[ECOLOG-L] Seeking publications
Dear Ecologgers, Please help me obtain any publications describing the relationship between the flight activity of predators/parasitoids and their prey species. I am especially keen on answering the following questions: 1. how does flight activity of an insect natural enemy and its prey relate to its abundance and level of control 2. What is the relevance of flight behaviour of insect species in monitoring populations 3. How would these apply to invasion ecology and biological control? i am studying *Prostephanus truncatus* and its predator *Teretrius nigrescens* but articles in any relevant systems would be really useful. All these articles would be used by me and my supervisors for my PhD thesis (no commercial use whatsoever). Kind regards, Bonaventure Aman, Nairobi, Kenya
[ECOLOG-L] FW: [shrplist] Syllabi on science and human rights
Ecologgers, Please see the request below from the AAAS Science and Human Rights Coalition (ESA is an associate member), seeking syllabi that address science and human rights. Thank you, Cliff Duke, ESA Science Programs Office From: shrplist-boun...@listserv.aaas.org [mailto:shrplist-boun...@listserv.aaas.org] On Behalf Of s...@aaas.org Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2009 8:32 AM To: shrpl...@listserv.aaas.org Subject: [shrplist] Syllabi on science and human rights Dear Colleagues, We write to ask your assistance in identifying university and college syllabi on science and human rights from any and all disciplines (eg health, engineering, anthropology). With the permission of their authors, these syllabi will be posted online as part of a database of science and human rights resources being created by the Education and Information Resources working group of the AAAS Science and Human Rights Coalition. Examples of the types of syllabi we seek include: Health and Human Rightshttp://commprojects.jhsph.edu/academics/prop.cfm?id=2, Anthropology and Human Rightshttp://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~tmacdon/courses/anthro1615_syllabus.pdf, Science in the Service of Human Rightshttp://www.hrea.org/erc/Library/pre-service/claude02.pdf. We look forward to receiving your syllabi and suggestions for inclusion. In the meantime, if you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Kind regards, SHRP Staff Science and Human Rights Program American Association for the Advancement of Science 1200 New York Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20005 USA Ph +1 202 326 6796 Fax +1 202 289 4950 s...@aaas.orgmailto:s...@aaas.org http://shr.aaas.org/
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Re ESA Position Statement
I just had a look at the ESA Position Statement on the economic growth and their Strategies for Achieving Ecologically Sustainable Growth. It's very difficult to believe that ecologists, of all people, composed such a document and, if that's the way a majority of ecologists within the ESA think, then we're really in more trouble than I thought. Sustainable economic growth is simply an impossibility. Economic growth refers to an increase in a country's output (production and consumption) of goods and services usually measured by an increase in real GDP. The key point here is that it is an increase proportional to the amount that was produced before! Therefore, economic growth at a constant rate amounts to exponential growth. But we know through thermodynamics that you can't make something from nothing (nor can you make nothing from something). Since virtually all the goods—including all the goods required to support the services—come directly from ecosystem structure, economic growth is also an increase in throughput, or flow of natural resources, through the economy and back to the environment. When the GDP goes up, invariably an ecosystem somewhere has been appropriated, polluted, or otherwise degraded and, along with it, the biodiversity it holds and the services it provides. Arguments about technological solutions seem suspect here. We are the most technologically advance civilization in the history of humanity and yet the global environment is the most degraded in our history. When is this technology going to kick in? Likely never, so long as economic growth is an imperative. The World Health organization, as part of their contribution to the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, concluded: In the 200 years for which we have reliable data, overall growth of consumption has outpaced increased efficiencies in production processes [improved technologies], leading to absolute increases in global consumption of materials and energy [ecosystem resources]. This means that, in practice, economic growth tends to increase consumption of energy and materials. Why doesn’t the ESA position quote this fact-based finding? Instead it selectively quotes one musing of the Brundtland Commission (or one of its members) that “sustainable development…can be consistent with economic growth, provided the content of growth reflects the broad principles of sustainability.” Greening the economy is another myth. Josh Schimel states, The development of hybrid