Re: [ECOLOG-L] Ecology Fact and Fiction Bee collapse
If you want bee info, a great person to get a hold of is Rusty. http://www.honeybeesuite.com/papers/ She's the director of the Native Bee Conservancy, as well as someone who keeps up on bee research. Another good resource is https://agdev.anr.udel.edu/maarec/category/ccd/ Frankly, time will tell if neonicotiniods are a major contributing factor to CCD or not, based on the European experiment. There is evidence to suggest that even quite low doses of some of these pesticides can reduce the foraging efficiency of some species of bee. For which see: Morandin, L. A., and M. L. Winston. 2003. Effects of Novel Pesticides on Bumble Bee (Hymenoptera: Apidae) Colony Health and Foraging Ability. Environmental Entomology 32:555-563. Mommaerts, V., S. Reynders, J. Boulet, L. Besard, G. Sterk, and G. Smagghe. 2010b. Risk assessment for side-effects of neonicotinoids against bumblebees with and without impairing foraging behavior. Ecotoxicology 19:207-215. -m On 06/12/2013 11:39 AM, Wayne Tyson wrote: I'd like some better-informed opinion and references to replicated research on this topic. I'd especially like well-informed comments on this article: http://www.nationofchange.org/worldwide-honey-bee-collapse-lesson-ecology-1371046688 WT
Re: [ECOLOG-L] ESA Position on Open Access
David, you're correct that many libraries have subscriptions to various journals, and are capable of getting an article via interlibrary loan. However, this is simply a case of passing the buck. Do you think publishers give free access to libraries and universities? They do not. The subscription fees that libraries pay are exceedingly steep, and as library budgets have been getting slashed, many have been cutting back substantially on their journal access, counting on others within the library system to maintain subscriptions. And, of course, every interlibrary loan request costs time, labor, and money to the communities involved. Surely it is more socially efficient to charge a few dollars for an article, and make it easily available to people, than it is to charge a large sum to a library, and then incur additional labor costs to shuttle a document around from place to place? The cost of distribution for the publishers is essentially nil, given that they already have invested in the sites in place to distribute their articles, whether they cost $50 or $2. Electrons are quite cheap. This is a simple case of an industry with substantial monopoly power engaging in rent seeking. A simple search on academic publisher profits would be extremely enlightening, I suspect. Here is a good place to start: http://www.economist.com/node/18744177 -m On 1/9/2012 9:51 AM, David L. McNeely wrote: Jane Shevtsovjane@gmail.com wrote: I just checked, and ESA charges nonsubscribers $20 for a single article published in the December 2011 issue of Ecology. How is that reasonable? And I'm no business maven, but isn't that far past the optimal price point in terms of revenue generation? I could see paying $2 or $3 for an article if I was an infrequent reader, but $20? There's a good blog post on what alternatives publishers might support at http://researchremix.wordpress.com/2012/01/07/what-should-the-publishers-lobby-for/ . Is it really so difficult to get a paper? I have never been unable to get a paper I wanted or needed, and I have never paid the high prices that publishers demand for instant access on the internet. Most of us live within 50 miles of a library. If the library does not subscribe to the journal in which the paper appears, interlibrary loan will get it for a reasonable cost. The real problem is the demand for instant gratification that we have developed. It is that that we are being asked to pay for. Should a paper cost $50? I really don't know what it costs the journal to produce the paper, what the demand is (well, for some papers the demand is virtually nothing), or what distribution costs. I do know that such services as BioOne have greatly improved the bottom lines of some scholarly organizations, which in the long run makes papers more available, not less. I guess in this one instance I am suggesting that free market is not so bad. If you really must have the paper the instant you locate it through the free search and free abstract mechanisms of the publishers, why then pay the asking price. Otherwise, use more traditional means of getting it. If publishers are getting the asking price, they will maintain it, or maybe ask a little more. If they are not getting it, they will back off. If you are so far back in the sticks that you don't have ready access to a library, investigate a bit. I'll bet some library serves you if you find out how. If you are living in a cabin off the traveled roads and off the grid, then you don't have internet access either, so your complaints about no open access are moot. David McNeely Jane Shevtsov On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 9:08 PM, M.S. Pattersontertiarym...