Field assisstant needed in Australia
FIELD ASSISTANT for AUSTRALIA FIELD WORK needed from mid January to mid April to participate in a study investigating plant-herbivore-predator interactions in rainforests along a latitudinal gradient. The assistant will work with me at 6 field sites along Eastern Australia (2 sites in far north Queensland, 2 sites on the Queensland/New South Wales border and 2 sites in Tasmania). Fieldwork includes assisting in logistics between field sites, setting up, maintaining and removing insect traps, collecting data on predation rates of Lepidoptera larvae and recording and entering/proofing field data. Volunteer should have an interest and background in any of the following: ecology, plant-insect interactions, tropical or rainforest biology, and entomology. Individuals should expect to work outside in a remote setting with exposure to extreme temperatures, humidity, leeches, ticks, mosquitoes and chiggers. A good sense of humor and great patience is a must. Although previous field experience is a plus, it isnât crucial as long as the person has a great sense of adventure, is flexible and can focus on the tasks at hand. Meticulous note-taking and attention to detail is required. All in-country expenses will be covered, including travel, accommodation and meals. Airfare may be covered depending on the length of stay and would be reimbursed at the end of fieldwork. This is a great opportunity for recent graduates or those in their last year of Undergraduate work to gain fieldwork and research experience. To apply send the following to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ⢠Cover letter stating your interests, applicable experiences and availability with phone number for contact/phone interview ⢠Resume with the contact information including email address of three references Lora Richards Ph.D. Postdoctoral Research Fellow Department of Biological Sciences Macquarie University Sydney NSW 2109 Australia [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Throwing away the textbooks
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 to 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 decade ago. And yet textbooks speak to students as though they know how to read a graph, as though they are sophisticated reasoners, and perhaps most 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 teach in basic Ecology courses. Sincerely, Andy Park (Biology Department, University of Winnipeg)
Re: Throwing away the textbooks
I am a graduate student who years ago took my basic ecology at Hampshire college, a non-traditional place to put it mildly. We read papers, had no textbook, used handouts etc...and I have to say I felt rather hamstrung by this approach. I now happen to be a phd student at the University of Vermont, where my advisor has an ecology textbook that I have to say is the best I've seen, in my humble opinion. Its also not expensive at $39 USD. Its highly quantitative, has examples and its style is one of brevity and conciseness while not sacrificing informativeness. At UVM its used to teach the intro ecology class, and then is used in more depth in an advanced ecology class. Everywhere I've gone in the US (which is only a few places admittedly) the structure for ecology would be a freshman intro class that covers it, a mid level class with more detail usually mixed with evolution, and finally for those who want to study ecology further, there is an advanced course. In terms of framing ecology in terms of our environmental crisis, I tend to think basic ecology should stay away from that. After all, ecology is not environmental activism, and I don't think should be tied towards a particular activist agenda, but that we should also not teach that science exists in a box. Instead focusing on the understanding of processes and interactions, and if that evidence suggests a course of action to better society, then we should take that action. But to begin confounding activism and science is dangerous, you don't want to switch the causality such that activism drives science, not the other way around. Either way, I think a textbook is useful as long as its a good one, and I think Nick's book is a good one. http://www.amazon.com/Primer-Ecology-Nicholas-J-Gotelli/dp/0878932739/ ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8s=booksqid=1195339717sr=8-2 Cheers, Ted On Nov 17, 2007, at 1:07 PM, Andrew Park 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 to 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 decade ago. And yet textbooks speak to students as though they know how to read a graph, as though they are sophisticated reasoners, and perhaps most 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
Ph.D. assistantship in plant-herbivore interactions, trophic mismatch, and climate change
