Re: [ECOLOG-L] Used a tablet for field work?

[James J. Roper]

David, and others,

I'd like to tell you about an app that the developer and I worked out 
together - and it is configurable by the user.  My idea was to make a 
data entry program for my iPod touch and he had an app that almost 
worked. I wrote, and gave suggestions and he developed. Now the app is 
configurable and could be used for a wide variety of types of field 
data.  The app is:


Forms (customizable)
http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/forms-customizable/id503870383?mt=8

and was written by:

Sreedhar

And you can find it in iTunes. It is reasonably priced, especially 
considering that it so flexible.


Cheers,

Jim

On 12/05/16 12:42, David Inouye wrote:
I'd like a way to replace data entry on paper in the field with an 
electronic alternative.  Ultimately the data end up in a spreadsheet, 
but sometimes using formulae (e.g., 3*5 + 4*2 + 6, for numbers of 
inflorescences with different numbers of flowers). Has anyone used 
something like the Blackberry PlayBook, an Android tablet, Nook, iPad, 
etc. with spreadsheet software?  Recommendations for or against 
particular solutions?


I have also considered a ruggedized PC and a ruggedized tablet (Motion 
F5V), but they are a LOT more expensive than other tablet options 
would be.


David Inouye


--


 
     James J. Roper, Ph.D.

Ecologia, Evolução e Dinâmicas Populacionais
de Vertebrados Terrestres
Currículo Lattes <http://lattes.cnpq.br/2553295738925812>

Caixa Postal 19034
81531-990 Curitiba, Paraná, Brasil

E-mail: jjro...@gmail.com <mailto:jjro...@gmail.com>
Telefone: 55 41 36730409
Celular: 55 41 98182559
Skype-in (USA):+1 706 5501064
Skype-in (Brazil):+55 41 39415715

Ecologia de Ecossistemas na UVV 
<http://www.uvv.br/ensino/mestrado/inicio.aspx?id=2>

Ecologia e Conservação na UFPR <http://www.bio.ufpr.br/ecologia/>
Home Page <http://sites.google.com/site/jjroper/>
Ars Artium Consulting <http://sites.google.com/site/arsartium>
In Google Earth, copy and paste -> -25.5217, -49.0925

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Cemeteries as habitat

[James J. Roper]

Everything is habitat for something. Now that we got the obvious out of 
the way, to me the real question is, can these urban offspring be used 
in a meaningful way as habitat for something that matters? And, 
unfortunately, the only reason cemeteries and golf courses exist is 
because they generate a lot of profit (for somebody). To turn them into 
meaningful habitat would require a cut in profits, and nobody getting 
those profits is going to want to do that.


On 12/05/02 15:39, John Mickelson wrote:

Working in NYC and looking at the spatial dimensions of biodiversity in this 
heavily urbanized setting.

Wondering what folks thoughts are re: the extent to which cemeteries (and, to a lesser 
extent: ball fields, play grounds, golf courses etc...) "really" serve as 
habitat.

Clearly they serve multiple purposes and are utilized by a range of flora and fauna 
(presumably more so within "green" managed programs), but should they really 
form a core element within
a comprehensive urban conservation plan?

I'm finding myself able to argue both sides. thoughts?

-John

[ECOLOG-L] Field course, Panamá

[James J. Roper]

Dear all,

I am announcing (again) a field course I will be teaching in Panamá, in 
Bocas del Toro, this July-August. Please check out our web pages:


http://www.itec-edu.org/
http://www.itec-edu.org/spanishbird.html

It will be a fun mixture of methods and theory to get at some ideas of 
how the birds of the Bocas Archipelago got their current distribution 
patterns. We will begin by birding in a variety of places on the island 
of Colón until everybody is familiar with the birds, and then we will 
use the techniques we standardized on Colón on as many of the other 
islands as we can get to, to do fairly comprehensive sampling. With the 
data we gather, we will then analyse them in a variety of ways to find 
the best model to explain the island birds.


Also, the course is going to be an attempt at multicultural 
interactions. I speak Spanish and Portuguese, and anybody that speaks 
any of the three (including English) can take the course - I hope that 
everybody has at least a modicum of English, and that some English 
speakers will have a modicum of Spanish or Portuguese. I have already 
had courses with Brazilians AND Spanish AND English speaking students 
from a variety of countries, and they were great!


The course is open to anybody with the will to take it - it will be some 
hard work, but will be fascinating and fun at the same time. If you  
have any questions, please feel free to write. If  you are unsure if you 
are qualified to take the course, but would like to, please write me and 
we can talk about it.


Sincerely,

Jim

[ECOLOG-L] Field course - Birds, Island Biogeography and Methods in Bocas del Toro

[James J. Roper]

Hello all,

For those interested in examining island biogeography in the Bocas del 
Toro archipelago, in Panamá, here is an updated link.


http://itec-edu.org/spanishbird.html

Cheers,

Jim

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Backpacking with an infant?

[James J. Roper]

It is interesting to see how this discussion is going. Almost all women 
are positive about the idea and men are less so. And, it is NOT true 
that the child safety is paramount, because it must be that the ADULT 
safety is paramount. After all, if the adult falls down a cliff, so does 
this child. And, I think that a rational person doing field work in 
difficult terrain is probably also doing their best to make sure that 
their own safety, and thereby the safety of others along, is insured.


I second the motion that we can assume that the parent who asks what is 
a good baby carrier is a rational person interested in insuring their 
own, and their baby's, survival. And, I think that we need a system in 
which marriage or kids is NOT a detriment to their careers.


On 12/04/09 17:08, David L. McNeely wrote:

I originally responded only to Simone personally.   But, I now see a need for 
wider discussion.  I agree with Hal Caswell and others who have said that child 
safety is paramount.  If at all possible, another approach should be considered.

[ECOLOG-L] Field course, Panama, tropical island biogeography, birds

[James J. Roper]

Field Course in Ecology and Conservation Biology

Focus – Island Biogeography and birds as model animals for learning to use 
statistical tools to analyze animal abundance, within the context of the 
Bocas del Toro Archipelago.

Instructor – James J. Roper (jjro...@gmail.com, and 
http://sites.google.com/site/jjroper/)

Dates: 23 July to 9 August 2012

Details: We are offering a multi-cultural field course that will start with 
training the student in the local avifauna of the island of Colon, in the 
Bocas del Toro Archipelago, AND, the using three very useful and interesting 
statistical programs for studying animal diversity and abundance – 
EstimateS, PRESENCE and DISTANCE (all free programs that you can download 
and install prior to the course). We will quickly put those tools to work on 
the island where we will carry out many transects in different habitats to 
apply those data to the use of these programs. To do so, we will divide 
ourselves into smaller teams so that we may cover more ground. We will then 
proceed to other islands (once we are all up to running speed) and do 
several transects on as many islands as possible. We will close the course 
by combining these data into a coherent and interesting study of diversity 
and abundance of these birds on the island, putting this into a context of 
island biogeography. Additional statistical analysis may use the program R, 
and within it, the BiodiversityR package (also free). Throughout the study, 
we will use the relevant literature and have many discussions about the 
theory and application of these ideas. Prior to the course, the instructor 
will communicate with the students providing a list of reading, mostly PDF 
files that can be shared among those in the course.

Who can take the course? Clearly the course will be somewhat advanced, so 
students who wish to take the course should have already taken at least one 
course in statistics, and be interested in learning birds (while the methods 
can be applied to a whole variety of taxa, birds are probably the easiest 
models to use in a quick field course). In addition to graduate students, we 
will consider advanced undergraduate students who can convince the 
instructor with a well-written objective letter that they deserve to take 
the course. Also, as we feel as an institute that it is very important to 
have cross-cultural interactions while studying conservation and ecology in 
a tropical environment, Spanish and Portuguese speaking students are welcome 
to attend. Clearly, if everybody speaks some English, and some Portuguese or 
Spanish, communication will be much easier. The instructor, Jim Roper 
(Ph.D.), is fluent in all three languages, and wants to carry out this 
experiment in a multicultural multispecies interaction. We will work 
together to develop teams that will combine their interests and skills so 
that all teams work well together and have a fascinating time learning.

Costs: See the web site for tuition rates. Students from Central and South 
America, who attend shools in Central and South America, and are accepted 
for the course, will all receive the same scholarship – the course at half 
price. By this scholarship, we recognize that with the exchange rate and 
local economies being what they are, this scholarship pursues our goals and 
interests in collaborating with students in these countries and contributing 
to the general state of education and conservation. Also, because we will be 
going to the islands as often as possible, we will have a small surcharge of 
$5 from each student for each boat trip.

Additional information: Please get in contact with Jim Roper 
(jjro...@gmail.com, and http://sites.google.com/site/jjroper/) with any 
questions. Please read over the web pages at ITEC as well (http://www.itec-
edu.org) to better understand the field station and situation in Panamá.

[ECOLOG-L] In Bocas del Toro, Panama, Field Course in Ecology and Conservation Biology

[James J. Roper]

*Field Course in Ecology and Conservation Biology*


 *Focus* – *Island** **Biogeography** **and** **birds** **as** **model** **
animals* for learning to use statistical tools to analyze animal abundance,
within the context of the Bocas del Toro Archipelago.


 *Instructor* – *James** **J.** **Roper* (jjro...@gmail.com, and
http://sites.google.com/site/jjroper/)


 *Dates:* 23 July to 9 August 2011


 *Details:* We are offering a multi-cultural field course that will start
with training the student in the local avifauna of the island of Colon, in
the Bocas del Toro Archipelago, AND, the using three very useful and
interesting statistical programs for studying animal diversity and
abundance – EstimateS, PRESENCE and DISTANCE (all free programs that you
can download and install prior to the course). We will quickly put those
tools to work on the island where we will carry out many transects in
different habitats to apply those data to the use of these programs. To do
so, we will divide ourselves into smaller teams so that we may cover more
ground. We will then proceed to other islands (once we are all up to
running speed) and do several transects on as many islands as possible. We
will close the course by combining these data into a coherent and
interesting study of diversity and abundance of these birds on the island,
putting this into a context of island biogeography. Additional statistical
analysis may use the program R, and within it, the BiodiversityR package
(also free). Throughout the study, we will use the relevant literature and
have many discussions about the theory and application of these ideas.
Prior to the course, the instructor will communicate with the students
providing a list of reading, mostly PDF files that can be shared among
those in the course.


 *Who** **can** **take** **the** **course?* Clearly the course will be
somewhat advanced, so students who wish to take the course should have
already taken at least one course in statistics, and be interested in
learning birds (while the methods can be applied to a whole variety of
taxa, birds are probably the easiest models to use in a quick field
course). In addition to graduate students, we will consider advanced
undergraduate students who can convince the instructor with a well-written
objective letter that they deserve to take the course. Also, as we feel as
an institute that it is very important to have cross-cultural interactions
while studying conservation and ecology in a tropical environment, Spanish
and Portuguese speaking students are welcome to attend. Clearly, if
everybody speaks some English, and some Portuguese or Spanish,
communication will be much easier. The instructor, Jim Roper (Ph.D.), is
fluent in all three languages, and wants to carry out this experiment in a
multicultural multispecies interaction. We will work together to develop
teams that will combine their interests and skills so that all teams work
well together and have a fascinating time learning.


 *Costs:* See the web site for tuition rates. Students from Central and
South America, who attend shools in Central and South America, and are
accepted for the course, will all receive the same scholarship – the course
at half price. By this scholarship, we recognize that with the exchange
rate and local economies being what they are, this scholarship pursues our
goals and interests in collaborating with students in these countries and
contributing to the general state of education and conservation. Also,
because we will be going to the islands as often as possible, we will have
a small surcharge of $5 from each student for each boat trip.


 Additional information: Please get in contact with Jim Roper (*
jjro...@gmail.com*, and *http://sites.google.com/site/jjroper/*) with any
questions. Please read over the web pages at ITEC as well (*
http://www.itec-edu.org*) to better understand the field station and
situation in Panamá.

Jim
--

In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice,
there is. -- Yogi Berra


25o31'18.14" S, and 49o09'32.98" W
In Google Earth, copy and paste -25.5217, -49.0925

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Hypothesis testing in ecology

[James J. Roper]

I've been meaning to comment here too.

When I teach statistics, my goal is to give the graduate students a
"toolbox" if you will, of useful ways to test ideas.  More complex
statistics comes later.  In teaching, I use the idea of testing hypotheses,
with a very important caveat.  Both, null and alternative hypotheses have to
be biologically sensible and biologically possible.  I know I find many
published papers that gloss over the null, but it turns out, on deeper
inspection, that it was not a possibility and so refuting it was
unavoidable.

Apply that idea, that the null also must be reasonable, logical and
possible, and you may find that many null hypotheses are none of those.

Jim

On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 13:13, Kevin Mueller  wrote:

> If we iteratively modify our hypotheses through the process of data
> collection, data analysis, or manuscript preparation, how different is this
> process from "observational" or "exploratory" research?  It is, of course,
> different to some debatable extent. Regardless, I think Paul's comments shed
> light on the reality that there is a large gray area between the extremes of
> purely observational studies and purely hypothesis driven studies (which his
> 2005 paper apparently documents).  Given this, I find the explicit or
> underlying claims of superiority made by proponents of hypothesis driven
> research to ring false (despite some of the strong benefits of hypothesis
> testing that Paul and others have made clear).  I find such claims ironic
> since the result of many observational or exploratory studies is, gasp, a
> hypothesis.
>
> Finally, regardless of the language we use to reference hypotheses in our
> introductions, I ask:  Is it always beneficial to cloak studies that are
> somewhat exploratory behind a veil of singlular hypothesis testing?  Or
> might we also sometimes gain and share insights by making the process of
> data exploration and hypothesis testing/modification more apparent in our
> manuscripts?
>
> To be clear, my comments are more in response to a general
> narrow-mindedness that I've observed among some natural scientists, not to
> any particular post or 'poster' in this recent thread (i.e. I found Paul's
> post insightful and not especially narrow-minded).
>
> Kevin Mueller
>
> On Mar 9, 2011, at 11:00 PM, Paul Grogan wrote:
>
> "Furthermore, often during the data interpretation or write-up
> stage, additional reflection on the processes of experimentation and
> evaluation of the data may indicate to the scientist (or to a manuscript
> reviewer) that the test did not reflect the hypothesis as well as
> originally
> thought. In such cases, further refinement or editing of the hypothesis
> statement should be made so that the final research output – the
> peer-reviewed publication disseminating the new knowledge – is as accurate
> and accessible to others as possible.  As a result, I usually finish my
> manuscript Introduction sections with: “We used our data to test the
> following hypotheses” (rather than “We tested the following
> hypotheses... which gives the impression of great foresight on the part of
> the author)."

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Climate Change Data

[James J. Roper]

Wayne, isn't somewhat of a trick question?  I mean, in science, we have a
tough time saying that anything except the trivial is unequivocal.

Also, is it even theoretically possible to unequivocally demonstrate a
difference in climate due to natural or to human causes?  Especially when
they are operating simultaneously. And, as for prediction, I have yet to
see models that based on the past do well at predicting the present, in
both, natural and human dominated systems.

However, there are plenty of data with plants and animals showing trends
that are consistent with climate change, and also, a considerable amount of
good logic supports anthropogenic climate change.  What more could a
realistic person want?

Cheers,

Jim

On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 18:42, Wayne Tyson  wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> Can anyone tell me or direct me to a source that can tell me unequivocally
> and quantitatively what the direct and indirect effects of human influence
> are and are projected to be compared to the "background" or "natural"
> influences with respect to global temperature changes and predicted states?
>
> Is there any information on the conditions of life in the past which match
> those states and their probable causes?
>
> WT
>
>
> - Original Message - From: "Sudhir Raj Shrestha" <
> sudhir_...@yahoo.com>
>
> To: 
> Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2011 11:35 AM
>
> Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Climate Change Data
>
>
> Hi Steve,
>
> In addition to Ben's comprehensive list, I will suggest you to look at
> NOAA's new (still prototype, we are working on it) climate portal.
>
> www.climate.gov
>
> Thanks,
>
> Sudhir Shrestha
>
> --- On Tue, 3/15/11, Benjamin White  wrote:
>
> From: Benjamin White 
> Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Climate Change Data
> To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
> Date: Tuesday, March 15, 2011, 6:17 PM
>
> Steve,
>
> Contrary to adopting the approach of utilizing dumbed-down on-line climate
> tutorials, I find that the easiest way to initially engage interested
> parties is to refer them to "summaries for decision makers" and to
> content-rich web sites. Here you will often find scientific or policy
> organizations' bottom line ref. findings, data and methods.
>
> Consider, perhaps, some climate findings, reports and resources from:
> - a summary of global environment, including climate:
> http://www.unep.org/geo/geo4/media/GEO4%20SDM_launch.pdf (GEO5 will soon
> be out and it is my personal expectation that climate change will be cast in
> a slightly different light)
> -
> http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.shtml#1
> and
>
> http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_fourth_assessment_report_synthesis_report.htm
> - Geenhouse gas, etc. data: http://unfccc.int/ghg_data/items/3800.php
> - CCSP provides an umbrella for US data data on climate change:
> http://www.climatescience.gov/default.php
> (e.g.
> http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap4-2/final-report/default..htm
> )
> - CIESIN and SEDAC provide a wealth of material, particular on the human
> dimensions of climate change e.g. the Geographic Distribution of Climate
> Change Vulnerability. A review of their site is will definitely stimulate
> discussion:
> http://www.ciesin.columbia.edu/index.html
>
> Some selected readings from the IPCC4 report, along with figures, etc.
> should be a good place to start. There are always developments in the realm
> of climate science that are worth consideration (for example, modeling the
> influence of grassroots climate change mitigation efforts). A review of the
> some of the contemporary articles in Nature, Science, New Scientist (their
> "ask a climate scientist" blog is really "cool":
> http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2010/12/ask-a-climate-scientist.html)
> etc. will likely provide material for a significantly enriched discussion.
> You are correct to be wary of data or findings from organizations which lack
> scientific objectivity.
>
> ***I am sure other people on the list will be able to add to the suggested
> sites above.
>
> Cheers,
>
> --Ben White
>
>
>
>  Original message 
>
>> Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 22:01:40 -0400
>> From: Steven Roes 
>> Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Climate Change Data
>> To: 
>>
>> Hi All,
>> I'm preparing to teach few days on climate change to my high school living
>> environment students. We are nearing the conclusion of our ecology unit,
>> and they've been soaking up the material like sponges--I've been
>> incredibly
>> happy to see thier progress as an entire group.
>>
>> I'm working on researching for these few days climate change, and I'm in
>> need of trustworthy data with some discussion that, ideally, my students
>> can
>> understand. If necessary, I can work to translate any discussion to more
>> appropriate language.
>>
>> Could any of you point me in the direction of where to find non-biased
>> information on the issue of climate change and rising CO2 levels that is
>> worthy of presenting?
>>
>> Thanks in 

Re: [ECOLOG-L] field safety manual for mammal/herp/tick project

[James J Roper]

The manual is good, but there are a few small errors.

Tick rainthe manual says that ticks do not fall on passersby, but
indeed they do.  I have been "colonized" by ticks that way in both
Panama and Paraguay. In Paraguay, when the truck I was riding on went
under a tick infested branch of tree (actually, the preceding truck) the
ticks apparently sense the CO2 and dropped, landing on the people in the
back of the truck that followed.  It happened more than once and was
easily verified.

In Panama, I was sitting in the understory waiting while looking up with
binoculars.  Every now and then, I felt "dust" on my face.  I pulled out
my compass with mirror and discovered that the dust was ticks.  As I
plucked them from my face, their numbers were growing, on my face and
not by climbing to my face. Finally, I noticed that they were all over
my body, so I moved.

In the field, I have done the simple experiment.  Tick walks up arm or
leg or finger.  If you merely fan the tick with your hand (passing an
air current), they cling, but if you breathe or blow on it, the tick
often drops, presumably from "smelling" CO2.

Now I have not done this experiment with ticks everywhere, but
everywhere I have done it, the ticks respond the same way.

Cheers,

Jim

Diane S. Henshel wrote on 19-Jun-10 14:24:
> Thanks for a great start on a manual many will use!
>
>   

Re: [ECOLOG-L] worlds authorities in sustainable ag/meat/ag ecology

[James J Roper]

I would suggest that there are no world authorities for feeding 10
billion people.  As it is, the green revolution came with cheap oil. 
Food will only be harder to produce with less energy and more mouths to
feed.  Certainly I agree with Beth that the big companies are in it for
the profit and not their concern for either sustainability or the human
condition.

As Garret Hardin said - Nobody dies of overpopulation (of course, he was
speaking tongue in cheek, because they die of disease, starvation,
inadequate health care, extreme working conditions and so on and so
forth, all due to overpopulation).

Jim

Wendee Holtcamp wrote on 24-Jun-10 12:13:
> Who would you say are the world's leading authorities in agricultural
> ecology (how can we feed the world given our rates of consumption, increased
> meat demand, that kind of thing)? 
>
> What questions are actively being addressed (besides the above) by academics
> that are hot topics in ag ecology right now for both the US and
> internationally? 
>
> >From the Bering Sea..
> Wendee
>
> My adventures in the Bering Sea ~
> http://blogs.nature.com/news/thegreatbeyond   
> ~~
>  Wendee Holtcamp, M.S. Wildlife Ecology ~ @bohemianone
> Freelance Writer * Photographer * Bohemian
>   http://www.wendeeholtcamp.com  
>  http://bohemianadventures.blogspot.com
> 
> ~~ 6-wk Online Writing Course Starts July 24 (signup by Jun 17) ~~
>  ~~~
> I'm Animal Planet's news blogger - http://blogs.discovery.com/animal_news 
>
>   

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Humans in the definition of ecosystems

[James J Roper]

Not only that, but if you have read Ricklefs 2008, the Disintegration of
the Ecological Community (Am. Nat 172:741 - DOI: 10.1086/593002), you
might even realize that THAT ecosystem definition leaves a lot to be
desired, especially the part "interacting as a functional unit."

Cheers,

Jim

Fabrice De Clerck wrote on 25-Jun-10 12:20:
> Dear Friends,
>
> An environmental economist colleague of mine is disappointed with the CBD 
> definition of ecosystems which gives the impression that only pristine areas 
> are ecosystems. Can anyone point us to a more recent definition of ecosystems 
> that explicitly includes humans as an integral part of the definition?
>
> Here is the original question:
>
> The CBD defines ecosystems as a dynamic complex of plant, animal and 
> micro-organism communities and their non-living environment interacting as a 
> functional unit.
>
> I find this boring, as it leaves us humans, as special animals, out of the 
> picture. When you read it, it is easy to think of pristine environments. Has 
> there been any reaction or correction of this definition? I need an 
> authoritative quote that balances the CBD´s
>
> All reactions welcome, and citations welcome!
>
> Fabrice
> 
> Fabrice DeClerck PhD
> Community and Landscape Ecologist
> Division of Research and Development
> CATIE 7170, Turrialba, Costa Rica 30501
> (506) 2558-2596
> fadecle...@catie.ac.cr
>
> Adjunct Research Scholar
> Tropical Agriculture Programs
> The Earth Institute at Columbia University
> 
>
>   

-- 


  James J. Roper, Ph.D.


Ecology, Evolution and Population Dynamics
of Terrestrial Vertebrates

Caixa Postal 19034
81531-990 Curitiba, Paraná, Brasil

E-mail: jjro...@gmail.com <mailto:jjro...@gmail.com>
Telefone: 55 41 36730409
Celular: 55 41 98182559
Skype-in (USA):+1 706 5501064
Skype-in (Brazil):+55 41 39415715

Ecology and Conservation at the UFPR <http://www.bio.ufpr.br/ecologia/>
Home Page <http://jjroper.googlespages.com>
James Roper's citations <http://www.mendeley.com/profiles/james-roper1/>
In Google Earth, copy and paste -> 25 31'18.14" S, 49 05'32.98" W

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion are we getting off track?

[James J Roper]

d Pizarro
>> went in
>> support of his greedy goals or really just wanted to save souls, they
>> certainly help subjugate the natives. We still see religion as
>> sometimes an
>> obstacle to social development. Consider the frequent mine disasters
>> that
>> have been in the news recently. No doubt many of the widows console
>> themselves with the thought that this was god's will and was
>> foreordained,
>> and that they will meet their husbands in heaven. This is fine, I am
>> all in
>> favour of consoling the sad and alleviating emotional suffering. But
>> there
>> also has to be a scientific investigation into the causes of the
>> disaster
>> that leads to improvements in mine safety, and the grieving widows
>> should
>> support this. All too often the religious explanation (god's will) is
>> seen
>> as a valid alternative to the scientific one (negligence). But of
>> course no
>> scientist can prove that these disasters are not god's will!
>>
>> For me the fundamental issue is whether we act scientifically, that
>> is to
>> say on the basis of evidence and reason, or whether we defer to
>> religious
>> belief. This leaves plenty of room for mysticism and the kind of ecstasy
>> that E. O. Wilson wrote about, for prayer and holy celebrations. But
>> to act
>> irrationally on the basis of one's religious beliefs in a way that
>> causes
>> harm to people or to anything else in our environment is in my
>> opinion an
>> abomination.
>>
>> Bill Silvert
>
>
> 
>
>
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 8.5.437 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2893 - Release Date:
> 05/24/10 06:26:00
>

-- 


  James J. Roper, Ph.D.


Ecology, Evolution and Population Dynamics
of Terrestrial Vertebrates

Caixa Postal 19034
81531-990 Curitiba, Paraná, Brasil

E-mail: jjro...@gmail.com <mailto:jjro...@gmail.com>
Telefone: 55 41 36730409
Celular: 55 41 98182559
Skype-in (USA):+1 706 5501064
Skype-in (Brazil):+55 41 39415715

Ecology and Conservation at the UFPR <http://www.bio.ufpr.br/ecologia/>
Home Page <http://jjroper.googlespages.com>
Ars Artium Consulting <http://arsartium.googlespages.com>
In Google Earth, copy and paste -> 25 31'18.14" S, 49 05'32.98" W

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict?

[James J. Roper]

lson's book _Biophilia_. "In a twist
> >> my mind came free and I was aware of the hard workings of the natural
> >> world beyond the periphery of ordinary attention, where passions lose
> >> their meaning and history is in another dimension, without people, and
> >> great events pass without record or judgment. I was a transient of no
> >> consequence in this familiar yet deeply alien world that I had come to
> >> love. The uncounted products of evolution were gathered there for
> >> purposes having nothing to do with me; their long Cenozoic history was
> >> enciphered into a genetic code I could not understand. The effect was
> >> strangely calming. Breathing and heartbeat diminished, concentration
> >> intensified. It seemed to me that something extraordinary in the
> >> forest was very close to where I stood, moving to the surface and
> >> discovery. ... I willed animals to materialize and they came
> >> erratically into view."
> >>
> >> What does this passage, which describes an experience I suspect most
> >> members of this list have had, most resemble? It sounds a lot like how
> >> practitioners of some types of meditation describe their experience.
> >> But what is this "naturalist's trance" good for, other than science?
> >> Hunting, gathering and looking out for predators! Maybe, just maybe,
> >> this was our ancestors' normal state of consciousness and maybe
> >> various religious and spiritual practices arose as a way of
> >> recapturing this state as, for biological and social reasons, our
> >> minds changed.
> >>
> >> This is, of course, a guess, but what do you folks think?
> >>
> >> Jane Shevtsov
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
 --
 James J. Roper, Ph.D. Ecology, Evolution and Population Dynamics
of Terrestrial Vertebrates
--
Caixa Postal 19034
81531-990 Curitiba, Paraná, Brasil
--
E-mail: jjro...@gmail.com
Telefone: 55 41 36730409
Celular: 55 41 98182559
Skype-in (USA):+1 706 5501064
Skype-in (Brazil):+55 41 39415715
--
Ecology and Conservation at the UFPR <http://www.bio.ufpr.br/ecologia/>
Home Page <http://jjroper.googlespages.com>
Ars Artium Consulting <http://arsartium.googlespages.com>
In Google Earth, copy and paste -> 25 31'18.14" S, 49 05'32.98" W
 --

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict?

[James J. Roper]

Dave had a question that at first glance seems tough to answer, but it
reminds me of what I teach my biostatistics students.  Rule number one,
never do anything unless you can explain exactly why you did that thing (as
opposed to any other option), and you have to explain that to your mother so
that she understands your choice.

So, sufficient knowledge is enough that you could explain the topic to
someone else to their satisfaction.  Therefore, if you feel that if you were
called on in a crowd to explain "string theory" and you would decline
thinking that you didn't know enough, well then, you don't know enough.
 Thus, we are each our own judge on this matter. If I can't explain
something so that you can understand it, then I don't know it well enough to
have an opinion on it.

