[ECOLOG-L] Tragedy of the Commons revisited (RE: the precautionary principle...)
Quick note: It wasn't accurate for me to characterize the Tragedy of the Commons (proposed by Garrett Hardin 1968, Science 162: 1243-1248) as an economic theory, though it is, in part. It is every bit as much an ecological theory to explain why over-population is a serious problem and why people should not be free to breed as much as they please. This origin in the overpopulation debate would explain why this theory is apparently so much better-known in ecology and in economics. The theory has been used to argue for government regulation of open-access resources, like fish and herps, and also for privatization of property owned by the government (national parks, rangelands, etc.) and property owned by nobody (open ocean). Both applications of the theory have their failings. As Beryl Crowe (1969, Science166, 1103-1107) argued in a response to the original paper, government regulation tends to break down because the broad coalition that inspires the creation of the regulatory agency is less interested and less determined than the people the agency is meant to regulate. Through relentless pressure, the regulated parties eventually take over the regulating agency, making it an expensive Potemkin regulator. Privatization has numerous problems with which most of us are probably familiar. To name a few: (1) People don't necessarily manage resources more sustainably on their own property than they do on communal property. (2) Privatization, when it works, works on economically valuable resources, and only when the value of those resources accrue to the owners of the resource disproportionately. The wetland adjacent to the river filters the water for people downstream, but not so much for the person who owns the wetland. The view from your ranchette house is worth more to you than it costs anyone else to have your house mar the beauty of the natural landscape. (3) Privatizing a resource by dividing up the land or water in which it's found doesn't work so well if that resource is highly mobile, like wild fish and birds or clean water.. (4) Private property is the heart of capitalism, and, for all its virtues, one of the main things capitalism rewards is the prior possession of wealth. Privatized resources accrue disproportionately to the wealthy. Privatizing public or open-access resources, like fisheries, national parks, and public schools, ultimately amounts to handing the best of these resources over to the wealthy and reducing or eliminating whatever access everyone else once had. Anyway, I mostly wanted to correct my assertion that the Tragedy of the Commons was primarily an economic theory. Someone told me that in my early training, and it didn't occur to me to question it until I had echoed that error to the forum. Jim Crants
Re: [ECOLOG-L] the precautionary principle makes sense and should be applied to GCC arguments
On the contrary, examples exist (sea mink, cod) of animal communities being greatly diminished at the hands of the very people turning a profit from their harvesting. Phil The tragedy of the commons. The benefit from harvesting a resource accrues only whoever collects it (and probably to some middlemen), while the costs are shared by everyone with a stake in the resource. The economically rational thing to do, on the individual level, is to harvest as much as you can, but this produces the collective result of putting all the harvesters out of business. The only way for them to stay in business is for them to accept some set of rules (either their own or someone else's) that keeps them, collectively, from over-harvesting. If the resource is very scarce, the rules might say not to harvest at all, on the assumption that all the rule-breakers will harvest at unsustainable or barely-sustainable rates. It's an economic theory, but while almost every ecologist I've talked to about it seems to be familiar with it, every time I've mentioned it to an economist, I've gotten a blank stare in return. Jim
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Question Ecology Natural History etc Re: [ECOLOG-L] Hypothesis Testing in Ecology
I think the common interpretation of natural history among ecologists could be called descriptive ecology. It has the tacit hypotheses Matt Chew listed, but I don't think people associate natural history with explicit hypothesis-testing. It's about collecting and describing observations that seem meaningful, and the observations are not made in order to test a clear, explicit model. While natural history is not explicitly hypothesis-driven, the observations collected in natural history are one basis for the formation of new hypotheses. Darwin didn't tromp around collecting barnacles to test the hypothesis of evolution by natural selection. He made and recorded careful observations, considered the patterns in those observations, and proposed his hypothesis to explain those patterns. Anyway, what distinguishes natural history from the rest of ecology is the lack of explicit hypotheses that the collected data are intended to address. Also, arguably, natural history extends to all fields of science; I would call a descriptive study of a nebula natural history, and Robert Hooke's study of cork cells was definitely natural history, but these studies would be in the fields of astronomy and plant anatomy, respectively. Jim Crants On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 12:27 PM, David L. McNeely mcnee...@cox.net wrote: Wayne Tyson landr...@cox.net wrote: Ecolog: What specifically distinguishes natural history from ecology? Wayne, Ernst Haeckel coined the term which became our modern term ecology. You probably knew this. Haeckel mistook the root of biological science, natural history, for one of its branches, ecology. Ever since, we have had this conundrum. Ecology is natural history dressed up to look better for those who have difficulty accepting that science is old and was effective in the old days. For those who have some sniffing hang-up about being natural historians, there is no more honorable, nor more interesting, endeavor than trying to figure out how nature works. And one doesn't have to be arrogant, or attempt to dismiss other's efforts, to do it effectively. David McNeely, fish ecologist (ie., natural historian)
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Conservation or just gardening?
Jason, I'm unaware of any clean line between conservation-oriented land management and gardening with a focus on natives. Honestly, within the context of conservation activities, I don't see the point in drawing that line. The relevant question is, are the results of conservation activities worth the resources they consume? If you think they are, you're more likely to call the activities conservation (implying that you're saving something worth saving), but if you don't, you're more likely to call them gardening (since that term, implying artificiality, contradicts the motivation behind conservation: to conserve the natural world). Conservation organizations usually try to stay as far as they can from anything most people would call gardening. It's not that they're averse to that label (though I think they are), but because they want to accomplish the most they can with their limited resources. If maintaining, restoring, or re-creating an ecosystem takes too much intervention, the money and effort is usually better spent on habitats that are less degraded, all else being equal. (An exception would be demonstration gardens, where the goal is to educate, not to conserve.) I DO see a point in drawing a line between gardening and conservation in the political arena. Conservation agencies would be wise to be sure people recognize their efforts as conservation and not gardening. If they don't want to dirty their hands by branding their activities as conservation in the political sphere, there are others who will gladly brand the same activities as gardening. Jim Crants -- James Crants, PhD Scientist, University of Minnesota Agronomy and Plant Genetics Cell: (612) 718-4883
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Want assistance with a GIS spatial analysis project? (this time with contact information)
I've had quite a response to the message I sent out yesterday! A half-dozen people have already responded! I will be choosing one of those people's projects to work on. I thought I should let you all know; I don't want to raise any false hopes. Thanks to everyone who responded. I'll be in touch with you soon. Jim Crants On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 5:46 PM, David Inouye ino...@umd.edu wrote: I am taking a course in spatial analysis in GIS. A major component of the course is an independent project. Since the class is oriented toward grad students, the assignment is designed so that one may easily apply it toward getting a thesis chapter done. I, however, am not a grad student, and I have no existing research to apply this project to. I can easily enough come up with something that meets the requirements, but I would rather do something that's of some value to somebody. I've tried various local conservation groups, but I've come up dry. Does anyone here need some GIS-based spatial analysis done? The assignment basically requires that I do exploratory data analysis (mining for hypotheses) and/or predictive analysis (hypothesis testing). I would need to get started very soon, and the due date is in mid-December, so this couldn't be anything huge, and the data would need to be pre-existing. I hope I can help someone! James Crants, PhD Scientist, University of Minnesota Agronomy and Plant Genetics Cell: (612) 718-4883 James Crants jcra...@gmail.com -- James Crants, PhD Scientist, University of Minnesota Agronomy and Plant Genetics Cell: (612) 718-4883
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Ecology and Gardening Re: [ECOLOG-L] Help with development of a gardening/ecology teaching tool (game)
Wayne, I didn't see your statement as a put-down, but I was wondering what point you were making about the original post. Yes, there are significant differences in how gardens and ecosystems are assembled, but what does this say about USC students' efforts to design a gardening/ecology game? The same basic ecological processes are at work either way. In fact, since many of what we call natural communities are maintained by human intervention, including controlled burns, native species plantings, and exotic species removal, some have argued that such communities are just glorified gardens. Also, our management of fish and game populations is something like communal ranching. A game like this could be useful in showing how relevant basic ecological concepts are to at least one aspect of everyday life (gardening and landscaping), and how relevant cultivation is to many natural systems. I hope someone has offered to help Diane and her students with this project. Jim Crants Ecolog: Gardening (and all cultivation) should be seen for what it is, human culture manipulating its habitat/environment to suit humans rather than being changed/evolved by the habitat/environment/ecosystems which, by definition, are not cultivated. WT - Original Message - From: David Inouye ino...@umd.edu To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 2:06 PM Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Help with development of a gardening/ecology teaching tool (game) Want to help the average American learn and care more about the fascinating phenomena, behaviors, and inter-relationships of the natural world that prompted you to become an ecologist in the first place? A student team from University of Southern California graduate schools is designing a gesture-based gardening/ecology game in which the game-play and logics are founded on the mechanics, behaviors and interrelationships of real-world animals, birds, insects and plants. We're seeking specialists from fields including (but not limited to) botany, ornithology, and entomology willing to collaborate with us and to help us design a fun, high-quality game that teaches, entertains and heightens players' interest in - and commitment to -- the natural world all at once. While this is a student project, some games (e.g. The Adventures of PB Winterbottom, Reflection) developed through this route at USC have received commercial contracts and become commercial games. Thus, work with us might help both your research and you, as an individual, to obtain more attention from broad, non-specialist audiences than they would otherwise receive. Interested in contributing to and/or in learning more about the game? Contact Diane Tucker at diane dot tucker at usc dot edu
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Aspect
Mark, I still don't think you need a reference, but using the search terms slope aspect sun in Web of Knowledge, I was able to quickly come up with this potentially useful reference: Geiger, R. J. (1965) The Climate Near the Ground. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. (cited in Huang et al. 2008. Modeling monthly near-surface air temperature from solar radiation and lapse rate: Application over complex terrain in Yellowstone National Park. Physical Geography 29(2): 158-178.) The Huang et al. study is not about boulders, so Geiger's book might be more relevant to hills and mountains than to boulders. I've found another study with a promising title (using lichen boulder* sun*), but I can't get it online to look into it: vandenBoom et al. 1996. The lichen flora of megalithic monuments in the Netherlands. Nova Hedwigia 62(1-2): 91-104. The abstract concludes: The most important abiotic factors correlating with the lichen vegetation appear to be the exposure to sunlight, the pressure of recreation and the exposure to wind. Sufficient measures should be taken to minimize the negative effects of the increased treegrowth, and to protect some vulnerable monuments against intensive recreation. I hope that helps. Jim Crants
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Aspect
OK, Mark, so you COULD make it really complicated, as Martin has shown. Given the space constraints you'll face in publishing, though, you may want to simply add a caveat, such as in general. As for references, I don't see the necessity. I'm not even optimistic you could find a source with any legitimate claim to being the originator of such a basic idea. In a pinch, maybe you and a colleague from the opposite hemisphere could go out and observe which sides of some haphazardly-chosen rocks were better-lit during various times of day, then use unpublished data as your citation. Jim Crants On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 1:39 PM, Martin Meiss mme...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, Mark, There are some counter-intuitive issues here, and the way you have specified the geometry does not capture the complexity of the situation. For instance, the term side doesn't tell us much. Imagine a spherical boulder sitting on the surface of the soil in a northerly latitude. Then the north side also has downward-facing aspects. In the early morning and late evening, when the summer sun is at its most northerly in the sky, it is also lowest in the sky, and thus illuminates downward-facing aspects with less obliquity. This leads to the initially surprising result that downward-facing northern surfaces receive MORE insolation than similarly downward-facing southern surfaces. For similar reasons, house plants can receive more sunlight in the winter, when low solar angles peep under roof overhangs and project through windows and far into rooms. In summer, roof overhang and high solar angles may keep windows completely in the shade. However, depending on what phenomenon you are interested in, solar angles do not tell the whole story. Diffuse light, caused by scattering of the direct-beam component of sunlight, whether in a clear blue or cloudy sky, is much more evenly distributed than the direct-beam component. That is, all parts of the sky send about the same amount of sky-light (or cloud-light on an overcast day) to a horizontal surface. This diffuse light is also going to warm your boulder, but relatively uniformly with regard to compass direction. For photosynthesis the cloud-light and sky-light components are important contributors, especially since leaves typically saturate in photosynthetic output at about 20% of full sunlight (although it is a different story when you consider vegetative canopies or tree crowns instead of individual leaves). I think it would be useful if you went out to your favorite northern boulder with some data-logging sensors and took some long-term readings. I hope this helps. Martin Meiss 2010/8/13 Mark Wilson slugecol...@gmail.com Hi folks, I am looking for a reference which states (1) that in the northern hemisphere the north side of boulders are less exposed to the sun than the south side and (2) that the east side of boulders are exposed to the sun only in the morning when temperatures tend to be cooler while west sides are exposed during the afternoon when temperatures tend to be higher and as a result the north and east side of boulders are likely to stay cooler and damper longer. Any suggestions? Mark -- James Crants, PhD Scientist, University of Minnesota Agronomy and Plant Genetics Cell: (612) 718-4883
Re: [ECOLOG-L] humans in the definition of environment
Wayne, My aim was simply to dispute the assertion that culture is a sociopathological phenomenon. In doing so, it proved necessary to clarify that my definitions of culture and society are the conventional ones (and I cited Merriam-Webster to show what definitions I was using, which is not a case of the fallacy of appeal to authority). Even now, you apparently don't understand the definitions I'm using, since you summarized them in nearly identical terms, while I think the difference between culture and society is clear. To paraphrase what I said before, a society is a collection of interacting people with a group identity, and their culture is all the values, beliefs, and practices that they hold largely in common. Conflating the group with its shared ideas is like conflating the brain with the thoughts it produces. On the other hand, I admit that I have no idea how you define culture and society. I went over each of your messages in this conversation, and all I could discern on the matter was that you found the conventional definitions too vague and that you turned to etymology to try to come up with something more precise. At one point, you apparently equate culture more or less with hierarchy, though since most or all social animals have hierarchies, this would still lead me to believe that culture is not optional for social animals like humans. (And if it's not optional, it can't be pathological; how can you identify a pathology independent of a contrasting state of health?) If you ever offered definitions, I've missed them entirely after two attempts. As to why I have not addressed the specifics of [your] previous attempts to explain [your] suggested definitions for the two terms, I think it boils down to my initial intention to dispute only one statement in your argument and my inability to find either your definitions for the two terms or your attempts to explain these definitions (unless you count the post in which you tell us you turned to etymology to find clearer definitions, but I couldn't discern from that what definitions you might have arrived at). I can't address specifics I can't find. I'm also not clear on why you want clearer definitions for such widely-used terms in the first place. It's not as though people are going to confine their usage of a term to whatever more rigorous definition you come up with. If you really want to talk about something more specific (less vague) than culture and society, either find other words to do so, or don't be surprised when people start arguing with you as though you were using the conventional definitions. Finally, I do not agree that the status quo needs a strong defense when there is no well-supported idea challenging it. Issuing a poorly-supported challenge to conventional wisdom is like throwing a dart at a castle, for all the impact it's going to make. You won't be burned at the stake for it; you'll just be ignored. It wouldn't hurt to offer a clear alternative to the status quo, while you're at it, and a road map for arriving at that alternative state. Even if we all agree that culture is pathological, what do we do next? Do we immediately abandon whatever it is you call culture and go hunter-gatherer? Jim Crants
Re: [ECOLOG-L] humans in the definition of environment
I agree with Jamie Hedges that the assertion that culture is a sociopathological phenomenon requires very strong support. Sociopathological phenomenon could also use a clear definition. I understand it to be any social phenomenon that is (overall) harmful to the society in which it occurs. (Harmful to society, to me, means harmful to those within the society who have little power. History and current events are loaded with cases where powerful elites equate themselves with society and thus rationalize any harm they do to the powerless in pursuit of their own interests.) A Google search shows that people apply the term to crime, corruption, drug addiction, and fundamentalism. I can clearly see how our society would be better off without crime, corruption, and drug addiction, and, my religious and political views being what they are, I think we'd benefit if fundamentalism disappeared, too. But culture? Even Western culture? I think labeling all of Western culture a sociopathological phenomenon is advocating throwing out the baby with the bathwater. There are aspects of our culture that are causing more harm than good, obviously, but there are other aspects that serve people of little power quite well, including aspects that prevent or repair damage to the natural environment. The local foods movement, the Clean Air Act, classical music, science, and the First Amendment are all products of Western culture that I just can't see as pathological (overall). Beyond such specifics, though, society without culture is beyond my imagination. What would that even mean? I think of a society as a group of interacting people, and I don't see how a group of people can interact with each other without transmitting ideas and forming group values, thus creating culture. If I'm right that you can't have society without culture, it makes no sense to call culture sociopathological. For that matter, I don't think you could have multiple humans in close proximity without having human interaction, leading inevitably to the formation of culture. Are humans sociopathological? Jim Crants On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 5:07 AM, Jamie Lewis Hedges hedge...@yahoo.comwrote: I recognize that your's is an admirable concern for the en Dear Wayne, I recognize that your's is an admirable concern for the environment and about the implications that human behavior has for it. The question of humans in the definition of environment--whether academic or general--is a crucial one, and cannot be resolved by any one person, field, and definitely not by so over-generalized an assertion. To characterize culture as a sociopathological phenomenon is concerning. Without discerning between those cultural behaviors that are beneficial and those that are detrimental to our environment, this statement remains unscientific and non sequitur. Culture? Which one? All of them? And what do you mean we? Certainly not Anthropologists, Sociologists, Geographers, etc. And your statement has in no way been the conclusion of the broader community of Ecologists. I find your idea repeated elsewhere, such as in your response to Gunderson and Folke's 2009 article “Lumpy Information” in the journal Ecology and Society. There you write, it may be useful, even critical to our depth of understanding, to recognize that culture itself is demonstrably a societal pathology. Again, unless corrected, this mistake makes the whole discussion fundamentally unscientific. Examples to the contrary include the classic Roy A. Rappaport's 1971 The flow of energy in an agricultural society [Scientific American 224(3):116-32] as well as Paul Robbins work on human-environment dynamics involving the Kumbhalgarh Wildlife Sanctuary in Rajasthan, India [Robbins, Chhangani, Rice, Trigosa, Mohnot. Enforcement Authority and Vegetation Change at Kumbhalgarh Wildlife Sanctuary, Rajasthan, India. Environmental Management (2007) 40:365–378 as well as Chhangani, A. K., Robbins, P. and Mohnot, S. M. (2008) 'Crop Raiding and Livestock Predation at Kumbhalgarh Wildlife Sanctuary, Rajasthan India', Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 13:5,305—316]. By your statements and from the larger context of the Ecolog thread, I remain sure that by culture you mean Western culture and its demonstrable trend toward overconsumption and inefficient consumption of natural resources. Or perhaps by culture you mean pop culture and its role as raison d'être for Western culture's overconsumption of natural resources. While some, perhaps even I, who would argue the specifics of these, they would not be as concerning as your statements currently stand. Whether this is true or not, whether you agree or not, perhaps you and others would be interested in reading and perhaps responding to my discrete consideration of my response for a more general audience at http://jamielewishedges.info/2010/07/13/changing-culture/. With respectful concern, Jamie Lewis