Ph.D. assistantship in plant-herbivore interactions, trophic mismatch, and climate change Applications are being solicited for a Ph.D. student in the Department of Biology at Penn State University, to begin fall 2008. The student will conduct research under the direction of Dr. Eric Post as part of a long-term project on the influence of climate change on plant-herbivore interactions in a low-Arctic community in West Greenland. A major focus of this research will include investigating the role of recent warming in the development of trophic mismatch between the timing of offspring production by an herbivore, caribou, and plant phenology. Additionally, the contribution of trophic mismatch to herbivore population dynamics will be modeled. There is considerable room for expansion of the research beyond these themes under the PIâs general research on ecological consequences of climate change (see http://www.bio.psu.edu/people/faculty/post/homepage.htmwww.bio.psu.edu/people/faculty/post/homepage.htm). The project requires a combination of experience with, and interest in, remote field work, as well as strong quantitative and analytical skills. The student will be supported in part by a three-year NSF grant that includes a full-time research assistantship during one semester plus summer each year, and field and travel expenses. Contact Dr. Eric Post for further details or with questions. Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Job: Seasonal biological science technician, The Presidio Trust
The Presidio Trust is a Federal government corporation that manages and protects the Presidio of San Francisco as part of the National Park System. The Trust is now accepting applications for the following Federal excepted-service position. The Presidio Trust is a Federal government corporation that manages and protects the Presidio of San Francisco as part of the National Park System. The Trust is now accepting applications for the following Federal excepted-service position. SEASONAL BIOLOGICAL SCIENCE TECHNICIAN Duties consist of technical biological science tasks common to natural resource management including: field resources management work in native plant restoration, protection, inventorying and monitoring. Installs and maintains native plants with attention to ecological requirements of each species; controls invasive plants using a variety of methods; implements monitoring protocols to track rare plants and characterize plant communities at restoration sites; collects and organizes field data; leads and trains volunteers and students in resource management and field research; assists with tool inventory and maintenance; participates in Integrated Pest Management Program, which may include using chain saws, weed whips, flamers, and application of herbicides (for which a Qualified Applicators Certificate from California Department of Pesticide Regulation is required). The work requires strenuous outdoor activity including walking, climbing, lifting and carrying heavy items, and the completion of repetitive tasks requiring the use of power tools and application of herbicides. Part-time 24 hours per week, not to exceed 7 months. Requires associates degree; bachelors degree is strongly favored. Must have knowledge of established practices, procedures, and techniques of one or more of the biological sciences; knowledge of routine natural resource management practices, methods, and procedures; basic understanding of natural resource management principles and techniques to support, understand, and relate results to the broader natural resource function; ability to communicate information clearly and concisely, develop reports and present information; and knowledge of vegetation management tools and equipment, and how to maintain them. The Presidio Trust is an equal opportunity employer, offering a competitive benefits package. To apply call (415) 561-5300 (Monday-Friday, 8 am 5 pm) to request an application package, OR download the application from our website, http://www.presidio.gov/jobswww.presidio.gov/jobs , and mail the application to Human Resources, Presidio Trust, P.O. Box 29052, San Francisco, CA 94129-0052. Duties consist of technical biological science tasks common to natural resource management including: field resources management work in native plant restoration, protection, inventorying and monitoring. Installs and maintains native plants with attention to ecological requirements of each species; controls invasive plants using a variety of methods; implements monitoring protocols to track rare plants and characterize plant communities at restoration sites; collects and organizes field data; leads and trains volunteers and students in resource management and field research; assists with tool inventory and maintenance; participates in Integrated Pest Management Program, which may include using chain saws, weed whips, flamers, and application of herbicides (for which a Qualified Applicators Certificate from California Department of Pesticide Regulation is required). The work requires strenuous outdoor activity including walking, climbing, lifting and carrying heavy items, and the completion of repetitive tasks requiring the use of power tools and application of herbicides. Part-time 24 hours per week, not to exceed 7 months. Requires associates degree; bachelors degree is strongly favored. Must have knowledge of established practices, procedures, and techniques of one or more of the biological sciences; knowledge of routine natural resource management practices, methods, and procedures; basic understanding of natural resource management principles and techniques to support, understand, and relate results to the broader natural resource function; ability to communicate information clearly and concisely, develop reports and present information; and knowledge of vegetation management tools and equipment, and how to maintain them. The Presidio Trust is an equal opportunity employer, offering a competitive benefits package. To apply call (415) 561-5300 (Monday-Friday, 8 am 5 pm) to request an application package, OR download the application from our website, http://www.presidio.gov/jobswww.presidio.gov/jobs , and mail the application to Human Resources, Presidio Trust, P.O. Box 29052, San Francisco, CA 94129-0052.
