Re: [ECOLOG-L] Insecticide Decimates Tadpole Populations Through the Food Chain

[Paul Cherubini]

Amartya Saha wrote:

> what the study showed is that sublethal doses of malathion can
> negatively affect leopard frog tadpoles by affecting their food chain.
> Sublethal to leopard frogs, but lethal to zooplankton.  Its a matter of
> insecticide/weedicide CONCENTRATIONS. Yes, it can be that in the field,
> such concentrations are often lower than in the U Pitt tank study.
> However there can be (and will be) instances where this concentration
> may be reached or even exceeded, depending on topography/drainage,
> rainfall and a host of other factors. 

Dr. Relyea's tank study was not representative of actual field 
conditions, hence it was not capable of demonstrating whether
or not the formulation and dosage of Malathion routinely used
in ground or aerial applications for mosquito control (~ 0.5 - 4 
ounces per acre) leaves behind residues on natural tadpole 
habitats (e.g. ponds and puddles) that are seriously lethal to 
the zooplankton upon which the tadpoles feed.

Paul Cherubini
El Dorado, Calif.

[ECOLOG-L] Ph.D. Assistantship in Coastal Wetland Ecology

[Loretta Battaglia]

Graduate Research Assistantship in Coastal Wetland Ecology

A Ph.D. graduate student research assistantship is available starting August
2009 in the Department of Plant Biology at Southern Illinois University
Carbondale.  The doctoral student will develop a research project as part of
a DoD-funded project to evaluate the utility of assisted migration in
coastal communities threatened by climate change.  The assistantship
includes a tuition waiver, a monthly stipend, and research support.
Applicants should be highly motivated, hard-working, and have a background
in wetland ecology or a closely related field.  Familiarity with statistics
and field experience in coastal ecosystems are desirable.  

Interested applicants should send the following materials to Dr. Loretta
Battaglia, [EMAIL PROTECTED], Department of Plant Biology, 1125
Lincoln Dr., Life Sciences 2, Rm. 420, Carbondale, IL  62901:  
1) cover letter describing research interests
2) curriculum vitae
3) unofficial transcripts
4) GRE test scores (including percentiles)

Closing Date:  December 10, 2008



Loretta Battaglia, Ph.D. 
Assistant Professor 
Southern Illinois University Carbondale 
Department of Plant Biology 
Mailcode 6509 
Carbondale, Illinois 62901-6509 
TEL:  +1 618 453 3216 
FAX:  +1 618 453 3441 
email:  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
webpage:  http://www.plantbiology.siu.edu/Faculty/battaglia/index.html

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Invasion biology reading

[James Crants]

Dave,

You can get published if no one pays (I would point to some of my own
research, but I haven't actually published it yet), but it's harder if no
one cares.  One way biologists try to convince people to care is tie their
research to something valued by the larger society.  Not that I imagine that
this point has escaped you; it's just closer to what I was trying to say in
the first place.

Kelly,

Even if someone is only calling invasion biology a pseudoscience (not all of
conservation biology), they'll have some work to do trying to convince me.
How is "pseudoscience" defined, if it includes invasion biology?
Intelligent design is pseudoscience because its central hypothesis (that
there is some high degree of complexity, evident in some biological systems,
that can only come about if there is an intelligence designing it) is
completely untestable.  Homeopathic medicine is pseudoscience because the
methods used to test homeopathic treatments lack nice, rigorous things like
controls and replication, and because there is no testable mechanistic
hypothesis behind homeopathy.

I haven't read a very large proportion of the literature in invasion
biology, and I've read even less of the work of its outside critics, but
what I've read in invasion biology so far seems to be as scientific as
anything else in ecology.  We know that not all exotics are invasive, that a
species that's invasive in on location may not invade another, apparently
similar location nearby, and that natives can sometimes act like invasive
species, rapidly coming to heavily dominate a habitat, and we investigate
why these things are true.  A classic question in invasion biology is
whether it's possible to predict an invasion based on the biology of the
introduced organism and the biology of the community to which it's
introduced.  A pseudoscience bent on demonizing certain species would, I
think, ignore all this messiness by excluding results that contradicted its
position.  It wouldn't put its energy into exploring the messiness.

Regarding whales, some of your questions led me to believe you had already
concluded that whales are causing the collapse of fisheries.  Why even ask
about whether we should start hunting them again to benefit fisheries unless
we've already got reason to think their current populations are
problematically large?

Jim



On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 1:22 PM, David M. Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> With all due respect, you can get published even if no one pays for your
> research, as long as you are willing to pay for it yourself.
>
> Dave
>
> Kelly Stettner wrote:
>
>> You make an excellent point, James:  "Face it:  you can't get published if
>> nobody cares about the results of your studies, and you can't muster the
>> energy to properly address a scientific question if you don't care about the
>> answer.  The result is that there is emotional weight behind all scientific
>> research and all interpretations of results."  You also can't get published
>> if no one will fund your research, so you have to MAKE somebody care about
>> what you want to study, whether it's a cute, anthropomorphic mammal or a
>> microscopic water flea.  Someone has to decide it is important enough to
>> study, and that IS, you are correct, an emotional response.  A human value.
>>
>
> --
> --
>  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
>



-- 
James Crants
PhD, Ecology and Evolutionary Biology
University of Michigan
Cell:  (734) 474-7478

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Invasion biology reading

[Jamie Kass]

Good point, Bob. Although an introduction of invasive species somewhere may
increase net biodiversity in that place, which simply means the number of
extant species in a particular location, this is not necessarily good in the
eyes of conservation biologists, who are more concerned with preserving the
global diversity of life. Naturally, simple mathematics dictates that
introducing five invasive species (only distinguishing them from natives) to
an ecosystem will increase biodiversity by five. And over time, the natives
may not go extinct, and therefore they would still count towards this total.
However, their populations may be decimated, and their ranges lessened, and
their influence over resources weakened. And as we know, if the invasives
outcompete the natives, the ecosystem dynamics would become severely
altered, the effects of which may be difficult to predict. Further, from an
anthrocentric viewpoint, we may also not know whether or not a higher
density of invasives would be beneficial to us, in any number of ways
(practical, emotional, etc.). But what I am trying to say is that just
because biodiversity goes up does not mean native species are existing in
similar densities to conditions before the invasion.

-Jamie Kass

2008/10/3 David M. Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> With all due respect, you can get published even if no one pays for your
> research, as long as you are willing to pay for it yourself.
>
> Dave
>
> Kelly Stettner wrote:
>
>> You make an excellent point, James:  "Face it:  you can't get published if
>> nobody cares about the results of your studies, and you can't muster the
>> energy to properly address a scientific question if you don't care about the
>> answer.  The result is that there is emotional weight behind all scientific
>> research and all interpretations of results."  You also can't get published
>> if no one will fund your research, so you have to MAKE somebody care about
>> what you want to study, whether it's a cute, anthropomorphic mammal or a
>> microscopic water flea.  Someone has to decide it is important enough to
>> study, and that IS, you are correct, an emotional response.  A human value.
>>
>
> --
> --
>  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
>

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Insecticide Decimates Tadpole Populations Through the Food Chain

[Amartya Saha]

Hi Paul,

what the study showed is that sublethal doses of malathion can 
negatively affect leopard frog tadpoles by affecting their food chain. 
Sublethal to leopard frogs, but lethal to zooplankton.  Its a matter of 
insecticide/weedicide CONCENTRATIONS. Yes, it can be that in the field, 
such concentrations are often lower than in the U Pitt tank study. 
However there can be (and will be) instances where this concentration 
may be reached or even exceeded, depending on topography/drainage, 
rainfall and a host of other factors. Even with low concentrations, 
there can be accumulations over time, which can then lead to a lag time 
between application and observable effects. By then the momentum of 
negative effects can be too high, and too late to reverse conditions, so 
that the hundreds of leopard frogs that were flushed by a t-storm in MN 
may not happen a few (?) decades from today...