Cheers,

Jim

On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 18:55, Derek Pursell  wrote:

> Mr. Roper makes an excellent point here; the value of establishing that one
> should not have an opinion (interpretation: bias?) before studying or
> gaining further knowledge of a subject is invaluable to the pursuit of
> knowledge. This principle applies for scientific and non-scientific
> purposes. This idea, so presented, does bring up another question: what
> would we like to define as "sufficient knowledge" in order to justify having
> an opinion on a subject? From my personal experience, people tend to form
> opinions on subjects relatively early in the process of learning about them
> (if indeed, any meaningful degree of learning takes place), so the perils
> are obvious. Granted, the definition of "sufficient knowledge" is broadly
> interpretative and would vary from subject to subject, but it can be
> troublesome because of the age-old issue of how people define and use the
> same word to mean many different things.
>

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict? Re: [ECOLOG-L] evolution for non-scientists textbook

[James J. Roper]

But Bill,

Feyerabend meant that the verdict was rational and just within the context
of church DOCTRINE at that time. And, remember, that was at the time that
the Pope Urban VIII. He had a list of his own foibles to worry about, so it
isn't clear whether Feyerabend's opinion was actually well-founded.

However, I think we could say that science should be evidence-based, while
religion is not based on evidence.  And, I think all religions (if by
religion we mean belief in a god or gods, or a supernatural force running
the show) are not evidence-based.  Once we recognize that, we will also
recognize that there is no way to reconcile the two such that there are
common grounds for discussion.  After all, one group will always be argue
using evidence, while the other group will never argue using evidence.

A person who is a scientist and has religion must recognize that when they
are being "religious", they have just left the realms of science. Almost
seems like a split personality to me.

Cheers,

Jim

On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 07:57, William Silvert  wrote:

> On another list I recently posted the following, which is relevant to
> Derek's comment: Should Galileo have been prosecuted?. The philosopher Paul
> Feyerabend said "The Church at the time of Galileo kept much more closely to
> reason than did Galileo himself, and she took into consideration the ethical
> and social consequences of Galileo's teaching too. Her verdict against
> Galileo was rational and just."
>
> Bill Silvert
>
> - Original Message - From: "Derek Pursell" 
>
> To: 
> Sent: sábado, 15 de Maio de 2010 1:40
>
> Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict? Re:
> [ECOLOG-L] evolution for non-scientists textbook
>
>
> Science and religion are indeed compatible, providing that people do not
> use the ideas and methodologies of one to override or undermine the other...
>

 --
 James J. Roper, Ph.D. Ecology, Evolution and Population Dynamics
of Terrestrial Vertebrates
--
Caixa Postal 19034
81531-990 Curitiba, Paraná, Brasil
--
E-mail: jjro...@gmail.com
Telefone: 55 41 36730409
Celular: 55 41 98182559
Skype-in (USA):+1 706 5501064
Skype-in (Brazil):+55 41 39415715
--
Ecology and Conservation at the UFPR <http://www.bio.ufpr.br/ecologia/>
Home Page <http://jjroper.googlespages.com>
Ars Artium Consulting <http://arsartium.googlespages.com>
In Google Earth, copy and paste -> 25 31'18.14" S, 49 05'32.98" W
 --

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict?

[James J. Roper]

I think that some of us may forget about the possibility of NOT forming
opinions.

On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 18:50, Frank Marenghi wrote:

> I agree with Mr. Sibley. It would be impossible for each of us to weigh all
> of the evidence available on every issue and come up with our own rational
> conclusions


On those things we know little or nothing, we do NOT really have to have an
opinion.  I am reminded of a lay friend who told me outright that global
warming was not happening (I think she thinks it is a communist plot).  I
asked her, why do you even HAVE an opinion on this matter, when you know
nothing of the subject?

After all, if it is, or is not, occurring, it is not a matter of opinion.
 Just like evolution - not a matter of opinion.  So, if the situation is
such that I cannot weigh ENOUGH evidence, I don't come to conclusions
either.  So, if someone asks me what I think of the grand unified theory of
physics, I will say, I don't know enough to form a good viewpoint.  That is
a much freer position, and more logical for a scientist.  Read Futuyma's
review of the book "What Darwing got wrong" (the review is titled "Two
Critics Without a Clue") and you will see what happens when ill-informed
people try to make an argument based on insufficient knowledge of a subject.

So, as scientists, when we don't know enough about a subject, we should
suspend judgement of that subject, or learn more.  But, we should definitely
NOT feel obliged to have opinions about that of which we know nothing.
 Religion is often just that - forming opinions on that about which one
knows little or nothing.

Cheers,

JIm

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Ecology Terminology and associated phenomena Colonizing species etc

[James J. Roper]

Matt has important points.

1. Alien is from somewhere else (that is, it's recent evolutionary 
history does not include its current location) and natives are from the 
place where they reside. AFTER that definition, we come to think that 
aliens are different than residents, and we often find they are (not 
surprisingly) and are not. Many marine species have unknown historical 
ranges, so we have no idea where thare are from, and we call those 
cryptogenic (hidden origins).


2. Whether organisms are bad for being alien is a judgement call, and 
subjective. Sure, we can say that they cost money, but that only means 
that they inconvenience us in some way - still subjective. Sure we can 
say that they change community dynamics, but does the community care? If 
evolution were allowed to run its course, I am sure that we would all 
agree than in another million years or so, all the current aliens will 
have become natives (adapted for where they are, and fitting - in some 
way - in the community at that time). Thus, the VALUE statements about 
aliens and invasives are invariably subjective.


3. Politics is about appealing to emotion to justify getting money (and 
science is often politics). The trend that this breeds is to inflate the 
value of whatever it is that we want money for. So, how do we justify 
spending billions on invasive species control? Economically, not 
scientifically.


My objective, scientific reasons for justifying the removal of invasives 
and alien species are, in fact, subjective. After all, even Elton said 
it well, although subectively - and I paraphrase - the continued 
introductions of species will have the net effect of reducing 
biodiversity, simplifying interactions in nature, and making the world a 
less interesting place.  I can see a future where ecologists study how 
introduced species have adapted to their adopted homes, how new 
interactions evolve in communities dominated by introduced species, how 
biodiversity changes over time with introductions and extinctions.  We 
will have a whole new science of biogeography - rather than Hubbell's 
"Unified Neutral Theory of Biodiversity and Biogeography" we will have 
someone's "Unified Neutral Theory if Biodiversity due to Introductions 
and Extinctions."


I can't help but (subjectively) think that such a place will be much 
poorer than our natural world of today (and I recognize how much poorer 
our natural world of today is compared to that of Darwin, for example).


Cheers,

Jim

Matt Chew wrote on 13-May-10 11:59:

Under the terminology and definitions promoted by leading invasion
biologists including David Richardson and Petr Pyšek, 'alien' species and
their subset 'invasive' species are not routinely identified by their
ecological characteristics.  Aliens are identified by subtracting historical
local biotas (meaning species lists) from recent local biotas, then deciding
which positive bits of the difference can plausibly be attributed to
dispersal via human agency.  Invasive species are a subset of aliens: those
with the capacity to spread, identified simply by having done so,
somewhere.

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Ecology Terminology and associated phenomena Colonizing species etc

[James J. Roper]

You do remember that the horses that went extinct in North America are not
the same ones that came back with the Spaniards?  So, yes, they are
introduced.

However, horses are not really the issue with introduced species, although
they are causing animated debates in the few states that have feral herds.

On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 10:16, Randy K Bangert  wrote:

> Are horses exotic or native if they evolved in North America and then
> subsequently reintroduced?
> ==
> Randy Bangert
>
>

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict? Re: [ECOLOG-L] evolution for non-scientists textbook

[James J. Roper]

For those of you who do not think that this debate is divisive, just check
out the gubernatorial campaign in Alabama.  Both sides are going against
evolution to gain supporters!

On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 00:18, Warren W. Aney  wrote:

> How about:  Science is trying to discover the world as it is, religion is
> trying to develop a world as it should become.
>
> Warren W. Aney
> (503) 246-8613
>
>
[image: S-CanITeachEvolution.gif]
<>

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Ecology Terminology and associated phenomena Colonizing species etc

[James J. Roper]

Jim, you raise a good point (or more) about the kinds of arguments that
work.

The problem with moral arguments is that they are so nebulous and subjective
that they will never defeat a person who just doesn't want to change.  I can
think of many examples, but none seems to be politically correct to comment
on here, so I will leave that up to imagination. I will summarize by saying
any moral position can have a contrary moral position that is just as
morally valid.  However, moral positions are indeed what motivate many
people.

On the other hand, logical positions (contrasting strongly when the two may
not always be at odds) stand on the strength of the logic and can be
difficult to refute if one accepts the premises.

What we all need to recognize is when we argue, which kind of person are we
arguing with - one that will accept our moral stance and agree with us
(after all, if they don't, we lost the argument) or one that will accept our
premises and yield to logic.  The general public often comprises people that
mix the two - and they don't recognize when they cross logic and moral
boundaries - hence our task is that much more difficult.

Cheers,

Jim

On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 16:28, James Crants  wrote:

> Jim,
>
> Yes, any tongue-in-cheek comments flew right over my head, so I was taking
> everything in earnest.  I should have realized from your earlier references
> to Elton that you at least recognized exotic invasives as an ecological
> problem.
>
> I think I've sown my own bit of confusion by arguing that exotics are
> ecologically different from natives.  Not only might it not matter, as you
> suggest, but by phrasing my point in terms of exotics versus natives, I've
> probably given the impression that I'm just as worked up about wheat, cows,
> and dandelions as I am about buckthorn, earthworms, and purple loosestrife
> (to give some examples from my own region, Minnesota, USA).  I probably
> shouldn't be surprised if people think my views on the matter are more rigid
> and compartmentalized than they really are.
>
> You may be right that it is logically better to argue that we shouldn't be
> conducting unnecessary experiments with unknown outcomes, rather than making
> moral appeals.  Personally, I think both kinds of arguments (rational and
> moral) are needed.  People can be persuaded by reason, but they aren't often
> strongly motivated by it.  We need reason to understand the likely outcomes
> of different possible courses of action, and appeals to human values to get
> people to care about those outcomes.  With moral arguments alone, though, I
> agree that the argument just goes on indefinitely, with neither side ever
> feeling compelled to admit defeat.  Unfortunately, the loudest side "wins"
> moral debates, and that seems never to be the side I'm on.
>
> Jim
>

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Ecology Terminology and associated phenomena Colonizing species etc

[James J. Roper]

Good question Martin,

But, yes, I would remove all of those from any and all natural settings, and
keep them on farms, just like you suggested.  As for the animals, they are
massive conservation problems in their own rights, so I won't go into why we
should all be vegetarian -   :-|

As you say, keep them from running wild. Which reminds me, have any of you
seen those pictures of the record sized boars (domestic pigs) that were shot
in Georgia a few years ago?  Those are certainly an ecological disaster!

Cheers,

Jim

On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 13:57, Martin Meiss  wrote:

> Really, Mr. Roper (the formality is to avoid confusion between the two
> Jims)?  You would favor removal of such exotics from North America as wheat,
> apples, oranges, horses, cattle, goats, pigs, and honeybees?  Wouldn't you
> settle for trying to keep them from running wild, rather than eliminating
> them from farmland because they are exotic?
> Martin
>
>
> 2010/5/12 James J. Roper 
>
> Jim,
>>
>> I hope my (perhaps) subtle tongue in cheek comments about invasives has
>> not confused the issue.  I completely agree that human caused introductions
>> are to be avoided at all costs, and active eradication of exotics should be
>> undertaken as a default position until a well-developed argument suggests
>> otherwise.
>>
>> As Elton documented long ago, invasives are problems, both ecologically
>> and financially.  States and countries spends billions of dollars each year
>> trying to control many exotics. While I think that we can find examples for
>> both, innocuous exotics and maladapted natives, those examples do not
>> support any position taken on exotics.
>>
>> I would also venture to state that even if statistical tests could not
>> identify an exotic, that does NOT mean the exotic is inconsequential.  I
>> think in this case, we should assume guilty until proven innocent.  After
>> all, nature took millions of years to come up with what we have today, while
>> we can screw that up in less than a decade.  We do not have the information
>> required to decide whether an exotic "matters" in some philosophical moral
>> sense.  We should assume that it is a problem, however, as the best default
>> position - avoid introductions at all costs, eradicate when possible.   If
>> we use a moral position, that position can be argued endlessly.  If we use a
>> pragmatic position - introductions are uncontrolled experiments and
>> uncontrolled experiments should always be avoided because we cannot know how
>> to predict the outcome (and much less control it) - then until someone can
>> really show how great uncontolled experiments are, no argument will be
>> effective against it.
>>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>> Jim
>>
>> James Crants wrote on 12-May-10 13:02:
>>
>>  Jim and others,
>>> Your last sentence converges on the point I was trying to make:  if you
>>> compared native species, as a group, against exotic species, as a group, you
>>> would find statistically significant ecological differences (ie, trends),
>>> even though you would also find numerous exceptions to those trends.  A
>>> statistically significant trend is not negated by the existence of outliers,
>>> any more than the tendency for men to be taller than women is negated by the
>>> fact that many women are taller than many men.
>>>
>>
>

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Ecology Terminology and associated phenomena Colonizing species etc

[James J. Roper]

Jim,

I hope my (perhaps) subtle tongue in cheek comments about invasives has 
not confused the issue.  I completely agree that human caused 
introductions are to be avoided at all costs, and active eradication of 
exotics should be undertaken as a default position until a 
well-developed argument suggests otherwise.


As Elton documented long ago, invasives are problems, both ecologically 
and financially.  States and countries spends billions of dollars each 
year trying to control many exotics. While I think that we can find 
examples for both, innocuous exotics and maladapted natives, those 
examples do not support any position taken on exotics.


I would also venture to state that even if statistical tests could not 
identify an exotic, that does NOT mean the exotic is inconsequential.  I 
think in this case, we should assume guilty until proven innocent.  
After all, nature took millions of years to come up with what we have 
today, while we can screw that up in less than a decade.  We do not have 
the information required to decide whether an exotic "matters" in some 
philosophical moral sense.  We should assume that it is a problem, 
however, as the best default position - avoid introductions at all 
costs, eradicate when possible.   If we use a moral position, that 
position can be argued endlessly.  If we use a pragmatic position - 
introductions are uncontrolled experiments and uncontrolled experiments 
should always be avoided because we cannot know how to predict the 
outcome (and much less control it) - then until someone can really show 
how great uncontolled experiments are, no argument will be effective 
against it.


Sincerely,

Jim

James Crants wrote on 12-May-10 13:02:

Jim and others,
Your last sentence converges on the point I was trying to make:  if 
you compared native species, as a group, against exotic species, as a 
group, you would find statistically significant ecological differences 
(ie, trends), even though you would also find numerous exceptions to 
those trends.  A statistically significant trend is not negated by the 
existence of outliers, any more than the tendency for men to be taller 
than women is negated by the fact that many women are taller than many 
men.

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Ecology Terminology and associated phenomena Colonizing species etc

[James J. Roper]

Jason,

There are few things qualitatively different about any dispersal agent.  
But, considering the impact and abundance of humans and their dispersal 
agents these days, there is a quantitative difference.  Also, there is a 
qualitative difference at least in one respect.  Dispersal is an evolved 
trait (at least modified by evolution) while human-mediated dispersal 
can disperse organisms that did not evolve to be good dispersers.


Thus, between the quantitative difference (increased dispersal rates, 
greater dispersal distances due to humans) and the qualitative 
difference (dispersal of comparatively "poor" dispersers due to humans), 
the combined effects ONLY means a greater rate of introductions, often 
of species that would never have dispersed by any other means, than ever 
in the history of the planet.


But, besides that, there is no difference between dispersal agents and 
events.


Cheers,

Jim

Jason Hernandez wrote on 11-May-10 21:48:

What, then, is the ecological difference between humans as a dispersal agent, and, 
say, seabirds as a dispersal agent?  When we study Hawaiian native plants, are we 
not studying "how natural selection influenced organisms after their 
introduction, or as a consequence of
the introduction of other species"?  The system is still one of an organism having been 
brought to some isolated location to which it could not otherwise have gotten on its own.  The 
whole study of island biodiversity is inherently the study of introductions of 
"alien" species by various means, except in the case of continental islands formerly 
connected to the mainland.
  
Jason Hernandez

East Carolina University
   

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Ecology Terminology and associated phenomena Colonizing species etc

[James J. Roper]

James Crants wrote on 11-May-10 13:05:
There's a difference between saying that two species are not 
ecologically equivalent and saying that two categories of species are 
not ecologically equivalent.


But, ecological "equivalents" are not really "equal" in such a way that 
they are substitutable in a community.  I mean, you can't just say, take 
a Clay-colored Robin from Panama and replace the American Robin (even 
though they might be considered ecological equivalents) and then expect 
their roles to just fit right in in their new places.


  If exotic species (as a category) were ecologically equivalent to 
native ones, you would still find that every species would differ from 
every other species by at least a few measures.  I'm saying that, as a 
category, exotic species are ecologically different from native ones.


Now do you mean "until they are naturalized"?  After all, take the House 
Sparrow, that has now crossed the continent and invaded many places in 
the Americas. Is it still ecologically different from natives?


I would suggest that if you took both native and introduced species, and 
did a blind study, in which you looked at survival, interactions and so 
on, you would not get a clear cut difference in ecological characters 
that would identify (say, through a discriminant function analysis) 
introduced and native species.  Take the persimmons I have here in my 
yard here in southern Brazil.  Clearly introduced from Japan (I will 
eliminate them once I have a native fruit tree to replace them with), 
but they attract leaf-cutter ants to consume leaves, bees and other 
insects visit the flowers, all kinds of animals eat the fruits, and they 
seeds are quite viable and the plant could easily become invasive and 
probably is in many places. If you took a native plant here, like the 
Scheflera (Didymopanax) and checked it out, you would find that, as a 
sapling, it cannot handle our cold winters (frost burns every year), it 
gets hit by aphids so badly that it is often worse than the frost, and 
the leaf cutter ants also nail it.  In the same time my one native 
sapling has remained at the same size (short, < 1 m tall), a persimmon 
has grown from a seed and is now producing fruit and is about 3 m tall.  
The Scheflera is at least 9 years old, while the persimmon is about 3.  
I would suggest that through any objective measurements by a naive 
observer, they would think that the Scheflera was NOT native and that 
the Persimmon was.


So, my point is, that using objective measurements, I think we would not 
find that there are clear distrinctions between native and introduced 
organisms. We may find certain kinds of trends, but the errors 
associated with using those trends as guides to recognize native or 
introduced organisms will be large and so not very useful.


Cheers,

Jim

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Ecology Terminology and associated phenomena Colonizing species etc

[James J. Roper]

To go straight to the meat of the issue:

William Silvert wrote on 11-May-10 11:31:
One of the greatest invasions in ecological history occurred when the 
Mediterranean connected to the Atlantic Ocean. How fundamentally 
different is that from the opening of the Suez or Panama canals? 


Well, sure, but trivially so.  We are only talking about rates here.  
And, the fact that we will lose diversity and richness and local history 
as a consequence of our introductions.  But, over geological time, it's 
just a drop in the bucket.


Indeed, your argument, taken to its extreme is, well, since the big 
bang, all kinds of things have happened and until the big freeze they 
will continue, so why does it matter what happens in our lifetimes?


Clearly we need to define the word "matter" as in "what does it matter."

Cheers,

Jim

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Ecology Terminology and associated phenomena Colonizing species etc

[James J. Roper]

Hi Jim et al.,

I guess I don't undertand what one would mean by your question, as to 
whether they "behave" differently.  No two species behave the same in 
any event, so any given pair of species "behaves" differently, 
regardless of origin.  Have you read Ricklefs - Disintegration of the 
ecological community?  If the community is more of an accident in space 
and time rather than a co-evolved bunch of species, then there is no 
reason to think that any two species "behave" the same.


Let's put it in terms of testable hypotheses.  Let's say we have two 
species, A and B, both are "native" and we have C, "non native."


Hypothesis: (A = B) ne C? (where ne is not equal).

Clearly A ne B ne C, because, they are all different species.  If you 
can put your idea of "behavior" being "equal" in terms of testable 
hypotheses, I think we could advance.


I would also like to see the word "matter" as in "does it matter?" 
placed into a real context, with hypotheses included.  I still think the 
ambiguity of the terms is the reason behind the confusion.


Cheers,

Jim

James Crants wrote on 10-May-10 19:23:

Jim,
Actually, you answered the question of whether exotic and native 
species can be distinguished at all, while the question we could not 
agree on is whether the distinction is ecologically meaningful.  Does 
an exotic species behave differently from a native one?  If not, then 
why should it matter to an ecologist whether a species is native or 
not?  I say exotic species do behave differently, for reasons I gave 
in my post, and I think it does matter whether a species is native.  
Dr. Chew (as I understand it) says exotic species do not behave 
differently, as a group, that the distinction is ecologically 
meaningless, and that it therefore does not matter whether a species 
is native.  We define "native" and "exotic" based on geographic 
history, and I think he says that that's the only distinction that can 
objectively be made between the two categories.
I would agree with William Silvert that we are getting wrapped up in 
irrelevant rigor, except that I think important things might hang in 
the balance here.  Invasive species biology loses most of its social 
relevance if native and exotic species are not ecologically 
distinguishable.  Also, while I agree that we have to accept fuzzy 
definitions for fuzzy concepts (i.e., most concepts), a tendency 
emerged in the off-forum discussion to fuzz everything together to the 
point where humans are just another organism, nothing we do is 
exceptional, and we have no moral obligation to modify our ecological 
impact, one way or another, even if doing so is well within our 
power.  That's a matter of using such fuzzy definitions that they 
cease to be definitions at all, which is different from what Silvert 
is advocating, but I guess I'm just saying that it's important not to 
throw out a categorization just because the categories have fuzzy 
boundaries.

Jim Crants

On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 4:52 PM, James J. Roper <mailto:jjro...@gmail.com>> wrote:


Ah Jim,

But that question is easy to answer.  If humans put the species in
a place or it arrived in a place that it would not have gotten to
on its own, then it is introduced, otherwise it is native or
natural.  Clearly this is a mere consequence of the short history
of humans as dispersal agents on the planet, but it is a good
enough definition for 99% of the cases - just check the classic by
Elton.

We already have the term "naturalized" which basically means it's
here to stay and there is nothing we can do about it.

I personally think that for almost all intents and purposes, those
definitions work.  When they don't work, we are either splitting
hairs or don't have clear objectives.

I think a clear consequence of this, is that humans should avoid
introducing and we should often actively eliminate introductions. 
But, that idea is based on the premise that we want nature to run

its course without human help - but that is not a universally
accepted premise.  And, a second premise is that evolution by
natural selection and how nature may have influenced that through
genetic drift, lateral gene transfer or what have you, is what is
interesting about nature.  I can see a future in which ecologists
merely study how natural selection influenced organisms after
their introduction, or as a consequence of the introduction of
other species.  Boring.  After all, those will always be on a
short term scale and will only illustrate what we probably already
know about evolution.  The big picture, long term consequence of
continental drift, punctuated equilibrium and so on, which have
resulted in the fascinating diversity of life, d

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Ecology Terminology and associated phenomena Colonizing species etc

[James J. Roper]

 already reached the same moral conclusion on exotic
invasives.

I was working on a factual argument against the assertion that exotic
species are not ecologically different from native species, but I have not
had time to check what I believe to be true against the evidence.  Maybe
others can help on the evidence, but I'll keep working on it.  For now,
here's what I think is true:

(1) Exotic species, on average, interact with fewer species than native
species, and their interactions are  weaker, on average.  In particular,
they have fewer parasites, pathogens, and predators, counted in either
individuals or species.  This is especially true of plants, and especially
non-crop plants.  I suspect, but have not heard, that exotic plants also
have fewer mycorrhizal associates than native ones, but I doubt that they
have significantly fewer pollinators or dispersers.  Meanwhile, back in
their native ranges, the same species have the same number of associations
as any other native species.

(2) Very-long-distance dispersal by humans confers a fitness advantage over
very-long-distance dispersal by other agents, on average, for two reasons.
First, humans often disperse organisms in groups, such as containers of
seeds, shipments of mature plants and animals, or large populations
contained in ballast water, allowing them to overcome the Allee effects
(lack of mates, inbreeding depression) their populations would face if
introduced as one or a few individuals.  We also often take pains to
maximize the establishment success of organisms we disperse, by shipping
healthy, mature plants and animals and propogating them when they arrive,
while non-human dispersal agents usually introduce small numbers of
organisms, often nowhere near their peak fitness potential (e.g., seeds,
spores, starving and dehydrated animals).

(3) Although the population dynamics of invasive species do not differ by
what agent introduced them (whether humans brought them, some other agent
did, or they evolved in situ), it is ecologically consequential that human
activities are generating so many more invasive species than natural
processes usually do.  Aside from maybe continents or oceans merging through
plate tectonics, nothing non-human introduces such a flood of new species to
new environments as we humans have in the last several centuries.

(4) To arrive at the conclusion that the terms "native" and "exotic" (or
"alien") are ecologically meaningless, you must approach the issue this
way:  if there is no set of criteria by which one can reliably categorize an
organism as native or exotic in the absence of historical evidence, the
distinction is meaningless.  I think the valid approach is this:  if there
is no set of criteria by which one can reliably distinguish the category
"native species" from the category "exotic species" (*after* the
categorization is done based on geographic history), the distinction is
meaningless.  By analogy, the first approach is like saying that there is no
difference in height between men and women because one cannot reliably
identify the height of a person by their sex, while the second approach is
like saying that there is a difference in height between men and women
because men are, on average, significantly taller than women.

That's all.  If you've read this far, I salute you.

Jim Crants


On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 8:38 AM, James J. Roper  wrote:

   

Wayne, and others,

This email was nebulous enough to where it appears to me that several
concepts are being bantered around to the detriment of resolving any.

Of course all terms are relative - we humans made up language to put names
on things to help us.

The problem of invasive species is important or not, depending on your
particular philosophy, so you would have to come to some common grounds
first to resolve what invasive is second.

The problem of invasives is just like the problem of endangered species.
99% of all species that ever lived are extinct, so we know that it is a
consistent evolutionary process.  Probably 99% of all species that exist
started out somewhere else.  However, the glitch is that in our generation,
we are causing the extinction of many species at a much more rapid rate than
nature ever did, and we are causing the introduction of species in new
places at a rate much more rapid than nature ever did.

As Elton in his classic book on introduced species stated (here
paraphrased), Because of introductions and their consequences, we will be
left with a world much simpler, much less diverse, and much less
interesting.

Sincerely,

Jim

Wayne Tyson wrote on 07-May-10 16:47:

Ecolog:
 

Back on April 12, 2010, I posted an enquiry along these lines that
resulted in an off-list discussion between three Ecolog-l subscribers and
three others. A lot of interesting points were made, but this side
discussion did not, in my view, settle the matter of what terminology, if
any, should be used

Re: [ECOLOG-L] evolution for non-scientists textbook

[James J. Roper]

The Greatest Show on Earth, by Richard Dawkins.

Enjoy.

Jim

jbowen wrote on 10-May-10 11:01:

Hi All:
In the fall I am going to be teaching an Evolutionary Biology course for
students in the social sciences and humanities. No prior coursework in the
natural sciences is required.  I am curious if the list might have
recommendations for a textbook that is appropriate for this audience.
Thanks in advance for your input.
   


--


 James J. Roper, Ph.D.

Ecologia, Evolução e Dinâmicas Populacionais
de Vertebrados Terrestres

Caixa Postal 19034
81531-990 Curitiba, Paraná, Brasil

E-mail: jjro...@gmail.com <mailto:jjro...@gmail.com>
Telefone: 55 41 36730409
Celular: 55 41 98182559
Skype-in (USA):+1 706 5501064
Skype-in (Brazil):+55 41 39415715

Ecologia e Conservação na UFPR <http://www.bio.ufpr.br/ecologia/>
Home Page <http://jjroper.googlespages.com>
Ars Artium Consulting <http://arsartium.googlespages.com>
In Google Earth, copy and paste -> 25 31'18.14" S, 49 05'32.98" W

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Extra-terrestrial "Species"

[James J. Roper]

I believe Richard Dawkins touched on this topic and I will give my reply 
giving him credit for his influence.


Evolution by natural selection should be a common process in any life 
form that has inheritence and differential survival and reproduction due 
to phenotypic variation due to genotypic variation.  As a consequence of 
evolution by natural selection, we would expect species to arise for the 
same reasons they arise here on earth. The word "species" should not be 
conflated with other uses of the word - in biology we all know what we 
mean, more or less. (humor) - but a chemical species has nothing to do 
with the biological concept of species.  In fact, the word species can 
also mean any class of objects with something in common, so we don't 
want that other usage to confuse what we mean when we speak of 
biological species (not necessarily the biological species concept, what 
I mean are species that are biological entitites).


So, sure, species would be exactly WHAT we call those organisms on other 
planets.


