Postdoc: Modeling Influenza Evolution
Two Postdoctoral Fellowships in the Mathematical Evolutionary Epidemiology of Influenza. Applications are sought from outstanding researchers for two postdoctoral positions in the mathematical evolutionary epidemiology of influenza, in the labs of Drs. Troy Day (Queens University, Canada), Jonathan Dushoff (McMaster University, Canada), David Earn (McMaster University, Canada), and Junling Ma (University of Victoria, Canada). Both positions will be for a period of two years, and will involve developing and analyzing mathematical and simulation models of influenza evolution. Positions should be taken up by Sept. 1, 2007. Duties will also include the teaching of two one-semester courses per year. Salary will begin at C$40,000 per year. For more information on research in our labs see: www.mast.queensu.ca/~tday, http:// www.eeb.princeton.edu/~dushoff/, http://www.math.mcmaster.ca/earn/, and www.math.uvic.ca/ ~jma. To apply, send a current curriculum vitae and arrange to have two letters of reference sent to Dr. Troy Day at [EMAIL PROTECTED] Alternatively, materials can be sent by post to: Troy Day Dept. of Mathematics and Statistics Jeffery Hall, Queens University Kingston, ON, K7L 3N6 CANADA Deadline for applications is May 15, 2007.
Marmot Volunteer Field Assistant Wanted
Marmot Volunteer Field Assistant Location: White Mountains, California (near Bishop and Lone Pine) Description: Field assistant volunteer needed to work in a PhD dissertation project aimed at studying the social behavior of yellow-bellied marmots. The study examines social structure and behavioral roles. Duties include assisting with live trapping, restraining and measuring marmots, observing with a spotting scope, taking detailed behavioral observation notes and entering data. This is a great opportunity to gain field experience for graduate school. Candidates must be available to work for the summer field season from June 11 September 1, 2007. Dates are slightly flexible. Qualifications: Candidates must be comfortable living and working at a high altitude remote field station (12500 feet/3800 meters) with hantavirus risk. She/he should have an interest in biology and animal behavior, the desire to wake up early, hike carrying equipment, work long hours and deal with inclement weather. Attention to detail is important. Previous field experience is encouraged but not necessary. The volunteer is expected to cover his/her travel costs. Salary: 0 Compensation: Housing and food will be provided. Applicant will receive training and experience in trapping and wild animal restraint. If you would like any further information please contact me at: [EMAIL PROTECTED] If you are interested in the position please email a brief letter stating your interest in the project and relevant experience and a CV to the email below. Include the contact information of at least 2 references. Thea Wang [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: nonparametric repeated measures
On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 12:50:48 -0400, Lucy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I'm working with some percent cover data from plots that have been measured >annually for the past five years. In several plots and during some years >there is little to no vegetation coverage, so the data are heavily skewed; >the common transformations (log, square root) haven't worked. Is there a >way to do repeated measures analyses on non-normal data? Is PROC MIXED >robust enough to handle nonparametric data? Thanks for your help! > Lucy, I think you are a bit confused. If longitudinal data analysis/mixed modelling does not work, then try generalised linear mixed modelling (e.g. a Poisson or Neg. Binomial with an auto-correlation structure). But this is something different than non-parametric stats. Not sure about SASbut yes...PROC MIXED is for Gaussian mixed modelling (I think). Not sure which package to use for GLMM in SAS. In R, it is nlme (mixed modelling), lmer, glmmPQL or glmmML. You could also try GLS. All methods are also explained in our mixed modelling course in October 2007. See http://www.highstat.com/statscourse.htm Alain --- Dr. Alain F. Zuur First author of: 1. Analysing Ecological Data (2007). Zuur, AF, Ieno, EN and Smith, GM. Springer. 680 p. URL: www.springer.com/0-387-45967-7 2. Analysing Ecological data using GLMM and GAMM in R. (2008). Zuur, AF, Ieno, EN, Walker, N and Smith, GM. Springer. 3. An introduction to R for the life scientists: - With a paper submission guide - (2008). Zuur, AF, Ieno, EN and Meesters, EHGW. Springer Other books: http://www.brodgar.com/books.htm Statistical consultancy, courses, data analysis and software Highland Statistics Ltd. 6 Laverock road UK - AB41 6FN Newburgh Tel: 0044 1358 788177 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] URL: www.highstat.com URL: www.brodgar.com >Lucy >=
Re: Amazon Rainforest "facts" - a more general question
My understanding is that terrestrial vegetation is not a significant net oxygen source because the organic matter produced is all oxidized in a relatively short time. Most atmospheric oxygen is present due to burial of particulate organic matter, i.e. phytoplankton, in continental slope sediments, where it is taken out of the system. Please see also http://www.columbia.edu/cu/21stC/issue-2.1/broecker.htm Bob Miller On 4/24/07, William Silvert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I think this is a common problem, not just for the Amazon. A nature > conservancy I have visited in a mangrove area claims that 95% of all > primary > production comes from mangrove swamps. It would help to have a reliable > source for the general questions of where regeneration of oxygen occurs, > where pharmaceuticals come from, and so on. > > Bill Silvert > > - Original Message - > From: "SUBSCRIBE ECOLOG-L Jacob Lowe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: > Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2007 4:16 PM > Subject: Amazon Rainforest "facts" > > > > Greetings everyone, > > > > As many of you know, I've spent the last year speaking at schools across > > Texas on work that Projects Abroad is doing in the Peruvian Amazon at > the > > Taricaya Research Center. During my presentations, I like to give a > quick > > "overview" of some of the encyclopedia-style "facts" about the Amazon, > > like > > biological diversity estimates, deforestation estimates, "tropical > > pharmacy > > to the world", etc at the beginning of the presentation. These > statements > > have included the following "facts" that I've retrieved from websites > like > > www.rain-tree.com, which does not cite any sources: > > > > 1. The Amazon Rainforest has been described as the "Lungs of our > Planet" > > because it provides the essential environmental world service of > > continuously recycling carbon dioxide into oxygen. More than 20 percent > of > > the world oxygen is produced in the Amazon Rainforest. > > > > 2. Currently, 121 prescription drugs currently sold worldwide come from > > plant-derived sources. And while 25% of Western pharmaceuticals are > > derived > > from rainforest ingredients, less than 1% of these tropical trees and > > plants > > have been tested by scientists. > > > > 3. The U.S. National Cancer Institute has identified 3000 plants that > are > > active against cancer cells. 70% of these plants are found in the > > rainforest. Twenty-five percent of the active ingredients in today's > > cancer-fighting drugs come from organisms found only in the rainforest. > > > > The more I read these claims, the more uncomfortably I am repeating them > > to > > students without any assurance of their accuracy. Can anyone here > > elaborate > > on some of these claims? For example, I've read where statement (1) is > a > > myth, and rainforest plants don't actually contribute any significant > net > > increase in atmospheric O2. For claim number (2), I'd like to know > > specifically which drugs come from the Amazon. Number (3) I'm having > > little > > luck from the U.S. Cancer Institutes's website. > > > > Most importantly, I'm having little luck getting sources from > > www.rain-tree.com. > -- Robert J. Miller, Ph.D. Postdoctoral Scholar Santa Barbara Coastal LTER Marine Science Institute University of California, Santa Barbara Santa Barbara CA 93106-6150 (805) 893-7295
