Re: [ECOLOG-L] State of the World's Oceans from NPR...
If you haven't already, I recommend looking at the supplementary material (methods documentation) for this study, available via the article in Science (Feb 15, Vol. 319). This will allow you to review what data was not included in the study. L. Jodice .At 12:46 AM 2/20/2008 +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As usual, we have an otherwise commendable ecological research effort falling just short of potent policy implications by relegating the causes of environmental degradation to the phrase human activities. Where in the policy arena will anyone find a table where policy makers are dealing in human activities? Studies such as this would be much more productive, policy-wise, if only they used more policy-relevant framing. Lets consider the causes of oceanic degradation that Halpern et al. used to produce their map: several categories of fishing, several categories of pollution, invasive species, ocean acidification, benthic structures, population pressure, commercial activity, and two categories of climate change. How might we characterize these categories in policy-relevant terms? As a prior president could have said, Its the economy, friends. Now that would indeed be policy-relevant, because in the policy arena there is no shortage of tables fiscal and monetary policy tables - with a big sign hanging overhead, economic growth. Are these causes of oceanic degradation really economic activities? Lets take them one by one: Fishing is part of the agricultural/extractive trophic level at the base of the human economy. Pollution is the byproduct of the economic production process made inevitable by the second law of thermodynamics. The spread of invasive species is a function of international trade and interstate commerce. Ocean acidification and climate change are each a function of fossil fuel combustion in a global economy that is approximately 90% fossil-fueled. Benthic structures are commercial infrastructure, most notably oil rigs. Population pressure in policy-relevant terms means an increasing consumer base and labor force. Its hard to get any more economically relevant than with the phrase commercial activity. The causes are practically a Whos Who of the global economy, but it wont get pointed out unless someone does so. Halpern et al. did a good job of documenting causes, but hopefully the Halperns et al. of the future will put their resultsin more policy-relevant terms by noting the connection of environmental pressures to the policy goal of economic growth. Meanwhile and just as hopefully, and in supplementary fashion, scientifically based professional societies such as the ESA will help to channel such research by taking positions on economic growth, such as the one now proposed by 60 (last count) ESA members. Cheers, Brian Czech, Ph.D., President Center for the Advancement of the Steady State Economy SIGN THE POSITION on economic growth at: http://www.steadystate.org/CASSEPositionOnEG.html . -- J. Michael Nolan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: An interesting article and map on the state of the world's oceans from NPR. Thank you. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=19085884sc=emaf Mike Nolan -- 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. After hours and weekend phone appointments are available upon request. Sincerely, J. Michael Nolan, Director Rainforest and Reef 501 (c)(3) non-profit ** âOutstanding-Affordable Field Courses in Rainforest Marine Ecologyâ âSpanish/Cultural Immersion Programs: Spain, Mexico, Central and South Americaâ 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 ** Laura W. Jodice Research Associate Recreation, Travel and Tourism Institute Parks, Recreation Tourism Management 263 Lehotsky Hall Box 340735 Clemson, SC 29634-0735 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 864-656-2209
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Good theoretical ecology book.
I think that Plant Allometry (1994), from Karl J. Niklas is very interesting. --- Ted Hart [EMAIL PROTECTED] escreveu: Hello ecologgers. I'm curious if anyone had any opinions on a good theoretical ecology books out there. One I've come across is Ted Case's 2000 book An Illustrated Guide to Theoretical Ecology. But before I spend $60 I thought I'd ask around. Looking for something relatively accessible to an ecologist with a mathematical bend, but not much formal training in math. So something like May's seminal book is a bit over my head. Thanks for any input. Cheers, Ted Matheus C. Carvalho PhD student Kitasato University - School of Fishery Sciences Japan Abra sua conta no Yahoo! Mail, o único sem limite de espaço para armazenamento! http://br.mail.yahoo.com/
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Good theoretical ecology book.
