Re: [ECOLOG-L] Editorial on Not Saving Endangered Species
Here is the google-drive version of the Antonelli et al. letter to the editor in response to Pyron: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1VJuKuXDP62NQcBdIuIkCi-LqMyRbORv2 Cheers, Tom Thomas J. Givnish Henry Allan Gleason Professor of Botany University of Wisconsin-Madison givn...@wisc.edu From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news on behalf of Andrew Barton Sent: Monday, November 27, 2017 6:52 PM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Editorial on Not Saving Endangered Species The facts of Dr. Pyron's essay are beside the point. This is not so much a scientific argument as a values one. Here's what I wrote to the Washington Post in response to his essay. "This is a blunt anthropocentric value statement masquerading as a scientific essay. We don't need all the science surrounding these arguments. They are accurate enough. (I'm also an academic biologist, and I also teach these concepts and examples.) Dr. Pyron could have simply written: "Enough of worrying about other species. We humans won the evolutionary battle, other species have no value except as they contribute to our well-being, and so who cares whether the others go extinct. Long live humans." That viewpoint is abhorrent to me, and it has contributed mightily to the path that has led us to environmental destruction, threatening many species, including humans." On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 6:03 PM, Angela Demarse mailto:demar...@uwindsor.ca>> wrote: Thank you for sharing, Howard. This article embodies my (previously) closeted skepticism/nihilistic perspective about conservation of species. Despite that skepticism, when I think of all the diversity that's vanished, I feel an intense loss. I don't have enough research under my belt to dispute any of the facts in this article, but I'd love to know if anyone could present a strong argument (or further readings) for the benefits of protecting species diversity? Best wishes, Angela Demarse On Nov 27, 2017 5:37 PM, "Howard S. Neufeld" mailto:neufel...@appstate.edu>> wrote: All - This editorial, by Biology Professor R. Alexander Pyron, George Washington University, appeared in the Washington Post on November 22. The title is: "We Don't Need to Save Endangered Species. Extinction is Part of Evolution". I haven't seen any comments about this editorial on this listserve, but I can tell you that it will be a focus of discussion in my Honors class next semester. What do you all think about it? Click HERE<https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/we-dont-need-to-save-endangered-species-extinction-is-part-of-evolution/2017/11/21/57fc5658-cdb4-11e7-a1a3-0d1e45a6de3d_story.html?utm_term=.52c3dcfcad63> to access the editorial. Howie Neufeld -- Dr. Howard S. Neufeld, Professor Mailing Address: Department of Biology 572 Rivers St. Appalachian State University Boone, NC 28608 Tel: 828-262-2683; Fax 828-262-2127 Websites: Academic: http://biology.appstate.edu/faculty-staff/104 Personal: http://www.appstate.edu/~neufeldhs/index.html Fall Colors Academic: http://biology.appstate.edu/fall-colors Fall Colors Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/FallColorGuy -- Dr. Andrew Barton Professor of Biology University of Maine at Farmington 173 High Street, Preble Hall Farmington, ME 04938 bar...@maine.edu<mailto:bar...@maine.edu> Faculty Coordinator UMF Sustainable Campus Coalition sustainablecampus.umf.maine.edu<http://sustainablecampus.umf.maine.edu>
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Editorial on Not Saving Endangered Species
Dear Howard and others – Alexandre Antonelli has organized a letter to the WaPo editors protesting the appearance of this (ridiculous) piece, and explaining how it has gone off the tracks. I think there are at last 150 signators at this point, mostly from the systematics community. People interested might contact him. Cheers, Tom Thomas J. Givnish Henry Allan Gleason Professor of Botany University of Wisconsin-Madison givn...@wisc.edu From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news on behalf of Howard S. Neufeld Sent: Monday, November 27, 2017 1:35 PM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Editorial on Not Saving Endangered Species All - This editorial, by Biology Professor R. Alexander Pyron, George Washington University, appeared in the Washington Post on November 22. The title is: "We Don't Need to Save Endangered Species. Extinction is Part of Evolution". I haven't seen any comments about this editorial on this listserve, but I can tell you that it will be a focus of discussion in my Honors class next semester. What do you all think about it? Click HERE<https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/we-dont-need-to-save-endangered-species-extinction-is-part-of-evolution/2017/11/21/57fc5658-cdb4-11e7-a1a3-0d1e45a6de3d_story.html?utm_term=.52c3dcfcad63> to access the editorial. Howie Neufeld -- Dr. Howard S. Neufeld, Professor Mailing Address: Department of Biology 572 Rivers St. Appalachian State University Boone, NC 28608 Tel: 828-262-2683; Fax 828-262-2127 Websites: Academic: http://biology.appstate.edu/faculty-staff/104 Personal: http://www.appstate.edu/~neufeldhs/index.html Fall Colors Academic: http://biology.appstate.edu/fall-colors Fall Colors Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/FallColorGuy
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Angiosperm Phylogeny Group
Yes, for better and (in rare cases) for worse, APG is now the broadly acknowledged authority for the recognition of angiosperm orders and families. One can question the artistic judgement involved in some decisions (e.g., whether the odd Australian Dasypogonaceae should be lumped into the same order as palms), but for most systematic issues at the family and ordinal levels, APG has made a lot of very good calls and has worked - importantly - to stabilize nomenclature at those levels just when the avalanche of new molecular data is necessitating the greatest changes from traditional systems based ± entirely on morphology. Cheers, Tom Thomas J. Givnish Henry Allan Gleason Professor of Botany University of Wisconsin-Madison givn...@wisc.edu From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news on behalf of David Inouye Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2016 8:03 PM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Angiosperm Phylogeny Group Is the Angiosperm Phylogeny Group<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angiosperm_Phylogeny_Group> generally considered the authority on issues related to plant taxonomy? For example whether the Araceae are part of the Alismatales or the Arales? Or whether the genus Trillium is in Liliaceae or Melanthiaceae? I've often used plants.usda.gov for taxonomic issues, but see that they don't use some of the APG classifications. -- Dr. David W. Inouye Professor Emeritus Department of Biology University of Maryland College Park, MD 20742-4415 ino...@umd.edu<mailto:ino...@umd.edu> Principal Investigator Rocky Mountain Biological Laboratory PO Box 519 Crested Butte, CO 81224
[ECOLOG-L] MS/PhD position – General Ecology Course Coordinator, University of Wisconson-Madison // Deadline, December 18 , 2016
Please see the PVL below for a General Ecology Course Coordinator. This is a wonderful opportunity for a person with broad interests and training in ecology, and a desire to develop new pedagogical approaches, on a campus with an unequaled number of ecologists and evolutionary biologists on the faculty and staff. Cheers, Tom Thomas J. Givnish Henry Allan Gleason Professor of Botany University of Wisconsin-Madison givn...@wisc.edu University of Wisconsin - Madison Position Vacancy Listing PVL # 88413 Working Title: General Ecology Course Coordinator Official Title: FACULTY ASSOCIATE (D92DN) or ASSOC FACULTY ASSOC (D92FN) or ASST FACULTY ASSOC (D92LN) Degree and area of specialization: M.S. or Ph.D. in ecology, environmental science, organismal biology or related field. Minimum number of years and type of relevant work experience: - Experience with undergraduate instruction and pedagogy and dedication to maintaining quality undergraduate ecology education. -Excellent management, organizational, interpersonal, communication, and writing skills and the ability to be self-motivated. - Ability to use and update computer applications (word processing, database, spreadsheet, presentation programs), web technology (course websites, social media), and educational technology (Learn@UW, Canvas, in-class technology). - Strong quantitative, statistical and geospatial skills and ability to use associated software. - Enjoys working outdoors in all types of conditions and has knowledge of natural history and the ability to identify common local plants and animals. - Ability to conduct educational assessments and revise course objectives and goals. - Knowledge of and familiarity with campus academic resources recommended. Position Summary: Provide logistical support for Zoology/Botany/Forest and Wildlife Ecology 460 and teach one or more sets of lab and discussion sections (~20-25 students). Support lecture, laboratory and discussion sections, multiple faculty members, and teaching assistants for ~ 90-140 students each semester to promote a high standard of undergraduate education. Principal duties: Laboratory and discussion support (50%): - Develop, prepare, and revise laboratory exercises, laboratory manual, and discussion reader, in consultation with faculty instructor - Train and mentor teaching assistants to teach laboratory exercises, including at least one 2-3 hour meeting per week and additional informal meetings, teach laboratories as needed - Prepare materials for weekly laboratory exercises, maintain the lab and its equipment, and order supplies - Coordinate outdoor field activities, including gaining permissions and permits from land holders, and arranging travel - Manage use of computers for laboratory exercises including hardware and software updates, and creating, loading, and testing exercises - Create and execute lab exam and other types of evaluations as requested - Assist with planning and execution of discussion section materials as requested - Coordinate laboratory grading Teaching (20%): - Teach one laboratory section and one discussion section each semester as needed. Additional sections may be added depending upon course enrollment. - Conduct assessments of course content and instructional methods, which can be used to improve the teaching of subsequent lab and discussion sections during the same semester and into the future Course administration, logistics, and communication (15%): - Handle course administration including management of the course waiting list, budget, and student fees - Coordinate with professors (Botany, Zoology, and Forest and Wildlife Ecology) to plan course syllabus, schedules, laboratory exercises, and readings - Encourage communication among course instructors and semesters to promote equivalent learning experience, assess and improve pedagogical approaches, and conduct long-term planning for laboratory modernization and purchasing of computers, software, and equipment as needed - Create a positive learning environment for undergraduate learning, consult and communicate with undergraduates about course, mentor honors students as needed - Participate in final grade assignment including lecture and lab components - Other duties as assigned Lecture support (15%): - Attend and assist with in-class learning activities for all lectures, present one to three lectures per semester as requested, and participate in preparation and grading of lecture exams and assignments Additional Information - This position will be appointed at 70%. The appointment percentage may increase up to 100% depending on the level of course enrollment. - This is a highly demanding and independent position which requires schedule flexibility and some weekend and evening work. - This position is expected to begin the term ca. January 1 this year, and on August 1 each year to prepare for the fall
