Re: [ECOLOG-L] Gulf spill again - solutions?
Thanks to those who have replied on and off list so far. I want to clarify that I'm not necessarily interested in ideas/solutions on how to stop the well from flowing (and yes, it's depressing that they should not have had such solutions worked out long, long ago) but more on how do ecologists and conservationists mitigate the long-term (or short-term) impacts to the overall Gulf ecosystem. IS there anything that can be done to minimize death and disease, or do we just have to sit idly by and watch things die, then research the impacts? Things like booms prevent oil from washing into sensitive coastal estuaries but are there actually methods to save this next generation of fish and shrimp eggs or larvae? Are there actually innovative ways to save them or are they just all going to die (those directly impacted that is)? Are there ways to boost the next generation? I heard someone on the Deepwater Horizon Facebook feed that they should use the indigenous microbes to help break down the oil. I know this has been done elsewhere. ARE there oil-eating/degrading microbes indigenous to the Gulf? Are they already used commercially? I haven't seen this anywhere in the news. So these are the kinds of things I'm curious about... and want to write about. Wendee ~~ Wendee Holtcamp, M.S. Wildlife Ecology ~ @bohemianone Freelance Writer * Photographer * Bohemian http://www.wendeeholtcamp.com http://bohemianadventures.blogspot.com ~~ 6-wk Online Writing Course Starts May 15 or Jun 19 ~~ ~~~ Im Animal Planets news blogger - http://blogs.discovery.com/animal_news -Original Message- From: Wayne Tyson [mailto:landr...@cox.net] Sent: Saturday, May 15, 2010 9:14 PM To: Wendee Holtcamp; ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Gulf spill again - solutions? WH These are dangerous intellectual waters. The environmental contexts of the two sites are very different, and the petroleum/biology interactions are likely to be different. We need a Challenger-type investigation, but one with a Feynman in charge instead of a Rogers. The fixes are likely to be more cosmetic than substantive, but sold as if they were. Find and expert that says heshe doesn't know a lot, and you will more likely get the truth. The truth is likely to be more along the lines of the dissembling than the miracle-making. The obvious scandal is, I suspect, in the window-dressing-type technology was sold on a presumptive, untested hypothesis. The devil (and the real news) is likely to be in the details. For example, just how was the shut-off valve system designed? Somebody who can't talk, at some engineering position along the chain of command is likely to have the key, and may have even warned against the system. I further suspect that the numbers weren't done or were fudged on things like the failure-scenario modeling on the design. The issue of the effects of the use of dispersants at depth upon sea life, including reef-type life-forms like corals on subsurface geologic formations. Check the applicable departments in regional universities (you probably already have). Go get 'em! WT PS: Sound policy needs to be based on sound science, not pseudoscience controlled by the marketing departments. If you ever want to do a story on wildfire, I might be able to be of more help on how the prevention and control efforts are largely made for TV. Undersea drilling is not my area, but this has all the earmarks of an elaborate flim-flam. Asking questions that elicit evasive answers is a good way to separate the sheep from the goats. - Original Message - From: Wendee Holtcamp bohem...@wendeeholtcamp.com To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Saturday, May 15, 2010 3:37 PM Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Gulf spill again - solutions? I'm working on a 2nd piece about the spill and gathering research for a magazine feature due in a few months. Reading all the news, the never-ending geyser of oil, the hundreds of thousands of gallons of chemical dispersants being unceremoniously spewed into the ocean to help feels a bit overwhelming. Likewise, the cleanup response and attempts to cap the wells seem underwhelming in comparison, despite the fact that I'm sure hundreds (or thousands) are working hard around the clock at times to study, document, clean, and try to cap the well. What positive news is there? What solutions are being studied here or have been studied in past oil spills to minimize long-term ecological impacts to marine ecosystems? Did anyone here study the Valdez spill? What worked, versus what didn't, and though this is a totally different ecosystem, what can be learned? I have contacted a dozen scientists I've found on Google, from abstracts etc but getting few replies. I'm sure everyone doing anything related to oil is probably tapped out. But in the chance that someone here has any
Re: [ECOLOG-L] EVOLUTION Advancement? Re: [ECOLOG-L] facts, laws, and theories
Honorable Forum: This kind of post is the sort of thing that makes me prefer listservs like this one over more formal expressions in cloistered publications. This is not to say that the former do not remain necessary during the transition to some kind of meta-analytical transition, only that, like the haystack that is Nature, this pixel version of the quill and vellum is where intellectual mutations might be found; at least it demonstrably can be a much more vigorous and vibrant grinding-stone for the cutting edge. Admittedly, much of that potential remains to be realized, and many a random intellectual allele fades, perhaps never to arise again for generations. But there are signs of listserv drift toward adaptations reflective of the cyberenvironment that can accelerate intellectual development if not transformation. In addition to information, this list consequently gives me pleasure. That said, I thank Cruzan for his brief but direct and comprehensive responsive response to my