Re: [ECOLOG-L] Used a tablet for field work?
That is the central issue, to be able to see under clear skies (I work mostly in grasslands) I tryied an Ipak many years ago, it transparently could use excel worksheets, it was a pain to move in the small screen but doable. with no canopy you had to pull something overyou to actually see what you were doing. I am sure the size issue has been resolved, even the weight issue o battery expectancy. I doubt the noisy sky has, Abraham de Alba Avila Terrestrial Plant Ecology INIFAP-Ags Ap. postal 20, Pabellón Arteaga, 20660 Aguascalientes, MEXICO SKYPE: adealba55 Tel: (465) 95-801-67, 801-86 ext. 126, FAX ext 102 alternate: dealba.abra...@inifap.gob.mx cel: 449-100-9966 From: Steve Young steve.yo...@unl.edu To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2012 10:57 AM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Used a tablet for field work? Great question. I have an iPad that has been sitting in my office for 6 months. I would like to use it for just these purposes. Has anyone done this and what Apps are necessary? Is there an App for making the screen show up in daylight? Steve Young -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of David Inouye Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2012 10:42 AM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Used a tablet for field work? I'd like a way to replace data entry on paper in the field with an electronic alternative. Ultimately the data end up in a spreadsheet, but sometimes using formulae (e.g., 3*5 + 4*2 + 6, for numbers of inflorescences with different numbers of flowers). Has anyone used something like the Blackberry PlayBook, an Android tablet, Nook, iPad, etc. with spreadsheet software? Recommendations for or against particular solutions? I have also considered a ruggedized PC and a ruggedized tablet (Motion F5V), but they are a LOT more expensive than other tablet options would be. David Inouye
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Agriculture in a Steady State Economy
Although I am not against worldwatch writings, I do Well said Matt, Although I am not against worldwatch writings, I do find them sometimes exceedingly general, is not that cows are not producing methane, I have not yet found any studies of measurements under grass-fed conditions (let alone different environment conditions). Cows, surprisingly, can be a solution, as carbon farmers of america are trying and achieving, the problem is that this is happening in a temperate relatively wet condition, as the land gets drier the microbiota that allows carbon fixing in soil, drops dramatically. I find that there has been more done by progressive farmers than by serious researchers, that said, I guess that academia is still hoocked on chemicals and big farm thinking. Abraham de Alba Avila Terrestrial Plant Ecology INIFAP-Ags Ap. postal 20, Pabellón Arteaga, 20660 Aguascalientes, MEXICO SKYPE: adealba55 Tel: (465) 95-801-67, 801-86 ext. 126, FAX ext 102 alternate: dealba.abra...@inifap.gob.mx cel: 449-157-7070 From: Matt Davies gmdav...@u.washington.edu To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Fri, October 8, 2010 5:11:17 PM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Agriculture in a Steady State Economy This isn't my area of expertise but I fear that the issue is probably more complex than Burak suggests. Though farm animals utilise C from grass and hay (which has been sequestered from the atmosphere) it is a significant simplification to state that this means that livestock production isn't a major source of GHGs. We need to consider the whole agricultural system, not just what the animals might eat. Potential issues might include (off the top of my head): 1) Farm animals are fed a range of things (e.g. alfalfa, corn, silage) which are relatively in-put/energy intensive to produce, harvest and process 2) Land-use for forage crops can lead to the destruction of range and forest land with subsequent C-loss implications from vegetation and soil 3) Livestock management, processing and transport uses considerable amounts of fossil energy 4) Livestock eat C that was sequestered as CO2 but release not insignificant amounts of it as CH4 Some forms of production may have less of a carbon footprint than others. There is likely a big difference between intensive feedlot production of cattle compared to extensive rangeland grazing systems. If anyone can suggest some could papers studying the carbon balance of livestock systems I'd be very interested. Matt Pekin, Burak K wrote: The claim that livestock are the largest contributor to greenhouse emissions, particularly CO2, is misleading. Much of the CO2 emitted by farm animals is from renewable sources, i.e. grass/hay, while CO2 emissions from the transport industry are from non-renewable sources, primarily oil. _ Burak K. Pekin Postdoctoral Research Associate Department of Forestry and Natural Resources Purdue University -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu] On Behalf Of Rob Dietz Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 12:59 PM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Agriculture in a Steady State Economy Please take a look at Brent Blackwelder's essay in The Daly News -- it's about how today's farming practices would be different in a steady state economy. You can find the essay here: http://steadystate.org/food-and-agriculture-in-a-steady-state-economy/ Thanks, Rob -- Robert Dietz Executive Director CASSE steadystate.org -- Dr G Matt Davies College of Forest Resources University of Washington Room 034, Merrill Hall Box 354115, Seattle, WA 98195-4115 Tel: (001) 206-685-8755 E-mail: gmdav...@u.washington.edu http://faculty.washington.edu/gmdavies