Re: Amazon Rainforest "facts" - a more general question
One reference for the global oxygen cycle is Schlesinger, W. H. Biogeochemistry: An Analysis of Global Change. I will use numbers from the 2nd edition- The atmosphere contains 3.7 X 10^19 moles of O2. Biotic fluxes are about 8 X 10^15 moles per year. So all of the earth's biota annually exchange about 1/4000 of the atmospheric O2. Another way of looking at this is to compare concentrations of O2 with the amount of CO2 available in the atmosphere for photosynthesis. The atmosphere is approximately 20.946% O2 and 0.038% CO2. If the amazon or the entire flora of the earth were to suddenly take up all of the CO2 in the atmosphere by photosynthesis, it appears to me that this would liberate enough O2 gas to raise the concentration to 20.984%, a trivial relative change. In other words contemporary photosynthesis has little to do with the fact that we have large amounts of O2 in the atmosphere. The O2 in our atmosphere is due to photosynthesis across 100s of millions of years and per Schlesinger is is balanced by the storage of pyrite and organic C in the earth's crust not by contemporary biotic carbon. Max Taub William Silvert wrote: > I think this is a common problem, not just for the Amazon. A nature > conservancy I have visited in a mangrove area claims that 95% of all primary > production comes from mangrove swamps. It would help to have a reliable > source for the general questions of where regeneration of oxygen occurs, > where pharmaceuticals come from, and so on. > > Bill Silvert > > - Original Message - > From: "SUBSCRIBE ECOLOG-L Jacob Lowe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: > Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2007 4:16 PM > Subject: Amazon Rainforest "facts" > > > >> Greetings everyone, >> >> As many of you know, I've spent the last year speaking at schools across >> Texas on work that Projects Abroad is doing in the Peruvian Amazon at the >> Taricaya Research Center. During my presentations, I like to give a quick >> "overview" of some of the encyclopedia-style "facts" about the Amazon, >> like >> biological diversity estimates, deforestation estimates, "tropical >> pharmacy >> to the world", etc at the beginning of the presentation. These statements >> have included the following "facts" that I've retrieved from websites like >> www.rain-tree.com, which does not cite any sources: >> >> 1. The Amazon Rainforest has been described as the "Lungs of our Planet" >> because it provides the essential environmental world service of >> continuously recycling carbon dioxide into oxygen. More than 20 percent of >> the world oxygen is produced in the Amazon Rainforest. >> >> 2. Currently, 121 prescription drugs currently sold worldwide come from >> plant-derived sources. And while 25% of Western pharmaceuticals are >> derived >> from rainforest ingredients, less than 1% of these tropical trees and >> plants >> have been tested by scientists. >> >> 3. The U.S. National Cancer Institute has identified 3000 plants that are >> active against cancer cells. 70% of these plants are found in the >> rainforest. Twenty-five percent of the active ingredients in today's >> cancer-fighting drugs come from organisms found only in the rainforest. >> >> The more I read these claims, the more uncomfortably I am repeating them >> to >> students without any assurance of their accuracy. Can anyone here >> elaborate >> on some of these claims? For example, I've read where statement (1) is a >> myth, and rainforest plants don't actually contribute any significant net >> increase in atmospheric O2. For claim number (2), I'd like to know >> specifically which drugs come from the Amazon. Number (3) I'm having >> little >> luck from the U.S. Cancer Institutes's website. >> >> Most importantly, I'm having little luck getting sources from >> www.rain-tree.com. >> -- Daniel Taub Assistant Professor of Biology Southwestern University 1001 East University Ave Georgetown TX 78626 USA Phone: 512 863-1583 Fax: 512 863-1696 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
SCIENCE Truth Discipline in writing and speaking Re: Amazon Rainforest "facts"
Howdy y'all, Lowe's point, unfortunately, needs emphasis, and his candor is admirable--he will do to cross the river with. In the 21'st Century, not to mention all of history, the essence of science has been the pursuit of truth. It is an oft-sworn-to and endlessly-repeated dictum that all science must stand on evidence. Scholars have long recognized that the essence of scholarship is proof, and it should go without saying that ALL claims of any kind must cite sources and evidence. All scholarship must be open to critical review and stand the test of verification by "replication." In the 21st Century there is no excuse for failing to publish in the open and to cite sources and data, including links to supporting literature. However, the mere citing of literature is grossly insufficient, as the literature cited may be faulty. The reader/reviewer must be presented with the evidence and theoretical foundations for every claim made in the body of the paper, and not be expected to read all of the cited literature to make sense of the claims and evaluate the evidence. ANY paper, lecture, or comment to reporters, etc. should stand on such standards. Mere opinion should never substitute for testable truth, no matter how noble the motive (misleading or inaccurate statements erode the credibility, not only of the authors, but their disciplines. Scientists, or any responsible person who claims "expertise," has the slightest degree of celebrity or is known by a reputation should never make a statement that cannot be backed up and stand the test of truth. This does not mean, however, that "going beyond the data" is a cardinal sin. Probing the edges is the meristematic tissue of the intellect. But even that probing should be at least as strongly subjected to critical review, and it should never be represented as anything but what it is. Such probings should take care to make it clear that such is the case, and the theoretical foundations should be sound. The absence of evidence should be an up-front centerpiece of the theoretical structure, not covered with academic cosmetics. Is there a lot of literature out there, not to mention less formal publications and statements that do not meet such criteria? How much of it is from the discipline of ecology? Is there a lot of literature out there that conceals and obfuscates more than it reveals and proves, often, if not largely, by misleadingly long lists of citations which the authors haven't read or evaluated, convoluted Greek and graphs and jargon-laced hyperbole, not to mention sheer volume and weight? I really don't know, from my inadequate samples, how much of the ecological literature is valid and how much is publish-or-perish flim-flam. We all make misteaks--that's why open review (including, but not limited to peers) is essential to science. Cover-ups and authoritarian denial is the province of government ain't it? If I have committed any sins of omission or commission here, please expose my incompetence. Respectfully submitted, WT PS: Perhaps this forum could compile a list of websites that do and do not provide evidence, citations, data, and theoretical foundations for their claims. (I fear that the number of sites that survive such scrutiny might be very small, but what a burden would be lifted, eh?) On-line research would be greatly facilitated, no? "[The responsibility of the journalist (reviewer)] is to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable." --H. L. Menken At 08:16 AM 4/24/2007, SUBSCRIBE ECOLOG-L Jacob Lowe wrote: >Greetings everyone, > >As many of you know, I've spent the last year speaking at schools across >Texas on work that Projects Abroad is doing in the Peruvian Amazon at the >Taricaya Research Center. During my presentations, I like to give a quick >"overview" of some of the encyclopedia-style "facts" about the Amazon, like >biological diversity estimates, deforestation estimates, "tropical pharmacy >to the world", etc at the beginning of the presentation. These statements >have included the following "facts" that I've retrieved from websites like >www.rain-tree.com, which does not cite any sources: > >1. The Amazon Rainforest has been described as the "Lungs of our Planet" >because it provides the essential environmental world service of >continuously recycling carbon dioxide into oxygen. More than 20 percent of >the world oxygen is produced in the Amazon Rainforest. > >2. Currently, 121 prescription drugs currently sold worldwide come from >plant-derived sources. And while 25% of Western pharmaceuticals are derived >from rainforest ingredients, less than 1% of these tropical trees and plants >have been tested by scientists. > >3. The U.S. National Cancer Institute has identified 3000 plants that are >active against cancer cells. 70% of these plants are found in the >rainforest. Twenty-five percent of the active ingredients in today's >cancer-fighting drugs come from organisms fo
