3 results
Iron, nitrogen, phosphorus and zinc cycling and consequences for primary productivity in the oceans
-
- By John A. Raven, Plant Research Unit, Division of Environmental and Applied Biology, School of Life Sciences, University of Dundee at SCRI, Scottish Crop Research Institute, Invergowrie, Dundee DD2 5DA, Scotland, UK, Karen Brown, Plant Research Unit, Division of Environmental and Applied Biology, School of Life Sciences, University of Dundee at SCRI, Scottish Crop Research Institute, Invergowrie, Dundee DD2 5DA, Scotland, UK, Maggie Mackay, Plant Research Unit, Division of Environmental and Applied Biology, School of Life Sciences, University of Dundee at SCRI, Scottish Crop Research Institute, Invergowrie, Dundee DD2 5DA, Scotland, UK, John Beardall, School of Biological Sciences, Monash University, Clayton, VIC 3800, Australia, Mario Giordano, Department of Marine Science, Università Politecnica delle Marche, 60131 Ancona, Italy, Espen Granum, Department of Animal and Plant Sciences, University of Sheffield, Sheffield S10 2TN, UK, Richard C. Leegood, Department of Animal and Plant Sciences, University of Sheffield, Sheffield S10 2TN, UK, Kieryn Kilminster, School of Plant Biology, University of Western Australia, M090 35 Stirling Highway, Crawley, WA 6009, Australia, Diana I. Walker, School of Plant Biology, University of Western Australia, M090 35 Stirling Highway, Crawley, WA 6009, Australia
- Edited by Geoff Gadd, University of Dundee, Kirk Semple, Lancaster University
- Hilary Lappin-Scott, University of Exeter
-
- Book:
- Micro-organisms and Earth Systems
- Published online:
- 06 July 2010
- Print publication:
- 13 October 2005, pp 247-272
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
INTRODUCTION
Primary productivity in the ocean amounts to the net assimilation of CO2 equivalent to about 50 Pg (petagram, i.e. 1015 g) C year–1, while on land this is approximately 60 Pg C year-1 (Field et al., 1998). Almost all of this primary productivity involves photosynthesis, and in the ocean it occurs only in the top few hundred metres, even in waters with the smallest light attenuation (Falkowski & Raven, 1997). About 1 Pg C of marine primary productivity involves benthic organisms, i.e. those growing on the substratum (Field et al., 1998), in the very small fraction of the ocean which is close enough to the surface to permit adequate photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) to allow photolithotrophic growth. This depth at which photosynthetic growth is just possible varies in time and space, and defines the bottom of the euphotic zone (Falkowski & Raven, 1997). The remaining ∼49 Pg C is assimilated by phytoplankton in the water column (Field et al., 1998). This chapter will concentrate on the planktonic realm, while acknowledging the importance of marine benthic primary producers and their interactions with micro-organisms (e.g. Dudley et al., 2001; Raven et al., 2002; Raven & Taylor, 2003; Cooke et al., 2004; Walker et al., 2004).
The global net primary productivity of the oceans is less than that on land, despite about 70 % of the Earth being covered in ocean and primary productivity over considerable areas of land being limited by water supply.
2 - From distance to detachment: knowledge and self-knowledge in Elias's theory of involvement and detachment
-
- By Richard Kilminster, Senior Lecturer in Sociology University of Leeds
- Edited by Steven Loyal, University College Dublin, Stephen Quilley, University College Dublin
-
- Book:
- The Sociology of Norbert Elias
- Published online:
- 22 September 2009
- Print publication:
- 18 March 2004, pp 25-41
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
‘Detachment’ and ‘involvement’ belong to the not very large group of specialized concepts referring to the whole human person.
(Norbert Elias 1987: xxxii)Introduction: after Weber
Max Weber famously declared that the vocation of sociology requires that sociologists should suspend certain values in the pursuit of the ideal of ‘value-freedom’. It is obvious reading Elias's first systematic statement of his theory of involvement and detachment (Elias 1956) with Weber in mind, that on the subject of science and values, although he departs from Weber in significant ways he, too, must have been stimulated by Weber's observations. In common with many other social scientists outside Marxist circles in Weimar Germany, early in his career Elias probably acquiesced in the all-pervasive Weberian position on value-freedom (or some version of it) as a set of working principles for social-scientific work. Indeed, it was partly this broad orientation which set the sociology department of Mannheim and Elias in Frankfurt apart from the subsequently more famous ‘Frankfurt School’ of Adorno and Horkheimer with whom they shared a building (Shils 1970; Bogner 1987; Mennell 1998: 15). In a Marxian manner the latter group emphatically rejected value-freedom in any form because they saw it as part of a positivistic ideology in social science that excluded partisanship on behalf of the underprivileged (Kilminster 1979: 195–201).
I think it is possible to breathe further life into this venerable subject of value-freedom through understanding how Elias took the Weberian model as a point of departure.
Theory and Practice in Marx and Marxism
- Richard Kilminster
-
- Journal:
- Royal Institute of Philosophy lecture series / Volume 14 / September 1982
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 08 January 2010, pp. 157-176
- Print publication:
- September 1982
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
The identification of theory and practice is a critical act, through which practice is demonstrated rational and necessary, and theory realistic and rational (Antonio Gramsci).
In contemporary sociological and political theory the opposition of theory and practice refers to a number of aspects of the relationship between theories of various kinds and social life. It can refer, for example, to the relationships between the various sciences (particularly the social sciences) and their ‘objects’, between scientific knowledge and its necessary practical applications and broadly between social science and politics. Many Marxist writings since Lenin attempt to unite those three levels in a theory of the total society with a practical intent. This theory is intended to inform practical political activity in order radically to change the complex of social institutions which make the theory itself possible, in this way abolishing the theory in practice. That theory and practice in this sense can inseparably inform each other in this way within the politics of the labour movement, is one meaning in Soviet Marxism of the phrase ‘the unity of theory and practice’.
![](/core/cambridge-core/public/images/lazy-loader.gif)