[ECOLOG-L] Fw: [ECOLOG-L] worlds authorities in sustainable ag/meat/ag ecology
David Pimentel comes to mind, and I would strongly recommend to include some of the heroes of carbon farmers, maybe Dr. Christine Jones from Australia ? i do second tha motion that transwhatever companies do have their own agenda, not necessarily a so called sustainable (I for one think that it should be regenerative sustainable is not enough anymore) Abraham de Alba Avila Terrestrial Plant Ecology INIFAP-Ags Ap. postal 20, Pabellón Arteaga, 20660 Aguascalientes, MEXICO SKYPE: adealba55 Tel: (465) 95-801-67, 801-86 ext. 126, FAX ext 102 alternate: dealba.abra...@inifap.gob.mx cel: 449-157-7070 - Forwarded Message From: Beth Buczynski bethbo...@gmail.com To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Thu, June 24, 2010 3:50:53 PM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] worlds authorities in sustainable ag/meat/ag ecology I would have to strongly disagree with the opinon that Monsanto or any biotech company cares at all about sustainable agriculture (meaning good for people, and able to be replicated again and again without harm to the environment). Those who are championing the return of small, local, organic farmers (think Michael Pollan, Joel Salatin, and others) are the true leaders when it comes to creating a sustainable food supply for future generations. Food for thought: Biotechnology Will Feed the World and Other Mythshttp://www.vegsource.com/articles/gmo_feed_myth.htm On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 4:24 PM, Paul Cherubini mona...@saber.net wrote: I would say the big biotech companies are the world's leading authorities with regard to the issue of how we can feed the world in the coming decades. Example: http://www.monsanto.com/responsibility/sustainable-ag/default.asp Excerpts: By 2050, say United Nations’ experts, our planet must double food production to feed an anticipated population of 9.3 billion people. By 2030, Monsanto commits to help farmers produce more and conserve more by: Developing improved seeds that help farmers double yields from 2000 levels for corn, soybeans, cotton, and spring-planted canola, with a $10 million grant pledged to improve wheat and rice yields.” Paul Cherubini El Dorado, Calif. -- Beth Buczynski, M.S. Copywriter/Environmental Blogger www.seebethwrite.com www.ecosphericblog.com @ecosphericblog
[ECOLOG-L] stats for undergrads -
Does seem like a bit heavy expectations Nathan and fellow ecologgers, Does seem like a bit heavy expectations for undergrads, but most definitely back the review of Hulbert's paper on pseudoreplication, and perhaps add one or two on multiple testing if I remember correctly there was one by Chew ? Abraham de Alba Avila Terrestrial Plant Ecology INIFAP-Ags Ap. postal 20, Pabellón Arteaga, 20660 Aguascalientes, MEXICO SKYPE: adealba55 Tel: (465) 95-801-67, 801-86 ext. 126, FAX ext 102 alternate: dealba.abra...@inifap.gob.mx cel: 449-157-7070
Re: [ECOLOG-L] 10 years without warming
http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-047 The original article is in: http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0477/90/8/pdf/i1520-0477-90-8-S1.pdf I think the authors are actually answering the claim that no upward trend has been detected globally, and yes it's too bad this is before the Copenhagen meeting, but I guess researchers don`t foresee that their work can and will be used against them Abraham de Alba Avila Terrestrial Plant Ecology INIFAP-Ags Ap. postal 20, Pabellón Arteaga, 20660 Aguascalientes, MEXICO SKYPE: adealba55 Tel: (465) 95-801-67, 801-86 ext. 126, FAX ext 102 alternate: dealba.abra...@inifap.gob.mx cel: 449-157-7070 From: Amartya Saha as...@bio.miami.edu To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Friday, October 2, 2009 8:27:28 AM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] 10 years without warming It seems that there are in the last 10 years the planet did not get warmer. Thats an overly simplified statement that politicians love ! 10 years is way too little time to search for a trend. Then these are AVERAGED temperature differences, ostensibly equally sampled all over the world. And we know that climate variables are rarely perfectly linear in their correlative or causative behavior, given the different time scales of various oceanic oscillations. Meanwhile the accelerated melting of Himalayan and Andean glaciers continue, as evidenced by the highest snowmelt-fed stream discharges in recorded history (ok, thats also a blip, but at least spans more than a century in certain watersheds). Cheers amartya Quoting Matheus Carvalho meumi...@yahoo.com.br: Dear list members: It seems that there are in the last 10 years the planet did not get warmer. See the last edition of Science, or try this link: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/326/5949/28-a?rss=1 Article title: What Happened to Global Warming? Scientists Say Just Wait a Bit Matheus C. Carvalho Senior Research Associate Centre for Coastal Biogeochemistry Southern Cross University Lismore - Australia Veja quais são os assuntos do momento no Yahoo! +Buscados http://br.maisbuscados.yahoo.com www.bio.miami.edu/asaha