Re: [ECOLOG-L] humans in the definition of environment
Regarding your response to my post, it's clear that we're talking about different things when we talk about culture. I've been writing with Merriam-Webster's fifth definition for culture in mind: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/culture. By this definition, pretty much any collection of humans with a group identity will have a culture. It's the definition people use when they talk about corporate culture, Trekkie culture, pop culture, or ancient Inca culture, and it's the one I assumed you were using when you said culture was a sociopathological phenomenon. By society, I was thinking of Merriam-Webster's third definition: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/society. If you look at that definition, bearing in mind the definition of culture that I was thinking of, I hope you can see how it sounds absurd to call culture sociopathological. To put it briefly, a society is a collection of people with a group identity, and any such collection will inevitably have a culture, so what could it mean to say the culture is bad for society? I do agree that culture has long progressed in the direction of isolating us from the rest of nature, so that an increasing number of humans can potentially get through life just fine imagining nature to be irrelevant to their interests. However, when you say that this progression toward isolation means culture is by definition, pathological, you are essentially saying that culture must necessarily progress in that direction (if culture could reverse its pathological direction of progress, you couldn't say it was pathological by definition). But why can culture only advance toward greater isolation from nature? I don't agree that the alternative to calling culture a sociopathological phenomenon requires strong support. The alternative is simply that culture is not a sociopathological phenomenon; its effect on society is either good or neutral. This is a null hypothesis, and like any null hypothesis, it's a weak statement, and the only support it needs is the failure to confirm the alternative (in this case, your hypothesis). Further, I think the vast majority of us assume that culture is not bad for society, and any time you want to challenge a widely-held belief, the burden falls on you to make some sort of case for your position. If you can do so, that's when people might feel compelled to defend the status quo. Finally, I think I actually offered some pretty strong support to the null hypothesis/status quo position. I pointed out that you can't have a society without a culture, which makes it impossible for culture to be pathological to society. Certain attitudes or practices of a given culture may be harmful, but some kind of culture simply will be present wherever there is a society. I've just now received your response to Hedges. I think the definitions of culture and society that I've linked to above are distinct enough; the group of people is the soiciety, and their common attitudes, beliefs, and practices are their culture. If you have provided your definitions of culture and society, I've missed them. At any rate, I've already gone on much longer than I intended, so I will leave it to Jaimie Hedges (or someone else) to respond further. Jim Crants On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 6:57 PM, Wayne Tyson landr...@cox.net wrote: Jim and Ecolog: There were humans in proximity with other humans in a predominantly cooperative/social rather than a predominately competitive/cultural state from the dawn of the species until the transformation of pre-civilized to civilized states of being, roughly beginning around 10,000-12,000 BCE. Humans before the domestication (enslavement?) of plants and animals had to cooperate to survive. In that state (although one could make a point that it began with tools) humans were more in the environment/Nature/ecosystem/nutrient cycle than out of it. As culture advanced, humans increasingly were outside of Nature (I prefer this term to the others, except maybe nutrient-energy cycle), hence, culture is, by definition, pathological. Either one accepts that there are two distinctly different states of being or one doesn't; there's no way to prove that cultural humans are not just another manifestation of Nature (environment, if you prefer), like Manifest Destiny. WT PS: I agree about the need for strong support. However, so does the alternative, whatever that is. If I failed to adequately address Crants' points either here or in the response to Hedges, please let me know. - Original Message - From: James Crants jcra...@gmail.com To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 10:03 AM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] humans in the definition of environment I agree with Jamie Hedges that the assertion that culture is a sociopathological phenomenon requires very strong support. Sociopathological phenomenon could also use a clear definition. I understand it to be any social
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Humans in the definition of ecosystems
WT and Ecolog, Since the CBD definition of ecosystem calls it a dynamic complex, not the dynamic complex, it implies that there is more than one ecosystem on earth (assuming the authors of this definition didn't define it this way to make room for any extraterrestrial life we might one day discover). The definition also says that the components of the ecosystem interact as a functional unit. I think that part of the definition of a functional unit must be that the biotic and abiotic environment inside the unit differs from that outside it, and that the shift in environment from inside to outside corresponds with the borders of the unit. (Minnesota would have a different species list from Iowa, but there's no perceptible shift in biology at the border between the two states, so they are not discrete functional units.) A deer's rumen is a functional unit. If you tried to define the borders of the rumen based purely on community composition and abiotic factors, I think you'd end up with very similar borders to what you'd see if you defined them based on the shape of the rumen. Similarly, a kettlehole bog would be a functional unit, and an outcrop of serpentine soil in California might be, too. However, an arbitrarily-defined hectare of prairie in the Nebraska Sandhills would not qualify, since organisms and nutrients would flow across the borders of that hectare plot just as freely as they would cross any random line drawn through the middle of it, and a sampling transect running across any border of that plot would find no great shift in species composition or abiotic factors corresponding with the location of the border (except by chance). There are also functional units that only exist because of what I called ecological discontinuities we've imposed on the landscape. An arbitrary hectare of prairie surrounded by many other hectares of prairie is not a functional unit, but the same hectare, surrounded by many hectares of cornfields, is a functional unit. It has different species of plants, animals, and microbes, different nutrient inputs, maybe a different annual rainfall total (if the cornfields are irrigated), more leaf litter, and a different soil composition (probably more organic matter, and much more clearly defined soil horizons in the top foot or so of soil). It likely has a different fire regime, especially if it's managed to maintain the pre-settlement vegetation. Concepts like community and ecosystem might not seem so natural to us if we did not live in a world where nature was largely relegated to islands in a sea of anthropogenic landscapes, which themselves are cut into sharp-edged patches of different land uses. When I wrote about ecosystems as artifacts of the ecological discontinuities we've imposed on the landscape, I was thinking of cases like that hypothetical hectare of prairie, where little bits of natural habitat were turned into isolated units sometime before scientists started trying to find useful labels for ecological systems. Jim Crants On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 6:30 PM, Wayne Tyson landr...@cox.net wrote: JC and Ecolog: (Note to Jim: I finally found it.) '*Ecosystem*' means a dynamic complex of plant, animal and micro-organism communities and their non-living environment interacting as a functional unit. https://www.cbd.int/recommendation/sbstta/?id=7027 I don't see that this definition excludes humans either; perhaps DeClerck will ask her mystery colleague how he/she came to that conclusion? I don't interpret the definition as necessarily relating to a plurality of units, but rather to the entire ecosystem. I've always had a bit of trouble referring to subsets of the earth's ecosystem as discrete units, even though I recognize the utility of doing so. I would like to understand what Crants means by functional units as well as artifacts of ecological discontinuities. As I have said elsewhere, I see culture as a psychological phenomenon that served a utilitarian purpose--that of permitting humans to manipulate their environment far more than any other any other species--almost without limit. All animal make mistakes--mountain sheep fall off cliffs, but humans seem to grow better and better at making mistakes and institutionalizing them than other species. Insanity is not limited to Homo sapiens--sick and injured bears fly into rages and sometimes attack even humans and kill without reason. But humans, even apparently healthy ones, have instutionalized not only killing but have found ways to rationalize almost any murder--particularly mass murder committed in the name of the culture, aka, cult. Whereas Nature has been able to quickly take out deviants as part of ecosystem function, humans have found ways to beat that rap in countless ways. But, as my wife is fond of saying, Nature bats last. I suspect we're past the first inning. WT
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Humans in the definition of ecosystems
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 7:14 PM, malcolm McCallum malcolm.mccal...@herpconbio.org wrote: I do not really see ANY difference between the variation in human culture, and the variation in social behavior of any other organism. I do. A difference of degree is still a difference. I think it's important not to conflate continuous variation with an absence of variation. This is, after all, and ecology forum. If differences in degree are meaningless, that leaves us with very little to discuss. And I do think the variation in human culture is greater than the variation in the cultures of other species on earth. Given that humans vary in oral and body language, clothing, housing preferences, agricultural practices, religion, social graces, music, vehicle design, and countless other cultural traits, and that we inhabit nearly every continent and large island on the planet, I find it close to impossible to believe that any other species on earth displays such a high degree of cultural variation. Jim Crants
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Humans in the definition of ecosystems
I don't see how the CBD definition excludes humans. We and our artifacts are part of the environment with which we and other organisms interact. (The part of the definition I have trouble with is interacting as a functional unit. I think most of these functional units are artifacts of the ecological discontinuities we've imposed on the landscape.) That said, I wouldn't agree with anyone who said we are just another animal, and I don't think the remedy to the damage we've done by considering ourselves special is to consider ourselves completely unremarkable. People who want to exclude other species from moral consideration can and will exploit either position. As we've seen, the uniqueness of humans has long been used as an excuse to treat the natural world as if it were made to serve our desires. On the other hand, if we're just another animal, then everything we do is just another amoral natural process. We can make ourselves out to be just another animal doing what we can to thrive, ignoring our unusual capacity to identify the consequences of our actions and form moral opinions about actions based on their consequences. I think we need to both recognize that we are part of nature and recognize that we are an animal with unusual abilities and impacts. In short, I advocate the Spiderman approach to nature: we are creatures of great power, and with great power comes great responsibility. Jim Crants -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news on behalf of Fabrice De Clerck Sent: Fri 6/25/2010 11:20 AM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Humans in the definition of ecosystems Dear Friends, An environmental economist colleague of mine is disappointed with the CBD definition of ecosystems which gives the impression that only pristine areas are ecosystems. Can anyone point us to a more recent definition of ecosystems that explicitly includes humans as an integral part of the definition? Here is the original question: The CBD defines ecosystems as a dynamic complex of plant, animal and micro-organism communities and their non-living environment interacting as a functional unit. I find this boring, as it leaves us humans, as special animals, out of the picture. When you read it, it is easy to think of pristine environments. Has there been any reaction or correction of this definition? I need an authoritative quote that balances the CBD愀 All reactions welcome, and citations welcome! Fabrice Fabrice DeClerck PhD Community and Landscape Ecologist Division of Research and Development CATIE 7170, Turrialba, Costa Rica 30501 (506) 2558-2596 fadecle...@catie.ac.cr Adjunct Research Scholar Tropical Agriculture Programs The Earth Institute at Columbia University
Re: [ECOLOG-L] iButtons no longer water proof
PlastiDip is a rubberized coating of the type Malcolm mentioned. They have a clear version (or yellow, red, blue, white, or black, if you prefer). Other brands might, too. Jim Crants On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 1:08 PM, Susan Herrick susan.z.herr...@gmail.comwrote: This is a great idea except that a paint dipped button would not be readable. I take my buttons out half way through the field season to dump the data and reset them. Then at close of season I dump them and shut them off. The paint would have to be stripped off and reapplied each time. I agree it is a loss of a very useful tool. Susan Herrick
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict?
Martin, Larger brains in earlier modern humans may not indicate that they were logical, sceptical empiricists. Even if a larger brain necessarily meant greater mental capabilities, the larger brains of Cro Magnons (for example) could just as easily have been better at religious thinking, as at logical thinking. But a large brain doesn't necessarily mean greater mental capabilities. If it did, men would be, on average, about 10% more mentally capable than women, and I don't know of any evidence for that. While it's possible that our mental capabilities are inferior to those Cro Magnons had, it's also possible that our brains now have greater spatial efficiency, with no big change in mental ability relative to earlier modern humans. That said, I don't really take issue with anything else you said. I would only like to add that I think religion is a manifestation of some very useful human mental characteristics. I think its origin must be in our attempts to use verbally-based abstract and symbolic thinking to explain those periods when our focus is so absorbed by an object, an activity, or our general environment, that our internal monolog shuts down and our verbal record of events goes spotty or totally blank. Such an experience can make one feel like one has left one's body, or has been taken over by another being. If some insight comes from the experience, it may seem to have come from an outside source. Only recently, with our modern philosophy of science, has it come to seem so improbable that trance-like states and the insights that come from them could have non-natural origins. Finally, I'll just say that you could be right about modern humans being less rational, more religious, and generally not as smart as our paleolithic ancestors. One big evolutionary advantage of organized religion is that it gives great power to the group. The people in tribe A might be smarter, but the people in tribe B are more unified in their purpose, so they are more likely to win if war breaks out, allowing them to displace tribe A. Meanwhile, within tribe B, individuals who don't subscribe to the dominant religious viewpoint (including those who do not feel spiritual and those who see through the priesthood's manipulations) are much more likely than average to be killed or cast out from the group. Thus, highly rational, skeptical individuals would have low relative fitness within a tribe with many religious types, and tribes dominated by free-thinkers would be displaced by tribes with a strong priesthood. Just throwing another just-so story on the fire. Jim Crants
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict?
to our ancestors). -- James Crants, PhD Scientist, University of Minnesota Agronomy and Plant Genetics Cell: (734) 474-7478
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict?
I, too, appreciate Jane's contribution to this conversation. We can only speculate on the origins of religion, since religion originated long before written language, or even cave art (if neanderthal and modern human religion have a common origin; though I will agree with William Silvert that religion probably didn't come about because any gods revealed their existence to our ancestors). However, science can say something about what goes on in the brain when people have religious experiences, and perhaps it can say something about why some people seem to need religion while others couldn't be religious if they wanted to. It can tell us how similar the experience of meditation is to the experience of prayer, or getting mentally absorbed in an anthill, or drawing, or playing an instrument, or driving a car, and so on. Based on a biological understanding of religious experience, plus the archeological evidence, we can form models of how religion originated and evolved in modern humans, and how it is relevant to modern life. I do think the naturalist's trance is basically the same as a religious experience. I don't know of any hard evidence bearing on that, but the experience is similar to those I've had from meditation, intense prayer, playing music, painting pictures, and running much further than a mile or so. Such experiences say nothing at all about whether there is such a thing as divinity, but I think they have a lot to do with the origins of humanity's belief in divinity. Jim Crants On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 8:55 PM, Wayne Tyson landr...@cox.net wrote: Ah-HA! I think she's GOT IT! By Jove, I think she's got it! The rain in Spain . . . Eureka! Peak experiences! As in all art, the concentration of the intellect somehow gets processed by our inner resources, and breaks through back into the conscious after a period of gestation and there is a birth of insight. Burning bushes and other hallucinations aside, just about all scientific discovery is thus produced. WT - Original Message - From: Jane Shevtsov jane@gmail.com To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Monday, May 17, 2010 7:48 PM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict? I think it's a mistake to reduce religion to anthropomorphism/explanations and morality/politics. There is a crucial third element -- the human capacity for spiritual (meditative, oceanic, transcendent, pick your favorite adjective) experiences. These experiences are now being studied by psychologists and neuroscientists (look up neurotheology) and are often connected to experiences in nature. My hypothesis about the origins of such experiences is partially inspired by a passage from E.O. Wilson's book _Biophilia_. In a twist my mind came free and I was aware of the hard workings of the natural world beyond the periphery of ordinary attention, where passions lose their meaning and history is in another dimension, without people, and great events pass without record or judgment. I was a transient of no consequence in this familiar yet deeply alien world that I had come to love. The uncounted products of evolution were gathered there for purposes having nothing to do with me; their long Cenozoic history was enciphered into a genetic code I could not understand. The effect was strangely calming. Breathing and heartbeat diminished, concentration intensified. It seemed to me that something extraordinary in the forest was very close to where I stood, moving to the surface and discovery. ... I willed animals to materialize and they came erratically into view. What does this passage, which describes an experience I suspect most members of this list have had, most resemble? It sounds a lot like how practitioners of some types of meditation describe their experience. But what is this naturalist's trance good for, other than science? Hunting, gathering and looking out for predators! Maybe, just maybe, this was our ancestors' normal state of consciousness and maybe various religious and spiritual practices arose as a way of recapturing this state as, for biological and social reasons, our minds changed. This is, of course, a guess, but what do you folks think? Jane Shevtsov
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict?
, Ph.D. Ecology, Evolution and Population Dynamics of Terrestrial Vertebrates Caixa Postal 19034 81531-990 Curitiba, Paraná, Brasil E-mail: jjro...@gmail.com Telefone: 55 41 36730409 Celular: 55 41 98182559 Skype-in (USA):+1 706 5501064 Skype-in (Brazil):+55 41 39415715 Ecology and Conservation at the UFPR Home Page Ars Artium Consulting In Google Earth, copy and paste - 25 31'18.14 S, 49 05'32.98 W -- James Crants, PhD Scientist, University of Minnesota Agronomy and Plant Genetics Cell: (734) 474-7478
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Ecology Terminology and associated phenomena Colonizing species etc
But it is my place to warn that the bulk of modern peer-reviewed literature regarding the outcomes of human-mediated dispersal is 'tragically flawed'– by the fact that invasion biology's currency is vehement, almost competitive antipathy to its objects of study. The defining anti stance makes invasion biology intuitively and emotionally (thus politically and bureaucratically) appealing. But it also makes it scientifically unsustainable. Are you saying, then, that any scientific discipline in which the overwhelming majority of the researchers have vehement antipathy to one of their objects of study is scientifically unsustainable?
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict? Re: [ECOLOG-L] evolution for non-scientists textbook
On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 9:01 AM, Sarah Frias-Torres sfrias_tor...@hotmail.com wrote: Science is based on fact. Religion is based on faith. They don't mix. These statements, and some others that have come up, show how narrowly religion has come to be defined in western cultures. In America, particularly, fundamentalist Christianity has come to be equated with all religion. We have come to think that religion is about believing in specific supernatural things in the absence of any evidence, and even believing in certain natural things in spite of all the evidence (e.g., that species do not evolve or the earth is 6,000 years old). Even to many people who consider themselves religious, that would be the definition of faith. Religion and faith are not necessarily about believing in invisible supermen who reward their worshippers and punish unbelievers. Science has proven to be highly compatible with Buddhism and Judaism, for example, and the Jesuits have made significant contributions to science. I've known very good Hindu and Muslim scientists (well, one of each), too. I also worked three growing seasons for an evangelical (not to say fundamentalist) Protestant Christian ecologist, and we debated religion almost every week through that whole period. In all that time, I could find no way in which his religious beliefs conflicted with his science or made him a worse ecologist. Most or all religions are capable of accommodating the view that, if scripture says something that conflicts with science, then that bit of scripture is not literally true. Science and religion seem incompatible partly because many scientists don't share the need many people have for religion or spirituality, and partly because the popular and political influence of fundamentalist Christianity makes religion seem to serve only to delude people into believing things that are demonstrably untrue. Jim Crants
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict?