cars, solar cells, etc. all involve economic growth and development, and yet they reduce human impacts on the world (at least where they replace existing technology). But also, they all involve producing more goods which requires more resources (more than the previous year if economic growth occurs) from some component of ecosystem structure. Imagine the resource requirements to replace the NA vehicle fleet with electric cars. Then try and imagine how the vast increased demand for electricity will be met. As Josh Schimel notes, Other kinds of growth may enhance our well being without degrading the global support system as well, and he's right. But that’s not economic growth. He’s really talking about a qualitative development, and only in one sector. But remember that economic growth, in academia, in the public, in legislatures and administrations, means more production and consumption of goods and services, as indicated by increasing GDP. It is a cumulative measure – it makes no sense to speak of the growth of an automobile sector, a services sector, or a pizza business as “economic growth.” Economic growth occurs only if the aggregated production and consumption is increasing.” And Schimel's truths: 1. Humans in the developing world have a moral right to try to improve their well being. 2. There is a finite capacity of the planet to support humans and increasing resource consumption and waste production will degrade the planetary carrying capacity. are absolutely correct; however, they are *not* to be balanced. (i.e., Thus, we felt that the statement had to argue that we needed to balance those conflicting truths.) The priority has to be truth 2 and it should be weighted significantly more than truth 1 for without healthy ecosystems providing their life-support services, truth 1 is moot. This is why the concept of a sustainable, steady state economy is important to understand for it addresses the scale of the economy, just distribution of resources (which would address truth 1) and allocation of resources, in that order. We need to solve the macroallocation problem: how much of the Earth's ecosystems must we leave in a natural state to supply the life-support services and how much can we use for throughput to the human economy? Ecologists can play a key role here. I can understand an organization, such as The Wildlife Society or the Association of Professional Biologists of BC, being reluctant to vigorously oppose such an ingrained paradigm as economic growth by
[ECOLOG-L] FW: ESA and education partners receive $207K NSF grant
ESA Press Release Wednesday, July 29, 2009 Ecological Society of America and partners receive $207K NSF grant Funding will advance participation of minority students in National Ecological Observatory Network The Ecological Society of America has received a $207,000 National Science Foundation grant to cultivate the participation of underrepresented institutions and students in science and education within the National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON). The grant is in partnership with the Science and Engineering Alliance, Inc. (SEA) and NEON, Inc. This is quite an historic partnership for us, and indeed, for the field of ecology, said ESA's Director of Education and Diversity Programs Teresa Mourad. The funding will support an array of projects that involve undergraduate faculty and students in the development of NEON, whose national network of observatories will collect ecological data at continental scales over multiple decades. Projects will include educational webinars for undergraduate faculty, a social media workshop for college students, and a series of speaking tours to 17 Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HCBUs) and other Minority-Serving Institutions (MSIs) that are part of the SEA Phosphorus Observational Network initiative. NEON is pleased to work with two strong organizations in building the foundations for participation of underrepresented minority undergraduate institutions and students in NEON science and education, said Wendy Gram, NEON Chief of Education and Public Engagement. Using large-scale datasets similar to data slated to be collected by NEON, the webinars will teach undergraduate faculty to recognize and assess how ecological systems vary and what causes them to change over time. Participating faculty will learn how to link observational data to their local ecological communities and extend these ideas to their teaching. The use of social media is ubiquitous across college campuses, and the student workshop will enable students to use these technologies within the NEON framework. Students will explore how these fast-paced emerging technologies could help to close ecological knowledge gaps in environmental decision-making, from the local to the continental level. Led by SEA, the college speaking tours will introduce HBCUs and MSIs to NEON science and gather in-depth insight into how they can interface with NEON within their research, development, education and outreach efforts. Helping NEON establish close ties with HBCUs and MSIs is a major dimension in risk reduction of NEON's engagement