[ECOLOG-L] Come study shamanism and the medicinal plants of the Amazon rainforest in August!!
There is still space available left in the summer course, PSOILIN 398, The Shaman's Pharmacy at UMass, Amherst. The course is a 12 day study abroad field immersion deep in the rainforest of Peru from August 6th to August 19th. Students will work with local shamans and indigenous guides to learn more about the ethnobotany of the Amazon region. The course is directed under the leadership of Medicine Hunter, Chris Kilham. Chris has conducted medicinal plant research with native tribes in over 30 countries and is an international expert in the field. You can find out more about the course here: www.ipo.umass.edu/?go=Shaman? and http://medicinehunter.com/2013-Shamans-Pharmacy -- Medicinal Plant Program University of Massachusetts, Amherst http://www.umass.edu/mpp/ http://www.linkedin.com/in/nathanielputnam The more high-tech we become, the more nature we need.- Richard Louv The purpose of education is to empower people to take control of their own lives.- Paulo Freire What good is it for a person to gain the whole world, yet lose his/her soul?- Mark 8:36 Live as if you were to die tomorrow, learn as if you were to live forever.- Gandhi
[ECOLOG-L] Affordable fully automated 3D micro imaging system
Dear List, Currently, I am in the process of developing a prototype of an affordable (US$15,000-20,000) fully automated 3D imaging system that can accurately obtain 3D surface renderings including color of small 3D objects such as the head of a fruit fly, the proboscis of a butterfly, and other micrometer size objects. This system will automatically image the object from all sides, extract the surface data and stores it as a single object. In order to obtain a grant for the development of this system, I need to access whether there would be a market for such a system. To help me with that, could you, if you, your lab or institution would be a potential customer, please let me know (k...@kimvdlinde.com). Feel free to forward this to other lists where people could be interested. Thanks, Kim
[ECOLOG-L] plot sampling for density
I recently started re-sampling vegetation in fixed plots on a U.S. Army base. This base, and I presume many others in the U.S., use a standard protocol for collecting vegetation data. There are many plots on this base that are marked with benchmarks so that they can be re-sampled at intervals of years to decades. I presume that the data obtained from these plots will be used to monitor vegetation changes (structure and composition) through time. One aspect of the sampling protocol is a straightforward line-intercept method: a 100-m tape line is laid out in a straight line and the height and species of all plants that touch a vertical rod are recorded at 1-m intervals along the line. This method provides a fairly objective measure for cover but cannot provide any information on density. A second aspect of the protocol is designed to obtain density data for woody species 1-m tall. This protocol essentially involves delimiting a 100-m-long plot using a range pole to determine the width of the plot, walking along the 100-m tape line from one end to the other, and recording woody plants, by height category and species, within the pre-determined horizontal distance delineated using the range pole. Usually, the predetermined distance (plot width) is 6 m, which delineates a 600-m2 plot (6 m x 100 m). Horizontal distance can be altered, based on perceived stem density. The question I would like to submit to LISTSERV subscribers concerns the methods used to apply the density sampling protocol. In all the plot work I have done, I have always recorded only woody plants (stems in the vegetation ecology vernacular) that are rooted within (or mostly within) the fixed plot of interest. That is, plants rooted outside the plot, but with canopy overhanging the plot boundaries, are not counted. However, the protocol we have been asked to apply involves also recording plants whose canopies overtop the plot even though they are rooted outside the plot. I believe that counting plants rooted outside the plots severely compromises both the accuracy and precision of the data, i.e., accuracy is compromised in that the plots are no longer of a fixed size, and precision is compromised in that there is much room for observer error when determining whether canopies from large far off trees are overhanging the plot (because the observer has to be in the middle of the plot to hold the ranging pole in place). If we were measuring cover, then it would be immaterial whether a plant were rooted inside or outside of a plot, since canopy overtopping the plots would be the parameter of interest. Part of the confusion may be due to the terminology used in explaining the protocol. The protocol says that woody stems are to be recorded in the plot. To me, the term stem refers to the main stem (trunk for a tree) that directly attaches to the roots, but I think the term may have been misinterpreted to include branches and secondary branches of plants. My concern that the density data we collect will be a nightmare to interpret, and worse, will not measure what it is intended to measure. Unfortunately, in searching the web, searching papers, and even looking through plant ecology texts, I have not found any guidance concerning what plants should be counted in plot work (plants rooted outside vs. insides of plots). Is this because protocol writers assume that everyone knows how to do it? Could there be there a potential problem with density data in the peer-review and/or gray literature? How much of a problem could misapplied protocols be having on data collected by natural resource programs? Should the word stem be defined every time it is used in describing a protocol? Rick Rheinhardt ECU
[ECOLOG-L] Job: Department head
Hi all, Below is a short version of the announcement for the deparment head position available in the Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Aquaculture, Mississippi State University. Inquiries should be directed to: Dr. Scott Willard, WFA Search Chair, at swill...@bch.msstate.edu . Sorry for cross posting. Sincerely, Guimng Wang Head, Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Aquaculture. Mississippi State University is seeking an outstanding leader to serve as Head of its Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Aquaculture. The Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Aquaculture is one of three departments in the College of Forest Resources with direct affiliations to the Forest and Wildlife Research Center, the Mississippi Agriculture and Forestry Experiment Station, and the Mississippi State University Extension Service. Major responsibilities of the Department Head include: administer and provide comprehensive leadership for research, teaching, and extension; work effectively with on- and off-campus units, constituency groups, and clientele; and oversee a comprehensive budget and departmental personnel. Qualifications include a doctorate in wildlife, fisheries, aquaculture, natural resources, conservation ecology, or a closely related field, and a professional background appropriate for tenure and appointment at the rank of Professor. Administrative experience is desirable. Applications must be submitted online at jobs.msstate.edu and should include a letter of interest (with administrative philosophy and vision for the Department), curriculum vitae, academic transcripts, and the names, addresses, telephone numbers, and e-mail addresses of at least five (5) references. Inquiries or the submission of supplemental documents (e.g., official transcripts) should be directed to: Dr. Scott Willard, WFA Search Chair, Department of Biochemistry, Molecular Biology, Entomology and Plant Pathology, Mississippi State University, Box 9655, MS State, MS 39762, or swill...@bch.msstate.edu / 662-325-2086. Applications/nominations will be accepted until a suitable candidate is chosen, but review of credentials will begin after July 1, 2013. Mississippi State University is an AA/EEO employer.