Roughgarden's Primer of Ecological Theory deserves some mention here. (BTW, it is Matlab based.) On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 3:35 PM, Ted Hart [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello ecologgers. I'm curious if anyone had any opinions on a good theoretical ecology books out there. One I've come across is Ted Case's 2000 book An Illustrated Guide to Theoretical Ecology. But before I spend $60 I thought I'd ask around. Looking for something relatively accessible to an ecologist with a mathematical bend, but not much formal training in math. So something like May's seminal book is a bit over my head. Thanks for any input. Cheers, Ted
[ECOLOG-L] Question: Where to get clove oil in the US
Hello fellow list members. We are planing a fish-collection expedition and need to get about 2 liters of Clove oil (we will be working in a remote site so we want to stock up). one can get Clove oil in these quantities at the pharmacy, but for a price. therefore, we thought of buying it directly from the distributer/manufacturer. does anyone knows a distributer that would sell such quantities in the US? many thanks- Roi
[ECOLOG-L] Anderson's new book, Model Based Inference in the Life Sciences
I just purchased David Anderson's new book, Model Based Inference in the Life Sciences: a primer on evidence, and although I've only had the opportunity to read just the first two chapters, I wanted to write and express my enthusiasm for both the book and especially its first chapter. David and Ken Burnham once bought me lunch, and because my loyalties are easily purchased, I may be somewhat biased in my approach towards the book, but David writes something very important in the first chapter that I have been mildly railing against for sometime now too: the uncritical overuse of null hypotheses in ecology. Indeed, I believe this to be such an important topic that I wish he had extended the section for several more pages. What he does write is this, in part: It is important to realize that null hypothesis testing was *not* what Chamberlin wanted or advocated. We so often conclude, essentially, 'We rejected the null hypothesis that was uninteresting or implausible in the first place, P 0.05.' Chamberlin wanted an *array* of *plausible* hypotheses derived and subjected to careful evaluation. We often fail to fault the trivial null hypotheses so often published in scientific journals. In most cases, the null hypothesis is hardly plausible and this makes the study vacuous from the outset... C.R. Rao (2004), the famous Indian statistician, recently said it well, '...in current practice of testing a null hypothesis, we are asking the wrong question and getting a confusing answer' (2008, pp. 11-12). This is so completely different than the extraordinarily successful approach that has been adopted by physics. In ecology, an experiment is most normally designed so its results may be statistically tested against a null hypothesis. In this procedure, data analysis is primarily a posteriori process, but this is an intrinsically weak test philosophically. In the end, you rarely understand more about the processes in force than you did before you began. But the analyses characteristic of physics don’t work that way. In 1964, Richard Feynman, in a lecture to students at Cornell that's available on YouTube, explained the standard procedure that has been adopted by experimental physics in this manner: How would we look for a new law? In general we look for a new law by the following process. First, we guess it. (laughter) Then we... Don't laugh. That's the damned truth. Then we compute the consequences of the guess... to see if this is right, to see if this law we guessed is right, to see what it would imply. And then we compare those computation results to nature. Or we say to compare it to experiment, or to experience. Compare it directly with observations to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment, it's wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn't make a difference how beautiful your guess is. It doesn't make a difference how smart you are, who made the guess or what his name is... (laughter) If it disagrees with experiment, it's wrong. That's all there is to it. -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozF5Cwbt6RY In physics, the model comes first, not afterwards, and that small difference underlies the whole of the success that physics has had in explaining the mechanics of the world that surrounds us. The entire array of plausible hypotheses that were advocated by Chamberlin don't all have to present during the first experimental attempt at verification of the first hypothesis; they can occur sequentially over a period of years. As David continues, We must encourage and reward hard thinking. There must be a premium on thinking, innovation, synthesis and creativity (p. 12), and this hard thinking must be done in advance of the experiment. Science is a predictive enterprise, not some form of mindless after-the-fact exercise in number crunching. Although expressed in a different format, David Anderson is saying the same thing as Richard Feynman, and I very much congratulate him for it. Wirt Atmar
[ECOLOG-L] Job Announcement: Field Positions Studying Baker Cypress in Northern California