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Population control
I thought this argument was done fore a long time ago, I mean, the sociologists found that enpowering women was more profitable, that is, women that find that can contribute to their well-being WILL use concraception, otherwise it doesn`t matter if all the drug stores are full of contraceptives. It's anybodies guess HOW to empower women, it has been done and it's probably being done right now, but it`s not an overnight thing. Here Mexico, it has finally been accepted by government officials that given money to men, is just another way of subsidicing the beer industry or tequila, but when they give to women's groups it usually flourishes into a small buisness, so much for our macho economy. Abraham de Alba Avila Terrestrial Plant Ecology INIFAP-Ags Ap. postal 20, Pabellón Arteaga, 20660 Aguascalientes, MEXICO SKYPE: adealba55 Tel: (465) 95-801-67, 801-86 ext. 126, FAX ext 102 alternate: dealba.abra...@inifap.gob.mx cel: 449-157-7070 From: Bill Silvert cien...@silvert.org To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 9:08:08 AM Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Population control Recently there was a long discussion of whether ecologists are the problem, and a few posters pointed out that the biggest problem is overpopulation. There was not much discussion of this, as it is a hrad problem to solve, it is easier to get rid of ecologists. However the following Economist article is quite intriguing. Bill Silvert Green.view Fewer feet, smaller footprint Sep 21st 2009 From Economist.com A world with fewer people would emit less greenhouse gases FAMILY planning is five times cheaper than conventional green technologies in combating climate change. That is the claim made by Thomas Wire, a postgraduate student at the London School of Economics, and highlighted by British medics writing in the Lancet on September 19th. Ever since Thomas Malthus, an English economist, published his essay on the principle of population in 1798, people have been concerned about population growth. Sir Julian Huxley, the first director general of the United Nations Education, Science and Cultural Organisation when it was established in 1945, remarked that death control made birth control a moral imperative. Sir Julian went on to play a role in establishing what was then the World Wildlife Fund, a nature conservation agency, linking population growth to environmental degradation. According to Roger Short of the University of Melbourne, the world's population is 6.8 billion and is expected to reach 9.1 billion by 2050. Some 95% of this growth is occurring in developing countries. In a paper published on September 21st in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, he points out that fewer people would produce less climate-changing greenhouse gas. A companion study published in the same issue by Malcolm Potts of the University of California, Berkeley, reckons that there are 80m unintended pregnancies every year. The vast majority of these result in babies. If women who wanted contraception were provided with it, 72% of these unintended pregancies would have been prevented, according to a report by the United Nations Population Fund called Adding it Up: the Benefits of Investing in Sexual and Reproductive Healthcare. The study by Mr Wire was commissioned by the Optimum Population Trust, a British environmental charity. It examined the cost-effectiveness of providing global access to family planning between 2010 and 2050. Mr Wire totted up the cost of supplying contraception to women who wished either to delay their childbearing years or to end them artificially but who were not using contraception. He examined projections of population growth and of carbon-dioxide emissions made by the United Nations and concluded that reducing carbon emissions by one tonne would cost just $7 spent on family planning, as opposed to at least $32 spent on green technologies. Mr Wire points out that if all women who wanted contraception were provided with it, it would prevent the release of 34 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide between 2010 and 2050. Given the myriad of other reasons to limit human fertility (Dr Potts notes, for example, that slowing population growth is essential if poverty is to be eradicated), your correspondent cannot help but commend the report to mandarins meeting in Bangkok on September 28th to discuss the forthcoming United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen. Copyright © 2009 The Economist Newspaper and The Economist Group. All rights reserved.
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Are ecologists the problem?
