With Stardock Fences you can put your desktop icons in the different categories which are called Fence. You can then name every Fence as you deem right and move them wherever you need them to be. This software allows you to hide the icons or fences with a simple single click and it manages the icons pretty well. You can also hide those applications or icons which you do not want right now. You can also move the icons among different categories of Fences. These fences have clear transparency and it clears when mouse is moved over it. In this way the desktop looks clean and neat which really helps in a lot of ways. There are some software which should be a must have for every user because they really help in a lot of ways either they are big or small. Altogether Stardock Fences is really a must-have software. You can also download Stardock Fences v3.
Fences v3.0.9
At Forest, we know a fair bit about fences. And sheds for that matter. In fact, we've been one of the UK's most trusted manufacturer and distributor of quality wooden garden products for over 50 years.
Same problem here. After installing the update on July 22, 2021 I did not immediately restart the computer. On July 23 when I started up the computer my desktop had no icons and Fences seems to be not working at all. I can't even start over by drawing a rectangle on the desktop and defining new fences.
This is my first time posting, hope I am doing it correctly. I am running Windows 10 Home 21H1 build 19043.1083. I have three 32" TVs attached. I have been using v3.0.9.11 for many years without any problems. Love the software. I received the email to upgrade to 3.1.0.5. Created a Restore Point and downloaded and installed the update. I received the message that Fences has detected that Explorer was not closed properly. The instructions to re-enable did not work. I used the Restore Point and moved back to v3.0.9.11.
As an automatic desktop icons grouping & classifying software, Fences can create multiple independent and customizable (group, block, location, size, color, appearance, etc.) translucent fences or containers, where it will intelligently, automatically organize all icons (of files, shortcuts) on your desktop.
Crawford was responsible for eliminating rabbits which had breached the fence. In the first year following the fences' completion, rabbit colonies were found and killed at several locations inside the fence, including sites near Coorow, Mullewa, and Northampton.[9]
One of the very first Dynamo blog posts I read demonstrated how to place an adaptive fence component so that it would follow Topo. At the time, I thought it was an interesting concept, but not overly useful since I typically use non-adaptive fence components and fences will frequently step (instead of slope) with grade change.
However, not all fences are stepped, and I recently decided to take a look at trying the same concept on a non-adaptive fence. It is quite a bit more complicated than the adaptive version, but there are several reasons why you might not use an adaptive fence component and the concept can also be used to place a stepped fence.
Anthropogenic linear features change the behavior and selection patterns of species, which must adapt to these ever-increasing features on the landscape. Roads are a well-studied linear feature that alter the survival, movement, and distribution of animals. Less understood are the effects of fences on wildlife, though they tend to be more ubiquitous across the landscape than roads. Even less understood are potential indirect effects when fences are found in tandem with roads along transportation corridors.
We assessed how the spatial configuration of fences and roads effect the movement (crossing effect) and distribution (proximity effect) of a partially migratory pronghorn population (Antilocapra americana) on the grasslands of southern Alberta, Canada. We used data from 55 collared pronghorn within a step-selection function framework to assess the influence of 4 linear features: (1) pasture fences, (2) roads not fenced, (3) roads fenced on one side, and (4) roads fenced on both sides on the selection pattern of migratory and resident animals. We examined whether steps along a movement pathway (i.e., crossing effect) were influenced by the type of linear feature animals attempted to cross and, whether these features affected the distribution of pronghorn (i.e., proximity effect) across the landscape.
The top model for crossing effect for both movement tactics contained all 4 linear features and land cover. Regression coefficients were negative for all linear features, indicating that individuals were less likely to chose steps that crossed linear features. For the proximity effect, migrant animals avoided all linear features except roads fenced on both sides, where they selected areas closer to this feature. Resident animals, on the other hand, were found closer to pasture fences but further from roads without fences.
Our results indicate that both fences and roads are indirectly affecting pronghorn resource use spatially and behaviorally, whether each linear feature is found separately or in tandem. Modifying existing fences and roads to account for responses to these distinct linear features could facilitate more successful crossing opportunities and/or shifts in distribution. Allowing pronghorn to freely move across the landscape will maintain functional connectivity to ensure population persistence of this endemic ungulate.