question. So evolution is not necessarily directional and is not goal oriented, it is just any genetic change due to selection, drift, gene flow between populations, or mutation. Even natural selection as a force for adaptation to the current environment only means an increase in fitness as long as the environment remains the same. --Cruzen I admittedly have spent far too much time out in the sun, but my observations from the other end of the microscope have led me to wonder, as it appears that the current environment can both be considered tightly controlled, such as in the lab, and on a perhaps arbitrary time-scale or a rather much longer envelope within which fluctuations can be seen as limited, that change, both represented by that rather limited range of fluctuations (at least free of major asteroid impacts, etc.), is the name of the game. If that is true, is there a need to qualify so natural selection? And how can evolution be directional at all? WT - Original Message - From: Mitch Cruzan cru...@pdx.edu To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Saturday, May 15, 2010 8:04 PM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] EVOLUTION Advancement? Re: [ECOLOG-L] facts, laws, and theories Sorry about the confusion. I think we were flipping back and forth between public perceptions and science. So, from a science perspective: Evolution means change through time - change in any way, including 'change in allele frequencies within populations between generations,' 'decent with modification,' or genetic adaptation to the environment. Darwin considered natural selection as the primary force for change - for improved fitness within one environment. But environments can fluctuate more rapidly than populations can sometimes evolve, so they are constantly chasing a moving target. Through the 1960's biologists were focused on natural selection as the primary or only force of evolution. Wright emphasized genetic drift - random genetic changes - as an important evolutionary force in the 1930's, but its effects were considered minor and unimportant until Kimura proposed his neutral theory of evolution. As information on molecular genetics accumulated it became increasingly obvious that genetic drift was as prevalent an evolutionary force as natural selection. So evolution is not necessarily directional and is not goal oriented, it is just any genetic change due to selection, drift, gene flow between populations, or mutation. Even natural selection as a force for adaptation to the current environment only means an increase in fitness as long as the environment remains the same. Hope that helps. Mitch Wayne Tyson wrote: I, too, am naive. So evolution is about advancement--toward something better but is not goal-oriented. Better-adapted I can understand, but towards seems to imply a goal. Improvement? Could Cruzan (or anyone else) clarify, please? WT - Original Message - From: Mitch Cruzan cru...@pdx.edu To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Friday, May 14, 2010 8:50 PM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] facts, laws, and theories Your question reminds me of the difference between science education as it should be vs. science education as it is. There are equations as simple and elegant as those describing the effect of gravity on an object that describe processes of evolution. The trajectory of a allele frequency in response to selection can be described with predictability and simplicity of the same order as those equations in basic physics - pick up any introductory textbook on population genetics and you will find the answers there. The key thing is that Mendelian inheritance provides us with a logical and predictable framework to start from. Adding the effects of say, selection, to departures from the Hardy-Weinberg expectation then comes down to simple algebra that most any high-school or beginning
[ECOLOG-L] Graduate Research Assistantship: Climate Forcing of Estuarine Phytoplankton Productivity
I am seeking a motivated student to fill a graduate assistantship at the Ph.D. level in the Coastal Marine System Science Program at Texas AM University-Corpus Christi (http://pens.tamucc.edu/cmss/). The position is available beginning in Fall, 2010. The research project will focus on the impact of hydrologic variability, especially droughts, on phytoplankton productivity and biogeochemical cycles in estuaries. My lab conducts research on estuarine/coastal phytoplankton ecology, nutrient organic matter cycling in the coastal zone, food-web dynamics, and anthropogenic climate change impacts on estuarine/coastal ecosystem function. Interested students should have a background in ecology, marine science/oceanography, or aquatic environmental science and possess strong quantitative skills. Candidates with experience in GIS and/or spatial ecology/spatial analysis will be viewed favorably. The assistantship will have an excellent stipend relative to the cost-of-living. The University is affiliated with the Harte Research Institute for Gulf of Mexico Studies (http://harteresearchinstitute.org/), which is where the student in this position will be housed. It is expected that the person will collaborate with scientists at TAMU-CC, but opportunities will also exist for collaboration with scientists at the nearby University of Texas Marine Science Institute, Mission-Aransas National Estuarine Research Reserve, and other regional institutes. Cost-of-living in Corpus Christi, Texas, is inexpensive and ample opportunities exist for cultural/artistic and outdoor activities. San Antonio is approximately 2 hours to the northwest, Austin 3 hours to the northwest, and Houston 3 hours to the northeast. I am looking to fill this position rather quickly, so to be considered for the position, please email me, Dr. Mike Wetz at mw...@fsu.edu, as soon as possible. Along with a letter of interest, please include a C.V., unofficial transcripts and GRE scores.