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Question for the Professionals
Dear Matt, What a crazy biology department you must have! Studying abroad, enrolling in a SFS program (or, better, helping conduct scientific research in a more formal setting, or taking an Organization for Tropical Studies course) is EXACTLY what you should be doing! Students without research experience in ecology will always have a hard time getting into top ecology departments. In my experience, environmental studies programs can weak in the hard sciences ... and you do need to know some physics and chemistry, certainly math (calculus, linear algebra, probability) and statistics (means and variances, t-tests, ANOVA, MANOVA, regression, multiple regression) and ... some real biology - get to know the ecology and systematics (and physiology) of at least one group very well, and it will serve as an inspiration and strength forever. Cheers, Tom Thomas J. Givnish Henry Allan Gleason Professor of Botany University of Wisconsin givn...@wisc.edu http://botany.wisc.edu/givnish/Givnish/Welcome.html On 04/07/15, Matt Smetana wrote: > Hey Everyone! > > My name is Matt Smetana, and I’m a current sophomore at Brandeis University > out near > Boston. I have been subscribed to this listserve for a few months and have > been > applying to various summer internships within the ecological/biological > field. I am certain > this is the career path I want to take but am unclear of the skill set > required to be > successful in this field. > > My current degree is Environmental Studies, but I am also highly interested > in Ecology, > Wildlife Biology, and Forestry. I am most drawn to internships and jobs > pertaining to the > biological field but enjoy my course work and have a real passion for the > environment. > My question is, can I become a successful ecologist or wildlife biologist > with a degree in > environmental studies or must I switch my major in order to obtain the > necessary skills > for the career that I want. > > My main concern with choosing biology is that it inhibits me from taking many > desired > courses, studying abroad at a School for Field Studies programs, > participating in > independent research opportunities, and possessing an internship this summer > (I would > need to enroll in Chemistry this summer). > > I will have already taken all of the requirements for the biology degree such > as the > introductory courses, biology lab, one semester of general chemistry and lab, > and all > required electives. But I have not finished general chemistry, organic > chemistry, or > physics. As ecologists, do you think it is more important to go for the > biology degree or > stay with environmental studies and gain experience through research, study > abroad, > and internships? > > Any input would be very helpful and could potentially change the course of my > future! > > Best, > Matt Smetana -- Thomas J. Givnish Henry Allan Gleason Professor of Botany University of Wisconsin givn...@wisc.edu http://botany.wisc.edu/givnish/Givnish/Welcome.html
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Some ideas for advancing grad education in the face of scarcity
To adapt a well-known aphorism, ALL ECOLOGY IS LOCAL. That is, the outcome of all ecological interactions – and thus, the abundance of individual species, the composition and structure of communities, and the nature of energy and nutrient flows in ecosystems – is context-dependent. Any theoretical ecologist worth her/his salt must recognize that fact. The idea that working on a particular set of organisms, or in a particular geographic area would be viewed as "provincial" is therefore deplorable. Theoretical generalities are either built from empirical findings in a wide variety of specific settings, or must be tested in such settings. But I must confess that – while recently working with a certain slumgullion editor at a journal well known to all of us, and while presenting evidence for the operation of an entirely novel ecological mechanism structuring Midwestern prairies – my student and I had this same ridiculous criticism hurled at us. And this despite the fact that my lab is viewed as innovating at the interface between theoretical and empirical ecology. So there is an attitude, lamentably, among at least some ecologists that support Kenneth Brown's experience. Such people deserve as much discomfort and illumination as we can provide them! Cheers, Tom Thomas J. Givnish Henry Allan Gleason Professor of Botany University of Wisconsin givn...@wisc.edu http://botany.wisc.edu/givnish/Givnish/Welcome.html On 08/26/14, Kenneth M Brown wrote: > A good point which brings up a larger question. I know colleagues who only > value basic ecological research and testing theory. Applied ecology and > working in a particular geographic area or on particular organisms is > considered provincial. Do we as professional ecologists need to rethink our > own hiring priorities as well as graduate education philosophy? > > ** > > Dr. Kenneth M. Brown > Emeritus Professor of Biological Sciences > Louisiana State University > Baton Rouge, Louisiana, 70803 > 225-578-1740 > kmbr...@lsu.edu > > ** > > > From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news > on behalf of Mitchell, Kendra > > Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 3:08 PM > To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Some ideas for advancing grad education in the face > of scarcity > > The idea that an academic position is "winning", that it is the only > worthwhile endeavour for scientists to undertake, is one of the biggest > problems in ecological education today. This is the reason that many PhD > students don't talk to advisers about non-academic careers; suggesting that > we don't want to follow in your footsteps moves us into the loser category. > Becoming an expert in an ecological field has many important applications > beyond training more experts. Only accepting students that say they want to > follow the academic track is not the way to advance ecological education, its > the continuation of the status quo and a good way to ensure that ecology is > seen as a vanity science rather than essential for managing our society and > world. > > > -- > Kendra Maas, Ph.D. > Post Doctoral Research Fellow > University of British Columbia > > > > From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news > [ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] on behalf of Ryan McEwan [the.ts...@gmail.com] > Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 5:00 AM > To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU > Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Some ideas for advancing grad education in the face of > scarcity > > As the semester kicks off, I wanted to share some thoughts I had over the > summer on graduate eduction: > --- > > August 25, 2014 > > > > Some ideas for advancing graduate education in ecology in a time of scarcity > The science of Ecology, like most scientific disciplines, is in the midst > of a crisis of sorts stemming from at least two underlying factors. First, > funding for science at a national level is stable or in decline, while the > number of labs that need funding to persist is rising sharply. Second, the > number of PhDs being granted is vastly outpacing the job market. According > to some analyses the percentage of newly granted PhDs that got a job as a > tenure track academic in the 1970s was nearly 50%, while that number today > is less than 10% > <http://www.ascb.org/ascbpost/index.php/compass-points/item/285-where-will-a-biology-phd-take-you> > . > In the face of this gloomy picture, action is required and I believe there > are some clear steps we can take. In my view, lobbying for more federal > money, tweaking how funds are distributed, working toward som
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Shade cloth artifacts
Jeff - Using shade cloth could result in two significant artifacts: (1) time of "canopy closure" and (2) inappropriate light quality at a given PPFD (photosynthetic photon flux density, µmol m-2 s-1 PAR). If you just leave the shade cloth up the entire time, you are excluding a very important amount of light from the understory, which doubtless would have significant impacts on Alliaria. Earlier "canopy closure" -> less Alliaria success, IMHO. So ... perhaps you should track canopy closure in nearby forests and determine which dates to "close" the canopy and then "reopen" it later in the year. As we showed in the Smokies, there can be a month's difference in leaf-out time among species, and – as predicted – shade-tolerant species on mesic sites tend to leaf early, while shade-intolerant species on drier/less fertile sites tend to leaf later. Denser canopies not only reduce PPFD, they shift the red:far red ratio, which can have important morphogenetic effects. For an experiment the size you are contemplating, I don't think there is any practical way to shift the R:FR ratio appropriately. I believe that the plastic film we used in our lobeliad study, manufactured by the Mitsui Corporation, is no longer available, alas. Cheers, Tom Thomas J. Givnish Henry Allan Gleason Professor of Botany University of Wisconsin givn...@wisc.edu http://botany.wisc.edu/givnish/Givnish/Welcome.html On 06/17/14, "Corbin, Jeffrey" wrote: > Hello Ecologgers - I am planning to conduct an experiment in which I > simulate several restoration strategies to control garlic mustard (Alliaria > petiolata) populations. I am leaning toward establishing new populations in > a meadow near my college's campus where I could more carefully control seed > input, etc. between plots. (The meadow is currently mowed, but mowing would > cease). I would erect a shading canopy with shade cloth over the plots to > more closely mimic the light environment that garlic mustard tends to > favor, and to also tamp down somewhat the meadow plants that would > ordinarily dominate such full-sun conditions. My hypotheses have to do with > comparing treatments that would all experience similar light levels, rather > than comparisons between light levels. > > My question: Does anyone have strong opinions about the artifacts of such a > shade cloth canopy? > > My thought is that the downsides of using shade cloth are offset by the > benefits of being able to create more of a "controlled laboratory" setup > than would be possible in a forested environment. I would be able to > control more variables (e.g. seed input, light levels) and therefore > isolate the particular variables (namely, my treatments) I am most > interested in. > > Obviously, though, if the artifacts of shade cloth are too great, then I > would not be able to apply my findings to the forested sites where such > questions would be meaningful. > > Thanks in advance for your thoughts. > > -Jeff > > -- > > > > Jeffrey D. Corbin > > Associate Professor > > Department of Biological Sciences > > Union College > > Schenectady, NY 12308 > > (518) 388-6097 > > http://jeffcorbin.org > > --