The message I got from this study is that concentrations lower than lab 
determined lethal doses can harm the organism in question, by also 
harming the ecosystem - kind of an urging for ecotoxicology to put more 
emphasis on ecosystems and not just organisms in isolation.


Hmm.. now what Monsanto says, well, lets say they would not wish to saw 
the branch they're sitting on, would they..


Cheers,
amartya


Paul Cherubini wrote:

Dr. Rick Relyea wrote:

  

Pitt Research Shows That Low Concentrations of Common Insecticide
Can Decimate Tadpole Populations Through the Food Chain



Dr. Relyea, your study did not show that any routine, legally compliant
applications Malathion insecticide (such as the aerial applications typically
used for mosquito control) can decimate tadpole populations through the
food chain in a natural wetland system. It also did not demonstrate these
routine applications are capable of wiping out the zooplankton in
natural wetland systems, causing surface dwelling algae to grow rapidly
hence preventing sunlight from reaching the bottom-dwelling algae, which
tadpoles eat.

Instead, your studies were conducted in small, confined cattle tanks
http://www.chronicle.pitt.edu/?p=660 Monsanto has previously
pointed out that "It is not unusual for studies conducted in artificial
systems to demonstrate greater toxicity than studies conducted under
actual environmental conditions." A detailed rebuttal response from
Monsanto to your Roundup herbicide work can be found on Monsanto's
website:http://www.monsanto.co.uk/news/ukshowlib.phtml?uid=8800

  

Leopard and wood frogs naturally range across North America,
including Pennsylvania and the Northeastern United States. Once
plentiful, leopard frogs have declined in recent years.



Ironically, leopard frogs are still very abundant in regions of the USA
where Roundup herbicide and insecticide use has been very high
such as around the Roundup Ready soybean and corn monocultures
that cover ~70% of the land mass of southern Minnesota and Iowa:
http://i85.photobucket.com/albums/k75/4af/frogb.jpg

Example: Just two months ago during an evening thunderstorm I saw
hundreds of leopard frogs hopping across the farm roads in southern
Minnesota (Klossner, Minnesota) and hundreds of them ended up
being smashed by cars. I've experienced the same phenomenon along
the farm roads of Iowa many times.  The chemical giants like Monsanto
and Dupont could make a documentary film for the public and
academic community substantiating this abundance if they wanted to.

Paul Cherubini
El Dorado, Calif.
  

[ECOLOG-L] [NCSE] Join the Association for Environmental Studies and Sciences

[NCSE]

Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

The National Council for Science and the Environment (NCSE) encourages you
to become a founding member of the Association for Environmental Studies and
Sciences (AESS; http://aess.info  ).  AESS will provide
an important vehicle for scholarly exchange of research results and teaching
methods in this multi-faceted and multi-disciplinary field.  

 

The formation of AESS marks a milestone in the development of the
environmental field. It will become the primary professional society for
some whose work largely crosses the boundaries of traditional disciplines.
For others, whose work primarily falls within a single discipline, but whose
interests are much broader, it will serve as a secondary home.

 

NCSE has worked for nearly 20 years to improve the scientific basis for
decisionmaking on environmental issues.  We have long recognized that
collaboration and crossing boundaries is essential to solving the critical
environmental challenges facing humanity and other residents of our planet.
We have also recognized that innovative approaches to education are
essential to preparing a literate public and workforce.  

 

In 2000, we formed the Council of Environmental Deans and Directors (CEDD)
as a professional organization of environmental leaders.  Now, we are
pleased to be participating in the formation of a broader organization that
is open to environmental scholars and students from all fields and in all
stages of their career.

 

Following is a letter of invitation from the Interim Governing Council of
AESS.  We hope that you will join us in an opportunity that has the
potential to be personally transformative and assist in the transformation
of society to improved decisions on environmental issues.

 

AESS INVITATION LETTER 

 

We invite you to become a founding member of the Association for
Environmental Studies and Sciences (AESS; http://aess.info
 ). Like many of you, we cherish the expansion and
integration of environmental knowledge. AESS facilitates the
interdisciplinary sharing of that knowledge in ways that enhance
professional development of its members and add value and visibility to
their contributions within higher education. 

 

AESS is an independent faculty-and-student-based professional association,
designed to provide its members with the latest information and tools to
create better courses, strengthen research, develop more satisfying careers,
harness the power of a collective voice for the profession, and enjoy each
other's company at national and regional meetings. 

 

We have already established an electronic newsletter, and a flagship journal
is planned for launch in late 2009. Our first annual conference will take
place next year, October 8-11, 2009, in Madison, Wisconsin. In addition to
presentation of research reports, roundtables on professional development
and program building, and generous opportunities for community networking,
this upcoming meeting will feature overlapping sessions with the annual
meeting of the Society of Environmental Journalists.

 

Few people have the opportunity to participate in the founding of an
organization that by virtue of its focus and timing is destined to become a
major catalyst for professional development and educational improvement at
the college and university level.  Please take a moment to join with us in
this exciting new endeavor, by signing up at http://aess.info, then vote
on-line to accept the initial constitution and bylaws. The cost of
membership for the first year is only $30 ($15 for students).  Because AESS
is a community, we ask our members to strengthen the prospects for
collaboration and networking by promoting the Association's early growth. In
particular, we ask that you encourage your friends and colleagues to follow
your lead. 

 

 

Sincerely,

 

Members of the AESS Interim Governing Council:

 

David Blockstein, National Council for Science and the Environment,
Washington, DC

 

Debra Davidson, University of Alberta, Canada

 

William Freudenburg (Secretary), University of California, Santa Barbara

 

David Hassenzahl (Newsletter), University of Nevada, Las Vegas

 

Monty Hempel (President), University of Redlands, California 

 

Elizabeth Mills (Newsletter), University of Wisconsin, Madison 

 

Greg Mohr (Treasurer), University of California, Santa Barbara

 

Brenda Nordenstam, Syracuse University, New York

 

Peter Nowak, University of Wisconsin, Madison

 

Stephanie Pfirman, Barnard College, Columbia University

 

James Proctor, Lewis & Clark College, Oregon

 

Walter Rosenbaum (Journal Editor), University of Florida,Gainesville

 

Kimberly Smith, Carleton College, Minnesota

 

Robert Wilkinson, University of California, Santa Barbara   

 

 




 

 

SUPERSTAR INVITATION

 

 

Dear XX:

 

As a key contributor to the study of the environment, I am sure you share my
fru

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Invasion biology reading

[David M. Lawrence]

With all due respect, you can get published even if no one pays for your 
research, as long as you are willing to pay for it yourself.