But, of course, it is a moot point - we will never see any.

Jim

Martin Meiss wrote on 07-May-10 18:46:

  I think someone is being to bio-centric with the word species.  It
does not apply only to the living world.  Chemists can refer to a molecule
as being of a certain chemical species.
  It seems to me that if the alien beings are not all identical, they
must be amenable of classification, which is to say, a taxonomy.  If a
taxonomy is not to be purely mathematical, their must be taxa, and these
taxa must have names.  Would we want to come up with a whole new set to
replace "Kindom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species" for each
planet with lifeforms?  Indeed, perhaps all we need to is add a taxon above
kingdom representing the planet of origin, although this could be tricky if
a planet had more than one system of life, each without any ancestry in
common with the others.

Martin M. Meiss

2010/5/7 Shelly Thomas

   

Dear Colleagues,
This is outside the normal ecological questions we post here, but I am very
interested in your opinions on this.

I was having an armchair philosophical discussion with a colleague and some
students the other day, trying to figure out if we (ecologists / scientists)
would use the word "species" to describe an extra-terrestrial life form
(supposing that someday we find one - or one finds us [c.f. Hawking]).

Here is why we were unsure of the proper term to use.

-The discussion over the basic definition of the word "species"
-We seem to be leaning more toward the phylogenetic definition (although
there is much discussion still going on about this and others may disagree);
this definition uses the ancestor/lineage model.
-If a life form is outside of our planet's big-picture evolutionary
lineage, do we then use a different term than "species"?  If so, what might
we use?

Would love to hear your ideas about this!

Thanks,
Shelly

_
The New Busy is not the old busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your inbox.

http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_3
 


--


 James J. Roper, Ph.D.

Ecologia, Evolução e Dinâmicas Populacionais
de Vertebrados Terrestres

Caixa Postal 19034
81531-990 Curitiba, Paraná, Brasil

E-mail: jjro...@gmail.com <mailto:jjro...@gmail.com>
Telefone: 55 41 36730409
Celular: 55 41 98182559
Skype-in (USA):+1 706 5501064
Skype-in (Brazil):+55 41 39415715

Ecologia e Conservação na UFPR <http://www.bio.ufpr.br/ecologia/>
Home Page <http://jjroper.googlespages.com>
Ars Artium Consulting <http://arsartium.googlespages.com>
In Google Earth, copy and paste -> 25 31'18.14" S, 49 05'32.98" W

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Ecology Terminology and associated phenomena Colonizing species etc

[James J. Roper]

t to "subsidize the unfit, and 
suppress the fit."


My own summary interpretation of some of the various conclusions are:

1. All organisms move from place to place by some means.

2. Some don't survive in some places.

3. Some survive and reproduce in "new" places better than some of the organisms 
that apparently evolved adaptations in accordance with site conditions.

4. Because of various semantic alliances, word meanings and etymology, and interpretations thereof, terms 
like "colonizer," "invader," and "alien" are deemed unsatisfatory to some for 
the purposes of disciplined enquiry into ecological phenomena.

5. Testable hypotheses seem to be lacking.


This is all very incomplete; I hope that contributions from Ecolog subscribers 
will help to make it more so, if not resolve the issue(s).

WT
   


--


 James J. Roper, Ph.D.

Ecologia, Evolução e Dinâmicas Populacionais
de Vertebrados Terrestres

Caixa Postal 19034
81531-990 Curitiba, Paraná, Brasil

E-mail: jjro...@gmail.com <mailto:jjro...@gmail.com>
Telefone: 55 41 36730409
Celular: 55 41 98182559
Skype-in (USA):+1 706 5501064
Skype-in (Brazil):+55 41 39415715

Ecologia e Conservação na UFPR <http://www.bio.ufpr.br/ecologia/>
Home Page <http://jjroper.googlespages.com>
Ars Artium Consulting <http://arsartium.googlespages.com>
In Google Earth, copy and paste -> 25 31'18.14" S, 49 05'32.98" W

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Question: Is grouping/binning appropriate in regression analysis?

[James J. Roper]

The question really is, why form groups when you already have the two,
numerical continuous variables that you want?  That is, what is the benefit
of grouping?  I can think of none.  I personally think this is a historical
thing that started when computers were unavavailable and it reduced the
mathematics to do-able level.  Today, the stats works without grouping.

Jim

On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 09:30, Francisco de Castro wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I have a question for the list regarding grouping (binning) of the
> independent variable in a linear regression. This is routinely done
> (at least in limnology) in studies involving so-called biomass
> size-spectra. I'm aware of other (better) methods to fit non-linear
> models. However, I need to compare my results with older literature
> where this method is used widely, and I'd like to know first if the
> method has a problem or if it is outright wrong.
>
> My independent variable is mean body size of the individuals of a
> species (M) and the dependent is either biomass (B, g/m2) or
> population density (D, indiv/m2) of the species. Body size is
> lognormally distributed, and the number of species in the sample is
> ~100. The model to fit is: D= aM^b. First, data are log-transformed in
> order to apply linear least-squares regression. So the model becomes
> log(D)= log(a)+ b log(M). The appropriateness of this transformation
> and possible bias in the estimation of parameters have been discussed
> before (Zar, Smith, others) so my question in not about that. After
> log-transforming, sizes are grouped into even-spaced categories, and
> the densities/biomasses for all sizes within a size group are summed
> up. So, the independent variable becomes the center of each
> log-size-bin, and the dependent becomes the sum of all log-densities
> for each size-bin. Obviously, the number of data gets reduced from the
> original N to the number of size groups/bins used. After grouping, the
> log-log model is fitted by least-squares regression.
>
> So my questions are:
> Is this binning of a log-transformed variable statistically
> appropriate for this problem?
> Shouldn't be better to use directly the size and density for each
> species without any grouping?
>
> Thanks in advance for any suggestion or literature.
> Cheers
>
> Francisco de Castro
> Potsdam University
>

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Are reviews anonymous?

[James J. Roper]

Jonathan,

I agree - I think that one should be able to post the reviews they get. 
Especially if the reviewer suggests something with which the author 
disagrees, so that the author can either 1) educate himself better by 
getting other viewpoints on the topic, or 2) refute the reviewer by 
getting other viewpoints on the topic.


I would think that in your case, you could easily "paraphrase" reviews 
for the teaching purposes you have in mind, which might be the way to go.


Cheers,

Jim

Jonathan Greenberg wrote on 01-Mar-10 20:09:

Interesting -- I'm primarily interested in reviews YOU receive on your
own submitted manuscript (which, 99% of the time, you don't know who
they are from) -- are you allowed to post these in any public forum?
Since the reviews cannot be linked back to an individual (unless that
individual steps forward and takes credit for it), and it is a
criticism of your own work, it seems like one should feel free to post
these if you want.  I was interested in compiling the types of reviews
people get on manuscripts for teaching purposes, so I'm trying to find
out if its legit for people to share these reviews with me if they end
up going out into the public (e.g. on a website)?

--j

On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 3:07 PM, Jonathan Greenberg  wrote:
   

Interesting -- I'm primarily interested in reviews YOU receive on your
own submitted manuscript (which, 99% of the time, you don't know who
they are from) -- are you allowed to post these in any public forum?
Since the reviews cannot be linked back to an individual (unless that
individual steps forward and takes credit for it), and it is a
criticism of your own work, it seems like one should feel free to post
these if you want.  I was interested in compiling the types of reviews
people get on manuscripts for teaching purposes, so I'm trying to find
out if its legit for people to share these reviews with me if they end
up going out into the public (e.g. on a website)?

--j


On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 2:16 PM, Christopher Brown  wrote:
 

Jonathan,

As it so happens, a message close to yours in my email folder was from a
review I did for American Naturalist. As part of the message from the
editor is the line "Please keep all reviews, including your own,
confidential." Thus, at least for Am Nat, it appears that the reviews
should remain unpublished in any form.

CAB

Chris Brown
Associate Professor
Dept. of Biology, Box 5063
Tennessee Tech University
Cookeville, TN 38505
email: cabr...@tntech.edu
website: iweb.tntech.edu/cabrown

-Original Message-
From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news
[mailto:ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu] On Behalf Of Jonathan Greenberg
Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 12:48 PM
To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Are reviews anonymous?

Quick question that came up recently that I was curious about -- I know
REVIEWERS are anonymous, but are the reviews you get supposed to be
anonymous, or can they be posted in a public forum?

--j

   
 


--
P.S. Nunca use acentuação em nomes de arquivos em anexo!


 James J. Roper, Ph.D.

Ecologia, Evolução e Dinâmicas Populacionais
de Vertebrados Terrestres

Caixa Postal 19034
81531-990 Curitiba, Paraná, Brasil

E-mail: jjro...@gmail.com <mailto:jjro...@gmail.com>
Telefone: 55 41 36730409
Celular: 55 41 98182559
Skype-in (USA):+1 706 5501064
Skype-in (Brazil):+55 41 39415715

Ecologia e Conservação na UFPR <http://www.bio.ufpr.br/ecologia/>
Home Page <http://jjroper.googlespages.com>
Ars Artium Consulting <http://arsartium.googlespages.com>
In Google Earth, copy and paste -> 25 31'18.14" S, 49 05'32.98" W

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Are ecologists the problem?

[James J. Roper]

Hello Benjamin,

You neglected to note how much reduced land would be needed to feed the 
people already in existance.  That is, the inefficiency of feeding 
animals that then are fed to people would be eliminated, therefore, much 
LESS land would be used for crop production than it is today.  And, the 
huge areas devoted to soy beans in Brazil could be eliminated, not 
augmented.


Cheers,

Jim

Benjamin Lee wrote on 12-Sep-09 21:13:
"Habitat loss is one of the driving forces of extinctions world wide." 

This is especially true in places like Brazil. Where the rainforest is 
being cut down and the water system is polluted by greedy land owners 
& squatters. A big driver in this destruction is soybeans, used to 
feed domestic animals and PEOPLE (ESP. VEGETARIANS).

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Are ecologists the problem?

[James J. Roper]

A well-known statistic is that there are as many domestic animals bred 
for food for people as there are people in the world, or more.  If we 
consider a 10% conversion of food to mass of the consumer, the logic is 
undeniable that if all ate lower on the food chain, we could use less 
land to do it with.  Also, we could do it with less energy.  Another 
detail is that more land is used to grow food for those animals than to 
grow food for people. Just switching the land to grow food for people 
instead of animals would mean that we could do this on much less land. 
Habitat loss is one of the driving forces of extinctions world wide.  
But also, pollution from high efficiency animal production is another 
huge issue (pigs and chickens). Not to mention land degradation due to 
grazing.


Also well known - vegetarian diets can provide all the nutrients that 
normal people need.


QED - a vegetarian diet would be better for the planet (and we would 
have much smaller problems with obesity!).


Cheers,

Jim

malcolm McCallum wrote on 09-Sep-09 0:50:

I tend to believe that any absolute answer that is declared an end all answer
is probably not the answer.  For example, I'm not convinced that everyone
jumping into a vegetarian diet is going to suddenly or even slowly
save the world.
Especially, considering that some of these stats are based on unrealistic
estimates.

For example, suggesting that x acres of corn would feed x number of cows and
that would feed x number of people whereas the x acres of corn would feed way
more people is flawed.  Humans cannot survive on a corn diet.  Even if
we expanded
this to grains and soybeans, humans cannot survive on a corn-soybean diet.
Why?  because vegetables in general are low in two or three essential
amino acids
that humans must get in their diet.  those amino acids are produced by animals
and so you must ultimately get them from animals or artificially
produced products.
  

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Are humans part of nature?

[James J. Roper]

Bill,

First you must define what you mean as "part of nature."  The trivial 
definition is that nature is everything, in which case, man is part of 
nature. On the other hand, if you mean nature as ecological processes, 
man is not necessarily part of all ecological processes, but then, 
neither is anything else. I have a feeling that what is meant by "man as 
part of nature" is something else, and it is probably ambiguous and will 
need be defined in practice.


Jim

William Silvert wrote on 08-Aug-09 13:11:
An anthropologist writing on another mailing list wrtoe that "... 
human beings, and indeed human cultures, have developed as a part of 
evolutionary processes.  This is something that a fair proportion of  
ecologists do not acknowledge.  At my Ph.D. institution, I have had 
ecologists tell me that humans ARE NOT part of nature!" I find this 
statement remarkable, and would like to know whether it is indeed true 
that "a fair proportion of ecologists" feel that "humans ARE NOT part 
of nature". Comments on this would be welcome.


Bill Silvert 


--
P.S. Nunca use acentuação em nomes de arquivos em anexo!


 James J. Roper, Ph.D.

Ecologia, Evolução e Dinâmicas Populacionais
de Vertebrados Terrestres

Caixa Postal 19034
81531-990 Curitiba, Paraná, Brasil

E-mail: jjro...@gmail.com <mailto:jjro...@gmail.com>
Casa: 55 41 36730409
Skype-in (USA):+1 706 5501064
Skype-in (Brazil):+55 41 39415715

Ecologia e Conservação na UFPR <http://www.bio.ufpr.br/ecologia/>
Home Page <http://jjroper.googlespages.com>
Ars Artium Consulting <http://arsartium.googlespages.com>
In Google Earth, copy and paste -> 25 31'18.14" S, 49 05'32.98" W

Re: [ECOLOG-L] ANOVA - too many treatments

[James J. Roper]

Matheus,

Yes, your test was flawed.  Remember the assumptions of ANOVA - normal 
residuals, equality of variances. Two replicates are too few to 
adequately test the assumption of equality of  variance among treatments 
(and we know nothing of the residual test). If you are unable to test 
the assumptions of the anova due to small sample size, the anova should 
not be done.  A power of 1 or 0.99 usually means that there was some 
trivial and self-evident result of your ANOVA, but it can also mean that 
your data were also insufficient to test power.


I have been teaching biostatistics to grad students for several years 
now.  In this class, for every topic the students must find a research 
paper published in a top journal on the same topic and analyze the 
analysis.  We have found that a very significant portion (> 25%) of the 
papers analyzed have statistics have flaws that range from minor to 
major.  ALL of these are peer reviewed.


Cheers,

Jim

Matheus Carvalho wrote on 09-Jul-09 20:01:

Changing a little the topic, I have a question about the statement of Edwin. He 
wrote:
"If the statistics are grossly inappropriate (for example running an
ANOVA with 12 treatments, but only 1 or two replicates per treatment),
adequate peer review was clearly not in place."
Well, I published a paper in which I used 2 way ANOVA with a total of 18 groups 
and 2 replicates per groups. It was peer reviewed, and one of the reviewers 
complained about my statistics, asking for measurements of power, perhaps with 
the expectation that that particular test would have no enough power to draw 
any conclusions. I used a software to measure the power of the test (G*power 
3), and found that power was the maximum possible (1.00) for the effects due to 
factors 1 and 2, and 0.99 for the interaction effect.Was my test flawed? It was 
peer reviewed!
Best,

Matheus C. Carvalho

Postdoctoral Fellow
Research Center for Environmental Changes

Academia Sinica

Taipei, Taiwan

--- Em qui, 9/7/09, Edwin Cruz-Rivera  escreveu:

De: Edwin Cruz-Rivera 
Assunto: Re: [ECOLOG-L] "real" versus "fake" peer-reviewed journals
Para: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
Data: Quinta-feira, 9 de Julho de 2009, 10:37

I believe one of the original questions was how to discern reputable
journals from those that publish dubious or biased results...or do not
accomplish proper peer review.  I can point to a couple of red flags that
can be noticed without too much effort and I have observed:

1) If the articles in the journal come mostly from the same institution in
which the editor in chief is located, chances are the buddy system has
overwhelmed objectivity...especially if the editor is a co-author in most.

2) If orthographic and syntax errors are widespread, probably the review
process was not thorough.

3) If the statistics are grossly inappropriate (for example running an
ANOVA with 12 treatments, but only 1 or two replicates per treatment),
adequate peer review was clearly not in place.

Now these may look like extreme cases, but I have seen too many examples
similar to the above to wonder how widespread these cases are.  I have
even received requests to review papers for certain journals in which I
have been asked to be more lenient than if I was reviewing for a major
journal.  This poses a particular dilemma: Is all science not supposed to
be measured by the same standards of quality control regardless of whether
the journal is institutional, regional, national or international?
I would like to think it should be...

Edwin
--
Dr. Edwin Cruz-Rivera
Assist. Prof./Director, Marine Sciences Program
Department of Biology
Jackson State University
JSU Box18540
Jackson, MS 39217
Tel: (601) 979-3461
Fax: (601) 979-5853
Email: edwin.cruz-riv...@jsums.edu

"It is not the same to hear the devil as it is to see him coming your way"
(Puerto Rican proverb)





  

Veja quais são os assuntos do momento no Yahoo! +Buscados
http://br.maisbuscados.yahoo.com
  

Re: [ECOLOG-L] citation manager

[James J. Roper]

Just curious José,

But, in bibsonomy, can a writer build their literature cited section of 
a paper?  In Zotero, I can insert codes within my document and when 
finished writing the document, Zotero will then build the entire lit 
cited section.


Zotero also has tools for sharing your bibliography list. What do you 
find that is clumsy in Zotero?


Jim

José Gómez-Dans wrote on 16-Jun-09 6:21:

Hi,

On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 9:33 PM, Cochran-Stafira, D. Liane
wrote:

  

Please tell me I'm not crazy.  I seem to remember someone describing a free
ware beta-version program similar to Reference Manager etc. during the last
few weeks.  I have tried to search the archives, but I'm not having any
luck.  Could someone forward a copy of that email to me offline?  Thanks.




In the thread, I have seen no mention of <http://bibsonomy.org>, a web-based
reference manager. I think it scores above Zotero in the fact that I can
very easily share references with colleagues. Think of it as a
del.icio.usbut for references. It understands many academic journals'
sites. I find it
far far less clumsy than zotero.

My 2p ;D
Jose
  


--

--------
James J. Roper
Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute
Bocas del Toro Marine Research Station
MRC 0580-03
Unit 9100, Box 0948
DPO AA 34002-9998

Skype-in (USA):+1 706 5501064
Skype-in (Brazil):+55 41 39415715

E-mail - personal: jjro...@gmail.com
E-mail - consulting: arsart...@gmail.com
STRI Bocas del Toro 
<http://www.stri.org/english/research/facilities/marine/bocas_del_toro/index.php>
Programa de Pós-graduação em Ecologia e Conservação 
<http://www.bio.ufpr.br/ecologia/>

Educational Pages <http://jjroper.googlepages.com/>
Ars Artium Consulting <http://arsartium.googlepages.com/>
9^o 21.122' N, and 82^o 15.390' W
In Google Earth, copy and paste -> 9 21.122' N, 82 15.390' W

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Different results from Statview and SPSS

[James J. Roper]

I believe that in SPSS and SAS (JMP is an offshoot of SAS, so probably 
has similar mathematical underpinnings), you can choose the types of sum 
of squares that you want. If you do not specifically state which you 
want, they may have different defaults.  Hence the different results.


You can go into the help and find out the default and as long as you 
know which you want, you can then force them to do the one you want.


Cheers,

Jim

MaryBeth Voltura wrote on 09-Jun-09 21:09:

I am reviewing an old dataset that I had originally analyzed in Statview
(5.0.1), and re-ran some statistics in SPSS (v.16.0), with very
different results.  I am running ANOVA on food intake, using body mass
as a covariate, with 3 experimental diet groups.  The two programs
produce different sums of squares and utilize different degrees of
freedom for the independent variables, thus producing very different
p-values.


Has anyone working with these two programs run into anything similar?
BTW, if I run the ANOVA with no covariate, the sum of squares and
F-statistic and p-values match up between Statview and SPSS.

 


Any ideas?

 


~~

Mary Beth Voltura, Assistant Professor

Department of Biological Sciences

SUNY Cortland

Cortland NY 13045

607-753-2713

marybeth.volt...@cortland.edu

 
  


--


James J. Roper
Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute
Bocas del Toro Marine Research Station
MRC 0580-03
Unit 9100, Box 0948
DPO AA 34002-9998

Skype-in (USA):+1 706 5501064
Skype-in (Brazil):+55 41 39415715

E-mail - personal: jjro...@gmail.com
E-mail - consulting: arsart...@gmail.com
STRI Bocas del Toro 
<http://www.stri.org/english/research/facilities/marine/bocas_del_toro/index.php>
Programa de Pós-graduação em Ecologia e Conservação 
<http://www.bio.ufpr.br/ecologia/>

Educational Pages <http://jjroper.googlepages.com/>
Ars Artium Consulting <http://arsartium.googlepages.com/>
9^o 21.122' N, and 82^o 15.390' W
In Google Earth, copy and paste -> 9 21.122' N, 82 15.390' W

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Plagiarizing methods...

[James J. Roper]

Interesting can of worms Cara. The logical extension of this is that every
time someone says that they are using a regression, Anova, correlation and
so on, they should cite the person who wrote the original mathematics behind
them.

But, I have seen written in statistical packages that the mathematics are
considered "standard" and so do NOT necessarily need to be cited.  I would
think that the first paper on PCR could be cited as follows:

PCR followed standard procedures (citation) at the following temperature and
times (list temperatures and times).

It just doesn't matter that all are similar, because now we might be able to
call the procedure public domain information.  Possibly we no longer need to
cite the original either, if public domain.

At any rate, this brings up another issue. I have revised papers in English
in which the introduction was very poorly written, the methods and some of
the results were much better, often in idiomatic English (that a foreigner
would not know) and then the discussion again was poorly written.  Clearly
the authors cut and pasted the methods, modifying the details.  Is that
really a problem?  Well, if methods are standard operating procedures, it is
like a recipe and recipes can and should be repeated as uniformly as
possible.

How do we decide what is "recipe" and what is not?  Is recipe plagiarism?
One would hope not.

Cheers,

Jim

On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 03:50, Cara Lin Bridgman wrote:

> Hi Jim,
>
> Actually, this 'encouragement' can be much more subtle.  It's when their
> advisor looks up at them, sighs, and says "Can't you do better?"  Since they
> can't do better without taking a few more years of English writing classes,
> they copy.
>
> In Taiwan, at any rate, scientists are now being blacklisted from Taiwan's
> National Science Council funding for various ethical problems, including
> plagiarism.  So, understanding of the problem has improved, but the ability
> to solve the problem is still lagging behind.  I tell my students they are
> all English Handicapped, which means throughout their career they will need
> extra time, effort, and money to write scientific papers.  This is a burden
> added to the problem we discussed last month: gaining access to published
> papers.
>
> CL
>
> James Crants wrote:
>
>> Cara Lin,
>>
>> I was trying to craft a good response to your questions, but I think I
>> should leave it to people with more experience publishing and editing than
>> I
>> have.  I'll just mention that the issue of Science I just received
>> yesterday
>> has an article about blatant plagiarism in scientific papers and some of
>> the
>> tools people use to detect it.
>>
>> Unfortunately, it sounds like some Chinese scientists are being encouraged
>> by their local writing experts to copy papers on work similar to their
>> own,
>> changing the details to fit their own research and results.  The rationale
>> is that this allows them to present their original research in far better
>> English than they could manage if they were writing from scratch.  I can
>> certainly sympathize with concerns about writing intelligently in a
>> foreign
>> language, but it's really a shame that there are scientists being told to
>> produce papers in a way that will put a big black mark on their
>> international repuations.
>>
>
> ~~
> Cara Lin Bridgman cara@msa.hinet.net
>
> P.O. Box 013 Shinjhuang   
> http://megaview.com.tw/~caralin<http://megaview.com.tw/%7Ecaralin>
> Longjing Township http://www.BugDorm.com
> Taichung County 43499
> TaiwanPhone: 886-4-2632-5484
> ~~
>



--
James J. Roper
Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute
Bocas del Toro Marine Research Station
MRC 0580-03
Unit 9100, Box 0948
DPO AA 34002-9998

Skype-in (USA):+1 706 5501064
Skype-in (Brazil): 41 39415715

E-mail - personal: jjro...@gmail.com
E-mail - consulting: arsart...@gmail.com
STRI Bocas del 
Toro<http://www.stri.org/english/research/facilities/marine/bocas_del_toro/index.php>
Programa de Pós-graduação em Ecologia e
Conservação<http://www.bio.ufpr.br/ecologia/>
Educational Pages <http://jjroper.googlepages.com/>
Ars Artium Consulting <http://arsartium.googlepages.com/>
9o21.122' N, and 82o15.390' W
In Google Earth, copy and paste -> 9 21.122' N, 82 15.390' W
--

Re: [ECOLOG-L] THE COST OF PUBLISHING RE: [ECOLOG-L] Open Access and Intellectual Imperialism

[James J. Roper]

Hello all,

I have been translating papers from Portuguese and Spanish, and fixing
the English in papers already translated, for around 10 years now. As a
biologist, I can usually figure out what the person wished to say in
English and how to say it reasonably well. However, I have seen that
when translated or reviewed by an English speaker who is NOT a
biologist, or a non-native English speaker who speaks English very well,
the translations often end up very poorly written. Also, translations
are often done by computer and the original author often may not have
the ability to recognize poorly written English and all these cause
issues with the paper after it is submitted.

At the same time, reviewers often seem disinclined to allow for what we
might call an accent in the English. I have seen papers with minimal
"accent" that often came after a translation when the original author
thought that one or two sentences needed revision, and did so without
consulting the translator. Those few sentences caught the eye of the
reviewer who then gave a blanket recommendation to review the ENTIRE
English. Perhaps reviewers need to be a little more flexible as well.

Jim

Hamazaki, Hamachan (DFG) wrote on 19-May-09 3:33:
> One snag with this is the language barrier for those writing papers in 
> their second or third language: English.
>
> I agree with Cara.
>
> I always submit manuscript after being edited by my native English speaker 
> co-workers and a professional editor. Even after those editing, journal 
> reviewers often put low on Readability Criteria, such as 
>
> * Interest: Captures and holds readers' attention.
> * Understandable: Uses easy-to-understand language and flows smoothly.
> * Development: Appropriately sequences and constructs paragraphs and 
> sentences to support the central idea and conclusions.
> * Mechanics: Uses acceptable standards of spelling and grammar.
>
> In my experience, most of my Native English speaking coworkers can correct 
> simple spelling and grammar errors.  However, most of them can't correct 
> language flow smoothly, except for them rewriting the entire manuscript, 
> which they would not do. 
>
>
> Toshihide "Hamachan" Hamazaki, PhD : 濱崎俊秀：浜ちゃん
> Alaska Department of Fish & Game
> Division of Commercial Fisheries
> 333 Raspberry Rd. Anchorage, Alaska 99518
> Ph: 907-267-2158
> Fax: 907-267-2442
> Cell: 907-440-9934
> E-mail: toshihide.hamaz...@alaska.gov
>
> CL wrote: 
>
> One snag with this is the language barrier for those writing papers in 
> their second or third language: English.  I'm working hard to get my 
> Taiwanese students to attend and follow directions, but it is an uphill 
> battle.  Some authors are just going to need some help.
>
> CL
>
> malcolm McCallum wrote:
>  > we are
>  > working to shift most of the formatting to the authors, but this
>  > requires VERY GOOD directions!
>
> ~~
> Cara Lin Bridgman cara@msa.hinet.net
>
> P.O. Box 013 Shinjhuang   http://megaview.com.tw/~caralin
> Longjing Township http://www.BugDorm.com
> Taichung County 43499
> Taiwan    Phone: 886-4-2632-5484
> ~~
>   

-- 


James J. Roper
Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute
Bocas del Toro Marine Research Station
MRC 0580-03
Unit 9100, Box 0948
DPO AA 34002-9998

Skype-in (USA):+1 706 5501064
Skype-in (Brazil):+55 41 39415715

E-mail - personal: jjro...@gmail.com
E-mail - consulting: arsart...@gmail.com
STRI Bocas del Toro
<http://www.stri.org/english/research/facilities/marine/bocas_del_toro/index.php>
Programa de Po's-graduac,a~o em Ecologia e Conservac,a~o
<http://www.bio.ufpr.br/ecologia/>
Educational Pages <http://jjroper.googlepages.com/>
Ars Artium Consulting <http://arsartium.googlepages.com/>
9^o 21.122' N, and 82^o 15.390' W
In Google Earth, copy and paste -> 9 21.122' N, 82 15.390' W

Re: [ECOLOG-L] analyzing ordinal phenology data

[James J. Roper]

John,

Basically you are doing a ranked regression analysis.  I believe you can 
find a paper on that from several years ago.  It works, but you just 
cannot make inferences based on the regression line.  That is, you can't 
find a phenology rate due to the regression, but you can still talk 
about direction and effect.  One goal of regression is to decide cause 
and effect of some predicted trend.  You may do that with rank 
regression - that is, reject the null hypothesis of independence between 
your independent and dependent variables.