[ECOLOG-L] searching for Suzuki quote
Hi All, I'm trying to track down a recent quote by David Suzuki, on a video or audio clip, essentially to the effect that what we decide to do is the most important thing deciding our ecological future. Simple, and easily paraphrased, but I'd actually like to quote David to my class (and who knows, perhaps he even reads this blog!). Help! -- Thomas J. Givnish Henry Allan Gleason Professor of Botany University of Wisconsin givn...@wisc.edu http://botany.wisc.edu/givnish/Givnish/Welcome.html
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Recent PhDs on Food Stamps - Overwhelmed with Replies
to > > > > >> > consider the job market in their chosen disciplines. In so doing, > > > > >> they > > > > >> > make more informed decision and they study with eyes open wide on > > > the > > > > >> > possibilities open to them at the next stage in their life and > > > career > > > > >> > journey. Much easier said than done. It reminds me of two PhD > > > > >> markets > > > > >> in > > > > >> > recent years. One, where hundreds of applicants vied for the > > > reported > > > > >> 2 > > > > >> or > > > > >> > 3 job openings that year and second the hundreds of positions open > > > for > > > > >> the > > > > >> > 2 or 3 PhD candidates graduating each year. Hopefully we advise > > our > > > > >> > students of the job market realities. One place a student might > > > look > > > > >> for > > > > >> > this information can be found here. > > > > >> > http://www.bls.gov/ooh/occupation-finder.htm > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Hmmm . I was an academic biologist for 35+ years, after the > > time > > > > >> spent preparing. I cannot recall a time when there were "hundreds > > of > > > > >> positions open for 2 or 3 Ph.D. candidates graduating each year." I > > > do > > > > >> recall a good many times when the opposite was true. > > > > >> > > > > >> David McNeely > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > Pacific Cooperative Studies Unit > > > > > Botany > > > > > University of Hawaii > > > > > 3190 Maile Way > > > > > Honolulu Hawaii 96822 USA > > > > > 1-808-956-8218 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Christopher Blair, Ph.D. > > > Postdoctoral Associate > > > Department of Biology > > > Duke University, Box 90338 > > > BioSci 130 Science Drive > > > Durham, NC 27708 > > > ph: 919-613-8727 > > > christopher.bl...@duke.edu > > > <http://individual.utoronto.ca/chrisblair/index.html> > > > Website: https://sites.google.com/site/christopherblairphd/home > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Karen Weber > > 843-991-5768 > > > > "Go confidently in the direction of your dreams. Live the life you have > > imagined." > > -Henry David Thoreau > > > > > > -- > Malcolm L. McCallum > Department of Environmental Studies > University of Illinois at Springfield > > Managing Editor, > Herpetological Conservation and Biology > > "Nothing is more priceless and worthy of preservation than the rich array > of animal life with which our country has been blessed. It is a > many-faceted treasure, of value to scholars, scientists, and nature lovers > alike, and it forms a vital part of the heritage we all share as > Americans." > -President Richard Nixon upon signing the Endangered Species Act of 1973 > into law. > > "Peer pressure is designed to contain anyone with a sense of drive" - Allan > Nation > > 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! > > The Seven Blunders of the World (Mohandas Gandhi) > Wealth w/o work > Pleasure w/o conscience > Knowledge w/o character > Commerce w/o morality > Science w/o humanity > Worship w/o sacrifice > Politics w/o principle > > 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. -- Thomas J. Givnish Henry Allan Gleason Professor of Botany University of Wisconsin givn...@wisc.edu http://botany.wisc.edu/givnish/Givnish/Welcome.html
Re: [ECOLOG-L] new HR bill requires NSF funders to justify funding
Dear Leslie, Agreed on all points. But poor procedures can make the bad situation caused by flat budgets substantially worse. I very much hope that the report on the questionnaire doesn't wind up being a defense of a one-cycle-per-year format. Such a stance would, in my opinion, meet a widespread negative reaction from the DEB scientific community. Cheers, Tom Thomas J. Givnish Henry Allan Gleason Professor of Botany University of Wisconsin givn...@wisc.edu http://botany.wisc.edu/givnish/Givnish/Welcome.html On 11/20/13, "Rissler, Leslie" wrote: > A few quick things in regard to the comments below. > > 1. DEB did institute a Small Grants Program, see Program Solicitation NSF > 13-508 and NSF 14-503. Relevant wording: "Small Grants: The Division welcomes > proposals for Small Grants to the core programs via this solicitation. These > awards are intended to support full-fledged research projects that simply > require total budgets of $150,000 or less. Small Grant proposals follow the > same two-stage review process and will be assessed based on the same merit > review criteria as all other proposals to this solicitation." > > 2. NSF has nothing to do with the setting of Indirect Costs. > > 3. The formal survey that DEB sent to the ecological and evolutionary > communities on 17 April 2013 (to over 19,660 individuals) which assessed the > communities' satisfaction with aspects of the new proposal process in DEB and > IOS has been analyzed. We are in the process of writing that paper for > submission to Bioscience by the end of the year. > > 4. NSF does listen to the scientific community and tries very hard to do > what's best for science. Flat budgets and the subsequent sinking success > rates are the real problems. > > > ___ > Dr. Leslie J. Rissler > Associate Professor > Department of Biological Sciences > MHB Hall Room 307 > University of Alabama > Tuscaloosa, AL 35487 > > 205-348-4052 > riss...@as.ua.edu<mailto:riss...@as.ua.edu(javascript:main.compose()> > www.ljrissler.org > > > On Nov 20, 2013, at 10:34 AM, malcolm McCallum > mailto:malcolm.mccal...@herpconbio.org(javascript:main.compose()>> > wrote: > > -- > > WARNING: Your email security system has determined the message below may be a > potential threat. > > It may pose as a legitimate company proposing a risk-free transaction, but > requests money from the victim to complete a business deal. > > If you do not know the sender or cannot verify the integrity of the message, > please do not respond or click on links in the message. Depending on the > security settings, clickable URLs may have been modified to provide > additional security. > > -- > Suspicious threat disclaimer ends here > > I agree with you on most of this. Personally, I'ld like them to do > one thing differently than you suggest, use pre-proposals all the > time, but have two cycles. By doing this, it would allow the initial > screening to eliminate the huge pile of generally unfundable > submissions. The bad thing for the proposers though is that their > feedback would be much less extensive, so future success may be > reduced. Currently, or at least I heard that most people get rejected > on the first submission. but, the % success on resubmissions is much > higher. > > I think its pretty obvious that the biggest problem is manpower. > > David Hillis (UT-Austin) has for some time been promoting that it > would be more beneficial and productive for NSF (and other agencies) > to award more smaller grants than a few giant ones. Apparently, there > is research demonstrating that small grants actually give more bang > for the buck. Personally, i think this would be an interesting > approach, but i'm pretty convinced it would never happen. > > If NSF just abandoned funding indirect costs, that would make a huge > difference. And, frankly most indirect costs are real costs, but I'm > not sure that going above 10-20% negotiated rate is valid. Some > schools get substantially higher rates which simply eats up money > intended for research and dumps it in other areas. Even breaking up > indirect costs to eliminate the chaff might be seriously considered. > > > > On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 10:13 AM, Thomas J. Givnish > mailto:givn...@facstaff.wisc.edu(javascript:main.compose()>> > wrote: > Arguably, the changes DEB itself has installed in the NSF review process over > the past two years are also likely to damage the A
Re: [ECOLOG-L] new HR bill requires NSF funders to justify funding
Arguably, the changes DEB itself has installed in the NSF review process over the past two years are also likely to damage the American scientific enterprise. In order to relieve pressure on staff and reviewers, DEB has gone to a once-a-year cycle of pre-proposals, with at most two pre-proposals per investigator, and with ca. 30% of submissions allowed to go forward with full proposals. The once-per-year aspect is deadly, in my opinion and that of every senior ecologist and evolutionary biologist I've spoken with. The chances of going for more than two years without support – whether for justifiable cause, or a wacko review or two from a small pool of screeners – are quite substantial. No funding for two or three years = lab death for anyone pursuing high-cost research w/o a start-up or retention package in hand. Lab death can hit both junior and senior investigators; the forced movement to a once-a-year cycle means that the ability to respond quickly to useful reviewer comments and erroneous reviewer claims is halved. The role of random, wacko elements in the review process (and we all know very well those are there), is probably doubled. And the ability to pursue timely ecological research is substantially reduced by doubling the lags in the system. The full proposal for those who are invited effectively increases the proposal-writing workload for many of the best scientists. We have been saddled with a system that is sluggish, slow to adapt, more prone to stochastic factors, and more ensnarling of the top researchers in red tape. We can and must do better. My advice: Return to two review cycles per year, no pre-proposals, and make the full proposals just six pages long. Total review efforts will most likely be reduced over even the current experimental approach, and writing efforts by successful proposers will be greatly reduced. One incidental advantage: by reducing the amount of eye-glazing detail on experimental protocols – which we are not in any case bound to follow if we receive the award – we might reduce the core temptation to which (alas) many reviewers and panel members are prone, of playing gotcha with minor details of protocol while giving short shrift to the innovative or possibly transformational value of the studies being proposed. Thomas J. Givnish Henry Allan Gleason Professor of Botany University of Wisconsin givn...