Re: nonparametric repeated measures
Yes - this alleviates the assumption of normality (although I am not sure if I would classify % cover as binomial/logit). This biggest hurdle for generalized mixed (or the usual mixed models) for Lucy, though, is how to generate tests of her main effects. I don't know what SAS is doing these days, but there really is no consensus on how to test for treatment effects outside of interpretation of model parameters. (e.g., there has been a bit of discussion on this related to the new R library 'lmer' for doing mixed effects models) On 4/24/07, Bahram Momen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The best option in SAS is using 'PROC GLIMMIX' and define an appropriate > 'DISTribution' and a related 'LINK' function. > > Bahram Momen > Environmental Science & Statistics > 1108 H.J. Patterson Hall > Environmental Science & Technology Dept. > University of Maryland > College Park, MD 20742 > > 301 405 1332, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Stephen B. Cox wrote: > > Hi Lucy - although I would recommend a mixed model for a variety of > > reasons (in particular, you can model heteroscedasticity), it does > > still assume normality. So, the mixed model does not necessarily > > solve issues of "nonparametric data" (I think you mean "nonnormal"). > > As I see it, you have a couple of options ... > > > > a) if your data are well-balanced, there is literature that suggests > > that most ANOVA related analyses perform relatively well despite > > non-normal errors. > > > > b) analyze rank-transformed data, but there can still be issues here > > (especially if you have a lot of 'ties'). You can also do a mixed > > model on ranks, but you have to be aware of, and model, the effects > > that rank transformations can have on variances. > > > > You could also look into bootstrap approaches for repeated measures > > data, but I don't recall much about this off the top of my head. > > Opinions vary considerably on this topic - (FWIW, I would tend to go > > with option a) - but much of the decision depends on the details of > > your data. > > > > Stephen > > > > > > > > On 4/23/07, Lucy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> I'm working with some percent cover data from plots that have been measured > >> annually for the past five years. In several plots and during some years > >> there is little to no vegetation coverage, so the data are heavily skewed; > >> the common transformations (log, square root) haven't worked. Is there a > >> way to do repeated measures analyses on non-normal data? Is PROC MIXED > >> robust enough to handle nonparametric data? Thanks for your help! > >> > >> Lucy > >> > >> >
summer field technician position
Stephens Lab at UC Berkeley is advertising a summer field position. Project Description: This project examines the effects of prescribed fire & mechanical treatments on knobcone pine regeneration in the northern California Coast Range. We are investigating the impacts of these treatments on 1) seedling establishment and density, 2) shrub & herbaceous plant abundance and 3) fuel loading. The goal of this research project is to provide information to land managers about the ecological effects of these land management strategies. Study sites are located at the Bureau of Land Management Cow Mountain Recreation Area and the University of California Hopland Research & Extension Center in Mendocino County, approximately 2.5 hours north of San Francisco. Job Description: One field technician is needed to assist a research assistant in post-treatment forest structure, vegetation, and fuel measurements. Field tasks will include but are not limited to: 1) typical forest inventory measurements, 2) detailed plant surveys, and 3) seedling density surveys. Field work will be conducted in dense standing and cut knobcone pine forests often surrounded by chaparral. Technicians are needed for up to 3 months of work and start dates are flexible. The weekly work schedule will typically be four ten-hour days with an early morning start. Additional Qualifications: Coursework or experience in forestry, natural resources management, forest ecology, or related field is desired but not required. Applicants with strong botany interest and proficiency in identifying plants using keys are strongly preferred. Use of spreadsheet applications; ability to use or learn to use handheld data recorders, radios, other field equipment This position is physically demanding and will require the ability to work on steep slopes in hot sun for long periods. Applicants must also be willing to work in dense brush and in buggy conditions. Exposure to poison oak, ticks, bees, rattlesnakes and other chaparral and knobcone pine environmental hazards are also likely. Technicians must be comfortable living in a bunkhouse or other shared living facility during the work week. Technicians may need to have own vehicle and be willing to drive to and from field sites. Please see http://www.cnr.berkeley.edu/stephens-lab/students.htm for additional information. Thank you
Re: Amazon Rainforest "facts" - a more general question
I think this is a common problem, not just for the Amazon. A nature conservancy I have visited in a mangrove area claims that 95% of all primary production comes from mangrove swamps. It would help to have a reliable source for the general questions of where regeneration of oxygen occurs, where pharmaceuticals come from, and so on. Bill Silvert - Original Message - From: "SUBSCRIBE ECOLOG-L Jacob Lowe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2007 4:16 PM Subject: Amazon Rainforest "facts" > Greetings everyone, > > As many of you know, I've spent the last year speaking at schools across > Texas on work that Projects Abroad is doing in the Peruvian Amazon at the > Taricaya Research Center. During my presentations, I like to give a quick > "overview" of some of the encyclopedia-style "facts" about the Amazon, > like > biological diversity estimates, deforestation estimates, "tropical > pharmacy > to the world", etc at the beginning of the presentation. These statements > have included the following "facts" that I've retrieved from websites like > www.rain-tree.com, which does not cite any sources: > > 1. The Amazon Rainforest has been described as the "Lungs of our Planet" > because it provides the essential environmental world service of > continuously recycling carbon dioxide into oxygen. More than 20 percent of > the world oxygen is produced in the Amazon Rainforest. > > 2. Currently, 121 prescription drugs currently sold worldwide come from > plant-derived sources. And while 25% of Western pharmaceuticals are > derived > from rainforest ingredients, less than 1% of these tropical trees and > plants > have been tested by scientists. > > 3. The U.S. National Cancer Institute has identified 3000 plants that are > active against cancer cells. 70% of these plants are found in the > rainforest. Twenty-five percent of the active ingredients in today's > cancer-fighting drugs come from organisms found only in the rainforest. > > The more I read these claims, the more uncomfortably I am repeating them > to > students without any assurance of their accuracy. Can anyone here > elaborate > on some of these claims? For example, I've read where statement (1) is a > myth, and rainforest plants don't actually contribute any significant net > increase in atmospheric O2. For claim number (2), I'd like to know > specifically which drugs come from the Amazon. Number (3) I'm having > little > luck from the U.S. Cancer Institutes's website. > > Most importantly, I'm having little luck getting sources from > www.rain-tree.com.