Cheers,

Jim

John Skillman wrote:

Ecologgers...
We have regularly censused populations of several different plant species
throughout the growing season and categorized the observed individuals into
one of 7 different phenological stages (e.g., stage 1 = initial greening,
stage 4 = peak flowering, stage 6 = seed drop, etc.).  These numeral IDs for
the different stages are ordinal data that, by coincidence, tend to scale
linearly with day of the growing season.  Although using ordinal data is not
permitted (and makes no sense) in regression analyses, we've done it anyway!
 By running regressions we are able to get slopes (change in phenological
stage vs. day of year) which, in essence, quantifies the seasonal rates of
development for the different species.  Taking it one step further, Analyses
of Covariance confirm that some species progress through these phenological
stages at rates that are significantly different from that of other species.
So if this tells me what I want to know, what is the problem? The problem,
of course, is that this approach treats these phenological stage IDs (1-7)
as quantitative values when, in fact, they are nothing more than category
labels.
Can anyone suggest an alternative way to use these data to quantify seasonal
development rates and test for differences among species?

BTW, we censused different individuals within each population haphazardly
(~10 individuals per population per census date) and did NOT follow the same
individuals over the season.
 
John Skillman
  


--

--------
James J. Roper
Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute
Bocas del Toro Marine Research Station
MRC 0580-03
Unit 9100, Box 0948
DPO AA 34002-9998

Skype-in (USA):+1 706 5501064
Skype-in (Brazil): 41 39415715

E-mail - personal: jjro...@gmail.com
E-mail - consulting: arsart...@gmail.com
STRI Bocas del Toro 
<http://www.stri.org/english/research/facilities/marine/bocas_del_toro/index.php>
Programa de Pós-graduação em Ecologia e Conservação 
<http://www.bio.ufpr.br/ecologia/>

Educational Pages <http://jjroper.googlepages.com/>
Ars Artium Consulting <http://arsartium.googlepages.com/>
9^o 21.122' N, and 82^o 15.390' W
In Google Earth, copy and paste -> 9 21.122' N, 82 15.390' W

Re: [ECOLOG-L] CLIMATE Change Anthropogenic Belief and Evidence Re: [ECOLOG-L] Reference for % of scientists that think climate change is caused by humans?

[James J. Roper]

Wayne,

You ware wanting the kind of data that nobody has really had the chance 
to gather yet.  Have you seen Stuart Pimm's book, "The World According 
to Pimm"?  That would be a very good start.  But, you are talking about 
data on a global scale - almost no research has been funded on that 
large a scale, long enough to actually bring together so much.  So, 
there are data from a lot of disparate sources, and logic (the logic of 
how CO2, and other gases, work as a greenhouse gas, for example). Also, 
there is some hubris in thinking that we can actually fine tune 
something that is so large, when we can't even predict the weather a 
week in advance. Hence the problem with having a data supported and 
fully referenced study.


Jim

Wayne Tyson wrote on 30-Mar-09 20:56:

Ecolog:

Can anyone refer me to data-supported and fully-referenced studies 
(rather than opinions) that define the balance (percent, ratio) of 
direct and indirect anthropogenic and non-human sources/causes of the 
various climate-changing factors (listed) together with mitigating 
factors and how they influence trends in climate change in terms of 
fluctuations and long-term trends of what might be called "greenhouse" 
and "nuclear winter" consequences? Such studies should be clearly 
enough presented that anyone, "scientist" or "non-scientist,"  should 
be able to understand the conclusions and their foundations at any 
level and be able to follow the logic back through the analysis to the 
raw data.


While I am influenced by what percent of "scientists" believe, I am 
only provisionally influence by such broad numbers and tend to be more 
impressed by qualitative than quantitative assessments (WHICH 
scientists, and their credibility) of that kind.  Still, I am far more 
interested in the "hard" science and its scholarly but clear 
presentation, together with all the relevant "ifs," "ands," and "buts" 
than I am in a rather confusing tangle of claims.


WT

PS: As a matter of common sense, we non-experts can kinda get it that 
human activity causes all kinds of damage to all kinds of systems, 
including the climate system. But we get real confused because of the 
scale and complexity of the relevant factors and the dynamic nature of 
systems and the potential for shifts in trends. We also can kinda get 
it that the anthropogenic part is BIG, but we have trouble getting a 
handle on how big in comparison to all the other climate-change 
factors and modulating effects and processes. Finally, we've been 
misled so much that we are suspicious of band wagons and fads as a 
genre. We realize that those who challenge the dominant view can be 
hucksters and cranks, but we also seem to remember that The 
Authorities have often turned out to be wrong throughout history and 
that challengers tend to get burned at the stake.


- Original Message - From: "Jeremy Claisse" 
To: 
Sent: Monday, February 16, 2009 10:50 PM
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Reference for % of scientists that think 
climate change is caused by humans?



Turns out there a several good references listed on wikipedia under 
global warming controversy.

Thank you to those who already responded.

-Original Message-
From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news on behalf of 
Jeremy Claisse

Sent: Mon 2/16/2009 7:53 PM
To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Reference for % of scientists that think climate 
change is caused by humans?


My brother (who works in marketing) recently sent me the e-mail below. I
don't intend this to turn into a discussion of the general public's
understanding of uncertainty in science, I am just wondering if anyone
is aware of a study that looked at the percentage of scientists that
think climate change is caused primarily by anthropogenic factors vs.
entirely a natural cycle.
Thanks.



 





No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.10.25/1955 - Release Date: 
02/16/09 06:55:00


--


James J. Roper
Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute
Bocas del Toro Marine Research Station
MRC 0580-03
Unit 9100, Box 0948
DPO AA 34002-9998

Skype-in (USA):+1 706 5501064
Skype-in (Brazil): 41 39415715

E-mail - personal: jjro...@gmail.com
E-mail - consulting: arsart...@gmail.com
STRI Bocas del Toro 
<http://www.stri.org/english/research/facilities/marine/bocas_del_toro/index.php>
Programa de Pós-graduação em Ecologia e Conservação 
<http://www.bio.ufpr.br/ecologia/>

Educational Pages <http://jjroper.googlepages.com/>
Ars Artium Consulting <http://arsartium.googlepages.com/>
9^o 21.122' N, and 82^o 15.390' W
In Google Earth, copy and paste -> 9 21.122' N, 82 15.390' W

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Two simple solutions for global warming

[James J. Roper]

Stephen,

For your first idea to work would require separating the oxygen from the
carbon dioxide - that would require the input of a lot of energy that
would then put more CO2 into the atmosphere.

For your second idea to work, O2 would have to be a greenhouse gas,
which it is not.

While you may not mind if the oil industry did fund your research, I
think that after they read your email with suggestions, they will decide
that they don't mind not supporting you either.

Unfortunately, it was difficult to tell in your email if you were
joking...so I assume you were.

Cheers,

Jim

On 24/Oct/08 09:22, Stephen Hale wrote:
> I want to say at the outset that I'm not one of those skeptics who don't
> believe in global warming. I believe it's happening and it's scary. I'm
> proposing two solutions based on chemistry and mathematics.
>   

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Biological requirements and matching environments. Re: [ECOLOG-L] Salix success? Success of exotics?

[James J. Roper]

In Brazil, honeysuckle, pine trees, mulberry, several Asian trees whose
English names I cannot remember (if I ever knew) are all pests, and
there is an herbaceous plants, smells like honeysuckle, that is from
Madagascar, that is now naturalized throughout tropical America.  Okay,
those are some old world and northern American pests in tropical America.

On the other hand, Brazilian pepper along with many many other American
plants are pests elsewhere, including Australia, New Zealand, Africa,
Asia and Europe.

It is a two way street.

But, I highly recommend you go back to Elton, the classic book, The
Ecology of Invasions by Animals and Plants, written in 1958 to see all
kinds of examples and some good thinking about the causes and consequences!

Jim

On 24/Aug/08 19:20, Wayne wrote:
> All:
>
> Within their genetic limits, when environments present
> closely-matching characteristics within those limits, organisms will
> tend to thrive; to the extent that the match is not close, they will
> not thrive as much or will be extirpated.*
>
> I hope you all will help create as simple a statement as possible by
> modifying or replacing this one. I am trying to distill the principles
> of ecology into the simplest possible statements.
>
> WT
>
> *I believe that this statement ultimately answers all of Patton's
> questions, but I am interersted in hearing others.
>
> - Original Message - From: "Geoffrey Patton"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: 
> Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2008 5:19 AM
> Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Salix success? Success of exotics?
>
>
>
> Why do so many exotics species become alien pests? We are all aware of
> the explanation for that success being the lack of predatory species.
> Is this all there is to the story? Could their longer evolution in
> their "homeland" have given them genetic advantages? Do as many New
> World species become invasive exotics in the Old World?
>
> Geoff Patton
> --- On Sat, 8/23/08, David Inouye <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> From: David Inouye <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Salix success?
> To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
> Date: Saturday, August 23, 2008, 11:20 PM
>
> What makes Salix (willows) so successful at high latitudes and high
> altitudes?  Unusual physiological traits?

-- 


James J. Roper
Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute
Bocas del Toro Marine Research Station
Unit 0948
APO AA 34002

Skype-in (USA):+1 706 5501064
Skype-in (Brazil): 41 39415715

E-mail - personal: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
E-mail - consulting: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
STRI Bocas del Toro
<http://www.stri.org/english/research/facilities/marine/bocas_del_toro/index.php>
Programa de Pós-graduação em Ecologia e Conservação
<http://www.bio.ufpr.br/ecologia/>
Educational Pages <http://jjroper.googlepages.com/>
Ars Artium Consulting <http://arsartium.googlepages.com/>
9^o 21.122' N, and 82^o 15.390' W
In Google Earth, copy and paste -> 9 21.122' S, 82 15.390' W

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Open access versus traditional publication models

[James J. Roper]

For people in the third world, there is a strong tendency to favor open 
access.  Why?  Because it is economically viable.  The cost of 
purchasing articles is prohibitive for many researchers and so they 
would prefer to be able to publish AND read open access articles.  And, 
of course, there are now many, and the number is growing, very good 
scientists in tropical countries, and since their research is tropical 
for the most part, I think we will see a gradual trend in these 
researchers to publish in open access journals, which will little by 
little increase the quality of those journals.  As they become better, 
they will get more submittals and the cycle will go on.


If first world journals actually recognized the economics for Third 
World researchers, and did some conversion that made them as easy to 
purchase for a third world scientist as for a first world scientist, it 
would make a big difference.  But, just go online and try to buy an 
article - they make no distinction for currency.  So, a $25 article for 
you, is also that for me, only $25 for me is the equivalent of $40 or 
so.  Imagine subscribing to Science or any other high end journal - also 
prohibitively expensive for most.  Even universities down here often do 
not have the money for an institutional subscription.


Thus, Third World research might just go the way of open access, while 
first world stays in typical journals, causing another First World - 
Third World separation.


Cheers,

Jim

On 27/Mar/08 16:42, Andrew Rypel wrote:

Dear Ecologers,

I'd like to probe the forum on people's opinion of the publication models
available to scientists today.  I (and probably most of us) have seen a
massive rise in the number of open access publications over just the last
2-3 years.  And yet this seems to be happening alongside an explosion in the
number of traditional-style publications as well.  What does this all mean
for us ecologists trying to get our studies read by as many people as
possible and by those that can take your information and make a difference
with it – either through further research or policy?

I'll be honest that I'm leery of many of the new open access journals.  I do
see value in them, especially for those who are at underfunded research
centers that don't have access to many of the mainstream publications.  On
the other hand, what are they?  Do they ultimately reach as many people? And
do they reach the "right" people – the ones that control aspects of policy
or have top-tier research programs.  Are these new journals to be indexed in
Web of Science or the other academic search engines?  So many questions
surround this new format and I just wonder what the rest of the community
thinks.

Andrew
  


--


     James J. Roper, Ph.D.

James J. Roper
Ecologia, Evolução e Dinâmicas Populacionais
de Vertebrados Terrestres

Caixa Postal 19034
81531-990 Curitiba, Paraná, Brasil

E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Telefone: 55 41 33857249
celular: 55 41 99870543
Skype-in (USA):+1 706 5501064

Ecologia e Conservação na UFPR <http://www.bio.ufpr.br/ecologia/>
Home Page <http://jjroper.googlespages.com>
Ars Artium Consulting <http://arsartium.googlespages.com>

[ECOLOG-L] Summer field courses - many areas

[James J. Roper]

Dear All,

The Institute for Tropical Ecology and Conservation (ITEC, 
http://www.itec-edu.org/) offers a variety of field courses in the 
interesting Bocas del Toro Archipelago in Panamá, including tropical 
ecology, tropical ornithology, ethnobotany and reef ecology among 
others.  Courses are geared to both undergraduates and graduate students 
and college credit can be earned.  Field trips and opportunities to 
explore local areas and nearby Costa Rica are also available.  For more 
information, check out the web site.


Sincerely,

Jim

--


 James J. Roper, Ph.D.

James J. Roper
Ecologia, Evolução e Dinâmicas Populacionais
de Vertebrados Terrestres

Caixa Postal 19034
81531-990 Curitiba, Paraná, Brasil

E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Telefone: 55 41 33857249
celular: 55 41 99870543

Ecologia e Conservação na UFPR <http://www.bio.ufpr.br/ecologia/>
Home Page <http://jjroper.googlespages.com>
Ars Artium Consulting <http://arsartium.googlespages.com>

Research and job opportunities

[James J. Roper]

Dear all,

I see many notices for undergrad or grad job, research and internship=20
opportunities.  I would like to suggest to all of you placing notices=20
that you ALWAYS add one additional piece of information.  This=20
information is whether the job is open to non-United States citizens.  I =

have students and am often in communication with Latin American students =

from countries besides Brazil, and often these opportunities look=20
fantastic for someone from down south.  However, the students usually=20
assume that they are not eligible.  These opportunities would indeed be=20
fantastic for Latin American students, who would greatly benefit from=20
both, the educational experience, and the small stipend!

Sincerely,

Jim
--=20


  James J. Roper, Ph.D.

James J. Roper
Ecologia e Din=E2micas Populacionais
de Vertebrados Terrestres

Caixa Postal 19034
81531-990 Curitiba, Paran=E1, Brasil

E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Telefone: 55 41 33857249
celular: 55 41 99870543

Ecologia e Conserva=E7=E3o na UFPR <http://www.bio.ufpr.br/ecologia/>
Econci=EAncia - Consultoria e Tradu=E7=F5es <http://jjroper.googlespages.=
com>

Re: Data set with many many zeros..... Help?

[James J. Roper]

Warren, and Bill, et al.,

I have also been intrigued by the kinds of replies.  I took a completely 
different approach and would like to see what people think.  First, of 
course, we should know what the question is.  But, I assumed that, 
considering the data, the question had to do with where the organism 
occurred, and with its abundance.  Those are two very different questions.

I suggested that presence/absence will answer the WHERE question, but 
may not answer the ABUNDANCE question.  After all, information about 
where something is may often NOT be found where something is NOT.  So, I 
recommended using the presence - absence in one analysis, and where the 
organism existed in the abundance analysis.

Also, I was taught to have the analysis planned prior to data collection 
as well.

Cheers,

Jim

Warren W. Aney said the following on 14/Jan/08 01:11:
> Bill, are we the Luddites in this arena?  I agree with you, and my
> statistics professor would have taken it one important step further:  Choose
> your statistical analysis methods before you start collecting your data --
> that way you can carry out your data collection so as to fit your chosen
> statistical procedure.  Too many people collect their data first, then
> search for a statistical procedure that will fit their data.
>
> The best time to seek the advice of a statistician is before you design your
> study, not after you've collected your data.
>
> Warren W. Aney
> Senior Wildlife Ecologist
> Tigard, Oregon
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of William Silvert
> Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2008 1:57 PM
> To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
> Subject: Re: Data set with many many zeros. Help?
>
>
> One point about the various replies to this and other posts that disturbs me
> is the focus of the responses. It used to be that statistical questions were
> answered in terms of statistical techniques, such as regression or ANOVA or
> t-tests. Now the answers are phrased in terms of software - SAS, R, SysStat,
> etc. I am not confident that relying on proprietary black boxes is the best
> way to analyse data.
>
> Bill Silvert
>
>
> - Original Message -
>
>   
>> If you have access to SAS, ...
>> 

-- 


  James J. Roper, Ph.D.

James J. Roper
Ecologia, Evolução e Dinâmicas Populacionais
de Vertebrados Terrestres

Caixa Postal 19034
81531-990 Curitiba, Paraná, Brasil

E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Telefone: 55 41 33857249
celular: 55 41 99870543

Ecologia e Conservação na UFPR <http://www.bio.ufpr.br/ecologia/>
Home Page <http://jjroper.googlespages.com>
Ars Artium Consulting <http://arsartium.googlespages.com>

Re: Native plant availability for landscaping

[James J. Roper]

I find it ironic here in Brazil that I have the same problem.  I have a
small chunk of land in what should be Atlantic Forest.  But, all the
nurseries sell exotics and they don't even know what is what.  Many
people believe that many of the plants are native, from eucalyptus,
pines, persimmons, honeysuckle, mulberry and even to a thing known as
the Japanese Grape - yes, they think a tree called the Japanese grape is
native  So, I go out to the woods and every time I can I find an
interesting native plant and bring it home.  Also, I attract fruit
eating birds (to bananas) and hope that they are eating native plants
too and defecating nearby.  Slowly it seems to be working.  But, the
Japenese grape, mulberry and honeysuckle all spread like the plague, so
it takes active participation to yank them um to keep them from taking over.

Jim

On 16/Dec/07 16:26, Carrie DeJaco wrote:
> I am definitely taking advantage of the natives that do pop up in the
> yard, giving them every advantage and letting them slug it out with
> the aliens.  But I do think that visiting the nurseries and making my
> preferences known has got to be a small step.  Of all the homeowners,
> gardeners, and landscapers, many don't know the consequences of
> spreading alien species, or even know which ones are alien.  So many
> non-natives have become naturalized that even many of the
> "knowledgeable" believe some are native simply because they're seen
> growing "in the wild".  If the only plants available at Home Depot are
> non-natives, and no one knows the difference anyway, that's what
> they'll buy.  We need the landscapers' help here, and we need to get
> the money-makers to start selling the natives so that they will be
> more available and obvious to everyone.
>
> CD
>
>
> Wayne Tyson wrote:
>> Dear Carrie and Forum:
>>
>> I love to eat all sorts of weeds, but I'm personally a little chary
>> about eating them from my yard (which dates back to the 1920's) as it
>> might qualify as a "brownfield" site from all the arsenic and other
>> (intentionally manufactured and incidentally) systemic poisons that
>> decades of gardeners and landscapers have foisted upon the land
>> (which once supported a highly diverse ecosystem, including now rare
>> and endangered species).  Site chemical analysis, including soils,
>> leachate and tissue, from known accumulators and "not-known" possible
>> accumulators and their effects on human health, not to mention the
>> fingers of nearby ecosystem remnants which try to creep, fly, blow,
>> and brazenly walk into the territory which we call our "home grounds"
>> might well be number six on my partial list to the group(s) making
>> the inquiry.
> I do wonder, how much of what we purchase includes those same things? 
> I have read studies that make me leery of the items in the grocery
> store, as well!
>>
>> [[Not to mention NOx, VOCs, and other noxious stuff, the infernal
>> noise, and the footprint that goes with their manufacture, transport,
>> and disposal, and nauseam, ad infinitum.  And don't get me started on
>> "leaf-" (should be known as dust-blowers) and other gardening
>> equipment, materials (nets, pots . . . ), and poisons.  WT]]
>>   
> Oh, geez, I could rant all day on those blowers!

-- 


  James J. Roper, Ph.D.

James J. Roper
Ecologia e Dinâmicas Populacionais
de Vertebrados Terrestres

Caixa Postal 19034
81531-990 Curitiba, Paraná, Brasil

E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Telefone: 55 41 33857249
celular: 55 41 99870543

Ecologia e Conservação na UFPR <http://www.bio.ufpr.br/ecologia/>
Econciência - Consultoria e Traduções <http://jjroper.googlespages.com>

Re: ecological "footprint", 3rd world vs. 1st world

[James J. Roper]

Kelly says:
> when it comes to pollution caps, environmental controls, waste water 
> treatment facilities, and the skills, education and abilities to take care of 
> our resources.
While this MAY be true, there is still the matter of numbers.  If 300
million people, for instance, scattered widely over a large area consume
and throw away much more per capita than fewer people more concentrated
in a smaller area, then while there may be laws that wok in the first
option, their impact can still be greater than that in the third world
(per capita).

And don't forget, much of the Third World is third because of the first
world exploitation.  So, you can find directional causal links from
First World riches to Third World squalor (where it exists - here in
Brazil there is probably not much more "squalor" than in the USA) or
poverty, but you can certainly not blame the poor in the Third World for
the riches in the first!

Jim
-- 


  James J. Roper, Ph.D.

James J. Roper
Ecologia e Dinâmicas Populacionais
de Vertebrados Terrestres

Caixa Postal 19034
81531-990 Curitiba, Paraná, Brasil

E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Telefone: 55 41 33857249
celular: 55 41 99870543

Ecologia e Conservação na UFPR <http://www.bio.ufpr.br/ecologia/>
Econciência - Consultoria e Traduções <http://jjroper.googlespages.com>

Re: population control

[James J. Roper]

Cl is correct in this.  We also must recognize that indeed the biggest
problems are NOT from Third World countries, contrary to popular belief
- it is OUR problem, not somebody else's.  For example, as mentioned,
Brazil has 100 million FEWER people on the same amount of land as the
USA - gross figures.  BUT, those people are actually MUCH more urban
than rural, so there is much more still "natural" land in Brazil than
just looking at those numbers.  But, of the land being damaged, what of
those causes? Globalization.  Soy, that goes to China and the USA and
Europe.  The huge populations in those countries DRIVE the problems in
the third world, because the economics revolves around the rich folks.
Soy production in Brazil is on a much greater scale than small farmers
who cut the forest to eke out a living.  In Africa and parts of Asia,
where populations are larger, perhaps cutting for firewood is a big
problem, but in other parts logging to feed the Japanese and Chinese
markets are more important.

So, no matter how you look at it, the conservation problems follow the
money.  So, the solution is to follow the money to the source of the
problem.

Jim

Cara Lin Bridgman wrote:
> The thing that bothers me about most of these sorts of humans vs
> environment discussions is how the focus tends to be on population--as
> if we could just solve the problem of third world population growth,
> then everything would be hunky-dory.  It tends to turn our biggest
> environmental problems into 'somebody else's problem.'
>
> CL
>
> Please note my new-old email address: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ~~
> Cara Lin Bridgman
>
> P.O. Box 013  Phone: 886-4-2632-5484
> Longjing Sinjhuang
> Taichung County 434
> Taiwanhttp://megaview.com.tw/~caralin/
> ~~~~~~~~~~

-- 


  James J. Roper, Ph.D.

James J. Roper
Ecologia e Dinâmicas Populacionais
de Vertebrados Terrestres

Caixa Postal 19034
81531-990 Curitiba, Paraná, Brasil

E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Telefone: 55 41 33857249
celular: 55 41 99870543

Ecologia e Conservação na UFPR <http://www.bio.ufpr.br/ecologia/>
Econciência - Consultoria e Traduções <http://jjroper.googlespages.com>

Re: population control

[James J. Roper]

Osmar,

I read about how the quiz was made and it admits that it is less accurate
for Third World countries, in part for reasons similar to the ones you
stated.  Clearly, very accurate data are hard to come by.  But, if you are
poor in S=E3o Paulo, you have a much smaller imprint than if you were poor =
in
New York!

But, nonetheless, the idea is a good one and when judiciously used and
considered, it does open eyes to problems.  Try a little test - pretend you
live with your same "standard" of living, but choose a place in the United
States, Italy or England.  Compare the results.

Cheers,

Jim

On Dec 1, 2007 12:57 PM, Osmar Luiz Jr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I just wondered what kind of people developed this ecological footprint
> quiz, because for me its seen biased and flawed. Na=EFve, at best.
> You said that first world kids will have larger footprints that third
> world
> kids. Because poor third world kids don't travel by planes, they walk by
> feet because his parents don't have a car, share it houses with many of
> people and doesn't eat meat or industrialized food because don't have
> money
> for buy it.
>  But I've not seen in that quiz questions about if the shanty town you
> live
> was built over a former pristine rainforest bush, how many trees must be
> down to build your wooden house and what the oxygen dissolved rate in the
> water of that river which you and your family deject your feces. This
> certalinly will improve the footprint of the poor third world kids.
>  You should make all the questions. That `footprint quiz` could made firs=
t
> world people feels guilt. But again your eco-attitudes will be useless an=
d
> short-reached if population in the tropics still rises at the rates they
> are.
> Osmar
>
> >
> >
> > - Original Message -
> > From: "Cara Lin Bridgman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: 
> > Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 2:29 PM
> > Subject: Re: population control
> >
> >
> >> Idiocracy, then, gets back to the 1920's and 1930's ideas of eugenics
> >> and 'propagation of the fit' (lampooned by Dorothy Sayers in her book
> >> Gaudy Night): educated people must reproduce to make sure we still hav=
e
> >> smart people on the planet--as if all the poor people were stupid.
> >>
> >> So far, I've really only see one or two comments on the relative
> weights
> >> of ecological footprints between those in first world countries
> deciding
> >> not to have kids and those in third world countries having lots of
> kids.
> >>Most any bunch of third world kids will have a whole lot smaller
> >> ecological footprint than most any first world kid or non-child-bearin=
g
> >> first-world adult.  A year or so ago, here on Ecolog, this point was
> >> raised.  First world ecological footprints are huge compared to third
> >> world ones--even with 'only one' long-haul flight a year (that one
> >> flight adds a whole planet to an ecological footprint:
> >> www.myfootprint.org).
> >>
> >> So, the third world may be making most of the babies, but it is the
> >> first (and second) world that is doing most of the consumption and is
> >> the driving force behind most ecological disasters from mountain top
> >> removal for coal to logging for living room furniture to wars for oil.
> >>
> >> The arguments about having kids to maintain social security are not an=
y
> >> different from the arguments about having kids to take care of you in
> >> your old age.  In the third world, kids ARE social security.  The poin=
t
> >> I've always wondered about is this: what sort of social security will
> >> these kids have?
> >>
> >> CL
> >>
> >>
> >> Please note my new-old email address: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> ~~
> >> Cara Lin Bridgman
> >>
> >> P.O. Box 013  Phone: 886-4-2632-5484
> >> Longjing Sinjhuang
> >> Taichung County 434
> >> Taiwanhttp://megaview.com.tw/~caralin/<http://megaview=
.com.tw/%7Ecaralin/>
> >> ~~
> >>
> >> Esta mensagem foi verificada pelo E-mail Protegido Terra.
> >> Scan engine: McAfee VirusScan / Atualizado em 30/11/2007 / Vers=E3o:
> >> 5.1.00/5175
> >> Proteja o seu e-mail Terra: http://mail.terra.com.br/
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> No virus found in this incoming message.
> >> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> >> Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.12/1162 - Release Date:
> >> 30/11/2007 21:26
> >>
> >>
> >
>



--=20
James J. Roper, Ph.D.

Ecologia e Din=E2micas Populacionais
de Vertebrados Terrestres

Caixa Postal 19034
81531-990 Curitiba, Paran=E1, Brasil

E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Telefone: 55 41 33857249
Mobile: 55 41 99870543

http://www.bio.ufpr.br/ecologia/ Ecologia e Conserva=E7=E3o na UFPR

http://jjroper.googlespages.com Personal Pages

Re: ECOLOG-L Digest - 28 Nov 2007 to 29 Nov 2007 (#2007-322)

[James J. Roper]

Funny how the word "selfish" gets tossed around with nobody defining their
position.  People with kids think those without are selfish, and vice versa=
.

Niether has a good claim because the term is so nebulous.  For example,

having kids increases inclusive fitness - selfish
having kids could help the planet in the future if they turn into good,
decent and concerned world citizens (big if) - unselfish

not having kids helps the planet - unselfish
not having kids avoids the need to raise other human beings, spending time
and money in the process - selfish
not having kids avoids the need to raise other human beings, spending time
and money in the process - unselfish, because all that time and money and
growth just generates more waste that is destroying life as we know it.

See, just depends on how you define your terms.

Jim

On Nov 30, 2007 1:51 PM, joseph gathman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Michele Scardi wrote:
> > "although I certainly respect
> > people who don't want to have children on an
> > individual basis, I can't help but thinking that
> > they're a tad selfish as an opinion group.
>
> That's an interesting statement, considering that I've
> always thought that having children is just about the
> most selfish thing anybody could do...
>
> Joe
>
>
>
>  =

> Get easy, one-click access to your favorites.
> Make Yahoo! your homepage.
> http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
>



--=20
James J. Roper, Ph.D.