@wisc.edu http://botany.wisc.edu/givnish/Givnish/Welcome.html On 11/20/13, malcolm McCallum wrote: > That is false logic. > There have been numerous studies demonstrating the remarkable over-all > productivity of American scientists. However, that does not mean > that the system for funding is the reason. In fact, it is quite > possible, and i'ld argue very likely that these same individuals would > be remarkably more productive if not devotion time to grantsmanship. > A point I should also offer is that this is not coming from someone > who has difficulty with grantsmanship. heck, I was a proposal writer > for a major not-for-profit and managed their grants program during the > entire time. I'm just pointing out what is frank logic. you have a > trade-off with time you devote to professional activities. If you are > spending time doing data collection, then that same time cannot be > used for other things. Likewise, if you are using it to get proposals > prepared, you are not collecting, analyzing data or preparing > manuscripts aat the same time. You must divide your time among these > activities. I've long thought it would be wise for science > departmetns to hire a professional grantwriter who specializes in > science grants, particularly for non-research funding. A good > grantwriter is worth his/her weight in gold because he/she understands > the system. > > I don't think anyone does this though! :) > M > > On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 4:14 PM, wrote: > > Well, politics certainly interferes with the furtherance of science, as do > > the mechanics you describe. > > > > But, hmmm... . Do European institutions excel relative to the U.S. in > > scientific progress? Many of them do have funded institutions, with funded > > laboratories within them. > > > > David McNeely > > > > malcolm McCallum wrote: > >> Well, first they disbanded political science research, and now they > >> are trying to do the first steps to slowing science. The person at > >> NSF who approves funding must justify such. why? that way the > >> congress can go after that person, exert pressure on the scientific > >> process, and turn it into a political instead of a scientific process. > >> > >> http://news.sciencemag.org/education/2013/11/republican-plan-guide-nsf-programs-draws-darts-and-befuddlement-research-advocates > >>
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Merits of invasion science
t;> invasion science but as one reviewer pointed out "when invasions are driven > >> by us (ballast waters, trade, aquaculture, you > >>> name it) and overcome wide ecological barriers... well, I would be very > >>> careful in saying that there is no problem." > >>> > >>> Lisa > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Malcolm L. McCallum > >> Department of Environmental Studies > >> University of Illinois at Springfield > >> > >> Managing Editor, > >> Herpetological Conservation and Biology > >> > >> > >> > >> "Peer pressure is designed to contain anyone with a sense of drive" - > >> Allan Nation > >> > >> 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! > >> > >> The Seven Blunders of the World (Mohandas Gandhi) > >> Wealth w/o work > >> Pleasure w/o conscience > >> Knowledge w/o character > >> Commerce w/o morality > >> Science w/o humanity > >> Worship w/o sacrifice > >> Politics w/o principle > >> > >> 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. > >> -- Thomas J. Givnish Henry Allan Gleason Professor of Botany University of Wisconsin givn...@wisc.edu http://botany.wisc.edu/givnish/Givnish/Welcome.html
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Merits of invasion science
Miles – "ridiculously futile managerial adjustments"? "often make more of a mess by trying to set things straight"? "sentimental nostalgia"?? "nature will adjust, with or without us"??? Are you kidding us? Are you saying that, if a brown tree snake appears on the tarmac at Honolulu (it's happened several times already), we shouldn't do anything about it? Are you saying that you aren't willing to judge whether, say, the introduction of the emerald ash borer or the balsam wooly adelgid were or were not "good for the ecology"? Thomas J. Givnish Henry Allan Gleason Professor of Botany University of Wisconsin givn...@wisc.edu http://botany.wisc.edu/givnish/Givnish/Welcome.html On 10/29/13, Miles Medina wrote: > I don't think the question is whether invasives are a problem. The > criticisms the article raises are rather easily refuted. Sure, invasives > are a problem for industry or national security (i.e. our species), and if > we are generous perhaps for the integrity of some ecological system as we > understand it. But who is to judge what is "good for the ecology"? Or is it > more often just some sentimental nostalgia? My point is that whether we > claim the motivation to control invasives is selfless preservationism or > reduce it to economic loss or other self-interest, it is ultimately > anthropocentric, because our management actions rely on our own limited > data and understanding of ecology and are given direction by our own > limited judgments about what is best for some natural system. The truth is, > nature will adjust with or without us, and life will go on. Perhaps our > efforts would be better spent figuring out how to better conduct our > civilization than on making ridiculously futile managerial adjustments. The > real question to my mind is whether we should continue on such a path > knowing we so often make more of a mess by trying to set things straight. > Reading the authors' justification for invasive management reminded me of > Bush the administration rallying support for the Iraq war.. What we already > know is scary, so imagine how terrifying the uknown unknowns might be! When > will we learn to just leave things alone? > > Miles > On Oct 28, 2013 11:54 AM, "lisa jones" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A quick and interesting editorial piece from Richardson & Ricciardi > > "Misleading criticisms of invasion science: a field guide" in Diversity and > > Distributions (2013, 19: 1461-1467). > > > > A link to the article can be found here on the Canadian Aquatic Invasive > > Species Network (CAISN) website (listed near the bottom of the page): > > http://www.caisn.ca/en/publications > > > > I am sure there will be a response from those who see no value in invasion > > science but as one reviewer pointed out "when invasions are driven by us > > (ballast waters, trade, aquaculture, you > > name it) and overcome wide ecological barriers... well, I would be very > > careful in saying that there is no problem." > > > > Lisa > > > > > > > > > > --
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Human-assembled ecosystem
Even highly diverse, apparently sustainable agricultural systems – like the forest gardens of lowland Samoa – wind up displacing/destroying much biodiversity when human population densities are even moderately dense. Harking to an earlier thread: while invasive species can, in the short term, increase local species richness, in the long term the broad spread of a few weedy or commensal species can erode global biodiversity substantially, by driving many local species to extinction or nearly so. That's already happened on many tropical islands, and is in the process of happening many other places. Don Strong's pithy questions are the best response to the shallow account re Ascension Island that triggered this string. His questions are posted (ca. Aug 26) with the article. Thomas J. Givnish Henry Allan Gleason Professor of Botany University of Wisconsin givn...@wisc.edu http://botany.wisc.edu/givnish/Givnish/Welcome.html On 09/01/13, "frah...@yahoo.com" wrote: > Dear Wayne, > > Indeed, but there is a huge difference between a corn field and that forest > in Ascension Island, or a corn field and what the forest gardening movement > is trying to achieve. The further we move away from the high energy input, > low biodiversity, soil fertility destroying, water demanding, toxic waste > producing side to sustain us the better off we and the planet will be. > > And until we are not ready to go back to hunter and gatherer life style and > low population densities we are forced to occupy some land aimed to the > production of food and other commodities. In this context edible forests > assembled by humans seem something worth a trial as a step towards something > more sustainable. > > It doesn't matter if someone wants to call the high energy input, low > biodiversity, soil fertility destroying, water demanding, toxic waste > producing assemblage "an ecosystem". Call it what you wish but do something > to move away from it cause it won't sustain you for too long. There is really > no time to argue on definitions. > > Francesca > > > > > > From: Wayne Tyson > To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU > Sent: Sunday, September 1, 2013 4:52 PM > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Human-assembled ecosystem > > > Cultivation of plants and animals, by definition, replaces complex, > self-sustaining ecosystems with monocultures or "polycultures." > > WT > > - Original Message - > From: "frah...@yahoo.com" > To: > Sent: Sunday, September 01, 2013 3:11 AM > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Human-assembled ecosystem > > > Very interesting article and subject considering we are in a terrible > urgency to restore so much degraded land and to start producing food in a > more sustainable way. > It is not about advocating for replacing a native forest with a > human-assembled ecosystem of course, but starting replacing monoculture > agricultural fields, pastures, degraded abandoned lands with a forested > ecosystem assembled by humans with the purpose to provide food is probably > the future of our species and a step towards real sustainability. > Yes, unfortunately "applied projects" hardly are ever published but in the > world of permaculture, edible forest gardening and the alike people are > trying to create diverse self-maintaining forested ecosystems that provide > for human needs (food, fuel, fodder, fiber, timber) in a sustainable manner. > This approach might allow humans to contribute positively to life on this > planet rather than negatively as we have been historically accustomed to do. > Here a list of institutes I am aware of that research on and promote this > type of approach to agriculture and human sustenance: > > Temperate: > http://www.edibleforestgardens.com/about_gardening > http://www.apiosinstitute.org/ > http://www.agroforestry.co.uk/forgndg.html > Subtropical: > http://www.permaculturenews.org/about-permaculture-and-the-pri/ > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ca3SRjHfMX8 > > I hope to see the scientific community putting more effort in this type of > urgently needed research and projects. > > Francesca > > > > > > > > From: Richard Boyce > To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU > Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 5:01 PM > Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Human-assembled ecosystem > > > Here's a *very* interesting story on the human-assembled ecosystems of > Ascension Island in the tropical South Atlantic: > http://e360.yale.edu/feature/on_a_remote_island_lessons__in_how_ecosystems_function/2683/ > > I suspect that further research here may challenge our ideas regardin
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Percent shade methodology?