Re: Fwd: Global Warming Swindle
The book Warren cites was facilitated by the Union of Concerned Scientists. More information is available here: http://www.ucsusa.org/publications/scientist-media-guide.html It provides scientists with an alternative to "keeping mum" while reducing the chances of being misquoted in the media. People need to hear what scientists know and what they learn. It seems there is also a certain obligation to communicate findings to the public for those of us who get research funding from public sources. Communication with the media does carry with it certain risks, but as more and more scientists simply refuse to communicate, we take on exposure to an alternative set of risks (e.g., the larger effects of a lack of science in our public discourse). -Geoff Poole Warren W. Aney wrote: > If you are a scientist and you are going to be talking to the media, you > should first read "A Scientist's Guide to Talking With the Media" by Hayes > and Grossman (2006, Rutgers University Press). On page 77 this book talks > about reviewing copy before it is printed (sometimes you can and sometimes > you can't, but don't make it a precondition). > > Warren Aney > (503)246-8613 > > -Original Message- > From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of David M. Lawrence > Sent: Monday, 23 April, 2007 07:17 > To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU > Subject: Re: Fwd: Global Warming Swindle > > > The take-home lesson is to be careful whom you talk to and be careful what > you say to them. Someone requests an interview, practice due diligence. If > you've never heard of them before, check them out. Make sure they are > legitimate journalists. Ask if they are members of organizations like the > National Association of Science Writers, the Society of Environmental > Journalists, the Society of Professional Journalists, etc. > > I work as both a journalist and a scientist. As a journalist, I would never > offer anyone such an agreement as proposed. As a scientist, I would never > request such an agreement. > > The role of the journalist is supposed to to be an independent voice -- a > skeptical filter for the public. Journalists are not supposed to be > mouthpieces for institutions, corporations, celebrities -- even scientists. > > I don't think any reputable scientist would want to give up intellectual > control over his research. Why would a scientist ask a journalist to give > up editorial control of his reporting? > > Dave > > -- > David M. Lawrence| Home: (804) 559-9786 > 7471 Brook Way Court | Fax: (804) 559-9787 > Mechanicsville, VA 23111 | Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > USA | http: http://fuzzo.com > -- > > "We have met the enemy and he is us." -- Pogo > > "No trespassing > 4/17 of a haiku" -- Richard Brautigan > > -Original Message- > From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of joseph gathman > Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 7:47 AM > To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU > Subject: Re: Fwd: Global Warming Swindle > > > > On a different note, the lesson to learn from the > scientist who was misquoted seems to be: don't talk > to the media unless they give you, in writing, the > right of approval or rejection of what they do with > your words. Of course, they probably won't do that... > > Joe > >
Amazon Rainforest "facts"
Greetings everyone, As many of you know, I've spent the last year speaking at schools across Texas on work that Projects Abroad is doing in the Peruvian Amazon at the Taricaya Research Center. During my presentations, I like to give a quick "overview" of some of the encyclopedia-style "facts" about the Amazon, like biological diversity estimates, deforestation estimates, "tropical pharmacy to the world", etc at the beginning of the presentation. These statements have included the following "facts" that I've retrieved from websites like www.rain-tree.com, which does not cite any sources: 1. The Amazon Rainforest has been described as the "Lungs of our Planet" because it provides the essential environmental world service of continuously recycling carbon dioxide into oxygen. More than 20 percent of the world oxygen is produced in the Amazon Rainforest. 2. Currently, 121 prescription drugs currently sold worldwide come from plant-derived sources. And while 25% of Western pharmaceuticals are derived from rainforest ingredients, less than 1% of these tropical trees and plants have been tested by scientists. 3. The U.S. National Cancer Institute has identified 3000 plants that are active against cancer cells. 70% of these plants are found in the rainforest. Twenty-five percent of the active ingredients in today's cancer-fighting drugs come from organisms found only in the rainforest. The more I read these claims, the more uncomfortably I am repeating them to students without any assurance of their accuracy. Can anyone here elaborate on some of these claims? For example, I've read where statement (1) is a myth, and rainforest plants don't actually contribute any significant net increase in atmospheric O2. For claim number (2), I'd like to know specifically which drugs come from the Amazon. Number (3) I'm having little luck from the U.S. Cancer Institutes's website. Most importantly, I'm having little luck getting sources from www.rain-tree.com.
