scholarly journals RATIONAL APPLICATION OF SLIT ATOMIZERS OF LIQUID FOR AEROSOL TECHNOLOGY EDGE TREATMENT OF FIELD

2021 ◽  
pp. 42-48
Author(s):  
O.N. DIACHKOVA ◽  
◽  
Yu.I. TILININ ◽  
V.A. RATUSHIN ◽  
◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 118 ◽  
pp. 103959
Author(s):  
Jingxian Yang ◽  
Wei She ◽  
Wenqiang Zuo ◽  
Kai lyu ◽  
Qunchao Zhang

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 273-278 ◽  
Author(s):  
Krista J. Ward ◽  
Kasey L. Jobe ◽  
Nicholas C. Schiwitz ◽  
Daniel Saenz ◽  
Christopher M. Schalk

Abstract At the conclusion of road construction projects, an erosion control product (e.g., blankets, spray mulch) is installed to reduce soil loss and promote plant growth. Wildlife, such as snakes (suborder Serpentes), are prone to entanglement in erosion control blankets (ECBs) that contain polypropylene mesh with fused apertures. Previous reports have noted that the occurrences of entanglements are not uniform in their distribution across an ECB, but primarily occur where the edge of the mesh is exposed. We conducted an experiment to determine if modification to the installation methods of ECBs affects the likelihood of snake entanglement. We conducted entanglement trials to compare the likelihood of snake entanglement between two treatments: 1) exposed ECB edge (i.e., perimeter) and 2) buried ECB edge. Snakes were less likely to attempt to pass through the mesh on the buried edge treatment and all entanglements occurred on the exposed edge treatment. These results provide support that modification to the installation methods reduces snake entanglement in ECBs in some settings. However, we conducted our study in an experimental setting, and it should be evaluated under natural field conditions. This research can be used to inform several parties including contractors, habitat managers, and agency decision makers on additional steps that can be taken for products that fit their application needs to minimize risks to wildlife.


2009 ◽  
Author(s):  
Masafumi Fujita ◽  
Takao Tamura ◽  
Naka Onoda ◽  
Takayuki Uchiyama

2019 ◽  
pp. 159-196
Author(s):  
Matthias Klatt

This chapter presents a normative defense of proportionality’s absolute validity, arguing that proportionality is one of the central rules that establish the space of reasons. Proportionality enables the construction of a justified and well-founded basis for the rational application of human rights. The normative basis of proportionality lies in a moral right to justification. To explore this idea, the chapter begins by explaining the meaning of a right to justification. Next, it explores how it relates to the proportionality test. Building upon the distinction between internal and external justification of rights reasoning, it also addresses the universality problem that consists in doubts about the global validity of the right to justification. It defends the international and transnational validity of the right to justification against claims to cultural relativity by discussing the application of human rights. This, in turn, allows a defense of Forst’s right to justification as a robust fundament of discursive global constitutionalism.


2021 ◽  
pp. 175-189
Author(s):  
Robert Alexy

One of the main theses of principles theory is that the rational application of constitutional rights presupposes proportionality analysis and that proportionality analysis necessarily includes balancing. The objection of over-constitutionalization has been raised to this thesis. Principles theory has attempted to reply to this objection with a theory of discretion in which formal principles, in particular, the principle of democracy, play a pivotal role. The theory of formal principles, however, has led in recent decades to more questions than answers. With respect to constitutional rights, two models have been and remain in competition: the combination model and the separation model. The first model balances formal principles in combination with substantive principles, whereas the second model separates the balancing of formal principles from the balancing of substantive principles. It is argued in this chapter that both models are mistaken, and an epistemic model is proposed that finds expression in the epistemic variables of the Weight Formula.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document