William, please name a religion that cannot accommodate the view that science trumps scripture when it comes to literal truth. To do so, I think you would have to define a religion narrowly, selecting a particular school of thought from within a religion and labeling that branch a religion. Buddhism, Hinduism, and Taoism can all cope quite readily with scientific truth. Traditional Judaism is not dogmatic, so it also has no trouble working with science. Even Christianity and Islam, which we are most likely to associate with fundamentalism, have rich traditions of mysticism and other schools of religious thought that don't demand belief in things that are demonstrably false. I guess that doesn't cover most religions, but it covers the religions that most people belong to. Each of these religions may have some branches that simply won't tolerate a fact that contradicts scripture, but each also has branches that are perfectly compatible with science. I think the dim view many scientists have of religion comes mostly from believing the propaganda of fundamentalists, that they are the only true followers of their religions. We equate being religious with believing the earth is 6,000 years old and evolution doesn't happen. But you don't have to accept dogma to be religious. Regarding your more recent post, about not equating faith in other scientists' competence with belief in religious dogma, I completely agree. There is a big difference between accepting that another expert knows what they're talking about (contingently) and accepting something logic tells you is false just because it's in some old book. Jim On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 11:24 AM, William Silvert cien...@silvert.orgwrote: Certainly one can be a religious scientist, so long as one's areas of interest do not overlap. I see no reason why a chemist or hydodynamicist could not believe in creation, but for a biologist or geologist it would be more difficult, and for a paleontologist pretty well impossible. James writes that Most or all religions are capable of accommodating the view that, if scripture says something that conflicts with science, then that bit of scripture is not literally true. Certainly not all, and I doubt the most. And of course not all science is universally accepted as fact. The underlying issue is whether we base our opinions (I deliberately avoid the word beliefs) on rational evidence or on beliefs with no logical foundation. Bill Silvert - Original Message - From: James Crants jcra...@gmail.com To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: sexta-feira, 14 de Maio de 2010 16:14 Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict? Re: [ECOLOG-L] evolution for non-scientists textbook On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 9:01 AM, Sarah Frias-Torres sfrias_tor...@hotmail.com wrote: Science is based on fact. Religion is based on faith. They don't mix. These statements, and some others that have come up, show how narrowly religion has come to be defined in western cultures. In America, particularly, fundamentalist Christianity has come to be equated with all religion. We have come to think that religion is about believing in specific supernatural things in the absence of any evidence, and even believing in certain natural things in spite of all the evidence (e.g., that species do not evolve or the earth is 6,000 years old). Even to many people who consider themselves religious, that would be the definition of faith. Religion and faith are not necessarily about believing in invisible supermen who reward their worshippers and punish unbelievers. Science has proven to be highly compatible with Buddhism and Judaism, for example, and the Jesuits have made significant contributions to science. I've known very good Hindu and Muslim scientists (well, one of each), too. I also worked three growing seasons for an evangelical (not to say fundamentalist) Protestant Christian ecologist, and we debated religion almost every week through that whole period. In all that time, I could find no way in which his religious beliefs conflicted with his science or made him a worse ecologist. Most or all religions are capable of accommodating the view that, if scripture says something that conflicts with science, then that bit of scripture is not literally true. Science and religion seem incompatible partly because many scientists don't share the need many people have for religion or spirituality, and partly because the popular and political influence of fundamentalist Christianity makes religion seem to serve only to delude people into believing things that are demonstrably untrue. Jim Crants -- James Crants, PhD Scientist, University of Minnesota Agronomy and Plant Genetics Cell: (734) 474-7478
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict?
I think any disagreement I have with what you're saying is a matter of splitting semantic hairs. Wayne's original point had to do with the conflict between dogmatic religion and science, and there's definitely a conflict. You're right that religious dogma (and other non-rational beliefs) often trumps science in the minds of individuals, and I'm right that science often trumps dogma in the minds of individuals, even religious individuals. Wayne also says there is much in science that is not inconsistent with true religion. I have some idea what he means by true religion, and I've heard similar statements from many religious people who are frustrated at seeing religion hijacked by dogmatic loudmouths. One problem is that religious discussion has been so thoroughly controlled by dogmatic believers for so long that there are no longer any words to express what non-dogmatic religious people even believe. I guess my only point is that, as much as religion as practiced by most people in the West conflicts with science, there are still plenty of religious people who have no trouble with science whatsoever, and no trouble accepting scientific findings as the best model available for how reality actually works. There is no inherent conflict between science and religion, there is just inherent conflict between science and certain bits of religious dogma (to which not all religious people subscribe). On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 3:54 PM, William Silvert cien...@silvert.orgwrote: I am not clear what a literal truth is, and I cannot dispute the common argument that evolution is just a theory -- theories are all we have, there is no such thing as a proven scientific fact. But given the number of people (according to some polls, a majority of Americans) whose religious views lead them to reject the theory of evolution, I hardly think that science trumps scripture. More fundamental is the concept that man holds a special place in a universe created for him, which many religions are not willing to surrender. But I think that the issue in this lively discussion is the conflict between faith and evidence, and I think that there are many cases where faith trumps evidence, not only in religion. Think of the cases where someone makes a video tape in which he promises to kill people, then goes out and slaughters his schoolmates or other innocents in full view of cameras and witnesses, and then his mother and neighbours appear on TV to declare their belief that he is a nice boy and did not commit such an awful crime. I do think that there are fundamental questions about the role of religion in society that go well beyond being swayed by fundamentalists, but that leads us into anthropological issues that go far outside the scope of this list. Bill Silvert - Original Message - From: James Crants To: William Silvert Cc: ECOLOG-L@listserv.umd.edu Sent: sexta-feira, 14 de Maio de 2010 21:27 Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict? William, please name a religion that cannot accommodate the view that science trumps scripture when it comes to literal truth. To do so, I think you would have to define a religion narrowly, selecting a particular school of thought from within a religion and labeling that branch a religion. Buddhism, Hinduism, and Taoism can all cope quite readily with scientific truth. Traditional Judaism is not dogmatic, so it also has no trouble working with science. Even Christianity and Islam, which we are most likely to associate with fundamentalism, have rich traditions of mysticism and other schools of religious thought that don't demand belief in things that are demonstrably false. I guess that doesn't cover most religions, but it covers the religions that most people belong to. Each of these religions may have some branches that simply won't tolerate a fact that contradicts scripture, but each also has branches that are perfectly compatible with science. I think the dim view many scientists have of religion comes mostly from believing the propaganda of fundamentalists, that they are the only true followers of their religions. We equate being religious with believing the earth is 6,000 years old and evolution doesn't happen. But you don't have to accept dogma to be religious. Regarding your more recent post, about not equating faith in other scientists' competence with belief in religious dogma, I completely agree. There is a big difference between accepting that another expert knows what they're talking about (contingently) and accepting something logic tells you is false just because it's in some old book. Jim On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 11:24 AM, William Silvert cien...@silvert.org wrote: Certainly one can be a religious scientist, so long as one's areas of interest do not overlap. I see no reason why a chemist or hydodynamicist could not believe in creation, but for a biologist
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Ecology Terminology and associated phenomena Colonizing species etc
a reason to act purely in self-interest, and they can find a reason to factor their impacts on the rest of nature into their decisions. I think we need to hold both views in our heads, remembering both that we have the power of taking consequential action with forethought and that we have the obligation to consider the rest of the biosphere in our planning. Finally, I want to say that I don't want to be made into a straw man here. A few times, my positions have been depicted as absolutist on one front or another. While I think it's worthwhile to thin the population of an exotic species that is beginning to dominate and re-shape a natural system, I'm not some cartoon xenophobe, stomping around, hating and killing every non-native thing I see. While I think invasive exotic species cause ecological damage, I realize that they are often symptoms of damage we have done in other ways at least as much as they are mechanisms by which we do further damage. I recognize that damage is not an objective term, but I am free to consider a dramatic change from what I value damage, just as everyone else does. I know that the lines between exotic and native, human and non-human, and invasive and non-invasive are fuzzy, and that many of these terms are loaded with human values. I think we humans ought to stop expanding our population and our economy, but I don't hate humanity for reproducing and pursuing a higher standard of living. I could obviously go on (and on), but, in short, if I have to debate something I've said, I'd rather debate what I actually said than some ridiculously exaggerated version that happens to be easier to tear down. In any case, by now, I think I've made every argument I intend to make, and I've made some arguments many times over. It takes a long time to write these emails, and I doubt most of you want to read them anyway. I plan to be quiet now and let others hash all this stuff out, if they are so inclined. Jim Crants On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 6:00 AM, James J. Roper jjro...@gmail.com wrote: James Crants wrote on 11-May-10 13:05: There's a difference between saying that two species are not ecologically equivalent and saying that two categories of species are not ecologically equivalent. But, ecological equivalents are not really equal in such a way that they are substitutable in a community. I mean, you can't just say, take a Clay-colored Robin from Panama and replace the American Robin (even though they might be considered ecological equivalents) and then expect their roles to just fit right in in their new places. If exotic species (as a category) were ecologically equivalent to native ones, you would still find that every species would differ from every other species by at least a few measures. I'm saying that, as a category, exotic species are ecologically different from native ones. Now do you mean until they are naturalized? After all, take the House Sparrow, that has now crossed the continent and invaded many places in the Americas. Is it still ecologically different from natives? I would suggest that if you took both native and introduced species, and did a blind study, in which you looked at survival, interactions and so on, you would not get a clear cut difference in ecological characters that would identify (say, through a discriminant function analysis) introduced and native species. Take the persimmons I have here in my yard here in southern Brazil. Clearly introduced from Japan (I will eliminate them once I have a native fruit tree to replace them with), but they attract leaf-cutter ants to consume leaves, bees and other insects visit the flowers, all kinds of animals eat the fruits, and they seeds are quite viable and the plant could easily become invasive and probably is in many places. If you took a native plant here, like the Scheflera (Didymopanax) and checked it out, you would find that, as a sapling, it cannot handle our cold winters (frost burns every year), it gets hit by aphids so badly that it is often worse than the frost, and the leaf cutter ants also nail it. In the same time my one native sapling has remained at the same size (short, 1 m tall), a persimmon has grown from a seed and is now producing fruit and is about 3 m tall. The Scheflera is at least 9 years old, while the persimmon is about 3. I would suggest that through any objective measurements by a naive observer, they would think that the Scheflera was NOT native and that the Persimmon was. So, my point is, that using objective measurements, I think we would not find that there are clear distrinctions between native and introduced organisms. We may find certain kinds of trends, but the errors associated with using those trends as guides to recognize native or introduced organisms will be large and so not very useful. Cheers, Jim
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Ecology Terminology and associated phenomena Colonizing species etc
I think I have not made my arguments clearly enough. I merely intended to summarize my moral case for suppressing invasives as part of my summary of the off-forum conversation. My numbered paragraphs were intended to address the claim that there is no ecological difference between native and exotic species, and the claim that there is no ecological difference between human-mediated dispersal and dispersal by any other agent. My responses to Matt's responses to those paragraphs are below: JC(1) Exotic species, on average, interact with fewer species than native species, and their interactions are weaker, on average. In particular, they have fewer parasites, pathogens, and predators, counted in either individuals or species. This is especially true of plants, and especially non-crop plants. I suspect, but have not heard, that exotic plants also have fewer mycorrhizal associates than native ones, but I doubt that they have significantly fewer pollinators or dispersers. Meanwhile, back in their native ranges, the same species have the same number of associations as any other native species. MC(1) Natural selection only produces interactions good enough to persist under prevailing conditions; there is no gold standard. By definition, 50% of all species interact with fewer species than average, and 50% of all interactions are weaker than average. Preferring stronger, more complex interactions means preferring more tightly-coupled (and therefore) 'riskier' systems with a higher likelihood of failure. JC (1b) The argument about how many species interact with fewer species than average misses my point. I'm saying that, if you counted the biological interactions for each native species and each exotic species in some area (could be a square meter, could be the world), I believe you would find that the average number for exotic species would be significantly lower than the average for exotic species. Thus, exotic species are ecologically different from native species. Actually, having more interactions may mean greater stability, on average, since some of those interactions are functionally redundant. I would have to brush up on my community ecology to be sure I'm not being overly simplistic, but I know this is true in pollination systems; pollinators that interact with more angiosperm species have greater population stability, on average, and angiosperms with more pollinator species have greater reproductive stability, on average (though I don't know if this leads to greater population stability for long-lived species). I'm not sure what you mean by systems with a higher likelihood of failure. It seems to me that failure is a matter of human values not being realized. If, by failure, you mean rapid change, well, that hardly seems to be a problem for you. I would have to agree that systems managed to promote natives at the expense of exotics are more prone to failure than those where any and all ecological outcomes are deemed acceptable, but that's only because failure in the former group means invasion and domination by exotic species, while there is no such thing as failure in the latter group. JC(2) Very-long-distance dispersal by humans confers a fitness advantage over very-long-distance dispersal by other agents, on average, for two reasons. First, humans often disperse organisms in groups, such as containers of seeds, shipments of mature plants and animals, or large populations contained in ballast water, allowing them to overcome the Allee effects (lack of mates, inbreeding depression) their populations would face if introduced as one or a few individuals. We also often take pains to maximize the establishment success of organisms we disperse, by shipping healthy, mature plants and animals and propogating them when they arrive, while non-human dispersal agents usually introduce small numbers of organisms, often nowhere near their peak fitness potential (e.g., seeds, spores, starving and dehydrated animals). MC(2). JC appears to be arguing that once rare occurrences are no longer rare. I agree. But I draw the opposite conclusion, because he is arguing that to generate such changes is morally wrong, while I am just saying: when these conditions prevail, long distance dispersal becomes normal. JC(2b) I'm not saying anything (here) about whether the recent commonness of previously-rare dispersal events is morally wrong. I'm countering the argument that human-mediated dispersal confers no fitness advantage over dispersal by any other agent. Others may be aware of an invasive exotic species that was not imported by humans in far greater numbers than we could reasonably expect from any other agent, even if it had 100,000 years to work, but I am not. Furthermore, most invasive species were carefully planted and tended across large areas. Others may know of a dispersal agent that takes such care of the species it disperses AND has any realistic potential
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Ecology Terminology and associated phenomena Colonizing species etc
Jim Roper, There's a difference between saying that two species are not ecologically equivalent and saying that two categories of species are not ecologically equivalent. If exotic species (as a category) were ecologically equivalent to native ones, you would still find that every species would differ from every other species by at least a few measures. I'm saying that, as a category, exotic species are ecologically different from native ones. I am deliberately leaving this difference vague because the term ecologically different can serve as an umbrella for all kinds of differences that are relevant to interactions among organisms and between organisms and their environment. Specific differences I would expect to find include: (1) exotic plants have fewer insect herbivore species and lose a smaller percentage of their biomass to insect herbivores than native plants, and (2) exotic species have fewer pathogens than native species. Similarly, I am using vague terms like behave and matters because I want to include a wide array of phenomena, though I suppose you could reasonably argue against the idea of species behaving on the grounds that behavior is something individual organisms or closely connected groups of individuals do. I think most of the confusion in this conversation comes from the fact that Matthew Chew and I just don't agree on whether there's any ecological difference between exotic species and native ones. If they aren't, then what's the point in investing time, money, and energy in controlling exotic species or propagating natives? William Silvert, I didn't really mean to disagree with your fuzzy definitions. In fact, I like them, and I think you could get some ecological insights by using those definitions that you could miss with artificially clear distinctions. Also, I've said more than once that, if we have to throw out any term with indistinct boundaries, we won't find we have much at all left to discuss in the field of ecology. We would not be able to talk about forests, pollinators, the Mediterranean Sea, etc. I just wanted to emphasize, in anticipation of certain everything's the same as everything else arguments that have come up before, that there's a difference between categories with fuzzy boundaries and categories that are totally indistinct and therefore meaningless. One of the keys to arguing against controlling invasive exotic species is destroying the moral arguments that motivate people to bother in the first place. To do this, it helps to use clever language to blur the lines between categories to the point where it's hard to see that native, exotic, invasive, and non-invasive have any meaning at all, except as inflammatory terms used by people who want to manipulate your emotions. The same basic approach is used to stop people doing anything about global warming (e.g., the globe warms and cools all the time; without global warming, earth would be frozen and hostile to life; why do we get excited about human CO2 emissions and not volcanic ones?), species extinctions (repeat the above, modifying appropriately), deforestation (repeat), and so on. For that matter, blurring the lines between humans and everything else (humans are part of nature) is very effective. For one thing, humans ARE a part of nature, and we do cause some harm by saying we're not. For another, it's easy to reduce this down to humans are just another animal, thus ignoring our truly exceptional intellectual abilities and capacity for empathy and moral thought. Anyway, I wanted to head off these sorts of defitions-so-fuzzy-they-mean-nothing, not to disagree with the definitions you gave. As for oceans merging, I can't see a big ecological distinction between the Mediterranean joining the Alantic without human intervention and humans building the Suez and Panama Canals. If anything, I bet the Mediterranean-Atlantic merger was more ecologically dramatic than the canals, in that it probably changed the sea level and salinity of the Mediterranean quite a bit, and the migration of species into the Mediterranean was probably more rapid. Also, it can hardly be argued that two oceanic mergers via human-made canal within a century is a rapidly greater rate of mergers than one merger without human intervention in the same amount of time. All my arguments about humans bringing more species in greater numbers than other dispersal agents, and tending them more carefully after dispersal, do not apply to these cases, as far as I know. Jim Crants
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Grad students: what are they worth, and does their work space effect their productivity? Input gratefully accepted
I went to Michigan, and I would say the Ecology and Evolutionary Biology department there was pretty good to its grad students. If anything, they've been getting better since I started there nine years ago. I'm certainly glad they didn't treat us the way your department is planning to treat you. One of the hidden values of grad students to a university is the way they make it feasible to carry out major research projects. A university gets a percentage of each grant its faculty members manage to land (there may be exceptions), and a professor can get a bigger grant, and is more likely to get a grant in the first place, if there are grad students to help with the work. Also, since these big projects increase the prestige of the institution and add permanent resources, such as high-value lab equipment, they generate more income than is obvious on paper. It's easier for professors at high-prestige universities to land more grant money, and high-achieving undergrads with the potential to become rich, big-donating alumni are drawn to high-prestige universities. I don't know how strong this argument is for ecology, which doesn't bring in as much grant money or generate as many millionaire alumns as some other disciplines, but I think even ecology grad students must be a net positive for the wealth and prestige of their institutions. Abstract arguments aside, what you describe sounds like the worst work environment I've heard of any department providing its grad students (fieldwork doesn't count). If my department had gone through with a plan like that, I'd have considered taking my Master's and going elsewhere for my doctorate. Good luck. Jim On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 10:19 AM, Kevin Murray klmurra...@gmail.com wrote: Hello all, This is a very important topic. I dealt with similar negative attitudes towards grad students during my dissertation work. I know as scientists we like to point to empirical evidence to support a point, but I can't help you there. I don't know of any papers on the matter. However, if you want to quickly estimate your value to the university, just envision a simple scenario. Imagine if every graduate student immediately stopped doing any work whatsoever to support the university. Imagine the university's response. Their anger (and fear) will be directly proportional to your value. If you and your graduate students demand respect as a group then your value will be recognized by the university, one way or another. Good luck, Kevin On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 8:39 AM, Julie Byrd Hebert byr...@umd.edu wrote: Alisha I'm glad to see you bringing this topic up. I've been wondering what the climate for graduate students is like at different institutions. I think it is important to know because, in my experience, your description of the value of graduate students (at least to the University Administrators) is much like my own. I have to wonder if this is part of the reason for the decline of science and innovation at least in the United States. Why remain in a field where you don't feel valued? If the graduate students are the future of science and technology one would think that there would be value in spending time, money, and effort in training these students and giving them a good work environment. I would like to think we are in the minority, but I have to wonder... Julie On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 7:49 AM, Alisha Dahlstrom alisha.dahlst...@gmail.commailto:alisha.dahlst...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all, I am currently a phd student in my second year. Currently, within my department, grad students share a small building with several rooms, 5-7 in a room. There is a proposal to uproot all the students (and combine them with grad students in a similar department) to a renovated basement that is currently not being used because it is moldy, has poor ventilation and no natural lighting. Apart from a few short partitions, this would be a large shared space that packed as many students in as possible (about 40; you can imagine the potential noise and disruptions). As the grad student rep, when I explained this to the proponent of this new plan and asked for his justification, it was that grad students aren't worth much to a university (monetarily speaking, at least, undergrads earn a school more) and it would be nice for visitors to see all the students in one space. As this plan seems to be moving forward rapidly, I would really like to pull together some documentation that supports my belief that 1) grad students will have a higher completion rate and better output in a better (e.g., quieter and well-lit) work environment and 2) grad students are actually valuable to a university. In my cursory, search, I haven't had much luck - does anyone have any suggestions or input? Feel free to email me directly. Cheers, Alisha
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Weeds and Invasives, Arguments and Distinctions
the question of abundance and aggressiveness. What some call aggressive growth could be seen as successful adaptation to environmental pressures, could it not? Japanese knotweed is a first responder, so to speak, in volcanic situations in Japan, being one of the first (if not THE first) plant to re-colonize after a lava flow. It was introduced to the US as an ornamental at first and then as a stream bank stabilizer to hold soil in place. It has since spread very successfully all over the country. There are critters that use it (bees, ants, other insects) and it is edible when very young and relatively tender. So I guess that, ultimately, we ought to pony up and admit that most definitions of weed and invasive are going to distill down to what we humans value and desire. And that our needs, values and desires are going to change over time. Respectfully, Kelly Stettner Black River Action Team www(dot)BlackRiverActionTeam.org blackriverclea...@yahoo(dot)com Date:Sun, 11 Apr 2010 22:49:58 -0700 From:Wayne Tyson landr...@cox.net Subject: Plants Colonizing Weedy or Ruderal or Invasive Arguments and Distinctions? Ecolog:=20 Fools rush in where the exalted fear to tread, but here goes: A certain certainty seems to persist around the subject of colonizing species or weeds. I have visited a couple of sites (one highly professional, but still confusing) which contain what appear to me to be quaint statements, hidden amongst the valid phrases. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weed and its associated pages, for example, may be sowing the seeds of confusion far and wide. I do not know how widespread these alien, ruderal, or feral ideas are, or whether I am persistently misinformed. It seems that with respect to weed in particular, authors prefer to hedge rather than clarify or qualify--at least sufficiently, in my view. An ecological view seems to be lacking, even for balance. I do not want to lead others down the garden path, but I think is it high time this confusion was clarified and settled, at least to the point where differences are made distinct. Are you similarly disturbed or confused? Would you please participate in getting to the root of the matter, right here on Ecolog? Thank you all for your help. WT -- James Crants, PhD Scientist, University of Minnesota Agronomy and Plant Genetics Cell: (734) 474-7478
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Are reviews anonymous?