Re: nonparametric repeated measures
The best option in SAS is using 'PROC GLIMMIX' and define an appropriate 'DISTribution' and a related 'LINK' function. Bahram Momen Environmental Science & Statistics 1108 H.J. Patterson Hall Environmental Science & Technology Dept. University of Maryland College Park, MD 20742 301 405 1332, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Stephen B. Cox wrote: > Hi Lucy - although I would recommend a mixed model for a variety of > reasons (in particular, you can model heteroscedasticity), it does > still assume normality. So, the mixed model does not necessarily > solve issues of "nonparametric data" (I think you mean "nonnormal"). > As I see it, you have a couple of options ... > > a) if your data are well-balanced, there is literature that suggests > that most ANOVA related analyses perform relatively well despite > non-normal errors. > > b) analyze rank-transformed data, but there can still be issues here > (especially if you have a lot of 'ties'). You can also do a mixed > model on ranks, but you have to be aware of, and model, the effects > that rank transformations can have on variances. > > You could also look into bootstrap approaches for repeated measures > data, but I don't recall much about this off the top of my head. > Opinions vary considerably on this topic - (FWIW, I would tend to go > with option a) - but much of the decision depends on the details of > your data. > > Stephen > > > > On 4/23/07, Lucy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> I'm working with some percent cover data from plots that have been measured >> annually for the past five years. In several plots and during some years >> there is little to no vegetation coverage, so the data are heavily skewed; >> the common transformations (log, square root) haven't worked. Is there a >> way to do repeated measures analyses on non-normal data? Is PROC MIXED >> robust enough to handle nonparametric data? Thanks for your help! >> >> Lucy >> >>
La Selva Biological Station/Costa Rica....
For those of you who have studied at and/or visited La Selva. Thanks. Mike Nolan Costa Rica: Collapse in biodiversity in protected Costa Rican rainforest = Source: Guardian News Service (in The Hindu, India, 17 April 2007) A protected rainforest in one of the world's richest biodiversity = hotspots has suffered an alarming collapse in amphibians and reptiles, = suggesting such havens may fail to slow the creatures' slide towards = global extinction.=20 Conservationists working in a lowland forest reserve at La = Selva in Costa Rica used biological records dating from 1970 to show = that species of frogs, toads, lizards, snakes and salamanders have = plummeted on average 75% in the past 35 years.=20 Dramatic falls in amphibian and reptile numbers elsewhere in = the world have been blamed on habitat destruction and the fungal disease = chytridiomycosis, which has inflicted a devastating toll across central = and South America. But scientists hoped many species would continue to = thrive in dedicated reserves, where building, land-clearance and = agricultural chemicals are banned.=20 The new findings suggest an unknown ecological effect is = behind at least some of the sudden losses and have prompted scientists = to call for urgent studies in other protected forest areas. The = researchers, led by Maureen Donelly at Florida International University, = believe climate change has brought warmer, wetter weather to the refuge, = with the knock-on effect of reducing the amount of leaf litter on the = forest floor. Nearly all of the species rely on leaf litter to some = extent, either using it for shelter, or feeding on insects that eat the = leaves.=20 The researchers also analysed weather records for the = region, which revealed a rise of more than 1C in temperature over the = 35-year period and a doubling of the number of wet days. The study was = published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences = yesterday. "All of the falls recorded elsewhere have been in high, = mountainous regions and those have mostly been driven by the spread of = fungus. All of the tests we've done for the fungus here have been = negative," said Steven Whitfield, a co-author of the study.=20 The scientists say it is crucial to extend the study to = other protected forests, such as those in Peru, Ecuador and Colombia, to = assess the populations of amphibians and reptiles there. "If we are to = design effective conservation strategies, we need to know what's causing = these declines. If it's down to a link between climate and leaf litter, = then we need to better understand that," said Mr Whitfield.=20 Amphibians are considered delicate sentinels of = environmental change. Sudden population collapses were first noticed = during the 1980s, during which more than 120 species are thought to have = become extinct.=20 For full story, please see: = http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/008200704170921.htm -- If we are on another line or away from the phone, please leave your = number, best time to return your call and/or your e-mail address. =20 After hours and weekend phone appointments are available upon request. Sincerely, J. Michael Nolan, Director =20 Rainforest and Reef 501 (c)(3) non-profit *= ** "Outstanding-Affordable Field Courses in Rainforest & Marine Ecology" "Spanish/Cultural Immersion: Spain, Mexico, Central and South America" Rainforest and Reef 501 (c)(3) non-profit P.O. Box 141543 Grand Rapids, Michigan 49514-1543 USA Local/International Phone: 001.616.604.0546 Toll Free U.S. and Canada: 1.877.255.3721 Skype/MS IM: travelwithrandr AOL IM: buddythemacaw E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] and [EMAIL PROTECTED] *Note: Please send inquiries to both e-mail addresses Web: http://rainforestandreef.org Costa Rica: Juan Pablo Bello San Jose, Costa Rica E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: 011.506.290.8883/011.506.822.8222=20 Europe: Marion Stephan Frankfurt, Germany E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: 011.49.172.305.4738 *= **
Re: nonparametric repeated measures
My understanding is that you data consists of a significant number of zero cover responses. If this is the case then your problem is that the cover response data is a mixture of a continuous type response and a presence/absence type response and no type of transformation will help. One alternative is to code all of your data in terms of the presence/absence type response using appropriate models and then running a separate MANOVA analysis on a subset of the original data that does not have zero cover if you have enough replicates and if your data do not become too heavily unbalanced. This is probably not what you hoped for when you designed your experiment and it will require that you restate the hypotheses for both of the cases that you are testing. It should also present you with some interesting things to consider as to why your data includes all those zeros such as your responses are very lose to the detection limits because of your sampling design, that there are spatial scale issues present, etc. John Gerlach - Original Message From: David Inouye <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2007 6:03:35 AM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] nonparametric repeated measures How about to transform the data using LOG? jiazy 2007-04-24 [EMAIL PROTECTED] In response to: I'm working with some percent cover data from plots that have been measured annually for the past five years. In several plots and during some years there is little to no vegetation coverage, so the data are heavily skewed; the common transformations (log, square root) haven't worked. Is there a way to do repeated measures analyses on non-normal data? Is PROC MIXED robust enough to handle nonparametric data? Thanks for your help! Lucy
Re: nonparametric repeated measures