Dave

Kelly Stettner wrote:

You make an excellent point, James:  "Face it:  you can't get published if nobody 
cares about the results of your studies, and you can't muster the energy to properly 
address a scientific question if you don't care about the answer.  The result is that 
there is emotional weight behind all scientific research and all interpretations of 
results."  You also can't get published if no one will fund your research, so you 
have to MAKE somebody care about what you want to study, whether it's a cute, 
anthropomorphic mammal or a microscopic water flea.  Someone has to decide it is 
important enough to study, and that IS, you are correct, an emotional response.  A human 
value.


--
--
 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

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Invasion biology reading

[News]

I haven't seen any suggestions for literature on invasive species with
climate change as a real or potential motivator for wildlife moving (or in
some cases, plants, too) to another range that is more closely suited to its
previous habitat. If anyone knows of a publication that looks at climate
change and invasive species, I'd like the title(s), please.

Thanks.

Leah Stetson, M.Phil Human Ecology
Writer-Editor
Association of State Wetland Managers 

-Original Message-
From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kelly Stettner
Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2008 10:13 AM
To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Invasion biology reading

"Date:    Wed, 1 Oct 2008 11:49:36 -0400
From:    "Peter W. Houlihan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Summary: Undergrad Class in Biodiversity

I do not recommend using: "Theodoropoulos, David I.  Invasion Biology: 
Critique of a Pseudoscience".
It does not provide an unbiased view of the field and reads like a polemic."
 
 
Actually, my own reading of Theodoropoulos' book was that he was "attacking"
the polemic views that refuse to see "invasions" as anything other than
evil.  In point of fact, the Nazis did extirpate all non-native organisms
from their Fatherland, from plant to human.  Theodoropoulos makes sound
arguments, and I have heard from other authors that introduced species
do largely and ultimately benefit biodiversity.  The number of species that
become "invasive" after introduction to a "new" range is a mere fraction of
the total number of introduced species.  Also, why is it "bad" if a human
introduces a species to a new habitat, but it's just fine when, for
instance, flocks of migratory geese bring microscopic zebra mussels to a new
waterbody?  This is the "emotionalism" that Theodoropoulos is arguing
against.  
 
I disagree with Mr. Houlihan; "Critique" would be a valuable source of
discussion for your class.  
 
Science is about objectivity (as much as we can manage, since we are always,
inevitably, part of our own observations and biases), so take every book you
read with a grain of salt and a heavy swig of history.
 
Kelly Stettner



Black River Action Team (BRAT)
45 Coolidge Road
Springfield, VT  05156
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
http://www.blackriveractionteam.org

~Making ripples on the Black River since 2000! ~


  

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Insecticide Decimates Tadpole Populations Through the Food Chain

[Paul Cherubini]

Dr. Rick Relyea wrote:

> Pitt Research Shows That Low Concentrations of Common Insecticide
> Can Decimate Tadpole Populations Through the Food Chain

Dr. Relyea, your study did not show that any routine, legally compliant
applications Malathion insecticide (such as the aerial applications typically
used for mosquito control) can decimate tadpole populations through the
food chain in a natural wetland system. It also did not demonstrate these
routine applications are capable of wiping out the zooplankton in
natural wetland systems, causing surface dwelling algae to grow rapidly
hence preventing sunlight from reaching the bottom-dwelling algae, which
tadpoles eat.

Instead, your studies were conducted in small, confined cattle tanks
http://www.chronicle.pitt.edu/?p=660 Monsanto has previously
pointed out that "It is not unusual for studies conducted in artificial
systems to demonstrate greater toxicity than studies conducted under
actual environmental conditions." A detailed rebuttal response from
Monsanto to your Roundup herbicide work can be found on Monsanto's
website:http://www.monsanto.co.uk/news/ukshowlib.phtml?uid=8800

> Leopard and wood frogs naturally range across North America,
> including Pennsylvania and the Northeastern United States. Once
> plentiful, leopard frogs have declined in recent years.

Ironically, leopard frogs are still very abundant in regions of the USA
where Roundup herbicide and insecticide use has been very high
such as around the Roundup Ready soybean and corn monocultures
that cover ~70% of the land mass of southern Minnesota and Iowa:
http://i85.photobucket.com/albums/k75/4af/frogb.jpg

Example: Just two months ago during an evening thunderstorm I saw
hundreds of leopard frogs hopping across the farm roads in southern
Minnesota (Klossner, Minnesota) and hundreds of them ended up
being smashed by cars. I've experienced the same phenomenon along
the farm roads of Iowa many times.  The chemical giants like Monsanto
and Dupont could make a documentary film for the public and
academic community substantiating this abundance if they wanted to.

Paul Cherubini
El Dorado, Calif.

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Invasion biology reading

[Robert Miller]

Hi Kelly,
We conservationists and ecologists can see the many many examples of
biological wastelands and irrevocably altered ecosystems that humans have
wrought, through many activities, an important one of which is introducing
new species.  Introductions do, as Sax and colleagues have found, increase
diversity in ecosystems on average. However, we don't care about the average
- there is still a net loss of global diversity, and severe losses in many
ecosystems.  Many extinctions are of endemic species. Introduced species are
typically common and widespread, and it is almost totally unpredictable at
this point which invasives will be harmful. We would rather not have the
earth become a homogeneous human habitat, but would rather preserve as best
as possible the variety of ecosystems that are the result of millions of
years of evolution and slow natural colonization.  Does this make us human
haters?  No, it makes us people who think that people can do better.  This
value system does not make invasion science 'pseudoscience,' as James
pointed out so well with the comparison to medicine.
Your statement about the whales equates human self-regulation of our impact
(invasions) with killing whales to increase fish stocks (ignoring the fact
for now that most whales don't eat fish and an incredible amount of data
show that fisheries are collapsing because of overfishing). This does not
fit into a non-anthropocentric value system.  Some people do believe that
killing a non-native rat is the same as killing an endemic bird that is
endangered by the human-introduced rat.  I believe that is a myopic view
that ignores the big picture.
best,
Bob