Re: ECOSYSTEM Health Alien invasions persistence decline limits control Re: semi-silly question from John Nielsen
All excellent points. But does anyone know of any disciplined effort to sort out all the details that would enable anyone to answer Nielsen's question? I have only nibbled at the edges of this issue. Yes, it's always silly to be arbitrary, but even coming close, perhaps saying something like, based on these criteria [everyone please now give your criteria!] these organisms have had these effects upon undisturbed ecosystems, and are therefore considered to be AMONG the worst invasive species . . . is a worthy challenge. I will be so bold as to try to initially sort the candidates into two (well, three) piles--just for starters: 1. Alien, but not invasive. Species dependent upon direct or indirect human agency for continued persistence or existence and will decline or disappear under ecosystem pressure (such as when an indigenous ecosystem is restored, with or without the help of human action) when that factor is withdrawn or stopped. It may take years or decades, but the important concept here is the TREND, not whether or not the phenomenon satisfies some anthropocentric, arbitrary standard. 2. Alien and invasive. Species not at dependent upon direct or indirect human agency beyond being a simple vector of propagules, and which clearly invade undisturbed ecosystems to their detriment, e.g., loss of species or degradation of pre-existing organisms or populations, perhaps to the eventual point of extirpation or extinction. Of these sub-categories, of course, extinction might be considered the most important. However, the mitigating contributions of invaders to ecosystems (especially those under other human influences*) should perhaps be considered. 3. Alien, but not introduced by humans. Species which invade by means not even remotely connected to human activity. (This is a difficult standard to meet on the basis of linear observation; for example, an organism might migrate from one continent or ecosystem to another and be a vector for another organism that was present at the site of origin as a result of human activity. I'm sure y'all can improve on this feeble start. But until more definitive evidence comes along, I suggest that category 2 is where most of the five will be found. WT * For example, a non-persistent, rather benign alien, tree tobacco Nicotiana glauca was introduced to North America (particularly the Southwest) from South America and invades both naturally disturbed (e.g. riparian areas) and human-disturbed sites. Technically, these plants are invasive, and as such sometimes appear on the hit lists of various well-intentioned agencies. However, this plant can be useful in restoration projects as perching sites and food sources for hummingbirds. Allocating weed-whacker resources to the extirpation of this species might not only be needlessly costly, but detrimental to hummingbird populations and the dispersal of indigenous propagules as well. Admittedly, they are not very pretty, and since I am allergic to nicotine I dare not touch them, but I do not whack them outside of my yard. At 02:18 AM 11/16/2007, William Silvert wrote: 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 - Original Message - From: Wayne Tyson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Friday, November 16, 2007 1:08 AM Subject: ECOSYSTEM Health Alien invasions persistence decline limits control Re: semi-silly question from John Nielsen There are some aliens that do little harm; some even provide benefits. This statement is anathema, heresy, fighting words, to many, many very caring people. But so many of those caring people have their egos inextricably wrapped up in this very laudable mission--it is often their reason for living, often it is a
Re: semi-silly question from John Nielsen
Out here in the western U.S., cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) is very much loathed. It has altered the fire cycle, displaced native bunch grasses and mammals, affected livestock grazing (inedible to cattle), and has nasty seed heads that stick in your socks and other articles of clothing, making it an extreme nusiance for hiking or walking enthusiasts. Its invasion negatively affects all citizens regardless of economic, political, and societal status. Would be a good candidate for the NPR story. Wyatt Williams Carrie DeJaco [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What about the always fun classic, kudzu? Carrie DeJaco William Silvert wrote: Although this is proposed as a semi-silly question for media use, it is actually an interesting question which might provoke discussion about what is a serious invasion and what is not. Some invasive species have had a major impact on large-scale ecosystems. Rabbits