Ecologia e Din=E2micas Populacionais
de Vertebrados Terrestres

Caixa Postal 19034
81531-990 Curitiba, Paran=E1, Brasil

E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Telefone: 55 41 33857249
Mobile: 55 41 99870543

http://www.bio.ufpr.br/ecologia/ Ecologia e Conserva=E7=E3o na UFPR

http://jjroper.googlespages.com Personal Pages

Re: Population control

[James J. Roper]

Another N-S perspective.  We should pay attention to numbers - for example,
excluding Alaska, the US and Brazil are about the same area.  The USA has
100 MILLION people MORE than Brazil in that same area  Density is much
greater in Europe, clearly India and China.  Many Third World countries
figure that the USA became great by populating itself and so they need to d=
o
the same.  During the 1800s in the USA it has been figured that the average
family had around 8 kids (if my memory serves).

So, yes, the world is overpopulated, but who should be reducing their
populations?

Cheers,

Jim

On 11/29/07, Amartya Saha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Oh well. Here's that old north vs south debate again. Yes, things would b=
e
> extreme if all 500 million individuals had the resource usage of the firs=
t
> world.
> As regards the lady who decided to be childless, its her trip and no one
> has any
> business passing judgements on that. But if she were indeed serious about
> reducing her carbon footprint, she'd reduce much more if she left cushy
> London
> and went and lived in a third world town. Better, a third world farm. Tha=
t
> includes giving up long haul flights once a year...
> cheers
> amartya
>
>
>
>
>
> Quoting Lela Stanley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > Matheus does raise a point that is rarely discussed even here and
> virtually
> > never by (American) politicos. The human footprint would still be
> > problematic with a smaller global population, but it would be made
> vastly
> > more bearable if we weren't multipying quite so fruitfully. I've seen
> > estimates (possibly in The World Without Us?) of a global human carryin=
g
> > capacity at 500 million to 1 billion individuals- numbers which are
> unlikely
> > to be reached through even the most heartfelt birth control campaigns.
> All
> > the same, between a thoughtful, systematic reduction of population -
> > including measures such as, yes, some people not having kids - and a
> grand
> > Malthusian crash, I know which I'd vote for.
> >
> >
> >
> > On 11/28/07, Mike Marsh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > All of the people who believed that they could help to save the plane=
t
> > > by not having babies lived their life span and died. The rest of the
> > > world's population went ahead and had babies. As the genetic (and
> > > cultural) lines of those believers in birth control perished, the
> human
> > > population grew even faster.
> > >
> > > Mike Marsh
> > > -
> > > Matheus Carvalho wrote:
> > >
> > > ... to reduce her CO2 footprint.
> > >
> > >
> >
>
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/femail/article.html?in_article_id=
=3D495495&in_page_id=3D1879
> > >
> > >
> >
>



--=20
James J. Roper, Ph.D.

Ecologia e Din=E2micas Populacionais
de Vertebrados Terrestres

Caixa Postal 19034
81531-990 Curitiba, Paran=E1, Brasil

E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Telefone: 55 41 33857249
Mobile: 55 41 99870543

http://www.bio.ufpr.br/ecologia/ Ecologia e Conserva=E7=E3o na UFPR

http://jjroper.googlespages.com Personal Pages

Ecology and Technology was - Re: Another picture

[James J. Roper]

I do not believe that the implication isn't exactly that.  Rather ecologist
study ecology while environmental scientists study environmental issues.
There are ecological environmental scientists.  Certainly there is an
overlap between the two fields but that does not make the two fields any
less distinct and separate.  I do not believe that we need to try to
pigeonhole either of the two fields we just recognize that they're both
distinct yet due to the individual interests they overlap.

As Yasmin said, in many places in countries people only think of ecology as
environmental sciences.  That is ecologist are only environmentalists or
environmental engineers above some type.  In fact the majority of Americans
think the same way.  If you pick a random American out of the crowd and say
to them "I am an ecologist" they are very likely to respond "so am I."
However ecologists certainly know the difference even though random people
do not.  I think the issue this back in fact everybody SHOULD know the
difference.

I only put my 2 worth and because I wanted to change the subject line - I
don't think anybody knew what "another picture" was all about.

I just had surgery on my hand and am using voice activated software to writ=
e
this message - so please forgive any errors!

Sincerely-

Jim

On 11/23/07, William Silvert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> The implication is that ecologists do research and environmental
> scientists
> apply it. Yasmin's posting implies that this is true for Turkey, but I
> question its universality. My problem is that there is increasing
> awareness
> of the need for interdisciplinary (rather than multidisciplinary) researc=
h
> that does not fit into our existing schema.
>
> By the distinction between interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary
> research
> I refer to fields such as physical chemistry, which overlaps both physics
> and chemistry but is actually quite narrow -- it sits in the space betwee=
n
> them -- and the kind of research that involves a shallow knowledge of man=
y
> fields.
>
> There are many examples of ecosystems interacting with hydrological and
> geological systems which need to be studied in depth, but although these
> call for an interdisciplinary effort, they do not require the broad but
> superficial knowledge of all areas that we think of as multidisciplinary.
> And where should such prgrams be classified? If not environmental science=
,
> then where?
>
> Bill Silvert
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Malcolm McCallum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: 
> Sent: Friday, November 23, 2007 3:50 PM
> Subject: Re: Another picture
>
>
> > Yasemin is correct, ecology is not environmental science.
> >
> > Environmental science is an interdisciplinary area of study that
> > encompasses the biological, chemical, geological, economic, and
> political
> > forces that mold how we use and manage our environment.  It encompasses
> > wildlife and fisheries management, ecotoxicology, and other similar
> > fields.  Ecology is a science that addresses the structure and function
> of
> > the biosphere.  Although many ecologists find themselves working in
> > environmental science, and many environmental scientists work
> essentially
> > as ecologists, they are very different.
> >
> > A simple parallel that might help discern the two fields is that
> > Ecology is to environmental science as physics is to engineering.
> >
> > Malcolm McCallum
> >
> > On Thu, November 22, 2007 7:33 pm, yasemin baytok wrote:
> >> Dear Ecologgers,
> >>
> >> With all do respect, I disagree with Andy's view that there is no
> >> separation
> >> between environmental and ecological science. I'm frustrated cause,
> >> unfortunately in my country, Turkey, Environmental science =3D
> >> environmental
> >> engineering-agricultural engineering-forest engineering =3D Ecology! A=
nd
> >> they
> >> seem liked to be so called "ecologist" and even believed they are.
>



--=20
James J. Roper, Ph.D.

Ecologia e Din=E2micas Populacionais
de Vertebrados Terrestres

Caixa Postal 19034
81531-990 Curitiba, Paran=E1, Brasil

E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Telefone: 55 41 33857249
Mobile: 55 41 99870543

http://www.bio.ufpr.br/ecologia/ Ecologia e Conserva=E7=E3o na UFPR

http://jjroper.googlespages.com Personal Pages

Re: "unoccupied" niches and 'competitive exclusion"

[James J. Roper]

Niches are best defined by the species - after all, what each species "does=
"
is its niche  Imagine a planet with no animals, but with plants.  There
are no animal niches...

But, if we want to use the idea of potential for use, in which case we woul=
d
probably be talking about complexity in some sense, then why not just use
the word complexity?  After all, if we just use any word as we please, then
we have to define our use of that word each time so that others who use the
same word in a different way know what we mean - quite cumbersome that.

I believe you meant MacArthur's warblers...and, if you read his paper today=
,
I think you might find a bit of him "proving" what he wanted to see.

I could say more, but typing with a cast makes one be brief

Jim

On 11/23/07, William Silvert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> We ecologists define the niche. We can stick with the Hutchinsonian
> definition, or we can modify it in ways we might find more useful.
>
> Niches, empty or not, are not fixed. If there is a lot of breadth, then
> organisms will tend to partition the "hyperspace" among themselves.
>
> Consider David Lack's warblers, who ended up occupying the same trees but
> at
> different heights above the ground. I think he identified three species. =
I
> suspect that if the trees were shorter he might have found just two, and
> if
> they were taller, more than three.
>
> The concepts of niche and speciation are complicated and we are still
> working on them. To do so effectively, we should try to free ourselves
> from
> rigid definitions, although of course we always have to be clear what we
> mean. The reason I like the term "empty niche" is not that I am against
> Hutchinson and his disciples, but because it is a useful concept. If we
> reject it, and insist instead on circumlocutions like "potential resource
> manifold in hyperspace not currently fully exploited by any species" then
> it
> interferes with our doing science.
>
> Bill Silvert
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Warren W. Aney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "William Silvert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; 
> Sent: Friday, November 23, 2007 6:18 PM
> Subject: RE: "unoccupied" niches and 'competitive exclusion"
>
>
> > Does the species define the niche? Or (in evolutionary terms) does the
> > niche
> > define the species? David seems to be saying that the species defines
> the
> > niche and Bill seems to be arguing that the niche exists independent of
> > the
> > species filling it. Did Darwin's Galapagos finches evolve to fit
> > pre-existing niches, or did they define the niche as they evolved?
>



--=20
James J. Roper, Ph.D.

Ecologia e Din=E2micas Populacionais
de Vertebrados Terrestres

Caixa Postal 19034
81531-990 Curitiba, Paran=E1, Brasil

E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Telefone: 55 41 33857249
Mobile: 55 41 99870543

http://www.bio.ufpr.br/ecologia/ Ecologia e Conserva=E7=E3o na UFPR

http://jjroper.googlespages.com Personal Pages

Re: ECOSYSTEM HEALTH Diversity and of Terminology Re: Invasives

[James J. Roper]

consider for a moment how some of these
> rampant,
> > > densely-populated plant colonies effectively fix carbon from the
> > > atmosphere, alter the soil chemistry and hence the soil zoology and
> > > biology (potentially for the better?), and some even filter toxic
> > > chemicals from the soil.  For example, Japanese knotweed (Fallopia
> > > japonica, Polygonum cuspidatum) appears to thrive in old mines, being
> > > quite adept at leaching out copper from the soil.  I think that a lot
> of
> > > ecological thought can be turned on its ear by thinking outside one's
> > > paradigm, looking at the bigger picture.  But Bill is right in that s=
o
> > > very many people make abolishing invasives their life's work...their
> sole
> > > raison d'etre.  Invasive =3D Evil, no ifs, ands or buts.  That is sim=
ply
> not
> > > a scientific approach, not is it realistic or pragmatic.  Other
> scenarios
> > > and
> > > paradigms must be recognized and considered in order for respectful
> and
> > > honest discussion can take place.
> > >
> > >  Working with knotweed in Vermont,
> > >
> > >  Kelly Stettner, Director
> > >  Black River Action Team
> > >  Springfield, VT
> > >  www.blackriveractionteam.org
> > >
> > >
> > > -=
-
> > >
> > > Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 10:18:47 -
> > > From: William Silvert
> > > Subject: Re: ECOSYSTEM Health Alien invasions persistence decline
> limits
> > > control Re: semi-silly question from John Nielsen
> > >
> > > I'll pick up on two of Wayne's points. One is that "some aliens that
> do
> > > little harm" -- this is true, and some aliens are introduced
> deliberately.
> > > Mustangs are alien to N. America, and are widely appreciated. Many
> > > ornamental plants are deliberately introduced. My mother was a member
> of
> > > the
> > > Florida Native Plants Society, and felt that they were fighting a
> losing
> > > battle against the imports. An interesting downside is that often
> > > introduced
> > > plants in dry areas require lots of water and this creates problems.
> > >
> > > As for the comment that healthy ecosystems resist invasion, this
> depends
> > > on
> > > whether they have had a chance to immunise themselves by past
> experience.
> > > Because mammals were unknown in Australia, their introduction was
> > > impossible
> > > to resist. The same is often true when snakes or mosquitos arrive in
> > > regions
> > > where nothing similar has every been present. Often the best defence
> > > against
> > > an invading species is a predator that can control it, but if such
> > > predators
> > > are not already present, it may take a few million years for them to
> > > evolve.
> > >
> > > Sometimes man has tried to counter one alien invasion by introducing
> > > another
> > > alien species to control it -- which brings into action the Law of
> > > Unintended Consequences. It's a tricky game to play.
> > >
> > > Bill Silvert
> > >
> > > -
> > > Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you with Yahoo Mobile.
> Try
> > > it now.
> > >
>



--=20
James J. Roper, Ph.D.

Ecologia e Din=E2micas Populacionais
de Vertebrados Terrestres

Caixa Postal 19034
81531-990 Curitiba, Paran=E1, Brasil

E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Telefone: 55 41 33857249
Mobile: 55 41 99870543

http://www.bio.ufpr.br/ecologia/ Ecologia e Conserva=E7=E3o na UFPR

http://jjroper.googlespages.com Personal Pages

Re: invasive species and cats

[James J. Roper]

House cats are invasive everywhere they run wild, as  are dogs, ferrets,
rats, and many other domesticated animals

On Nov 20, 2007 6:29 PM, Blanc, Lori <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Hi all --
>
> In all the discussion so far about introduced/invasive/non-native
> species, I don't recall seeing any mention of cats.
>
> I've heard a lot about the impacts of cats on wildlife in Australia, but
> not as much about cats here in the U.S.  Indeed - this can be a
> sensitive issue, since so many people have cats for pets, and let the
> cats have free roam outside.  For example, I recently saw an article in
> the New York Times (Nov 13), which presented the case of a birder in
> Texas who shot a feral cat, which he had observed stalking endangered
> piping plovers.  This case is in court, with many people upset about the
> cruel treatment (i.e. shooting) of the cat.  The person who shot the cat
> faces up to 2 years in prison and a $10,000 fine for shooting the cat.
>
> So, this raises a few questions:
>
> 1) Are house cats considered an invasive species in North America?
> 2) Do cats have a significant negative impact on avian populations in
> North America?
>
> I realize that I can do a quick literature search on this topic to learn
> more, but I'm also curious to see what the general opinions are of the
> ecologists on this listserv, especially within the context of the recent
> invasive species discussion.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Lori
>
>
>
> ~~~
> Lori Blanc, Ph.D.
> Dept. of Biological Sciences
> Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University
> 540-231-5256
>



--=20
James J. Roper, Ph.D.

Ecologia e Din=E2micas Populacionais
de Vertebrados Terrestres

Caixa Postal 19034
81531-990 Curitiba, Paran=E1, Brasil

E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Telefone: 55 41 33857249
Mobile: 55 41 99870543

http://www.bio.ufpr.br/ecologia/ Ecologia e Conserva=E7=E3o na UFPR

http://jjroper.googlespages.com Personal Pages

Re: ECOLOG-L Digest - 17 Nov 2007 to 18 Nov 2007 (#2007-312)

[James J. Roper]

In many schools, environmental science is "soft" ecology and the
environment.  I actually attended a graduate level seminar course called
"the philosophy of ecology" - only to discover I was the only student in th=
e
class who knew what the definition of ecology was - the rest thought of it
as either "environmental sciences" or "tree hugging 101".  My suggestion wa=
s
that the students need a lower level course that reinforces their knowledge
to get them to a level for a real ecology course.

Cheers,

Jim

On Nov 19, 2007 6:24 PM, Kelly Stettner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote=
:

> "So, if the students do not have that background, then I think you are
> wasting your time teaching "ecology" and what you should be teaching is
> "environmental studies."  That could easily be geared to unprepared
> undergrads, and could fill in some of those voids that you mentioned your
> students have.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Jim"
>
>
>  Yikes!  As a self-teaching student with Vermont College myself, I am
> cringing at the thought of an "unprepared undergrad" attempting to grasp
> environmental studies WITHOUT a solid understanding of multi-disciplinary
> ecology.  I am finding that too many of my fellow students are single-min=
ded
> and wholly without any concept of basic scientific principles or methods.
>  They are feeling with their emotions instead of thinking with their brai=
ns.
>  That, in my opinion, sets the stage for disaster -- truly caring people =
out
> there attempting to "fix" nature's "problems" with "solutions" that cause
> worse problems than before.  All in the name of The Environment...and no
> science in sight.  No geology, climate history, basic chemistry or physic=
s
> or thermodynamics.
>
>  In other words, as a student, I do not consider myself a responsible
> scientists unless and until I realize that each question I answer leads t=
o
> more questions.
>
>  Respectfully,
>  Kelly Stettner, Director
>  Black River Action Team
>  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
> Black River Action Team (BRAT)
>  45 Coolidge Road
>  Springfield, VT  05156
>  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> http://www.blackriveractionteam.org
>
> ~Making ripples on the Black River since 2000! ~
>
>
> -
> Be a better pen pal. Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See
> how.
>



--=20
James J. Roper, Ph.D.

Ecologia e Din=E2micas Populacionais
de Vertebrados Terrestres

Caixa Postal 19034
81531-990 Curitiba, Paran=E1, Brasil

E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Telefone: 55 41 33857249
Mobile: 55 41 99870543

http://www.bio.ufpr.br/ecologia/ Ecologia e Conserva=E7=E3o na UFPR

http://jjroper.googlespages.com Personal Pages

Re: ECOLOG-L Digest - 15 Nov 2007 to 16 Nov 2007 (#2007-310)

[James J. Roper]

Kelly,

I respectively disagree.  Introduced species are bad, no ifs ands or
buts  Some of them are naturalized and so there is probably absolutely
nothing we can do about them.  The others often have potential for causing
catastrophe, and it is hubris to think that we can just USE them to suit OU=
R
purposes (of what, fixing something that we already messed up?) with no
repercussions.

Also, your argument below is circular.  An ecosystem that is very diverse
has the exotics as part of the calculation of diversity, so less diverse
will have fewer species overall.  Also, healthy does not equal diverse -
else deserts and alpine systems are all unhealthy.  If you say that within
any biome, the most healthy are the most diverse, I bet you do not have the
data to support that stand.

Is leaching copper good?  What does "filter" toxics mean?  The take toxins
from the soil and do what with them?  And, what do they do in areas that
have no toxins when they escape cultivation?

Complicated issues, and I think the best answer is never introduce, plant
natives, eliminate exotics.

Cheers,

Jim

On Nov 19, 2007 4:54 PM, Kelly Stettner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote=
:

> Bill (and all): interestingly, it has been proven that ecosystems with a
> large degree of biodiversity (read: "healthy ecosystems") have more
> varieties of invasives present than those ecosystems that have less
> biodiversity.  I can dig up the studies, if anyone is interested.
>
>  There is always the question of what good do invasive species
> (particularly plants) do in an ecosystem?  Yes, here I go again, playing
> Devil's Advocate...but consider for a moment how some of these rampant,
> densely-populated plant colonies effectively fix carbon from the atmosphe=
re,
> alter the soil chemistry and hence the soil zoology and biology (potentia=
lly
> for the better?), and some even filter toxic chemicals from the soil.  Fo=
r
> example, Japanese knotweed (Fallopia japonica, Polygonum cuspidatum) appe=
ars
> to thrive in old mines, being quite adept at leaching out copper from the
> soil.  I think that a lot of ecological thought can be turned on its ear =
by
> thinking outside one's paradigm, looking at the bigger picture.  But Bill=
 is
> right in that so very many people make abolishing invasives their life's
> work...their sole raison d'etre.  Invasive =3D Evil, no ifs, ands or buts=
.
>  That is simply not a scientific approach, not is it realistic or pragmat=
ic.
>  Other scenarios and
>  paradigms must be recognized and considered in order for respectful and
> honest discussion can take place.
>
>  Working with knotweed in Vermont,
>
>  Kelly Stettner, Director
>  Black River Action Team
>  Springfield, VT
>  www.blackriveractionteam.org
>
>
> --
>
> Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 10:18:47 -
> From: William Silvert
> Subject: Re: ECOSYSTEM Health Alien invasions persistence decline limits
> control Re: semi-silly question from John Nielsen
>
> I'll pick up on two of Wayne's points. One is that "some aliens that do
> little harm" -- this is true, and some aliens are introduced deliberately=
.
> Mustangs are alien to N. America, and are widely appreciated. Many
> ornamental plants are deliberately introduced. My mother was a member of
> the
> Florida Native Plants Society, and felt that they were fighting a losing
> battle against the imports. An interesting downside is that often
> introduced
> plants in dry areas require lots of water and this creates problems.
>
> As for the comment that healthy ecosystems resist invasion, this depends
> on
> whether they have had a chance to immunise themselves by past experience.
> Because mammals were unknown in Australia, their introduction was
> impossible
> to resist. The same is often true when snakes or mosquitos arrive in
> regions
> where nothing similar has every been present. Often the best defence
> against
> an invading species is a predator that can control it, but if such
> predators
> are not already present, it may take a few million years for them to
> evolve.
>
> Sometimes man has tried to counter one alien invasion by introducing
> another
> alien species to control it -- which brings into action the Law of
> Unintended Consequences. It's a tricky game to play.
>
> Bill Silvert
>
> -
> Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you with Yahoo Mobile. Try
> it now.
>



--=20
James J. Roper, Ph.D.

Ecologia e Din=E2micas Populacionais
de Vertebrados Terrestres

Caixa Postal 19034
81531-990 Curitiba, Paran=E1, Brasil

E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Telefone: 55 41 33857249
Mobile: 55 41 99870543

http://www.bio.ufpr.br/ecologia/ Ecologia e Conserva=E7=E3o na UFPR

http://jjroper.googlespages.com Personal Pages

Re: Throwing away the textbooks

[James J. Roper]

I teach ecology to grad students here in Brazil, and the problems are
similar.  However, the simple truth of the matter is that Andy is apparentl=
y
teaching "ecology" to students who do not have the appropriate
pre-requisites  Sure, the university may not force formal pre-requisite=
s
on the students, but to study ecology, the student should already have
studied introductory biology (and so SHOULD know the difference between a
lizard and a salamander) and preferably other, more advanced, courses in th=
e
biological sciences.  Also, a fundamental premise of ecology is evolution b=
y
natural selection - the students should understand that first.

So, if the students do not have that background, then I think you are
wasting your time teaching "ecology" and what you should be teaching is
"environmental studies."  That could easily be geared to unprepared
undergrads, and could fill in some of those voids that you mentioned you
students have.

Cheers,

Jim

On 11/17/07, Andrew Park <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi Ecologgers,
>
> Responses are invited to the following thoughts, especially from
> experienced teachers:
>
> I teach a 2nd year course in basic Ecology at an undergraduate
> university.  After four years of teaching this course, I am being
> drawn to the following conclusions:
>
> [1] ? The textbook is awful.  Not only that, but all the textbooks I have
>looked at that are aimed at teaching an overview of Ecology seem t=
o
> be
>chronically faulted:
> *  There is simply too much stuff in them.  My course is one semester
> long, but
> even if it were a full year course, I could probably cover less than
> 50% of
> this book.
>
> ** The books are grossly overpriced.  Some students are unable to afford
> them,
> and since the publisher is constantly coming out with slightly
> altered ?new?
> editions, the resale price is low.
>
> *** The material they cover and their overall emphasis, appears to be
> poorly
>  selected and framed given the tenor of current public discourse on
> ecology
>  and environment.
>
>  Finally, I believe that I can do this stuff better myself.
> Although there
>   are commonalities among all universities, the sociocultural
> backgrounds of
>   students and the bioregional contexts in which we work differ
> greatly.
>   How can a mass-produced textbook ever hope to capture that?
>
> [2] ? Students today are different.  Numerous research studies and even
> more
>anecdotal evidence suggest that numerical skills, basic literacy,
> the
>ability to organize information into coherent arguments, and
> engagement
>with the natural world are all worse than they were (even) a decad=
e
> ago.
>And yet textbooks speak to students as though they know how to rea=
d
> a
>graph, as though they are sophisticated reasoners, and perhaps mos=
t
>importantly, as though they already understand the difference
> between
>salamanders and lizards, spiders and insects.  NEWSFLASH ? THEY
> DON?T.
>
> [3]  Because of [1] and [2], I conclude that I need to take a radically
>   different approach to teaching this basic course:
>
> *  The course needs to be longer, probably split into ?Basic? and
> ?Advanced?
> Semesters
>
> ** A module on the basic variety of life needs to be built into the
> course.
>
> *** The course has to contain materials relevant to modern environmental
>  discourse.  For example, discussions of energy transfer and primary
>  productivity cannot really be taught without reference to the human
>  appropriation of primary productivity.
>
>   At the same time, the traditional technical basis for teaching
> ecology
>cannot be abandoned.  the question is, how to make it as
> engaging as some
>of the more sexy, issue-based stuff.
>
> *  Finally I believe that I may throw away the textbook, along
> with most of
> the powerpoints, the WEB-CT site and a lot of the other
> technological
> paraphernalia that often seems to distract as much as it informs.
>
>I WOULD LIKE TO GET SOME RESPONSE TO THESE THOUGHTS FROM
> TEACHERS.  IN
>PARTICULAR:
>
> * Have any of you decided to chuck the required text and simply use
> handouts
>and readings?
>
> **  Have you changed the ways that you teach, either to reflect our
> current
>  environmental crisis, or to reflect the preparedness of students.
>
> ***  What, in your opinion, are the ESSENTIAL things that we have to teac=
h
> in
>   basic Ecology courses.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Andy Park (Biology Department, University o

Re: Field Technician Position

[James J. Roper]

Hello all,

A suggestion, if I may, on posting positions such as this one. I live in 
southern Brazil (am American), and often have students, both undergrad 
and grad, who would love an opportunity like this. It would be fantastic 
if the job description included whether the job is open only US citizens 
or otherwise. And, believe me, this kind of experience would be 
fantastic for many Latin Americans. And, the restriction that they need 
to identify (for example) eastern US birds would be no problem, because 
they would work hard to learn the entire gamut of species available 
before starting. After all, they have a lot of practice with learning a 
much greater diversity of species.

Just a thought!

Jim

Emma Willcox said the following on 02/Oct/07 15:15:
> Field Technician Needed
>
> An energetic field technician is sought to work as part of a team conducting
> research on vegetation and avian community response to habitat restoration
> programs (fire and mechanical treatments) on south Florida rangelands.
> Responsibilities will include vegetation, insect, and seed sampling, and
> conducting point counts. For a recent graduate with the desired
> qualifications, this position will provide valuable field experience. 
>
> Qualifications: B.S. degree in wildlife, range, natural resource management,
> or related field; previous field experience; ability to identify birds of
> the eastern U.S. by sight and sound preferred; experience with vegetation
> sampling an advantage; valid driver’s license; capacity and willingness to
> work both independently and as part of a team. Employment period end of
> January 2008 through the end of August 2008.
>
> Compensation: $300-340/week depending on experience, free basic field 
> housing. 
>
> Closing date: November 1, 2007. 
>
> To apply, please send a letter of interest, resume, and contact information
> for three references to: 
>
> Emma Willcox 
> Graduate Assistant 
> Department of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation 
> Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences 
> University of Florida 
> 308 Newins-Ziegler Hall 
> PO Box 110430 
> Gainesville, FL 32611-0430 
> Phone: 352-846-0558 
> Fax: 352-392-6984 
> Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
>
> Email applications encouraged.
>
>   

-- 
James J. Roper, Ph.D
Evolutionary Ecology and Population Dynamics
-
Caixa Postal 19034
Curitiba, Paraná
81531-980 Brasil
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Phone in Brazil: 55 41 33857249
FAX in Brazil: 55 41 32662042
Celular: 55 41 99870543
-
http://jjroper.googlepages.com/home
http://arsartium.googlepages.com

Re: OpenOffice bug hits multiple operating systems

[James J. Roper]

In fact, this is NOT relevent, considering that OpenOffice is now on versio=
n
2.3, and that article is about 2.0.6!

On 9/26/07, Sharif Branham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> This article seems relevant in light of some of the recent conversations
> about alternatives to MS Excel.
>
>
> Security experts have discovered vulnerabilities in OpenOffice.org that
> could allow attackers to remotely execute code on Linux, Windows or Apple
> Mac-based computers.
> http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1009_22-6209919.html?tag=3Dnl.e550
>
>
--=20
James J. Roper, Ph.D.
Ecologia e Din=E2micas Populacionais
de Vertebrados Terrestres
--

Caixa Postal 19034
81531-990 Curitiba, Paran=E1, Brasil
--

E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Telefone: 55 41 33857249
Mobile: 55 41 99870543
--

Ecologia e Conserva=E7=E3o na UFPR <http://www.bio.ufpr.br/ecologia/>
Personal Pages <http://jjroper.googlespages.com>

Re: Ecology Text suitable for grades 9-12

[James J. Roper]

Beth,

It is fantastic that you are teaching ecology to younger students.  But, 
I think you do not need a text book, especially to make it interesting 
for the students.  First, YOU should have a text book for yourself - and 
I recommend Ricklefs, for several reasons, one of which is the extensive 
web-based information that you can access.  Use that book to guide YOU 
and your students, but make them study the topics based on their own 
experiences, logic, directed readings from (perhaps) chapters from 
Ricklefs and a variety of popular books (Tropical Nature, any of the 
many books about Darwin, and so on).  Have them research local flora and 
fauna using Field Guides from your area. You present them with questions 
about how natural selection (and evolution by natural selection) would 
work, and so on and so forth.  Get the students involved as active 
participants in nature - books are too dry.  I teach many field courses 
and see that most college students (and each year is worse) have no 
field experience - they don't even know what common birds (easy to see), 
plants (even easier) and other organisms are, much less what they do.  
If students started learning about ecology by watching nature rather 
than keeping their noses in books, I think they would be better off 
(don´t get me wrong, they will absolutely NEED books to help them 
understand what they see!).