On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 8:22 AM, James Crants <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> If I understand this argument correctly, it sounds as though some call
> conservation biology a pseudoscience on the grounds that it has objectives
> that are based on emotional responses to natural realities.  Of course, to
> even mention that the Nazis were at least as concerned with removing exotic
> species as any conservation biologist can hardly reduce the emotionalism
> around the subject.  If you really wanted to promote cold rationalism, you
> could hardly do worse than to compare your opponents to the Nazis.
>
> But, more to the point, I have to question the definition of
> "pseuodscience"
> that says that any interpretation of data that has emotional weight behind
> it makes the research in question pseuodoscience.  Face it:  you can't get
> published if nobody cares about the results of your studies, and you can't
> muster the energy to properly address a scientific question if you don't
> care about the answer.  The result is that there is emotional weight behind
> all scientific research and all interpretations of results.
>
> True pseudoscience (nice phrase, eh?) involves unfalsifiable hypotheses,
> failure to consider alternative hypotheses, or cherry-picked data.
> Conservation biologists tend to ask questions like, "does the population
> density of this native mussel species decline as the density of zebra
> mussels increases?"  They do not deliberately set up their studies so that
> the results will favor their hypotheses, they try to consider alternative
> hypotheses, and other ecologists try to find the holes in their studies,
> just as in any legitimate science.  Interpretations of results will
> certainly be biased against exotic species; at best, the exotic has no
> significant effect, and any effect it does have will most likely be viewed
> negatively.
>
> But if conservation biology is therefore a pseudoscience, then so is all
> research into human diseases, where every result is either an advance or a
> setback in defeating the disease in question.  The motivation behind
> disease
> research is to find treatments and cures for diseases.  I'm afraid to
> assert
> a simple motivation behind conservation biology (because then we can all
> argue about THAT), but it has something to do with preventing anthropogenic
> extinctions and preserving or restoring ecosystems to a condition similar
> to
> what would be seen with less or no human-caused disturbance.  If you don't
> value the conservation of species and habitats, you'll take issue with any
> interpretation of data by someone who thinks biological conservation is
> important.  That does not mean that the science that produced the results
> being interpreted is badly done.
>
> Regarding whales, I would very much like to see the evidence that the
> declines in our fisheries are attributable to whales.  Is it just a
> negative
> correlation between whale population sizes and fish stocks in the past 30
> years or something?  How many replicates do you have?  Do you have any
> control groups, where whale populations have been held constant?  Have you
> tested the alternative hypothesis that hunting by humans, not by whales,
> cause declines in fisheries?  Have you controlled for habitat destruction
> by
> humans (e.g., damming of spa

[ECOLOG-L] Women in Wildlife and Ecology adendum

[Kerry Nicholson]

Hello all,

Thank you all so very much for your input already into the women in wildlife
survey.  I really appreciate your support.  

It was pointed out to me that in my origional survey I didn't account for
international responses.  I apologize!!  In no way did I mean to limit the
survey to the US only!  If you did not take the survey because of this,
please visit it again because I have included a question for international
demographics.  If you already took the survey, please do not re-take it. 

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=KijJmRqvD_2fUon_2bOtnd8JXg_3d_3d

In case you missed the first announcement:

I am writing a paper on influential women in the wildlife and ecology
fields.  I wanted to know who others might name as inspirational women that
have made or are making significant contributions to our fields.

If you would like more information about what I am doing and why please feel
free to write me.  If you see this survey on another list serve you may
belong to, please only fill it out once.

[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Invasion biology reading

[Kelly Stettner]

Hi, James.  I don't think anyone is calling conservation biology a 
pseudoscience; it's 'invasion biology' that is in question.  To me, 
conservation is different from preservation -- we can't possibly know what a 
landscape or ecosystem would look like "without humans," but we can be 
responsible with the planet, use resources wisely with an eye toward the future 
and the overall ability to prosper of the organisms we interact with.
 
I'm looking at "invasion biology" and wondering if it does, in fact, deal with 
(as you phrased it) "natural realities."  Perhaps it deals instead with what we 
think we know or perhaps what we fear -- and we all have a level of fear and 
trepidation toward what we don't know or understand.
 
As far as the whales, if you look back at my original post, I was asking 
questions, looking for that data: "...what impact is preserving the whales 
having on other species?  Are we going to see population crashes of humans in 
fishing communities?"  There are, as you point out, foreseen and unforeseen 
consequences of things like damming rivers, culling predators (like wolves in 
Yellowstone), and deciding to preserve one species over another, for whatever 
reason.  Not 'bad' or 'evil,' just foreseen and unforeseen.
 
You make an excellent point, James:  "Face it:  you can't get published if 
nobody cares about the results of your studies, and you can't muster the energy 
to properly address a scientific question if you don't care about the answer.  
The result is that there is emotional weight behind all scientific research and 
all interpretations of results."  You also can't get published if no one will 
fund your research, so you have to MAKE somebody care about what you want to 
study, whether it's a cute, anthropomorphic mammal or a microscopic water 
flea.  Someone has to decide it is important enough to study, and that IS, you 
are correct, an emotional response.  A human value.
 
Again, thank you for continuing this discussion and bringing your ideas into 
the forum.
 
Respectfully,
Kelly

Black River Action Team (BRAT)
45 Coolidge Road
Springfield, VT  05156
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
http://www.blackriveractionteam.org

~Making ripples on the Black River since 2000! ~

[ECOLOG-L] Research Assistantship (Ph.D.): Landscape Limnology

[Kendra Spence Cheruvelil]

Research Assistantship (Ph.D.): Landscape Limnology

Quantifying human disturbance for aquatic ecosystem management within 
a landscape framework: Lakes as model systems


Location: Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Michigan State 
University, East Lansing, MI 48824.  http://www.fw.msu.edu/



We are seeking a highly motivated doctoral student to join the 
landscape limnology research group at Michigan State University. The 
student will develop a dissertation project that quantifies: (1) the 
relationships among fish assemblages, water clarity and chemistry, 
and natural hydrogeomorphic landscape-scale factors, (2) regional 
differences in the response of lakes to human disturbance, and (3) 
lake distance from reference condition. The student will examine 
these questions using a lake and landscape database that encompasses 
a 6-state region of MI, WI OH, IA, ME and NH. Preferable start date 
is August, 2009.


Applicants must be self-motivated and hard-working with good written 
and verbal communication skills. A background in ecology, landscape 
ecology, geography or limnology is desired. Past experience with 
geographic information systems, statistics (especially spatial), 
database management, and working in multidisciplinary collaborative 
research settings is desirable.


Applicants interested in this position should be prepared to submit 
an application for a university fellowship 
http://grad.msu.edu/funding.htm by early December 2008.


Closing Date: November 1, 2008

Please submit the following information to Dr. Pat Soranno 
([EMAIL PROTECTED]), Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, 13 Natural 
Resources Building, East Lansing, MI, 48824:
1. Cover letter describing background, relevant research interests 
and skills, and career objectives

2. Curriculum vitae
3. Unofficial transcripts
4. GRE scores (including percentiles)
5. Names, phone numbers, and emails of three references

For more information, please contact any member of MSU's Landscape 
Limnology Research Group:

Dr. Mary Bremigan ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Dr. Kendra Cheruvelil ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Dr. Pat Soranno ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Dr. Katherine Webster ([EMAIL PROTECTED])

[ECOLOG-L] Research Assistant Professor, Belowground Forest Ecosystem Processes

[Erik A Lilleskov]

You can link to the position description with more information about the
Michigan Technological University and the USFS Northern Research Station
at:  http://forest.mtu.edu/faculty/openings/index.html

Research Assistant Professor, Belowground Forest Ecosystem Processes

The School of Forest Resources and Environmental Science at Michigan
Technological University invites applications for the position of Research
Assistant Professor.  This position is representative of the collaboration
of Michigan Technological University and the USDA Forest Service Northern
Research Station and its USFS Northern Research Station's Climate, Fire and
Carbon Cycle Science research unit, focusing on current challenges
confronting our forests, including but not limited to understanding,
mitigating and adapting to ecosystem consequences of changing climate,
changing atmospheric chemistry and invasive species.