General Description: We are seeking 2 highly motivated students to participate in a project studying Baker cypress, a rare conifer species found only in northern California and southern Oregon. This species depends on fire for seed dispersal and germination. As a result of fire suppression, some populations of Baker cypress are now dying without any regeneration. Our project will focus on restoring Baker cypress populations by: 1) Examining how prescribed burning and thinning treatments affect cypress regeneration; 2) Identifying factors that influence recruitment of cypress, such as fire return interval, stand age, fire severity, fuel loads, and site conditions; and 3) Developing recommendations for cypress management and providing a risk assessment of cypress populations across the Klamath, Plumas, and Lassen National Forests, and the Alturas Resource Area of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Duties: Field assistants will work under the direction of a crew leader to collect a broad range of data, including tree demography data (identifying trees, saplings, and seedlings, coring trees, measuring tree diameter and height, tagging trees, etc.), fuels data using Browns transects, vegetation data including shrub and herbaceous plant species identification, and post- fire severity data at sites that have burned. Field assistants will also collect cypress cones and branches in the field. This position involves 70- 80% field work, but will also include some laboratory and office duties such as counting seeds, aging cores and cones, testing seeds for viability, and data entry. There could be an opportunity for interested applicants to pursue other questions related to Baker cypress as part of their undergraduate/graduate work. Working conditions: The position will be based out of Happy Camp, CA. However, the field crew will travel frequently to remote study sites in isolated, rugged areas of the Klamath, Plumas, and Lassen National Forests, and the Alturas Resource Area of the BLM. This is a physically demanding job, involving hiking and camping in steep, hot, rugged terrain for up to 8- 10 days. Preference will be given to energetic, detail-oriented candidates with experience in botanical and forest demography data collection. Applicants must be able to work well independently and with others. GPS/GIS experience is also. Valid driver’s license required. Salary: We will fill two full-time, temporary biological science technician positions at either the GS-5 ($13.58/hr) or GS-4 ($12.23/hr) level through the Student Educational Employment Program. This program provides Federal employment opportunities to students who are currently enrolled or accepted for enrollment (taking at least a half-time course load) in a 2 or 4 year college or university, graduate or professional school. ONLY STUDENTS ARE ELIGIBLE FOR THIS POSITION. Work will begin in late May and continue through at least mid-August, 2008. Application Procedures: For inquiries related to this position, please contact Kyle Merriam at (530) 283- or Erin Rentz at (530) 627- 3312. To apply, please send: 1) cover letter, 2) CV including professional experience, 3) name, telephone number, and address of three former supervisors or other professional references, and 4) copies of academic transcripts (unofficial transcripts are acceptable) to Kyle Merriam, P.O. Box 11500, Quincy, CA 95971, or via email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Applications must be received by March 21, 2008.
[ECOLOG-L] position announcement
Tenure-track Position in Urban Ecology at the University of Texas at Austin The School of Architecture (www.soa.utexas.edu) and Environmental Science Institute (ESI, www.esi.utexas.edu) at The University of Texas at Austin invite applications for a faculty position in Urban Ecology. The appointment will be at the level of Assistant Professor, but a higher level appointment may be considered for exceptional candidates. We seek an individual with interests in interdisciplinary research and teaching. The ideal candidate will have research and teaching interests that will contribute to the planning and design of environmentally sustainable communities; and will be able to address the influence of global change on the ecology of urban environments. A major objective of this new position is to engage in new collaborative programs at UT-Austin, including ESI's Global Change Studies Center. The position is at the rank of Assistant Professor in the School of Architecture, which offers graduate degree programs in landscape architecture, sustainable design, urban design, and community and regional planning. The successful candidate will be expected to collaborate in sponsored research through the ESI and will be expected to build an interdisciplinary research program with one or more academic units affiliated with ESI, such as Integrative Biology, Geological Sciences, Geography, Engineering, and the social sciences. Candidates must have a Ph.D. degree at the time of appointment. Primary teaching responsibilities will be in the School of Architecture, but courses will likely be of interest to and be cross-listed with a variety of other ESI-affiliated departments. Courses that support new interdisciplinary curricula in Environmental Science will also be of interest. Applicants should send a single PDF file containing their cover letter, CV, research statement, and teaching statement to the Search Committee Chair, Dr. Steven Moore, at the address below. The statement of research interests should mention how the research would address topics relating to global change. Applicants should also arrange to have three letters of recommendation sent directly to the Chair via Email at: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dr. Steven A. Moore Chair, Search Committee, Urban Ecology School of Architecture The University of Texas at Austin 1 University Station, B7500 Austin, Texas 78712 Review of applications will start March 24, 2008 and will continue until the position is filled. A background check will be conducted on applicant selected. The University of Texas at Austin is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer.