have affected all of Australia according to what I have read. Mosquitos have killed off many bird species on the Hawaiian islands. On the other hand, boa constrictors have killed off almost all mammals on Cozumel, but that is a major disaster over a small area. Some invasions are not considered at all loathed, such as mustangs in N. America. Marine ecologists could probably come up with some invasive species that the rest of us have never heard of -- so how loathed are they? I can see where this opens up an interesting set of questions. Should be a fun discussion. Bill Silvert - Original Message - From: Annie Drinkard To: Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2007 8:06 PM Subject: FW: semi-silly question from John Nielsen Please respond directly to John Nielsen. =20 Cheers, Annie From: John Nielsen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2007 2:57 PM To: Annie Drinkard Cc: John Nielsen Subject: semi-silly question from John Nielsen Annie - =20 Hi it's John Nielsen from NPR News. I am working on one of those stories that you hear over the holiday season, which is another way of saying it's based on a silly premise. Basically, it's a story that reports on the status of the five most loathed invasive species in the world. I've got a few favorites in mind - zebra mussels, for example, and perhaps those cane toads - but I also want to give some actual scientists a chance to put their two cents in.=20 =20 For that reason I am hoping you will help me out by posting a note on your listserve that asks your members to consider sending me an email that names the five most despicable invasive species in the world. If they want to name just one or two that would be fine as well. If they want to send me a long rant about just one I would be grateful. If somebody wants to be interviewed they need only include a number and a time that I might call.=20 =20 It's likely that this story will run late next week so naturally I'm a hurry. =20 Please request that all responses be sent directly to me at [EMAIL PROTECTED] My work phone is 202 513 2781.=20 =20 By now it should be clear that this will be an utterly unscientific survey. At the same time, I'm convinced that it'll help draw badly-needed attention to the problems caused by invasive species. =20 One or two last things before I thank you and hit the send button. First, in hopes of keeping the list manageable, I'd like to ask your members not to nominate diseases. Second, if you nominate a creature like a rat it would be best if you named a particular kind of rat. Third and last, please feel free to let your emotions fly.=20 =20 Call if you have any questions. =20 And thanks, =20 John Nielsen Corrrespondent Science Desk NPR News=20 =20 - Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you with Yahoo Mobile. Try it now.
Re: FW: semi-silly question from John Nielsen
Hi, Just a list of invasives that are now so common that no body actually really see them anymore that way: - Homo sapiens, commonly known as human or man - House rat - Domesticated pig - Domesticated goat - Killer bee - etc. Hope this helps! Kim Annie Drinkard wrote: Please respond directly to John Nielsen. Cheers, Annie From: John Nielsen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2007 2:57 PM To: Annie Drinkard Cc: John Nielsen Subject: semi-silly question from John Nielsen Annie - Hi it's John Nielsen from NPR News. I am working on one of those stories that you hear over the holiday season, which is another way of saying it's based on a silly premise. Basically, it's a story that reports on the status of the five most loathed invasive species in the world. I've got a few favorites in mind - zebra mussels, for example, and perhaps those cane toads - but I also want to give some actual scientists a chance to put their two cents in. For that reason I am hoping you will help me out by posting a note on your listserve that asks your members to consider sending me an email that names the five most despicable invasive species in the world. If they want to name just one or two that would be fine as well. If they want to send me a long rant about just one I would be grateful. If somebody wants to be interviewed they need only include a number and a time that I might call. It's likely that this story will run late next week so naturally I'm a hurry. Please request that all responses be sent directly to me at [EMAIL PROTECTED] My work phone is 202 513 2781. By now it should be clear that this will be an utterly unscientific survey. At the same time, I'm convinced that it'll help draw badly-needed attention to the problems caused by invasive species. One or two last things before I thank you and hit the send button. First, in hopes of keeping the list manageable, I'd like to ask your members not to nominate diseases. Second, if you nominate a creature like a rat it would be best if you named a particular kind of rat. Third and last, please feel free to let your emotions fly. Call if you have any questions. And thanks, John Nielsen Corrrespondent Science Desk NPR News -- http://www.kimvdlinde.com