This is a full-time, nine-month, non-tenure-track research faculty
position.  In addition to the nine-month salary, this position offers 14
weeks of compensation in summer semester.  Candidates must possess a PhD.
and a demonstrated record of research excellence focusing on belowground
forest ecosystem processes.  Of particular interest are individuals
demonstrating innovative approaches to:
1) modeling or data acquisition that scale belowground stand processes to
forest and regional levels
2) determining the links between belowground processes and aquatic or
atmospheric biogeochemical fluxes
3) developing process models linking microbial communities with soil carbon
and nutrient cycles.

The successful candidate will teach an introductory soils course;
therefore, teaching experience is desirable.

The School of Forest Resources and Environmental Science has undergraduate
degree-granting programs in Forestry, Wildlife Ecology and Management, and
Applied Ecology and Environmental Sciences, with graduate programs in
Forestry (MS and MF), Forest Ecology and Management (MS), Applied Ecology
(MS), Forest Science (Ph.D.), and Forestry Molecular Genetics and
Biotechnology (MS and Ph.D.).

The School hosts the Ecosystem Science Center (ESC) and the Biotechnology
Research Center (BRC).  These centers encompass a large number of faculty
members within and outside the School with diverse research programs
including genomics, biotechnology, molecular genetics, molecular ecology,
plant physiology, animal ecology, and forest ecology and management.  We
seek an outstanding teacher and researcher who will complement existing
strengths in the ESC, participate in interdisciplinary research
collaboration within and outside the School, and contribute to the
education and research missions of the School.

The office for this position will be located in the U.S. Forest Service
research facility on the campus of Michigan Technological University, with
access to the newly constructed rhizotron and mesocosm facilities, a stable
isotope laboratory, a soils laboratory, and well-equipped microbiological
and chemical laboratories.

Michigan Technological University is a public, science and engineering
university that enrolls seven thousand students.  We are located in
Michigan’s beautiful Upper Peninsula that is replete with lakes, wetlands
and forests and boasts exceptional outdoor recreational opportunities.

Applicants should send a curriculum vita, the names and contact information
of three (3) references, a one-page statement of research interests, and a
one-page statement of teaching philosophy to:
Margaret R. Gale, Dean and Chair of the Search Committee
School of Forest Resources and Environmental Science
Michigan Technological University
1400 Townsend Drive, Houghton, Michigan 49931-1295

Review of applications will begin on November 3, 2008 and will continue
until the position is filled.  Questions may be directed to Dr. Margaret R.
Gale at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Michigan Technological University is an equal opportunity education
institution/equal opportunity employer.


Erik A. Lilleskov, PhD
Research Ecologist
Northern Research Station
USDA Forest Service
Forestry Sciences Laboratory
410 MacInnes Dr.
Houghton, MI 49931-1199

Tel: 906-482-6303 ext 22
Fax: 906-482-6355
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://ncrs.fs.fed.us/people/Lilleskov

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Invasion biology reading - Burning Bush

[Sharif Branham]

Hello everyone,
 
The problem with the non native invasive plant species is not just physical 
displacement of native species and competition for resources, but also the 
change in the soil chemistry and therefore soil ecology. Some non native 
invasive species change the soil pH or have allelopathic features that make the 
location inhospitable to the native vegetation. 
 
A plant like burning bush is a prolific berry and seed producer that is easily 
spread by birds. Once it is in the new ecosystem it is virtually impossible to 
completely remove because the transport mechanism is not limited by a physical 
barrier.
 
 
Sharif 
 
> Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2008 05:21:49 +> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: 
> [ECOLOG-L] Invasion biology reading - Burning Bush> To: 
> ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU> > I won't get involved in the larger philosophical 
> questions in this discussion - there are too many nuances, and I don,t have 
> the time right now, but I do want to say something about burning bush. > > 
> Are there any woodlands near the burning bushes you mention? If so, take a 
> walk through them this fall and you should see lots of burning bushes where 
> they don't belong, crowding out native species which should be there 
> providing food and shelter for wildlife. Burning bush is not the worst of the 
> exotics (Bradford pear, English ivy, bamboo, Japanese honeysuckle, and 
> oriental bittersweet are far worse around Reston, VA) but it is among the top 
> ten.> > --> Bob Mowbray > > "Nature has shrugged off countless > species in 
> the history of the > earth--and she will one day shrug > off Homo sapiens 
> sapiens with no > more concern than she has with any > of the others. And, 
> the sooner > she does so, the sooner the earth > can get back to normal." 
> --Louis > B. Ziegler > > -- Original message from Kelly Stettner 
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: -- > > Hmmm...I want to begin by 
> emphatically agreeing that tardigrades ARE, in point of fact, adorable. I 
> want to make a calendar of them, actually. *grin* > > Now...onto your post! > 
> > You said that "Human introductions occur at a higher rate than "natural" 
> ones." Darwin noted many introductions in his time, from viable seeds encased 
> in dirt of the rootballs of trees adrift on the ocean to tiny mussels 
> attached to a duck's feet. I've seen water beetles with freshwater mollusks 
> adhering to their shells, and creatures from crocodiles to dragonflies have 
> been seen a hundred miles or more out at sea. There are records of storms 
> dropping all manner of creatures into new territory, including seeds, worms, 
> snails, frogs, eels, ants, and more -- nevermind that moss spores can be 
> recovered from rain drops and > > germinate, thousands of miles from their 
> origin. Amazing! > > The article I was thinking of that discusses how our 
> biases frame our choices of > > research topics is in Frontiers in Ecology 
> and the Environment and is by John > > R.U. Wilson et al: "The (bio)diversity 
> of science reflects the interests of > > society" in Volume 5, Issue 8, pp. 
> 409-414. > > > > One quick funny ~ here's a good visual for those who have a 
> hard time picturing > > a mollusk invasion: > > 
> http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm120/brodyfairlane/Clams.jpg > > > > 
> Okay, back to seriousness. Instead of "invasive" species, why aren't we 
> calling > > a spade a spade and calling them "harmful" species? There are 
> relatively few of > > them, we both agree. Here is a for-instance: burning 
> bush is considered an > > invasive species. Yet I have six different 
> neighbors who have them on their > > front lawns, plus our local shopping 
> center has liberally peppered them > > throughout the property -- I've lived 
> here for over ten years, and never seen > > anyone sweating blood over the 
> Battle of the Burning Bush. Where, exactly, and > > how, exactly, are they 
> invasive? To whom? Under what circumstances? > > > > Another question: if 
> "natives" are so well-adapted to their "niche" in their > > home territory, 
> how can a newcomer "outcompete" them? This article in the NY > > Times 
> touches on a few of these ideas, but (more importantly, in my estimation) > > 
> points to scientific studies of Dr. Dov Sax, Dr. James Brown and others. It > 
> > also points to specifics, like the fact that 40 new species of freshwater 
> fish > > have been introduced to Hawaii, but the 5 native species have not 
> become > > extinct. The article is here: > > 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/09/science/09inva.html?_r=2&ref=science&oref=slog
>  > > in&oref=slogin It is from the September 9, 2008 edition on page F1. 
> Those few > > "invasives" who do cause actual extinction do so locally, and 
> also are usually > > active predators, not competitors, according to the 
> article. > > > > Also, conservation biology worries about conserving every 
> species on the > > planet. Yet we don't even know how many there are, a