My 2 cents on the other side of the coin: As you mention, Kevin, My 2 cents on the other side of the coin: As you mention, eating lower on the food web is very important, EXCEPT when you use grass-fed beef, because to my knowledge that's the only and best way to trasform grasslands into sothing that we can use. And yes, there are out there responsible ranchers that do more for their land and carbon footprint than urbanites. It is unfortunate that in most underdeveloped (not a politically correct term, but still the same) we have moved from grass-fed to grain fed, mostly pushed by consumers that want the cheapest not the best (I do hope that the grain prices stay up there). Which touches on the basic issue here: education (but not the typical school ed, is almost ethical ?). For what it's worth, I also believe it`s a human problem, not even ecologists. Abraham de Alba Avila Terrestrial Plant Ecology INIFAP-Ags Ap. postal 20, Pabellón Arteaga, 20660 Aguascalientes, MEXICO SKYPE: adealba55 Tel: (465) 95-801-67, 801-86 ext. 126, FAX ext 102 alternate: dealba.abra...@inifap.gob.mx cel: 449-157-7070 From: Kevin McCluney kevin.mcclu...@asu.edu To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2009 9:50:17 PM Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Are ecologists the problem? I recently attended the 2009 annual meeting of the Ecological Society of America (ESA). The theme of this year’s meeting was sustainability. There were many great talks on this subject and a few truly pessimistic ones. One speaker proposed that human beings are, by our very nature, destined to consume and reproduce as much as possible, and despite our best efforts, this will lead to our own demise. During the same talk the speaker also asked, “who is responsible?” He answered his question by saying that we at this conference are just as much a part of the problem as anyone else. Is this true? I know I myself have taken many steps to lower my footprint and many other ecologists have as well. For instance, at last year’s ESA meeting in Milwaukee there was an interesting occurrence at local restaurants. The first night of the conference I had a really good veggie burger at one restaurant. I went back later in the week for another. The waitress apologized… they were all out. She went on to explain that the manager had heard our conference was coming to town, so bought extra ahead of time, but ran out of those quickly anyway. The manager then went to the local grocery store and bought more. But alas, by the time I returned, they had run out of those as well. Further, when I dine with friends at ESA meetings, I often find that more than half the table orders vegetarian entrees. Why does eating vegetarian matter so much? Modern, industrialized livestock production is one of the more environmentally destructive human endeavors. It contributes roughly one fifth of all our greenhouse gas emissions, more than all cars, and these gases are major contributors to the rapid climate change we’re experiencing. Livestock production also may, in certain cases, be leading to deforestation and destruction of important ecosystems, as well as to pollution of rivers, lakes, and even oceans. In addition, we all know that basic ecological principles hold that it takes less resources to raise plant based food sources than meat based, since energy is lost as you move up the food chain. Thus we can feed more people and use fewer resources on a plant-based diet. All this caused the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change recently to proclaim that the best thing a person could do to reduce their impact on climate change was to eat a more plant- based diet. My wife and I haven’t stopped at eating low on the food chain. We’ve also joined community supported agriculture, where we buy a share of produce from a local farm. The farmer gets upfront economic security and we get very affordable, local, fresh organic produce. We pay just $18 per week for a large bag of food. At this price we can afford to supplement our diet with additional organic items from the grocery store. We’ve also taken a variety of other steps, from riding my bike to work, to offsetting car and air travel through renewable energy from an independently certified company, to buying 100% of our electricity from renewable sources through our local utility for as little as $15 per month. While we may not be reaching the small ecological footprint of those in many third world countries, we’ve done our best to come in line with our planet’s limits while maintaining a decent quality of life. So, are ecologists just as much a part of the problem as everyone else? Are all ecologists the same? What are the variety of lifestyle choices made by ecologists? Not only would the answers to these questions provide a response to the ESA presenter, but I think the answer would
[ECOLOG-L] C Seq Grass vs Wood
That's what I am after. Is there any hard data out there Well Wayne, That's what I am after. Is there any hard data out there for the rate/amount/whatever of C that a woodland can sequester (above and below ground) vs. the same under grassland under appropiate grazing. I realize that under the same rainfall regime, if it's a grassland it probably is too dry to get a woodland to grow, the exception probably being the ecotone between eastern woodlands and tall grass praerie. Abraham de Alba Avila Terrestrial Plant Ecology INIFAP-Ags Ap. postal 20, Pabellón Arteaga, 20660 Aguascalientes, MEXICO SKYPE: adealba55 Tel: (465) 95-801-67, 801-86 ext. 126, FAX ext 102 alternate: dealba.abra...@inifap.gob.mx cel: 449-157-7070 From: Wayne Tyson landr...