On the other hand, if the reviewers are anonymous, the authors should be, too. I think transparency is a bad thing, in this case; I think reviews should be double-blind. While reviewer anonymity allows reviewers to be impolite and harsh, it also protects them from retribution for simply being honest when a paper is bad. Yes, scientists should all be mature enough to accept a negative review without trying to punish the reviewer, but some just aren't up to that challenge (if you can't think of a way for one scientist to punish another, or if you can't think of a scientist who would do such a thing, you can't be trying that hard). Even if you can't imagine deliberately punishing someone for their review, you must be able to imagine being miffed at a colleague who gives your paper a bad review, or having them be miffed at you, even if the bad review is merited. That's an incentive to be polite, sure, but also an incentive to let things slide that shouldn't be allowed to slide. I think the benefits of reviewer anonymity outweigh the costs. Author anonymity would have a similar advantage: it would make it harder for reviewers to pan someone's work just because they don't personally like the author, or to reward their friends with favorable reviews. Obviously, if the reviewer is quite familiar with the author's other work, it is possible to identify the author by writing style, study system, and hypotheses raised, but any uncertainty about the authorship of a paper under review should go one step toward dissuading reviewers from letting personal feelings hold too much sway over their judgement. Author anonymity could also prevent reviewers from judging authors and their works harshly based on their earlier submission of an unpublishable paper. If you thought someone's submitted paper was a real dog, you might not think much of their intelligence, and you'd give less credence to anything else they said subsequently. If the author were genuinely a poor scientist, you'd be ahead of the game by learning to doubt them early on, but if they were a solid researcher, and their name were on a bad paper for any of a hundred other possible reasons, you'd be cheating yourself by selling them short. (Sorry for taking another step down this tangental path. Also, I wish our language had a singular pronoun for a person of unspecified sex.) Jim Crants On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 3:44 AM, Marc Kochzius kochz...@uni-bremen.dewrote: Dear All, I agree completely with Kevin that reviewers should sign their review. That's what I started to do and I will not make any reviews for journals that insist that I stay anonymous. From my point of view the problem is that some colleagues hide in anonymity and provide reviews that are not adequate (e.g. impolite, unsubstantiated criticism). Another problem in this context are the editors. I think it is their responsibility to check if a review is adequate. However, my experience is rather that most editors just pass the review to me and I just wonder what kind of reviews I receive. In many cases there is absolutely no quality control regarding the reviews. From many journals I also never get a feedback about my review, nor do I receive the reports of the other reviewers. This makes it impossible for me to evaluate if my review was in concordance with the other reviewers. Regarding the anonymity of the author, I think both sides (author and reviewer) should be named, the system should be as transparent as possible. Unfortunately, it is currently not transparent at all. Cheers, Marc Kevin Murray wrote: Off the point here, but I think that the anonymity should be reversed. Authors should be anonymous and reviewers should be named. Start a peer review revolution...sign all of your reviews!!! Regarding YOUR own reviews. It seems that, if they are anonymous, then posting should be ok. If the reviewer is named, however, you should not post. No laws or moral values were consulted in regards to this email. KLM On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 5:09 PM, Jonathan Greenberg greenb...@ucdavis.edu wrote: Interesting -- I'm primarily interested in reviews YOU receive on your own submitted manuscript (which, 99% of the time, you don't know who they are from) -- are you allowed to post these in any public forum? Since the reviews cannot be linked back to an individual (unless that individual steps forward and takes credit for it), and it is a criticism of your own work, it seems like one should feel free to post these if you want. I was interested in compiling the types of reviews people get on manuscripts for teaching purposes, so I'm trying to find out if its legit for people to share these reviews with me if they end up going out into the public (e.g. on a website)? --j On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 3:07 PM, Jonathan Greenberg jgrn...@gmail.com wrote: Interesting -- I'm primarily interested in reviews YOU receive on your own submitted manuscript (which,
Re: [ECOLOG-L] now I've seen it all: Decline in education
learning, and who respect my methods. Thankfully, I have and am completely supported by an Upper Administration at KU that strongly believes in teaching rigor, and thus I do not risk reprisals; I fear that this is not always the case in every U.S. university or college, however. Best wishes, Val Smith University of Kansas On 1/18/2010 2:18 PM, David M. Lawrence wrote: I watched my evaluation scores decline when I switched to active learning. I got tired of lecturing from powerpoints that the students could memorize, regurgitate on tests, and quickly forget. Somehow, it was unreasonable for me to expect the students to show up for the lectures prepared and willing to participate in class discussions. It was even more unreasonable for me to refuse to just tell us what we need to know, when they couldn't answer very simple questions that I'd toss out to stimulate discussion. It was also unreasonable for me to expect them to ask questions relevant to the material we discussed in class. I had students complain they didn't learn anything from me, but it seems to me that if they weren't asking questions -- either in class, on class discussion boards, or via e-mail -- they couldn't have been trying very hard. Maybe I am unreasonable... Dave On 1/18/2010 12:17 PM, James Crants wrote: On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 2:04 PM, Val Smithvsm...@ku.edu wrote: I lay much of this decline at the feet of their parents, who seem to care progressively less and less about knowledge. I recall a particularly notable incident from over a decade ago, when my youngest daughter's grade school Principal retired. The new Principal unilaterally decided that Science Fair projects for grades 2-6 should become completely voluntary, rather than remaining as a formal requirement that had long been embedded in this school's outstanding science preparation curriculum. On the day of the science project evaluations, I expressed dismay about this undesirable change to another parent, who at that time was almost 20 years my junior. Her response was to shout across the room to her husband, John (not his real name), this guy thinks everybody should have to do a science fair project, and /that this is all about learning science/! and she then turned to me to say, If everyone has to do a project, that lowers the chance that our child will win the Best Science Project award. That's unfair competition. And she walked away. As I was reading your post, I was hoping you would mention the role of parents in any decline in the quality of the American education. I think it started with the baby boom. After the Depression and World War II, parents wanted the best for their children, but by providing the best materially, many raised children with an inflated sense of entitlement and self-importance. When these children raised my generation, self-esteem was seen as the most important quality you could promote in a developing mind, so many of us grew up feeling even more entitled and important. Also, since self-important people like today's parents don't respect authority figures, parents now tend to side with their children over teachers when there is a student-teacher conflict. Worse, since the entire class is, on average, not as prepared as it should be to learn the material you're trying to teach, disgruntled students can look to low average performance for the whole class to assure themselves that it's your fault if they don't get high marks. With students and parents both blaming you for low grades, and a low class average apparently supporting their arguments, it's easiest to lower your expectations and standards. (And you'll probably get higher teaching evaluation scores if you do.) When you do, you end up passing on students who aren't prepared for the next level of education. I understand the importance of questioning authority, and Wendee Holtcamp's example of childbirth in American hospitals attests to that importance (though I believe the doctors rush the delivery because they're trained to believe it's best for the patient, not because they put their spare time ahead of patient care). However, there's an important distinction between questioning authority and assuming authority is wrong. With respect to the original conversation thread, while I certainly agree that it's a problem that people with the appearance of authority are making BS claims on television, I don't think that's the only major threat to scientific authority. Another threat is the widely-held perception that any scientist who thinks they know more than you do about their area of expertise is arrogant (and wrong). Because scientific knowledge is contingent on future results, scientists sometimes find themselves admitting that they were wrong about something. Unlike pundits or politicians, scientists can't blame some other party, and people will hold onto those
Re: [ECOLOG-L] now I've seen it all: Decline in education
On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 2:04 PM, Val Smith vsm...@ku.edu wrote: I lay much of this decline at the feet of their parents, who seem to care progressively less and less about knowledge. I recall a particularly notable incident from over a decade ago, when my youngest daughter's grade school Principal retired. The new Principal unilaterally decided that Science Fair projects for grades 2-6 should become completely voluntary, rather than remaining as a formal requirement that had long been embedded in this school's outstanding science preparation curriculum. On the day of the science project evaluations, I expressed dismay about this undesirable change to another parent, who at that time was almost 20 years my junior. Her response was to shout across the room to her husband, John (not his real name), this guy thinks everybody should have to do a science fair project, and /that this is all about learning science/! and she then turned to me to say, If everyone has to do a project, that lowers the chance that our child will win the Best Science Project award. That's unfair competition. And she walked away. As I was reading your post, I was hoping you would mention the role of parents in any decline in the quality of the American education. I think it started with the baby boom. After the Depression and World War II, parents wanted the best for their children, but by providing the best materially, many raised children with an inflated sense of entitlement and self-importance. When these children raised my generation, self-esteem was seen as the most important quality you could promote in a developing mind, so many of us grew up feeling even more entitled and important. Also, since self-important people like today's parents don't respect authority figures, parents now tend to side with their children over teachers when there is a student-teacher conflict. Worse, since the entire class is, on average, not as prepared as it should be to learn the material you're trying to teach, disgruntled students can look to low average performance for the whole class to assure themselves that it's your fault if they don't get high marks. With students and parents both blaming you for low grades, and a low class average apparently supporting their arguments, it's easiest to lower your expectations and standards. (And you'll probably get higher teaching evaluation scores if you do.) When you do, you end up passing on students who aren't prepared for the next level of education. I understand the importance of questioning authority, and Wendee Holtcamp's example of childbirth in American hospitals attests to that importance (though I believe the doctors rush the delivery because they're trained to believe it's best for the patient, not because they put their spare time ahead of patient care). However, there's an important distinction between questioning authority and assuming authority is wrong. With respect to the original conversation thread, while I certainly agree that it's a problem that people with the appearance of authority are making BS claims on television, I don't think that's the only major threat to scientific authority. Another threat is the widely-held perception that any scientist who thinks they know more than you do about their area of expertise is arrogant (and wrong). Because scientific knowledge is contingent on future results, scientists sometimes find themselves admitting that they were wrong about something. Unlike pundits or politicians, scientists can't blame some other party, and people will hold onto those errors as evidence that we're not as clever as we think we are, so they can ignore us if they don't like our message. Also, some people just don't like smart people much, so mistakes made by smart people are cherished as proof that they aren't so smart after all. Mind you, I have little evidence for most of the generalities I'm making here, but this is just my model of why students seem to be less prepared than they used to and why scientific authority doesn't get the respect I think it should. Jim Crants
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Climate Change Credibility Research grants etc
Well said, Daniel! The only thing I might add is that, if one looked carefully, one might find an apparent bias against research that fails to find evidence for human-caused global warming or that finds evidence against it. This isn't because it's not PC to say that global warming isn't real or isn't caused by humans. Rather, it's because (1) null results are less likely to be published, regardless of the topic, and (2) extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence (usually). Failing to find evidence for global warming or for a human role in it is a null result, and it will be harder to publish if the research methods and analysis aren't impeccable. Similarly, at this point, the evidence for human-caused global warming is strong, so a study that yields a contrary result had better have solid methodology, if the authors want to publish. One other possible source of apparent bias (or maybe real bias) is our perception of what the moneyed interests would rather believe (and fund). If every dollar in the world got to vote on whether or not human-caused global warming is a real problem that we need to fix, I think we'd see a landslide victory for global-warming skeptics, and I think most scientists would predict the same result. If this really is our perception, I'd expect that results inconsistent with the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis get extra scrutiny from reviewers on the grounds that any scientist that can be bought will most likely be bought by the wealthier side of the debate. Jim Crants On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 6:32 PM, Daniel Muth dj...@virginia.edu wrote: Well it's undeniably true that an overwhelming number of solicitations in the field specifically ask for this particular connection. It's also true more and more in the literature that any paper no matter how loosely connected to climate change seems to feel obligated to talk about it. There are probably many scientists, particularly in the carbon game, that wouldn't be here but for the fact that overall funding in the environmental field is so minuscule (compared to say that apportioned for health or defense) that one needs to pick spots where they can actually work. Like it or not, money leads research, but if environmental scientists were only interested in landing fat grants, they'd be MUCH better off in another field. You'll find more pvc and duct tape in an ecology lab than in a plumbers van, mostly because we can't afford anything else (and hell it works!). I've also never come across a solicitation that told it's recipients what to find. As long as the methods are sound, scientists are generally free to make their own conclusions. This is one of the areas in which science is fundamentally misunderstood by the public, as the rigorous progression of a novel idea to a paradigm is not something that happens without serious challenges from within the community itself. There isn't a greater community of skeptics on the planet! What's more, skepticism is encouraged within the realm of intelligent debate. There isn't one of us that wouldn't like to conclusively prove that climate change isn't happening, which is why the near consensus on the topic (at least with regards to the overall trend) is so impressive. I'm not aware of many scientists who have somehow enriched themselves in climate change research. To me this makes the money claims levied by the disenfranchised millionaires (billionaires?) in the fossil fuel industry, beyond absurd. What detractors misunderstand is that if someone is getting rich off climate science it sure isn't us. On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 5:24 PM, Wayne Tyson landr...@cox.net wrote: ECOLOG: One of the major propaganda statements of those opposed to climate change research and actions to reduce atmospheric CO2 is that money is a major motivation behind what they claim is a fraud. Funding requests are often cited, and the claim has been made that, for example, all you have to do to get your proposal funded is to mention 'climate change,' 'global warming,' or some similar buzz-phrase. To what extent do you think this might be true? WT
Re: [ECOLOG-L] to Capitalize or not to capitalize
My experience in botany is that most people only capitalize words in common names if they would be capitalized in regular writing (in the down style, I guess). Example: Here are a few easy ways to distinguish Norway maple, sugar maple, and black maple. You would also capitalize adjective versions of proper nouns (English, Chinese, etc.), and people's names (Short's aster). Traditionally, two-part common names were hyphenated (Norway-maple), but I don't see this in the recently-published literature too often. In the following statement: the Narraguagus and Penobscot riversshould the word rivers be capitalized? I say yes, because (along the same lines as what Malcolm McCallum said) the lowercase rivers would imply the rivers of the regions called Narraguagus and Penobscot. If you capitalize rivers, it implies the two rivers called Narraguagus and Penobscot more clearly to me. Jim Crants On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 7:15 PM, Warren W. Aney a...@coho.net wrote: In my journalism and technical writing classes I learned there are two accepted styles for capitalization: An up style and a down style. In the up style you would capitalize river, lake, stream, county, etc. if it's part of the proper name, e.g., Penobscot River, Penobscot County. Many up style adherents would also capitalize the proper names of species, e.g., Mule Deer. In the down style you would be very stingy with capitalizations. So you would write Narraguagus river and mule deer. And then ornithologists have a policy of always capitalizing bird species names, but since I always write in the down style I tend to ignore that policy for the sake of consistency, e.g., Canada geese and pileated woodpecker. Some newspapers write in the down style but most in the up style -- and as you've probably noted, MSWord spellcheck keeps nagging you to use the up style. You can also mix styles, e.g., write about Atlantic salmon in the Penobscot River. That's part of the frustration (or beauty) of writing -- it's an art and not a science. Warren W. Aney Senior Wildlife Ecologist 9403 SW 74th Ave Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 246-8613 phone (503) 246-2605 fax (503) 539-1009 mobile a...@coho.net -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu] On Behalf Of Michael Cooperman Sent: Wednesday, 30 September, 2009 11:19 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: [ECOLOG-L] to Capitalize or not to capitalize In the following statement: the Narraguagus and Penobscot riversshould the word rivers be capitalized? I have my opinion, but in the spirit of not biasing responses I'll keep it to myself; my office as a whole is split 50/50. One way or the other, half the people in my office are wrong! Michael -- - Michael Cooperman, PhD National Research Council - Research Fellow in residence at NOAA-Fisheries, NE Fisheries Science Center - Maine Field Station Atlantic Salmon Research and Conservation Task 17 Godfrey DR., Suite 1 Orono, ME 04473 (work) 207-866-7409 (cell) 207-974-9846 (fax) 207-866-7342 (pls call before faxing) email: michael.cooper...@noaa.gov -
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Intelligence Who is the greatest of them all?