Re: [ECOLOG-L] EVOLUTION Advancement? Re: [ECOLOG-L] facts, laws, and theories
On a short time scale (one season to the next) studies of selection on traits often show that it fluctuates with annual variation. Directional changes are common in response to directional environmental change. When I say 'environment' I mean everything external to the organism - competitors, predators, parasites, pathogens, as well as the physical environment. At no point did I mean 'selection in the lab' but we can study selection responses under experimental conditions too. There are volumes of evidence of directional and stabilizing selection (a reduction in the variance) over short and long time periods. If you mean, do we see long term trends of trait change in a lineage, then yes, evolution can be directional. If you mean evolution being directional as a general trend of 'improvement' over the long term, then no, extant lineages that exist today are not somehow 'better' than ones that existed 1,000 or even 100 million years ago. Mitch Wayne Tyson wrote: Honorable Forum: This kind of post is the sort of thing that makes me prefer listservs like this one over more formal expressions in cloistered publications. This is not to say that the former do not remain necessary during the transition to some kind of meta-analytical transition, only that, like the haystack that is Nature, this pixel version of the quill and vellum is where intellectual mutations might be found; at least it demonstrably can be a much more vigorous and vibrant grinding-stone for the cutting edge. Admittedly, much of that potential remains to be realized, and many a random intellectual allele fades, perhaps never to arise again for generations. But there are signs of listserv drift toward adaptations reflective of the cyberenvironment that can accelerate intellectual development if not transformation. In addition to information, this list consequently gives me pleasure. That said, I thank Cruzan for his brief but direct and comprehensive responsive response to my question. So evolution is not necessarily directional and is not goal oriented, it is just any genetic change due to selection, drift, gene flow between populations, or mutation. Even natural selection as a force for adaptation to the current environment only means an increase in fitness as long as the environment remains the same. --Cruzen I admittedly have spent far too much time out in the sun, but my observations from the other end of the microscope have led me to wonder, as it appears that the current environment can both be considered tightly controlled, such as in the lab, and on a perhaps arbitrary time-scale or a rather much longer envelope within which fluctuations can be seen as limited, that change, both represented by that rather limited range of fluctuations (at least free of major asteroid impacts, etc.), is the name of the game. If that is true, is there a need to qualify so natural selection? And how can evolution be directional at all? WT - Original Message - From: Mitch Cruzan cru...@pdx.edu mailto:cru...@pdx.edu To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Saturday, May 15, 2010 8:04 PM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] EVOLUTION Advancement? Re: [ECOLOG-L] facts, laws, and theories Sorry about the confusion. I think we were flipping back and forth between public perceptions and science. So, from a science perspective: Evolution means change through time - change in any way, including 'change in allele frequencies within populations between generations,' 'decent with modification,' or genetic adaptation to the environment. Darwin considered natural selection as the primary force for change - for improved fitness within one environment. But environments can fluctuate more rapidly than populations can sometimes evolve, so they are constantly chasing a moving target. Through the 1960's biologists were focused on natural selection as the primary or only force of evolution. Wright emphasized genetic drift - random genetic changes - as an important evolutionary force in the 1930's, but its effects were considered minor and unimportant until Kimura proposed his neutral theory of evolution. As information on molecular genetics accumulated it became increasingly obvious that genetic drift was as prevalent an evolutionary force as natural selection. So evolution is not necessarily directional and is not goal oriented, it is just any genetic change due to selection, drift, gene flow between populations, or mutation. Even natural selection as a force for adaptation to the current environment only means an increase in fitness as long as the environment remains the same. Hope that helps. Mitch Wayne Tyson wrote: I, too, am naive. So evolution is about advancement--toward something better but is not goal-oriented. Better-adapted I can understand, but towards seems to imply a goal. Improvement? Could Cruzan (or anyone else) clarify,
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Gulf spill again - solutions?