@cox.net To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Friday, September 4, 2009 11:10:31 PM Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Ecosystem Management Re: [ECOLOG-L] C Seq Grass vs Wood All: As in all science, shouldn't there be a specific theoretical foundation for such conclusions and at least some preliminary calculations to shoot at first? Sounds like range management kaka de toro and a carbon sequestration bandwagon to me. It needs some kind of proof, then some retesting by truly independent researchers before applying it to policy, such as chaining the trees and shrubs out and planting grass. Such an argument can't be settled honestly on the basis of opinion. WT Suggested reading: Wildlife of Mexico by A. Starker Leopold. (Especially the before and after pictures of cornfield erosion. I'm not suggesting that the case illustrated is comparable in every detail, only in principle. Presumptuous management has trashed a lot of range in both the USA and Mexico.) - Original Message - From: Abraham de Alba A. aalb...@yahoo.com To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2009 12:45 PM Subject: [ECOLOG-L] C Seq Grass vs Wood I am trying to settle an interesting argument and my dear ecologgers: I am trying to settle an interesting argument and my library resources are quite limited, I hope you can direct me to reputable references. There is the general belief (even academic) that forests or woodlands in general can be a Carbon net sink, I am told that is not totally true, since an early successional woodland, would probably be growing fast, respiring also (so producing more C than sequestrating). Now grasslands, if grazed properly (enough time given for recuperation) is is argued that the root loss due to grazing can increase the net C content in the soil (which is more stable than the above ground wood), even better if high density grazing can topple residue and mix it with urine and feaces. What do you think ? Abraham de Alba Avila Terrestrial Plant Ecology INIFAP-Ags Ap. postal 20, Pabellón Arteaga, 20660 Aguascalientes, MEXICO SKYPE: adealba55 Tel: (465) 95-801-67, 801-86 ext. 126, FAX ext 102 alternate: dealba.abra...@inifap.gob.mx cel: 449-157-7070 No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.409 / Virus Database: 270.13.76/2343 - Release Date: 09/03/09 05:50:00
[ECOLOG-L] C Seq Grass vs Wood
I am trying to settle an interesting argument and my dear ecologgers: I am trying to settle an interesting argument and my library resources are quite limited, I hope you can direct me to reputable references. There is the general belief (even academic) that forests or woodlands in general can be a Carbon net sink, I am told that is not totally true, since an early successional woodland, would probably be growing fast, respiring also (so producing more C than sequestrating). Now grasslands, if grazed properly (enough time given for recuperation) is is argued that the root loss due to grazing can increase the net C content in the soil (which is more stable than the above ground wood), even better if high density grazing can topple residue and mix it with urine and feaces. What do you think ? Abraham de Alba Avila Terrestrial Plant Ecology INIFAP-Ags Ap. postal 20, Pabellón Arteaga, 20660 Aguascalientes, MEXICO SKYPE: adealba55 Tel: (465) 95-801-67, 801-86 ext. 126, FAX ext 102 alternate: dealba.abra...@inifap.gob.mx cel: 449-157-7070
Re: [ECOLOG-L] simulate grazing with mowing treatments
You are NOT going to simulate grazing by large herbivore like that, you are going to simulate cutting-removal of whatever. That type of experiments have been totally obliterated in practice since they are quite misleading. There is evidence that animal's saliva can be affecting the leaves, the animal chooses what to eat quite differently than what we can tell, the animal is also urinating and leaving feaces, etc. So, to say it bluntly if the objetive is to see what is going on with large herbivores you have to use them, if you want to see what is the effect of removal of leaves, etc. then you can use a mower. They are different and w should aknowledge that from the begining. Abraham de Alba Avila Terrestrial Plant Ecology INIFAP-Ags Ap. postal 20, Pabellón Arteaga, 20660 Aguascalientes, MEXICO SKYPE: adealba55 Tel: (465) 95-801-67 , 801-86 ext. 126, FAX ext 102 alternate: dealba.abra...@inifap.gob.mx cel: 449-157-7070 From: Reinhart, Kurt kurt.reinh...@ars.usda.gov To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Friday, May 8, 2009 8:50:26 AM Subject: [ECOLOG-L] simulate grazing with mowing treatments I am looking for ideas on modifying a lawn mower (or something functionally equivalent) to create mowing treatments that will approximate different levels of non-selective herbivory by livestock in semi-arid grasslands. Unfortunately, the chemical treatments to the vegetation that I'm planning prevents utilizing e.g. sheep to naturally graze plots. A mowing solution might require modifying it to attach to an alternate frame to create the ability for setting a wide range of cutting heights to produce different utilization levels (e.g. 45 and 75%) and compensate for variable production among years. Ideally it will also collect/suck up cut material to avoid creating profuse leaf litter so it might need a separate vacuum for sucking up material when cutting at e.g. 25cm off the ground. I suspect safety flaps will also need to be installed to protect the operator from flying debri. We have some really handy shop staff that can build just about anything. So I'm mostly looking for ideas, likely pitfalls to avoid, etc. Any body built something similar or know someone that has? Kurt mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Kurt Reinhart, Research Ecologist USDA-ARS Fort Keogh Livestock Range Research Laboratory 243 Fort Keogh Road Miles City, MT 59301 USA email: kurt.reinh...@ars.usda.gov Office: (406) 874-8211 Fax: (406) 874-8289 educational website: http://iecology.net http://iecology.net/
[ECOLOG-L] Soil Hyd corers ?
Could I ask your experiences with hydraulic soil core Dear Ecologgers, Could I ask your experiences with hydraulic soil corers ? I am thinking of a contraption that can be plugged into the fender of a pickup or thereof, for say 50 cm cores in semiarid grassland sites, any input would be greatly appreciated Abraham de Alba Avila Terrestrial Plant Ecology INIFAP-Ags Ap. postal 20, Pabellón Arteaga, 20660 Aguascalientes, MEXICO Tel: (465) 95-801-67 , 801-86 ext. 126, FAX ext 102 alternate: dealba.abra...@inifap.gob.mx cel: 449-157-7070
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Penetrometers (Pesola Spring Scales??)
