Suchergebnisse

Small patches of remnant vegetation are often considered to have low conservation value. In urban landscapes their value may potentially be higher than in other landscapes because they can be the only representatives of original native vegetation. Despite this potential, many small insectivorous birds that rely on native vegetation demonstrate sensitivities within urban landscapes through reduced numbers or total absence. One reason for this sensitivity may be that remnants are of suboptimal quality, which may be reflected in behavioural changes. Using five insectivorous species that were present (in low numbers) in remnants surrounded by high-density housing, foraging behaviour was examined in relation to vegetation. The proportion of time birds spent on different foraging substrates and plant species was compared with that of conspecifics in continuous vegetation. Canopy and shrub foragers showed minimal behavioural changes. Ground foragers in remnants tended to forage at lower heights than those in continuous vegetation; however, these changes did not appear to reflect a negative effect. These changes were partially explained by structural differences between vegetation in remnants and continuous sites. The number of times a bird attacked prey items was significantly higher in continuous habitat for only two species. Overall, the foraging behaviour of small insectivorous birds in remnants surrounded by high-density housing was not adversely affected by urbanisation and it appears that remnants have potential value as habitat and foraging sources in an urban landscape. Despite this, small insectivores are still sensitive to urbanisation, suggesting that other factors, probably in the matrix, are important.

UK police services constantly endure pressures to reduce spending and to reorganise in ways thought to be more efficient. In these moments of scrutiny, non-standard work practices become more noticeable. We report a study of a specialist unit, the Child Protection Unit (CPU), in one police service. In 2011, an initial exploratory interview with the unit head was followed by two discussion groups carried out with a three month gap between them. We found the unit existing and working dynamically between two forces: (a) the needs and expectations of society regarding child protection and (b) how more general expectations and needs regarding crime are normally met by the police service. While 'traditional' policing might see the offender successfully prosecuted, there can be deleterious effects on the victim. In consequence, CPU members are: more focused on and sensitive to the victim leading to a risk management philosophy; are more team-oriented with greater awareness of and sense of responsibility for each other; receive greater public support than other parts of the service. These differences result in the CPU members having non-standard organisational and operational work practices: they are less performance target-based; they investigate and prosecute a smaller number of cases; they use different documentation; they are not available to help with other work at times of greater general demand on the police service. Thus existing dynamically and anomalously, the unit's very vulnerability that helps its members to do their difficult job also raises their profile and increases vulnerability to financial cuts. Their precipice in the title quotation is at several levels. We theorise our findings using contingency and cultural theories believing the findings relevant to other organisations with specialist units.

We thank CERN for the very successful operation of the LHC, as well as the support staff from our institutions without whom ATLAS could not be operated efficiently. We acknowledge the support of ANPCyT, Argentina; YerPhI, Armenia; ARC, Australia; BMWFW and FWF, Austria; ANAS, Azerbaijan; SSTC, Belarus; CNPq and FAPESP, Brazil; NSERC, NRC, and CFI, Canada; CERN; CONICYT, Chile; CAS, MOST, and NSFC, China; COLCIENCIAS, Colombia; MSMT CR, MPO CR, and VSC CR, Czech Republic; DNRF and DNSRC, Denmark; IN2P3-CNRS, CEA-DSM/IRFU, France; GNSF, Georgia; BMBF, HGF, and MPG, Germany; GSRT, Greece; RGC, Hong Kong SAR, China; ISF, I-CORE, and Benoziyo Center, Israel; INFN, Italy; MEXT and JSPS, Japan; CNRST, Morocco; FOM and NWO, Netherlands; RCN, Norway; MNiSW and NCN, Poland; FCT, Portugal; MNE/IFA, Romania; MES of Russia and NRC KI, Russian Federation; JINR; MESTD, Serbia; MSSR, Slovakia; ARRS and MIZŠ, Slovenia; DST/NRF, South Africa; MINECO, Spain; SRC and Wallenberg Foundation, Sweden; SERI, SNSF, and Cantons of Bern and Geneva, Switzerland; MOST, Taiwan; TAEK, Turkey; STFC, United Kingdom; DOE and NSF, United States of America. In addition, individual groups and members have received support from BCKDF, the Canada Council, CANARIE, CRC, Compute Canada, FQRNT, and the Ontario Innovation Trust, Canada; EPLANET, ERC, FP7, Horizon 2020, and Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions, European Union; Investissements d'Avenir Labex and Idex, ANR, Région Auvergne, and Fondation Partager le Savoir, France; DFG and AvH Foundation, Germany; Herakleitos, Thales and Aristeia programmes cofinanced by EU-ESF and the Greek NSRF; BSF, GIF, and Minerva, Israel; BRF, Norway; Generalitat de Catalunya, Generalitat Valenciana, Spain; the Royal Society and Leverhulme Trust, United Kingdom. The crucial computing support from all WLCG partners is acknowledged gratefully, in particular from CERN, the ATLAS Tier-1 facilities at TRIUMF (Canada), NDGF (Denmark, Norway, Sweden), CC-IN2P3 (France), KIT/GridKA (Germany), INFN-CNAF (Italy), NL-T1 (Netherlands), PIC (Spain), ASGC (Taiwan), RAL (UK), and BNL (USA), the Tier-2 facilities worldwide and large non-WLCG resource providers. Major contributors of computing resources are listed in Ref. [74]