Hi Lucy - although I would recommend a mixed model for a variety of reasons (in particular, you can model heteroscedasticity), it does still assume normality. So, the mixed model does not necessarily solve issues of "nonparametric data" (I think you mean "nonnormal"). As I see it, you have a couple of options ... a) if your data are well-balanced, there is literature that suggests that most ANOVA related analyses perform relatively well despite non-normal errors. b) analyze rank-transformed data, but there can still be issues here (especially if you have a lot of 'ties'). You can also do a mixed model on ranks, but you have to be aware of, and model, the effects that rank transformations can have on variances. You could also look into bootstrap approaches for repeated measures data, but I don't recall much about this off the top of my head. Opinions vary considerably on this topic - (FWIW, I would tend to go with option a) - but much of the decision depends on the details of your data. Stephen On 4/23/07, Lucy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm working with some percent cover data from plots that have been measured > annually for the past five years. In several plots and during some years > there is little to no vegetation coverage, so the data are heavily skewed; > the common transformations (log, square root) haven't worked. Is there a > way to do repeated measures analyses on non-normal data? Is PROC MIXED > robust enough to handle nonparametric data? Thanks for your help! > > Lucy >
Fw: Global Warming Swindle
I agree with David. Be careful who you talk to. The Forest Service requires us to report requests for interviews to our media relations office so that the credibility of the reporter can be verified. We do this regularly unless its a reporter we know, such as a local radio or television reporter. We've had a number of dealings with the press at our FACE experiment. Credible science reporters want to get the story right. We've let them know that we're dealing with complicated issues and we'd like a chance to review their presentation before it goes to press. Some of them have even asked us if we'd be willing to review the transcript. We've asked reporters to be sure to acknowledge certain institutions in their story, and they have faithfully agreed to do so. Many of them send us their copy to make sure the details are accurate. Even radio reporters have sent us their transcripts before the piece aired. Most of our problems come when a story goes out on the wires and is picked up by some other news organization. That's when the story gets edited and sometimes distorted. Other than contacting that particular editor and pointing out the errors this is beyond anyone's control The time we got burned the most is when one large-city newspaper ran a full page story on our elevated CO2 open-topped chanber experiments under the title of "End of the Earth Research" and described how we were testing trees poisoned with carbon monoxide. -- Mark E. Kubiske Research Plant Physiologist USDA Forest Service, Northern Research Station Forestry Sciences Lab 5985 Hwy K Rhinelander, WI 54501 Office phone: 715-362-1108 Cell phone: 715-367-5258 Fax: 715-362-1166 email:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Forwarded by Mark E Kubiske/NRS/USDAFS on 04/24/2007 09:03 AM - "David M. Lawrence" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To Sent by: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU "Ecologicalcc Society of America: grants, Subject jobs, news" Re: Fwd: Global Warming Swindle <[EMAIL PROTECTED] V.UMD.EDU> 04/23/2007 09:17 AM Please respond to "David M. Lawrence" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> The take-home lesson is to be careful whom you talk to and be careful what you say to them. Someone requests an interview, practice due diligence. If you've never heard of them before, check them out. Make sure they are legitimate journalists. Ask if they are members of organizations like the National Association of Science Writers, the Society of Environmental Journalists, the Society of Professional Journalists, etc. I work as both a journalist and a scientist. As a journalist, I would never offer anyone such an agreement as proposed. As a scientist, I would never request such an agreement. The role of the journalist is supposed to to be an independent voice -- a skeptical filter for the public. Journalists are not supposed to be mouthpieces for institutions, corporations, celebrities -- even scientists. I don't think any reputable scientist would want to give up intellectual control over his research. Why would a scientist ask a journalist to give up editorial control of his reporting? Dave -- David M. Lawrence| Home: (804) 559-9786 7471 Brook Way Court | Fax: (804) 559-9787 Mechanicsville, VA 23111 | Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] USA | http: http://fuzzo.com -- "We have met the enemy and he is us." -- Pogo "No trespassing 4/17 of a haiku" -- Richard Brauti
FW: Importing preserved arthropods
Dear List, I am sending this response to all in case the information is helpful in some way for others. It appears the biggest challenge in importing preserved specimens is with the airlines and their safety regulations regarding flammable material. The other challenge is the permitting system in Costa Rica. Mo -Original Message- From: Jaronski, Stefan Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 5:17 PM To: O'Mara, Maureen Subject: FW: Importing preserved arthropods Hi Mo, Am copying you on my consultant's response to Michel. Ugly ugly -Original Message- From: Furth, David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 4:54 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Jaronski, Stefan Subject: RE: Importing preserved arthropods First of all for Costa Rica you need to have official Collecting and Export permits (separate permits) from their government in order to bring the specimens legally into the USA. Within 180 days you must file a 3-177 Declaration with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service at your port of entry. According to International Air Transport Association (IATA) regulations you cannot bring 70% ethanol on board airplanes. The best thing to do is to drain off the ethanol just before returning and use some other non-hazardous/non-dangerous fluid like propylene glycol (OK for DNA work), glycerin, etc. The other option is to have them shipped in ethanol by a trained/qualified person at an institution using proper packaging, sealing the separate containers (not over 30ml each), and not over 0.5 liters per package, properly labeled with a red/white Dangerous Goods label, etc., i.e., also following IATA regulations. APHIS permitting is primarily for importation of live specimens. When you enter the USA the US Customs Declaration will ask about products you are importing and you should check the box that says ". wildlife products." Then CBP (US Customs) may divert you to USDA/APHIS/Homeland Security for further questions and inspection. Someone may also ask you for copies of your permits and even the 3-177 Declaration, even though you really do not have to file it then, so get one on line from http://www.fws.gov/le/ImpExp/faqs.htm I hope this answers your questions. Feel free to send this to the ESA listserve, if you think it will be helpful. ** David G. Furth, Ph.D. Department of Entomology MRC 165, P.O. Box 37012 National Museum of Natural History Smithsonian Institution Washington, D. C. 20013-7012 USA Phone: 202-633-0990 Fax: 202-786-2894 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Website: www.entomology.si.edu -Original Message- From: Jaronski, Stefan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 4:50 PM To: Furth, David Subject: FW: Importing preserved arthropods David, One of our folks just got this in. I thought you might be able to quickly and accurately answer Michel's question Stefan -Original Message- From: O'Mara, Maureen Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 2:46 PM To: Jaronski, Stefan Subject: FW: Importing preserved arthropods Hi Stefan, This came across Ecological Soc. Of A. listserve. Thought you might know the answer to this since you deal with APHIS so much! Maybe even a suggestion on who or what department to contact? Mo -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michel, Nicole L Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 2:30 PM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Importing preserved arthropods Hi ECOLOG'ers and NEOORN'ers, =20 Apologies for cross-posting! =20 I have a question regarding USDA-APHIS import permit requirements. I will be collecting leaf-litter arthropods (spiders, beetles, ants, millipedes, etc.) in Costa Rica and need to bring preserved (in 70% ethanol) specimens back to the States. I've checked the USDA's website and have contacted numerous people in numerous offices and still haven't yet been able to determine whether or not arthropods count as an "animal" under their definitions. =20 =20 Does anyone out there have experience with bringing preserved arthropods back from Central America? I also have heard that there are strict restrictions on the amounts of ethanol in checked bags, but haven't yet been able to find out what those restrictions are. =20 Thanks for your assistance! =20 Cheers, Nicole Michel =20 =20 =20 ** Nicole Michel Dept. of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology 310 Dinwiddie Hall Tulane University New Orleans, LA 70118 ** =20