Re: ECOSYSTEM Health Alien invasions persistence decline limits control Re: semi-silly question from John Nielsen
That mammals were unknown in Australia would be quite surprising to Australians. Marsupials and monotremes are mammals--albeit not placental ones. And Australia has a robust population of native rodents and bats (and marine mammals if we want to go that far).=20 And the arrival of the dingo in Australia approximately 5000 years ago from Asia begs the question: when does an invader become native? Jennifer Hobden -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of William Silvert Sent: Friday, November 16, 2007 2:19 AM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU 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=20 little harm -- this is true, and some aliens are introduced deliberately.=20 Mustangs are alien to N. America, and are widely appreciated. Many=20 ornamental plants are deliberately introduced. My mother was a member of the=20 Florida Native Plants Society, and felt that they were fighting a losing battle against the imports. An interesting downside is that often introduced=20 plants in dry areas require lots of water and this creates problems. As for the comment that healthy ecosystems resist invasion, this depends on=20 whether they have had a chance to immunise themselves by past experience.=20 Because mammals were unknown in Australia, their introduction was impossible=20 to resist. The same is often true when snakes or mosquitos arrive in regions=20 where nothing similar has every been present. Often the best defence against=20 an invading species is a predator that can control it, but if such predators=20 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=20 alien species to control it -- which brings into action the Law of=20 Unintended Consequences. It's a tricky game to play. Bill Silvert - Original Message -=20 From: Wayne Tyson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Friday, November 16, 2007 1:08 AM Subject: ECOSYSTEM Health Alien invasions persistence decline limits control=20 Re: semi-silly question from John Nielsen There are some aliens that do little harm; some even provide benefits. This statement is anathema, heresy, fighting words, to many, many very caring people. But so many of those caring people have their egos inextricably wrapped up in this very laudable mission--it is often their reason for living, often it is a filler of a hole in a person's life. One can't argue with that. Here's the heart of my rant. Healthy ecosystems tend to resist invasion. (However, the introduction of an alien species can, in some cases, but not all, truly invade healthy ecosystems.=20
Paid undergraduate summer research opportunities at University of Notre Dame field stations
We are taking applications for UNDERC-East summer 2008 and the potential to participate in UNDERC-West that continues the following summer 2009. (Additionally, applications directly for UNDERC West 2008 will be accepted from students of Junior or Senior standing that have had prior research experience) In each summer, you receive six credits. From the 32 students participating in the summer 2008 at UNDERC-East, 8 students will be selected to continue the next summer at UNDERC-West 2009. Acceptance in either program includes tuition, housing, round trip transportation between Notre Dame and the UNDERC site and a $2500 summer stipend. The UNDERC-East site encompasses more than 7500 acres with abundant wildlife (including wolves, black bear, deer, and fisher) and includes 30 lakes, several streams, wetlands, and northern forests that have been protected for nearly a century. The UNDERC-West site encompasses more than a million acres with abundant wildlife (including bison, elk, mountain lion, and grizzly bear) and includes grasslands, montane forests, streams and lakes on the Flathead Reservation in Montana and associated tribal lands. Each summer includes 4 - 5 modules (each a week) on field biology. At UNDERC-East, modules include bird/mammal ecology, amphibian/reptile ecology, insect ecology, aquatic ecology and forest ecology. At UNDERC- West, modules include wildlife and grassland ecology, mountain ecology, stream ecology and Native American ecology. Remaining time is spent designing and completing an independent field research project under the direction and assistance of a faculty member or graduate student. Applications are available at http://underc.nd.edu/ and the extended deadline is December 3rd, 2007.
