodiversity? This question pertains to the future course of, societal consequences of, and appropriate policy responses to the mass extinction currently underway. It has sweeping implications for strategies to produce food and conserve biodiversity and ecosystem services, but it remains little studied relative to its counterpart, namely, the capacity of remnants of native habitat to support biodiversity. One reason for this emphasis is undoubtedly the crisis nature of biodiversity loss; given the justified panic to "save" remaining natural habitat, it is taking some time to appreciate the corresponding opportunity, namely, to enhance the hospitability of agricultural landscapes for biodiversity. The emphasis traces to other factors as well, including (1) the prominence of the theory of island biogeography, and of the island paradigm, in conservation biology; (2) the notion that a very small fraction of species is capable of persisting outside of "islands" of natural habitat, i.e., in human-controlled habitats; and (3) the frequent (although often subconscious) projection of disdain for humanity's destruction of natural habitat onto the organisms that profit by it. The principal way of assessing future patterns of extinction involves applying the theory of island biogeography to terrestrial "islands" of natural habitat. Species-area curves, which relate the number of species in a habitat to its areal extent, permit prediction of changes in species richness with changes in habitat area brought on by habitat "destruction." A widely employed simplifying assumption is that no (or only a negligible few) species will survive outside of the remaining natural habitat; this is indeed justified in cases of land conversion to very intensive agricultural and other uses. The exent of habitat modification varies tremendously, however. Similarly, the fates of organisms that once made their homes in unbroken expanses of natural habitat range along a broad continuum: at one end is population decline to local (and eventually global) extinction; at the other extreme is expansion into human-controlled landscapes. Although habitat modifications and the habitat affiliations of species are poorly documented (for most habitats and species globally), two things are clear: first, large regions of the world are not presently at the extreme end of intensity of land use; and, second, a substantial fraction of biodiversity occurs, at least for the moment, in many kinds of human-dominated habitats. The organisms that can take advantage of countryside (rural and suburban landscapes devoted primarily to human activities) deserve more attention, for a series of reasons. First, it is unlikely that many large, relatively undisturbed tracts of natural habitat will remain in the face of projected growth in the size and environmental impacts of the human population. Second, the conservation potential for many species may rest on preserving or enhancing certain aspects of rural landscapes containing remnants of native habitat, in lieu of protecting large tracts of more or less intact habitat. Third, the supply of important ecosystem system services, such as pest control and pollination, will depend, in many instances, on the biodiversity that occurs locally, in the vicinity of human habitation, i.e., in countryside habitats. Finally, a growing interest in restoration in some regions will require comparing the potential of alternative sites for reestablishing desired community assemblages. Countryside biogeography is a field aimed at understanding the diversity, abundance, conservation, and restoration of species in rural and other human-dominated landscapes. I am applying a variety of empirical and theoretical approaches to addressing questions in this area, such as:
There has not been sufficient work on these issues to anticipate the answers to these questions in most biogeographic or agricultural regions of the world. The work that has been done suggests, however, that many agricultural landscapes do retain substantial biodiversity. My group is presently launching a series of field studies, primarily in Costa Rica, to document the response of various groups of organisms (including birds, mammals, and a variety of insect taxa) to different types and levels of agricultural activity. Using information derived from both satellite images and on-the-ground measures, we are characterizing agricultural intensity in terms of, for instance, the frequency distribution of agricultural plot sizes; the density of crop types; the ratio of plot to hedge-row areas; the spatial configuration and relative coverage of native and human-dominated habitats; and the amounts and types of chemical fertilizer and pesticide applied. The various field studies will illuminate, we hope, how well these measures of intensity predict patterns of biodiversity. We are also synthesizing information in the literature on the habitat associations of species. The findings from these initial undertakings together serve as a basis for theoretical explorations that will, we hope, permit prediction of patterns of biodiversity generally, in other regions of the world and under various scenarios of change in land use. Illustrative preliminary findings to date are:
(This ongoing work has been possible only with the collaboration and assistance of numerous people, including George Burtness, Yvonne Burtness, Ellyn Bush, Gerardo Ceballos, Scott Daily, Tom Davis, Claire Devine, Paul Ehrlich, John Fay, Jennifer Hughes, Yimer Ilama, Jesús Ilama, Jesús Pacheco, Henrique Pereira, Taylor Ricketts, Arturo Sánchez-Azofeifa, Cagan Sekercioglu, Tom Sisk, Gerardo Suzán, and Jim Zook.) In summary, these findings, along with those of other researchers, suggest that there is considerable potential for conserving or enhancing biodiversity in countryside habitat. On the basis of this work, we are now trying to develop a theoretical framework for explaining and predicting patterns of biodiversity under alternative courses of land use change. This metric, the capacity of countryside to support biodiversity, could serve as a basis for forecasting important societal consequences of ecosystem change. In her 1997 plenary address to the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Teresa Heinz warned that science seems to be going the way of the Medieval Church. Increasingly, the public image of scientists is of an arrogant, self-cloistered elite that discusses in uninterpretable language issues of little or no significance to the daily lives of normal people. One might argue that the demise of the Medieval Church was no tragic loss to society. But public support of the scientific enterprise is dwindling at a time when society could hardly need science more: a sound scientific basis is a critical prerequisite to solving the environmental issues it now faces (Lubchenco 1998). That public image of scientists is justifiable in many ways. Scientists, as a group, rarely attempt to communicate the excitement and relevance of their work to the public. There is often little short-term, individual incentive to do so and, indeed, "public" scientists often face major professional disincentives. To draw this essay to a close on a personal note, I am very fortunate to enjoy the support of prominent, well-respected scientists and other individuals who have dedicated much of their career to changing these circumstances. In my early days as a graduate student, their efforts led to a remarkable phenomenon on the Stanford campus: some economists and ecologists started speaking to one another. The interaction intensified and has proven extremely productive, now involving individuals in many other areas including climatology, engineering, law, and anthropology, and offering diverse, but increasingly convergent (and informed!) perspectives on environmental issues. At about the same time, some of these same individuals played key roles in establishing the Beijer International Institute for Ecological Economics of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences. Being involved in, and observing the evolution of, these two groups has been very educational for me. I believe that the payoff on such exchanges can be very high, in both intellectual and practical terms. With the support of individuals in these groups (in providing training, contacts, and opportunities), I have developed a series of outreach efforts aimed at communicating the findings of my research to a wide array of academics, the business community, policy makers, and the general public. The times certainly seem to be ripening: although there is powerful, entrenched opposition to change, there are also important segments of the private sector and general public who are very serious about doing something and who keenly want to know what that something should be. There appears to be growing demand for ecological understanding to evaluate the merits of alternative courses of action and to identify efficient paths toward reducing deleterious human impacts on the environment. I have also recently become involved in building exchange between the environmental science community in the United States and those in developing nations, especially in Latin America. The benefits of such exchange are manifold, including improving the science of all parties, enhancing local capacities for environmental management, better directing U.S. foundation and government funds for conservation efforts, and fostering the trust and political cooperation needed to solve regional and global problems. Clearly, there are many important fronts to which one could contribute. Considering our tentative lessons from the South Pacific, my hope is to help foster productive nuclei of small-group interaction to chart new intellectual territory and to help forge a transition to a sustainable economy. Responses to this article are invited. If accepted for publication, your response will be hyperlinked to the article. To submit a comment, follow this link. To read comments already accepted, follow this link. Castro, R., and F. Tattenbach, editors. 1998. The Costa Rican experience with market instruments to mitigate climate change and conserve biodiversity. MINAE and FUNDECOR, San José, Costa Rica. Chichilnisky, G., and G. Heal.1998. Economic returns from the biosphere. Nature 391: 629-630. Daily, G. C., editor.1997. Nature's services: Societal dependence on natural ecosystems. Island Press, Washington, D.C., USA. Daily, G. C., P. Dasgupta, B. Bolin, P. Crosson, J. du Guerny, P. Ehrlich, C. Folke, A. M. Jansson, B.