Browsing by Author "Reid J"

Now showing 1 - 4 of 4
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    A Framework for Reviewing Silvopastoralism: A New Zealand Hill Country Case Study
    (MDPI (Basel, Switzerland), 2021-12-14) Mackay-Smith TH; Burkitt L; Reid J; López IF; Phillips C
    Silvopastoral systems can be innovative solutions to agricultural environmental degradation, especially in hilly and mountainous regions. A framework that expresses the holistic nature of silvopastoral systems is required so research directions can be unbiased and informed. This paper presents a novel framework that relates the full range of known silvopastoral outcomes to bio-physical tree attributes, and uses it to generate research priorities for a New Zealand hill country case study. Current research is reviewed and compared for poplar (Populus spp.), the most commonly planted silvopastoral tree in New Zealand hill country, and kānuka (Kunzea spp.), a novel and potentially promising native alternative. The framework highlights the many potential benefits of kānuka, many of which are underappreciated hill country silvopastoral outcomes, and draws attention to the specific outcome research gaps for poplar, despite their widespread use. The framework provides a formalised tool for reviewing and generating research priorities for silvopastoral trees, and provides a clear example of how it can be used to inform research directions in silvopastoral systems, globally.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Correction to: A Framework for Reviewing Silvopastoralism: A New Zealand Hill Country Case Study (Land, (2021), 10, 12, (1386)
    (MDPI (Basel, Switzerland), 2023-03-22) Mackay-Smith TH; Burkitt L; Reid J; López IF; Phillips C
    The authors would like to make the following correction to the published article [1]. There was a miscommunication with the journal editors regarding the formatting of the table. Individual points within table boxes were removed for the final manuscript so there were duplicate references in each table box. The following changes were made to the references in Table 2: “McIvor et al. [42]” was removed from Page 8; “Charlton et al. [25]” was removed from Page 10; “Marden and Phillips [49]”, “Charlton et al. [25]” and “Boffa Miskell Limited [50]” × 2 were removed from Page 11 and from Page 10. Additionally, colons were added between references where necessary. Other changes include the following: “survivial” was changed to “survival” on Page 11; “Quantatiative” was changed to “quantitative” on Page 11; to was removed on Page 11; “precence” was changed to “presence” on Page 13; “11.5 year old” was changed to “11.5-year-old” on Page 8; “16 year-old” was changed to “16-year-old” on Page 8; “32.0-year-old” was changed to “32-year-old” on Page 8; and “5.0, 7.0 and 9.5 year old” changed to “5, 7, and 9.5 years old”. Finally, “≥25 m” was changed to “>30 m” and “10–20 m” was changed to 8–20 m” on Page 7 due to ongoing research refining the sizes of the tree. The corrected Table 2 appears below. Tree attributes for poplar (Populus spp.) and kānuka (Kunzea spp.) in a New Zealand hill country silvopastoral system. Tree attributes have been adapted from Wood [15]. The photographs were taken by the lead author. The following changes were made to the references in Table 3: “Guevara-Escobar et al. [26]” and “Wall [27]” were removed from Page 14, and “Guevara-Escobar et al. [26]” was removed from Page 16. Additionally, the Table 3 header was moved to the left and the font size of Table 3 was adjusted to size 8. The corrected Table 3 appears below. Silvopastoral outcomes for poplar (Populus spp.) and kānuka (Kunzea spp.) in a New Zealand hill country silvopastoral system. Tree outcomes have been adapted from Wood [15]. There was an error in the original publication. “Forst.” should be “(G. Forst.) Oerst.” A correction has been made to Section 1. Introduction, paragraph 1: Page 1. There was an error in the original publication. “>15” has been changed to “> 15”. A correction has been made to Section 1. Introduction, paragraph 3: Page 1. There was an error in the original publication. “(Populus spp.)” and “(Salix spp.)” have been removed. A correction has been made to Section 3.1. Poplar and Willow, paragraph 1: Page 5. There was an error in the original publication. “40 year” has been changed to “40-year”. A correction has been made to Section 3.1. Poplar and Willow, paragraph 2: Page 5. There was an error in the original publication. “serotine” should be “serotina”. A correction has been made to Section 3.2. Kānuka, paragraph 1: Page 6. There was an error in