Re: [ECOLOG-L] plot sampling for density
Rick/Ecolog: I think you are absolutely right to question these procedures; in fact your post set off so many bells in what's left of my mind that it looked like the Fourth of July and New Year's combined! I hesitate to make any remarks at all unless there is enough interest to get into a lot of specifics, and I'm sure there would be a lot of disagreement amongst subscribers, as sampling procedures are the Holy Grail for a lot of people. You do not want comments on anything but density, and I think you are right on this too, but I again hesitate to comment because it would take a long time and exchange of emails to resolve the sticky issues that will arise. Suffice it to say that a lot of protocols have, if any, foundations that are highly suspect to me; hence, I share your instincts (which, I suspect, are only a sample of the entire thicket of stickery issues. I believe that it is simply lazy, if not downright fraudulent, to leave minor (grasses, cryptobiotic communities and species) out of most studies--unless the purposes of the study are stated up front to be looking only for data on a limited fragment of the ecosystem. Apart from that, I believe that there is often little value to any survey data without long-term replication that would reveal at least interesting changes and trends, but how many actually do that. And when they do, what is actually DONE with the data? All too often it seems to me to be in the realm of employment act stuff . . . I will say only this for now: RELEVANCE, RELEVANCE, RELEVANCE! WT PS: I ran many, many miles of transects during my brief Farce Service career back in the last century, and I think we produced some very good data and mapping, with little relevant error. I re-visited my old stomping grounds a few years ago, and was kindly allowed to poke around in the storeroom of the Supervisor's Office, where I found our old field notes and maps (apparently undisturbed, and probably un-analyzed). As to density--like cover, I don't think it reveals much except when done over time like your case, it might provide interesting data on the maximum productive (carrying) capacity potential for the vegetation being studied, as well as recovery times following perturbations like fire and logging. - Original Message - From: Rheinhardt, Rick rheinhar...@ecu.edu To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Saturday, June 01, 2013 4:43 PM Subject: [ECOLOG-L] plot sampling for density I recently started re-sampling vegetation in fixed plots on a U.S. Army base. This base, and I presume many others in the U.S., use a standard protocol for collecting vegetation data. There are many plots on this base that are marked with benchmarks so that they can be re-sampled at intervals of years to decades. I presume that the data obtained from these plots will be used to monitor vegetation changes (structure and composition) through time. One aspect of the sampling protocol is a straightforward line-intercept method: a 100-m tape line is laid out in a straight line and the height and species of all plants that touch a vertical rod are recorded at 1-m intervals along the line. This method provides a fairly objective measure for cover but cannot provide any information on density. A second aspect of the protocol is designed to obtain density data for woody species 1-m tall. This protocol essentially involves delimiting a 100-m-long plot using a range pole to determine the width of the plot, walking along the 100-m tape line from one end to the other, and recording woody plants, by height category and species, within the pre-determined horizontal distance delineated using the range pole. Usually, the predetermined distance (plot width) is 6 m, which delineates a 600-m2 plot (6 m x 100 m). Horizontal distance can be altered, based on perceived stem density. The question I would like to submit to LISTSERV subscribers concerns the methods used to apply the density sampling protocol. In all the plot work I have done, I have always recorded only woody plants (stems in the vegetation ecology vernacular) that are rooted within (or mostly within) the fixed plot of interest. That is, plants rooted outside the plot, but with canopy overhanging the plot boundaries, are not counted. However, the protocol we have been asked to apply involves also recording plants whose canopies overtop the plot even though they are rooted outside the plot. I believe that counting plants rooted outside the plots severely compromises both the accuracy and precision of the data, i.e., accuracy is compromised in that the plots are no longer of a fixed size, and precision is compromised in that there is much room for observer error when determining whether canopies from large far off trees are overhanging the plot (because the observer has to be in the middle of the plot to hold the ranging pole in place). If we were measuring cover, then it would be immaterial
