Publikasjoner
NIBIOs ansatte publiserer flere hundre vitenskapelige artikler og forskningsrapporter hvert år. Her finner du referanser og lenker til publikasjoner og andre forsknings- og formidlingsaktiviteter. Samlingen oppdateres løpende med både nytt og historisk materiale. For mer informasjon om NIBIOs publikasjoner, besøk NIBIOs bibliotek.
2024
Sammendrag
Large clear-cut areas as a consequence of drought and bark beetle infestations necessitate extensive replanting efforts in German forests, leading to an increased interest in efficient planting systems. In addition to manual planting, mechanized and semi-mechanized systems utilizing surplus forest machine capacities available after completion of salvage logging operations are likely required for timely reforestation of the clear-cut areas. A semi-mechanized system utilizing a standard forwarder with a grapple-actuated soil borer for both, the transport of planting material and the preparation of planting pits, combined with two workers carrying out manual planting, was investigated in a time-and-motion study. The frequency method was used after video recording of a planting operation that covered an area of approximately 1.2 hectares. A total of 815 alder saplings (Alnus glutinosa L.) with heights of 1.2–1.5 m were planted. Observed productivity was 93 saplings per system work hour (SWH). With additional placement of stakes for stabilizing the plants, the productivity decreased to 42 saplings per SWH. While directly comparable results were not found in the literature, available productivity figures of purely manual planting systems do not suggest an increased productivity of this semi-mechanized system. Considering ergonomics, however, forwarder utilization provides reduced workload not only in plant hole preparation but also with material transport and clearing of planting spots. Both the ergonomic aspects of the system and, in particular, the suitability of the soil borer for different soil textures should be further investigated.
Sammendrag
Semi-natural hay meadows are among the most species-rich habitats in Norway as well as in Europe. To maintain the biodiversity of hay meadows, it is important to understand local management regimes and the land use history that has shaped them and their biodiversity. There is however a general erosion of Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK), related to hay meadows and other semi-natural habitats. This review aims to examine historical and written sources of land use practices related to hay meadows and to discuss the implications of a re-introduction of TEK in present and future management practices. Traditional land use practices and TEK obtained from written sources from four Norwegian regions and for the country as a whole are compared with present management practices. Written sources show that hay meadows have been managed in a complex but flexible way. Today's management regimes of hay meadows in Norway are streamlined and strongly simplified, most often involving only one late mowing and in some cases grazing. This simplification may result in loss of biodiversity. The potential to include more variety of management practices in hay meadows, by utilizing knowledge from written sources more systematically in combination with farmers’ experienced knowledge (TEK) should be better utilized. Such an approach may secure both the biodiversity in hay meadows and TEK for the future. Former and present landscape ecological contexts in the infield-outlying land system show that management should be done for larger landscapes rather than small, isolated hay meadows, to optimize biodiversity conservation. For this study, we conducted a Norwegian literature review, based on ethnographical and ethnobotanical sources, as well as historical and present agricultural statistics, historical maps, results from research projects, and other sources. Our findings are discussed with similar European studies focusing on the historical management of hay meadows.
Sammendrag
Det er ikke registrert sammendrag
Sammendrag
Det er ikke registrert sammendrag
Forfattere
Krzysztof KusnierekSammendrag
Det er ikke registrert sammendrag
Forfattere
Unni Støbet LandeSammendrag
Det er ikke registrert sammendrag
Sammendrag
Det er ikke registrert sammendrag
Forfattere
Snorre Hagen Geir-Harald Strand David Kniha Inger Hansen Svein Eilertsen Lisbet H. Baklid Cornelya KlutschSammendrag
I Norge er reindrift en sesongbasert næring, der reinflokkene utnytter ulike beiteområder avhengig av årstiden. Tap av rein gjennom året er en av de største utfordringene i reindriften. Tapene reduserer produksjon, dyrevelferd, avlsmessig framgang og lønnsomhet. Mange utøvere mener at tap av rein til rovvilt er hovedutfordringen. Rovvilt tar rein til alle årstider og på alle typer beite, men ifølge reindriften er rovvilttrykket høyest på sommeren når det er flest rein og reinkalver på beite. I tillegg er det store utfordringer forbundet med å dokumentere tap til rovvilt basert på kadaverfunn. Reindriften mener at disse utfordringene er spesielt framtredende i barmarksperioden, og særlig om sommeren. I denne rapporten ser vi nærmere på sesongvariasjon i kadaverfunn av rein drept av fredet rovvilt. Hensikten er å belyse graden av «match-mismatch» mellom dokumenterte tap på de ulike årstidbeitene i form av kadaverfunn og forventet rovvilttrykk, basert på rovviltbiologi og reindriftenes erfaringer om rovvilttap gjennom året. Spesifikt undersøker vi om dokumentasjonsgraden er høyest om sommeren, slik man skulle forvente basert på reindriftenes tilbakemeldinger. Vi ser også etter tegn til underdokumentasjon, som bør følges opp med tiltak. Vi finner at dokumenterte rovviltdrepte reinkadavre forekommer i mye mindre grad om sommeren enn om vinteren. Dette er tilfelle selv om det om sommeren, etter kalving, er aller mest rein på beite og forventet høyest rovvilttrykk. Vi konkluderer derfor med at det bør ses på muligheter for å bedre dokumentasjonen av tap av rein til rovvilt.
Sammendrag
Det er ikke registrert sammendrag
Sammendrag
Ultraviolet (UV) irradiation below 300 nm may control powdery mildew in numerous crops. Depending on disease pressure, wavelength, and crop growth stage, one to three applications of 100–200 J/m2 per week at night are as effective or better than the best fungicides. Higher doses may harm the plants and reduce yields. Although red light alone or in combination with UV has a suppressive effect on powdery mildew, concomitant or subsequent exposure to blue light or UV-A strongly reduces the efficacy of UV treatments. To be effective, direct exposure of the pathogen/infection sites to UV/red light is important, but there are clear indications for the involvement of induced resistance in the host. Other pathogens and pests are susceptible to UV, but the effective dose may be phytotoxic. Although there are certain limitations, this technology is gradually becoming more used in both protected and open-field commercial production systems.