[ECOLOG-L] Visiting Assistant Professor of Plant Ecology
Visiting Assistant Professor of Plant Ecology Job Description: Teach four classes during the academic year (Introduction to Plant Ecology; Plant Ecophysiology; and two non-major introductory courses. Advise students. Participate in governance of department and Forest Ecology Focus Group (http://www.plantbio.ohiou.edu/epb/faculty/research/for_ecolindex.htm). Maintain a professional profile through continued scholarship (e.g., conference attendance, publication, and grantsmanship). The Department of Environmental and Plant Biology (http://www.plantbio.ohiou.edu/) currently consists of 13 full-time faculty, 30 graduate students, and 60 undergraduate majors. We are located in rural southeastern Ohio in close proximity to public forest lands and preserves. Minimum Qualifications: PhD in Plant Ecophysiology and evidence of teaching effectiveness. We seek a candidate with a commitment to working effectively with students, faculty, and staff from diverse backgrounds. Women and other minorities are encouraged to apply. Ohio University is an EEO/AA Employer. Further information about Ohio University can be found at the University's Web site: http://www.ohio.edu. To apply, please complete and submit an online quick application (www.ohiouniversityjobs.com) and attach required documents (CV, cover letter, three reference letters). Please direct questions to Dr. Gar Rothwell, Department Chair, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Review of applications will begin March 8 and continue until the position is filled. Campus interviews tentatively scheduled during the first three weeks of April. Brian C. McCarthy, Ph.D. Professor of Forest Ecology Dept. of Environmental and Plant Biology 317 Porter Hall Ohio University Athens, OH 45701-2979 USA eml [EMAIL PROTECTED] tel 740-593-1615 fax 740-593-1130 www http://www.plantbio.ohiou.edu/epb/faculty/faculty/bcm.htm
[ECOLOG-L] Traditional Knowledge Assessment
Hi, I am working with 50 gifted tribal kids (www.tribalmensa.blogspot.com). I want to assess their traditional knowledge and Naturalistic Intelligence. Can you advice how I should proceed. Dr. Narayan R Desai, M.Sc. Ph.D. Executive Director, Society for Ecological Restoration-India www.ser.org Executive Council Member, Gifted Child Program, Mensa India Principle Investigator, Tribal Mensa Nurturing Program www.tribalmensa.blogspot.com Doctoral Research Student, Vedic Ecology Project Mobile No. 98226 26835 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mensa Office Address: Mensa India, Jnana Prabodhini Bhavan 510 Sadashiv Peth, Pune 411030 Ph.No. 091-20-24207000 SER-India Office Address: A-4 Shagun Apts. 346 Somwar Peth Pune 411011 Ph.No. 091-20-26132580
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Good theoretical ecology book.