strategy, said Robert Shepard, SEA's Executive Director. Mourad thinks that the program's design is part of the key to its success in broadening the fields of ecological science and education. I do believe the intentional design of working with a visionary organization such as SEA to cultivate relationships with underrepresented audiences is going to help define the future of the field, she said. ESA is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization of scientists founded in 1915 with more than 10,000 members worldwide in academia, government and the corporate sector. ESA's Education and Diversity Programs office offers a variety of programs to increase the diversity of the ecology-related professions and to improve the quality of ecology education. SEA is a Washington, D.C. based 501(c)(3) corporation established in 1990 to address the challenge of establishing an ethnically diverse technical workforce prepared to compete in today's global marketplace. Its unique program is dedicated to ensuring that historically underrepresented talent play a vital role in the nation's scientific and engineering future. NEON, Inc. is an independent 501(c)(3) corporation created to enable understanding and forecasting of the impacts of climate change, land-use change, and invasive species on continental-scale ecology. The Observatory will be the first of its kind to collect ecological data at continental scales over multiple decades, which will be readily available to scientists, educators, students, decision makers and the public to use to understand and address ecological questions and issues. Contact: Teresa Mourad (202) 833-8773 x 234; ter...@esa.org Jennifer Riem (202) 833-8773 x 236; jenni...@esa.org
Re: [ECOLOG-L] ESA position on sustainable growth
People who promote sustainable growth are talking about enlarging the economy in a way that minimizes the ecological impact of that expansion. Being wiser about how we do things would thus not count as growth in the absence of economic expansion, even though one could call it growth in terms of intellectual maturity. Unfortunately, there is no amount of economic expansion that is sustainable indefinitely, simply because we live on a finite planet, and not a very big one at that. Politically, I think even sustainable growth is a radical notion in America, and we're a very long way from accepting that we will inevitably come to have no growth, or negative growth. Thus, I don't think it's such a shame for the ESA to be promoting it at this time. Better to offer the biggest pill public might be willing to swallow and thereby buy us a little time than to advocate the full treatment and be dismissed as alarmist and extremist. The ESA can't afford to be politically irrelevant. That said, it's still important for people and agencies with less stake in being perceived as mainstream to argue for deliberate zero-growth policies, preferably in calm, rational terms. The populace won't adopt a view that is never expressed, and the alternative is to have zero-growth imposed on us by resource limitation. I think the critical question is why economic expansion is good. People conflate economic expansion with its positive outcomes, so that expansion itself becomes the chief goal for any given economy. If our focus were on obtaining maximum benefit (comfort, security, liberty) for minimal cost (war, disease, poverty, crime, pollution), we would see economic growth, decline, or constancy as means to that end, and we would stop believing that expansion is inherently good and that anything else in inherently bad. Jim C. On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 9:26 AM, Kelly Stettner blackriverclea...@yahoo.com wrote: Dear fellow/sister ECOLOGgers; I am not a member of ESA, but I have never had a problem with sustainable growth per se. I don't see it as continuing on the road that we're on economically or developmentally, but I see it as growth in new ways, new attitudes and new ways of thinking. To me, growth does not mean unfettered use or unlimited consumption. It means change, adaptation, paradigm shifts. But as the United States takes a fresh look at how our economy functions, we see a tremendous opportunity to adopt an approach that incorporates the value of natural ecosystems. Why can't that include Low Impact Development? Growth and development that incorporates the dynamism of the natural world we live in? Why does growth have to be viewed as bad? And by what standards do we measure value? Society at least needs to be honest about that; when using the word value in the sense of natural ecosystems, what are we talking about? Property or real estate value? Development value? Wildlife habitat value? Tourism value? Recreational value? Scenic value? Is nature valuable just cuz it exists? If everything not associated with humans is natural, then what are we? What I've been thinking is that, if we want humanity to be part of the natural world and not separate from or above it, we must learn to grow within it as much as we learn to grow it within ourselves. Pardon the touchy-feely aspect of that, but we really need to act as though we belong here and embrace the idea that all organisms on the planet struggle for survival ~ every living thing (plants, animals, insects, you name it) competes for resources, outsmarts predators, consumes and makes waste, defends itself, attacks and invades, and seeks to gain new territory through growth. So far as I know, humans are the only beings that can consciously modify our behavior and decide to limit our growth through intellect rather than instinctive reaction. Just my 2 cents' worth. Respectfully, Kelly Stettner Black River Action Team (BRAT) 45 Coolidge Road Springfield, VT 05156 http://www.blackriveractionteam.org Date:Mon, 27 Jul 2009 08:22:39 -0400 From:TUFFORD, DANIEL tuff...