Dear Juan and others, Let's keep in mind that a substantial number of samples will be needed to characterize any site ... especially those under patchily open canopies, such as savannas. For a given site, I'd recommend a stratified random set of ca. 50 fisheye lens photographs (Nikon Coolpix has a high quality but surprisingly inexpensive fisheye lens extender, and ample electronic storage). Use a tripod; level the "film plane" (that is, the plane of the CCD, or the camera front) and orient the top of the camera dead north. Stratified random sampling is relative easy to accomplish, and is widely documented. The images will need to be normalized in Photoshop (write me for details if you need them) to correct for differences in exposure), and then you can use one of several free webware programs for analyzing the photos for % cover and estimated direct and indirect radiation (moles m-2 day PPFD). If you want, you can calibrate one of your data points as Jordan indicates. But if you want to datalog the dynamic light regime (say at 10 s intervals), then you should assemble a fleet of galium arsenide sensors (ca. 30-50 per plot) ... see Givnish, Montgomery, Goldstein 2004 or Lopez et al. 2008. Those sensors need to be calibrated against PAR sensors. OR you can invest in a fleet of HOBO sensors ... not so good sensors of photosynthetically active radiation, alas, but you don't need to fuss with cables and problems incident thereto (e.g., bears love certain kinds of insulation!). If you go the low-tech, densiometer route, remember that the measurement error per point will be somewhat greater, and that you still have to sample an adequate number of points per site (see Leach and Givnish 1999 for an implementation of the fisheye photograph approach for Midwestern savannas. Cheers, Tom Thomas J. Givnish Henry Allan Gleason Professor of Botany University of Wisconsin givn...@wisc.edu http://botany.wisc.edu/givnish/Givnish/Welcome.html On 08/09/13, Jordan Marshall wrote: > Juan > > Are you wanting shade as in percent cover or shade as in reduction in light > intensity/quality? If you want percent cover, I'd use a densiometer or canopy > image to calculate coverage of canopy. If using a camera to take images, it > would be recommended to use a fisheye lens. If you want light intensity, I've > used PAR sensors with data loggers. One sensor goes out in a field of full > sunlight and the other goes in the forest for sampling a points. The sensor > in full sun logs data at 100% open (i.e. 0% shade). Since light is variable > over a sampling period, you can then link the point samples from in the > forest to time stamps on the open sensor and calculate percent PAR values in > the forest. I typically do both cover and PAR measurements. > > Jordan > > > -- > Jordan M. Marshall, PhD > Assistant Professor > Department of Biology > Indiana University-Purdue University Fort Wayne > 2101 E. Coliseum Blvd. > Fort Wayne, IN 46805 > > Office (260) 481-6038 > Mobile (865) 919-9811 > Fax (260) 481-6087 > > www.jordanmarshall.com > > > >>> On 8/9/2013 at 12:00 AM, ECOLOG-L automatic digest system > > Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2013 10:28:11 -0400 > > From: Juan Alvez > > Subject: Percent shade methodology? > > > > Dear ECOLOG-L, > > > > I would like to know what are the best methods to determine different > > percent gradients of shade on forested lands (including savannas and > > grasslands). > > > > Thank you for your consideration! > > Juan > > > > > > > > -- > > Juan P. Alvez, PhD > > Pasture Program Technical Coordinator > > Center for Sustainable Agriculture, UVM Extension > > 23 Mansfield Avenue > > Burlington, VT 05401-5933 > > Phone: 802-656-6116 > > Fax: 802-656-8874 > > jal...@uvm.edu | www.uvm.edu/sustainableagriculture > > > > UVM Extension helps individuals and communities put research-based > > knowledge to work > > --
Re: [ECOLOG-L] plot sampling for density
that there is much room for observer error when determining whether canopies > >from large far off trees are overhanging the plot (because the observer has > >to be in the middle of the plot to hold the ranging pole in place). > > > >If we were measuring cover, then it would be immaterial whether a plant were > >rooted inside or outside of a plot, since canopy overtopping the plots would > >be the parameter of interest. Part of the confusion may be due to the > >terminology used in explaining the protocol. The protocol says that woody > >"stems" are to be recorded in the plot. To me, the term "stem" refers to the > >main stem (trunk for a tree) that directly attaches to the roots, but I > >think the term may have been misinterpreted to include branches and > >secondary branches of plants. > > > >My concern that the density data we collect will be a nightmare to > >interpret, and worse, will not measure what it is intended to measure. > >Unfortunately, in searching the web, searching papers, and even looking > >through plant ecology texts, I have not found any guidance concerning what > >plants should be counted in plot work (plants rooted outside vs. insides of > >plots). Is this because protocol writers assume that everyone knows how to > >do it? Could there be there a potential problem with density data in the > >peer-review and/or gray literature? How much of a problem could misapplied > >protocols be having on data collected by natural resource programs? Should > >the word "stem" be defined every time it is used in describing a protocol? > > > >Rick Rheinhardt > >ECU > > > > > >- > >No virus found in this message. > >Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > >Version: 10.0.1432 / Virus Database: 3184/5874 - Release Date: 06/01/13 > > -- > -- > David M. Lawrence | Home: (804) 559-9786 > 6467 Hanna Drive | Cell: (804) 305-5234 > Mechanicsville, VA 23111 | Email: d...@fuzzo.com > USA | http: http://fuzzo.com > -- > > "All drains lead to the ocean." -- Gill, Finding Nemo > > "We have met the enemy and he is us." -- Pogo > > "No trespassing > 4/17 of a haiku" -- Richard Brautigan -- Thomas J. Givnish Henry Allan Gleason Professor of Botany University of Wisconsin givn...@wisc.edu http://botany.wisc.edu/givnish/Givnish/Welcome.html
[ECOLOG-L] two suggestions re inundation by opinion pieces
Gentlepeople – I would like to offer two suggestions. First, we each restrict our commentary to topics about which we, as individuals, are experts. Second, each individual should restrict the number of commentaries offered per month to the number of times that individual's publications were cited during all of last year, according to ISI. Generally, ECOLOG-L is consulted by grad students and post-docs looking for jobs and informed advice about field techniques, analytical approaches, and job hunting. ECOLOG-L serves those purposes well. But when a few individuals repeatedly offer their opinions – which are frequently ill-informed – it clogs up thousands of email boxes across the country, spreads misinformation, and raises the hackles of people who know better and feel compelled to rebut the errors. My two proposals, if self-policed, would eliminate all these problems and insure that a larger share of the opinion traffic is solidly based. Everyone is entitled to free speech, but if in a given month your opinion comments exceed ALL of your field-wide citations from last year, perhaps it's time to think about whether large numbers of folks want to hear what you have to say, when you want to say it, as frequently as you would like to say it. Cheers, Tom Thomas J. Givnish Henry Allan Gleason Professor of Botany University of Wisconsin givn...@wisc.edu http://botany.wisc.edu/givnish/Givnish/Welcome.html
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Take the Train to ESA Minneapolis
Actually, folks, if you want to save energy, reduce your carbon footprint, and hold onto your simoleans by changing how you attend meetings, you need to think bigger. The most effective way to do all three of these things would be to convince ESA to offer the meeting in electronic form, so that you can tune into every talk or discussion on the schedule. Other upsides: (1) reduce the meeting to a much more manageable size for those who do choose to attend it physically; (2) reduce the number of concurrent sessions for both physical and electronic attendees; and (3) make a very public statement about how importantly ecologists view the issues associated with climate change. Downsides: (1) especially for young professionals, it might have a negative impact on making personal contacts, especially those that might lead to jobs; (2) reduce the registration stream of bucks for ESA; and (3) impose the need for hosting a major net broadcast on ESA. I think some creative work allowing for extended discussions or job-related interviews might be designed to mitigate the first and most important of these downsides. None of this, of course, will change the Minneapolis meeting. But if you change future meetings, you will have a far larger impact in the long term. Thomas J. Givnish Henry Allan Gleason Professor of Botany University of Wisconsin-Madison givn...@wisc.edu http://botany.wisc.edu/givnish/Givnish/Welcome.html
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Arguments for Native Plants
One of the most important arguments for using native plants is that the alternative – using exotic species – runs the considerable risk of introducing taxa that become invasive and displace native species, by virtue of the exotics having left their pathogens, predators, and other natural enemies behind. There is strong evidence for this hypothesis from a number of studies. Sincerely yours, Thomas J. Givnish Henry Allan Gleason Professor of Botany University of Wisconsin-Madison
Re: [ECOLOG-L] A response to E.O. Wilson's opinion about math
st, there exists a > discipline for which his or her level of mathematical competence is > enough to achieve excellence." > > I have a feeling that a lot of people jumped to a conclusion before > finishing reading the article, because nowhere does he say math is not > necessary. He just says that if you need math, you must either attain > the skills yourself, or find someone else who has the skills and can > work with you. > > This is actually not only good and encouraging advice (because so many > of us learn math late in life), it is also spot on accurate with how > we do much science today. > > On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 8:22 PM, David Inouye wrote: > > Don't Listen to E.O. Wilson > > > > > > > > > > Math can help you in almost any career. There's no reason to fear it. > > > > <http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2013/04/e_o_wilson_is_wrong_about_math_and_science.html>http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2013/04/e_o_wilson_is_wrong_about_math_and_science.html > > > > -- > Malcolm L. McCallum > Department of Molecular Biology and Biochemistry > School of Biological Sciences > University of Missouri at Kansas City > > Managing Editor, > Herpetological Conservation and Biology > > "Peer pressure is designed to contain anyone with a sense of drive" - > Allan Nation > > 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! > > The Seven Blunders of the World (Mohandas Gandhi) > Wealth w/o work > Pleasure w/o conscience > Knowledge w/o character > Commerce w/o morality > Science w/o humanity > Worship w/o sacrifice > Politics w/o principle > > 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. -- Thomas J. Givnish Henry Allan Gleason Professor of Botany University of Wisconsin givn...@wisc.edu http://botany.wisc.edu/givnish/Givnish/Welcome.html
Re: [ECOLOG-L] A response to E.O. Wilson's opinion about math