Classification of alien plant species
Classification of alien plant species can be found in Petr Pysek, David M. Richardson, Marcel Rejmanek, Grady L. Webster, Mark Williamson Jan Kirschner. 2004. Alien plants in checklists and floras: towards better communication between taxonomists and ecologists. Taxon 53: 131-143. [Corresponding author: Petr Pysek - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Short summary of this classification was posted in BEN (Botanical Electronic News # 324): http://www.ou.edu/cas/botany-micro/ben/ben324.html Adolf Ceska, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
Re: Throwing away the textbooks
Andy, I don't really teach from a book, although I have the students buy one to serve as a reference. I teach concepts through actual data - either from field labs we do in class, EcoBeaker for those we can't do, and data sets either from the TIEE site or primary literature. I do a series of protist labs to teach population dynamics, competition, predation, community dynamics and the role of disturbance. With two or three really good field labs, I can have data for discussing succession (Indiana Dunes or Warren Dunes), community structure (species diversity, dispersion, etc.), the role of competition, predation, and disturbance in communities. With the protist lab data, we can calculate r, K, and (if we are lucky) the competition coefficients which will allow us to draw the isocline diagrams. We make predictions based on pairwise interactions and then we see what happens when we throw all the species together. EcoBeaker provides an evolution lab on Darwin's Finches. This takes us into how species can avoid competitive exclusion and how these mechanisms play a role in community structure. It's a system that has evolved (?) from my inability to maintain the schedule I put into my syllabus, and the grumbling of students over too many big lab reports. This way, I get the material covered, but it flows from the lab. The students do not have so many lab reports because we turn the data analysis and interpretation into class discussions or short homework assignments. So far, the students say that they like it. It helps them remember things better, and for the visual learners, seeing is believing (at least I think that's what they mean). I do give lots of handouts, and I do use power point notes. Liane At 12:07 PM 11/17/2007, Andrew Park 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. * 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. [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 decade ago. And yet textbooks speak to students as though they know how to read a graph, as though they are sophisticated reasoners, and perhaps most importantly, as though they already understand the difference between salamanders and lizards, spiders and insects. NEWSFLASH ? THEY DON?T. [3] 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. * Have any of you decided to chuck the required text and simply use handouts and readings? *** D. Liane Cochran-Stafira, Ph.D. Associate Professor Department of Biological Sciences Saint Xavier University 3700 West 103rd Street Chicago, Illinois 60655 phone: 773-298-3514 fax:773-298-3536 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://faculty.sxu.edu/~cochran/
Re: Throwing away the textbooks
In my opinion, good textbooks are still necessary, especially for a self-learning. I always feel that only lecture notes and other teaching materials in a class may not enough, particularly for graduate students. Nong Singkran, Ph.D. Cornell University I am a graduate student who years ago took my basic ecology at Hampshire college, a non-traditional place to put it mildly. We read papers, had no textbook, used handouts etc...and I have to say I felt rather hamstrung by this approach. I now happen to be a phd student at the University of Vermont, where my advisor has an ecology textbook that I have to say is the best I've seen, in my humble opinion. Its also not expensive at $39 USD. Its highly quantitative, has examples and its style is one of brevity and conciseness while not sacrificing informativeness. At UVM its used to teach the intro ecology class, and then is used in more depth in an advanced ecology class. Everywhere I've gone in the US (which is only a few places admittedly) the structure for ecology would be a freshman intro class that covers it, a mid level class with more detail usually mixed with evolution, and finally for those who want to study ecology further, there is an advanced course. In terms of framing ecology in terms of our environmental crisis, I tend to think basic ecology should stay away from that. After all, ecology is not environmental activism, and I don't think should be tied towards a particular activist agenda, but that we should also not teach that science exists in a box. Instead focusing on the understanding of processes and interactions, and if that evidence suggests a course of action to better society, then we should take that action. But to begin confounding activism and science is dangerous, you don't want to switch the causality such that activism drives science, not the other way around. Either way, I think a textbook is useful as long as its a good one, and I think Nick's book is a good one. http://www.amazon.com/Primer-Ecology-Nicholas-J-Gotelli/dp/0878932739/ ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8s=booksqid=1195339717sr=8-2 Cheers, Ted On Nov 17, 2007, at 1:07 PM, Andrew Park 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 to 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 decade ago. And yet textbooks speak to students as though they know how to read a graph, as though they are sophisticated reasoners, and perhaps most 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