We thank CERN for the very successful operation of the LHC, as well as the support staff from our institutions without whom ATLAS could not be operated efficiently. We acknowledge the support of ANPCyT, Argentina; YerPhI, Armenia; ARC, Australia; BMWFW and FWF, Austria; ANAS, Azerbaijan; SSTC, Belarus; CNPq and FAPESP, Brazil; NSERC, NRC and CFI, Canada; CERN; CONICYT, Chile; CAS, MOST and NSFC, China; COLCIENCIAS, Colombia; MSMT CR, MPO CR and VSC CR, Czech Republic; DNRF, DNSRC and Lundbeck Foundation, Denmark; IN2P3-CNRS, CEADSM/IRFU, France; GNSF, Georgia; BMBF, HGF, and MPG, Germany; GSRT, Greece; RGC, Hong Kong SAR, China; ISF, I-CORE and Benoziyo Center, Israel; INFN, Italy; MEXT and JSPS, Japan; CNRST, Morocco; FOM and NWO, Netherlands; RCN, Norway; MNiSW and NCN, Poland; FCT, Portugal; MNE/IFA, Romania; MES of Russia and NRC KI, Russian Federation; JINR; MESTD, Serbia; MSSR, Slovakia; ARRS and MIZS, ˇ Slovenia; DST/NRF, South Africa; MINECO, Spain; SRC and Wallenberg Foundation, Sweden; SERI, SNSF and Cantons of Bern and Geneva, Switzerland; MOST, Taiwan; TAEK, Turkey; STFC, United Kingdom; DOE and NSF, United States of America. In addition, individual groups and members have received support from BCKDF, the Canada Council, CANARIE, CRC, Compute Canada, FQRNT, and the Ontario Innovation Trust, Canada; EPLANET, ERC, FP7, Horizon 2020 and Marie Sk lodowska-Curie Actions, European Union; Investissements d'Avenir Labex and Idex, ANR, Region Auvergne and Fondation Partager le Savoir, France; DFG and AvH Foundation, Germany; Herakleitos, Thales and Aristeia programmes co-financed by EU-ESF and the Greek NSRF; BSF, GIF and Minerva, Israel; BRF, Norway; the Royal Society and Leverhulme Trust, United Kingdom. The crucial computing support from all WLCG partners is acknowledged gratefully, in particular from CERN and the ATLAS Tier-1 facilities at TRIUMF (Canada), NDGF (Denmark, Norway, Sweden), CC-IN2P3 (France), KIT/GridKA (Germany), INFN-CNAF (Italy), NL-T1 (Netherlands), PIC (Spain), ASGC (Taiwan), RAL (U.K.) and BNL (U.S.A.) and in the Tier-2 facilities worldwide.