-O. Jansson, N. Kautsky, A. Kinzig, S. Levin, K.-G. Mäler, P. Pinstrup-Andersen, D. Siniscalco, and B. Walker. 1998. Food production, population growth, and the environment. Science 281: 1291-1292. Daily, G. C., and P. R. Ehrlich. 1994. Influence of social status on individual foraging and community structure in a bird guild. Oecologia 100: 153-165. Daily, G. C., and P. R. Ehrlich. 1996. Nocturnality and species survival. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA) 93: 11709-11712. Daily, G. C., P. R. Ehrlich, and G. A. Sánchez-Azofeifa. In review. Countryside biogeography: Utilization of human-dominated habitats by the avifauna of southern Costa Rica. (Available from G. C. Daily.) Daily, G. C., T. Soederqvist, K. Arrow, P. Dasgupta, P. Ehrlich, C. Folke, A.-M. Jansson, B.-O. Jansson, S. Levin, J. Lubchenco, K.-G. Mäler, D. Starrett, D. Tilman, and B. Walker. In review. The value of nature and the nature of value. (Available from G. C. Daily.) Kirch, P. V. 1997. Microcosmic histories: Island perspectives on "global" change. American Anthropologist 99: 30-42. Lubchenco, J. 1998. Entering the century of the environment: A new social contract for science. Science 279: 491-497. Reid, W. V. In press. Capturing the value of ecosystem services to protect biodiversity. In Processdings of the "Managing Human-Dominated Ecosystems" Conference. Monographs in Systematic Botany, Missouri Botanical Garden. Ricketts, T. H., G. C. Daily, P. R. Ehrlich, and J. P. Fay. In review. Countryside biogeography of moths in a fragmented landscape: biodiversity in native and agricultural habitats. (Available from G. C. Daily.) Vitousek, P. M., H. A. Mooney, J. Lubchenco, and J. M. Melillo. 1997. Human domination of Earth's ecosystems. Science 277: 494-499. Address of Correspondent: Gretchen C. Daily Department of Biological Sciences 371 Serra Mall Stanford University Stanford, CA 94305-5020 USA Phone: (650) 723-3171 email@example.com *The copyright to this article passed from the Ecological Society of America to the Resilience Alliance on 1 January 2000. |
Home | Archives | About | Login | Submissions | Notify | Contact | Search | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||


text:
"I support EPIC's Petition to the NSA."
June 17, 2013 Dear General Alexander and Secretary Hagel: The undersigned individuals and organizations, concerned about the rule of law and the protection of Constitutional freedoms, hereby petition the National Security Agency to conduct a public rulemaking on the agency's monitoring and collection of communications traffic within the United States. 5 U.S.C. § 553(e). We believe that the NSA's collection of domestic communications contravenes the First and Fourth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and violates several federal privacy laws, including the Privacy Act of 1974, and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 as amended. The NSA's collection of solely domestic communications, which has been acknowledged by the President, the Director of National Intelligence, and the Chair and Ranking Member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, also constitutes a legislative rule that "substantively affects the public to a degree sufficient to implicate the policy interests animating notice-and-comment rulemaking" under the Administrative Procedure Act. EPIC v. DHS, 653 F.3d 1, 6 (D.C. Cir. 2011). Accordingly, the NSA's collection of domestic communications, absent the opportunity for public comment, is unlawful. We hereby petition the National Security Agency, a component of the Department of Defense, for relief. We ask the NSA to immediately suspend collection of solely domestic communications pending the completion of a public rulemaking as required by law. We intend to renew our request each week until we receive your response. Sincerely,
NSA Responds to EPIC's Petition What is this petition? NSA Director Says Agency's Mission is Foreign Intelligence Collection "Remember, we are a foreign intelligence agency. Our job is to go after foreign intelligence requirements." Gen. Keith Alexander, Director, National Security Agency, NSA Director Says Agency Wants Public Comments "Help us defend this country and protect our civil liberties and privacy. And if anybody has a better way to do it than what we are doing today, we want to hear that." Gen. Keith Alexander, Director, National Security Agency, |


text:
CD and network Player
3 review/sCode: 70752437
All our products are covered by Italian warranty.
Marantz design engineers have taken everything we learned in developing the Premium Range and applied it to this first-of-its-kind, exquisite player. Introducing "The Complete Digital Music Source Player". The ND8006 delivers renowned Marantz sound from literally unlimited music sources, including online music services, HEOS multi-room technology, locally stored high-resolution audio files, CD audio playback, AirPlay, Bluetooth and more. Easily upgrade any existing audio system to the best of Digital music - along with a mega-portion of versatility. Wherever and however your favourite music is stored, you can now enjoy it in pure Marantz quality. Because Music Matters.