I was taught that it's basically meaningless to say that any species is more advanced than any contemporary species. Different species are adapted to different conditions, and we all have an equally lengthy evolutionary history (assuming a single origin of all modern life). I think one could argue that one species CAN be more advanced than others, but I doubt that many biologists would argue that the massive human brain would be just as valuable to a chetah, leech, or oak tree as it is to us, and I doubt many would say that one can measure how advanced a species is by the size or capabilities of its brain. All of which goes to say that not all people who accept the reality of evolution consider our species more advanced than others. Indeed, I know people who think we're a scourge upon the land and inferior, at least morally, to species that have not wrought such great and terrible change. There is some truth to your statement, Wayne. I certainly could not kill a human as easily as a spider on my wall or a weed in my garden, and the more similar an organism is to a human, the more I care how it feels. I think most humans probably feel the same way. I think you just need to be less absolute, if you want to be accurate. Jim Crants On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 1:06 PM, Warren W. Aney a...@coho.net wrote: I agree with Tom: I don't think we can generalize. Some religions do profess the superiority of humans over the animals, end of story. However, many religions now agree that any such superiority carries with it a divinely directed duty to act within creation as care-taking stewards rather than outside of creation as exploiting overlords. And some evolutionary scientists might ask how you define most advanced -- in terms of species' specialization, Malcom's bovine might be considered more advanced than humans, e.g, hooved instead to toed feet are better for running, a complex digestive system is better for processing a wide variety of plant materials, a better sense of smell and hearing, more efficiently spaced estrus cycles, etc. Warren W. Aney Senior Wildlife Ecologist Tigard, OR -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu] On Behalf Of malcolm McCallum Sent: Friday, 18 September, 2009 08:55 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Intelligence Who is the greatest of them all? Do Hindu's believe this? I thought the bovine was the top of the caste system? I am reminded of an east asian religion (which one I do not remember) that believed humans were lice on God's head. Not sure where that fits in. On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 7:23 AM, Tom Cuba tom.c...@delta-seven.com wrote: Please consider the number of humans on the planet, their wide variety of both stereotypical and highly personal beleifs and ask if a generalization such as this is even properly posed. Tom Cuba Ecolog: Would you please assess the following statement for its veracity and completeness? Is it misleading in any way, especially with respect to evolutionary biology? Humans consider themselves to be above 'the animals,' believing that they are superior, either chosen by 'God' or are products of an evolutionary process in which they are the most highly developed example of that process, the most highly 'advanced' species. WT -- Malcolm L. McCallum Associate Professor of Biology Managing Editor, Herpetological Conservation and Biology Texas AM University-Texarkana Fall Teaching Schedule: Vertebrate Biology - TR 10-11:40; General Ecology - MW 1-2:40pm; Forensic Science - W 6-9:40pm Office Hourse- TBA 1880's: There's lots of good fish in the sea W.S. Gilbert 1990's: Many fish stocks depleted due to overfishing, habitat loss, and pollution. 2000: Marine reserves, ecosystem restoration, and pollution reduction MAY help restore populations. 2022: Soylent Green is People! 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. -- James Crants, PhD Scientist, University of Minnesota Agronomy and Plant Genetics
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Are ecologists the problem?
Chris, If we mostly talk about our lifestyle choices to diminish our contribution to overconsumption, it's because that's where we have the most choices to make. Also, coming mostly from wealthy countries with low growth rates, that's what we can point to to address whether we are as much a part of the problem as others around us. Yes, we can teach what we understand to be true about overpopulation, and we can push for government policies that can help reduce the global population growth rate (such as funding family planning services in poor countries where such services are not accessible to most people). However, the only lifestyle choice we can make to reduce our personal contributions to overpopulation is not to breed too much, and I'm sure most of us are aware of that option. I'm certain just about everyone here knows that the total human impact on the environment is a product of population size and per-capita environmental impact. (How to measure impact is probably something we'd argue about.) Jim Crants On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 5:50 PM, Chris_Hamilton chami...@uwsp.edu wrote: I'm not sure being ecologists makes any of us that much more grounded than the average person. Look at all of these posts about lifestyle choices to trim our footprint. Only two even refer to the number of humans leaving a footprint as a potential problem. -- James Crants, PhD Scientist, University of Minnesota Agronomy and Plant Genetics
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Are ecologists the problem?
. 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 be interesting to a wide audience. I propose that ESA conduct a poll of members, asking questions about lifestyle choices and demographics, comparing ours to that of the general public. If we are not different, this would be a bit of a wake-up call. However, if we are different, then perhaps some of our lifestyle choices would be informative to understanding how to achieve a more sustainable society. If there is one thing I learned from a cultural anthropology course I once took, it was that there isn’t just one right way to live. Human cultures throughout the world are very diverse. But, from the inside of one culture it is often very hard to see other ways to live. Let us not be trapped in our culture, but seek a better understanding of all the ways of living, so that we might find a more sustainable path. -- Kevin E. McCluney Graduate Student School of Life Sciences Arizona State University Tempe, AZ 85287-4601 -- James Crants, PhD Scientist, University of Minnesota Agronomy and Plant Genetics
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Biological control of invasive species by import of alien species Re: [APWG] NEWS: Invasive Saltcedar Triggers Lively Debate
To: a...@lists.plantconservation.org Sent: Monday, August 24, 2009 10:41 PM Subject: Biological control of invasive species by import of alien species Re: [APWG] NEWS: Invasive Saltcedar Triggers Lively Debate APWG: Much as I would like to see the truly invasive saltcedars sent back where they came from, we're probably stuck with them--they're just too seedy. Much as I would like to see a savior, even in the form of a bug, the true-believers (Now land managers are adding new biological control agents to their arsenal by releasing saltcedar leaf beetles (Diorhabda elongata) imported from China and Greece. The small insects strip saltcedar of its leaves, while ignoring native vegetation. http://www.wssa.net/WSSA/PressRoom/WSSA_SaltCedar.htm ) in insect-messiahs are at it again. These little buggers may ignore native vegetation for a while, have they been DEMONSTRATED in a peer-reviewed manner with replicated experiments to have left every species indigenous to the Western Hemisphere to continue to do so? I await the evidence, and I should not be expected to chase it down from a press-release. A more serious question remains to be answered--do we know, to a scientific certainty, that such imported populations cannot and will not evolve to survive on other prey? WT - Original Message - From: Olivia Kwong pl...@plantconservation.org To: a...@lists.plantconservation.org Sent: Monday, August 24, 2009 7:27 AM Subject: [APWG] NEWS: Invasive Saltcedar Triggers Lively Debate http://www.wssa.net/WSSA/PressRoom/WSSA_SaltCedar.htm Invasive Saltcedar Triggers Lively Debats Among Weed Scientists and Land Managers Saltcedar (Tamarix spp.) is an invasive plant that is crowding out native vegetation and dominating the shorelines of southwestern rivers and streams. But put a room full of weed scientists and land managers together to discuss how to tame the aggressive plant and you'll trigger a lively debate about how -- or even whether -- it should be controlled. See the link above for the full text of the press release. -- James Crants, PhD Scientist, University of Minnesota Agronomy and Plant Genetics Cell: (734) 474-7478
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Fw: Biological control of invasive species by import of alien species Re: [APWG] NEWS: Invasive Saltcedar Triggers Lively Debate
Wayne, No, we cannot be certain that a species introduced to control another introduced species' population won't itself become a problem, either immediately or after it has had some time to evolve in its new system. Testing on the safety of species considered for biological control necessarily involves simpler systems than the ones into which we might introduce them, with fewer species, smaller populations, and shorter time spans. We just can't know for certain that the biocontrol agent won't attack natives or become invasive in complex natural systems, and that it won't evolve into something that will. Jim Crants On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 12:41 AM, Wayne Tyson landr...@cox.net wrote: Ecolog: Any comments? WT - Original Message - From: Wayne Tyson landr...@cox.net To: a...@lists.plantconservation.org Sent: Monday, August 24, 2009 10:41 PM Subject: Biological control of invasive species by import of alien species Re: [APWG] NEWS: Invasive Saltcedar Triggers Lively Debate APWG: Much as I would like to see the truly invasive saltcedars sent back where they came from, we're probably stuck with them--they're just too seedy. Much as I would like to see a savior, even in the form of a bug, the true-believers (Now land managers are adding new biological control agents to their arsenal by releasing saltcedar leaf beetles (Diorhabda elongata) imported from China and Greece. The small insects strip saltcedar of its leaves, while ignoring native vegetation. http://www.wssa.net/WSSA/PressRoom/WSSA_SaltCedar.htm ) in insect-messiahs are at it again. These little buggers may ignore native vegetation for a while, have they been DEMONSTRATED in a peer-reviewed manner with replicated experiments to have left every species indigenous to the Western Hemisphere to continue to do so? I await the evidence, and I should not be expected to chase it down from a press-release. A more serious question remains to be answered--do we know, to a scientific certainty, that such imported populations cannot and will not evolve to survive on other prey? WT - Original Message - From: Olivia Kwong pl...@plantconservation.org To: a...@lists.plantconservation.org Sent: Monday, August 24, 2009 7:27 AM Subject: [APWG] NEWS: Invasive Saltcedar Triggers Lively Debate http://www.wssa.net/WSSA/PressRoom/WSSA_SaltCedar.htm Invasive Saltcedar Triggers Lively Debats Among Weed Scientists and Land Managers Saltcedar (Tamarix spp.) is an invasive plant that is crowding out native vegetation and dominating the shorelines of southwestern rivers and streams. But put a room full of weed scientists and land managers together to discuss how to tame the aggressive plant and you'll trigger a lively debate about how -- or even whether -- it should be controlled. See the link above for the full text of the press release. ___ PCA's Alien Plant Working Group mailing list a...@lists.plantconservation.org http://lists.plantconservation.org/mailman/listinfo/apwg_lists.plantconservation.org Disclaimer Any requests, advice or opinions posted to this list reflect ONLY the opinion of the individual posting the message. No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.409 / Virus Database: 270.13.64/2321 - Release Date: 08/23/09 06:18:00 -- James Crants, PhD Scientist, University of Minnesota Agronomy and Plant Genetics Cell: (734) 474-7478
Re: [ECOLOG-L] How 'bout those Boll Weevils?
Montana State University - Billings also has the Yellow Jackets. On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 11:20 PM, Dixon, Mark mark.di...@usd.edu wrote: Back to the invertebrate theme... isn't Georgia Tech the Yellow Jackets? From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news on behalf of ta...@southwestern.edu Sent: Tue 8/4/2009 6:05 PM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] How 'bout those Boll Weevils? Let's not forget the Ohio State Buckeyes. Quoting Kimberly Smith kgsm...@uark.edu: At the risk of starting an extraneous string, The University of Arkansas at Monticello men are the Boll Weevils and the women are the Cotton Blossoms... even fewer mascots are named after plants, the notable exception being the Indiana State Sycamores... * Kimberly G. Smith University Professor of Biological Sciences Department of Biological Sciences University of Arkansas Fayetteville, AR 72701 479-575-6359 (note new phone number) fax:479-575-4010 email: kgsm...@uark.edu * -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu] On Behalf Of William Silvert Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2009 1:01 PM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] How to lick a slug (from NYT) I can't resist adding the observation that the banana slug is, so far as I am aware, the only invertebrate to be selected as a college mascot - at UCSC. Bill Silvert - Original Message - From: David Inouye ino...@umd.edu To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2009 6:19 PM Subject: [ECOLOG-L] How to lick a slug (from NYT) While backpacking here with my 11-year-old daughter, I kept thinking of something tragic: so few kids these days know what happens when you lick a big yellow banana slug. Daniel (Max) Taub Associate Professor and Chair of the Biology Department Southwestern University 1001 East University Ave Georgetown TX 78626, USA email: ta...@southwestern.edu phone: (512) 863-1583 fax: (512) 863-1696 -- James Crants, PhD Scientist, University of Minnesota Agronomy and Plant Genetics Cell: (734) 474-7478
Re: [ECOLOG-L] What's wrong with growth, (was: ESA position on sustainable growth)
Paul, I'm pretty sure any measure of the per-capita environmental impact of Singapore or Hong Kong includes the land and other resources needed to feed, house, clothe, and employ the people in these cities, to import and export goods and move people around, to treat their drinking water and sewage, and so on. I think your first major point is well taken, though. What is a better quality of life? I would definitely want more than 450 sq ft of living space, and I did not consider my quality of life to be high the last time I had so little space. And while I try to drive as little as I can, I'm happier to have the option and to have relatively uncongested roads between me and the grocery store, my relatives, my friends, and so on. Your second major point is also important. We can't have an economy that's sustainable in the very long term without giving up a lot of what we take for granted, and we shouldn't pretend otherwise. I don't know just how much we'll have to give up. Positive population growth, certainly, a lot of our cars, and probably the conventional giant beige house on the 5-acre ranchette twenty miles away from work, but what if my ideal of a little bungalow on a fifth of an acre a short bus-ride from work is still too much, even if I green up the house and yard in every way imaginable? I just don't think you could convince me to give that up and live like your average resident of Hong Kong. How big an economy can we sustain? What kind of quality of life could a steady-state economy support, given our current population size and the amount of growth that's basically going to be inevitable? What would we have to give up, and can people actually be persuaded to live that much more modestly? For now, it seems to be a big enough challenge to do the easy stuff, like making cars more efficient or using cleaner sources of energy, and we haven't even started talking about real sacrifice. Jim Crants On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 2:47 AM, Paul Cherubini mona...@saber.net wrote: William Silvert wrote: a stable population with a better quality of life does not necessarily mean more resources are needed. some places have achieved high levels of economic growth without comparable resource consumption by taking advantage of good education and financial innovation, notably Hong Kong and Singapore. Bill, could you elaborate more specifically about what you mean by a better quality of life? In Hong Kong the average size of a home is 450 square feet (2500 square feet was the average size of a new home in the USA in 2007 and 984 square feet was the average size in 1950). So climbing into one's bed from the doorway is a common occurrence for Hong Kongers. http://www.tuition.com.hk/hong_kong.htm And in 1999, there were only 59 cars per 1000 people in Hong Kong (vs 474 per 1000 in the USA) http://tinyurl.com/np36aa Likewise in Singapore 90 percent of the population lives in high-rise public housing and there are only 101 cars per 1000 people: http://www.sgpolitics.net/?p=1908 Both Hong Kong and Singapore have little arable land and few natural resources, so they must import most of their food plus raw materials such as wood and petroleum. So it appears to me the underlying reasons why the people of Hong Kong and Singapore are achieving high levels of economic growth without comparable resource consumption is because they: a) don't have to consume land to grow food crops b) don't have to consume forests to obtain their building materials and paper products c) don't have to drill for oil or natural gas to obtain the petroleum the country uses to manufacture the products they export (e.g. electronics). d) are willing to live in extremely small homes and forsake the routine use of automobiles. What bothers me about the push for a steady state economy is that it's advocates claim no major lifestyle changes need to be made. So all it really appears to accomplish is to slightly slow down the the ongoing unsustainable rate of depletion of land, air and water resources. Worse, I feel it distracts the public in the USA, Canada, etc., from have to face the reality that serious sacrifices (in terms of home size, auto size and use, family size, etc.,) such as those the people of Hong Kong and Singapore are already making would be necessary to even start to come close to achieving a sustainable resource consumption rate. Paul Cherubini El Dorado, Calif. -- James Crants, PhD Scientist, University of Minnesota Agronomy and Plant Genetics Cell: (734) 474-7478
Re: [ECOLOG-L] What's wrong with growth, (was: ESA position on sustainable growth)
to consume land to grow food crops b) don't have to consume forests to obtain their building materials and paper products c) don't have to drill for oil or natural gas to obtain the petroleum the country uses to manufacture the products they export (e.g. electronics). d) are willing to live in extremely small homes and forsake the routine use of automobiles. What bothers me about the push for a steady state economy is that it's advocates claim no major lifestyle changes need to be made. So all it really appears to accomplish is to slightly slow down the the ongoing unsustainable rate of depletion of land, air and water resources. Worse, I feel it distracts the public in the USA, Canada, etc., from have to face the reality that serious sacrifices (in terms of home size, auto size and use, family size, etc.,) such as those the people of Hong Kong and Singapore are already making would be necessary to even start to come close to achieving a sustainable resource consumption rate. Paul Cherubini El Dorado, Calif. -- James Crants, PhD Scientist, University of Minnesota Agronomy and Plant Genetics Cell: (734) 474-7478
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Listserv posting and email subject line additions Ecolog
subscribe. - Original Message - From: William Silvert cien...@silvert.org To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Saturday, August 01, 2009 4:09 AM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Listserv posting and email subject line additions Ecolog Although I can understand the potential for people who only follow a couple of topics with threaded readers to miss some posts with modified subject lines, I really don't see this as a big issue. Most threads dominate the postings for their lifetime, but threads evolve too, and after a while the original subject line is no longer fully descriptive. As for tracing back to the original posting, if the post includes just the relevant part that should be sufficient. And in keeping with the evolutionary nature of threads, I would add my own mild complaint - replying not only to the list, but to the poster as well. This means that the person who posts gets two copies of every reply, but this can lead to confusion for everyone, since it unsyncs the postings. Suppose that you reply to this post with messages to both me and the list. I get the personal reply first, and respond to both you and the list. Unlss David is very diligent about the order that items go out, list members may receive a response before they see the message to which the response is sent. This happens sometimes on this list, but it is quite common on unmoderated lists where longer messages may take longer to get circulated. Since presumably the people who post to the list also read the list, there is no need to include them in the reply, just send it to the list please. Bill Silvert - Original Message - From: Wayne Tyson landr...@cox.net To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Friday, July 31, 2009 9:32 PM Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Listserv posting and email subject line additions Ecolog Ecolog: I received the following message from a listserv subscriber who wishes to remain anonymous: I know people have asked before and you have dismissed it, but I find your changing of seemingly every subject line annoying and presumptuous. In this case, what was gained by changing the subject line? It made referencing back the original email more difficult. . . . and in later message: PS This is a personal message and I would appreciate it not being forwarded to the whole list. Thanks, [Name withheld at sender's request]] No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.392 / Virus Database: 270.13.38/2274 - Release Date: 07/31/09 05:58:00 -- James Crants, PhD Scientist, University of Minnesota Agronomy and Plant Genetics Cell: (734) 474-7478
Re: [ECOLOG-L] What's wrong with growth (was: ESA position on sustainable growth)
growth) Kelly Stettner wrote: Why does growth have to be viewed as bad? Kelly - since you asked, here's why the original proposers targeted economic growth as the problem (as I have understood it): 1. Economic growth, as commonly used, means that every year the human species creates more economic activity than the year before (fueled by growth in both population and per-capita consumption). 2. Economic activity inevitably involves consumption of resources, so that means every year we convert more land to human use, generate more electricity, cut more trees, mine more minerals and fuels, manufacture more goods, produce more pollution, catch more fish, etc. So clearly there has to be a limit at some point. Economists and politicians claim that some economic growth doesn't involve consumption. This may be true, but the examples they give are debatable, and they still can't show how the entire economy can grow without growth in resource consumption. So far all we have is big claims and hopeful words. The neoclassical-economic world even gave us Julian Simon and others who denied the existence of ANY limits to natural resources. This is not a crowd in which I can have any confidence. Just my humble opinion, Joe -- James Crants, PhD Scientist, University of Minnesota Agronomy and Plant Genetics Cell: (734) 474-7478
Re: [ECOLOG-L] ESA position on sustainable growth