new essay suggests Sierra Club is getting lost in "green" consumerism
the fascinating article can be linked to at: http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=56&ItemID=12636 I have noticed, as I am sure that other have, that corporations have taken on a green mantle, often completely undeserved. But even mainstream environmental organizations, such as the Sierra Club, in their new plan, are taking the "shallow green" instead of the "deep green" approach as described in this article. Consumerism is promoted over "deprivation". Biomass is seen as an energy solution with no specified concern or mention of ecology. Etc., etc., etc. This seems an alternative form of "business as usual" and I don't believe we can make the urgently-needed degree of progress on our fundamental problems with anything other than a radical transformation of our society, including its fundamental mindset. Stan Moore San Geronimo, CA [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ Need a break? Find your escape route with Live Search Maps. http://maps.live.com/?icid=hmtag3
The Great Global Warming Swindle
Dear Ecologgers (Heaves a Sigh). I have seen the GGWS at my University, which turns out to be the University of Winnipeg, located in friendly Manitoba, Canada. As it turns out, my august institution makes an appearance in this "documentary". At several points, you will see a fellow called Tim Ball, who is one of Canada's self-styled global warming nay-sayers. The caption that appears beneath his talking head is "Tim Ball, Department of Climatology, University of Winnipeg". Now, you may use this caption as an indicator of the veracity of the rest of the documentary, since (1) there is NO "department of Climatology" at the University of Winnipeg, (2) Tim Ball has not been a professor there for a rather long time, and (3) when he was a professor there he is on record as telling students that there was no such thing as the greenhouse effect (I have this straight from the horse's mouth). The documentary is similarly populated with "experts" who probably had there credentials checked to the same standard as those of Mr Ball, who, incidentally, published a grand total of 6 papers in a long career, none of which dealt with the subject of human-induced climate change. The Director, Martin Durkin, is notorious for his controversial and poorly researched contrarian positions. Among his previous works, he produced a program in which he claimed that ilicone breast implants, were beneficial to the women who used them, reducing the risk of breast cancer!! The miracel is that such programs ever get televised, a sad testament to the decline in critical thinking these days. As for the University of Winnipeg; we are not Harvard or Oxford by a long shot, but I and my colleagues do object to having our name used in badly researched diatribes masquerading as serious documentaries. For a critique of the GGWS by the eminent climatologist Sir John Houghton, see http://www.jri.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=137&Itemid=83 All the Best, Andy Park (University of Winnipeg) - End forwarded message -
Summer Research Assistant: Invasive Aquatic Plants
Department of Soil and Water, New Haven, CT Position Announcement, Summer Research Assistant Biological Control of the Invasive Aquatic Plant Eurasian Watermilfoil A Summer Research Assistant position is available at The Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station to assist in the collection of invasive aquatic plants, as well as in laboratory and greenhouse studies focusing on the Biological Control of the Invasive Aquatic Plant Eurasian Watermilfoil. Background (course work) and field experience in biology and/or ecology are desirable. Must be able to swim and willing to snorkel in CT lakes. Duties will include assisting scientists in the establishment and maintenance weevil populations in greenhouses, collection and processing of Eurasian Watermilfoil vegetation samples from CT Lakes for chemical analysis, outdoor experiments in integrated pest management and laboratory-based identification and analysis of collected vegetation for invertebrate species. The position is available from May 1 through October 31, 2007. The hours of work are 8:30-4:30, M-F (35 hr/wk) and the salary is $10.00/hr. Interested candidates should send an application to Dr. Jason White, Department of Soil & Water, The Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station, 123 Huntington Street, New Haven, CT 06504. Phone 203-974-8523, Fax 203-974-8502, E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Follow this link for complete position information. http://www.caes.state.ct.us/JobOpportunities/job.htm Notice of Non-Discrimination: The Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station is an Equal Opportunity /Affirmative Action Employer. Minorities and women are encouraged to apply.
JOB: Supervisory Fish Ecologist in Beaufort, NC
The person in this position will serve as Branch Chief for the new Fisheries Ecosystem Branch of NOAA Fisheries Service in Beaufort, NC. * Announcement Number*: *NMFS-SEFSC-2007-0014* *Position:* Supervisory Research Fishery Biologist/Supervisory Ecologist, ZP-0482/0408-IV *Location:* Beaufort, NC *Open: * _Monday, April 16, 2007_ *Close:* _ Friday, May 4, 2007_ *Point of Contact:* Marina N. Derksema (206) 526-6517 or [EMAIL PROTECTED] You can preview a copy of the announcement at https://jobs1.quickhire.com/scripts/doc.exe/preview Enter the vacancy number and click on "Announcement and Questions." Applicants can view announcements and apply online at the USAJOBS web site: all federal jobs - http://www.usajobs.opm.gov/ only DOC jobs - http://jobsearch.usajobs.opm.gov/a9cm.asp **Major Duties: The incumbent supervises the Fisheries Ecosystem Branch, current programs primarily include fish ecology and life history; conducts original research to advance the field of fishery ecosystems for the ultimate purpose of conducting integrated ecosystem assessments; administers budget, manages Branch personnel, ensures safety and environmental compliance; Leads Fisheries Ecosystem Branch at Beaufort. The incumbent formulates and conducts a research program of considerable scope and complexity under general guidance on policy, resources planning, producing reports or publications; spends 25% or more of time providing technical supervision over a significant workload of mission-supporting scientific and other work. The work involves theoretical, experimental, and field investigations or simulation of experiments and conditions to develop principles, criteria, methods, quantitative models, and a body of data of general applicability for use by others for improving the understanding of fishery ecosystems and conducting integrated ecosystem assessments.** **Who May Apply: All qualified U.S. citizens, and current Federal employees serving under a career or career-conditional appointment in the competitive service, former Federal employees with reinstatement rights, CTAP/ICTAP eligibles, and applicants eligible under special authorities. Veterans who are preference eligible or who have been separated from the armed forces under honorable conditions after 3 years or more of continuous active service may apply under the Veterans Employment Opportunity Act (VEOA).**
Re: Fwd: Global Warming Swindle