I heartily agree. Easy for EO to say math isn't important; he doesn't mention his collaboration with the mathematically inclined Robert Macarthur, leading to the theory of island biogeography. And the problems with Wilson's foray into group selection theory are testimony to the kinds of problems people without strong math skills can get into, especially if they're seduced by mathematicians without a solid ecological/evolutionary grounding. Yes, it might be true that most mathematicians lack strong ecological intuition. But so do many ecologists! There is a substantial list of people we could cite who have made major contributions to ecology and evolutionary biology in no small part because they do have a strong mathematical background. Why aren't they mentioned? Or don't they exist, in Wilson's worldview? In Wilson's case, math was not his strong suit; arguably, writing was. So should we advise students NOT to enter ecology if their writing isn't up to Pulitzer caliber? I hope not. People can bring a variety of skills to bear to make a contribution in almost any field. Writing off mathematical ability, as Wilson does, doesn't help, and trivializes the profound insights that mathematically savvy, ecologically well-grounded scientists have provided. And it reinforces the delusion that many people "aren't good at math", when in fact they didn't have a good set of math teachers, or took the math at the wrong stage of their development. Thomas J. Givnish Henry Allan Gleason Professor of Botany University of Wisconsin givn...@wisc.edu http://botany.wisc.edu/givnish/Givnish/Welcome.html On 04/09/13, Mitch Cruzan wrote: > I couldn't agree more - it can only help. > > On 4/9/2013 6:22 PM, David Inouye wrote: > >Don't Listen to E.O. Wilson > > > > > > > > > >Math can help you in almost any career. There's no reason to fear it. > > > ><http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2013/04/e_o_wilson_is_wrong_about_math_and_science.html>http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2013/04/e_o_wilson_is_wrong_about_math_and_science.html --
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Livestock practice and ethics
The classic work by Muir and colleagues – in which group selection was used to increase population rate of egg production by caged chickens while reducing aggressive interactions to the point where beak trimming was no longer needed – was, I believe, instituted in a university agricultural program, and at least partly designed to increase the humaneness of production conditions. Thomas J. Givnish Henry Allan Gleason Professor of Botany University of Wisconsin givn...@wisc.edu http://botany.wisc.edu/givnish/Givnish/Welcome.html On 03/27/13, "Ganter, Philip" wrote: > Ecologgers: > > Two items caught my attention today. One was a NPR interview program on the > recent internet buzz over the Chinese government's supposed eugenics program > (specifically, plans to breed for increased intelligence). The other was a > story read on the Atlantic website: > http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/03/how-state-ag-gag-laws-could-stop-animal-cruelty-whistleblowers/273962/ > > concerning legislative efforts to gag those who would inform the public about > currently common livestock practices. What tied the two together for me were > these two interlinked questions: > > How many of the problematic production techniques (mass rearing facilities, > hormone manipulation, beak trimming, etc.) referred to in the Atlantic > article were developed in university agronomy facilities and to what degree > are research agronomists ethically responsible for the effect that the > techniques they develop do not violate the animal welfare standards we must > apply to research animals? > > Is there a connection here? Do research animals deserve better welfare than > farm animals? If so, why so? The answer can't be that farm animals are > destined for the slaughterhouse in any case. Many research animals are > "sacrificed". > > I ask these questions in a sincere desire for both information and others > thoughts. I don't know who develops these techniques or how schools of > agriculture treat the ethical question and would love to hear from someone > who does. > > Why on ecolog? I am an ecologist and know that, before the rise of ecology > departments, the connection between agriculture and ecology was much closer > than today. Even though many ecologists are found at schools with no > agriculture, I still feel connected and perhaps other ecologists do as well. > The circle will be completed. It's already happening (think of the LME > movement in Fishery Science). > > In any case, I was disturbed by the thought that university research may be > behind common livestock practices that are so abhorrent to the public that > the agriculture industry seeks to deprive the public of its right to know > about them. Are we complicit? > > Phil Ganter > Dept. of Biological Sciences > Tennessee State University > (a 1890 Land Grant HBCU) --
Re: [ECOLOG-L] ECOLOGY Research design Re: [ECOLOG-L] need help
Might also want to think about Rosenzweig's famous plot of ecosystem productivity against potential evapotranspiration. With all due respect, Wayne, that finding wasn't next to worthless either. By the way, our study of tree height is NOT in Wisconsin, and it covers nearly the entire range of angiosperm tree heights found on Earth. Thomas J. Givnish Henry Allan Gleason Professor of Botany University of Wisconsin givn...@wisc.edu http://botany.wisc.edu/givnish/Givnish/Welcome.html On 03/08/13, Wayne Tyson wrote: > Thanks to Givnish for pointing this out. > > I said NEXT to worthless, not ENTIRELY worthless. I don't doubt that in some > contexts that include huge transects across fairly homogenous conditions > (like Wisconsin?), unlike fairly heterogeneous environments common in the > western US, depending upon which two variables produce such results. In the > absence of knowing what those two variables are, however, I can't comment > further, but until then I will take Givnish's word for it--in his case. > > But given the context of "most contemporary studies," I wonder what the > evidence is for all or most of those studies? Also, given contemporary and > past studies (in each of those cases), how many of those studies actually > proved anything, and what did they prove? How many didn't prove much of > anything? > > How broadly can methodologies be applied without taking differences not > considered by the investigators (e.g., topography, aspect, geology, soils, > microclimates, and other possibly relevant variables) be applied without > considerable modification? > > The problem with means is what they mean. > > "The more you generalize about a population, the less you know about any > individual in that population." --Henry Geiger > > Especially in heterogeneous environments, the chances of randomly sampling an > outlier organism are great, as are the chances of getting skewed results. But > I grant you, that ain't all bad--depending upon what one is trying to prove. > > WT > > - Original Message - From: "Thomas J. Givnish" > > To: > Sent: Friday, March 08, 2013 10:05 AM > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] need help > > > While in general I concur with Wayne's view that "all kinds" of site > variables can affect tree height and dbh - most meaningfully, asymptotic tree > height - I disagree with the flip statement that "mean annual anything as > independent variables are next to worthless". My colleagues and I have a > paper we are about to submit that predicts max tree height from two "mean > anything" environmental variables over a 600-km transect with an r2 = 0.88. > That is NOT "next to worthless". > > Thomas J. Givnish > Henry Allan Gleason Professor of Botany > University of Wisconsin > > givn...@wisc.edu > http://botany.wisc.edu/givnish/Givnish/Welcome.html > > > > > On 03/08/13, Wayne Tyson wrote: > >Dev (and Ecolog): > > > >Climate is highly variable from place-to-place, even in the "same" location, > >and "all kinds" of site variables can affect tree height and dbh (not to > >mention age). Mean annual anything as independent variables are next to > >worthless (or worse, misleading) unless you have years, decades, to devote > >to the project (and even then they are very questionable), largely because > >such variable can vary too much from year to year. DBH is a very crude > >measure, and cores are also crude (except for the single tree being cored). > > > >I must be missing something if this is the way "most contemporary studies" > >are done. I hope someone can point out the errors of my thinking. > > > >WT > > > >- Original Message - From: "D Chakraborty" > >To: > >Sent: Friday, March 08, 2013 5:51 AM > >Subject: [ECOLOG-L] need help > > > > > >Dear Colleagues > >I am working on developing growth response functions to investigate the > >effects of climate on growth performance of Douglas fir provenances. Most > >of the contemporary studies use multivariate models with tree height at > >specific age as dependent variable and climate parameters(eg. Mean annual > >temperature, degree days , Annual heat mositure index etc) as independent > >variable. > > > >We all know that tree height is least influenced by management and > >therefore its most logical to use tree height as the dependent variable. > >However in my case I have very little tree height data. > > > >In this circumstance I am looking for your valua
Re: [ECOLOG-L] need help
While in general I concur with Wayne's view that "all kinds" of site variables can affect tree height and dbh - most meaningfully, asymptotic tree height - I disagree with the flip statement that "mean annual anything as independent variables are next to worthless". My colleagues and I have a paper we are about to submit that predicts max tree height from two "mean anything" environmental variables over a 600-km transect with an r2 = 0.88. That is NOT "next to worthless". Thomas J. Givnish Henry Allan Gleason Professor of Botany University of Wisconsin givn...@wisc.edu http://botany.wisc.edu/givnish/Givnish/Welcome.html On 03/08/13, Wayne Tyson wrote: > Dev (and Ecolog): > > Climate is highly variable from place-to-place, even in the "same" location, > and "all kinds" of site variables can affect tree height and dbh (not to > mention age). Mean annual anything as independent variables are next to > worthless (or worse, misleading) unless you have years, decades, to devote to > the project (and even then they are very questionable), largely because such > variable can vary too much from year to year. DBH is a very crude measure, > and cores are also crude (except for the single tree being cored). > > I must be missing something if this is the way "most contemporary studies" > are done. I hope someone can point out the errors of my thinking. > > WT > > - Original Message - From: "D Chakraborty" > To: > Sent: Friday, March 08, 2013 5:51 AM > Subject: [ECOLOG-L] need help > > > Dear Colleagues > I am working on developing growth response functions to investigate the > effects of climate on growth performance of Douglas fir provenances. Most > of the contemporary studies use multivariate models with tree height at > specific age as dependent variable and climate parameters(eg. Mean annual > temperature, degree days , Annual heat mositure index etc) as independent > variable. > > We all know that tree height is least influenced by management and > therefore its most logical to use tree height as the dependent variable. > However in my case I have very little tree height data. > > In this circumstance I am looking for your valuable opinion that can > justify the use of DBH as a dependent variable. > > Looking forward to hearing from you. > best regards > Dev > > > > -- > Debojyoti Chakraborty > Wissenschaftlicher Mitarbeiter > Department of forest and soil sciences, Universität für Bodenkultur Wien > Ph: Vienna +43 6764871296 (m) > > Lecturer, Amity Institute of Global Warming and Ecological Studies > Amity University campus, Block D, II floor,Sector 125, NOIDA > India www.amity.edu/aigwes > India +919868001750 (M India), 01204392562 (O) 0120-4392606 (Fax) > alternate email id: dchakrabo...@amity.edu, dev_...@rediffmail.com > skype: d-chakraborty > > > - > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 10.0.1430 / Virus Database: 2641/5656 - Release Date: 03/08/13 --