@biol.sc.edu Subject: Re: ESA Position Statement: Value of Ecosystems Should Figure in Economic Decisions I did not participate in the ESA discussions about this so do not know = what was actually said or done, but I can understand this position in = the context of political relevance. In an earlier e-mail Brian mentioned = sound science, which is certainly a high priority. But policy in the = functioning economic and political arena implies political salience. A = no-growth position (which I personally support) will immediately = marginalize the organization that proposes it. The position is fine in = the context of an ongoing discussion of philosophical approaches but is = a boat-anchor in the real world of feasible policy development. =20 This level of compromise leaves a bad taste in my mouth as well, but I = do not
[ECOLOG-L] Interdisciplinary Climate Change Research Symposium
DISCCRS V Interdisciplinary Climate Change Research Symposium http://disccrs.org/DISCCRSposter.pdfhttp://disccrs.org/DISCCRSposter.pdf 13-20 March 2010 Saguaro Lake Ranch, AZ Application Deadline 31 August 2009 Participation limited to thirty-four early career scholars Airfare and on-site expenses supported by the National Science Foundation http://disccrs.org/http://disccrs.org/ The Dissertations Initiative for the Advancement of Climate Change Research (DISCCRS, pronounced discourse), connects natural and social scientists engaged in research related to climate change, impacts and solutions. The goal is to broaden perspectives and establish a collegial peer network to address climate challenges at the interface of science and society. A report and list of participants from the most recent symposium is available at http://disccrs.org/reports/DISCCRS_IV_Symposium_Report.pdfhttp://disccrs.org/reports/DISCCRS_IV_Symposium_Report.pdf During the week-long symposium -- held in the Tonto National Forest near Phoenix, Arizona -- participants will present and discuss their research, hone interdisciplinary communication and team skills, and discuss emerging research, societal and professional issues with each other and with established researchers invited to serve as mentors. Confirmed mentors include Julia E. Cole (University of Arizona), Jonathan T. Overpeck (University of Arizona), Billie L. Turner (Arizona State University), and David A. Randall (Colorado State University). Participation will be limited to thirty-four early career scholars identified by an interdisciplinary committee of research scientists based on review of submitted applications. Eligibility: PhD requirements completed April 1, 2007 - July 31, 2009. Selection will favor applicants who plan to engage in interdisciplinary research careers in any subject within or relevant to climate change, its impacts and solutions. We encourage applicants from the natural and social sciences, economics, mathematics, engineering, or any other field so long as the research focus relates to climate change, its impacts or solutions. While the emphasis is on the U.S. research system, we welcome applicants from all countries who are interested in learning about the U.S. research system and connecting with U.S. researchers. Symposium Application instructions: http://disccrs.org/symphelp.htmlhttp://disccrs.org/symphelp.html Register your PhD dissertation and search for other recent climate change dissertations: (over 900 PhDs have added their dissertation abstract on climate change to this database). http://disccrs.org/register.htmlhttp://disccrs.org/register.html Electronic newsletter: with jobs and other time-sensitive announcements is available to those who register dissertations. Public webpage: includes the dissertation registry, numerous early career resources, and symposium application instructions. http://disccrs.org/http://disccrs.org/ Society Sponsors: AAG, AERE, AGU, AMS, ASLO, ESA, ESS-ISA, STEP-APSA, TOS and USSEE. Organizers: Ronald B. Mitchell, University of Oregon; Paul H. Yancey, Whitman College; Jennifer R. Marlon, University of Oregon; and Ruth A. Ladderud, Whitman College. Funding: This Symposium is funded by the U.S. National Science Foundation through grants to the University of Oregon and Whitman College. Contact: mailto:i...@disscrs.orgi...@disscrs.orgmailto:i...@disscrs.org For a printable color poster of information about DISCCRS V in PDF format, please go to: http://disccrs.org/DISCCRSposter.pdfhttp://disccrs.org/DISCCRSposter.pdf -- please distribute widely.