[ECOLOG-L] Graduate fellowship available in pollination ecology

[Rachael Winfree]

Graduate Fellowship Available in Pollination Ecology:  A Ph.D or M.S. 
graduate student fellowship is available starting September 2009 with Dr. 
Rachael Winfree in the Department of Entomology at Rutgers University. The 
research field is pollination ecology, broadly defined. See 
http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~insects/winfree.htm for more information on 
research directions in my lab, and the Rutgers Entomology web site for 
program details. The fellowship includes tuition waiver and a living 
stipend as well as some research support. Applicants should be highly self-
motivated and have a strong academic background in entomology, ecology & 
evolution, or a related field; field research experience; and a keen 
interest in entomology and pollination ecology. Experience in pollination 
research and data analysis/modeling skills would be welcomed but are not 
essential. Interested applicants should email CV, transcript, test scores, 
and a letter describing your research interests to: Dr Rachael Winfree, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Invasion biology reading - Burning Bush

[James Crants]

Of course, if burning bush is not invasive in Vermont, or if the invasion is
still in its early stages, Kelly will not find it crowding out the natives
in the local woodlands.  What, exactly, would that mean?  Is there an
invasive species that's found to be invasive absolutely everywhere it's
introduced?  Why invasive species are not invasive everywhere is one of the
major questions in conservation biology, but it's foolish to dismiss the
entire concept of biological invasions just because there are cases where a
notorious invader fails to invade.

Millions of people with HIV don't have AIDS.  Most smokers never get lung
cancer.  Most of the time, when someone drives somewhere drunk, they arrive
safely at their destination.  Should we conclude that HIV, smoking, and
drunk driving are all harmless?



On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 12:21 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I won't get involved in the larger philosophical questions in this
> discussion - there are too many nuances, and I don,t have the time right
> now, but I do want to say something about burning bush.
>
> Are there any woodlands near the burning bushes you mention?  If so, take a
> walk through them this fall and you should see lots of burning bushes where
> they don't belong, crowding out native species which should be there
> providing food and shelter for wildlife.  Burning bush is not the worst of
> the exotics (Bradford pear, English ivy, bamboo, Japanese honeysuckle, and
> oriental bittersweet are far worse around Reston, VA) but it is among the
> top ten.
>
> --
> Bob Mowbray
>
> "Nature has shrugged off countless
> species in the history of the
> earth--and she will one day shrug
> off Homo sapiens sapiens with no
> more concern than she has with any
> of the others. And, the sooner
> she does so, the sooner the earth
> can get back to normal." --Louis
> B. Ziegler
>
> -- Original message from Kelly Stettner <
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]>: --
>
> Hmmm...I want to begin by emphatically agreeing that tardigrades ARE, in
> point of fact, adorable.  I want to make a calendar of them, actually.
>  *grin*
> > Now...onto your post!
> >   You said that "Human introductions occur at a higher rate than
> "natural" ones."  Darwin noted many introductions in his time, from viable
> seeds encased in dirt of the rootballs of trees adrift on the ocean to tiny
> mussels attached to a duck's feet.  I've seen water beetles with freshwater
> mollusks adhering to their shells, and creatures from crocodiles to
> dragonflies have been seen a hundred miles or more out at sea.  There are
> records of storms dropping all manner of creatures into new territory,
> including seeds, worms, snails, frogs, eels, ants, and more -- nevermind
> that moss spores can be recovered from rain drops and
> > germinate, thousands of miles from their origin.  Amazing!
> >   The article I was thinking of that discusses how our biases frame our
> choices of
> > research topics is in Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment and is by
> John
> > R.U. Wilson et al: "The (bio)diversity of science reflects the interests
> of
> > society" in Volume 5, Issue 8, pp. 409-414.
> >
> > One quick funny ~ here's a good visual for those who have a hard time
> picturing
> > a mollusk invasion:
> > http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm120/brodyfairlane/Clams.jpg
> >
> > Okay, back to seriousness.  Instead of "invasive" species, why aren't we
> calling
> > a spade a spade and calling them "harmful" species?  There are relatively
> few of
> > them, we both agree.  Here is a for-instance: burning bush is considered
> an
> > invasive species.  Yet I have six different neighbors who have them on
> their
> > front lawns, plus our local shopping center has liberally peppered them
> > throughout the property -- I've lived here for over ten years, and never
> seen
> > anyone sweating blood over the Battle of the Burning Bush.  Where,
> exactly, and
> > how, exactly, are they invasive?  To whom?  Under what circumstances?
> >
> > Another question: if "natives" are so well-adapted to their "niche" in
> their
> > home territory, how can a newcomer "outcompete" them?  This article in
> the NY
> > Times touches on a few of these ideas, but (more importantly, in my
> estimation)
> > points to scientific studies of Dr. Dov Sax, Dr. James Brown and others.
>  It
> > also points to specifics, like the fact that 40 new species of freshwater
> fish
> > have been introduced to Hawaii, but the 5 native species have not become
> > extinct.  The article is here:
> >
> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/09/science/09inva.html?_r=2&ref=science&oref=slog
> > in&oref=slogin  It is from the September 9, 2008 edition on page F1.
>  Those few
> > "invasives" who do cause actual extinction do so locally, and also are
> usually
> > active predators, not competitors, according to the article.
> >
> > Also, conservation biology worries about conserving every species on the
> > planet.  Yet we don't even know how many there 

[ECOLOG-L] Ph.D. opportunities, BEES graduate program at University of Maryland

[David Inouye]

University of Maryland BEES Graduate Program

The interdisciplinary graduate program in Behavior, Ecology, 
Evolution and Systematics (BEES) at University of Maryland is looking 
for exceptional students to enter the Ph.D. program for the academic 
year 2009-2010. The BEES program consists of over 50 faculty 
members.  At University of Maryland the participating departments 
include: Animal and Avian Sciences, Anthropology, Biology, 
Environmental Science and Technology, Cell Biology and Molecular 
Genetics, Computer Sciences, Entomology, Geology, and Plant Science 
and Landscape Architecture. We also have adjunct faculty from a 
number of affiliated institutions from the surrounding DC 
metropolitan area including the Smithsonian Institute, National 
Cancer Institute, UM Center for Advanced Research in Biotechnology 
(UMBI), and USDA.


We offer Darwin Fellowships to outstanding candidates and also have a 
jointly funded graduate fellowship program with the Smithsonian 
Institution for students planning on being co-advised by a SI adjunct 
faculty member along with a BEES UM faculty member. Research Areas of 
Smithsonian adjunct faculty members interested in co-advising 
students include Paleobiology, Genetics, and Molecular Systematics.


As a long-term member of the Organization for Tropical Studies (OTS) 
we encourage and fund participation by our BEES graduate students in 
these field courses.


Please see our BEES program web site for more information: http://bees.umd.edu

Faculty accepting graduate students for the 2009-2010 academic year 
are listed here: http://bees.umd.edu/fac_accepting.html


Please feel free to contact us is you have any questions at: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Invasion biology reading

[James Crants]

If I understand this argument correctly, it sounds as though some call
conservation biology a pseudoscience on the grounds that it has objectives
that are based on emotional responses to natural realities.  Of course, to
even mention that the Nazis were at least as concerned with removing exotic
species as any conservation biologist can hardly reduce the emotionalism
around the subject.  If you really wanted to promote cold rationalism, you
could hardly do worse than to compare your opponents to the Nazis.