Wendee Holtcamp bohem...@wendeeholtcamp.com wrote: I kind of like the hair being collected idea, Who came up with that? But I want other ideas too. Wendee Wendee Holtcamp, M.S. Wildlife Ecology ~ @bohemianone Freelance Writer * Photographer * Bohemian Wendee, though collecting hair gave concerned folks something to do, the folks working on containment and cleanup have said it is not useful to them, and they don't want it. They have to use methods that are known to work, and hair as an absorbent for spilled petroleum has not been tested or shown to work. David McNeely
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict?
Dave had a question that at first glance seems tough to answer, but it reminds me of what I teach my biostatistics students. Rule number one, never do anything unless you can explain exactly why you did that thing (as opposed to any other option), and you have to explain that to your mother so that she understands your choice. So, sufficient knowledge is enough that you could explain the topic to someone else to their satisfaction. Therefore, if you feel that if you were called on in a crowd to explain string theory and you would decline thinking that you didn't know enough, well then, you don't know enough. Thus, we are each our own judge on this matter. If I can't explain something so that you can understand it, then I don't know it well enough to have an opinion on it. Cheers, Jim On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 18:55, Derek Pursell dep1...@yahoo.com wrote: Mr. Roper makes an excellent point here; the value of establishing that one should not have an opinion (interpretation: bias?) before studying or gaining further knowledge of a subject is invaluable to the pursuit of knowledge. This principle applies for scientific and non-scientific purposes. This idea, so presented, does bring up another question: what would we like to define as sufficient knowledge in order to justify having an opinion on a subject? From my personal experience, people tend to form opinions on subjects relatively early in the process of learning about them (if indeed, any meaningful degree of learning takes place), so the perils are obvious. Granted, the definition of sufficient knowledge is broadly interpretative and would vary from subject to subject, but it can be troublesome because of the age-old issue of how people define and use the same word to mean many different things.
[ECOLOG-L] Huge Collection of Snake Specimens Destroyed in Brazil Lab Fire
Link http://www.laht.com/article.asp?ArticleId=356980CategoryId=14090 Founded in 1901, the Butantan Institute, an agency of the Sao Paulo regional government, has been a center for producing vaccines and an important unit for biomedical research. The laboratory was working on a number of projects based on different types of reptile venom, which were being tested as treatments for such ailments as leishmaniasis and Chagas disease. Recently the Butantan has also been the public agency charged with developing the vaccine against the AH1N1 swine flu virus in Brazil from a sample provided by France's Sanofi Pasteur laboratory. Rosa Guedes, Ph.D. Assistant Professor of Environmental Science Faculty Coordinator http://faculty.philau.edu/guedesr/ Green grant, International Journal Of Ecology Development (Associate Editor) Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. Thank you.