[ECOLOG-L] ESA Position on Economic Growth
Nadine Lymn forwarded a message from Josh Schimel of the ESA Governing Board, in which Josh indicated that the board had taken into account the comments of the group of 84 ESA members proposing an ESA position on economic growth. Therefore, I think it is important to avail precisely what our group's comments were. ESA members and other Ecologgers can assess the degree to which they were in fact accounted for. Group Comments on the Draft ESA Position on the Ecological Impacts of Economic Growth Delivered to ESA Governing Board on April 16, 2009 General Comments The draft position includes several correct and important points about the ecological impacts of economic growth, and about the need for correcting markets in which ecosystem services are not accounted for. Overall, however, the draft position is not based upon sound ecological science, does not provide a thorough assessment of the ecological impacts of economic growth, and is quite misleading about the prospects for reconciling economic growth with environmental protection. It concludes by proffering the oxymoronic concept of sustainable growth, which is precisely the concept that is increasingly refuted in the journals of ecological economics and other sustainability-related sciences such as conservation biology. Herein we offer numerous suggestions for improvement, and we strongly object to any further advancement of the current draft. The draft position would only exacerbate misunderstandings about limits to growth and tradeoffs between economic growth and the maintenance of ecological systems. One of the biggest problems with the draft position is the lack of a definition of economic growth. A definition is critical to set a clear stage for the entire statement. Without a definition of economic growth, it becomes convenient - but literally meaningless - to proffer concepts such as sustainable growth. The basic definition of economic growth, used and implied by the public and policy makers, is provided in the position on economic growth now being proposed by 84 ESA members: Economic growth is an increase in the production and consumption of goods and services. It requires increasing population and/or per capita production and consumption. It is indicated by measures of production, income, and expenditure, most notably gross domestic product (GDP). We recommend that this widely understood and policy statement-relevant definition be used in any ESA position that goes forward. Shortly after the first use of the phrase economic growth in the draft position, the word development is used, and it too is not defined. Thereafter, economic growth and economic development are conflated throughout the draft position. For example, in the second paragraph on page 2, the position states, Development must remain a priority in light of the millions currently living without adequate access to ecosystem services and resources that others enjoy freely. Still, unless society sets aside enough income to offset the depreciation of all forms of capital, there are limits to the amount of material consumption the Earth can sustain. The problem is not economic growth, per se, but the ways in which it is implemented (italics added). Not only is development conflated with growth, but per se implies that there is a clear definition of economic growth, and there isn't. Similarly on page 2, under the heading The Ecological Impacts of Economic Growth is the s! ubheading, Why is our current approach to development unsustainable? The conflation of the terms throughout the draft position is distracting and it renders the content unclear and watered down. We are aware that, on page 55 in the 374-page Brundtland Report annex that was later published as Our Common Future, there is a paragraph that suggests that sustainable development can be consistent with economic growth, provided the content of growth reflects the broad principles of sustainability. This is the one quote of the Brundtland Commission provided in the draft position. However, the Commission also noted, A mainspring of economic growth is new technology, and while this technology offers the potential for slowing the dangerously rapid consumption of finite resources, it also entails high risks, including new forms of pollution and the introduction to the planet of new variations of life forms that could change evolutionary pathways. Meanwhile, the industries most heavily reliant on environmental resources and most heavily polluting are growing most rapidly in the developing world, where there is both more urgency for growth and less capacity to minimize damag! ing side effects (page 21). Furthermore, the Commission was non-committal on the meaning of economic growth and on the time frame of sustainability. For example, they noted, Central agencies... play key roles in national decision making.