This is pretty vague request, which perhaps is indicative of the confusion surrounding theoretical ecology. Ecological theory covers many aspects, from the descriptive to the highly mathematical. Does Ted want to learn about trophic levels and competitive coexistence, or does he want to construct Leslie matrices? Some books stick with analytic models like the Lotka-Volterra equations, while others are based on numerical simulation. Many of the books are really math books based on ecological examples, but the real essence of theoretical ecology is not the mathematics, but the insight into the processes that govern ecosystems. Bill Silvert - Original Message - From: Ted Hart [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 9:35 PM Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Good theoretical ecology book. Hello ecologgers. I'm curious if anyone had any opinions on a good theoretical ecology books out there. One I've come across is Ted Case's 2000 book An Illustrated Guide to Theoretical Ecology. But before I spend $60 I thought I'd ask around. Looking for something relatively accessible to an ecologist with a mathematical bend, but not much formal training in math. So something like May's seminal book is a bit over my head. Thanks for any input.
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Anderson's new book,
Hi Wirt, I completely agree with almost all of what you (and David) wrote. Feynman is talking about a real hypothesis that arose from a great deal of thought and creativity...not one that has been attached with baling wire, duct tape and a little leftover Juicy Fruit to a pile of data that happened to be sitting around. That said, science is many things - 'a predictive enterprise, not some form of mindless after-the-fact exercise in number crunching.' - fits under the umbrella but I don't think captures the whole enterprise. Sequencing the human genome was, in my opinion, a version of mindless number crunching (although perhaps somebody can put that effort in a hypothesis testing context that I haven't thought of). I think most people would be hard pressed to say it wasn't science. In fact, there is an emerging field of statistics (data mining) that seems to be useful in developing scientific hypotheses and is all about the 'mindless after-the-fact exercise in number crunching'. My feeling is that data can provide hypotheses or test them. When it does the first, it is a very useful part of science but it is not predictive and it does not test hypotheses (null, competing or otherwise). When it does the latter it falls ito the category that Feynman was describing. I think the reason we often get these trivial tests of hypotheses is because there is this sense that science is only about testing hypotheses - therefore to do science I must test a hypothesis...whether there is a meaningful one or not. In my opinion, science can also just be about looking for patterns that we can use to suggest hypotheses. Hypotheses have to be tested to be useful but the patterns we see in nature (and those patterns are often less distinct without number crunching)are almost always the birthplace of hypotheses. Best. Jeff H -Original Message- From: Wirt Atmar [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 12:03:54 -0700 Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Anderson's new book, Model Based Inference in the Life Sciences I just purchased David Anderson's new book, Model Based Inference in the Life Sciences: a primer on evidence, and although I've only had the opportunity to read just the first two chapters, I wanted to write and express my enthusiasm for both the book and especially its first chapter. David and Ken Burnham once bought me lunch, and because my loyalties are easily purchased, I may be somewhat biased in my approach towards the book, but David writes something very important in the first chapter that I have been mildly railing against for sometime now too: the uncritical overuse of null hypotheses in ecology. Indeed, I believe this to be such an important topic that I wish he had extended the section for several more pages. What he does write is this, in part: It is important to realize that null hypothesis testing was *not* what Chamberlin wanted or advocated. We so often conclude, essentially, 'We rejected the null hypothesis that was uninteresting or implausible in the first place, P 0.05.' Chamberlin wanted an *array* of *plausible* hypotheses derived and subjected to careful evaluation. We often fail to fault the trivial null hypotheses so often published in scientific journals. In most cases, the null hypothesis is hardly plausible and this makes the study vacuous from the outset... C.R. Rao (2004), the famous Indian statistician, recently said it well, '...in current practice of testing a null hypothesis, we are asking the wrong question and getting a confusing answer' (2008, pp. 11-12). This is so completely different than the extraordinarily successful approach that has been adopted by physics. In ecology, an experiment is most normally designed so its results may be statistically tested against a null hypothesis. In this procedure, data analysis is primarily a posteriori process, but this is an intrinsically weak test philosophically. In the end, you rarely understand more about the processes in force than you did before you began. But the analyses characteristic of physics don’t work that way. In 1964, Richard Feynman, in a lecture to students at Cornell that's available on YouTube, explained the standard procedure that has been adopted by experimental physics in this manner: How would we look for a new law? In general we look for a new law by the following process. First, we guess it. (laughter) Then we... Don't laugh. That's the damned truth. Then we compute the consequences of the guess... to see if this is right, to see if this law we guessed is right, to see what it would imply. And then we compare those computation results to nature. Or we say to compare it to experiment, or to experience. Compare it directly with observations to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment, it's wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn't make a difference how beautiful your guess is. It doesn't make a difference how smart you
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Good theoretical ecology book.