Key Features
High quality CD, CD-R/RW (MP3/WMA) playback
AirPlay, Bluetooth, Internet Radio, Spotify Connect, Amazon Music, TIDAL, Deezer and more
2x optical, coaxial and USB type B digital inputs with noise isolation circuit
Audiophile 192kHz/32bit D/A conversion (ESS9016) and dual crystal clock
Marantz proprietary HDAM-SA2 circuits
Full discrete headphone amplifier with HDAM-SA2 and gain control
Double shielded toroidal transformer, double layered bottom plate and rigid feet
Built-in Wi-Fi with 2.4GHz/5GHz dual band support
Built-in HEOS Wireless Multi-Room Audio Technology
Support of WAV, MP3, AAC, WMA, FLAC, ALAC fi le playback via USB devices
Optical, coaxial digital outputs; variable and fixed analogue outputs; RS232
Available in black or silver-gold
The Complete Digital Music Source Player
The ND8006 is built to meet all the requirements of the modern digital music listener, bringing together functions usually requiring two or three separate audio components. Based on the successful NA8005 and SA8005 models, but featuring a complete re-think of features and audio design, it combines a CD player with a digital sources hub offering playback from home network, local USB storage, online sources such as streaming services and Internet radio, HEOS support and DAC functionality allowing the direct connection of computers and other devices. It's also futureproofed, accepting file formats all the way up to 11.2Mhz quad-DSD and 384kHz/32-bit PCM, and additionally features both Apple AirPlay and Bluetooth to play music from portable devices.
HEOS music streaming
The ND8006's built-in HEOS technology allows you to stream and play back your favourite music wirelessly from literally unlimited sources. Enjoy music from Spotify, TuneIn Internet radio, Sound Cloud, Tidal, Napster, Deezer, or your local music file libraries. With additional HEOS components like the HEOS speaker range or other HEOS-capable receivers, you can play all your music throughout the whole house. Control it all effortlessly with the free HEOS app.
High Resolution Audio
Optical and coaxial digital inputs as well as a USB-B port enable you to stream music directly from a PC or MAC, or connect other digital sources. The USB-B works in asynchronous mode to support not only 384kHz/32bits high-resolution audio but also the DSD 2.8MHz, 5.6MHz and even 11.2MHz formats for maximized performance and the most direct way to enjoy excellent quality. To safeguard quality when connected to a computer, Marantz built extended isolation around the USB-B input to eliminate the chance of high frequency noise generated by the computer entering the ND8006. Furthermore, the front USB port accepts USB thumb or hard drives for standard music file playback.
Marantz Musical Digital Filtering (MMDF)
The ND8006 features the unique Marantz Musical Digital Filtering (MMDF), inspired by our audiophile reference class technology. For Marantz, using standard digital filter solutions is not an option, as this filtering is crucial to the sound reproduction of digital input signals. As a result, we invested extensively in gaining expert knowledge, leading into highly-acclaimed Marantz Music Mastering technology used in award-winning Premium Range 10 Series products. Adapted for the ND8006 hardware design, the solution is called Marantz Musical Digital Filtering. Two selectable, digital filter characteristics cater for different tastes, and each handle even the minutest of detail with loving care in the digital audio signal, transforming new media files into the finest of high-resolution playback.
Built-in Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, and AirPlay Capability
Featuring Bluetooth & Wi-Fi wireless streaming connectivity, the ND8006 is equipped with an advanced dual antenna transceiver system, for robust streaming even in congested urban environments. With Apple's AirPlay compatibility, you can enjoy listening to your favourite tracks wirelessly from your favourite iOS device such as iPhone and iPad.
Preserving sound quality
The individual "OFF mode" setting allows unused sections of the ND8006 to be switched off to avoid any chance of interference, and to keep the audio source signal paths in use as pure as possible for further improved sound quality. The shielded toroidal transformer further minimises internal noise while the rigid, double-layer chassis cares for optimal shielding and stability.
Audiophile D/A conversion and unique Marantz HDAM
The ND8006 is built with legendary Marantz sound quality commitment. The audiophile ESS9016 Sabre DAC, with dual crystal clocks ensures accurate handling of all digital signals. The analogue circuitry uses carefully selected components plus the famous Marantz Hyper-Dynamic Amplifier Modules (HDAMs) resulting in wide dynamic range and lowest distortion: in place of the all-in-one 'chip amplifiers' used elsewhere, these miniature amplifiers are built from separate, optimised components for the very best sound quality, and are found in Marantz products all the way up to the Reference series players and amplifiers.
High quality headphone output
For music lovers enjoying their favourite recording directly via headphones the ND8006 features a high-quality headphone stage with dedicated amplifier module HDAM-SA2. To work with a wider variety of headphones, the gain factor can be changed from low to mid to high. By using this, it is possible to drive low to high impedance headphone without any problem.
Independent Variable output terminal
Alongside its conventional line output for use into an amplifier like the perfectly matching PM8006, the ND8006 provides a separate variable level output for connection to powered or active speakers, or to a power amp direct input, allowing it to be used as a multi-source digital player/preamp. The volume can also be controlled via apps or by using the remote handset.