Cheers,

Jim

Beth Callaghan said the following on 23/Sep/07 12:52:
> Anyone have any recommendations on an ecology text suitable for grades 9-12?  
> thanks.
>
> Beth Callaghan
> Easthampton High School
> Easthampton, MA
>
>   

-- 


  James J. Roper, Ph.D.

James J. Roper
Ecologia e Dinâmicas Populacionais
de Vertebrados Terrestres

Caixa Postal 19034
81531-990 Curitiba, Paraná, Brasil

E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Telefone: 55 41 33857249
celular: 55 41 99870543

Ecologia e Conservação na UFPR <http://www.bio.ufpr.br/ecologia/>
Econciência - Consultoria e Traduções <http://jjroper.googlespages.com>

Re: ECOLOG-L Digest - 26 Aug 2007 to 27 Aug 2007 (#2007-234)

[James J. Roper]

David,

I disagree.  To explain why, I will tell a very short story.  In my college
logic class my debate group presented a stand: "The god of popular Christia=
n
theology does not exist".  In that stance, we noted that what people believ=
e
today is not supported by the bible, especially the old testament.  We foun=
d
that many of the concepts that people today give their Christian god are no=
t
necessarily from the bible nor religious doctrine.  That being the case,
from whence those ideas?

Now, the current understanding of the evolution of life on the planet
clearly rejects outright a "literal" interpretation of the bible - let=B4s =
not
beat around the bush about that.  It also unequivocally rejects the stories
in the Kentucky Creation Museum!  :-)  For a scientist then, or I should sa=
y
an evolutionary scientist, there are stories that are supported by evidence
and there are stories that are not supported by evidence.  Biblical stories
about creation and miracles are stories without evidence (some biblical
stories about history have other sources of substantiating evidence, some d=
o
not), and so to suggest that an evolutionary biologist has no conflict with
such stories is probably incorrect.  No good scientist accepts any stories
with no evidence - SETI scientists aside.

And we must remember that there are other creation stories out there with
similar amounts of evidence as the Judeo-Christian story.  Remember,
consensus does not equal fact, so belief systems are not subject to
democracy (the majority is correct).

Cheers,

Jim

On 8/28/07, Tessler, David F (DFG) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> This email is in response to the following posting:
> Date:Sun, 26 Aug 2007 22:08:38 -0400
> From:Carissa Shipman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: Christianity survey
>
> "I am a biology student at Temple University and I have
> conducted an NSF funded systematics project for the order
> Hymenoptera at the American Museum of Natural History. My
> question is why is the scientific community so convinced of
> evolution?"
>
> --
>
> I enjoyed reading all the well considered, informed responses (with
> references!) to Carrissa Shipman's innocently na=EFve supposition/questio=
n.
>
> However, I was surprised that there was one point no one really nailed on
> the head.
>
> There is no reason for Christians (or anyone else) to fear evolution.  Th=
e
> theory of evolution in no way denies or contradicts the existence of God =
-
> of any god or any religion for that matter.
>

Re: why scientists believe in evolution

[James J. Roper]

Clearly that wise philosopher was not a scientist!

After all, what really comes from the heart is blood.  Faith also comes from
the head.  After all, belief, reason, knowledge, superstition and so on are
all matters of the gray matter.

Jim

On 8/28/07, Warren W. Aney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> A student once asked a science teacher, "What is most important, knowledge
> or belief?"  The professor answered, "Knowledge, of course."  The student
> then asked a church pastor the same question, and the pastor replied,
> "Belief, of course."  The student then went to a wise philosopher with
> this
> question.  The wise philosopher said, "Both knowledge and belief are
> important, but they are matters of the head.  Faith is really what is most
> important, because faith is a matter of the heart."
>
> Warren W. Aney
> Senior Wildlife Ecologist
> Tigard, Oregon
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of James J. Roper
> Sent: Monday, August 27, 2007 5:28 PM
> To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
> Subject: Re: why scientists believe in evolution
>
>
> A comment on this question.
>
> I would draw to our attention that the question "Why do scientists
> believe...?" is phrased in the same context as "Why do people believe...in
> =
> a
> god".  However, this wording falsely put those two questions into the same
> apparent conceptual framework.  However, I would say that scientists do
> not
> "believe" but rather they accept that the evidence for all the testable
> hypotheses of origins, adaptations and so on are supported by evolution by
> natural selection (with minor quibbles here and there on details).  On the
> other hand, and contrastingly, religious people really do just "believe"
> without testing alternative and testable hypotheses.  So, with religion
> comes a belief system, with science comes accepting the evidence.  Those
> ar=
> e
> both not the same conceptual thing.
>
> Jim
>

Re: why scientists believe in evolution

[James J. Roper]

main reasons.
> > >
> > > 1.  there is a gigantic amount of morphological,
> > behavioral,
> > > molecular,
> > > and fossil evidence to support it. pick up any
> > basic text book in
> > > evolution and you'll see what I mean.
> > >
> > > 2. it has another characteristic that scientists
> > like: using the
> > > theory
> > > of evolution, we can and do generate testable
> > hypotheses, and by
> > > testing
> > > them, we practice science.  in fact, many
> > thousands of tests of
> > > evolution have been performed, and evolution is
> > holding up quite well.
> > >
> > > 3. it is the only game in town.  no other theory
> > of "how the
> > > biological
> > > world got to be this way" has evidence supporting
> > it and generates
> > > testable hypotheses.  if you or someone else comes
> > up with an
> > > alternative, you can replace the theory of
> > evolution with your own
> > > ideas
> > > when you produce substantial amounts of data and
> > successfully use it
> > > to
> > > generate and test meaningful hypotheses.
> > >
> > > especially given your background and institutional
> > placement, its
> > > surprising that you haven't made better use of the
> > tremendous
> > > resources
> > > at your disposal to educate yourself on the
> > evidence for evolution,
> > > and
> > > at least bring your education up to current
> > issues.  I'll bet the
> > > people
> > > in your lab would be glad to hear your thoughts,
> > and if not, you are
> > > surrounded by resources that can answer your
> > question: "why is the
> > > scientific community so convinced of evolution?"
> > >
> > > RBurke
> > >
> > > >>> Carissa Shipman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 08/26/07
> > 10:08 PM >>>
> > > I am a biology student at Temple University and I
> > have
> > > conducted an NSF funded systematics project for
> > the order
> > > Hymenoptera at the American Museum of Natural
> > History. My
> > > question is why is the scientific community so
> > convinced of
> > > evolution? There are very few publications
> > concerning
> > > evolution at the molecular or biochemical level.
> > Most
> > > scientists are baffled at how such molecular
> > systems such
> > > as blood clotting actual evolved in a step by step
> > manner.
> > > It looks to me like many of the molecular inter
> > workings all
> > > needed to be there simultaneously for the end
> > product to
> > > function properly. The biosynthesis of AMP is just
> > as
> > > baffling. How could that have happened in a step
> > by step
> > > fashion? You can speculate, but no evolutionist
> > has the
> > > answer. So if you can not explain how the most
> > nitty gritty
> > > machines of life "molecules" learned to function
> > in the
> > > intricate ways that they do why are you so certain
> > that
> > > everything evolved? Science is looking at the
> > details. All
> > > science textbooks I have read have relayed very
> > little
> > > evidence of evolution at the molecular level. They
> > just say
> > > it happened. Since Darwinian evolution has
> > published very
> > > few papers concerning molecular evolution it
> > should perish.
> > > Systematics addresses genetic similarities between
> > species,
> > > but it does not address exactly how those genetic
> > > differences and similarities came to be. There
> > maybe fossils
> > > and genes, but you need more than this. I am not
> > convinced
> > > of evolution, but still choose to educate myself
> > in what it
> > > teaches and believes. How do scientists explain
> > how even the
> > > slightest mutation in the human genome is highly
> > detrimental
> > > most of the time? If even the slightest change
> > occurs in our
> >
> =3D=3D=3D message truncated =3D=3D=3D
>
>
>
>
> _=
___Ready
> for the edge of your seat?
> Check out tonight's top picks on Yahoo! TV.
> http://tv.yahoo.com/
>



--=20
James J. Roper, Ph.D.
Ecologia e Din=E2micas Populacionais
de Vertebrados Terrestres
--

Caixa Postal 19034
81531-990 Curitiba, Paran=E1, Brasil
--

E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Telefone: 55 41 33857249
Mobile: 55 41 99870543
--

Ecologia e Conserva=E7=E3o na UFPR <http://www.bio.ufpr.br/ecologia/>
Personal Pages <http://jjroper.googlespages.com>

Re: hunting & conservation/was ECOLOGY Conservation Principles and Transformations Re: primate watching

[James J. Roper]

ot;transformational"
> concept (struggling though it may be). To illustrate, Dayton Hyde
> once told me that he finally figured out that probably the real
> reason he took up hunting ducks was to get a closer look at their
> incredible beauty. He told of the moment this dawned on him. Having
> picked up the corpse of a duck he had just shot, he was struck by the
> iridescent colors and beautiful form of the bird, and realized that
> he had just diminished that beauty (not to mention the structural and
> real violence used to appreciate it). He realized that the real
> beauty was in the live duck and its environment--earth, water, and
> the fire in its heart and mind, once beating and cycling much like
> his own. He resolved, in that moment, to work in defense of
> waterfowl, and that decision paid off handsomely for him, internally
> and financially.* A transformational moment? Hunting: a necessary or
> useful transition? I could tell you similar tales . . .
>
> WT
>
> * This, of course, is my version of Hyde's story; it may have
> suffered in the retelling, for which I apologize in advance.
>
>
> At 03:40 AM 8/13/2007, William Silvert wrote:
> >This is an interesting idea, but the analogy to bird-watching is weak.
> There
> >are only a few primates that are serously endangered, mostly the great
> apes,
> >and I think that anyone motivated by life lists would simply head for
> >Madagascar and count lemurs. I suspect that getting a lot of spotters
> into
> >the field would have a negative impact on the species being spotted.
> >
> >It is worth keeping in mind that one of the most successful measures in
> bird
> >conservation is the habitat preservation by Ducks Unlimited, whose motiv=
e
> is
> >to shoot ducks!
> >
> >Bill Silvert
> >
> >
> >- Original Message -
> >From: "WENDEE HOLTCAMP" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >To: 
> >Sent: Sunday, August 12, 2007 7:19 PM
> >Subject: primate watching
> >
> >
> > >I read something recently where someone was pondering whether we could
> > > create a system of primate watching, similar to birdwatching, as a wa=
y
> to
> > > channel funds into primate conservation. So instead of life lists for
> > > birds
> > > (or in addition to) they would have life lists for primates. I though=
t
> > > this
> > > was really interesting and was just going to try to pitch an article
> on
> > > it,
> > > but now I can't seem to find it anywhere - I didn't find it from a
> google
> > > search and I can't remember if I saw this in the news or a scientific
> > > journal TOC, or what. I am pretty sure it was a primatologist or
> > > biologist/ecologist making the statement.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Does this ring any bells for anyone? If so please contact me offlist
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >
> > > Wendee
> > >
> > > ~~
> > >
> > > Wendee Holtcamp * Freelance Writer * Photographer * Bohemian
> > >
> > > <http://www.wendeeholtcamp.com/>
> > > http://www.wendeeholtcamp.com
> > > Bohemian Adventures Blog *  <http://bohemianadventures.blogspot.com/>
> > > http://bohemianadventures.blogspot.com
> > >
> > > The Fish Wars: A Christian Evolutionist
> > > <http://thefishwars.blogspot.com/>
> > > http://thefishwars.blogspot.com
> > > ~~
> > > Online Writing Course Starts Sep 15. Sign Up Now!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
>



--=20
James J. Roper, Ph.D.
Ecologia e Din=E2micas Populacionais
de Vertebrados Terrestres
--

Caixa Postal 19034
81531-990 Curitiba, Paran=E1, Brasil
--

E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Telefone: 55 41 33857249
Mobile: 55 41 99870543
--

Ecologia e Conserva=E7=E3o na UFPR <http://www.bio.ufpr.br/ecologia/>
Personal Pages <http://jjroper.googlespages.com>

Re: primate watching

[James J. Roper]

> >  a primatologist or=3D0A> biologist/ecologist making the
> statement.=3D0A>=3D0A>=3D
> > =3D0A>=3D0A> Does this ring any bells for anyone? If so please contact =
me
> > offli=3D
> > st=3D0A> [EMAIL PROTECTED]>=3D0A> Wendee=3D0A>=3D0A>
> > ~=3D
> > ~=3D0A>=3D0A> Wendee Holtcamp * Freelance W=
riter
> *
> > =3D
> > Photographer * Bohemian=3D0A>=3D0A>
> > <http://www.wendeeholtcamp.=3D
> > com/>=3D0A> http://www.wendeeholtcamp.com=3D0A> Bohemian Adventures Blo=
g *
> >  > tp://bohemianadventures.blogspot.com/>=3D0A>
> > http://bohemianadventures.blogsp=3D
> > ot.com=3D0A>=3D0A> The Fish Wars: A Christian Evolutionist =3D0A>
> > <http://thefish=3D
> > wars.blogspot.com/>=3D0A> http://thefishwars.blogspot.com=3D0A>
> > ~~~=3D
> > ~~~=3D0A> Online Writing Course Starts Sep =
15.
> > Si=3D
> > gn Up Now!=3D0A>=3D0A>=3D0A>=3D0A>=3D0A=3D0AJulie Wieczkowski, Ph.D.=3D=
0AAssistant
> > Profes=3D
> > sor=3D0ADepartment of Anthropology=3D0A332 Pafford=3D0AUniversity of We=
st
> > Georgia=3D
> > =3D0ACarrollton, GA 30118=3D0A678-839-6458 (ph)=3D0A678-839-6466
> > (fax)=3D0Ajuliewhi=3D
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]/~jwhiz
> >
>



--=20
James J. Roper, Ph.D.
Ecologia e Din=E2micas Populacionais
de Vertebrados Terrestres
--

Caixa Postal 19034
81531-990 Curitiba, Paran=E1, Brasil
--

E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Telefone: 55 41 33857249
Mobile: 55 41 99870543
--

Ecologia e Conserva=E7=E3o na UFPR <http://www.bio.ufpr.br/ecologia/>
Personal Pages <http://jjroper.googlespages.com>

Re: primate watching

[James J. Roper]

While the analogy is weak, the potential is still there.  After all, monkey
watchers spend hours and hours watching the same monkeys, while bird
watchers move from species to species.  So, the objective of monkey
watching, while in part might be the making of a life list, would probably
mostly be to just watch them behave.  So, instead of life list of species,
it might be a life list of behaviors that they record.  Just like who (in
birding) has the longest list of species gains status, for monkey watchers
perhaps who saw the most unusual behaviors would gain status.  So, I think
the potential is there, just need a catalyst.

Jim

On 8/13/07, William Silvert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> This is an interesting idea, but the analogy to bird-watching is weak.
> There
> are only a few primates that are serously endangered, mostly the great
> apes,
> and I think that anyone motivated by life lists would simply head for
> Madagascar and count lemurs. I suspect that getting a lot of spotters int=
o
> the field would have a negative impact on the species being spotted.
>
> It is worth keeping in mind that one of the most successful measures in
> bird
> conservation is the habitat preservation by Ducks Unlimited, whose motive
> is
> to shoot ducks!
>
> Bill Silvert
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "WENDEE HOLTCAMP" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: 
> Sent: Sunday, August 12, 2007 7:19 PM
> Subject: primate watching
>
>
> >I read something recently where someone was pondering whether we could
> > create a system of primate watching, similar to birdwatching, as a way
> to
> > channel funds into primate conservation. So instead of life lists for
> > birds
> > (or in addition to) they would have life lists for primates. I thought
> > this
> > was really interesting and was just going to try to pitch an article on
> > it,
> > but now I can't seem to find it anywhere - I didn't find it from a
> google
> > search and I can't remember if I saw this in the news or a scientific
> > journal TOC, or what. I am pretty sure it was a primatologist or
> > biologist/ecologist making the statement.
> >
> >
> >
> > Does this ring any bells for anyone? If so please contact me offlist
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > Wendee
> >
> > ~~
> >
> > Wendee Holtcamp * Freelance Writer * Photographer * Bohemian
> >
> > <http://www.wendeeholtcamp.com/>
> > http://www.wendeeholtcamp.com
> > Bohemian Adventures Blog *  <http://bohemianadventures.blogspot.com/>
> > http://bohemianadventures.blogspot.com
> >
> > The Fish Wars: A Christian Evolutionist
> > <http://thefishwars.blogspot.com/>
> > http://thefishwars.blogspot.com
> > ~~
> > Online Writing Course Starts Sep 15. Sign Up Now!
> >
> >
> >
> >
>



--=20
James J. Roper, Ph.D.
Ecologia e Din=E2micas Populacionais
de Vertebrados Terrestres
--

Caixa Postal 19034
81531-990 Curitiba, Paran=E1, Brasil
--

E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Telefone: 55 41 33857249
Mobile: 55 41 99870543
--

Ecologia e Conserva=E7=E3o na UFPR <http://www.bio.ufpr.br/ecologia/>
Personal Pages <http://jjroper.googlespages.com>

Re: Field-Worthy SUV-- horse is dead!

[James J. Roper]

 or trail, and aren't we all here to protect
> >resources?? I've worked in temperatures and environments from Northern
> >Michigan at -20F to the Grand Canyon at 123F, carrying all my own gear,
> and
> >I've found that the most reliable SUV you can use are your own frickin'
> >legs!! If you can't haul all your own stuff, then HIRE SOMEONE TO HELP
> YOU!
> >Lots to drink, plenty to eat, and the right clothing.
> >
> >Hopefully Informative-
> >Eric
> >
> >
> >
> >Eric North
> >Department of Biological Sciences
> >Northern Arizona University
> >P.O. Box 5640
> >Flagstaff, AZ  86011
> >Office: 928.523.7247
> >Cell:928.607.3098
> >FAX: 928.523.7500
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> >_
> >A new home for Mom, no cleanup required. All starts here.
> >http://www.reallivemoms.com?ocid=3DTXT_TAGHM&loc=3Dus
>



--=20
James J. Roper, Ph.D.
Ecologia e Din=E2micas Populacionais
de Vertebrados Terrestres
--

Caixa Postal 19034
81531-990 Curitiba, Paran=E1, Brasil
--

E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Telefone: 55 41 33857249
Mobile: 55 41 99870543
--

Ecologia e Conserva=E7=E3o na UFPR <http://www.bio.ufpr.br/ecologia/>
Personal Pages <http://jjroper.googlespages.com>

Re: permanent mapped tree plots

[James J. Roper]

In Brazil, INPA (Institute for research in the Amazon) has the PPBIO and
PELD.  You can find some information here: http://www.inpa.gov.br/index.php

Jim

On 8/2/07, Weimin Xi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Dear All,
>
> I am looking for information regarding world-wide existing long-term
> permanent mapped tree plots, regional or international network
> of monitoring permanent plots (with individually numbered trees, similar
> to those long-term mapped tree plots in Harvard Forest and
> Duke Forest, and BCI 50-hectare permanent tree plot). Any leads (such as
> the names of  projects/networks, web links, or references)
> would be greatly appreciated.
>
> Weimin
>



--=20
James J. Roper, Ph.D.
Ecologia e Din=E2micas Populacionais
de Vertebrados Terrestres
--

Caixa Postal 19034
81531-990 Curitiba, Paran=E1, Brasil
--

E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Telefone: 55 41 33857249
Mobile: 55 41 99870543
--

Ecologia e Conserva=E7=E3o na UFPR <http://www.bio.ufpr.br/ecologia/>
Econci=EAncia - Consultoria e Tradu=E7=F5es <http://jjroper.googlespages.co=
m>

Re: Calculating volume question

[James J. Roper]

I can't understand why you would even want volume, instead of the two 
direct measures of area that you have.  In any analysis you could easily 
use the two measures as probably two independent variables, and they 
would provide you more information than the "volume" you are after.  
After all, a million different shapes can have the same volume, but the 
unique areas in two dimensions are going to be unique for each thing 
being measured.

Jim

A. Rabatsky said the following on 22/Jul/07 12:02:
> I'd like to know how to calculate volume using 2 measures of either area 
> or perimeter. I have 2 digital photographs, one provides a top view and 
> one provides a side view, of the object that I want to calculate the 
> volume of. I need to know if there's a mathematical formula that I can 
> plug in area from the top view & area from the side view to get volume. I 
> can add photos later if need be.
>
> Thanks. 
>
>   

-- 


  James J. Roper, Ph.D.

James J. Roper
Ecologia e Dinâmicas Populacionais
de Vertebrados Terrestres

Caixa Postal 19034
81531-990 Curitiba, Paraná, Brasil

E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Telefone: 55 41 33857249
celular: 55 41 99870543

Ecologia e Conservação na UFPR <http://www.bio.ufpr.br/ecologia/>
Econciência - Consultoria e Traduções <http://jjroper.googlespages.com>

Re: ECOLOGY Mathematics and the metamathematics of evasive ecology? Re: Request: Data sets for biocalculus project

[James J. Roper]

I am sure that we would all hope that the real "issue" is scientific, and
not religious

Just to clear up some confusion - plots are often absolutely necessary to
convey results and to see patterns.  Statistics are often absolutely
necessary to understand or confirm pattern.  People have been known to see
patterns in randomness, so our "intuition" about pattern can mislead.
Psychologists have tested people to look and see pattern in a random
collection of circles of various colors and sizes.  People found patterns
where none existed.  This only tells us that we should be careful when we
think we perceive pattern.  If we think we perceive pattern in data that wa=
s
not collected to test that pattern, we should generate new tests to
specifically test for those patterns.

Statisticians are often not biologists, so while they may know what what
they are doing, they often do not know biology.  Also, I am finding more an=
d
more that people are forgetting how to do simple math!  If they can't do th=
e
calculation on their computer, they can't do the calculation

Finally, I have been having my biostatistics students read papers that
include the topic of the week - we have found so many errors in analysis
that the poor Brazilian students who do not read English well, and assume
that not the author erred, but rather they erred in thinking that the stats
was bad.  I would guess that as many as 50% of the papers have from mild to
serious mistakes.  Scarey!

So, the moral of the story is, look at well-done figures, then check your
conclusions with appropriate statistics, if necessary.  But always doubt.

Cheers,

Jim

On 7/19/07, William Silvert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Although this is really a religious rather than scientific debate which i=
s
> unlikely to lead to any concensus, I want to respond to some of Jim
> Roper's
> comments.
>
> The fact that you can learn a lot by looking at plots does not mean the
> that
> "results are so glaringly obvious".  Humans are very good at pattern
> recognition and often can see what is present in a plot better than they
> can
> analyse numerical data. Also, plots often show unexpected features which
> lead to new knowledge - they are not just for hypothesis testing.
>
> On several occasions I have been consulted by people who are quite expert
> at
> statistics who cannot interpret their data, and who were surprised that b=
y
> plotting the results in the right way a clear answer leaped out at them.
> Of
> course they then had to confirm the results with statistics, but that is
> mainly to get the paper past referees.
>
> Jim ends with the usual comment that if the statistics are carried out by
> someone who is really good at stats, the results will be good. That may b=
e
> true, but good statisticians are pretty rare beasts, and in the average
> lab
> the plotting method is just as reliable as textbook stats. Some of you ma=
y
> recall a post of mine a couple of years ago where I surveyed a lot of
> statistically sophisticated fisheries scientists to see if they could add
> two numbers (what is 100+-3 + 100 +-4?) and only one person came up with
> the
> answer - but he was very unsure of himself, and couldn't figure out how t=
o
> multiply the numbers.
>
> Just a glance through any journal will quickly show that most biologists
> have little idea of significance and represent their results with
> exaggerated precision. In a perfect world maybe we could trust all
> statistical analyses, but we ain't there yet.
>
> Bill Silvert
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "James J. Roper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: 
> Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 3:43 PM
> Subject: Re: ECOLOGY Mathematics and the metamathematics of evasive
> ecology?
> Re: Request: Data sets for biocalculus project
>
>
> > Mattheus,
> >
> > You are showing some misunderstanding of the use of statistics.  A few
> > observations.
> >
> > 1.  If your results are so glaringly obvious, then the question was
> > probably not very interesting, or a logical consequence of the methods.
> >
> > 2.  Questions that are not so simple need statistics to discover the
> > probability of something happening when it is not obligatory that it
> > happen.
> >
> >> statistical tests when you can simply draw a plot and
> >> your conclusion comes?
> > 3. A plot can mislead.
> >> I need to learn that populations must
> >> be normal, they must be homoscedastic, there are at
> >> least 3 models for ANOVA, there is something out there
> >> with the name of ANCOVA, and I have no single idea if
> >> this is useful for me or not...
>



--=20
James J. Rope

Re: assisted "migration" (not)

[James J. Roper]

Good point Bill.  But, while some things may be labeled "assisted 
migration" many things that fall under that heading are not.  Such as 
the Florida Torreya, the first example in the Conservation Biology paper 
on the topic.  That would clearly be called something like "Assisted 
range extension".  So, we do not want to classify processes that are 
fundamentally different under the same heading.

And, while sure, we screw up a river, we should try to make it still 
habitable for the regional fauna, when we screw up the planet, the job 
becomes overwhelming and outside of our understanding of how to do so.

Interestingly, I just read that some physicist (clearly not a biologist) 
says that we need to colonize Mars within the next, what, 45 years, for 
the continuation of the human species - that might be considered 
"assisted migration."

Cheers,

Jim

William Silvert said the following on 19/Jul/07 17:59:
> To return to a previous posting, what would you use to describe fish 
> raceways, such as those used to help salmon bypass dams? I cannot 
> think of a better term than "assisted migration".
>
> Bill Silvert
>
> - Original Message - From: "DAVID WHITACRE" 
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: 
> Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2007 9:26 PM
> Subject: assisted "migration" (not)
>
>
>> "Migration" is the repeated movement back and forth of a population. =
>> This new phrase "assisted migration", in contrast, seems to apply to =
>> human assistance in dispersal/range extension, to compensate for 
>> climate =
>> change.
>>
>> Clearly the term is already spawning confusion. I suggest we banish it =
>> in its infancy, and use a term such as "assisted dispersal", "species =
>> translocation", or something that accurately describes the idea.
>>
>> Dave Whitacre 
>

-- 


  James J. Roper, Ph.D.

James J. Roper
Ecologia e Dinâmicas Populacionais
de Vertebrados Terrestres

Caixa Postal 19034
81531-990 Curitiba, Paraná, Brasil

E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Telefone: 55 41 33857249
celular: 55 41 99870543

Ecologia e Conservação na UFPR <http://www.bio.ufpr.br/ecologia/>
Econciência - Consultoria e Traduções <http://jjroper.googlespages.com>

Re: assisting natural processes

[James J. Roper]

While you may be right about change faster than nature, what you are
implying may not be so easily done.  Indeed, what it sounds like to me is
basically translocation of plants - introducing species in places where we
"think" they would end up after some interval of time, given large
uncertainties in climate change.  First, we must remember that introduced
species are a major environmental problem today - basically, we have alread=
y
introduced weeds and invasive plants and animals the world over.  Will we
continue that process thinking that where we put the organisms is where
nature will have done so eventually?  Evolution is a predictive process?

Maintaining adaptedness?  I am at a loss to even figure out what that
means.  Organisms are adapted by natural selection to their environments.
Stephen J. Gould has shown us that this can happen quickly, and Darwin
figured it to happen slowly.  But, there is ample evidence that it can
happen relatively quickly.  Maintaining adaptedness seems to me to imply
stasis - keeping plants the way they are in the face of climate change by
moving them to places for which they are already adapted.  Just monitoring
climate and imagining moving plants around to follow what we think are goin=
g
to be long-term climate changes (considering how much they can vary over ou=
r
lifetimes without really changing in the long term context) gives me the
heeby jeebies - as someone said, a way for someone to get funded for years
to come, but with no real scientific basis or accounting.  After all, how
would we know it worked?  Check back in 500 years, 1000?

Finally, you mentioned trees, but what about the millions of other species
in a community or ecosystem?  Do we assume that the species we don't move
around will figure out how to find and follow the ones we do?

We should all read David Ehrenfeld's great book, now out of print - "The
arrogance of humanism" - so that we can look on our supposed "fix-its" for
what they are - self-deception that when things get bad enough, someone wil=
l
come up with a way to fix it.  The only problem is, fix-its usually don't.