Cone penetrometers are fairly simple to construct in a sho Dear Sarah, Cone penetrometers are fairly simple to construct in a shop, at La jornada web page they have a link to a paper by Hendricks from a soil science paper (I think) that has instructions on building one, the down side is that you need a soil at field capacity ( not my case usually). font face=arial blackAbraham de Alba Avila/font font color=#00bf60Terrestrial Plant Ecology/font font color=#00bf60INIFAP-Ags/font font color=#00bf60Ap. postal 20,/font font color=#00bf60Pabellón Arteaga, 20660/font font color=#00bf60Aguascalientes, MEXICO/font nbsp;Tel: (465) 95-801-67, 801-86 ext. 118, FAX ext 102 alternate: [EMAIL PROTECTED] cel: 449-157-7070 - Original Message From: Sarah E. Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Monday, April 14, 2008 1:26:43 PM Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Penetrometers (Pesola Spring Scales??) Our lab is looking for reasonably-priced and transportable equipment to measure soil and leaf properties. We need a soil penetrometer and would also like to measure leaf toughness (i.e., tensile strength and potentially penetration force). This doesn’t have to all come from one piece of equipment, but we are looking into the Pesola® Macro-Line Spring Scales with pressure set attachment. Has anyone used the pressure set attachment on a spring scale to measure soil compaction? We would love to know if it works and is reliable, or if we need to purchase a soil penetrometer. Also, we would love your thoughts on alternatives to expensive pre-made instruments that can measure leaf toughness. We are experimenting with simple weight-based (i.e., adding water until a leaf breaks) approaches. Have any of you taken such an approach? Many thanks! Sarah Johnson Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Environmental gradients
I 'm not sure about the latest but I do remember Dean L. Urba Wayne, I 'm not sure about the latest but I do remember Dean L. Urban on his work on Classification Trees (CART) in the Sequoia-Kings Canyon N.P. quite an elegant work, interfaced with SIG, but don`t have access to a descent library to give you a recent reference, the one I have: Urban, D. et al. 2000. Forest pattern in Sierran landscapes: the physical template. Landscape Ecology 15:603-620 font face=arial blackAbraham de Alba Avila/font font color=#00bf60Terrestrial Plant Ecology/font font color=#00bf60INIFAP-Ags/font font color=#00bf60Ap. postal 20,/font font color=#00bf60Pabellón Arteaga, 20660/font font color=#00bf60Aguascalientes, MEXICO/font nbsp;Tel: (465) 95-801-67, 801-86 ext. 118, FAX ext 102 alternate: [EMAIL PROTECTED] cel: 449-157-7070 - Original Message From: Wayne Tyson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Wednesday, April 9, 2008 5:22:00 PM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Environmental gradients Jan, Neil, and Forum: Thanks. It's good to know about the project. While elevation is certainly one gradient (and latitude is another), I was thinking more of those that might make up those kinds of gradients. Temperature, pH, and humidity, for example, are just some of the more precisely quantifiable gradients that might be part of a measurable diagram of species, ecotype, or other category of life-form that would, if sufficiently well-done, be a predictor of both life-form and habitat. Ricklefs, for example, suggested such a diagram, if I recall correctly, in his 2nd edition of Ecology. I was hoping to be brought up to date on what might have been done with this concept since that publication. Perhaps your research involves such measures, or if others might know of publications which have further refined the concept since those days . . . WT jan kerata wrote: Wayne, here's a reference for work being done in Northern AZ, I hope this is what you were looking for. Our Director, Neil Cobb, can answer any questions. Jan http://www.mpcer.nau.edu/gradient/ Wayne Tyson wrote: What's the latest word on environmental gradients? Diagrams? Applications? Thanks in advance, WT __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: She will not have babies
Another third world, but with the knowledge from science Noone to quote, but it is a well researched area in sociology, it is the empowering of women which actually lowers conception rates, not the minimum wage as most of us thought in the 70's My one cent Abraham de Alba Avila Terrestrial Plant Ecology INIFAP-Ags Ap. postal 20, Pabellón Arteaga, 20660 Aguascalientes, MEXICO Tel: (465) 95-801-67, 801-86 ext. 118, FAX ext 102 alternate: [EMAIL PROTECTED] cel: 449-157-7070 - Get easy, one-click access to your favorites. Make Yahoo! your homepage.
slope as dependant var
Dear Ecologgers: I have been doing some regressions with temperature means across time series on about 80 stations in a rather small region (less than 2 degrees lat), contrasting before and after 1991, and not surprisingly I have found quite significant slopes in many stations. But in trying to make out a pattern in statistical terms I am not sure if I am breaking some rules, for one I don't know what to do with stations where there are NO significant trends, they are not zeros. So I can think of two approaches, multiple regression using altitude, lat, long, even population as independant variables or use a geostatistical model in ArcView or any other geostatistical software. Am I breaking some holy statistical rules here ?? I would appreciate any comments since I am very far from any statistical-savy collegue. Abraham de Alba Avila Terrestrial Plant Ecology INIFAP-Ags Ap. postal 20, Pabellón Arteaga, 20660 Aguascalientes, MEXICO Tel: (465) 95-801-67, 801-86 ext. 118, FAX ext 102 alternate: [EMAIL PROTECTED] cel: 449-157-7070 - Moody friends. Drama queens. Your life? Nope! - their life, your story. Play Sims Stories at Yahoo! Games.