Hi all, I agree with Bill that theoretical ecology is more about the processes, and that one can largely deal with it without equations. One suggestion that I can make is a new Oxford University Press book which deals with only one subset of ecological theory but, I've been told, which is totally amazing : Allee effect in Ecology and Conservation. Some of the authors seem a bit weird though... Franck William Silvert a écrit : This is pretty vague request, which perhaps is indicative of the confusion surrounding theoretical ecology. Ecological theory covers many aspects, from the descriptive to the highly mathematical. Does Ted want to learn about trophic levels and competitive coexistence, or does he want to construct Leslie matrices? Some books stick with analytic models like the Lotka-Volterra equations, while others are based on numerical simulation. Many of the books are really math books based on ecological examples, but the real essence of theoretical ecology is not the mathematics, but the insight into the processes that govern ecosystems. Bill Silvert -- Franck Courchamp Labo ESE, UMR CNRS 8079 Univ Paris-Sud Tel (0033/0) 1 69 15 56 85 Bat 362Fax (0033/0) 1 69 15 56 96 F-91405 Orsay Cedex FRANCE http://www.ese.u-psud.fr/epc/conservation/pages/Franck.html Allee Effects in Ecology and Conservation F Courchamp, L Berec J Gascoigne*NEW!* Available now through all good bookshops, or at: http://www.oup.com/uk/catalogue/?ci=9780198570301
[ECOLOG-L] Position Announcement: Important Bird Areas Program Biologist
Apologies for cross-posting Audubon Important Bird Areas Program Position Title: Important Bird Areas Program Biologist Location: Ivyland, PA Purpose of the position: The Important Bird Areas (IBA) Program works to identify, prioritize, monitor, and engage a broad community of stakeholders in the conservation of sites essential for birds. As Audubon's centerpiece conservation program, the IBA Program integrates science, education, and policy to deliver site and community-based conservation. This is an integral part of the organization's mission to conserve and restore natural ecosystems, focusing on birds, other wildlife, and their habitats, for the benefit of humanity and the earth's biological diversity. As the U.S. Partner for BirdLife International, Audubon has the responsibility for identifying and working to conserve a network of Important Bird Areas throughout the U.S. This network of sites is comprised of state level IBAs that are prioritized as continentally or globally significant by the IBA Program's U.S.IBA Committee, a panel of nationally recognized bird experts. The IBA Program Biologist is responsible for the management of IBA data and coordination with IBA staff at the state and national level to facilitate the prioritization of state level IBAs by the U.S IBA Committee. In addition, the IBA Biologist will assist states with input, editing, and general management of IBA data using Audubon's IBA Database. This effort to prioritize sites as globally or continentally significant will greatly enhance Audubon's overall efforts to focus our conservation actions to achieve our conservation goals. The IBA Program Biologist will play a lead role in determining the highest priority conservation targets for the National Audubon Society. Essential Functions: * Manage and review species and site information on Important Bird Areas using Audubon's IBA Database and the IBA Criteria developed by Audubon's U.S. IBA Committee. * Coordinate with the National IBA Staff and state IBA staff to enter and track data. * Train and assist state IBA staff in the use and application of the national IBA standards (i.e. criteria), includes maintenance and further development of resources to assist with training. * Prioritize sites based on data and established scientific criteria and track progress of prioritization. * Organize, verify, and compile information for IBAs in preparation for review by the U.S. IBA Committee. * Maintain and update information about species, as relevant to the application of global and continental IBA criteria. * Maintain and update IBA criteria thresholds. * Analyze and evaluate IBA data for technical reports, compilations, and other summaries as needed. * As needed, develop and enhance existing means of data output from the IBA Database for purposes of tracking, review, and data analyses. * Some national travel may be required. Additional Functions: * Assist in the development and enhancement of the IBA database. * Assist in the development of standards for defining IBA boundaries, landowner engagement, and general IBA program protocol. * Other duties as necessary. Relationships: Internal: Work with Audubon's IBA staff at both the state and national