Dominant group/Agriculture

From Wikiversity
Jump to: navigation, search
The image shows wheat fields in Ivanovka village, Azerbaijan. Credit: Moonsun1981.

Agriculture is the science or practice of farming, including cultivation of the soil for the growing of crops and the rearing of animals to provide food, wool, and other products.

Agriculture[edit]

Main source: Agriculture

"It has mainly been the large landowners in Gondosari who have been in a position to take advantage of the modernisasi of agricultural production. Long before the seventies they enjoyed a dominant economic, social and political position in the village. Closely linked by family ties,7 they have occupied all the important positions (such as village head and members of the village administration) since the end of the last century. In this way they have been able to maintain and enlarge their economic power."[1]

"After 1971 the number of participants increased, but rich farmers and large landowners remained the dominant group."[1]

Dominant group[edit]

Main source: Dominant group

The two-word term dominant group is the topic of its original research proposal. Each of the hypotheses so far conjectured may have some resolution in agriculture.

  • Accident hypothesis: dominant group is an accident of whatever processes are operating.
  • Artifact hypothesis: dominant group may be an artifact of human endeavor or may have preceded humanity.
  • Association hypothesis: dominant group is associated in some way with the original research.
  • Bad group hypothesis: dominant group is the group that engages in discrimination, abuse, punishment, and additional criminal activity against other groups. It often has an unfair advantage and uses it to express monopolistic practices.
  • Control group hypothesis: there is a control group that can be used to study dominant group.
  • Entity hypothesis: dominant group is an entity within each field where a primary author of original research uses the term.
  • Evolution hypothesis: dominant group is a product of evolutionary processes, such groups are the evolutionary process, produce evolutionary processes, or are independent of evolutionary processes.
  • Identifier hypothesis: dominant group is an identifier used by primary source authors of original research to identify an observation in the process of analysis.
  • Importance hypothesis: dominant group signifies original research results that usually need to be explained by theory and interpretation of experiments.
  • Indicator hypothesis: dominant group may be an indicator of something as yet not understood by the primary author of original research.
  • Influence hypothesis: dominant group is included in a primary source article containing original research to indicate influence or an influential phenomenon.
  • Interest hypothesis: dominant group is a theoretical entity used by scholarly authors of primary sources for phenomena of interest.
  • Metadefinition hypothesis: all uses of dominant group by all primary source authors of original research are included in the metadefinition for dominant group.
  • Null hypothesis: there is no significant or special meaning of dominant group in any sentence or figure caption in any refereed journal article.
  • Object hypothesis: dominant group is an object within each field where a primary author of original research uses the term.
  • Obvious hypothesis: the only meaning of dominant group is the one found in Mosby's Medical Dictionary.
  • Original research hypothesis: dominant group is included in a primary source article by the author to indicate that the article contains original research.
  • Primordial hypothesis: dominant group is a primordial concept inherent to humans such that every language or other form of communication no matter how old or whether extinct, on the verge of extinction, or not, has at least a relative synonym for dominant group.
  • Purpose hypothesis: dominant group is written into articles by authors for a purpose.
  • Regional hypothesis: dominant group, when it occurs, is only a manifestation of the limitations within a region. Variation of those limitations may result in the loss of a dominant group with the eventual appearance of a new one or none at all.
  • Source hypothesis: dominant group is a source within each field where a primary author of original research uses the term.
  • Term hypothesis: dominant group is a significant term that may require a 'rigorous definition' or application and verification of an empirical definition.

Soils[edit]

Main sources: Sediments/Soils and Soils

"Although either dendrogram shows that the same three dominant groups are present in this soil (the Proteobacteria, the Cytophaga-Flexibacter-Bacteroides group, and the low-G+C gram-positive group), the proportion of clones that were unrelated to known major taxa within the domain Bacteria was higher with the conserved region than with the hypervariable region."[2]

"Since we were interested only in determining the dominant groups of soil microorganisms, a partial [rDNA] sequence analysis was justified. [...] since none of the 124 sequences we analyzed were similar to those of the Archaea, Archaea are probably not a dominant group in this soil. [...] With respect to specific genera, dominant microorganisms found in soil by culture methods were of the genera Arthrobacter (5 to 60%), Bacillus (7 to 67%), Pseudomonas (3 to 15%), Agrobacterium (1 to 20%), Alcaligenes (1 to 20%), and Flavobacterium (1 to 20%) and the order Actinomycetales (5 to 20%) (3). Of these groups, only Bacillus (19%) and Actinomycetales (0.8%) were found in our analysis."[2]

"Based on the results from pure cuIture incubations of methanotrophs and ammonium oxidizers, 14CH4/14CO ratios of >0.05 suggest that CH4 oxidizers were the dominant group while ratios of <0.05 suggest that NH4 oxidizers were the primary group (Jones et al. 1984)."[3]

Theoretical dominant group agriculture[edit]

Here's a theoretical definition:

Def. a dominant group that controls the system of rewards for agriculture is called an agricultural dominant group, or a dominant agricultural group.