not know of a practical alternative. =20 Daniel L. Tufford, Ph.D. University of South Carolina Department of Biological Sciences 715 Sumter St. (mail) 209A Sumwalt (office) Columbia, SC 29208 803-777-3292 (phone) 803-777-3292 (fax) tuff...@sc.edu http://www.biol.sc.edu/~tufford From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news on behalf of = Heather Reynolds Sent: Fri 7/24/2009 10:53 AM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] ESA Position Statement: Value of Ecosystems = Should Figure in Economic Decisions I am deeply disappointed that ESA has persisted in maintaining the=20 myth of sustainable growth in its recent position statement on the=20 ecological impacts of economic activities. What an embarrassing=20 oxymoron for ecologists to be caught promoting. The position statement is at best confusing, sending a decidedly mixed=20 message. In one breadth it acknowledges that there are limits to the=20 amount of consumption and pollution the Earth can sustain and in the=20 next it is claiming that the problem is not economic growth per se=20 and that [we can] move toward sustainable growth. It is unfortunate=20 that the many good aspects of the position statement, such as its=20 recognition of healthy ecosystems as the foundation of a sound=20 economy, the need to internalize environmental externalities, the=20 recognition of multiple forms of wealth, and the importance of=20 advancing wellbeing in a more equitable fashion across the globe, are=20 confounded with language implying that societies can continue growing=20 their economies ad infinitum. Apparently, ecologists have decided=20 that humans are unique among life forms in possessing an ability to=20 grow without limits. Corporate capitalists and the revolving door corporate lobby that we=20 call our political system will be pleased. it is just that language on=20 sustainable growth that they will jump on to justify our continuing=20 drive for ever increasing economic growth, which by the laws of=20 nature, can lead only to a continued overshoot of carrying capacity=20 and destruction of the green infrastructure that ESA purports to=20 protect. I hope that ESA will continue its discussion of these issues. This=20 needn't be the last word, of course. As scientists, ecologists live=20 and breathe the process of reexamining assumptions and adjusting our=20 models of living systems accordingly. Heather Reynolds Associate Professor Department of Biology Jordan Hall 142 Indiana University 1001 E 3rd Street Bloomington IN 47405 Ph: (812) 855-0792 Fax: (812) 855-6705 hlrey...@indiana.edu -- James Crants, PhD Scientist, University of Minnesota Agronomy and Plant Genetics Cell: (734) 474-7478
Re: [ECOLOG-L] ANOVA - too many treatments
Edwin, My issue with such a small sample size would not be low power, but low reliability. If you show me the result for a single replicate, I have no confidence whatsoever that that result is typical for the treatment. Just try calculating the 95% confidence intervals around your results. If you can even find the 95% confidence interval for a treatment with a single replicate, you've done something wrong. I'm surprised only one reviewer complained about your sample sizes and that you didn't need to correct this to publish the paper, especially since it sounds like it would have been logistically simple to increase the replication. I am also surprised G*power 3 would say that an experiment with just one or two replicates per treatment had near-maximum power. Were you testing for the power to detect differences of the magnitude you actually observed? If so, of course the power would be around 1, if your p-values were low (if your ANOVA actually detected a significant difference, its power to detect that difference must be high). For a power test, you want to know the power of your experimental design to detect the smallest difference you would find biologically meaningful. Jim Crants On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 3:49 AM, Edwin Cruz-Rivera edwin.cruz-riv...@jsums.edu wrote: Let me rephrase: out of 12 treatments, 10 had one replicate and 2 had 2. However, these were not natural lakes or transects in geographic zones that constrained replication. These were 100 ml bottles on a table. Sorry for the oversimplification. Edwin Changing a little the topic, I have a question about the statement of Edwin. He wrote: If the statistics are grossly inappropriate (for example running an ANOVA with 12 treatments, but only 1 or two replicates per treatment), adequate peer review was clearly not in place. Well, I published a paper in which I used 2 way ANOVA with a total of 18 groups and 2 replicates per groups. It was peer reviewed, and one of the reviewers complained about my statistics, asking for measurements of power, perhaps with the expectation that that particular test would have no enough power to draw any conclusions. I used a software to measure the power of the test (G*power 3), and found that power was the maximum possible (1.00) for the effects due to factors 1 and 2, and 0.99 for the interaction effect.Was my test flawed? It was peer reviewed! Best, Matheus C. Carvalho Postdoctoral Fellow Research Center for Environmental Changes Academia Sinica Taipei, Taiwan --- Em qui, 9/7/09, Edwin Cruz-Rivera edwin.cruz-riv...@jsums.edu escreveu: De: Edwin Cruz-Rivera edwin.cruz-riv...@jsums.edu Assunto: Re: [ECOLOG-L] real versus fake peer-reviewed journals Para: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Data: Quinta-feira, 9 de Julho de 2009, 10:37 I believe one of the original questions was how to discern reputable journals from those that publish dubious or biased results...or do not accomplish proper peer review. I can point to a couple of red flags that can be noticed without too much effort and I have observed: 1) If the articles in the journal come mostly from the same institution in which the editor in chief is located, chances are the buddy system has overwhelmed objectivity...especially if the editor is a co-author in most. 2) If orthographic and syntax errors are widespread, probably the review process was not thorough. 3) If the statistics are grossly inappropriate (for example running an ANOVA with 12 treatments, but only 1 or two replicates per treatment), adequate peer review was clearly not in place. Now these may look like extreme cases, but I have seen too many examples similar to the above to wonder how widespread these cases are. I have even received requests to review papers for certain journals in which I have been asked to be more lenient than if I was reviewing for a major journal. This poses a particular dilemma: Is all science not supposed to be measured by the same standards of quality control regardless of whether the journal is institutional, regional, national or international? I would like to think it should be... Edwin -- Dr. Edwin Cruz-Rivera Assist. Prof./Director, Marine Sciences Program Department of Biology Jackson State University JSU Box18540 Jackson, MS 39217 Tel: (601) 979-3461 Fax: (601) 979-5853 Email: edwin.cruz-riv...@jsums.edu It is not the same to hear the devil as it is to see him coming your way (Puerto Rican proverb) Veja quais são os assuntos do momento no Yahoo! +Buscados http://br.maisbuscados.yahoo.com -- James Crants, PhD Scientist, University of Minnesota Agronomy and Plant Genetics Cell: (734) 474-7478
Re: [ECOLOG-L] real versus fake peer-reviewed journals
My tone in response to Martin's comment was more argumentative than I'd intended. I think his point is a good one, if I understand it correctly. With peer review, there's a real risk of group-think, where evidence for a point of view accumulates merely because most people in a given field share that point of view, and they are harder on papers that undermine their perspective than on those that support it. (Here, for example, I admit that I'm more critical of Paul Cherubini's posts than I am of posts with which I generally agree.) I can think of three checks that we have in place to mitigate the group-think phenomenon. (1) As others have said, we all must read skeptically and not have blind faith in peer reviewers, and I think most of us are trained to do so. (2) We are trained not put too much weight on a single study. The test of repeatability has exposed mistakes and frauds in the past, so holding ideas to that standard can help us avoid jumping on wrong-headed bandwagons. (3) You can boost your reputation considerably by shooting down an accepted hypothesis, so there's always a strong incentive to challenge widely-held assumptions. Over all, the scientific system really seems to work quite a bit better than any other known method of acquiring accurate knowledge about objective reality. We've moved beyond W-waves and phlogiston, so we must be doing something right. All of which, I'm sorry to say, does little to address the original question, but I think it goes some way toward explaining why we can have more confidence in the science of a quantum physicist or a fisheries biologist than in the magic of a shaman. Jim Crants On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 4:27 PM, Bill Silvert cien...@silvert.org wrote: I support Martin in this, although I think that James raises a valid point. Peer review is only a poor indicator of the quality of a paper, and often editors end up sending papers to graduate students or even people in other fields. About a third of the reviewing requests I receive are inappropriate, and often I can't even understand what the paper is about. Of course this depends on the particular discipline. In fields where there is a standard methodology peer review can certify that the work was done correctly. In other fields though the reviewer may only be certifying that the paper follows the current paradigm (note the quote from Hilborn in another posting on this topic). Basically we have no definitive way of separating valid results from junk. I am sure that there were plenty of senior scientists who would have rejected the papers of Darwin, Einstein, Wegener and many others. There are also hundreds of papers published in good journals which turned out to be wrong. The suggestion that you look at the journal's mission statement may help. Reputable journals abound, the problem arises with obscure new journals that may have an agenda. (Certainly no respectable scientist would want to publish a complicated model in the online Journal of Simple Systems, www.simple.cafeperal.eu - I can say this with confidence, since I am the editor and publisher). If the journal seems strange or inappropriate, think about why the paper ended up there, Bill Silvert - Original Message - From: James Crants jcra...@gmail.com To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2009 3:22 PM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] real versus fake peer-reviewed journals Martin, This all sounds good in the abstract, but it's beyond me how we could do better than peer-review to establish which science is done well and which is not. No matter how reliable a system is, it's always easy to say we should do better than this. But what would you propose to improve on our current system of vetting scientific research? You don't have to get very far from your own field to run into research you aren't equipped to validate. Most pollination biologists probably aren't prepared to properly assess the quality of research on insect cognition, for example, so they have to rely on other scientists to evaluate the research for them. To what better authority could they possibly appeal? I would certainly not want people who don't have faith in the scientific method deciding which papers can and cannot be published. Jim Crants On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 10:34 AM, Martin Meiss mme...@gmail.com wrote: I find this exchange very interesting, and it points up a major problem caused by the burgeoning of scientific knowledge and the limitations of the individual. As scientists, we believe (have faith) that the scientific method is the best means of arriving at truth about the natural world. Even if the method is error-prone in some ways, and is subject to various forms of manipulation, it is historically self-correcting. The problem is that no individual has enough time, knowledge, and background to know if the scientific method is being properly by all those who claim
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Mosquitoes as keystone species?
In the quoted text below, Michael Cooperman says only that whatever chemical Conor's county uses to control mosquitoes probably affects other insects as strongly as it affects mosquitoes. The implication is that he agrees it's plausible that the chemical used to control mosquitoes near Alamosa would result in decreased abundances of non-target species (grasshoppers, bees, and frogs). If he wanted to publish that statement, I'd say he would need proof that (1) some kind of chemical spray is used near Alamosa to reduce the abundance of mosquitoes, and (2) some chemical sprays people use to reduce the abundance of mosquitoes also reduce the abundances of non-target species (preferably including citations specific to any particular species he might mention). He would only need to prove that the abundances of grasshoppers, bees, frogs, and mosquitoes had declined near Alamosa, and that chemical sprays were the cause of these declines, if he'd actually said these things. If he did, it's not in the quote below. In any case, since Michael's statement is not in a scientific paper, but rather on an internet forum, I don't think the same standards apply. Yes, it's best to keep your critical thinking cap on when replying to something on Ecolog, but if we had to cite sources or conduct original research for every statement we made here, who would bother? Might as well apply that same effort to writing peer-reviewed publications. Jim Crants On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 11:10 AM, Paul Cherubini mona...@saber.net wrote: Conor_Flynn wrote: we've noticed something interesting: there are no mosquitoes in or near Alamosa. This is because the city sprays for them regularly. We have also noticed fewer grasshoppers, bees, and frogs than we might otherwise expect. Michael Cooperman wrote: I don't know what chemical your county uses for mosquito control but probably it is not specific to mosquitoes and would affect other insects just as strongly. Interesting these comments suggesting great harm to both mosquitoes and non-target insects appeared just after Mitch Cruzan said: Critical thinking/reading is a primary goal of all graduate programs and is something we introduce undergraduates to in advanced courses. A critical thinker would say it wildly speculative for anyone to claim, without extensive direct evidence, that: 1) There really are no mosquitoes and fewer grasshoppers, bees, and frogs in Alamosa, Colorado. 2) Mosquito spraying is the underlying cause of these declines. Paul Cherubini El Dorado, Calif.
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Mosquitoes as keystone species?
I agree with you the rest of your post, except to say that not all mosquitoes are human-feeders, and not all are WNV-vectors (only those that bite both birds and mammals are). Fewer bees probably does equate with fewer flowering plants. In the same spirit, I should add that many flowering plants are long-lived perennials, many use pollinators other than bees (possibly in addition to bees), and many are capable of pollinating themselves or producing seeds asexually (and, if you want to call clonal growth reproduction, a whole lot of them do that, too). So their abundances cannot be expected to track bee abundances very closely. On the other hand, if flowering plant abundance IS strongly correlated with bee abundance across space or time in your study system, it could be the bee populations that are tracking the plant populations. This is what makes ecology so challenging!
Re: [ECOLOG-L] real versus fake peer-reviewed journals
Research Project 3535 Harbor Boulevard, Suite 110 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Tel: 714-755-3235 Fax: 714-755-3299 Email: rapha...@sccwrp.org -- James Crants, PhD Scientist, University of Minnesota Agronomy and Plant Genetics Cell: (734) 474-7478
Re: [ECOLOG-L] GM trees
If you had only the excerpt from Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service statement that Paul posted to go on, you'd be stunned to learn that some eucalyptus species are highly invasive in California. It seems to me that engineering cold-tolerance into eucalyptus presents a serious risk of expanding its potential range as an invader. My concern is not so much with the field test (which I think can plausibly be controlled) as with eventual commercialization and widespread distribution of these trees in places eucalyptus is not currently able to invade. After this carefully-controlled test under conditions that minimize the risk of harmful effects, how much more testing is needed before the trees can go to market? Once they're on the market, we can't expect the consumer to monitor the trees quite so carefully. The only test that will definitively tell us if these trees will be invasive is their release in the environment under poorly-regulated conditions, and if they're invasive, we will most likely only know it once they're beyond our control. This, in turn, brings up a more general concern of mine. If we haven't introduced a species to a region, we obviously don't know if it will be invasive; why does this always seem to be seen as an argument in favor of introduction? For an argument against the approval of the field trial that doesn't involve the prefix franken-, you could try the Union of Concerned Scientists: http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/solutions/sensible_pharma_crops/ucs-comments-to-usda-on-2.html . Jim Crants On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 4:50 PM, Paul Cherubini mona...@saber.net wrote: To learn about the benefits of GM eucalyptus visit the ArborGen website: http://www.arborgen.com/newsroom.php ArborGen trees will allow landowners to grow more wood on less land with fewer agricultural inputs, thus protecting our native forests and ecosystems. To learn about why the United States Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service doesn't consider GM eucalyptus field tests dangerous for the environment, google arborgen USDA and you'll find this notice: http://tinyurl.com/mutlmu Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Finding of No Significant Impact and Decision Notice 1. The field test sites are located on secure, private land in Baldwin County, Alabama, and are physically isolated from any sexually compatible Eucalyptus. 2. There is little probability of asexual spread since this hybrid Eucalyptus does not propagate readily without the aid of special environmental conditions. 3. Eucalyptus seed is not adapted to wind dispersal so the dispersal of seed is expected to be limited to the proximity of the field test area. 4. It is unlikely that viable seeds will be produced by the Eucalyptus hybrids in the field test, and it is unlikely that any seeds produced will be able to germinate andproduce viable offspring. Therefore, APHIS concludes that it is not reasonably foreseeable that Eucalyptus seeds will be spread by severe wind events and establish outside of the field site. 5. If any seeds were to be formed due to crossing within the field test, there is very little probability that they will germinate since Eucalyptus seeds have very limited stored food reserves, are intolerant of shade or weedy competition, and need contact with bare mineral soil to successfully germinate. 6. If any viable seeds were to be produced and grow into seedlings, they will be easily identified by monitoring the field sites and destroyed with herbicide treatment or removed by physical means. 8. Horizontal movement of the introduced genes is extremely unlikely. The foreign DNA is stably integrated into the plant genome. 9. No adverse consequences to non-target organisms or environmental quality are expected from the field release of these transgenic Eucalyptus for the reasons stated below. Paul Cherubini El Dorado, Calif. -- James Crants, PhD Scientist, University of Minnesota Agronomy and Plant Genetics Cell: (734) 474-7478
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Plagiarizing methods...
Cara Lin, I don't think it's plagiarism to state a very simple idea (like your PCR conditions) using the same words someone else did, since there are only so many intelligible ways to state a simple idea. The University of Calgary has some information on how they define academic plagiarism ( http://www.ucalgary.ca/~hexham/study/plag.html) that agrees with this position: For example many basic textbooks contain passages that come very close to plagiarism. So too do dictionaries and encyclopedia articles. In most of these cases the charge of plagiarism would be unjust because there are a limited number of way in which basic information can be conveyed in introductory textbooks and very short articles that require the author to comment on well known issues and events like the outbreak of the French Revolution, or the conversion of St. Augustine, or the philosophical definition of justice. Also, the Office of Research Integrity at the Department of Health and Human Services, USA (Avoiding plagiarism, self-plagiarism, and other questionable writing practices: A guide to ethical writing. Miguel Roig. http://ori.dhhs.gov/education/products/plagiarism/plagiarism.pdf. p. 14) does not consider examples such as the ones you identified to be plagiarism: ORI generally does not pursue the limited use of identical or nearly identical phrases which describe a commonly-used methodology or previous research because ORI does not consider such use as substantially misleading to the reader or of great significance. (I include quotes AND indentations because Roig is quoting a caveat in ORI's definition of plagiarism, and I'm quoting him without knowing just what document he's quoting from.) Overall, I think it's commonly accepted that brief bits of text conveying simple ideas will offer the author only so much maneuvering room, and it's not plagiarism if there's really no sensible way of stating the idea in a novel way. So, yes, I would say you are being overly harsh if you are failing grad students for copying PCR reaction conditions, especially if the only evidence for plagiarism is that they used the same words someone else did to describe the conditions (i.e., if you don't know whether they really copied or just converged on the same wording). I would recommend checking out the above links and the loads of other good sources you can find by searching for plagiarism definition or academic plagiarism online. True, it's not always clear what is or isn't plagiarism, but I think the slope seems a lot less slippery when you look into how other people and organizations have tried to tackle the issue of defining plagiarism. Jim Crants On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 3:38 AM, Cara Lin Bridgman cara@msa.hinet.netwrote: James Crants' response is addressing the problem. Many people with English as a second or third language are trying to write papers in English. It is very easy to find sentences and paragraphs that have the grammar structure that says exactly what you want if you just change a few key words and numbers. When trying to write the methods for PCR, for example, it is easy to find someone else's methods, copy these methods, and change the times and temperatures to match the conditions of your own study. Since most people do not include citations for things like PCR protocol, the copied methods may not be cited. When I point out to students and colleagues that it is plagiarism to write methods (and papers) by cut and pasting sentences (and paragraphs) from published papers, I often get the response But my English is so poor! True. Their own written English is usually barely readable. The thing is, when I ask if it is ok to write a paper this way in Chinese, they'll all quickly say it is not. So, if it's not ok to copy in Chinese, then should not be ok to copy in English! I had to quit teaching in one school because I could not get the students or their advisors to make this connection. The problem my students have with PCR methods is that they have only found 4 ways of writing PCR methods. They did not do this survey to find ways to copy, but because they (and I) could not think of a new way to describe PCR conditions. So it looks as though even native English speakers are copying a sentence structure and changing the times and temperatures to match their experimental conditions. I was taught and I'm trying to teach, that we have to write things using our own words (paraphrase) and we have to give citations for the ideas (including methods and techniques). For me, reading something, putting it away and then sitting down to write my own version, may result in similarities with the original and may not. I teach my students to go back and check to make sure their sentence uses their voice and is really different from the original published sentence. The thing is, we've run into a wall when it comes to describing PCR. And here
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Plagiarizing methods...