level. Coordination with the IBA Program's U.S. IBA Committee. External: Coordinate with IBA program partners in state government, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, other federal agencies, bird observatories, other non-profits, etc. Additional coordination with BirdLife International and international program partners. Equipment: Standard office equipment (i.e., phone, fax, copier, MS Windows operating system computer, etc.). Familiarity with Microsoft Software products and ESRI software. Qualifications: * B.S. degree is required, M.S. preferred, in conservation biology, wildlife biology, ornithology, natural resources, or equivalent. * Keen interest in bird conservation, experience in avian monitoring and inventory methodologies desired. * Experience and interest in managing and analyzing data and working with databases. * Strong interpersonal skills and the ability to meet deadlines are essential. * Excellent public speaking and writing skills. * Familiarity with a variety of software programs. * Ability to organize and manage complex projects with a variety of partners. * Willingness to travel. Contact: To apply send via e-mail a cover letter stating interest, curriculum vitae, and contact information for three references to: Connie Sanchez Assistant Director, Important Bird Areas Program National Audubon Society [EMAIL PROTECTED]mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Anderson's new book, Model Based Inference in the Life Sciences
I recently read a similar thing in the book Data Analysis and Graphs Using R from Mainload Braun. I will reproduce it here. In fact, it is already a quotation from Tukey, J. W. (1991). The philosophy of multiple comparisons. Statistical Science 6:100-116. Statisticians classically asked the wrong question - and were willing o answer with a lie, one that was often a downright lie. They asked 'Are the effects of A and B different?' and they were willing to say 'no'. All we know about the world teaches us that the effects of A and B are always different - in some decimal place - for every A and B. Thus, asking 'Are the effects different?' is foolish. What we should be answering first is 'Can we tell the direction in which the effects of A differ from the effects of B?' In other words, can we be confident about the direction from A to B? Is it 'up', 'down', or 'uncertain'? Latter, in the words of the book author: Turkey argues that we should never conclude that we 'accept the null hypothesis'. --- Wirt Atmar [EMAIL PROTECTED] escreveu: I just purchased David Anderson's new book, Model Based Inference in the Life Sciences: a primer on evidence, and although I've only had the opportunity to read just the first two chapters, I wanted to write and express my enthusiasm for both the book and especially its first chapter. David and Ken Burnham once bought me lunch, and because my loyalties are easily purchased, I may be somewhat biased in my approach towards the book, but David writes something very important in the first chapter that I have been mildly railing against for sometime now too: the uncritical overuse of null hypotheses in ecology. Indeed, I believe this to be such an important topic that I wish he had extended the section for several more pages. What he does write is this, in part: It is important to realize that null hypothesis testing was *not* what Chamberlin wanted or advocated. We so often conclude, essentially, 'We rejected the null hypothesis that was uninteresting or implausible in the first place, P 0.05.' Chamberlin wanted an *array* of *plausible* hypotheses derived and subjected to careful evaluation. We often fail to fault the trivial null hypotheses so often published in scientific journals. In most cases, the null hypothesis is hardly plausible and this makes the study vacuous from the outset... C.R. Rao (2004), the famous Indian statistician, recently said it well, '...in current practice of testing a null hypothesis, we are asking the wrong question and getting a confusing answer' (2008, pp. 11-12). This is so completely different than the extraordinarily successful approach that has been adopted by physics. In ecology, an experiment is most normally designed so its results may be statistically tested against a null hypothesis. In this procedure, data analysis is primarily a posteriori process, but this is an intrinsically weak test philosophically. In the end, you rarely understand more about the processes in force than you did before you began. But the analyses characteristic of physics don#8217;t work that way. In 1964, Richard Feynman, in a lecture to students at Cornell that's available on YouTube, explained the standard procedure that has been adopted by experimental physics in this manner: How