Re: [ECOLOG-L] summary of evolutionary videos
A great set of videos on a variety of evolutionary topics – often aimed at debunking evolution deniers – is posted on YouTube by cdk007. Cheers, Tom Thomas J. Givnish Henry Allan Gleason Professor of Botany University of Wisconsin givn...@wisc.edu http://botany.wisc.edu/givnish/Givnish/Welcome.html
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Tree stump removal in sensitive area
Thanks, Nirmalya! For comparison, tree failures cause about half as many deaths in the US as lightning in any or all contexts. Very sad if it happens to you or someone you know, but not worth a whole lot of worry. -- Thomas J. Givnish Henry Allan Gleason Professor of Botany University of Wisconsin givn...@wisc.edu http://botany.wisc.edu/givnish/Givnish/Welcome.html On 01/20/13, Nirmalya Chatterjee wrote: > Sorry to contradict you here Wayne, but your argument is anecdotal and > seems to be as straw-manly as GWPatton's - people who work in the Forest > Service are likely to get injured by trees, (lethally or otherwise) from > falling branches, trees etc. - there's a term for that - occupational > hazard. That doesn't necessarily mean that the general populace has the > same odds of facing such an injury. > > 2010 CDC data indicate 4.88% accidental deaths (at #5 reason), and ~80% of > those were due to poisoning, accidental falling and motor vehicle related, > that pushes other reasons to sub-1% levels. Wind related tree failures > caused 31 deaths/year from 1995-2007. > http://www.bama.ua.edu/~jcsenkbeil/gy4570/schmidlin%20tree%20fatalities.pdf. > > That's 407 people in 12 years, don't blame the trees here. Blame human > carelessness, thoughtlessness and Nature's unmitigated fury (the last > cannot be controlled). Trees would be the means here, not the cause. My > point being, yes there are some activities which cause people to be injured > - but this always begs the question of what the odds are. As for the > irrational fear of urban people to dying from tree-related as related by > GWPatton - in my anecdotal experience, yes such fears exist. And trees are > easy to pin the blame on, they aren't vocal about it, and with urban areas > heavily paved and a whole gamut of underground disturbances related to > utility lines etc., it is expected trees don't really find the unfettered > access to the soil to stabilize themselves as evolution and Nature > intended. The solution lies in learning to think more holistically instead > of knee-jerk reactions, which many tend to do. > > And talking to "victims" of tree-fall injuries or their family members to > get your ideas about its dangers is not proper science, neither is hearing > anecdotes from of the likes of you, both would be called biased sources. I > am yet to hear families and victims of auto accidents stopping riding or > driving cars (in significant numbers), post-accident. Or people stopping > use of household poisons because some one they knew mistakenly drank rat > poison. As scientists it behooves us to keep emotion out of science. > > NC > > On 19 January 2013 23:11, Wayne Tyson wrote: > > > Ecolog: > > > > I know I won't convince "Me" that while public safety concerns about > > falling trees (and dropping branches) might sometimes be exaggerated, the > > truth is that trees do fall and break and people die from it, and it is > > only prudent to get the dangerous ones down before they fall down. "Me's" > > point is also irrational, on this basis, and using straw-man arguments does > > not advance the issue, it only adds an emotional component. He knows damned > > well I did not imply that every tree that falls is going to kill someone; > > thankfully, even in heavily-used areas such deaths are somewhat rare, but > > that does not mean that dangerous trees should not be removed. Talk to the > > families of the victims and tell them you stopped the tree that killed > > their loved one from being removed. In my area, a public protest prevented > > a severely leaning large tree that showed clear signs of root failure > > opposite the direction of the lean from being removed. Those people should > > have to face the families of the victims, but "God" will be blamed, as > > usual. What poppycock! > > > > WT > > > > PS: I have lost one friend to a falling tree, almost another, and several > > people have been killed over the years in my community by falling trees and > > branches. While running a tree survey strip when I was in the Forest > > Service, I was narrowly missed by a big widowmaker, and I saw a logger's > > body being carried out with his flattened hard hat where his head used to > > be. A widowmaker. That's how frequently falling branches kill people in the > > forest--there's even been a name for them for years. > > > > - Original Message - From: "Me" > > To: "Wayne Tyson" > > Cc: > > Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2013 8:20 PM > > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Tree stump removal in sensi
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Community level effects of habitat fragmentation
Start by looking up the seminal paper by Ellen Damschen and her colleagues, based on experimental work in the southeast (Savannah River lab). Thomas J. Givnish Henry Allan Gleason Professor of Botany University of Wisconsin givn...@wisc.edu http://botany.wisc.edu/givnish/Givnish/Welcome.html On 11/30/12, "David N. M. Mbora" wrote: > Dear Friends, > I am looking for compelling papers on the community level > effects of habitat fragmentation. I am > especially interested in papers that focus on species interactions and > ecosystem functioning. > > I thank you in advance for your suggestions. > > Sincerely, > > David --
Re: [ECOLOG-L] "The Audacity of Graduate School" -Knowledge of Today Documentary - buyers market
Wow. To extrapolate from your bad experiences to say that NO (state) universities or K-12 schools should receive greater funding than they do now doesn't seem justified. You haven't proven the magnitude of the supposed problems you see, or outlined a workable alternative educational and research system to meet our societal needs. A generation of students will suffer. And you are locking yourself out of potentially beneficial collaborations with academics by viewing all/most of them as corrupt. Cheers, Tom On 10/21/12, "Aaron T. Dossey" wrote: > > The egregious behavior I have witnessed a large fraction of the time in my > relatively short career, almost exclusively by faculty - nepotism, spousal > hires, intellectual property theft (institutionalized and informal), > laziness, student abuse, postdoc abuse, technician abuse, data falsification, > HIPPA violations, safety violations, students injured in unsafe labs, > exploited students and postdocs, gatekeeper mentality (especially when it > comes to careers and grant eligibility), elitism, antiquated institutional > policy (such as but certainly not limited to: inability to collaborate with > the private sector), ... and tenure on TOP of all that, making it impossible > to weed out the "bad seeds", thus making it impossible to prove that all this > is just by a FEW "bad seeds" (leave a bad apple in the bucket, you know what > happens)... all of this suggests that ignoring realities and the rigidness > and rejection of change and reform does the ivory tower, education, research, > outreach, innovation, etc. NO favors. It behooves no one (except possibly > rightwing libertarians who would seek to replace our entire system with a > monarchy, even if that be the unintended consequence of their pursuit of > anarchy) to put their head in the sand and pretend that the current system is > "just fine, needs no reforms, isn't hurting anyone, just needs more money, > needs no reform, etc.". > > I, for one, can not see increasing the budget for the current system - eg: > throwing more money at universities with the current sets of policies. I'd > like to see half of the entire federal research budget go toward more SBIR > grants AND grants for which only non-faculty are eligible - AND the entire > federal grant system be conducted with short anonymous applications - among > many other reforms (again - ending spousal hires and tenure among them). I > have a much longer list, and literature to support it, if you are interested. > ;) > > Now I am going to irk the other half of the list and say I better get to bed > lest I be late for church in the morning. > > Cheers! > ATD > > > On 10/21/2012 12:47 AM, Thomas J. Givnish wrote: > >What is not a sane development, of course, is the declining share of the > >budget that states are choosing to invest in education at all levels. > > > -- > Aaron T. Dossey, Ph.D. > Biochemistry and Molecular Biology > Founder/Owner: All Things Bugs > Capitalizing on Low-Crawling Fruit from Insect-Based Innovation > http://allthingsbugs.com/about/people/ > http://www.facebook.com/Allthingsbugs > 1-352-281-3643 -- Thomas J. Givnish Henry Allan Gleason Professor of Botany University of Wisconsin givn...@wisc.edu http://botany.wisc.edu/givnish/Givnish/Welcome.html
Re: [ECOLOG-L] "The Audacity of Graduate School" -Knowledge of Today Documentary - buyers market
My experience isn't the same as yours. Departments are often quite happy to get rid of someone with delusions of grandeur. At my own institution, the reality is that state funding isn't going anywhere but south, and so each department will soon have to pay a financial price or opportunity cost for any retention package offered over the next several years. This development is going to have a lot of adverse effects, but it will deliver the feedback needed to keep initial and retention offers rational. To that extent, it is a sane development. What is not a sane development, of course, is the declining share of the budget that states are choosing to invest in education at all levels. Leaving personal careers completely out of the picture, I would say that this is a slo-mo tsunami of a national tragedy and the beginning of the end for the US economic and political system. We have rules in place to avoid nepotism, as I'd mentioned. I wish it were the case that who you know were less important in determining who gets jobs, and when I serve on searches, I demand that decisions all be merit-based. But I don't think we'll ever get to a situation where politics, friendships, and the like don't have an effect. Disagree strongly with your view that tenure be discarded. Though, Lord knows, I can think of a few cases where departments or universities would have greatly benefitted from being able to dismiss a few miscreants. Cheers, Tom On 10/20/12, "Aaron T. Dossey" wrote: > > EXACTLY! So, why is it that in EVERY case I am aware of (several) where a > faculty member or applicant has threatened to leave (or not come there) if > the institution/department doesn't: hire their spouse with a full tenure > track position of their own OR give them twice as much lab space and > resources OR give them twice as many students or postechs/postemps OR some > combination of those, among other demands. why is it that in all of the > cases I have heard about, the institution caves to the demands and often > gives MORE than was asked so easily? > > If I were a search or department chair and someone came to me and threatened > to quit, or an applicant were to make such demands of resources and that I > violate my ethical standards (ie: enable nepotism) ESPECIALLY (but not > limited to) in THIS pathetic career environment for Ph.D. scientists... I > would laugh in their face and fire/reject them before they got back to their > hotel room - even though that's where I would send them immediately. There > are literally HUNDREDS of fantastically qualified applicants (of course > without considering who they are related or married to, play golf with, etc.) > out there for nearly every faculty position - those filled, those advertised > and the MANY that with faux advertisements - and any can be replaced with > probably much better results than the department is getting currently. > > It's probably also time that tenure be done away with as well. > > > > On 10/21/2012 12:02 AM, Thomas J. Givnish wrote: > >For most applicants for faculty jobs, it's a buyers' market, with the > >institutions having a bit of an upper hand. > > > -- > Aaron T. Dossey, Ph.D. > Biochemistry and Molecular Biology > Founder/Owner: All Things Bugs > Capitalizing on Low-Crawling Fruit from Insect-Based Innovation > http://allthingsbugs.com/about/people/ > http://www.facebook.com/Allthingsbugs > 1-352-281-3643 -- Thomas J. Givnish Henry Allan Gleason Professor of Botany University of Wisconsin givn...@wisc.edu http://botany.wisc.edu/givnish/Givnish/Welcome.html