But, more to the point, I have to question the definition of "pseuodscience"
that says that any interpretation of data that has emotional weight behind
it makes the research in question pseuodoscience.  Face it:  you can't get
published if nobody cares about the results of your studies, and you can't
muster the energy to properly address a scientific question if you don't
care about the answer.  The result is that there is emotional weight behind
all scientific research and all interpretations of results.

True pseudoscience (nice phrase, eh?) involves unfalsifiable hypotheses,
failure to consider alternative hypotheses, or cherry-picked data.
Conservation biologists tend to ask questions like, "does the population
density of this native mussel species decline as the density of zebra
mussels increases?"  They do not deliberately set up their studies so that
the results will favor their hypotheses, they try to consider alternative
hypotheses, and other ecologists try to find the holes in their studies,
just as in any legitimate science.  Interpretations of results will
certainly be biased against exotic species; at best, the exotic has no
significant effect, and any effect it does have will most likely be viewed
negatively.

But if conservation biology is therefore a pseudoscience, then so is all
research into human diseases, where every result is either an advance or a
setback in defeating the disease in question.  The motivation behind disease
research is to find treatments and cures for diseases.  I'm afraid to assert
a simple motivation behind conservation biology (because then we can all
argue about THAT), but it has something to do with preventing anthropogenic
extinctions and preserving or restoring ecosystems to a condition similar to
what would be seen with less or no human-caused disturbance.  If you don't
value the conservation of species and habitats, you'll take issue with any
interpretation of data by someone who thinks biological conservation is
important.  That does not mean that the science that produced the results
being interpreted is badly done.

Regarding whales, I would very much like to see the evidence that the
declines in our fisheries are attributable to whales.  Is it just a negative
correlation between whale population sizes and fish stocks in the past 30
years or something?  How many replicates do you have?  Do you have any
control groups, where whale populations have been held constant?  Have you
tested the alternative hypothesis that hunting by humans, not by whales,
cause declines in fisheries?  Have you controlled for habitat destruction by
humans (e.g., damming of spawning rivers)?

[ECOLOG-L] Job: Botany faculty, Shippensburg Univ.

[David Inouye]

Position Category: Tenure Track Faculty

Position: Assistant / Associate Professor Biology – Botanist

Job Description:
The Department of Biology at Shippensburg 
University invites applications for a tenure 
track Botanist position starting August 
2009.  Responsibilities include instruction in 
the following: Field Botany and Plant Taxonomy, 
and an upper division undergraduate / graduate 
course in the area of the candidate’s specialty, 
as well as introductory courses for majors and 
non-majors.  Supporting resources at Shippensburg 
University include a greenhouse, campus pond and 
stream and close proximity to diverse field sites 
of the Ridge and Valley, Blue Ridge and Piedmont Physiographic Provinces.


Required Skills / Qualifications:
The successful candidate will be expected to have 
a Ph.D. from an accredited institution completed 
by July 31, 2009.  A successful demonstration of 
teaching effectiveness, scholarly seminar and 
evidence of commitment to understanding diverse 
student populations, will be required as part of the on-campus interview.


Application Procedure:
Applicants should send curriculum vita, 
undergraduate and graduate transcripts 
(unofficial for application, official prior to 
interview), a brief statement of teaching 
philosophy and research interests, plus names, 
addresses and telephone numbers of three 
references to: Botany Search Committee, 1871 Old 
Main Drive, Shippensburg, PA 17257.  Review of 
application materials will begin on November 15, 
2008 and will continue until the position is 
filled.  Offers of employment are contingent upon 
successful completion of a criminal background 
check.  Upon appointment, all applicants must 
furnish proof of eligibility to work in the 
U.S.  Shippensburg University is an equal 
Opportunity Employer.  Individuals from 
traditionally underrepresented populations are encouraged to apply.


Contact:
Todd Hurd, Chair of Botanist Search Committee, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]




Todd M. Hurd

Associate Professor

Department of Biology

Shippensburg University

1871 Old Main Dr.

Shippensburg, PA 17257-2299

Phone: 717-477-1751

Fax: 717-477-4064

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Invasion biology reading

[Patricia D'Arconte]

I have some real concerns about the negative perception of conservation
biology and invasive species management that I'm seeing.  Kelly Stettner
asked some questions I'd like to address:

>Okay, back to seriousness.=A0 Instead of "invasive" species, why aren't
we >calling a spade a spade and calling them "harmful" species?=A0 There
are   >relatively few of them, we both agree.=A0 Here is a for-instance:
burning >bush is considered an invasive species.=A0 Yet I have six
different >neighbors who have them on their front lawns, plus
our local shopping >center has liberally peppered them throughout the
property -- I've lived >here for over ten years, and never seen anyone
sweating blood over the >Battle of the Burning Bush.=A0 Where, exactly,
and how, exactly, are they >invasive?=A0 To whom? Under what
circumstances?

We call them "invasive" because they are able to colonize an area to a
degree and speed far beyond that of other "exotic" species.  It is their
invasiveness that is harmful, their ability to disrupt ecosystem
functions and community assemblages.  I doubt any resource manager is
ever going to suggest the attempt to exterminate all exotic species in
an area.  As one such resource manager, I can say that most of us hardly
have enough time, money, and energy to deal with the "harmful" species,
let alone the dozens/hundreds of other exotics that "get along" with
their native neighbors just fine.

In North Carolina, particularly the mountains, burning bush is highly
invasive and excludes other native bushes.  States pay attention to the
invasions going on in neighboring or nearby states, as it's better to
address invaders in small populations as they appear, rather than
allowing them to reach a state of being a nuisance or truly noxious.
Northern states on the East Coast of the US reasonably pay attention to
the invasions in more southerly states, partly because the climatic
tolerances of these species are not always known, but also in
anticipation of changing climate and the opportunity for further
population expansion.

I don't particularly want kudzu, English ivy, tree of heaven, burning
bush, green bamboo, and privet to expand their ranges here in NC.  I
doubt most of the animals that live in our forests could survive a
"forest" composed entirely or even mostly of those species, which is
what we would get if we allowed them free rein.  But that's what we're
talking about when we talk about invasive species.  Not just the loss of
one or two species - that's happening just through conversion of habitat
to agriculture or cities.  It's the exclusion of many species and
conversion of whole ecosystems to something completely different.

>Also, conservation biology worries about conserving every species on
the >planet.=A0 Yet we don't even know how many there are, and dozens of
new >species are being discovered every day, from mammals to mollusks,
lichen to >lizards.=A0 Just look at the Great Barrier Reef recently, or
Suriname.=A0 I >got ta ask, what do you consider a "unique" ecosystem,
since ecosystems are >constantly changing?

Ecosystems don't naturally experience these severe shifts in species
assemblage as fast we have enabled them to.  Change on the time scale of
natural invasions makes for ecosystems that are stable long enough to be
classified as unique by people.  And yes, I know we're part of the
natural world, but only in the past few centuries have we had the
extraordinary mobility that allows us to transport a species from
halfway across the world past many climates and conditions that would
otherwise kill them, to enable invasions that would not have happened
without our help.  Not knowing all the species that might exist does not
negate the need to conserve the ones you know that exist.  Just because
change is inherent to ecosystems does not mean that rapid change is good
or even better for us.