the original publication. “(Leptospermum scoparium)” has been removed. A correction has been made to Section 3.2. Kānuka, paragraph 2: Page 6. There was an error in the original publication. The reference “[23,24,25]” should be “[25]”. A correction has been made to Section 4.1. The interaction of Poplar and Kānuka with the Pasture and Soil, paragraph 5: Page 21. There was an error in the original publication. “400-years-old” should be “400 years old”. A correction has been made to Section 4.2. Longevity, paragraph 1: Page 21. There was an error in the original publication. Reference [80] should be removed after kiwi-fruit orchards. A correction has been made to Section 4.6. Bird biodiversity, paragraph 2: Page 22. There was an error in the original publication. “2 year” should be “2-year”. A correction has been made to Section 4.6. Bird biodiversity, paragraph 2: Page 22. There was an error in the original publication. “(Leptospermum scoparium)” has been removed. A correction has been made to Section 4.7. Additional Income, paragraph 1: Page 23. There was an error in the original publication. “7-years-old” should be “7 years old”. A correction has been made to Section 4.7. Additional Income, paragraph 3: Page 23. There was an error in the original publication. Reference [46] has been changed to [52]. A correction has been made to Section 4.7. Additional Income, paragraph 4: Page 23. There was an error in the original publication. reference [52] should be “Ministry for Primary Industries. Forest land in the ETS. Available online: https://www.mpi.govt.nz/forestry/forestry-in-the-emissions-trading-scheme/forest-land-in-the-ets/ (accessed on 8 May 2020)”. A correction has been made to References section: Page 27. The authors apologize for any inconvenience caused and state that the scientific conclusions are unaffected. The original publication has also been updated.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Does supporting cultural diversity benefit only Māori? A study of Māori and Pākehā employees
    (Taylor and Francis Group on behalf of the Royal Society of New Zealand, 2024-02-05) Haar J; Spiller C; Mika J; Rout M; Reid J
    Māori are the Indigenous people of Aotearoa but experience workplace disadvantages including high discrimination, lower pay, and greater unemployment. This study uses psychological contracts theory to explore employee perceptions of a set of mutual obligations and implicit promises from their employer around supporting Māori employees. Cultural diversity promise fulfilment (CDPF) focuses on the way firms provide Māori cultural representation, seeks broad inputs from Māori, and work to eliminate bias against Māori. We empirically test CDPF on 165 Māori and 729 Pākehā. We include Pākehā because theoretically, under social exchange theory, all employees might react positively to employer support for a disadvantaged group. We test a moderated mediation model and find support with CDPF being significantly related to job satisfaction, cultural wellbeing, and turnover intentions, with the former mediating CDPF effects to turnover. Next, moderation effects are found (Māori versus Pākehā) but with mixed support. However, moderated mediation effects are supported with Māori employees reporting a stronger indirect effect from CDPF than Pākehā, through both mediators (job satisfaction and cultural wellbeing). The paper establishes the importance of CDPF and helps build the arguments for diversity support.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    The impacts of the COVID-19 shock on sustainability and farmer livelihoods in Sri Lanka.
    (Elsevier B.V., 2022) Rathnayake S; Gray D; Reid J; Ramilan T
    The COVID-19 pandemic and its handling in Sri Lanka has affected vegetable farmers in numerous ways and these impacts will constrain the country's move towards sustainable development. A field level study with vegetable farmers and key informants was carried out using exploratory research to understand, describe and analyze the impact of COVID-19 on the livelihoods of vegetable farmers and its relevance in achieving SDG 1. Data were supplemented by an extensive literature review. The analysis showed that the pandemic's impact on vegetable farmers in Sri Lanka is multidimensional and will increase vulnerability among vegetable farmers, for the long run. Adapting alternative inputs and marketing strategies, provision of immediate financial support, promoting innovative technology and service provision, and implementing intervention strategies tailored to farmer heterogeneity will improve farmer livelihoods and the prosperity of the sector.