Fwd: [ECOLOG-L] DDT question
Dear Kelly: Don´t know about the revutal to R. Carson's allegations, but there are tons of info (I am in the middle of México, a bit far from a library, and so I am at a disadvantage to give you relevant references ) on estrogen-like compounds that result from the breakdown of DDT, and that`s the concern with aquatic organisms, fish, amphibians and reptilians. I do remember a good paper in American Scientiest a while back if you want a more precise answer. Kelly Stettner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 06:06:18 -0700 From: Kelly Stettner [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [ECOLOG-L] DDT question To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU While I whole-heartedly agree that the larger and long-term picture must be considered with regards to ecology, I also think that emotional, knee-jerk reactions need to be tempered with real scientific investigation. Before our imaginations get too fired up over sensationalism, we need to be responsible and look at ALL the evidence, not just that which supports our hypothesis. For some reason, I thought that Rachel Carson's allegation about sea bird eggshells had been disproven? Can someone point to some of the research on both sides of the issue? Also, have there been studies on DDT's effects on animals, through groundwater or as an airborne spray or some other vector? What are these 'adverse impacts to polar bears and penguins' that you mention? How does it get there, does it last that long in the upper atmosphere to be carried to the poles on the wind? Sex reversal in fish ~ I'd also like to know about studies on this particular issue, since I've never heard of it, either. Are the fish affected when DDT moves through groundwater? What happens to DDT when it hits soil or water? Does it break down into component molecules? Thank you for considering my questions. Kelly Stettner Springfield, Vermont 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! ~ - Need a vacation? Get great deals to amazing places on Yahoo! Travel. Abraham de Alba Avila Terrestrial Plant Ecology INIFAP-Ags Ap. postal 20, Pabellón Arteaga, 20660 Aguascalientes, MEXICO Tel: (465) 95-801-67, 801-86 ext. 118, FAX ext 102 alternate: [EMAIL PROTECTED] cel: 449-157-7070 - Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell.
Re: Your Opinion About a Relativization Issue
If I understood correctly, I wouldn`t use parametric tests, it would seem that they are not spacially independent. One way would be to model it thru geostatistical analyses, the other is to use a gradient analyses procedure, such as CANOCO and have either an artifical variable composed of altitud + hydrological position or a subjective dummy such as a 4 value, position on the landscape, the field book forf describing and sampling soils (it`s on the web somewhere), has a 5 value hillslope definition: summit, shoulder, backslope, footslope and toeslope. Hope it helps, --- Alexandre Souza [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dear friends, I am dealing with a particular relativization issue in a microhabitat analysis and would like to hear your opinion about it, would it be possible? Here follows a resume: Hypothesis: The Southern dominant conifer Araucaria angustifolia occurs more often than not on higher microtopographic sites, and avoids the lower ones. Data: XY positions of 600 young individuals in 10 separate plots. Each plot has 1 ha (100 m x 100 m) and is subdivided in 100 10 x 10 m subplots. The area is a mountainous terrain at ca. 850 m elevation. Altitude has been measured on the corners of each subplot, and at the locations of each individual. Analysis: Simply, the comparison of the background altitude distribution of the subplot corners with the individuals altitude distribution, through a Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. The expectation is that the distribution of individuals will be different from that of the local microtopography because they lack individuals at the lower altitudes The focus is not at the altitude in itself, but in the lower parts of the plots, which correspond to local depressions, which are more humid. Problem: Each one of the 10 areas is located at a distinct altitude. Although these are not too much different (amplitude ~100 m), it precludes me to pool the altitude data of the areas, that form multimodal distributions. My Current Doubt: I am thinking of considering the relative altitude of each corner and each individual, instead of the real altitude. This relativization would be carried out by transforming each altitude datum in its relative distance from the average altitude of its plot (xi - averageX). I guess this would allow me to pool all altitude measures and focus on what is the question of the research. What do you think? Should I standardize the data, dividing the relativized measures by the standard deviation? Why? Any thoughts are well come. Sincerely, Alexandre Dr. Alexandre F. Souza Programa de Pós-Graduação em Biologia: Diversidade e Manejo da Vida Silvestre Universidade do Vale do Rio dos Sinos (UNISINOS) Av. UNISINOS 950 - C.P. 275, São Leopoldo 93022-000, RS - Brasil Telefone: (051)3590-8477 ramal 1263 Skype: alexfadigas [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.unisinos.br/laboratorios/lecopop -- Esta mensagem foi verificada pelo sistema de antivírus e acredita-se estar livre de perigo. Abraham de Alba Avila Terrestrial Plant Ecology INIFAP-Ags Ap. postal 20, Pabellón Arteaga, 20660 Aguascalientes, MEXICO Tel: (465) 95-801-67, 801-86 ext. 118, FAX ext 102 alternate: [EMAIL PROTECTED] cel: 449-157-7070 ___ You snooze, you lose. Get messages ASAP with AutoCheck in the all-new Yahoo! Mail Beta. http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta/newmail_html.html
Re: Gap Light Analysis - what kind of hardware?