[ECOLOG-L] ORISE postdoc_aquatic ecologist
Postdoctoral positions are currently available with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) National Center for Environmental Assessment (NCEA) in Research Triangle Park (RTP), North Carolina. NCEA is looking for enthusiastic postdoctoral scholars to assist with the preparation of scientific assessments that evaluate the ecological effects caused by the atmospheric deposition of nitrogen, sulfur and lead, and ambient air concentrations of ozone and particulate matter. Aquatic ecologists are especially encouraged to apply. The full announcement is below. Research Participation Program U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development National Center for Environmental Assessment Research Triangle Park, North Carolina Project #: EPA-ORD/NCEA-RTP-2009-03 Assessment of Health and Environmental Effects from Exposure to Criteria Air Pollutants and IRIS Chemicals A postdoctoral research project is currently available at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) National Center for Environmental Assessment (NCEA) in Research Triangle Park (RTP), North Carolina. Between five and ten appointments will be offered. Project Description: NCEA is responsible for scientific assessment activities related to the effects of the criteria air pollutants (particulate matter, ozone, sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide and lead) and chemical assessments in the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) program. Such assessment activities are very broad and typically have significant implications for national and international environmental policy evelopment and implementation. This is an interdisciplinary project that will entail postdoctoral researchers in a range of scientific disciplines, as outlined below, to contribute to the assessment of scientific information. Participants will be mentored by scientific staff at NCEA-RTP on projects related to the evaluation of evidence on the health and environmental effects of criteria air pollutants or chemical pollutants. Specific Tasks: The participant will be involved in the review and evaluation of currently available scientific information for the purpose of developing integrated science assessment documents and communicating scientific information to other EPA program offices. The participant may be engaged in one or more of the following activities: critically reviewing scientific literature on the criteria air pollutants within specific disciplines (e.g., epidemiology, toxicology, human exposure, ecology)participating in evaluation of complex questions regarding interpretation of scientific information conducting new analyses of scientific data to support the development of science assessments writing sections of integrated science assessment documents for Pb, O3 or other criteria air pollutants or chemical pollutants Qualifications and Skills: Applicants must have received a doctoral degree in epidemiology, toxicology, human exposure assessment, biostatistics, ecology, environmental chemistry or physics, or biology (including physiology, biochemistry, etc.) within five years of the desired starting date. The ability to review bodies of literature and develop sound conclusions based on information from multiple sources is highly desirable. The program is open to all qualified individuals without regard to race, sex, religion, color, age, physical or mental disability, national origin, or status as a Vietnam era or disabled veteran. U.S. citizenship or lawful permanent resident status is preferred (but can also hold an appropriate visa status, however, an H1B visa is not appropriate). The participant does not become an EPA employee. Length of Appointment: These appointments may be part- or full-time for one year and may be renewed for up to two additional years upon recommendation of NCEA and subject to availability of funds. The project will largely be conducted at the NCEA offices in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. The participant will receive a monthly stipend prorated to the actual number of hours of participation. The participant must show proof of health and medical insurance. Funding may be made available to reimburse the participant's travel expenses to present the results of his/her research at scientific conferences. No funding will be made available to cover travel costs for interviews, relocation costs, costs of tuition/school fees, or a participant's health insurance. The Research Participation Program for EPA is administered by the Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education. Please reference Project # EPA- ORD/NCEA-RTP-2009-03 when calling or writing for information. For additional information and application materials contact: Research Participation Program/EPA, Attn: Betty Bowling, Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education, P.O. Box 117, Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37831-0117, Phone: (865) 576-8503 FAX: (865)
[ECOLOG-L] Graduate Research Assistantship: Decomposition in Drylands