Cara Lin, I was trying to craft a good response to your questions, but I think I should leave it to people with more experience publishing and editing than I have. I'll just mention that the issue of Science I just received yesterday has an article about blatant plagiarism in scientific papers and some of the tools people use to detect it. Unfortunately, it sounds like some Chinese scientists are being encouraged by their local writing experts to copy papers on work similar to their own, changing the details to fit their own research and results. The rationale is that this allows them to present their original research in far better English than they could manage if they were writing from scratch. I can certainly sympathize with concerns about writing intelligently in a foreign language, but it's really a shame that there are scientists being told to produce papers in a way that will put a big black mark on their international repuations. Jim Crants On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 9:28 AM, Cara Lin Bridgman cara@msa.hinet.netwrote: One of my students did a quick survey of 18 papers from 9 journals and found a total of four ways of describing conditions for PCR reactions. I’ve tried to standardize these examples for temperatures and times. Ten papers used this formula: “All PCR reactions included an initial denaturation of 94*C for 30 s, 35 cycles of 94*C for 30 s, 58*C for 45 s, and 72*C for 2 min, followed by a final elongation step at 72*C for 7.” Five papers used this formula: “30 s denaturation at 95*C, 45 s annealing at 58*C and 2 min extension at 72*C, a final extension step of 7 min at 72*C.” Two papers used this formula: “PCR cycling conditions of an initial denaturation step (94*C, 30 s), followed by 35 cycles at 94*C (30 s), 58*C (45 s), 72*C (2 min) and a final extension step of 7 min at 72*C.” One paper used this formula: “The reaction was cycled 35 times with 94*C (30 s), 58*C (45 s) and 72*C (2 min).” The question is this: When writing your own paper, does using (or copying) one of these four ways constitute plagiarism? If it does constitute plagiarism, then are these papers plagiarizing each other? Also, how does one go about describing methods for PCR reactions without commiting plagiarism? My students and I agree that the ways are rather limited--especially since there is not much diversity in these 18 published papers. This is a real dilemma, because these conditions have to be described in each paper that uses PCR--the details in terms of times, temperatures, and cycle number change with every study and every experiment. If it does not constitute plagiarism, then how much of the descriptions for other methods (statistical analysis, definitions for formula, figure legends, table titles, etc.) can be copied before it constitutes plagiarism? (My students and I can see a slippery slope here...) When writing her own PCR methods, my student tried going around this problem by finding a paper that came close to doing the same things she did, citing that paper, and adding a sentence to explain the changes in times or temperatures to describe what she actually did. We do not find this a very satisfactory solution because my student did not use the cited paper when actually deciding how to do her PCR reactions or in any other part of her thesis. In other words, citing that paper gives it undue credit for helping her with her methods. Finding ourselves in an impasse, I told my students I'd ask you here at Ecolog what you think and how you cope with these sorts of dilemmas. Thanks, CL ~~ Cara Lin Bridgman cara@msa.hinet.net P.O. Box 013 Shinjhuang http://megaview.com.tw/~caralin Longjing Township http://www.BugDorm.com http://www.bugdorm.com/ Taichung County 43499 TaiwanPhone: 886-4-2632-5484 ~~ -- James Crants, PhD Scientist, University of Minnesota Agronomy and Plant Genetics Cell: (734) 474-7478
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Sea-Level Rise Revised
question, he said, remains what will happen in the next 100 years or so, and other recent work implies that a lot of ice can be shed within that time. Even in Bamber's world, he said, referring to the study's lead author, there is more than enough ice to cause serious harm to the world's coastlines. - Original Message - From: James T. Conklin (BSME UMD 1958) conk...@cfl.rr.com To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Sunday, May 17, 2009 3:19 PM Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Sea-Level Rise Revised Experts have cut the sea-level rise forecast IF the West Antarctic ice sheet were to collapse due to Global Warming. The forecast has been revised to 10 feet in 500 years, or 0.24 inches per year.* I recall that a sea-level rise of 20 to 50 feet had been predicted by Al Gore and other Global Warming experts (fanatics) within decades. I also recall that the Antarctic ice sheet has been getting thicker, i.e.: not melting. My advice to people who have been traumatized by Al Gore's dire Global Warming and Sea-Level Rising warnings is to start worrying about their gums. * Research by U.K. Natural Environment Research Council and the Colorado University Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Science and published in the journal Science 5/15/09. -- Malcolm L. McCallum Associate Professor of Biology Texas AM University-Texarkana Editor, Herpetological Conservation and Biology http://www.herpconbio.org http://www.twitter.com/herpconbio Fall Teaching Schedule Office Hours: Landscape Ecology: T,R 10-11:40 pm Environmental Physiology: MW 1-2:40 pm Seminar: T 2:30-3:30pm Genetics: M 6-10pm Office Hours: M 3-6, T: 12-2, W: 3-4 1880's: There's lots of good fish in the sea W.S. Gilbert 1990's: Many fish stocks depleted due to overfishing, habitat loss, and pollution. 2000: Marine reserves, ecosystem restoration, and pollution reduction MAY help restore populations. 2022: Soylent Green is People! 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. -- James Crants, PhD Scientist, University of Minnesota Agronomy and Plant Genetics Cell: (734) 474-7478
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Gallup poll on evolution
Michael, Remember that natural selection does not immediately either fix or eliminate every new mutation. Instead, many new alleles are able to persist and spread in a population, even if they are neutral or slightly deleterious. These new variants can accumulate over time (until they reach an equilibrium where existing variants drift out of existence as rapidly as new variants arise), which means you don't need a population of billions to have substantial genetic variation. Thus, if selection suddenly starts favoring a different phenotype than it did before, the population doesn't have to wait for new mutations to arise before it can exhibit an evolutionary response. Selection just acts on the pre-existing variation, and the response can therefore be rapid. This isn't hiding behind plenty of time and huge numbers. In fact, populations with little genetic variation, whether because they are small or because they are young, are not expected to be very evolutionarily flexible. Time and numbers are essential to understanding why evolution can be so rapid; they aren't something we hide behind. On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 4:58 PM, Michael Harvey mharv...@shaw.ca wrote: The people who replied to my post missed the point. Going on about the mechanics of clocks, typing monkeys, and selection of phenotypes illustrates why the creationists can ridicule and challenge public debates so easily. Hiding behind plenty of time and huge numbers doesn't help the cause. There aren't billions of cats out there, testing untold useless random gene mutations in hopes of finding one that will give sharper claws. There aren't billions of finches on some island, trying out huge numbers of gene mutations, five eggs at a time, waiting for a random one that gives a slightly longer beak. You must show a biochemical process by which environmental cues direct gene mutation and expression. It can happen fast in nature, and it happens far too efficiently to be random. Lamark awaits your research. -- Michael Harvey Victoria, BC -- James Crants, PhD Scientist, University of Minnesota Agronomy and Plant Genetics Cell: (734) 474-7478
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Analysis of habitat specificity and circular logic
In attempting to explain why I don't find this reasoning circular, I've managed to convince myself that it is. There is an implicit assumption that the control sites in a study are representative of the entire landscape prior to fragmentation. Any difference between the control sites and the fragments is attributed to anthropomorphic effects in the fragments. However, the control site may never have had the same community as the landscape that has become fragmented. I can't speak on rainforests, but in southern Michigan, I found that forest fragments and preserves were mostly clustered around swamps, ponds, streams, and hills--sites where the topography is too rugged for the plow. Large preserves tend to be on stabilized dune-lands and around wetlands, and I'm certain that, before habitat fragmentation, the plant communities in such sites were different from those in what are now farm fields. I don't think this circularity completely invalidates the approach you describe. Basically, people are going out and seeing what species they find in different habitats and categorizing the species based on what habitats they find them in. They also try to figure out what biological characteristics unite the species within each category and separate them from species in other categories. Hopefully, they have a priori hypotheses, but it is also valid to propose new hypotheses based on your observations, or to note that what you observed is consistent with hypotheses others have proposed. The danger is in not recognizing and acknowledging that your control sites may be unlike your fragments for reasons other than their relative lack of disturbance. Unfortunately, the fundamental problem is that we don't often have good records of what communities were like before disturbance. Using control sites assumes that the fragmented landscape once had a community like that of the control sites. It seems to me that using indicator scores assumes that the fragmented landscape once had a community like those used to produce the indicator scores. On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 3:18 PM, Brian D. Campbell jacarebrazi...@hotmail.com wrote: Dear listserv members: I've been reading a lot of literature recently on the effects of fragmentation and land-use conversion from forests to agroforests and have been really troubled by what seems a pervasive issue (at least in my mind); defining the biodiversity value of a human-modified habitat type (e.g. either fragment or agroforest). Almost all studies I've reviewed partition bird communities into categories of forest species, rainforest specialists, agricultural generalists, among others, and proceed to compare these among different land-uses. This is not my issue per se, but rather, I find it very circular if one uses the data/observations they collected in a study to define these groups; e.g. all species encountered in a control site of extensive forest were defined as forest species. These make useful and note-worthy observations but if one then proceed to include control sites in a statistical comparison then I think there is major issue with circularity. This also seems to me a very different approach than having defined a priori (e.g. from distribution lists or other literature) a set of forest-candidate species which may or may not be present in any given site surveyed. Have others here found similar issues when reviewing papers dealing with the biodiversity values of secondary forest and agricultural habitats? Brian Campbell -- James Crants, PhD Scientist, University of Minnesota Agronomy and Plant Genetics Cell: (734) 474-7478
Re: [ECOLOG-L] no acorn mast
I was jogging on a pavement of burr oak acorns this September in Minneapolis. Whether a mast year would have been predicted here, or whether other species should also have been masting, I have no idea. On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 12:59 PM, Carrie DeJaco [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm in the Charlotte, NC area. Our oaks and hickories have produced just fine this year. I don't know how the numbers compare to mast years, but they certainly did produce fruit this year. One related note of interest, though-- last fall, I was searching through a woods for seeds of a local magnolia and found none-- only a very few of what appeared to be early aborted fruits. We had had a very late hard frost that spring, followed by a long-lasting severe drought. I figured one of the weather factors, the other, or the combination likely caused the trees to produce no seeds. Carrie DeJaco -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Inouye Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2008 12:59 PM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: [ECOLOG-L] no acorn mast A front-page article in today's Washington Post http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/29/AR200811 2902045.html?hpid=topnews describes the failure of the acorn mast this year over a large area around Washington, D.C. Also hickory nuts. It should have been (based on historical patterns) a good year for the oaks. Was there a similar failure in other parts of the US (or elsewhere)? David Inouye -- James Crants, PhD Scientist, University of Minnesota Agronomy and Plant Genetics Cell: (734) 474-7478
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Economic Growth
rate increas= ed from 1.3% to 3.3% /y/ ^-1 . The third process is indicated by increasing evidence (/P/ =3D 0.89) for a long-term (50-year) increase in the airbor= ne fraction (AF) of CO_2 emissions, implying a decline in the efficiency of CO_2 sinks on land and oceans in absorbing anthropogenic emissions. Sinc= e 2000, the contributions of these three factors to the increase in the atmospheric CO_2 growth rate have been =A1=D665 =A1=C0 16% from increasi= ng global economic activity, 17 =A1=C0 6% from the increasing carbon intensity of = the global economy, and 18 =A1=C0 15% from the increase in AF. The increasing intensity suggests that technological efficiencies appear = to be losing their effectiveness (i.e., technology is not likely to solve th= e problem), while a decline in the efficiency of CO2 sinks on land can also= be at least partially attributed to the economic growth driver (e.g., deforestation). Climate change is essentially a symptom of the problem, the ultimate caus= e of which is economic growth. Czech ( http://www.wildlife.org/publications/wsb2801/2sc_czech.pdf) points out that, because of the enormous breadth of the human niche, the human econo= my grows at the competitive exclusion of wildlife in the aggregate. As long = as the economy continues to grow, more and more biodiversity will be lost through competitive exclusion. He uses an ecological analogy derived from Liebig's law of the minimum, a= nd suggests economic growth is the limiting factor for biodiversity conservation. Recall that a limiting factor is a factor whose presence or absence controls a process such as the success of an organism. It's a fac= tor that, if not addressed, will affect the success of the organism no matter what other benefits are provided. With respect to biodiversity conservation, unless the limiting factor--economic growth--is addressed, it doesn't matter what else we do = in terms of conservation effort, the likelihood of our success is essentiall= y naught. If we are truly concerned about biodiversity loss, now is the time for ecologists to speak out about the ultimate cause of this loss: economic growth. It's also important that we not assume that economic growth is more off limits or inaccessible as a policy issue. A wide variety of public polic= y tools are adjusted to stimulate growth. Those can be gradually re-set fo= r lower growth rates, moving toward a steady state economy. Then, addition= al public policies will come into play as well, including cap-and-trade frameworks that will overlap with lowering greenhouse gas emissions. And= of course education on the perils of economic growth should help to reform t= he consumer ethic, affect growth rates from the demand side as well. Neil K. Dawe -- James Crants, PhD Scientist, University of Minnesota Agronomy and Plant Genetics Cell: (734) 474-7478
[ECOLOG-L] Blue-Green Alliance 2009 Conference
Colleagues, The Blue-Green Alliance is a collaborative effort of the United Steelworkers and the Sierra Club to promote the development of green jobs in America. They are holding their second annual conference in Washington, D.C., 4-6 February of next year. I've been asked (informally) to share information about this conference with fellow ecologists who might be interested. I have pasted some information and a link to the conference website below. Jim Crants Mark Your Calendars *February 4 – 6, 2009 Marriott Wardman Park Washington, D.C.* *An Agenda So Significant, It Can Change Everything.* Transforming the economy through environmental solutions — creating good jobs and exploring green technologies that reduce global warming and increase energy independence — is key to our future. Solving global warming can now be centered on *reinvigorating disadvantaged communities*. The economy can be focused on *buildups rather than bailouts*. And the focus of *energy independence will shift to clean energy and new technologies*. Connect with 2,000 government leaders and decision-makers, as well as business, labor and environmental organizations at the *Good Jobs, Green Jobs National Conference*http://www.greenjobsconference.org/site/lookup.asp?c=rvI3IiNWJqEb=3833693for three days of exceptional educational programs, renowned speakers and extensive networking opportunities. Join us for the *Good Jobs, Green Jobs National Conference*http://www.greenjobsconference.org/site/lookup.asp?c=rvI3IiNWJqEb=3833693— *the leading forum in 2009* for shaping the national debate about investment in clean energy and green technologies.
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Obama - good news for ecologists?
Of cours, good is a relative term. The country had two choices for president on Tuesday; if the Obama administration is better for ecologists than the McCain administration would have been, his victory is good news for ecologists. The candidate's responses to Science's questions (referred to by Michael Kirkpatrick previously) lead me to think Obama's election is good news for ecologists and most or all other scientists.
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Obama - good news for ecologists?
I think Barack Obama's victory is great news in terms of energy policy and other policies related to global warming. As for research funding, I hate to speculate. Obama will want to increase funding for science and promote science education (including environmental education), which is a big step up from the Bush administration's willful ignorance and neglect. However, he's inheriting two wars, a massive recession, a lousy health-care system, and a budget deficit in excess of a trillion dollars, and there are a lot of things he'd like to do that go beyond solving all these huge problems. As an intelligent adult, he'll be making some unpopular compromises, cutting back on some very worthwhile programs just to pay for the bare necessities. While he clearly sees science and education as very high priorities, I'm not sure how ecology will stack up against all the other issues he will have to address. On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 10:15 AM, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Brian?= [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: What do you think this means in terms of funding, job opportunities, environmental education, research and policy, etc.? What major changes (if any) do you think might occur over the next few years that will affect our personal and professional lives as ecologists? Should we be excited? Kind of a vague and open-ended question, I realize, but I'm curious to hear your thoughts.