would we look for a new law? In general we look for a new law by the following process. First, we guess it. (laughter) Then we... Don't laugh. That's the damned truth. Then we compute the consequences of the guess... to see if this is right, to see if this law we guessed is right, to see what it would imply. And then we compare those computation results to nature. Or we say to compare it to experiment, or to experience. Compare it directly with observations to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment, it's wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn't make a difference how beautiful your guess is. It doesn't make a difference how smart you are, who made the guess or what his name is... (laughter) If it disagrees with experiment, it's wrong. That's all there is to it. -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozF5Cwbt6RY In physics, the model comes first, not afterwards, and that small difference underlies the whole of the success that physics has had in explaining the mechanics of the world that surrounds us. The entire array of plausible hypotheses that were advocated by Chamberlin don't all have to present during the first experimental attempt at verification of the first hypothesis; they can occur sequentially over a period of years. As David continues, We must encourage and reward hard thinking. There must be a premium on thinking, innovation, synthesis and creativity (p. 12), and this hard thinking must be done in advance of the experiment. Science is a predictive enterprise, not some form of mindless after-the-fact exercise in
[ECOLOG-L] Fungi Heat Shock
I heard a talk many years ago by a guy named Dunn on heat-shock fungi, but can find only a couple of papers on the 'net--and they don't get specific. According to Dunn, they follow wildland fires in response to the carbon(alone?). Does anyone know which species are involved or anything of the ecology of such fungi? Thanks much, WT
[ECOLOG-L] Pika/global warming project fieldwork- Glacier National Park, Montana - June 4 – September 30, 2008
Two paid and up to five volunteer or internship (for credit) positions available for field work in Glacier NP, Montana, June 4 – September 30; or a period of time therein. The study involves locating pika (small lagomorph) while hiking at high altitudes, backcountry camping, working with a GPS receiver, identification of plants and other mammals. Applicants should have experience with extended backpacking excursions, be in good physical shape, and experience with some ecological field work is a plus. Expect early mornings, unpredictable weather, wild animals, and gorgeous scenery. The assistant will work with the project leader (Lucas Moyer-Horner, U-Wisconsin-Madison). Paid positions are competitive with preference to applicants with experience and those able to stay through September. Paid positions include housing and a $100/week stipend. Volunteers/interns are encouraged to stay for at least three weeks; assitance is especially helpful during July-September. Free camping options are available for unpaid positions. Course credit may be available through your department. To apply, please send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with the subject PIKA GNP. Please include a letter of interest and resume. Applications will be accepted until the positions are filled. --- Lucas Moyer-Horner PhD candidate Zoology Department University of Wisconsin-Madison
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Traditional Knowledge Assessment
Hello Narayan, My recommendation is to go to the International Society for Ethnobiology ( http://ise.arts.ubc.ca/). You'll most likely find what you want under resources or links (e.g. INDIGENOUS KNOWLEDGE AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS has links to many groups). If not post your question to the membership. Good luck, Elaine On 2/20/08, Narayan Desai [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, I am working with 50 gifted tribal kids (www.tribalmensa.blogspot.com). I want to assess their traditional knowledge and Naturalistic Intelligence. Can you advice how I should proceed. Dr. Narayan R Desai, M.Sc. Ph.D. Executive Director, Society for Ecological Restoration-India www.ser.org Executive Council Member, Gifted Child Program, Mensa India Principle Investigator, Tribal Mensa Nurturing Program www.tribalmensa.blogspot.com Doctoral Research Student, Vedic Ecology Project Mobile No. 98226 26835 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mensa Office Address: Mensa India, Jnana Prabodhini Bhavan 510 Sadashiv Peth, Pune 411030 Ph.No. 091-20-24207000 SER-India Office Address: A-4 Shagun Apts. 346 Somwar Peth Pune 411011 Ph.No. 091-20-26132580 -- Elaine Joyal, PhD