Graduate Research Assistantship Decomposition in Drylands: Soil erosion - UV interactions We invite applications for a graduate research assistantship (GRA; Ph. D. level preferred; 3 years funding) from students interested in decomposition processes in desert ecosystems. Most of what is known about decomposition is from studies in high rainfall areas, but this knowledge does not translate well to dryland ecosystems. Recent studies suggest solar ultra-violet radiation is a major driver of decomposition in drylands; however, other studies indicate the level of mixing of wind/water-transported soils with litter is a key factor. This project seeks to resolve these competing explanations via a series of laboratory studies and field experiments in Arizona designed to measure light energy-soil movement- decomposition interactions. These linkages will be assessed in the context of woody plant encroachment into grasslands, a globally extensive vegetation change in drylands. The graduate research assistant will be based at the University of Arizona with Steve Archer and Dave Breshears. The GRA will participate in an interdisciplinary investigation seeking new insights into processes affecting desert soil fertility and carbon storage by combining the disciplines of plant community ecology, ecosystem science and earth science in a novel framework. The GRA’s project will be field-oriented and will quantify spatial patterns of litter input and its translocation by wind and water and litter mass loss in contrasting plant community configurations. The GRA will work closely with collaborators at New Mexico State University (Heather Throop; litter chemistry), the University of Kentucky (Rebecca McCulley; microbial communities) and Loyola University (Paul Barnes, photobiology). For additional details on the project see http://www.snr.arizona.edu/project/decomposition. Starting date negotiable, but Summer 2009 is preferred. The assistantship includes an annual salary of $14,677 (MS) or $15,990 (PhD); waiver of out-of-state tuition; full remission of in-state tuition; and health insurance. Applications will be accepted until 31 May 2009 or until suitable candidate is found, and should include 1) a statement of interests and goals, 2) a CV with copies of transcripts and GRE scores, and 3) names and contact information for 3-5 references. For general admission requirements see http://www.snr.arizona.edu/academic/grad . Applications and information requests should be directed (preferably via email) to Steve Archer (sarc...@ag.arizona.edu), 325 Bio Sciences East, School of Natural Resources, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721-0043; 520 626-8791). NOTE: PIs (see paragraph two above) will be at ESA meetings in Albuquerque and would be happy to visit with interested persons.
[ECOLOG-L] [NCSE] Invitation to Collaborate -- The New Green Economy Conference (Jan. 20-22, 2010)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Looking forward to NCSE's 10th National Conference on Science, Policy and the Environment: The New Green Economy? A simple and free way to participate is to become a Collaborating Organization. As a Collaborating Organization, your logo will be highlighted on The New Green Economy website and published in various conference materials distributed to as many as 1,500 attendees. In return, Collaborating Organizations help publicize The New Green Economy conference to their patrons, customers or members. Examples include a blurb in your newsletter, posting the conference on your calendar of events, sending conference updates to your members, allowing us to advertise in your publication, etc. Conference registration is not included in the Collaborating Organization package, but is offered to non-profits and NCSE University Affiliates at a significantly discounted rate. Please see The New Green Economy http://ncseonline.org/conference/greeneconomy/ website for details. To become a Collaborating Organization, please submit http://spreadsheets.google.com/viewform?formkey=dGtDU1h6SElUa3hZV21kZzduZUd sNVE6MA.. your preliminary information and we will contact you shortly. Thank you, The NCSE Conference Organizing Team ___ NCSE mailing list n...@list.ncseonline.org http://list.ncseonline.org/mailman/listinfo/ncse
[ECOLOG-L] USGS Assistant Unit Leader Position - Fisheries
Assistant Unit Leader - Fisheries Idaho Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit U.S. Geological Survey, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID Closing: September 9, 2009 Salary: $67,613 – 87,893 Permanent full-time appointment Major Duties: The scientist is an Assistant Unit Leader (AUL) of the Idaho Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Unit and is, by appointment, a member of the Graduate Faculty of the University of Idaho. The AUL is responsible for the development of independent research programs within broad guidelines established by Cooperators of the Unit. The AUL will conduct policy and management relevant research on fisheries management and aquatic conservation issues, with an area of emphasis the physiological responses of freshwater and/or anadromous fishes to environmental conditions using relevant molecular, ecological, cellular and physiological tools in field and laboratory studies; mentor post-doctoral researchers, mentor both MS and PhD level graduate students; teach one graduate-level course per year; provide technical services to cooperators, particularly the Idaho Department of Fish and Game; and participate as a faculty member housed in the Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources at the University of Idaho. Qualifications: PhD in fisheries science or related field; experience in post-doctoral, agency or faculty research in applied fisheries management, fisheries science, fish ecology, and/or aquatic ecology and conservation; publication and grant record corresponding with experience; demonstrated ability to develop a productive research program involving academic and agency collaborations; interest in application of structured decision making and adaptive management for natural resource management; and ability to teach graduate-level courses in area of expertise. Web link and to apply: http://www.usajobs.gov Announcement number WR-2009-0362 Contact: J. Michael Scott msc...@uidaho.edu mailto:msc...@uidaho.edu or Kerry Reese kre...@uidaho.edu mailto:kre...@uidaho.edu