Customer reviews
Alessandro - Verified purchase
Patrizio - Verified purchase
Maurizio - Verified purchase


text:
If you've made your organ and tissue donation decision, tell your family and friends.
Because if your loved ones know your decision, it'll make it easier for them to ensure it is honoured.
A new campaign is underway to highlight the choices people have under Scotland's opt out system of organ and tissue donation, to encourage more people to record their decision on the NHS Organ Donor Register and tell their loved ones too.
Everyone aged 16 or over has a choice – to be an organ and tissue donor, or to opt out.
If you choose to do nothing, then it will be assumed you agree to donate certain organs and tissue for transplantation, unless you are in a group for whom the opt out system doesn't apply, or if donation would be against your views.
Only 1% of people will die in a way that makes organ donation possible, which is usually in a hospital intensive care unit. There may also be opportunities to donate tissue such as heart valves, tendons and corneas, from within a hospital setting. If you've made your decision, make it known.
Don't Leave Your Loved Ones in Doubt.
You can register your donation decision and find out more at
organdonation.scot or call 0300 123 23 23.


text:
You guys know I've drank the Glock Cool-aide. I freely admit it. But I also remain an unabashed fan of the handguns from SIG SAUER. I just like them. Especially when SIG is coming out with very good ideas like the new P938.
Not much bigger than the P238, the little .380 automatic… the new P938 is essentially the same thing just scaled up slightly to fire the 9mm cartridge.
One of the guns that I've always wanted was a Colt Pocket 9. Colt gave the American Public the middle finger and my desire to pursue the Pocket 9 was squelched, but not totally killed in action. This kind of reminds me of that little Colt.
Really the only guns in the SIG's class are the Kimber Solo, the Springfield EMP and SIG's own P290. I'm not talking about the Kahr's or the Walther or even the Shield… I'm talking about the Higher Class options here. The 938 just feels like it's a step above to me. I think it's a lot nicer than an EMP… again, that's just me and I am not going to cut down on the EMP. I know it's a great little pistol. I just like the 938 a lot more for reasons I can't quantify for you. Same reason I like "Pralines and Cream" better than "Butter Pecan". I can't explain why… I love me some Butter Pecan. It's one of my very favorites, but given the option between the two, I'll take the Pralines and Cream every time. I don't even know what the hell a Praline is.
Back to the SIG, the new 938 trumps the 290 hard. Lower bore axis, slimmer profile… just nicer. I know I tend to favor Single Action triggers or triggers that feel and work like Single Actions, so admittedly I am biased to the 938 over the 290. But taking the trigger out of the equation, the 938 is dimensionally smaller, which gives it an edge in concealment without sacrificing any ability for the gun to be a good shooter. So really the choice is between the 938 and the Solo.
The P290 just seems too chunky by comparison to the slender newcomer.
At the gun shop I work at, we are a house divided on the new SIG… Some of us prefer the SIG P938. And by Some I mean just me. Everyone else like the Solo better. Oh well. The SOLO is very smooth and sleek. But it's too much of a good thing and I don't feel like I can get a solid hold on it. It doesn't point for me either. The 938 points very well for being so small, and I can get a good grip on it, even with my hamfists.
To me it comes down to that trigger pull. The SIG's trigger is a Single Action that kept getting better the more we played with it, with the SOLO is a Double Action Only affair… While the SOLO's trigger is nice, I find the SIG's to be superior. Some will argue that accuracy with a Defensive Weapon such as these is a secondary concern… and they are right. But this doesn't mean we have to disregard accuracy altogether. I am quite sure that in a defensive pistol accuracy remains quite important. Making that First Round Hit through a Vital is important. But, that's just my opinion.
I'd love a SIG P938 and I just might have to get one, one of these days… and by one of these days I mean "as soon as possible."
UPDATE: Thanks for the Hat Tip, SIG. *High Five*


text:
Please visit our Open House at 505 1633 ONTARIO ST in Vancouver.
Open House on Sunday, November 13, 2016 2:00PM - 4:00PM
Welcome to the "KAYAK" located right next to the Waterfront! A great floor plan over 600 sqft with no wasted space. This beautiful unit has 2 BALCONIES, one of which facing False Creek/Science World & the park. Features include air conditioning, 9 feet ceiling, stainless steel appliances, Sub Zero refrigerator, stone counter top, gas stove top & LG front load washer/dryer. Building offers 2 Exercise centers, indoor pool/sauna, steam room, concierge, beautiful garden. Truly a PRIME location with such amenities as Urban Fare Grocery, London Drugs, Legacy liquor Store, restaurants, coffee Shops, Canada Line & Expo Skytrain, Aqua Bus, Seawall & more. Includes 1 parking. Don't miss out. Open house sat/sun Nov 12 & 13 2-4pm.