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Acceptance of basic research, even with fruit flies
If talking about fruit fly research is hurting McCain's poll numbers, it's mostly because he's talking about FRUIT FLY RESEARCH. As Samuel Johnson said, the sight of the gallows doth wonderfully concentrate the mind. We have a lot of very big problems that only good governance can solve, and voters aren't getting as distracted as usual by trivia like a few millionths of the federal budget going to studies on fruit flies and bears. On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 9:26 PM, malcolm McCallum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Most of these things are not stupidity or lack of exposure, they are simply ignorance. People in general have better science educations now than they did 20 yrs ago. That is why these kinds of comments seem to be hurting McCain's campaign. Just a few elections ago, a rudimentary understanding of the food chain did not exist. Today, most people have learned about it in High school biology class. Ditto for genetics. Who doesn't know that fruit flys are a primary model in genetics? Most baby boombers. They didn't teach it much in High schools back then. Now, mendelian inheritance is regularly taught. I suspect that many high school students are telling their 50-60 year old parents that fruit flies are used to study human genetics . This is probably a strong reason why is campaign is in the tank. On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 11:22 AM, William Silvert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It isn't just the public Joes that pose a problem. Governments too tend to dump basic research when funding gets tight, failing to realise that this is the resource on which all our scientific advances are based. The past few decades have seen drastic cuts in research funding around the globe, with only the most obvious applied projects being funded. Science education tends to be very much targetted on details. I do not recall any texts that connected basic science to applied results. I used to teach courses in which I tried to develop a general understanding of science rather than put forth a collection of facts, and I always began which an exercise where first I asked my students to name the great scientists in history, and then identify the ways in which science affected their lives. I then asked them to connect the two, and they could come up with very few links. Aside from Einstein and nuclear energy, virtually none. I like to think that by the end of the course they had a better understanding of how science had changed their lives, but many of these changes are not of obvious benefit. For example, the work of Copernicus, Gallileo, Lyell, Darwin and others have profoundly affected our lives by changing the role of religion and traditional beliefs about the centrality of humans in the universe, but that is hardly what we think about when we discuss applied science! Bill Silvert - Original Message - From: Jason L Kindall [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Monday, October 27, 2008 2:41 PM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Palin laughs at fruit fly research The political implications alone are troubling. The larger issue in my mind is that this is a real reflection of the general lack of understanding by the general public about what scientific research is and isn't. Viewed alone, it might be pretty hard to justify research on fruit flies to the average Joe (plumber or six-pack). Connect it with autism or human health and then it becomes more palatable to the public. However, it doesn't get there in the popular media, does it? We're up against a real wall here, folks. As our economy gets more turbulent there will be more uninformed remarks about research dollars being spent on projects that the public has a hard time connecting with. So where do we fight the good fight of science education? In schools? In colleges? At home? I interact with *great* teachers that don't understand scientific inquiry. The education system for our nations teachers doesn't include much in the way of what science is for anyone but actual science teachers in training (and that is sparse at best). We should do what we can to diversify science courses in core curriculum across all majors. -- Malcolm L. McCallum Associate Professor of Biology Texas AM University-Texarkana Editor, Herpetological Conservation and Biology http://www.herpconbio.org Summer Teaching Schedule Office Hours: Ecology: M,W 1-2:40 pm Cell Biology: M 6-9:40 pm (don't ask!) Forensic Science: T,R 10-11:40am Office Hours: MW 12-1, 5-6, TR 11:40-12:30, Every once in a while, there's an aberration, a crack in the pavement..., because it's just so good, that it slides in between all of the meaningless, tasteless, cardboard cut-out crap. -David Crosby (of the Byrds, Crosby Stills, Nash [ Young], etc.) -- James Crants PhD, Ecology and Evolutionary Biology University of Michigan Cell: (734) 474-7478
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Invasion biology reading
If I understand this argument correctly, it sounds as though some call conservation biology a pseudoscience on the grounds that it has objectives that are based on emotional responses to natural realities. Of course, to even mention that the Nazis were at least as concerned with removing exotic species as any conservation biologist can hardly reduce the emotionalism around the subject. If you really wanted to promote cold rationalism, you could hardly do worse than to compare your opponents to the Nazis. But, more to the point, I have to question the definition of pseuodscience that says that any interpretation of data that has emotional weight behind it makes the research in question pseuodoscience. Face it: you can't get published if nobody cares about the results of your studies, and you can't muster the energy to properly address a scientific question if you don't care about the answer. The result is that there is emotional weight behind all scientific research and all interpretations of results. True pseudoscience (nice phrase, eh?) involves unfalsifiable hypotheses, failure to consider alternative hypotheses, or cherry-picked data. Conservation biologists tend to ask questions like, does the population density of this native mussel species decline as the density of zebra mussels increases? They do not deliberately set up their studies so that the results will favor their hypotheses, they try to consider alternative hypotheses, and other ecologists try to find the holes in their studies, just as in any legitimate science. Interpretations of results will certainly be biased against exotic species; at best, the exotic has no significant effect, and any effect it does have will most likely be viewed negatively. But if conservation biology is therefore a pseudoscience, then so is all research into human diseases, where every result is either an advance or a setback in defeating the disease in question. The motivation behind disease research is to find treatments and cures for diseases. I'm afraid to assert a simple motivation behind conservation biology (because then we can all argue about THAT), but it has something to do with preventing anthropogenic extinctions and preserving or restoring ecosystems to a condition similar to what would be seen with less or no human-caused disturbance. If you don't value the conservation of species and habitats, you'll take issue with any interpretation of data by someone who thinks biological conservation is important. That does not mean that the science that produced the results being interpreted is badly done. Regarding whales, I would very much like to see the evidence that the declines in our fisheries are attributable to whales. Is it just a negative correlation between whale population sizes and fish stocks in the past 30 years or something? How many replicates do you have? Do you have any control groups, where whale populations have been held constant? Have you tested the alternative hypothesis that hunting by humans, not by whales, cause declines in fisheries? Have you controlled for habitat destruction by humans (e.g., damming of spawning rivers)?
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Invasion biology reading - Burning Bush
recently, or Suriname. I gotta ask, what do you consider a unique ecosystem, since ecosystems are constantly changing? Your argument against allowing EVERY kind of change is one addressed in Theodoropoulos' book; there must be common sense and a serious stewardship attitude -- but it must be an honest one. We can't and shouldn't protect every species -- against what? Extinction? Adaptation? Evolution? Extinction is a resource in and of itself and shouldn't be mourned; loss of one species means more resources for others, and gives other species the opportunity to adapt and to expand their range. Evolution can handle snap-shots -- look at Germany's Lake Constance and the fact that Daphnia changed their feeding behavior to adapt to and eat toxic cyanobacteria from phosphorus pollution. This adaptation happened in less than 30 years. Now that's a snap-shot! http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/Sept99/rapid_evolution.hrs.html Here's another thought...whales have been protected and conserved for, what, thirty years or a little longer? How are the world's fish stocks? Ask around and the answers are looking pretty grim. There are some common themes: in crisis...crashing...seriously degraded. At what point will we allow whaling to resume, to conserve the precious herring and other fish that the whales eat? America has been through so many ecological paradigms over the past 400 years that it should be of no surprise that science progresses -- every answer we find should pose more questions, and our paradigm ought to shift with our new knowledge and understanding. Human values sure are valid; every organism on the planet uses resources, sometimes to ruination of the resource. I would love to hear of another creature who intentionally repopulates a resource. Thank you all for your discussion, your patience, and your gracious objectivity. Sincerely, Kelly Stettner From: Peter Coffey Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Invasion biology reading To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: ECOLOG-L@listserv.umd.edu Date: Thursday, October 2, 2008, 5:12 PM Kelly, Thanks for your speedy reply. I agree that actions based on fear are often futile and rash, however I don't thing that conservation should only be applied to cases where something of value is in danger--unless you consider unique and variable ecosystems to all have value, which I do, and thus it always applies. I agree, human introductions do not outnumber natural ones--all introductions before we evolved are obviously natural-- what I was referencing is the frequency with which these introductions occur. Human introductions occur at a higher rate than natural ones. I agree that without change there is stagnation, but evolution works at a rate that sometimes cannot handle the effects of our snapshot in time. To argue that all change is good simply puts you in a position of defending anyone's right to do whatever...why stop pollution, urban sprawl, or strip mining? They're all just change... I agree that conservation efforts are dependent on our heartstrings--that is why red wolves and pandas adorn our calenders. However, is there any point to conservation, does anything have any value, except from an emotional point of view? Is human utilitarianism a valid method of ascribing value to anything? -Peter P.S. I think tardigrades are so freakin' cute! -- James Crants PhD, Ecology and Evolutionary Biology University of Michigan Cell: (734) 474-7478
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Invasion biology reading
Dave, You can get published if no one pays (I would point to some of my own research, but I haven't actually published it yet), but it's harder if no one cares. One way biologists try to convince people to care is tie their research to something valued by the larger society. Not that I imagine that this point has escaped you; it's just closer to what I was trying to say in the first place. Kelly, Even if someone is only calling invasion biology a pseudoscience (not all of conservation biology), they'll have some work to do trying to convince me. How is pseudoscience defined, if it includes invasion biology? Intelligent design is pseudoscience because its central hypothesis (that there is some high degree of complexity, evident in some biological systems, that can only come about if there is an intelligence designing it) is completely untestable. Homeopathic medicine is pseudoscience because the methods used to test homeopathic treatments lack nice, rigorous things like controls and replication, and because there is no testable mechanistic hypothesis behind homeopathy. I haven't read a very large proportion of the literature in invasion biology, and I've read even less of the work of its outside critics, but what I've read in invasion biology so far seems to be as scientific as anything else in ecology. We know that not all exotics are invasive, that a species that's invasive in on location may not invade another, apparently similar location nearby, and that natives can sometimes act like invasive species, rapidly coming to heavily dominate a habitat, and we investigate why these things are true. A classic question in invasion biology is whether it's possible to predict an invasion based on the biology of the introduced organism and the biology of the community to which it's introduced. A pseudoscience bent on demonizing certain species would, I think, ignore all this messiness by excluding results that contradicted its position. It wouldn't put its energy into exploring the messiness. Regarding whales, some of your questions led me to believe you had already concluded that whales are causing the collapse of fisheries. Why even ask about whether we should start hunting them again to benefit fisheries unless we've already got reason to think their current populations are problematically large? Jim On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 1:22 PM, David M. Lawrence [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: With all due respect, you can get published even if no one pays for your research, as long as you are willing to pay for it yourself. Dave Kelly Stettner wrote: You make an excellent point, James: Face it: you can't get published if nobody cares about the results of your studies, and you can't muster the energy to properly address a scientific question if you don't care about the answer. The result is that there is emotional weight behind all scientific research and all interpretations of results. You also can't get published if no one will fund your research, so you have to MAKE somebody care about what you want to study, whether it's a cute, anthropomorphic mammal or a microscopic water flea. Someone has to decide it is important enough to study, and that IS, you are correct, an emotional response. A human value. -- -- David M. Lawrence| Home: (804) 559-9786 7471 Brook Way Court | Fax: (804) 559-9787 Mechanicsville, VA 23111 | Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] USA | http: http://fuzzo.com -- We have met the enemy and he is us. -- Pogo No trespassing 4/17 of a haiku -- Richard Brautigan -- James Crants PhD, Ecology and Evolutionary Biology University of Michigan Cell: (734) 474-7478
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Malformed Frogs: The Collapse of Aquatic Ecosystems - By Michael Lannoo
Mr. Cherubini, Yes, big city biology students and professors know that most frogs in Minnesota's farmlands look like perfectly normal frogs (and ARE perfectly normal frogs, as far as anyone knows). You see, that's part of what makes the malformed frogs interesting. In fact, those big city professors and students have put thousands of hours into studies (in the field, no less!) on the prevalence and distribution of frog malformations in Minnesota, so they have a better idea how abundant normal frogs are than pretty much anyone. Ecology is a science, and in science, you don't just come up with a hypothesis and consider your work done. You have to get out and test that hypothesis, and this takes a lot of reasoning, planning, and hard work. Personally, pouring loads of thought and effort into my research has made me a bit techy about people assuming that scientists are too stupid and lazy to leave the big city and look at the subject of their owm research. I suppose we ecologists haven't done all we could to let people know just what it is we do, so I probably shouldn't blame you for imagining that we just sit in our offices and figure out ways to pin the problems of the world on our favorite bogeymen. But a simple Google search reveals that you have a history of attacks on the results of careful ecological research, attacks based on little or no truthful evidence, so I won't apologize for my tone. Jim Crants Quoting Paul Cherubini [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Ironically, I've found undeformed frogs are abundant in Minnesota along the margins of it's vast monocultures of herbicide tolerant GMO corn and soybeans http://i85.photobucket.com/albums/k75/4af/frogb.jpg Of course, most school kids who lives on farms in Minnesota knows this too. But do big city biology students and professors? Paul Cherubini El Dorado, Calif.
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Ecosystems and faux ecosystems Re: [ECOLOG-L] Wetland creation
Andrew, I'm not optimistic that you will find your answer. I think some of the discussion around the semantics of your question is unnecessary for answering it (we know you're not talking about crops, and the question is regarding our allocation of resources in creating imitations of natural ecosystems, not whether our imitations are successful enough to be called ecosystems). However, there are at least three semantic issues that HAVE to be addressed, as how we resolve them would probably determine the answer to your question. (1) What counts as a wetland? (2) How do we categorize the other kinds of ecosystems people are creating? (3) What is your metric for the effort we apply to creating ecosystems? You say numbers of projects, but how big does a project have to be to count? Finally, I assume that creating and ecosystem involves setting out to make an imitation of a particular kind of natural community, so that an abandoned gravel pit that happens to flood is not a created wetland, but unless this is spelled out, I think the confusion on this bit of terminology is legitimate. Jim Quoting William Silvert [EMAIL PROTECTED]: A question comes to mind. If an area is burned to the ground as a result of human carelessness, would we consider it degraded or destroyed? But if we then find that the fire was actually started by lightning, and the natural cycle that involves the return of nutrients to the soil and even the release of seeds that only sprout when burnt, would we change our view? Bill Silvert - Original Message - From: JEREMIAH M YAHN [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2008 1:55 PM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Ecosystems and faux ecosystems Re: [ECOLOG-L] Wetland creation Although I do enjoy and agree w/ Wayne's definitions, I think perhaps we have lost the way of the original post. I certainly do not have the answer nor the free time to pursue the answer, but I would imagine that there would be some value in looking into what we have lost over the years. Find out which ecosystem we have degraded/destroyed most over the years and you will probably find the ecosystem most often restored.
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Heat as a cause of global warming?
I must not have made myself very clear, because a few people have written in to disagree with me and then said exactly what I was thinking when I wrote my comments. I was trying to say that atmospheric warming has two components, at a very basic level: heat must enter the atmosphere somehow, and greenhouse gasses must trap a portion of that heat within the atmosphere. The atomosphere accumulates heat like a lake accumulates water. Adding CO2 to the atmosphere is like dropping logs across the outlet to the lake. Each new log slows the rate at which water leaves the lake, so the lake level rises, causing more water to leave, until the lake reaches some new, higher equilibrium level. Of course, we're adding logs faster than the lake is rising, so the equilibrium level is higher than the current level. Adding heat to the atmosphere through combustion is like using heat lamps to melt snow in the lake's watershed. More water enters the lake, so the lake level rises until the rate of outflow matches the rate of inflow. Based on Dr. Shevtsov's numbers (thanks for those!), it sounds like our lamps aren't adding much to the total rate of snowmelt, so they're going to have less than 1% as great an effect on the equilibrium lake level as the logs we're dropping into the outlet. Their effect on the rate at which the lake reaches the new equilibrium is apparently even less substantial, relative to the effect of natural snowmelt. A short answer to Stephen's last question: 6) How much of this amount of heat energy (produced since industrialization) has yet to leave the atmosphere? All the heat we've added since industrialization may seem like a whole lot, but if you pitted it against all the heat the sun has added in the same time, it's almost nothing. As for how much of that heat has been retained in the atmosphere, well, I see no reason why the heat we produce should be retained any longer than the heat nature produces, so our contribution to total input of heat into the atmosphere is still probably trivial.
Re: [ECOLOG-L] summer reading with an environmental theme
Perhaps I am in a minority or am mis-interpreting the purpose of the summer reading course, but I would (if it were me, granted) focus on authors that would touch the soul and stir the imagination much more than any that would seek to fire my students' angst or rankle their sensitivities. For this reason, I almost nominated Barbara Kingsolver's novel Prodigal Summer, before I noticed that it was mentioned in the original post. It makes its environmental points, but it's a good novel, too. I suppose it would still rankle some sensibilities. It's hard not to do that when some people are determined to be offended by the best available scientific models of reality (evolution, for example, or the concept that the earth is finite and that human activities can make it a less suitable habitat for humans; every theory is provisional, but some are much less likely than others to be overturned by new data). Given that people have posted to second others' nominations, I guess it's fair for me to voice my support for Prodigal Summer. Jim
Re: [ECOLOG-L] SUVs for Ecologists, was McDonough - I don't think so
My old vehicle was a 1989 Honda Accord. In both 2002 and 2003, I got myself stuck in situations that a low-slung front-wheel-drive couldn't escape, but an all-wheel drive with decent clearance probably could have. It took half a day to escape from the 2003 incident, and I didn't see another car the whole time, which made my wife worry that the next time I got stuck wouldn't go so smoothly. So we replaced the Honda with a 2001 Forester. It was the most fuel-efficient fieldworthy car we could find. My in-laws now drive the Honda, which is by far the most efficient vehicle they've ever owned. Ecologists generally to do a good job of considering their personal environmental impacts. Some of us could do better, but trying to live up to your values and falling short of perfection doesn't make you a hypocrite with no business promoting those values. If our values were easy to live up to, they wouldn't be values; they'd be rationalized nihilism. Jim Quoting Steve Friedman [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I agree completely with the concerns expressed by Cara. We need vehicles to conduct business. When our business is outside in remote places a dependable one is essential. We also need vehicles for our private personal needs. When people are required to use their own vehicle for work who should determine that they should have more than one vehicle for field work and one for personal use/needs. Suggesting that we use VW buses now is silly, they were a good idea back in the 60s, but now they would not be, and for good reason. Steve
Re: dead zones and water nutrients
I don't see why an excessive algal growth model would fail to predict a large hypoxic zone around the mouth of the Mississippi. In fact, the models apparently do predict it, though I can't say if they get the right answer for the wrong reason. The Mississippi watershed is vast, and an enormous portion of that watershed is dedicated to intensive agriculture with heavy fertilizer use. Also, the algae are presumably dispersed beyond where they grow and die, and the hypoxic water presumably disperses beyond where decomposition occurs, so the hypoxic zone need not be restricted to locations with enough nutrients to support algal blooms. Given that the hypoxic zone is pretty much on the continental shelf and away from the Gulf's major currents (based on maps you cna find at http://oceancurrents.rsmas.miami.edu/caribbean/caribbean-cs.html and http://www.epa.gov/gmpo/nutrient/hypoxia_pressrelease.html), it seems plausible that the Gulf in the vicinity of the mouth of the Mississippi is stagnant enough to allow the hypoxic zone to grow quite large. Regarding fish farms to solve the problem, I'm skeptical that they would work. Fish farms usually add to nutrient loads because the operators feed the fish rather than counting on the river to bring enough food in. Also, you mentioned keeping the fish in lakes connected to the river, I believe. It seems to me that, every growing season, these lakes would sprout algal blooms, go hypoxic, and kill off the fish. But then, I'm a terrestrial biologist. I don't know quite enough about aquatic ecology to answer the original question satisfactorally, but I don't think I've yet heard of a miracle cure for everything that actually worked. Jim
Re: Used copy of Dispersal 'Ecology' by Bullock et. al.
It looks like you can order the book through Bookworks at 109 State Street, Madison, which is probably the store Liane is referring to. It's almost $150, though. Jim Quoting Liane Cochran-Stafira [EMAIL PROTECTED]: You could try Powell's Used Books. I have been able to find a number of items through them. http://www.powells.com/ There is also a used bookstore in Madison WI that has a really great selection of biological (especially eco/evo). Don't remember the name, but perhaps someone from UW could tell you. If memory serves, it's off State Street toward the capital. Don't hold me to that however. It's been several years. Liane At 05:49 PM 2/13/2008, Honey Giroday wrote: Hi, I'm currently trying to track down a paperback or hardcopy of 'Dispersal Ecology' (please see below for additional information including ISBN). I've tried Chapter.ca, Amazon.ca, Ebay and Cambridge University Press with no luck. If you can suggest a good resource to look for this text, please let me know. Thank you. Title: Dispersal Ecology Editors: James Bullock, Robert Kenward, and Rosie Hails Format: Trade Paperback Published: June 15, 2002 Dimensions: 456 Pages Published By: Blackwell Publishing ISBN: 0632058773 Sincerely, Honey-Marie Giroday *** D. Liane Cochran-Stafira, Ph.D. Associate Professor Department of Biological Sciences Saint Xavier University 3700 West 103rd Street Chicago, Illinois 60655 phone: 773-298-3514 fax:773-298-3536 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://faculty.sxu.edu/~cochran/