@gmail.comwrote: Here's an additional opinion on the matter, and it is rather less charitable: http://phylogenomics.blogspot.**com/2012/01/yhgtbfkm-** ecological-society-of-america.**html?utm_source=feedburner** utm_medium=twitterutm_**campaign=Feed%3A+**TheTreeOfLife+%28The+Tree+of+* *Life%29http://phylogenomics.blogspot.com/2012/01/yhgtbfkm-ecological-society-of-america.html?utm_source=feedburnerutm_medium=twitterutm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheTreeOfLife+%28The+Tree+of+Life%29 http://phylogenomics.**blogspot.com/2012/01/yhgtbfkm-** ecological-society-of-america.**html?utm_source=feedburner** utm_medium=twitterutm_**campaign=Feed%3A+**TheTreeOfLife+%28The+Tree+of+* *Life%29http://phylogenomics.blogspot.com/2012/01/yhgtbfkm-ecological-society-of-america.html?utm_source=feedburnerutm_medium=twitterutm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheTreeOfLife+%28The+Tree+of+Life%29 The fact that ESA forces authors to cede the copyright to their work is offensive, IMO, even if they 'grant' the author reprint or reproduction rights. It also means that ESA could choose to rewrite their rules such that authors could lose rights to reprint or reproduce their own work. Academic publishers should be granted first printing rights, with the option to acquire additional rights at a
Re: [ECOLOG-L] ESA Position on Open Access
Here's an additional opinion on the matter, and it is rather less charitable: http://phylogenomics.blogspot.com/2012/01/yhgtbfkm-ecological-society-of-america.html?utm_source=feedburnerutm_medium=twitterutm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheTreeOfLife+%28The+Tree+of+Life%29 http://phylogenomics.blogspot.com/2012/01/yhgtbfkm-ecological-society-of-america.html?utm_source=feedburnerutm_medium=twitterutm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheTreeOfLife+%28The+Tree+of+Life%29 The fact that ESA forces authors to cede the copyright to their work is offensive, IMO, even if they 'grant' the author reprint or reproduction rights. It also means that ESA could choose to rewrite their rules such that authors could lose rights to reprint or reproduce their own work. Academic publishers should be granted first printing rights, with the option to acquire additional rights at a later date, as they desire. Nothing more. As it currently stands, ESA's policy is essentially treating research articles as work-made-for-hire, which is ludicrous, given that authors must pay page charges to print the work! In essence researchers are paying to have their work printed, while ceding all of their rights to the publisher in the process. Further, I don't think anyone is suggesting that ESA should be denied all subscription fees (or page fees), but simply that papers should become available publicly over time, and that any research funded by public monies should be available to the public sooner rather than later. Which is entirely reasonable, and more than likely beneficial to the public. -m On 1/5/2012 12:33 AM, Jane Shevtsov wrote: Fellow Ecologgers, Have people read ESA's response to a proposed requirement that the results of federally funded research be publicly available, possibly after an embargo period? It's available here. http://www.esa.org/pao/policyStatements/Letters/ESAResponsetoPublicAccessRFI2011.pdf I have to say I find this response somewhat disappointing. While some of the concerns raised in it are certainly valid, I believe it underestimates ecologists' desire to read an interesting new paper now rather than later. Also, kudos to ESA for allowing authors to freely post their papers online, something I relied on when I didn't have university journal access, but how is this financially different from open access? ESA's 2009 financial statement (the latest available online) may be of interest. http://www.esa.org/aboutesa/docs/FS2009.pdf Thoughts? Jane Shevtsov -- Matt Patterson MSES/MPA 2012 Indiana University School of Public and Environmental Affairs Center for the study of Institutions, Population and Environmental Change (CIPEC) Room 226A | 408 N Indiana Ave | Bloomington, IN 47408-3799 Environmentally Scientific Emblogulations http://env-sci-blog.blogspot.com
Re: [ECOLOG-L] growing oaks from acorns Tree development performance?