text:
Airbnb Is Opening an Apartment Building in Florida in 2018
It's easy to assume that both policy changes were driven by the mass shooting in Las Vegas in October 2017, when gunman Stephen Paddock hung a "Do Not Disturb" sign on his room door for several days, thus concealing the ammunition he had smuggled on property.
Certainly, Hilton's new policy explicitly references this incident (Disney demurs). But according to lawyer Stephen Barth, who teaches at Houston's Conrad N. Hilton College of Hotel and Restaurant Management, DND doorhangers have been under review by the industry for some time.


text:
Cate & Chloe VIP Box Giveaway
Hosted by Stylish Momme
Co-hosted by
Here We Go Again, Ready?
Mommy on the Money
Bubby's Mommy
Sponsored by Cate & Chloe
Cate & Chloe began with the simple idea of creating stylish, yet affordable jewelry that women could wear every day, no matter the occasion. Whether you're looking for a simple elegant look, or an eccentric statement piece, you'll find your style at Cate & Chloe. With Cate & Chloe, you can achieve a professional, elegant look easy, for at home, when you're out with friends, or in the office.
You can also sign up for their monthly subscription box for as low as $32 per month, and receive high quality items valued at over $200 retail value. Also, by being a subscription member, you may purchase from Cate & Chloe's shop and receive 20% off all items, including sales items! I love these boxes! Its so cool to get something in the mail that you were not expecting and you never know what they are going to hold. Sometimes one product is worth the whole box cost. Great prize!
Enter the giveaway using the Giveaway Tools below for your chance to win a 1 month VIP Box from Cate & Chloe!
Giveaway Terms
- This giveaway will run from February 16th to March 2nd at 11:59PM CST and is open to US residents 18+ only.
- The winner will be notified by e-mail and will have 48 hours to respond or forfeits the prize.
- This giveaway is not associated with Facebook, Twitter, or any other social media.
- All participating blogs are not responsible for prize fulfillment.
- All entries are optional. Void where prohibited by law.


text:
The URL address of the page in your website that people reach when they click your ad.
- The domain of the destination URL needs to match the domain of your display URL.
- The destination URL isn't displayed on your ads (the URL shown is your display URL).
- The final URL is replacing the destination URL as part of a URL upgrade. For now, you can choose to use either a final URL or a destination URL as your landing page address.
Learn what's happening in the URL upgrade
Edit your display URL and landing page URL


text:
Tim M., Andover
We couldn't be more pleased with our experience with Boston Tutoring Services. Our son was incredibly well-prepared for his SSAT and his high school applications. Our tutor, Alison, was always accessible and gave us excellent written feedback after each session. We will continue to use and recommend BTS with great pleasure!


text:
Series: ESTONIA、VIENNA、NANALAM、PATTAYA
Water content: 38~40%
Diameter: 14.0-14.5mm
Optical centre thickness: 0.08mm
Main material: HEMA
Base curve radius: 8.4-8.5mm
Lenses hardness: Soft
Replacement frequency: yearly disposable
1 Pair (2 lenses) Lenses with One Contact Case (free).
Colors & Lens Note:
1.It helps change the color of pupils, makes your eyes look bigger and get you more beautiful.
2.Nice for Party, Cosplay, Fashion Show, Halloween Makeup, etc.
3.Safe, comfortable and durable, can be used for 1 year.
4.Fashion and popular among girls and women.
Attention: See the instructions inside the box for details.
How to take care of your contact lenses?
1.Clean and disinfect the lens with moderate care solution (Wash your hands, place the contact lenses in the palm of your hand. Wet your lenses with a few drops of care solution and carefully rub the lenses with your finger. Of course, you can use the contact lens cleaning machine).
2.Use fresh care solution each time and discard solution from lens case after each use.
3.Remember to change solution regularly if you do not wear the lens often.
4.Rinse and scrub your lens every 2-3 days to prevent protein precipitation effectively.
5.Keep the lenses away from sharp objects because the lenses are very thin and vulnerable.
6.Keep the lenses in a dry place and avoid direct sunlight.