Ants[edit]

Main sources: Insects/Ants and Ants

"Agriculture is a specialized form of symbiosis that is known to have evolved in only four animal groups: humans, bark beetles, termites, and ants."[4]

"Attine ant agriculture is the product of an ancient, quadripartite, symbiotic relationship between three mutualists and one parasite. The mutualists include the attine ants, their fungal cultivars (Leucocoprineae and Pterulaceae), and filamentous bacteria in the genus Pseudonocardia (Actinomycetes) that grow on the integuments of the ants. The parasite, a fungus in the genus Escovopsis (Ascomycetes) known only from attine fungus gardens, infects those gardens as a “crop disease” and is controlled, at least in part, by an antibiotic produced by the Pseudonocardia bacterial symbiont (4, 10, 11)."[4]

"Such a recent origin for this ecologically dominant group explains their conspicuous absence from Dominican amber (15–20 mya) and may help to explain why, so far as is known, most leaf-cutting ants cultivate the same cultivar species (12–14)."[4]

Communication[edit]

Main source: Communication

"Newspaper coverage in some community newspapers frames the story in more complex and diverse ways and includes a wider range of voices than has been reported in studies of coverage in the national, elite press."[5]

"In this manner, news organizations act as a sentry, not for the community as a whole but for the dominant group(s) of power and influence. ... Terms that loaded highly on this factor included agriculture and agricultural."[5]

Agricultural policy[edit]

"The NFU [National Farmers Union] was challenged by the Central Landowners' Association (later the Country Landowners' Association) and the Central Chamber of Agriculture. More importantly, farmers were not the dominant group in agricultural policy-making."[6]

Farm women[edit]

"Those who try to break into the power structures may be ostracized not only by members of the dominant group but also by their peers (in this case other farm women)."[7]

Hypotheses[edit]

Main source: Hypotheses
  1. One way technology enhances hominins is by feeding them adequately.

See also[edit]

References[edit]

  1. 1.0 1.1 Frans Hüsken (1979). "Landlords, sharecroppers and agricultural labourers: changing labour relations in rural Java". Journal of Contemporary Asia 9 (2): 140-51. doi:10.1080/00472337985390151. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00472337985390151. Retrieved 2015-06-30. 
  2. 2.0 2.1 James Borneman, Paul W. Skroch, Katherine M. O'Sullivan, James A. Palus, Norma G. Rumjanek, Jennifer L. Jansen, James Nienhuis, and Eric W. Triplett (June 1996). "Molecular Microbial Diversity of an Agricultural Soil in Wisconsin". Applied and Environmental Microbiology 62 (6): 1935-43. http://aem.asm.org/content/62/6/1935.short. Retrieved 2013-11-21. 
  3. P. A. Steudler, R. D. Jones, M. S. Castro, J. M. Melillo, and D. L. Lewis (1996). J. Colin Murrell and Donovan P. Kelly. ed. Microbial Controls of Methane Oxidation in Temperate Forest and Agricultural Soils. 39. Berlin Heidelberg: NATO ASI Series, SpringerLink. 69-84. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-61096-7_5. ISBN 978-3-642-64693-5. http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-61096-7_5. Retrieved 2015-06-30. 
  4. 4.0 4.1 4.2 Ted R. Schultz and Seán G. Brady (30 January 2008). "Major evolutionary transitions in ant agriculture". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 105 (14): 5435-40. doi:10.1073/pnas.0711024105. http://www.pnas.org/content/105/14/5435.long. Retrieved 2015-06-30. 
  5. 5.0 5.1 Catherine E. Crawley (March 2007). "Localized debates of agricultural biotechnology in community newspapers: A quantitative content analysis of media frames and sources". Science Communication 28 (3): 314-46. http://scx.sagepub.com/content/28/3/314.short. Retrieved 2015-06-30. 
  6. Martin J. Smith (June 1989). "Changing agendas and policy communities: agricultural issues in the 1930s and the 1980s". Public Administration 67 (2): 149-65. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9299.1989.tb00719.x. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9299.1989.tb00719.x/abstract. Retrieved 2015-06-30. 
  7. Margaret Alston and Jane Wilkinson (December 1998). "Australian farm women–shut out or fenced in? The lack of women in agricultural leadership". Sociologia Ruralis 38 (3): 391-408. doi:10.1111/1467-9523.00085. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-9523.00085/abstract. Retrieved 2015-06-30. 

External links[edit]

{{Anthropology resources}}{{Archaeology resources}}{{Dominant group}}{{Economics resources}}{{Medicine resources}}{{Phosphate biochemistry}}{{Technology resources}}

38254-new folder-12.svg Type classification: this is an article resource.