Chapter 5 - Plant labour in the ecological regime of urban maintenance: Reproduction, collaboration, uneven relations

2021 ◽  
pp. 105-122
Author(s):  
Marion Ernwein
Keyword(s):  
2003 ◽  
pp. 28-40 ◽  
Author(s):  
L. L. Zanokha

The 2 new associations, Carici stantis—Salicetum reptantis and Salico-Polemonietum acutiflori, are described within the all. Caricionstantis of the class Scheuchzerio-Caricetea fuscae R. Tx. 1937 for the northern belt of the typical tundra subzone of Taymyr. The diagnostic species group of the first syntaxon includes plants typical of sites with excessive watering. The ass. Carici stantis—Salicetum reptantis is restricted to bottoms or lower parts of the watershed and moun­tain terrace slopes. The ecological regime of these sites is subject to slight variations reflected in presence/ absence of certain species. Due to floristic differences, the association is subdivided into several subassociations which form a topographic-ecological series along the humidity gradient: epilobietosum palustris→ptilidietosum ciliaris→typicum→petasitetosum frigidi. The ass. Carici stantis—Salicetum reptantis is referred to the all. Caricionstantis which also includes the associations Meesiotriquetris—Caricetumstantis and Pooarcticae—Dupontietumfisheri (also described from the Ragozinka R. basin); the latter occur in the wet depres­sions between sloping hills and the flowing valleys, respectively. If compared to these two, the ass. Carici stantis—Salicetum reptantis is shown to hold an intermediate position between them. The ass. Salico-Polemonietum acutiflori with the 2 variants, Salix lanata and S. reptans, represents various variants of mire vegetation which have under­gone zoogenic transformation (by lemmings). The stands size 1—1.5 m2 in space. The diagnostic species group comprises plants common of the wet mossy stream banks. The association is referred to the all. Caricion stantis, although many diagnostic species of the alliance are not present in its composition. When the new data are available, the association is probable to be separated into an independent alliance.


Author(s):  
Erin Stewart Mauldin

Emancipation proved to be a far-reaching ecological event. Whereas the ecological regime of slavery had reinforced extensive land-use practices, the end of slavery weakened them. Freedpeople dedicated less time to erosion control and ditching and used contract negotiations and sharecropping arrangements to avoid working in a centrally directed gang. Understandably, freedpeople preferred to direct their own labor on an individual plot of land. The eventual proliferation of share-based or tenant contracts encouraged the physical reorganization of plantations. The combination of these two progressive alterations to labor relations tragically undermined African Americans’ efforts to achieve economic independence by tightening natural limits on cotton production and reducing blacks’ access to the South’s internal provisioning economy. The cessation, or even reduced frequency, of land maintenance on farms exacerbated erosion, flooding, and crops’ susceptibility to drought.


Author(s):  
Erin Stewart Mauldin

This chapter explores the ecological regime of slavery and the land-use practices employed by farmers across the antebellum South. Despite the diverse ecologies and crop regimes of the region, most southern farmers employed a set of extensive agricultural techniques that kept the cost of farming down and helped circumvent natural limits on crop production and stock-raising. The use of shifting cultivation, free-range animal husbandry, and slaves to perform erosion control masked the environmental impacts of farmers’ actions, at least temporarily. Debates over westward expansion during the sectional crisis of the 1850s were not just about the extension of slavery, they also reflected practical concerns regarding access to new lands and fresh soil. Both were necessary for the continued profitability of farming in the South.


2008 ◽  
pp. n/a-n/a ◽  
Author(s):  
Jan Kloppenborg Møller ◽  
Jacob Carstensen ◽  
Henrik Madsen ◽  
Tom Andersen

Ecology ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 95 (3) ◽  
pp. 693-702 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas A. A. Prowse ◽  
Christopher N. Johnson ◽  
Corey J. A. Bradshaw ◽  
Barry W. Brook

2003 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. n/a-n/a ◽  
Author(s):  
Temel Oguz ◽  
Tulay Cokacar ◽  
Paola Malanotte-Rizzoli ◽  
Hugh W. Ducklow

Ecosystems ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 15 (8) ◽  
pp. 1336-1350 ◽  
Author(s):  
Linda Randsalu-Wendrup ◽  
Daniel J. Conley ◽  
Jacob Carstensen ◽  
Ian Snowball ◽  
Catherine Jessen ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document