Hi there. While also not an expert, I would tend to agree with Wayne, below. Container grown trees are also likely to develop circling roots that can girdle the tree as it matures. This will not occur with a field grown tree. Here are a few papers on the matter of tree response to cultivation practices: http://www.treelink.org/joa/2001/jan/05_FACTORS_AFFECTING_ESTABLISHMENT_OF_LIVE_OAK_gilman.pdf http://www.hriresearch.org/docs/publications/JEH/JEH_1990/JEH_1990_8_4/JEH%208-4-220-227.pdf Planting an acorn (or a cluster of acorns) and then lightly mulching (no more than an inch or two) around the seedlings will in most cases give you a better, healthier tree. It will develop an undisturbed root system at the proper depth, will not have girdling roots, and if planted with material from near the parent will have a good chance of being inoculated with the proper fungi (which may be present at the site already). In your situation, I would gather a handful of acorns, litter and soil, and take them to the intended planting site in the fall. I'd then bury them a few centimeters deep. After the first year (or the second), I would cut or uproot the weaker saplings. Many oaks can be coppiced (meaning that the root system will produce new stems if well established), so it's advisable not to let them get too large before cutting them. If you do start the acorns in a container, the containers should be as large as possible, and the resultant trees planted as soon as possible. A healthy root system is extremely important for transplanted trees, as are proper planting practices. An excellent document on good tree planting practices is available here: http://www.ext.colostate.edu/mg/gardennotes/636.html Hope some of this was helpful! -matt On 9/17/2011 4:34 PM, Wayne Tyson wrote: Thanks to McNeely for his post, and to Anderson for posting a summary of his responses. In my email to Anderson (not included in his list), I (no expert either) mentioned that in my experience, field-planting of acorns worked far better, in terms of plant performance, than container-growing (I explained my technique in some detail) followed by field planting. I have observed that the very brittle root initial penetrates the soil rather quickly and quite deeply before branching, while branching occurs in containers almost upon contact of the root initial with the bottom of the container or the air. This seems to retard the rate of root penetration to the capillary fringe of whatever passes for a water table. I doubt that this is as much of a factor in sandy or other loose soils (alluvials) than in the firmer (clayey and/or rocky) soils with which I am more familiar. Am I again barking down the wrong root, so to speak, or not? Anybody have any references/links to real research or experience on this topic? WT PS: Following up on McNeely's comment about big mast years, when acorns are abundant they can be tossed in front of a walker, who then steps on the seed, almost perfectly pressing it into the soil surface. The survivorship curve is still steep with this method, but it does have the effect of producing randomness and feeds rather than deprives local wildlife. - Original Message - From: David L. McNeelymcnee...@cox.net To:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Saturday, September 17, 2011 6:41 AM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] growing oaks from acorns David, I am no expert on growing oaks from acorns. However, I have observed that most large oaks produce a great acorn crop. Multitudes of these, in a suitable environment, germinate and produce seedlings. Given that, if I were interested in growing oaks from acorns, I would gather large numbers of acorns, and attempt to propagate them under a range of conditions in both pots and greenhouse flats. Now, transplantation might be different. I would also contact native plant nurseries in the areas where I was interested in producing oaks. Most parts of the country have them. I know that Sunshine Nursery in Clinton, Oklahoma produces native oaks for transplantation to restoration projects, parks, and private properties. Steve Bierback, the owner mentioned to me on one occasion that he gathered litter and soil from under the parent tree when he gathered acorns, so that he would propagate the appropriate myccorhyzae with the seedlings. I have several post oaks and black jacks that I purchased as saplings from Sunshine Nursery on my property, so the owner's methods must work. These two native oaks, though abundant in the wild, have been claimed by some nurserymen to be impossible to propagate. Vines, Robert A., _Trees and Shrubs of the Southwest_, University of Texas Press, Austin, 1960, gives propagation directions for hundreds of native woody plants that grow in the southwestern U.S. Perhaps methods he gives for oaks could be adapted to your oaks, especially related ones to those he describes. Be sure to check
Re: [ECOLOG-L] growing oaks from acorns / Clarification of intent
All, Thanks for a bit more insight, Wayne. I suggested the planting strategy I did based on the wording of Dr. Anderson's original message, which seemed to suggest cultivating oaks for landscaping purposes, rather than for landscape restoration/afforestation. Perhaps so that citizens of Boise could plant descendants of these Heritage trees on their property? This could be my own bias, as I'm an urban forest kind of guy. This is also why I didn't mention transplanting field grown trees, as it incurs additional expense, need for labor, etc, if they are allowed to get to any appreciable size, not to mention requiring a property to grow them on before transplantation. Idaho apparently has no native oak species (the only state in the Lower 48 that does not!), so knowing the species of the trees in question would be useful. I'd recommend consulting the USDA plants site, and looking at the plant guide for the species in question as a starting point. These usually provide information for establishment of seedlings, stratification requirements and so on (they are somewhat erratic in quality, unfortunately). A search of the states surrounding Idaho yielded this list of oak species http://plants.usda.gov/java/stateSearch?searchTxt=QuercussearchType=ScinamestateSelect=US30stateSelect=US32stateSelect=US41stateSelect=US49stateSelect=US53stateSelect=US56searchOrder=1imageField.x=55imageField.y=0, though I am sure many other cold tolerant oaks would do fine in Boise, and have been planted there. Without knowing the exact intent of the OP, it's difficult to recommend a particular strategy over any other. If his intent is as I intuit, it might be very practical to simply gather a few acorns and a small plug of soil in the fall and place these in a plastic bag that can be given to any interested party with planting care instructions. -matt