Re: [ECOLOG-L] ESA Position on Economic Growth
Brian -- Well stated. My hope is that your comments will generate healthy discussion and movement on the position statement. mas tarde, EJF Czech, Brian cz...@vt.edu Sent by: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU 07/29/2009 05:38 PM Please respond to Czech, Brian cz...@vt.edu To ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU cc Subject [ECOLOG-L] ESA Position on Economic Growth Nadine Lymn forwarded a message from Josh Schimel of the ESA Governing Board, in which Josh indicated that the board had taken into account the comments of the group of 84 ESA members proposing an ESA position on economic growth. Therefore, I think it is important to avail precisely what our group's comments were. ESA members and other Ecologgers can assess the degree to which they were in fact accounted for. Group Comments on the Draft ESA Position on the Ecological Impacts of Economic Growth Delivered to ESA Governing Board on April 16, 2009 General Comments The draft position includes several correct and important points about the ecological impacts of economic growth, and about the need for correcting markets in which ecosystem services are not accounted for. Overall, however, the draft position is not based upon sound ecological science, does not provide a thorough assessment of the ecological impacts of economic growth, and is quite misleading about the prospects for reconciling economic growth with environmental protection. It concludes by proffering the oxymoronic concept of sustainable growth, which is precisely the concept that is increasingly refuted in the journals of ecological economics and other sustainability-related sciences such as conservation biology. Herein we offer numerous suggestions for improvement, and we strongly object to any further advancement of the current draft. The draft position would only exacerbate misunderstandings about limits to growth and tradeoffs between economic growth and the maintenance of ecological systems. One of the biggest problems with the draft position is the lack of a definition of economic growth. A definition is critical to set a clear stage for the entire statement. Without a definition of economic growth, it becomes convenient - but literally meaningless - to proffer concepts such as sustainable growth. The basic definition of economic growth, used and implied by the public and policy makers, is provided in the position on economic growth now being proposed by 84 ESA members: Economic growth is an increase in the production and consumption of goods and services. It requires increasing population and/or per capita production and consumption. It is indicated by measures of production, income, and expenditure, most notably gross domestic product (GDP). We recommend that this widely understood and policy statement-relevant definition be used in any ESA position that goes forward. Shortly after the first use of the phrase economic growth in the draft position, the word development is used, and it too is not defined. Thereafter, economic growth and economic development are conflated throughout the draft position. For example, in the second paragraph on page 2, the position states, Development must remain a priority in light of the millions currently living without adequate access to ecosystem services and resources that others enjoy freely. Still, unless society sets aside enough income to offset the depreciation of all forms of capital, there are limits to the amount of material consumption the Earth can sustain. The problem is not economic growth, per se, but the ways in which it is implemented (italics added). Not only is development conflated with growth, but per se implies that there is a clear definition of economic growth, and there isn't. Similarly on page 2, under the heading The Ecological Impacts of Economic Growth is the s! ubheading, Why is our current approach to development unsustainable? The conflation of the terms throughout the draft position is distracting and it renders the content unclear and watered down. We are aware that, on page 55 in the 374-page Brundtland Report annex that was later published as Our Common Future, there is a paragraph that suggests that sustainable development can be consistent with economic growth, provided the content of growth reflects the broad principles of sustainability. This is the one quote of the Brundtland Commission provided in the draft position. However, the Commission also noted, A mainspring of economic growth is new technology, and while this technology offers the potential for slowing the dangerously rapid consumption of finite resources, it also entails high risks, including new forms of pollution and the introduction to the planet of new variations of life forms that could change evolutionary pathways. Meanwhile, the industries most heavily reliant on environmental