[ECOLOG-L] Fwd: Job posting: Director of Marine Science, Galapagos Is
25/05/10 - Director of Marine Science - Charles Darwin Foundation - Galapagos Isl Print E-mail An interesting opportunity to co-lead a multidisciplinary team of scientists along with the Terrestrial Science Director and to respond to the main threats in Galapagos, which include invasive species, climate change, overfishing, and unsustainable development. This position is expected to integrate the work of five research themes (biodiversity, monitoring, ecological processes, restoration, and social sciences) following a holistic, ecosystemic approach and to contribute to a sound scientific basis for decision-making on archipelago management issues. The job involves conducting and managing research and providing technically support to field-based programs. Another challenge is to help developing technical and scientific skills of CDF staff. Main Responsibilities Include: * Working closely with the Executive Director as a member of the executive team and supporting Research Program leadership and supervision; * Representing the CDF Research at local, national, and international levels; * Developing strategic priorities for Galapagos research jointly with the research theme leaders; * Leading proposal preparation processes and working with the executive team on fundraising activities; * Participating in the research program, and in the publication of scientific articles * Planning and coordinating of CDF scientific training; * Supervising Research Program budget management; * Developing and maintaining strategic alliances at the local, national, and international levels; * Coordinating activities with other local institutions, including the Galapagos National Park; * Supervising the visiting scientist program jointly with the terrestrial science director Supervisory Duties: Supervision of the five research theme leaders, the Executive Research Coordinator, and the Chief of Research Logistics. Minimum Qualifications: * International doctorate in marine sciences, with an emphasis on quantitative ecology * Minimum 10 years experience in planning and development with measurable scientific results; * Proven ability to work in multicultural settings and a broad range of working experience with government organizations, NGOs, and communities; * Ability to work with teams at various levels to accomplish strategic results; * Proven experience in research administration, including multidisciplinary team management; * Experience in training people in the scientific method; * Excellent oral and written communication abilities in both English and Spanish. * Desirable Traits and Experience: * Experience in systems ecology, with special focus on resource modeling and evaluation. * Experience in public speaking, with excellent interpersonal and communicative * abilities. Salary and Conditions: The position offers a two-year contract with the possibility of renewal depending on the performance evaluation and availability of funds. The salary range is US$ 48,000 to US$55,000 yearly, based on qualifications and experience. Benefits include private medical insurance and 30 days of vacation per year. How to Apply... Applicants should send the following documentation by e-mail to mailto:emp...@fcdarwin.org.ecemp...@fcdarwin.org.ec : * Letter of interest describing your expertise in keeping with the minimum qualifications for this position (a half page per requirement) * Resume * Three professional references (names and e-mail addresses)
[ECOLOG-L] Fwd: Job posting: Bird Survey, British Antarctic Survey, Bird Island
06/06/10 - Zoological Field Assistant - British Antarctic Survey - Bird Island Print E-mail British Antarctic Survey will recruit a Zoological Field Assistant for 33 months to carry out intensive Long Term Monitoring fieldwork and assist with scientific research. After 3 months of training commencing on August 2nd, 2010 whilst based in Cambridge (UK), 30 consecutive months will then be spent living and working on Bird Island, South Georgia in the sub-Antarctic (54°S, 38°W). The island is home for up to 10 people who will share a small research station. There is a satellite link to the outside world and ships call fairly frequently with supplies. The successful candidate will assist with seabirds and seals research, particularly penguins and giant petrels. Because the learning curve is very steep, it is essential that candidates already possess bird ringing skills and have experience of handling wild aggressive animals safely. During the breeding season fieldwork will be very intensive on difficult terrain with long hours of data preparation afterwards, so it is important to be organised and to observe strict deadlines. The results will underpin key research into regional and global change processes. The position of Zoological Field Assistant offers a unique opportunity for a highly motivated and disciplined individual with relevant fieldwork skills and a keen interest in wildlife that will adapt well to small island living in a challenging sub-Antarctic environment. Qualifications: A degree in biology or zoology, bird ringing skills, experience of handling appropriate wild animals and familiarity with remote recording equipment. Candidates must be competent and efficient managing, analysing and reporting large data sets and able to mix well in a small, vibrant science community. Duration: Duration: August 2nd 2010 to early April 2013 Salary: Salary will be in the range of £21,037 to £28,934 per annum. Please quote reference: BAS19/10 Closing date for receipt of application forms: 6th June 2010 On-line application forms and further information are available on our website at http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/employmentwww.antarctica.ac.uk/employment These are also available from the Personnel Section, British Antarctic Survey, High Cross, Madingley Road, Cambridge, CB3 0ET. Tel: (01223) 221508. You will need to be physically capable and medically fit to work in Antarctic conditions. LIKE NO OTHER JOB IN THE WORLD For more information please visit - http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/employment/vacancies/job.php?JobID=531http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/employment/vacancies/job.php?JobID=531
[ECOLOG-L] Spatially explicit environmental data sources
Dear all: I would greatly appreciate any ideas or suggestions regarding spatially explicit soil data bases/data sets (or other spatially explicit terrestrial environmental data). I am specifically looking for spatially explicit forest and/or grassland vegetation data along with environmental variable data (including soil data). However, any terrestrial environmental data would work. Thank you for your time and consideration, Laura