>Your argument against allowing EVERY kind of change is one addressed in
>Theodoropoulos' book; there must be common sense and a serious
stewardship >attitude -- but it must be an honest one.=A0 We can't and
shouldn't protect >every species -- against what?=A0 Extinction?=A0
Adaptation?=A0 >Evolution?=A0= Extinction is a resource in and of itself
and shouldn't be >mourned; "loss" of one species means more resources
for others, and gives >other species the opportunity to adapt and to
expand their range.=A0=20

The problem with the kinds of change we instigate is that it proceeds at
a rate far beyond the rate of evolution for long-lived organisms
(especially ones we economically value, like chestnuts and sea bass).
At the same time, we're seeing massive numbers/kinds of ecosystems being
changed, not just one here or there as you would get without human
involvement.  And there's no guarantee that the species we value the
most *can* evolve fast enough for their kind to weather these changes,
forget about the ones we're only learning that might be very valuable.
Your example of Daphnia evolving 

[ECOLOG-L] Student Travel Grants - International Biogeography Society

[Matt Heard]

*Student Travel Grants - International Biogeography Society*



The International Biogeography Society is awarding travel grants for
students to attend the 2009 biennial meeting, which will be held January
8-12, 2009 in Merida, Mexico.  The U.S. National Science Foundation has
provided a large grant to IBS that will pay for several dozen students from
U.S.-based institutions to attend the meeting. Students awarded these grants
will still need to pay meeting registration costs, but most other expenses,
such as airfare, hotel costs, and food, will be supported – up to a maximum
of $1,300 per award recipient. IBS will also provide a limited number of
travel grants for students based outside the U.S. These grants will award a
maximum of $800 per award participant. All grants will be awarded to
graduate and advanced undergraduates giving oral or poster presentations at
the meeting.



Each student will need to submit an application along with an electronic
letter of recommendation from a non-student member of IBS.  Application
instructions can be found at:

http://www.biogeography.org/html/Meetings/2009/travel.html



Applications and supporting materials are due by *October 31**st**, 2008*.
Grant recipients will be notified by *November 15**th**, 2008.*

* *

Please contact Matt Heard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> with any questions.

>
>


-- 

Matt Heard
PhD Student
Brown University
Ecology and Evolutionary Biology
80 Waterman St. Box G-W
Providence, RI 02912
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
heard.m.googlepages.com

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Invasion biology reading - Burning Bush

[rnmowbray]

I won't get involved in the larger philosophical questions in this discussion - 
there are too many nuances, and I don,t have the time right now, but I do want 
to say something about burning bush. 

Are there any woodlands near the burning bushes you mention?  If so, take a 
walk through them this fall and you should see lots of burning bushes where 
they don't belong, crowding out native species which should be there providing 
food and shelter for wildlife.  Burning bush is not the worst of the exotics 
(Bradford pear, English ivy, bamboo, Japanese honeysuckle, and oriental 
bittersweet are far worse around Reston, VA) but it is among the top ten.

--
Bob Mowbray 

"Nature has shrugged off countless 
species in the history of the 
earth--and she will one day shrug 
off Homo sapiens sapiens with no 
more concern than she has with any 
of the others. And, the sooner 
she does so, the sooner the earth 
can get back to normal." --Louis 
B. Ziegler 

-- Original message from Kelly Stettner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: 
-- 

Hmmm...I want to begin by emphatically agreeing that tardigrades ARE, in point 
of fact, adorable.  I want to make a calendar of them, actually.  *grin*  
> Now...onto your post! 
>   You said that "Human introductions occur at a higher rate than "natural" 
> ones."  Darwin noted many introductions in his time, from viable seeds 
> encased in dirt of the rootballs of trees adrift on the ocean to tiny mussels 
> attached to a duck's feet.  I've seen water beetles with freshwater mollusks 
> adhering to their shells, and creatures from crocodiles to dragonflies have 
> been seen a hundred miles or more out at sea.  There are records of storms 
> dropping all manner of creatures into new territory, including seeds, worms, 
> snails, frogs, eels, ants, and more -- nevermind that moss spores can be 
> recovered from rain drops and 
> germinate, thousands of miles from their origin.  Amazing! 
>   The article I was thinking of that discusses how our biases frame our 
> choices of 
> research topics is in Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment and is by John 
> R.U. Wilson et al: "The (bio)diversity of science reflects the interests of 
> society" in Volume 5, Issue 8, pp. 409-414. 
> 
> One quick funny ~ here's a good visual for those who have a hard time 
> picturing 
> a mollusk invasion: 
> http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm120/brodyfairlane/Clams.jpg 
> 
> Okay, back to seriousness.  Instead of "invasive" species, why aren't we 
> calling 
> a spade a spade and calling them "harmful" species?  There are relatively few 
> of 
> them, we both agree.  Here is a for-instance: burning bush is considered an 
> invasive species.  Yet I have six different neighbors who have them on their 
> front lawns, plus our local shopping center has liberally peppered them 
> throughout the property -- I've lived here for over ten years, and never seen 
> anyone sweating blood over the Battle of the Burning Bush.  Where, exactly, 
> and 
> how, exactly, are they invasive?  To whom?  Under what circumstances? 
>   
> Another question: if "natives" are so well-adapted to their "niche" in their 
> home territory, how can a newcomer "outcompete" them?  This article in the NY 
> Times touches on a few of these ideas, but (more importantly, in my 
> estimation) 
> points to scientific studies of Dr. Dov Sax, Dr. James Brown and others.  It 
> also points to specifics, like the fact that 40 new species of freshwater 
> fish 
> have been introduced to Hawaii, but the 5 native species have not become 
> extinct.  The article is here: 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/09/science/09inva.html?_r=2&ref=science&oref=slog
>  
> in&oref=slogin  It is from the September 9, 2008 edition on page F1.  Those 
> few 
> "invasives" who do cause actual extinction do so locally, and also are 
> usually 
> active predators, not competitors, according to the article. 
>   
> Also, conservation biology worries about conserving every species on the 
> planet.  Yet we don't even know how many there are, and dozens of new species 
> are being discovered every day, from mammals to mollusks, lichen to lizards.  
> Just look at the Great Barrier Reef recently, or Suriname.  I gotta ask, what 
> do 
> you consider a "unique" ecosystem, since ecosystems are constantly changing? 
>   
> Your argument against allowing EVERY kind of change is one addressed in 
> Theodoropoulos' book; there must be common sense and a serious stewardship 
> attitude -- but it must be an honest one.  We can't and shouldn't protect 
> every 
> species -- against what?  Extinction?  Adaptation?  Evolution?  Extinction is 
> a 
> resource in and of itself and shouldn't be mourned; "loss" of one species 
> means 
> more resources for others, and gives other species the opportunity to adapt 
> and 
> to expand their range.  
>   
> Evolution can handle "snap-shots" -- look at Germany's Lake Constance and the 
> fact that Daphnia changed their feeding b