Dave asked: > I don't think any reputable scientist would want to > give up intellectual > control over his research. Why would a scientist > ask a journalist to give > up editorial control of his reporting? I was being a bit facetious, hence the last sentence. But given the often-appalling performance of reporters regarding science (and quite a few other things in recent years), I'd be disinclined to talk to most of them at this point. I've seen several people's words, my own included, misquoted, misinterpreted, and otherwise mangled, in print. If they are specialists in science reporting or come from a science-related journal/magazine, I'd be considerably more likely to cooperate. Joe __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: nonparametric repeated measures
How about to transform the data using LOG? jiazy 2007-04-24 [EMAIL PROTECTED] In response to: I'm working with some percent cover data from plots that have been measured annually for the past five years. In several plots and during some years there is little to no vegetation coverage, so the data are heavily skewed; the common transformations (log, square root) haven't worked. Is there a way to do repeated measures analyses on non-normal data? Is PROC MIXED robust enough to handle nonparametric data? Thanks for your help! Lucy
On the Bonferroni adustment of correlograms
Dear friends that work on spatial Ecology, I am proceeding with the analysis of a dataset on the spatial structure of canopy openness in the southern Brazilian mixed conifer-hardwood forests, and would like to ask your opinion on a rather simple matter on which I have doubts. I have six one-hectare plots subdivided in 100 10 x 10 m plots each. In the centre of each subplot we took a hemispherical photograh and estimated canopy openness. In Legendre and Fortin (1989) it is said that before examining each significant value in a correlogram, we must first perfom a global test, since several tests are done at the same time, for a given overall significance level. The global test is made by checking whether the correlogram contains at least one value which is significant after a Bonferroni correction. So I ask: 1)When we have more than one correlogram (say, six) between Moran's I and distance classes, should we adjust the significance level to account for the fact that we are performing not only, e.g., ten significance tests within each correlogram (which are the distance classes), but also more than one correlogram? If yes, then the Bonferroni correction should be the significance level divided by which value? 60 (6 correlograms x 10 classes within each correlogram)? I guess this means that if we have a really large data set almost nothing would be significant! I could not find this particular information in Dale et al. (2002) nor in Legendre and Legendre (1998), although I suspect that it is present in this last reference, because it is rather large and my search has not been exhaustive. 2) One of the six plots has been hit by a microtornado a few years ago, which damaged a rather small area, 0,25 ha. So in this area we have only 25 10 x 10 m plots. Again, according with Legendre and Fortin (1989) I should not perform the spatial autocorrelation analysis mentioned above, because there would be too few pairs of localities, not enough to produce significant results. I ask: is this true even if we divide the distance classes in a irregular manner, so that they have equal frequencies of numbers of pairs of points? If this would allow "to compute valid coefficients even in the right-hand part of the correlogram", it may allow valid coefficients in the middle of a correlogram with fewer classes? Dear friends, thank you very much for your attention! Sincerely, Alexandre Dr. Alexandre F. Souza Programa de Pós-Graduação em Biologia: Diversidade e Manejo da Vida Silvestre Universidade do Vale do Rio dos Sinos (UNISINOS) Av. UNISINOS 950 - C.P. 275, São Leopoldo 93022-000, RS - Brasil Telefone: (051)3590-8477 ramal 1263 Skype: alexfadigas [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.unisinos.br/laboratorios/lecopop -- Esta mensagem foi verificada pelo sistema de antivírus e acredita-se estar livre de perigo.
Re: Global Warming Swindle
one more doc. This time it is an on-line lecture Dr.Merchant: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656640542976216573 And the best part: I actually did not notice in the original documentary that when they show a very convincing graph on the Sun black spot activity vs. Earth Temperature, they CUT it at apr. 1975! Dr.Merchant shows what happened then: two lines do not fit! (it is minute 37 of this lecture). Sincerely yours, Dmitry. --- Dmitry Musolin, PhD Lab. of Insect Ecology, Graduate School of Agriculture Kyoto University, Kyoto 606-8502, Japan. Tel./FAX: +81-75-753-6474; Tel.: +81-75-753-6136 E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.ndsu.nodak.edu/ndsu/rider/Pentatomoidea/Researchers/Musolin_Dmitry.htm
Interested in studying herbivorous insect diversity with latitude
Everyone, I am interested in studying how the diversity of herbivorous insects differs with latitude on a particular species of host tree, between the northern and southern ends of its range. My hypothesis would be that a tree would be attacked by more species in the warmer end of the range. It might also have a greater total biomass of insects per unit area of leaves. I'd like to test this by sampling low-hanging sun branches on forest edges at a range of sites i've identified in northern Florida, vs New Jersey/New York State. I have two questions 1) Does my rough and ready method for harvesting insects sound any good: i want to spray insecticide over several low branches, holding a sheet underneath and catching the insects that drop off 2) Is there anyone in northern Florida (or a similar latitude)who might be interested in visiting my sites (which are marked out on maps and accessible along roadsides) to harvest the insects, while I do the same at a phenologically equivalent time of year here in the north-east? Jonathan Adams
Re: Fwd: Global Warming Swindle
If you are a scientist and you are going to be talking to the media, you should first read "A Scientist's Guide to Talking With the Media" by Hayes and Grossman (2006, Rutgers University Press). On page 77 this book talks about reviewing copy before it is printed (sometimes you can and sometimes you can't, but don't make it a precondition). Warren Aney (503)246-8613 -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of David M. Lawrence Sent: Monday, 23 April, 2007 07:17 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: Fwd: Global Warming Swindle The take-home lesson is to be careful whom you talk to and be careful what you say to them. Someone requests an interview, practice due diligence. If you've never heard of them before, check them out. Make sure they are legitimate journalists. Ask if they are members of organizations like the National Association of Science Writers, the Society of Environmental Journalists, the Society of Professional Journalists, etc. I work as both a journalist and a scientist. As a journalist, I would never offer anyone such an agreement as proposed. As a scientist, I would never request such an agreement. The role of the journalist is supposed to to be an independent voice -- a skeptical filter for the public. Journalists are not supposed to be mouthpieces for institutions, corporations, celebrities -- even scientists. I don't think any reputable scientist would want to give up intellectual control over his research. Why would a scientist ask a journalist to give up editorial control of his reporting? Dave -- David M. Lawrence| Home: (804) 559-9786 7471 Brook Way Court | Fax: (804) 559-9787 Mechanicsville, VA 23111 | Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] USA | http: http://fuzzo.com -- "We have met the enemy and he is us." -- Pogo "No trespassing 4/17 of a haiku" -- Richard Brautigan -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of joseph gathman Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 7:47 AM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: Fwd: Global Warming Swindle On a different note, the lesson to learn from the scientist who was misquoted seems to be: don't talk to the media unless they give you, in writing, the right of approval or rejection of what they do with your words. Of course, they probably won't do that... Joe