Sure, we can build underpasses for turtles, salamanders and what not, and
teach a Whooping Crane how to fly south for the winter, but for the million=
s
of other species that will have to cope, these are psuedo-solutions that
only give funding to the wrong places.  What we need is prevention, because
we sure won't know how to fix what we are breaking.

Cheers,

Jim


On 7/19/07, jerry rehfeldt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> There's no doubt whatsoever that projected rates of change are far greate=
r
> than natural processes can accommodate. Maintaining adaptedness in plant
> populations will require the assistance of mankind to transfer the
> appropriate populations of the appropriate species to the new location of
> their climatic optima. Assisting migration, therefore, is only a part of
> the
> managerial options. Maintaining adaptedness, particularly in trees, will
> require us to participate in the evolutionary process; we must be willing
> to
> provide the fuel for speeding up the process of selection.
>
> In forestry, the information is available for providing appropriate
> guidelines. However, I am not aware of current reforestation, rehab, or
> conservation programs that are targeting climates of the 2020's. The
> closest
> that I know of involves the effort of researchers to find a 'home' in
> British Columbia for populations of California's Brewer spruce, a species
> classified today as threatened.
>



--=20
--
James J. Roper, Ph.D.
Ecologia e Din=E2micas Populacionais
de Vertebrados Terrestres
--

Caixa Postal 19034
81531-990 Curitiba, Paran=E1, Brasil
--

E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Telefone: 55 41 33857249
Mobile: 55 41 99870543
--

Ecologia e Conserva=E7=E3o na UFPR <http://www.bio.ufpr.br/ecologia/>
Econci=EAncia - Consultoria e Tradu=E7=F5es <http://jjroper.googlespages.co=
m>

Re: assisted migration

[James J. Roper]

Interesting concept - if you take my sarcasm.  Let's imagine that migration
took eons to evolve - do we have such hubris that we think we can predict
evolution?  With global warming, will animals need to migrate anymore, or
will migration be even more important?  And, if we translocated some
animals, are they going to know that the idea was for them to migrate?  Are
we going to net populations of birds, turtles and wildebeest and move them
to another place, hoping that they will figure it out?

But, that is just my humble opinion

Cheers,

Jim

On 7/18/07, David Inouye <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> John Nielsen, a Correspondent on the Science Desk at NPR News in
> Washington DC is working on a story about "assisted migration" as it
> relates to global climate change. "I have heard that while there are no
> "official" translocations taking place at the moment, there's a lively
> scientific debate going on about whether there will or should be."
>
> "I'd like to hear what the folks who subscribe to the ECOLOG listserve
> think of "assisted migration.""
>



--=20
--
James J. Roper, Ph.D.
Ecologia e Din=E2micas Populacionais
de Vertebrados Terrestres
--

Caixa Postal 19034
81531-990 Curitiba, Paran=E1, Brasil
--

E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Telefone: 55 41 33857249
Mobile: 55 41 99870543
--

Ecologia e Conserva=E7=E3o na UFPR <http://www.bio.ufpr.br/ecologia/>
Econci=EAncia - Consultoria e Tradu=E7=F5es <http://jjroper.googlespages.co=
m>

Re: ECOLOGY Mathematics and the metamathematics of evasive ecology? Re: Request: Data sets for biocalculus project

[James J. Roper]

Mattheus,

You are showing some misunderstanding of the use of statistics.  A few
observations.

1.  If your results are so glaringly obvious, then the question was
probably not very interesting, or a logical consequence of the methods.

2.  Questions that are not so simple need statistics to discover the
probability of something happening when it is not obligatory that it happen.

> statistical tests when you can simply draw a plot and
> your conclusion comes?
3. A plot can mislead.
> I need to learn that populations must
> be normal, they must be homoscedastic, there are at
> least 3 models for ANOVA, there is something out there
> with the name of ANCOVA, and I have no single idea if
> this is useful for me or not.
4. The assumptions of ANOVA are not as rigid as you imply.  ANCOVA
combines regression with ANOVA, often a very useful tool.
> I admit that in some cases statistical tests do help to understand the
> obtained results, but the path to dominate and understood what is behind is 
> long, and not easy.
>   
5.  I tell my students that intuition is wrong, until we have a solid
grasp of the probabilities involved.  Humans tend to bias their
perspectives.  So, statistics helps us to avoid our own
tendentiousness.  The tools, like any tools, require practice and use to
master them.
> Therefore, I follow with my faith.
6.  There is no place in science for faith.
> I use my software and it gives me the indexes that will allow me or not to do 
> my parametric tests, and then I apply the tests,only to confirm something 
> that I knew weeks ago.
7. If you are getting indexes, then you probably should not be doing
parametric tests  And, as I said, if it is that simple, it probably
wasn't very interesting scientifically.
> Or I learn that my observation is not good because I could not achieve enough 
> power with my test. And then I have the alternative of doing a similar test, 
> but I don't like the idea of learning another test, and then I
> discover that I need to do other kinds of preliminary tests... wow, maybe you 
> get the point.
>   
8.  The point is, apparently, that you do not understand statistics, nor
their usefulness.  And, you want to blame statistics for that.
> I know this will lead to nothing, but I would like to say: isn't much better 
> only do the right plots and
> look at the data?
9.  One should always plot data - that does not mean you will always
recognize the patterns.  And, how do you plot correctly?  What if there
are multiple interactions?  Only plots that are derived from or guided
by the correct analyses will tell you what you want to know.  So, you
need to know the stats.
> A pit that such ideas are not more widespread. They would save some of my 
> time.
>   
10.  You will save time by studying the correct methods of analysis for
your area, and becoming familiar with them.  Or collaborate with someone
who has a knack for the things you don't care to know about.

-- 


  James J. Roper, Ph.D.

James J. Roper
Ecologia e Dinâmicas Populacionais
de Vertebrados Terrestres

Caixa Postal 19034
81531-990 Curitiba, Paraná, Brasil

E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Telefone: 55 41 33857249
celular: 55 41 99870543

Ecologia e Conservação na UFPR <http://www.bio.ufpr.br/ecologia/>
Econciência - Consultoria e Traduções <http://jjroper.googlespages.com>

<http://people.sightspeed.com/link/vnfmnadoam/> My status

Re: Database for field notes

[James J. Roper]

Seems funny to me that this question even happens.  Any reasonable 
statistical package will allow you to do this.  Of course, you would 
want your field notes to be in a sensible format for them to be 
analyzed.  Otherwise, if you type in field notes once to just have them 
in electronic form, then later type in the data to do analyses, then you 
are doing a lot of extra needless work.  Chances are, after you decipher 
your data for analysis, there is really very little left over for 
"notes" that could not easily be converted to some kind of short hand 
for typing into the same data file.  They way you describe your needs, I 
do all of that with a very succinct data base in SAS, JMP, R or whatever.

Jim

Michael Batcher said the following on 08/Jul/07 13:20:
> Does anyone have suggestions for a database with which to keep field 
> notes. I use ACCESS, but the text field length is limited. I want to be 
> able to search notes by date, species, location, and other fields and 
> develop queries and reports as a result. Thanks in advance.
>
>   

-- 
James J. Roper, Ph.D. <http://jjroper.googlepages.com/home>

Universidade Federal do Paraná
Depto. de Zoologia
Caixa Postal 19020
81531-990 Curitiba, Paraná, Brasil

E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Phone/Fone/Teléfono: 55 41 33611764
celular: 55 41 99870543

Revista Brasileira de Ornitologia 
<http://www.ararajuba.org.br/sbo/ararajuba/revbrasorn.htm>
Zoologia na UFPR <http://zoo.bio.ufpr.br/zoologia/>
Ecologia e Conservação na UFPR <http://www.bio.ufpr.br/ecologia/>

Currículo Lattes <http://lattes.cnpq.br/2553295738925812>
E-mail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Phone/Fone/Teléfono: 55 41 33611764
Alternativa: 55 41 33857249
celular: 55 41 99870543

Ecologia e Conservação na UFPR <http://www.bio.ufpr.br/ecologia/>
Páginas Académicas <http://jjroper.googlepages.com/home>
Consultoria e Traduções <http://arsartium.googlepages.com/home>
XXVII Congresso Brasileiro de Zoologia <http://www.cbz2008.com.br/>
Call me! 

Re: News: Conservatives Split Over Darwin and Evolution

[James J. Roper]

John,

While I am sure that we all appreciate the thoughtfulness and time you 
put into this email, I am not sure that we are doing apologetics for any 
particular point of view, but rather we are discussing how to maintain a 
critical and scientific perspective faced with a strong movement towards 
fundamentalist teachings in our schools.

Perhaps it is very useful for scientists to understand the perspectives 
of those we are confronting, but it is also incumbent on them to 
understand ours.

And, while on some scales Catholic=Baptist, to a Catholic or Baptist, 
they are not equal.

And, also, while the Church states that reason and faith are never 
contradictory, it turns out that that is only true for faith-based 
reason. For example, reason can come up with some pretty good reasons 
for abortion, but faith may not be able to. But that is not the issue here.

As an aside, when fundamentalists are fighting scientific teachings in 
their schools, the fundamentalists are seldom, if ever, Catholic.

Cheers,

Jim

John Waldron said the following on 10/May/07 03:24:
> I am tentative to post because I wish I had more time to argue and make a good
> case, but I’ll try to offer just a few ideas that I think have yet to be
> mentioned.
>
> It was previously mentioned that somehow Roman Catholic beliefs were far
> different from Southern Baptists’, but that claim was shot down without being
> expounded. Now I can’t say much about other religions, but I can say a few
> things about Catholicism. It is a central Catholic belief that faith and 
> reason
> are never contradictory. The same God that is revealed in the Bible is 
> revealed
> in God’s Creation, and Truth does not deny Truth.  In fact, the Catholic 
> Church
> believes that faith and reason are complementary. We come to know God only
> through faith AND reason. Though the Church does say that, "the certainty that
> the divine light gives is greater than that which the light of natural reason
> gives" (St. Thomas Aquinas, STh II-II 171, 5, obj. 3.). The Church never fails
> to stress the importance of using our faculties of reason in their greatest
> capacity.
>
> Here we have it straight from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
> “Faith and science: "Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real
> discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries
> and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God
> cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth."37 "Consequently,
> methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out 
> in
> a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict
> with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive
> from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of
> nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for 
> it
> is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are."38”
>
>
> Perhaps the problems we face today are not a result of the fact that religion 
> is
> too fundamental to American’s lives. (Some people not on this list may even
> argue that our problems are a result of the idea that science or empiricism is
> too fundamental to our lives.) I argue that our problems do not arise because
> of a population that believes in an unseen God, rather they stem from the
> tunnel vision so often associated with both religious AND scientific camps.
> Believers of science and religion must recognize the danger of believing in a
> false choice between either science or religion. Many of those religiously
> faithful in unseen things must learn to practice reason. Many of the
> religiously scientific must learn to fully develop their rational capacities
> and acknowledge, at the very least, the limitations of pure reason.
>
> final thought:
> Believing in our own reason, the scientific method, or having faith in only
> those things we experience directly or indirectly through our senses is not 
> all
> that different from belief in something we are unable to detect through
> biologically explicable means of perception.
> Where does all this fanatical faith in science come from? What happened to
> science as a search for truth characterized by Socratic humility and
> uncertainty?
>
> Peace,
>
> John Waldron
>
> 37 Dei Filius 4: DS 3017.
> 38 GS 36 # 1.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Quoting Jim Sparks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>  Look, Whether its God, god, no god, no God, or maybe the Vikings nailed it
>  with Odin or maybe its a stack of turtles or a blink in the eye of Brahma.
>
>  In any case the Earth is not 6,000 years old.  Therefore one

Re: News: Conservatives Split Over Darwin and Evolution

[James J. Roper]

ving endeavor.  
However, it certainly should inform the social problem solving 
endeavors!  And that is why we need critical, scientific thinking in 
schools!  Sure, keep the myths and superstition, after all, it is part 
of our history - but keep them in the social studies classes.

Cheers,

Jim
-- 
James J. Roper, Ph.D. <http://jjroper.googlepages.com/home>

Universidade Federal do Paraná
Depto. de Zoologia
Caixa Postal 19020
81531-990 Curitiba, Paraná, Brasil

E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Phone/Fone/Teléfono: 55 41 33611764
celular: 55 41 99870543

Revista Brasileira de Ornitologia 
<http://www.ararajuba.org.br/sbo/ararajuba/revbrasorn.htm>
Zoologia na UFPR <http://zoo.bio.ufpr.br/zoologia/>
Ecologia e Conservação na UFPR <http://www.bio.ufpr.br/ecologia/>

Currículo Lattes <http://lattes.cnpq.br/2553295738925812>
E-mail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Phone/Fone/Teléfono: 55 41 33611764
Alternativa: 55 41 33857249
celular: 55 41 99870543

Ecologia e Conservação na UFPR <http://www.bio.ufpr.br/ecologia/>
Páginas Académicas <http://jjroper.googlepages.com/home>
Consultoria e Traduções <http://arsartium.googlepages.com/home>
XXVII Congresso Brasileiro de Zoologia <http://www.cbz2008.com.br/>
Call me! 

Re: News: Conservatives Split Over Darwin and Evolution

[James J. Roper]

gion as just superstition.


I would suggest that first, science can only dismiss religion as
superstition.  The definition of superstition is "any belief, based on fear
or ignorance, that is inconsistent with the known laws of science or with
what is generally considered in that particular society of true and
rational; esp. such a belief in charms, omens, the supernatural, etc." From
a scientist's perspective, religion is superstition.

Second, religious people are even more dismissive of science and of other
religions. The problem is not that scientist's don't deal well with
religion, but rather that religion does not deal well with science.  You
should have said above, "Religious people, as responsible citizens, cannot
afford to dismiss science because it does not support their faith."

Cheers,

Jim

--=20
James J. Roper, Ph.D.
Depto Zoologia,UFPR
Caixa Postal 19034
81531-990 Curitiba, Paran=E1, Brasil
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D
E-mail:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Phone/Fone/Tel=E9fono:55 41 33611764
celular:   55 41 99870543
Casa: 55 41 33857249
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D
http://jjroper.googlepages.com/
http://arsartium.googlepages.com/
Ecologia e Conserva=E7=E3o na UFPR
http://www.bio.ufpr.br/ecologia/

XXVII Congresso Brasileiro de Zoologia
http://www.cbz2008.com.br/
   ---

Re: News: Conservatives Split Over Darwin and Evolution

[James J. Roper]

Indeed, the scientific community does not teach "belief-systems" if it is
science-based.  And, as you say, we know of no root "cause" (be careful of
that word) for the Big Bang and so on, HOWEVER, using the scientific method=
,
we can make testable predictions based on the big bang model that answer a
lot of questions and stand up to a lot of studies.  We also don't have any
understanding of what "causes" gravity (gravitons?), but we can certainly
send people to the moon, which means we understand pretty well how gravity
works (just not why).  I would posit that there is no reason to think that
we should be able to explain all "causes" (what causes the charge of the
electron, what causes gravity, and so on).  That implies that everything ha=
s
a cause and effect.  I would suggest that things happen because that is the
nature of nature.  Science is the means by which we might explain the
explicable.  It is a long process because we also have to discover what is
explicable.  But, neither science nor any other thing, by definition, can
explain the inexplicable.

Atheism is not a belief system, by the way.  It is the alternative to a
belief system.  Are you atheistic of the Easter Bunny? No, you do not even
dignify the question of the existence of the Easter Bunny with a reply,
because it is just too patently obvious that someone made that up.  So, you
do not BELIEVE in the NON-existence of the Easter Bunny, you just don't
consider it because there is no reason to.  Okay, just switch the word "god=
"
for the words "Easter Bunny" and you have atheism.  Belief systems are thos=
e
systems in which one finds guidance, instruction, example, and so on.

Huxley coined the word "agnostic" because he felt that a scientist cannot
take a stand on the existence of a "god" and so one should leave the option
open.  But, Huxley was from Victorian England, and he, just like Darwin, ha=
d
to live in a social context that was difficult for an atheist.  But, what h=
e
really was was an atheist - one who takes no stance on the presence of "god=
"
because there is just no reason to.  Agnostic, leaving the option open,
suggests that there is a reason to leave the option open, but, really, ther=
e
isn't.

All that said, science is more fun to talk about than religion.  What
worries me, and perhaps many of us, is that the christian movement in the
states wants to run science to fit in line with their belief systems.  But,
scientists don't want to run religion - they would just as soon not have to
deal with it. Science always loses if someone else tries to control it.  To
me, that sums the worry.

Cheers,

Jim




On 5/8/07, Markael Luterra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> If we are going to promote a separation of science-based knowledge from
> faith-based belief, it is equally important that the scientific
> community does not promote belief systems not directly supported by
> scientific evidence.  There are limits to what science can tell us - we
> know of no root cause for the Big Bang, no true idea of how very complex
> brain chemistry creates the self-consciousness that we experience.  An
> open-minded scientific community must not support either natural or
> supernatural explanations for these phenomena, as there is currently
> insufficient evidence for either.  To say clearly that we believe what
> the data show and that we do not take a position on what is not known is
> reconcilable with nearly all religious views, save for the young-earth
> models and some other very literal interpretations of religious texts.
>
> I must say I am taken aback by the efforts of some respected biologists,
> most notably Richard Dawkins, to actively denounce supernatural belief
> in all its forms.  While it is true that science has so far failed to
> validate the existence of the supernatural (itself a conundrum since
> much of what is now "natural" was once considered supernatural), it is
> inconsistent with the principles of scientific knowledge to adopt a
> belief (in the absence of the supernatural) in the absence of solid proof=
.
>
> What I see is a strong polarization, with religious fundamentalists at
> one extreme and "evangelistic atheists" (including many scientists) at
> the other.  I strongly believe that while scientists have a duty to
> ensure that faith-based beliefs are not falsely presented as scientific
> knowledge, we also have a duty to ensure that we do not officially, as a
> group, endorse the belief system known as atheism.  To do so is to
> violate the basic tenets of science and is guaranteed to alienate and
> anger a large portion of the Earth's population, namely those who uphold
> religious and/or spiritual beliefs, who may otherwise be more
> open-minded toward the s

Re: News: Conservatives Split Over Darwin and Evolution

[James J. Roper]

 there was something?  What is beyond the universe?  What is beyond
> time? Since information is infinite and we are finite, can we ever know
> everything?  These are the inexplicables, these others say, that fall into
> the realm of religion.
>
> So where we get into trouble as scientists is when we insist that only the
> scientifically observable realm is real and important; that the religious
> realm is just irrelevant superstition. We may indidually choose to believe
> that to be the case, but we shouldn't do so with a hubris of scientific
> arrogance by saying, in effect, if it can't be measured it can't be valid.
> As I said before, science is never going to be able to explain everything.
> What science can and will explain is crucial, but some of the inexplicables
> are pretty important to quite a few other people. And many of these other
> people are rational scientists.
>
> Warren W. Aney
> Senior Wildlife Ecologist
> (and Presbyterian elder)
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Ashwani Vasishth
> Sent: Saturday, 05 May, 2007 08:22
> To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
> Subject: News: Conservatives Split Over Darwin and Evolution
>
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/05/us/politics/05darwin.html?ref=science
>
> A Split Emerges as Conservatives Discuss Darwin
>
> By PATRICIA COHEN
> Published: May 5, 2007
>
> Evolution has long generated bitter fights between the left and the
> right about whether God or science better explains the origins of
> life. But now a dispute has cropped up within conservative circles,
> not over science, but over political ideology: Does Darwinian theory
> undermine conservative notions of religion and morality or does it
> actually support conservative philosophy?
>
> On one level the debate can be seen as a polite discussion of
> political theory among the members of a small group of intellectuals.
> But the argument also exposes tensions within the Republicans' "big
> tent," as could be seen Thursday night when the party's 10 candidates
> for president were asked during their first debate whether they
> believed in evolution. Three - Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas; Mike
> Huckabee, former governor of Arkansas; and Representative Tom
> Tancredo of Colorado - indicated they did not.
>
> For some conservatives, accepting Darwin undercuts religious faith
> and produces an amoral, materialistic worldview that easily embraces
> abortion, embryonic stem cell research and other practices they
> abhor. As an alternative to Darwin, many advocate intelligent design,
> which holds that life is so intricately organized that only an
> intelligent power could have created it.
>
> Yet it is that very embrace of intelligent design - not to mention
> creationism, which takes a literal view of the Bible's Book of
> Genesis - that has led conservative opponents to speak out for fear
> their ideology will be branded as out of touch and anti-science.
>
> [...]
>
> Cheers,
> -
>Ashwani
>   Vasishth[EMAIL PROTECTED]  (818) 677-6137
>   http://www.csun.edu/~vasishth/
>  http://www.myspace.com/ashwanivasishth
>
>   

-- 
James J. Roper, Ph.D. <http://jjroper.googlepages.com/home>

Universidade Federal do Paraná
Depto. de Zoologia
Caixa Postal 19020
81531-990 Curitiba, Paraná, Brasil

E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Phone/Fone/Teléfono: 55 41 33611764
celular: 55 41 99870543

Revista Brasileira de Ornitologia 
<http://www.ararajuba.org.br/sbo/ararajuba/revbrasorn.htm>
Zoologia na UFPR <http://zoo.bio.ufpr.br/zoologia/>
Ecologia e Conservação na UFPR <http://www.bio.ufpr.br/ecologia/>

Currículo Lattes <http://lattes.cnpq.br/2553295738925812>
E-mail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Phone/Fone/Teléfono: 55 41 33611764
Alternativa: 55 41 33857249
celular: 55 41 99870543

Ecologia e Conservação na UFPR <http://www.bio.ufpr.br/ecologia/>
Páginas Académicas <http://jjroper.googlepages.com/home>
Consultoria e Traduções <http://arsartium.googlepages.com/home>
XXVII Congresso Brasileiro de Zoologia <http://www.cbz2008.com.br/>
Call me! 

Field course, Avian Ecology and Conservation in Bocas del Toro

[James J. Roper]

Hello all,

The Institute for Tropical Ecology and Conservation (ITEC, 
http://www.itec-edu.org/) is hosting a field course entitled "Ecología y 
Conservación de Aves Tropicales" in Bocas del Toro, Panamá, this July 
(9-31).  The course will be taught in Spanish, but can be taken by 
students from anywhere, IF they feel that they can attend to the 
Spanish.  The course is also geared towards advanced undergrads but 
especially graduate students. At ITEC, there is great interest in 
cross-cultural interactions and studies, and all too often this type of 
course is geared towards non-Latin Americans.

The instructor has over 20 years experience in Central and South America 
and speaks English (native), Spanish and Portuguese.

For more information, visit http://www.itec-edu.org/ and 
http://www.itec-edu.org/spanishbird.html

Thank you,

Jim
-- 
=====
James J. Roper, Ph.D
-
Caixa Postal 19034
Curitiba, Paraná
81531-980 Brasil

E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Phone in Brazil: 55 41 33611764
FAX in Brazil: 55 41 32662042
Celular: 55 41 99870543
-
http://jjroper.googlepages.com

Re: Absolute Addiction to Catastrophic Consumption

[James J. Roper]

ese conflicts being
> competition for increasingly scarce resources with petroleum far and away
> at
>
> the top of the list of valued resources.  Petroleum greases the pathway t=
o
> consumption, and consumption of petroleum itself is the underlying factor
> for wars past, present and future.
>
> During World War II, Americans were asked to consume less of many consume=
r
> goods in order to allow for resources to be devoted to the war
> effort.  Now,
>
> Americans are asked to shop during wartime.  The American economy drives
> armaments production of high technology implements of war that are capabl=
e
> of killing countless citizens of other countries whose national needs are
> in
>
> competiton with those of American citizens.  So we shop and kill and kill
> and shop and it is all one endless destructive cycle, as interlinked as
> any
> ecological system's components.
>
> We are used to killing our competitors.  Ranchers kill ground squirrels
> and
> prairie dogs that compete for grass.  We kill coyotes and wolves that
> compete for our livestock.  We kill termites that compete for our finishe=
d
> lumber.  In a world of increasing competition for resources, with a
> still-growing human population and retaining the idiotic priority of yet
> more economic growth, the killing will only continue and increase.
>
> Will we ever learn?  I think we may be asking the wrong question.
>
> Can we ever learn as a species that an appropriate level of consumption i=
s
> the key to survival, but catastrophic consumption kills?  And our
> society/culture is as addicted to catastrophic consumption as a junkie is
> to
>
> heroin.  The junkie often harms only himself, but we are harming
> biodiversity, ecosystems, planetary cycles and processes, and our unborn
> children.
>
>
> Stan MooreSan Geronimo, CA [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> _
> It's tax season, make sure to follow these few simple tips
>
> http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Taxes/PreparationTips/PreparationTip=
s.a
> spx?icid=3DHMMartagline
>



--=20
James J. Roper
Depto Zoologia,UFPR
Caixa Postal 19034
81531-990 Curitiba, Paran=E1, Brasil
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D
E-mail:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Phone/Fone/Tel=E9fono:55 41 33611764
celular:   55 41 99870543
Casa: 55 41 33857249
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D
http://jjroper.googlepages.com/

Ecologia e Conserva=E7=E3o na UFPR
http://www.bio.ufpr.br/ecologia/
   ---

Re: Ocean Level Rising

[James J. Roper]

Dear James Conklin,

Adding more math to the debate.

Regarding your second point:
> 2.  The ocean is a spherical body of water.  The ocean volume varies as 
> the cube of the ocean radius.  Therefore, for the ocean radius to increase 
> 20 feet, the ocean volume must increase 8,000 times more than for a 1-foot 
> radius increase.  For the ocean radius to increase 40 feet, the ocean 
> volume must increase 64,000 times more than for a 1-foot radius increase.
>   
For the volume of a sphere to increase by 1 foot (let's simplify the 
math and say 0.5 m), in which the sphere has a radius of 6400km, would 
require changing the volume of 4/3 pi r^3 by increasing r by 0.5.  Then, 
to compare that with a 10m increase (20 x the 0.5).

Volume "as is" = 1.0979 x 10^^21 (if the world were water)

0.5 m increase = 1.0979 x 10^^21 ^ within rounding error.

10 m increase = 1.0979 x 10^^21 within rounding error.

This basically suggests that the increase of 1 foot would be a very very 
small percentage of the total.  So, your scale of 6,400 times is still a 
small volume of liquid relative to the frozen ice and temperature 
expansion available.

I find it interesting that there are so many ways to calculate that 
64000 times something very small is still small!

I also wonder what exactly is the inconvenient part of all this?

Jim.

-- 
---------
James J. Roper, Ph.D.
Universidade Federal do Paraná
Depto. de Zoologia
Caixa Postal 19020
81531-990 Curitiba, Paraná, Brasil
=
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Phone/Fone/Teléfono:   55 41 33611764
celular:   55 41 99870543
=
Zoologia na UFPR
http://zoo.bio.ufpr.br/zoologia/
Ecologia e Conservação na UFPR
http://www.bio.ufpr.br/ecologia/
-
http://jjroper.googlepages.com/home
Currículo Lattes
http://lattes.cnpq.br/2553295738925812

Tropical Avian Ecology and Conservation

[James J. Roper]

Hello All,

For those interested in field courses, geared to advanced undergraduates 
and graduate students, checking out ITEC might be a good choice.  In 
addition, if you speak some Spanish and would like a multi-cultural 
field course in Avian Ecology and Conservation, also check out ITEC.  
Links may be found below:

http://www.itec-edu.org/
http://www.itec-edu.org/spanishbird.html

Cheers,

Jim
-- 
=
James J. Roper, Ph.D
-
Caixa Postal 19034
Curitiba, Paraná
81531-980 Brasil

E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Phone in Brazil: 55 41 33611764
FAX in Brazil: 55 41 32662042
Celular: 55 41 99870543
-
http://jjroper.googlepages.com

Re: Ethanol (in)efficiency

[James J. Roper]

bject completed during the last decade."
> >http://www.newrules.org/agri/netenergy.html
> >
> >
> >Here is a good article from renewable energy access, by LesterBrown of
> >Worldwatch.
> >http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/reinsider/story;jsessionid
> >=3DDDB1143EA1BF449D5EFC92ADE6723FDE?id=3D47092
> >
> >"The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) projects that distilleries
> >will require only 60 million tons of corn from the 2008 harvest. But
> >here at the Earth Policy Institute (EPI), we estimate that distilleries
> >will need 139 million tons -- more than twice as much. If the EPI
> >estimate is at all close to the mark, the emerging competition between
> >cars and people for grain will likely drive world grain prices to levels
> >never seen before. The key questions are: How high will grain prices
> >rise? When will the crunch come? And what will be the worldwide effect
> >of rising food prices?
> >"From an agricultural vantage point, the automotive demand for fuel is
> >insatiable. The grain it takes to fill a 25-gallon tank with ethanol
> >just once will feed one person for a whole year. Converting the entire
> >U.S. grain harvest to ethanol would satisfy only 16 percent of U.S. auto
> >fuel needs.
> >
> >The competition for grain between the world's 800 million motorists who
> >want to maintain their mobility and its 2 billion poorest people who are
> >simply trying to survive is emerging as an epic issue. Soaring food
> >prices could lead to urban food riots in scores of lower-income
> >countries that rely on grain imports, such as Indonesia, Egypt, Algeria,
> >Nigeria, and Mexico."
> >
> >Today's Ithaca Journal has a report on "Mexican President tries to
> >contain tortilla prices" due to a surge in corn prices driven by the US
> >ethanol industry. Seems like the riots are about to start...
> >
> >And Iowa may have to import corn next year, from who knows where?
> >http://www.farmandranchguide.com/articles/2007/01/05/ag_news/letters_and
> >_editorial/letter02.txt
> >
> >According to IATP numbers, the biofuel boom - if fulfilled - will
> >require Iowa to import 200 million bu. of corn, rather than export 670
> >million bu. as it did in 2005/06. Nebraska would need even more, 421
> >million bu., to fill its ethanol-made hole."
> >
> >Now, here is just one sentence from myself:
> >If - as it seems - ethanol is a hoax, shouldn't we speak up, also for th=
e
> >sake of the remaining prairies that might be at stake?
> >Maiken
> >
> >Maiken Winter
> >Cornell Laboratory of Orntihology
> >Ithaca, NY 14850
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> -
> Sucker-punch spam with award-winning protection.
> Try the free Yahoo! Mail Beta.
>



--=20
James J. Roper
Depto Zoologia,UFPR
Caixa Postal 19034
81531-990 Curitiba, Paran=E1, Brasil
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D
E-mail:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Phone/Fone/Tel=E9fono:55 41 33611764
celular:   55 41 99870543
Casa: 55 41 33857249
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D
http://jjroper.googlepages.com/

Ecologia e Conserva=E7=E3o na UFPR
http://www.bio.ufpr.br/ecologia/
   ---

Re: If not Ethanol, what then?