Dynamax.com has a setup for hemispherical analysis, can't say anything about its precision, specially since the nikon lens was as I understand it the only one with no bias. --- David Zeleny [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dear collegues, just short question for those working with forest canopy analysis, particularly with gap light analysis: what kind of hardware (cameras and lenses) are you using? The common set we were using up to now in our department - Nikon Coolpix 4500 + fish-eye Nikon FC-E8 - is sold out and not available any more, so don't you know about some reasonable alternative? I would be happy for any advice or recommendation! Thanks! David Zeleny Department of Botany and Zoology Masaryk University Brno Kotlarska 2 CZ-611 37 Brno Czech Republic http://www.sci.muni.cz/botany/zeleny/english.php Abraham de Alba Avila Terrestrial Plant Ecology INIFAP-Ags Ap. postal 20, Pabellón Arteaga, 20660 Aguascalientes, MEXICO Tel: (465) 95-801-67, 801-86 ext. 118, FAX ext 102 alternate: [EMAIL PROTECTED] cel: 449-157-7070 Get the Yahoo! toolbar and be alerted to new email wherever you're surfing. http://new.toolbar.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/index.php
On Plagiarism
Dear Ecologgers: It might seem odd to say this, but the problem is that in our education (as in yours) knowledge has been at the top, NOT values (or ethics for that matter). But then again, japanese (that supposebly do stress values before knowledge) also have been known to trip on plagiarism. So I guess a simple problem has complex social solutions (nothing new there). PAbraham de Alba Avila/P PTerrestrial Plant Ecology/P PINIFAP-Ags/P P Ap. postal 20,/P P Pabellón Arteaga, 20660/P P Aguascalientes, MEXICO/P P Tel: (465) 95-801-67, 801-86 ext. 118, FAX ext 102 alternate: [EMAIL PROTECTED] cel: 449-157-7070/P __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
excell bias/poptools
Dear Ecologgers, Do wonder if said program POPTOOLS does take into account several calculating biases that Excell, excells in. Or if the objetive is only for demostration purposes, didactic demostration, etc ??? I myself use excell only for simple data manipulation on excell, nothing else. PAbraham de Alba Avila/P PTerrestrial Plant Ecology/P PINIFAP-Ags/P P Ap. postal 20,/P P Pabellón Arteaga, 20660/P P Aguascalientes, MEXICO/P P Tel: (465) 95-801-67, 801-86 ext. 118, FAX ext 102 alternate: [EMAIL PROTECTED] cel: 449-157-7070/P __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
CART modeling
Hi, I am a newophyte on CART and trying to use it to classyfy some vegetation plots with different spp of pines in the middle of México, I am wondering if it's necessary to transform the environmental variables such as soil (% sand, silt, ph, Ntot%, C%, O.Matter) and geographic variables such as exposicion or aspect, m above sea level, fisiographic position ( a factor) ??? I am using S-plus7 and rpart rutines. Many thanks I am bit isolated from people that know how to use trees, PAbraham de Alba Avila/P PTerrestrial Plant Ecology/P PINIFAP-Ags/P P Ap. postal 20,/P P Pabellón Arteaga, 20660/P P Aguascalientes, MEXICO/P P Tel: (465) 95-801-67, 801-86 ext. 118, FAX ext 102 alternate: [EMAIL PROTECTED] cel: 449-157-7070/P __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
CART modeling
Hi again ecologgers I presume that in looking for the best model in a CART you are looking for the lowest residual mean deviance (besides the biological meaning) ?? or to put it in another perspective, what is the most sensible procedure to arrive a the most stable solution without getting into overfitting. PAbraham de Alba Avila/P PTerrestrial Plant Ecology/P PINIFAP-Ags/P P Ap. postal 20,/P P Pabellón Arteaga, 20660/P P Aguascalientes, MEXICO/P P Tel: (465) 95-801-67, 801-86 ext. 118, FAX ext 102 alternate: [EMAIL PROTECTED] cel: 449-157-7070/P __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