While we can measure habitat loss and quantify mortality from anthropogenic features, it is more difficult to evaluate the indirect influence these features may have, e.g., in terms of a behavioral response (e.g., avoidance). This is especially true for linear features, such as roads, railroads, seismic lines, power lines, and fences, that may impact wildlife behaviour, and act as barriers to movement and can result in decreased populations [10,11,12]. The negative effect of movement barriers manifest themselves in two ways: (1) barriers can increase the energetic costs on a daily and seasonal basis, thus potentially increasing mortality risk and may result in a loss in fitness, (2) barriers can alter animal behavior and ultimately reduce crossing probability, resulting in the potential loss of available habitat at an individual level and a reduction over time in the number of individuals migrating between habitat patches [12]. To fully capture and quantify the effects of linear features, research must assess impacts not only from a habitat loss and mortality perspective, but also measure behavioral responses (crossing effect and proximity effect; [13]). As defined by Beyer et al. [13], crossing effect is the assessment of the permeability of the barrier while proximity effect is the probability of space use as a function of the distance to the barrier. Accounting for wildlife behavioral responses allows managers to recognize the potential avoidance of quality habitat caused by linear features [14, 15].
The second difference between movement tactics was resident animals selected areas closer to pasture fences, which contradicted the results for migrant animals. Multiple inferences can be ascertained from this unexpected result. First, resident animals may be occupying areas with higher pasture fence densities and therefore could not distribute themselves away from fences, which resulted in the higher relative selection strength in proximity to pasture fences as seen in Fig. 4. Secondly, resident animals, as a result of remaining on the same range year-round, may have greater site familiarity of their surroundings [70]. It has previously been shown that pronghorn have spatial memory of known fence crossing locations; areas along fences where they know they can cross easily [37]. Resident animals may have greater familiarity to these known crossing sites which allows them to be more comfortable in proximity to fences. Thirdly, fence design may be impeding passage by resident animals creating a semi-permeable barrier effect with resident animals being in proximity to the fence more frequently than migrants, but unable to cross. Therefore, one or several of these fence related inferences may be a factor contributing to the loss of migration by individuals classified as residents. It has been demonstrated that the cost to migrate increases when avoidance of barriers increases [12]. Van Moorter et al. [12] concluded that the proportion of a population undergoing migration would decrease to the extent that the population becomes fully residential when complete avoidance from barriers occurs. While beyond the scope of our study, there is the opportunity to examine the affects of different densities of linear disturbances to determine threshold levels that may result in negative affects to migration and fitness across a population [12, 13].
Many wildlife investigations report the impact of anthropogenic disturbance on wildlife from a specific disturbance type [25]. Few, however, have examined how the spatial configuration between multiple anthropogenic features can influence selection patterns. In one example, crossing rates by caribou (Rangifer tarandus) decreased when roads and pipelines were found in tandem and parallel to each other, compared to when they were found separately [71]. In another example, the combination of roads and powerlines resulted in higher barrier effect for moose [2]. Previous studies on pronghorn have shown that resource selection decreases as a function of increased anthropogenic disturbances (e.g., roads, well pads, and fences) [5, 46, 72, 73]. Yet, these studies examined each anthropogenic feature individually and did not include an interactive term in their models. In our analysis, we could have examined each linear feature (i.e., road and fence) as a main effect, as well as including a two-way interaction term (i.e., road x fence) and concluded that roads, fences, and the two-way interaction term effected the selection patterns of pronghorn. However, using an interaction term would not account for the spatial configuration of the boundless matrix of fences and roads across a landscape. For example, an animal crossing two pasture fences and an unfenced road would be analytically equivalent when using an interaction term, to an animal crossing a road fenced on both sides. However, to appropriately capture the underlying crossing behavior of pronghorn requires understanding the spatial configuration of linear features as indicated by our results. The vigilance and energy involved with the physical navigation and behavioral responses associated with crossing a road fenced on both sides is likely more demanding than crossing two pasture fences and a road with no fence. We encourage other researchers to consider behavioral responses by wildlife when deciding to use an interaction term versus constructing spatially explicit covariates that represent the coupling of linear features in their models. 2ff7e9595c
Comments