[James J. Roper]

What exactly IS enhanced biodiversity? That phrase could include abnormally
high biodiversity, increased invasive biodiversity and so on and so forth.
"Greater" biodiversity is not necessarily better

On 2/2/07, Michael Mellon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Thank you for the website and the phrase that caught
> my eye was:
>
> Whether or not yields are enhanced by diveristy
> remains an open question. However, there is no
> question that harvesting grasslands, even
> low-diversity and degraded grasslands, enhances their
> biodiversity.
>
> Hopefully, funding agencies will start supplying funds
> so we, as scientist, can answer this question more
> fully. In Nebraska, using corn for ethanol is a big
> political move by politicians and hopefully we can
> start using the natural grasslands and benefit from
> the natural landscape and move away from monocultures.
>
> I have enjoyed the discussion
>
> Michael Mellon
>
>
>
>
> --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > I'm sure other literature goes more into depth, but
> > Lester Brown's book
> > "Plan B: Rescuing a Planet under Stress and a
> > Civilization in Trouble"
> > (which I highly recommend, by the way) mentions
> > replacing coal-fired
> > electric power and then using the electricity
> > generated at night (when
> > demand is lower) to produce hydrogen (I presume
> > through electrolysis).
> > This hydrogen can then be burned to produce more
> > electricity during the
> > day, or be pumped into cars for transportation, etc.
> >
> > -Tim Nuttle
> >
> > > I looked at Mike's web page and I am quite
> > ignorant about the bioenergetcs
> > > of various terrestrial crops (I work in the marine
> > environment where
> > > plants
> > > are those little one-celled critters), but I
> > wonder whether if grasses are
> > > so suitable for biofuels, what about the discarded
> > parts of food crops,
> > > such
> > > as corn stalks and potato plants. I realise that
> > there is nutritional
> > > benefit to plowing them under, but could they be
> > used in other ways?
> > >
> > > Another poster mentioned hydrogen and a reduced
> > population -- I really
> > > don't
> > > see how we could get enough hydrogen from wind and
> > solar power unless we
> > > used a lot of hydrogen fusion to greatly reduce
> > our population.
> > >
> > > Bill Silvert
> > >
> > >
> > > - Original Message -
> > > From: "Palmer, Mike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > To: "William Silvert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
> > 
> > > Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 3:51 PM
> > > Subject: RE: [ECOLOG-L] If not Ethanol, what then?
> > >
> > > Bill,
> > > Quite a number of people are working on the use of
> > Low-Intensity,
> > > High-Diversity (LIHD) systems (to use Dave
> > Tilman's term).  This
> > > contrasts markedly with High-Intensity,
> > Low-Diversity (HILD) systems
> > > such as corn or transgenic Miscanthus.  LIHD
> > systems have advantages in
> > > not only being carbon-negative, but in promoting
> > biodiversity and
> > > preventing habitat loss and degradation (see my
> > arguments in
> > > http://ecology.okstate.edu/Libra/biofuels.htm )
> > > ---Mike Palmer
> > >
> > >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs,
> > news
> > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> > William Silvert
> > > Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 8:51 AM
> > > To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
> > > Subject: [ECOLOG-L] If not Ethanol, what then?
> > >
> > > In the recent discussion of biofuels, there seems
> > to be a consensus that
> > >
> > > producing ethanol from corn has serious adverse
> > consequences both
> > > ecological
> > > and economic. However I have not seen anyone
> > address the broader
> > > question of
> > > what alternatives we have in the long run. Fossil
> > fuels will eventually
> > > run
> > > out - oil in a century or so at most, coal in
> > several centuries - and
> > > while
> > > there may be some wonderous new technology to fill
> > the gap, we cannot
> > > count
> > > on that. I suspect that combustible fuels will
> > always be with us, and I
> > > wonder what they will be.
> > >
> > > Bill Silvert
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> _=
___
> Cheap talk?
> Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates.
> http://voice.yahoo.com
>



--=20
James J. Roper
Depto Zoologia,UFPR
Caixa Postal 19034
81531-990 Curitiba, Paran=E1, Brasil
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D
E-mail:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Phone/Fone/Tel=E9fono:55 41 33611764
celular:   55 41 99870543
Casa: 55 41 33857249
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D
http://jjroper.googlepages.com/

Ecologia e Conserva=E7=E3o na UFPR
http://www.bio.ufpr.br/ecologia/
   ---

Re: If not Ethanol, what then?----2

[James J. Roper]

Heck, I think we should use corn!

After all, it will run us out of energy quicker, then we will be forced to
deal with the population and reduce consumption issues.

Cheers,

Jim

On 2/2/07, La Follette, Doug J - SOS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> My best guess, which I have been suggesting for 30 years, is Hydrogen mad=
e
> from wind and other solar sources;
> and a reduced population.
>
> **
>
>
> In the recent discussion of biofuels, there seems to be a consensus that
> producing ethanol from corn has serious adverse consequences both
> ecological
> and economic. However I have not seen anyone address the broader question
> of
> what alternatives we have in the long run. Fossil fuels will eventually
> run
> out - oil in a century or so at most, coal in several centuries - and
> while
> there may be some wonderous new technology to fill the gap, we cannot
> count
> on that. I suspect that combustible fuels will always be with us, and I
> wonder what they will be.
>
> Bill Silvert
>



--=20
James J. Roper
Depto Zoologia,UFPR
Caixa Postal 19034
81531-990 Curitiba, Paran=E1, Brasil
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D
E-mail:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Phone/Fone/Tel=E9fono:55 41 33611764
celular:   55 41 99870543
Casa: 55 41 33857249
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D
http://jjroper.googlepages.com/

Ecologia e Conserva=E7=E3o na UFPR
http://www.bio.ufpr.br/ecologia/
   ---

Re: What would adding fertilizer do to a tropical forest?

[James J. Roper]

It is just possible that Joe Wright at STRI has done this kind of
experiment.  He has done some watering experiments and found that even in a
tropical rainforest, water limitation can act to influence species
composition and so forth.

Cheers,

Jim

On 2/1/07, Jonathan Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> For a long time I've heard people talk about the effects of adding minera=
l
> fertilizers to grasslands - how it causes a crash in species richness.
>
> Has anyone ever tried adding mineral fertilizer to tropical forest and
> studying (say) the species diversity of seedlings, or long term effects o=
n
> regeneration?
>
> It may be interesting from the point of view of understanding maintainanc=
e
> of species richness.
>
> Examining effects on growth rate of tropical trees might also be relevant
> to the idea of setting up artificial forests for carbon sequestration.
>
>  Jonathan Adams
>



--=20
James J. Roper
Depto Zoologia,UFPR
Caixa Postal 19034
81531-990 Curitiba, Paran=E1, Brasil
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D
E-mail:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Phone/Fone/Tel=E9fono:55 41 33611764
celular:   55 41 99870543
Casa: 55 41 33857249
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D
http://jjroper.googlepages.com/

Ecologia e Conserva=E7=E3o na UFPR
http://www.bio.ufpr.br/ecologia/
   ---

Re: Log transformation of negative values in SAS??

[James J. Roper]

Sami,

Remember, depending on the analysis, you want to have normal RESIDUALS and
not necessarily normal distributions of the raw data.  It is quite possible
that you have a normal distribution of your residuals.

If not, since you have flux, you could always use the true value for N20 at
each measurement, and not flux.  The true value will always be positive.

Cheers,

Jim

On 1/30/07, Sami Ullah <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hello Ecologers:
>
> I have a data set of N2O fluxes from forest soils in which some values ar=
e
> positive and some negative. As the distribution in non-normal, I want to
> log-transform the data. However, the log transformation command in SAS
> transform positive values and ignores the negative. Can anyone guide me o=
n
> how to log-transform the data using SAS or anyother software to be able t=
o
> take care of both the positive and negative values.
>
> Thanks in anticipation.
>
> Sami Ullah
> Department of Geography
> McGill University, Canada
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>



--=20
James J. Roper
Depto Zoologia,UFPR
Caixa Postal 19034
81531-990 Curitiba, Paran=E1, Brasil
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D
E-mail:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Phone/Fone/Tel=E9fono:55 41 33611764
celular:   55 41 99870543
Casa: 55 41 33857249
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D
http://jjroper.googlepages.com/

Ecologia e Conserva=E7=E3o na UFPR
http://www.bio.ufpr.br/ecologia/
   ---

Re: gender issues in ecology

[James J. Roper]

I find it interesting that a woman refers to other women as 
"incapacitated" due to pregnancy.  And Bill's comments that pregnancy 
costs money also shows an interesting capitalistic perspective on pregnancy.

I think we have our priorities confused when speaking that way.  Having 
kids is part and parcel to being human - a woman indeed is becoming 
"capacitated" when taking on the responsibility of child raising.  When 
research profits are more important than child rearing, I think 
priorities are confused.

I would say that we need better "workers" rights just so that pregnancy 
is not considered negative, and that fathers taking leave for child 
rearing also not be considered negative.  If research comes to a halt, 
that just means that the person who took time to give birth or raise a 
child was very much worth the money that they were paid - after all, if 
they were superfluous, research would go on just the same.  Also, if 
reseach comes to a halt, it means that many people did not plan well.

I think that if we did a survey, we would find that most researchers put 
in far and away more hours than the legal 40 per week.  Do we get paid 
extra for it?  We should think of those hours as saved up emergency 
hours, and when we need time off, we should be able to take it when the 
reason is good - and what better reason than to raise a kid?

Sure, maybe we have enough people on the planet as is, but I would 
rather see scientists raising few kids, than uneducated and pverty 
striken people raising a half dozen of them.

Cheers,

Jim

Kristina Pendergrass said the following on 2/11/2006 12:21:
> As someone with an MS, who hopes to still get her doctorate, I find there
> is either a real or perceived stigma against women with regard to
> beginning a family.  Since a woman has to spend some number of months
> incapacitated due to the late stages of pregnancy and the early stages of
> childcare, it seems her only choice is to pursue a doctorate first (and
> have kids possibly late in life) or to begin a family before beginning a
> doctorate.
>
> Because my husband is 7 years older than I am, and because I finished my
> MS when I was 26, I am opting to start a family now, when the risk of
> Down's syndrome and other age-related complications is reduced.
>
> What I would like to ask the group is whether, in your experience, older
> women (e.g. age 40) are less likely to be accepted into PhD programs than
> students having just finished their BS or MS?  I would dearly like to
> pursue a PhD (ecology is my passion!!), but I worry that my age at the
> time will prove a hindrance.
>
> Please feel free to email me at my email address (vs. replies to the
> group); I can compile results for anyone interested.
>
> Thank you.  Sincerely,
>
> Kristina Pendergrass
> Research Associate,
> Scott-Ritchey Research Center
> College of Veterinary Medicine
> Auburn University, AL  36849
> 334.844.5574
>
>
>   
>> - Original Message -
>> From: "David Inouye" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
>> Subject: Career advice for scientists: the X-gals alliance
>> Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 17:36:07 -0500
>>
>>
>> I'm hoping that women in ecology aren't facing all the
>> gender-specific barriers mentioned here:
>>
>> http://chronicle.com/jobs/news/2006/10/2006100201c/careers.html
>> 
>
>   
>
>   

-- 
-
James J. Roper, Ph.D.
Universidade Federal do Paraná
Depto. de Zoologia
Caixa Postal 19020
81531-990 Curitiba, Paraná, Brasil
=
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Phone/Fone/Teléfono:   55 41 33611764
celular:   55 41 99870543
=
Zoologia na UFPR
http://zoo.bio.ufpr.br/zoologia/
Ecologia e Conservação na UFPR
http://www.bio.ufpr.br/ecologia/
-
http://jjroper.sites.uol.com.br
Currículo Lattes
http://lattes.cnpq.br/2553295738925812

Re: Wow! Amazing responses to comments on Steve Irwin!

[James J. Roper]

rhaps zoos are the equivalent for wild animal=
s
> whose habitats have been fragmented or have disappeared before relentless
> development.  If Steve Irwin advocated habitat conservation at all, which
> I
> did not see, it was an afterthought and probably not the primary lesson
> learned by all those little kids who loved to see him hold up an exploite=
d
> lizard or snake and mischeviously display his smarmy face for the camera.
>
> No, I was not a Steve Irwin fan, and I don't believe that his approach wa=
s
> a
> net positive for wildlife.  I never heard a serious conservation message
> from him that taught anything resembling responsibility for the
> preservation
> and conservation of wildlife.  It is easy to enjoy something that
> entertains
> you for the moment, but to accept responsibility for the difficult work
> and
> sacrifices involved in conservation is something completely different.
>
> And, while I have not reached audiences of millions, I have trapped
> hundreds
> of raptors in the local area and displayed some of them to local
> landowners
> and their children who allowed me access to their properties and wished t=
o
> see the wild raptors prior to release.  I would never trap a raptor for
> the
> primary purpose of displaying to the public, but I have banded many birds
> under the gaze of little children who I believe could benefit in a small
> way
> from such encounters.   When I watched Steve Irwin's shows on television,
> I
> never saw any research taking place -- I saw capture of wildlife
> apparently
> solely for the purpose of entertaining kids and I would be astonished if
> an
> unhealthy collection of kids around the world are not currently grabbing,
> harrassing, annoying, and harming wildlife because they saw Steve Irwin d=
o
> it on television, with no discussion of responsibility and possible harm
> to
> the subjects of that treatment.
>
> So, am I way offbase?  I am willing to consider the possibility that I am=
,
> but I have yet to see a convincing argument that I am.
>
>
> Cheers all!
>
> Stan Moore  San Geronimo, CA[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>



--=20
-
James J. Roper
UFPR, Zoologia
Caixa Postal 19034
81531-990 Curitiba, Paran=E1, Brasil
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D
E-mail:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Phone/Fone/Tel=E9fono: 55 41 33611764
celular:55 41 99870543
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D
Ecologia e Conserva=E7=E3o na UFPR
http://www.bio.ufpr.br/ecologia/
-
http://jjroper.sites.uol.com.br

Re: critical essay on the antics of Irwin and Treadwell

[James J. Roper]

ards 
>> for the media-an industry which constantly exploits wildlife with 
>> quick-and-dirty films, film clips, and wildlife "news" focused on the 
>> trivial.
>>
>> For 29 years I have rallied against such wildlife pornography. I 
>> created the International Wildlife Film Festival to set high 
>> standards and to promote the production of high-quality wildlife 
>> films. Even before IWFF, I recognized that bears (in particular) were 
>> vulnerable to excessive and dramatized reporting and human interest. 
>> I started early on (the early 1960s) to teach not exploiting bear 
>> "charisma" for profit and gain, or to enhance one's ego. I have 
>> always used bears as a medium to teach and communicate about science 
>> and nature, but in ways not detrimental to the bears.
>>
>> Likewise, for decades I have been trying to encourage wildlife 
>> agencies, wildlife researchers, managers, law enforcement people, and 
>> university-level wildlife departments to deal with extensive wildlife 
>> exploitation within the mass media, the wildlife film industry, and 
>> wildlife film marketing. Professionals, well aware of the terrible 
>> impacts on wildlife by market hunters early in the 1960s, have 
>> steadfastly remained in denial about wildlife in the wildlife film 
>> marketplace. Even today, almost no wildlife management, research, or 
>> law enforcement is practiced on, focused on, or taught about the 
>> enormous, deleterious effects of bad wildlife filmmaking, 
>> distribution, marketing or screening.
>>
>> I often note that hunters, fishermen and trappers are constantly 
>> controlled, regulated, held to high sportsman standards and pursued 
>> for violations. The typical hunter has a wad of papers about 200 
>> pages long in his or her pocket in order to "stay legal," to guide on 
>> bag limits, seasons, hunting times, sex and age, closed or open 
>> areas, care of the meat, caliber of the rifle or type of shot used, 
>> etc. In the meantime, those same agencies encourage and aid countless 
>> filmmakers, camera crews, photographers, editors, writers, and 
>> whatever to go out and do whatever they want, when they want and 
>> where they want. Staff biologists are not encouraged to monitor, 
>> evaluate and speak out on, or control, wildlife productions. The 
>> content is basically considered entertainment for in the evening, not 
>> a wildlife professional's responsibility. Treadwell, for example, was 
>> allowed to do many things illegal for others to do.
>>
>> Worse, perhaps, the needed standards, ethical evaluations, impacts on 
>> wildlife and actions needed are not included in wildlife textbooks or 
>> classrooms. The whole matter is studiously ignored, as not important 
>> in the profession of wildlife biology, despite the 29 years that IWFF 
>> and the Great Bear Foundation have called for action. "Poachers with 
>> a camera" still mostly write their own rules. People like Irwin and 
>> Treadwell still do what they damn well please with animals-countless 
>> actions that a hunter would be fined and jailed for. Star-struck is 
>> for kids, not wildlife professionals. Filmmaking should not be an 
>> allowable way to exploit wildlife for money and fame. The National 
>> Geographic Society and the Discovery Channel and all of their 
>> defenders should hang their heads in shame for promoting stupid TV 
>> actions over sound wildlife biology.
>>
>> So why does this problem go on forever? People steal the charisma of 
>> the animals to boost their own ego and status, which translates into 
>> money. It is always the money. So far as I care, wildlife will be 
>> considerably better off without Treadwell and Irwin. Where are the 
>> other voices of the people who should object? Why should the balance 
>> always be stacked for the sensational, the glitz?
>>
>> Charles Jonkel is president of the Missoula-based Great Bear Foundation
>>
>> --
>

-- 
-
James J. Roper, Ph.D.
Universidade Federal do Paraná
Depto. de Zoologia
Caixa Postal 19020
81531-990 Curitiba, Paraná, Brasil
=
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Phone/Fone/Teléfono:   55 41 33611764
celular:   55 41 99870543
=
Zoologia na UFPR
http://zoo.bio.ufpr.br/zoologia/
Ecologia e Conservação na UFPR
http://www.bio.ufpr.br/ecologia/
-
http://jjroper.sites.uol.com.br
Currículo Lattes
http://lattes.cnpq.br/2553295738925812

Re: PCA question

[James J. Roper]

few eigenvalues, this should be no problem.
>>
>> If I use mean values for
>>>>>> each "taxon" then I viiolate this assumption. To circumvent this,
>>>>>> is it valid to do a PCA on all data
>>>>>> and use mean PC scores?
>>
>> No need to do this. And if you do, it doesn't solve the engative
>> eigenvalue problem.
>>
>>
>> No need for multivariate normality neither.
>>
>>
>> I will be using this information in
>>>>>> phylogenetically independent contrasts
>>>>>> analysis looking at ecomorphological relationships.
>>
>>
>> The real problem with morphometric data is that the first axes become 
>> size
>> and shape axes. See:
>>
>> Jolliffe IT (2002) Principal Component Analysis. Springer: New York
>>
>> and:
>>
>> Claude, J., Jolliffe, I.T., Zuur, A.F., Ieno, E.N. and Smith, G.M.
>> Multivariate analyses of morphometric turtle data – size and shape.
>> Chapter 30 in Zuur, AF., Ieno, EN, Smith. GM. (Expected publication 
>> date:
>> March 2007). Springer
>>
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> Alain Zuur
>> www.highstat.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Any
>>>>>> thoughts/opinions are most appreciated.
>>>>>>
>> >>>>Best,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Matthew E. Gifford
>>>>>> Ph.D. Candidate
>>>>>> Washington University, St. Louis, MO
>>>>>> http://www.biology.wustl.edu/larsonlab/people/Gifford/Matt's_webpage.ht 
>>>>>>
>> ml
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -- 
>>>>> Department of Biology
>>>>> PO Box 1848
>>>>> University of Mississippi
>>>>> University, Mississippi 38677-1848
>>>>>
>>>>> Brewer web page - http://home.olemiss.edu/~jbrewer/
>>>>>
>>>>> FAX - 662-915-5144
>>>>> Phone - 662-915-1077
>>>>
>>>> ***
>>>> Christopher M. Taylor
>>>> Associate Professor of Biological Sciences
>>>> Dept. of Biological Sciences
>>>> Mississippi State University
>>>> Mississippi State, MS 39762
>>>> Phone: 662-325-8591
>>>> Fax: 662-325-7939
>>>> Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>> http://www2.msstate.edu/~ctaylor/ctaylor.htm
>>>
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> Department of Biology
>>> PO Box 1848
>>> University of Mississippi
>>> University, Mississippi 38677-1848
>>>
>>> Brewer web page - http://home.olemiss.edu/~jbrewer/
>>>
>>> FAX - 662-915-5144
>>> Phone - 662-915-1077
>>> = 
>>>
>
>

-- 
-
James J. Roper, Ph.D.
Universidade Federal do Paraná
Depto. de Zoologia
Caixa Postal 19020
81531-990 Curitiba, Paraná, Brasil
=
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Phone/Fone/Teléfono:   55 41 33611764
celular:   55 41 99870543
=
Zoologia na UFPR
http://zoo.bio.ufpr.br/zoologia/
Ecologia e Conservação na UFPR
http://www.bio.ufpr.br/ecologia/
-
http://jjroper.sites.uol.com.br
Currículo Lattes
http://lattes.cnpq.br/2553295738925812

Re: Why not a law..Evolution

[James J. Roper]

But Malcolm,

It is not the "Theory of Evolution" that is the theory, but rather the
"Theory of Evolution BY NATURAL SELECTION" that is the theory.  While most
of us would agree that there is ample proof, it should also be understood
why it must be considered a theory and not a law.  A law is universally
true, while a theory is provisionally true.  We all can imagine cases in
which some characteristic of an organism was due to genetic drift or some
other form of accident that favored a given trait.  We can also remember th=
e
Spandrels of San Marcos (Stephen J. Gould) and so recognize that we cannot
call everything we see a product of evolution by natural selection,  If we
do so, without proof, then we are making assertions of faith.

So, until we prove that all features of living things are adaptations that
were formed by natural selectionthe theory of evolution by natural
selection remains just that.

But what a wonderful and explanative theory!

And we all KNOW that evolution happened, evolution is not a theory, it is a
fact, and not a law.

Cheers,

Jim

On 8/16/06, Malcolm McCallum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I wonder if it is time to stop calling it the "Theory of Evolution" and
> start calling it the "Law of Evolution,"  and to stop referring to
> "evolutionary theory" and surplant that with "evolutionary law."
>
> Lets face it, there has to be more evidence for evolution than there was
> for Gravity, etc. when they were moved to law status.
>
> Do we know of any case where organisms were not adapted by or succumb to
> some outside force?
>
> Sounds like a law to me.
>
> VISIT HERPETOLOGICAL CONSERVATION AND BIOLOGY www.herpconbio.org <
> http://www.herpconbio.org>
> A New Journal Published in Partnership with Partners in Amphibian and
> Reptile Conservation
> and the World Congress of Herpetology.
>
> Malcolm L. McCallum
> Assistant Professor
> Department of Biological Sciences
> Texas A&M University Texarkana
> 2600 Robison Rd.
> Texarkana, TX 75501
> O: 1-903-223-3134
> H: 1-903-791-3843
> Homepage: https://www.eagle.tamut.edu/faculty/mmccallum/index.html
>
>
> 
>
> From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news on behalf of
> Ashwani Vasishth
> Sent: Tue 8/15/2006 10:13 PM
> To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
> Subject: Commentaries on science and on evolution
>
>
>
> There are two commentaries in the current issue of Bioscience that I
> thought worth considering, in the particular context of the current "deba=
te"
> about the teaching of evolution science in our schools
>
> The first, by Ross H. Nehm, "Faith-based Evolution Education?" (638
> BioScience * August 2006 / Vol. 56 No. 8 www.biosciencemag.org) argues
> that scientists, generally defined, have limited themselves to generating
> belief statements on evolution, rather than scientifically and
> systematically addressing the misconceptions inherent in lay beliefs and =
in
> creationist rhetoric.  In addition, we need to get much better at showing
> people why a knowledge of evolution science matters, to everyday folks, o=
n
> an everyday basis.
>
> The second, by Margaret Wertheim, "Who Is Science Writing For?" (640
> BioScience * August 2006 / Vol. 56 No. 8 www.biosciencemag.org), argues
> that science writers, generally defined, are not positioning themselves
> where the readers are, in America, but rather are catering to a very narr=
ow
> (and quite small) self-selecting cluster of individuals who actively seek
> out science-related material.  We need to get better at doing what she ca=
lls
> "missionary work."
>
> Cheers,
> -
>   Ashwani
>  Vasishth  [EMAIL PROTECTED]  (818) 677-6137
>  Department of Urban Studies and Planning, ST 206
> California State University, Northridge
>  http://www.csun.edu/~vasishth/
>



--=20
-
James J. Roper
UFPR, Zoologia
Caixa Postal 19034
81531-990 Curitiba, Paran=E1, Brasil
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D
E-mail:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Phone/Fone/Tel=E9fono: 55 41 33611764
celular:55 41 99870543
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D
Ecologia e Conserva=E7=E3o na UFPR
http://www.bio.ufpr.br/ecologia/
-
http://jjroper.sites.uol.com.br

Re: Evolution Environment Adaptation Re: Maldaptation, Extinction and Natural selection

[James J. Roper]

Joerg,

I like your analogy, and many studies have compared fitness "landscapes" 
to your "topography" that you describe here.

Note, those are "fitness" landscapes, not "Natural Selection" 
landscapes.  So, if you are in a wide flat plane, you might compare that 
to Gould's "equilibrium" in his context of "punctuated equilibrium".  
That is, no natural selection is taking place.  You may go extinct 
because you run out of space, a disease comes along and so forth, but, 
no natural selection needs to be taking place.
> An analogy from maths (where I come from): in global optimization, if 
> you are on a wide flat plane and you have no clue in which direction to go 
> to find the valley, you are stuck with the solution you have at hand. It 
> might be a rather bad one (extinction) but anywhere you turn it doesn't get 
> (much) better.
> That doesn't mean that in many cases optimization algorithms won't work
> they do even in quite bad conditions if you have a lot of time to search. 
> So I think it just comes down to the degree of maladaptation versus the 
> likely rate of change.
And, we must understand that while "adaptation" is the process whereby 
natural selection over time (evolution) forms features that permit 
organisms to do well, we cannot think that "maladaptations" are formed 
by the same process.  Accidents (meteors, floods, continental drift, 
climate change) may make something that was once useful into something 
that is no longer useful, but the maladaptation was not made for that 
new scenario through natural selection.

So, care must be used in thinking about the process.

Cheers,

Jim

-- 
-
James J. Roper, Ph.D.
Universidade Federal do Paraná
Depto. de Zoologia
Caixa Postal 19020
81531-990 Curitiba, Paraná, Brasil
=
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Phone/Fone/Teléfono:   55 41 33611764
celular:   55 41 99870543
e-fax:1-206-202-0173 (in the USA)
=
Zoologia na UFPR
http://zoo.bio.ufpr.br/zoologia/
Ecologia e Conservação na UFPR
http://www.bio.ufpr.br/ecologia/
-
http://jjroper.sites.uol.com.br