Re: [ECOLOG-L] "The Audacity of Graduate School" -Knowledge of Today Documentary
Aaron, you seem to have a whole lot on your mind re this topic! Clearly, for a spousal hire to take place, one of the spice had to have many of the properties to which I alluded, and it's really unlikely that the other would be hired unless he/she also had such abilities and achievements as well, although in less superlative supplies. Not all spousal hires are what they seem. Sometimes universities get a great deal by offering one position (plus two sets of benefits) to two people. For most applicants for faculty jobs, it's a buyers' market, with the institutions having a bit of an upper hand. But it's a sellers' market for the top people, and spousal hires are a major inducement used to recruit the top folks. The cost of recruiting a sub-par faculty member who winds up not getting tenure – in terms of start-up and renovation costs, direct and indirect research costs foregone, students and post-docs foregone, and negative impact on a department's reputation nationally and internationally, to say nothing of the life-long adverse (often, hugely adverse) impacts on the faculty member him/herself – are simply too great for departments not to try their damnedest to recruit the person(s) they see having the greatest potential. At least in the cases with which I'm familiar, spousal hires at the tenure-track level are hardly automatic, and alternative appointments of a spouse as a research assistant or senior scientist or academic staff are the most likely development if the spouse really isn't up to tenure-track standards at the institution in question. Such appointments are almost always put on the leadership of a non-spouse, to avoid problems of nepotism (or even worse problems if a divorce occurs). And spousal hires at the faculty level often (but not always) are made in other departments, for many of the same reasons. I believe that an increased emphasis on spousal hires in academics is a humane development. It's one of the very few ways that academic jobs have become less daunting over the past twenty years. I don't have data, but I suspect faculty-faculty marriages split much more frequently 30 years ago, when spousal hires were rare, than they do today. That's a good thing (a very good thing) for faculty and especially for their children. Cheers, Tom Thomas J. Givnish Henry Allan Gleason Professor of Botany University of Wisconsin givn...@wisc.edu http://botany.wisc.edu/givnish/Givnish/Welcome.html On 10/20/12, "Aaron T. Dossey" wrote: > > How do you explain the very high number of spousal hires? > > > On 10/18/2012 10:03 PM, Thomas J. Givnish wrote: > >you need excellent research, combined with strong writing and oral > >presentation skills, ability to think on your feet, and empathy to interact > >well with students and colleagues, to have a real chance of success at > >landing a job at first- or second-tier universities. > > > -- > Aaron T. Dossey, Ph.D. > Biochemistry and Molecular Biology > Founder/Owner: All Things Bugs > Capitalizing on Low-Crawling Fruit from Insect-Based Innovation > http://allthingsbugs.com/about/people/ > http://www.facebook.com/Allthingsbugs > 1-352-281-3643 --
Re: [ECOLOG-L] "The Audacity of Graduate School" -Knowledge of Today Documentary
I'm very sorry to see that a few folks have had bad experiences in grad
school. Many of us had very happy and productive times as graduate students.
But I've seen enough over the years to recognize that faults in advisors, or in
advisees, or both can result in mediocre to bad outcomes – most often for the
advisee, but sometimes for the advisor as well.
I did, however, want to comment on the statement that
"When we graduate, we have more or less the same credentials as everyone else
(with) a degree."
If you intend to pursue an academic career in research, nothing could be
further than the truth. In cases where large numbers of recently minted Ph.D.'s
or post-docs apply for several jobs in the same field, often the same,
relatively few individuals get to short lists and are interviewed across the
country. Applicants whose Ph.D. research (and subsequent work) are perceived to
have significant, novel implications – and be scalable to future endeavors, and
fundable by NSF or other agencies or foundations – are much more likely to be
interviewed and offered jobs. That is what search committees look for. Not that
search committees never make mistakes; they do, sometimes egregiously. A Ph.D.
gets you in the door to submit an application, but you need excellent research,
combined with strong writing and oral presentation skills, ability to think on
your feet, and empathy to interact well with students and colleagues, to have a
real chance of success at landing a job at first- or second-tier universities.
Thomas J. Givnish
Henry Allan Gleason Professor of Botany
University of Wisconsin
givn...@wisc.edu
http://botany.wisc.edu/givnish/Givnish/Welcome.html
On 10/18/12, brandi gartland wrote:
> As I am currently deciding on whether to enter a PhD program vs. consulting
> work/career position, I am finding this feed quite informative and wanted to
> respond to:
>
> "When we graduate, we have more or less the same credentials as everyone else
> a degree. There are many successful scientists without Ph.D.'s but many more
> with Ph.D.'s who are unemployed."
>
> I immediately thought of sharing this documentary, as it illustrates this
> very point as well as other ideas:
>
> http://www.knowledgeoftoday.org/2012/02/education-college-conspiracy-exposed.html
>
> -It illustrates how the U.S. educational system is not what it used to be and
> "exposes the facts and truth about America's college education system. It was
> was produced over a six-month period by NIA's team of expert Austrian
> economists with the help of thousands of NIA members who contributed their
> ideas and personal stories for the film. NIA believes the U.S. college
> education system is a scam that turns vulnerable young Americans into debt
> slaves for life."
>
>
> Best wishes for us all in life, love, work, and happiness.
>
> Brandi
> M.S. Candidate Avian Sciences
> University of California, Davis
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 10:29:21 -0700
> > From: jane@gmail.com
> > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] "The Audacity of Graduate School"
> > To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 6:40 AM, Aaron T. Dossey wrote:
> > > When we graduate, we have more or less the same credentials as everyone
> > > else
> > > - a degree. There are many successful scientists without Ph.D.'s but many
> > > more with Ph.D.'s who are unemployed.
> >
> > Can you make a rough estimate of the relative frequencies of each.
> >
> > > Also, to emphasize how little we get out of
> > > a Ph.D. (a lot is stolen from us), we don't get credit for our work or
> > > publications because the professor always gets credit for everything we do
> > > while in their lab as a student or postdoc (which is something I am
> > > fighting
> > > on other fronts - I call it institutionalized intellectual property
> > > theft).
> >
> > Isn't that taken care of by the first author/last author distinction?
> > A PI may get some undeserved credit, but that's different from the
> > student not getting credit. The paper is still cited as Student et al.
> > Or are you talking about taking the student's idea outright?
> >
> > BTW, if you believe that grad students are employees to the point of
> > needing a union and thinking of their advisor as their boss, I would
> > point out that people who do creative work as employees rarely keep
> > the rights to their work. Typically, the intellectual property belongs
> > to their employer ("work done for hire"). Isn't it better to say that
> > grad students are not employees?
> >
> > --
> > -
> > Jane Shevtsov, Ph.D.
> > Mathematical Biology Curriculum Writer, UCLA
> > co-founder, www.worldbeyondborders.org
> >
> > “Those who say it cannot be done should not interfere with those who
> > are doing it.” --attributed to Robert Heinlein, George Bernard Shaw
> > and others
--
Re: [ECOLOG-L] FIRE Wildland and Urban Interface Myth or Truth 1 Fire dependent plants?
> ecological context it appears to be true that populations of certain > > species depend on fire for their survival, at least there is no other > > process that we know which would take the place of fire's function in that > > population's survival. A well studied case is that of wiregrass (Aristida > > stricta), which for a long time was thought (even if illogically) to no > > longer sexually reproduce, since no one had ever seen it flower and produce > > seed. However, at the time controlled burns were annually applied in the > > winter throughout much of the region, preempting lightning initiated fire > > later in the growing season. It was discovered later that burning (and > > perhaps lightning-initiated or accidental fire) in the growing season, > > especially May-June, did cause the grass to produce seed, and this > > corresponded to the period when lightning-initiated fires were and still > > are most common. Grazing does not seem to have the same effect of fire on > > this species with regard to reproduction. Is there any set of > > circumstances in which it would flower without fire? Probably. Would that > > set of circumstances have occurred historically without human intervention > > (it was around before Native Americans)? Probably not, or extremely > > rarely. Would wiregrass be one a common grasses throughout the eastern > > half of the southeastern U.S. Coastal Plain without fire? Absolutely not. > > Thus, for all intents and purposes, in an ecological rather than > > theoretical or physiological context, I would say it is a fire-dependent > > species. > > > > Kevin Robertson -- Thomas J. Givnish Henry Allan Gleason Professor of Botany University of Wisconsin givn...@wisc.edu http://botany.wisc.edu/givnish/Givnish/Welcome.html
Re: [ECOLOG-L] correlation v. causation
The number of drunks per city is very strongly correlated with the number of churches per city. On 10/09/12, Lee Dyer wrote: > My favorite *introduction* to this vast topic can be found in the first few > chapters of Bill Shipley's short book, Cause and Correlation in Biology > (2000). A quote from his book: > "In fact, with few exceptions, correlation does imply > causation. If we observe a systematic relationship between two variables, and > we have ruled out the likelihood that this is simply due to a random > coincidence, then something > must be causing this relationship." > > *** > Lee Dyer > Biology Dept. 0314 > UNR 1664 N Virginia St > Reno, NV 89557 > > > > OR > > > > 585 Robin St > Reno, NV 89509 > > > > Email: nolaclim...@gmail.com > Web: www.caterpillars.org > phone: 504-220-9391 (cell) > 775-784-1360 (office) > > > > > > Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2012 10:57:34 -0500 > > From: devan.mcgrana...@gmail.com > > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] correlation v. causation > > To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU > > > > Hi Shelley, others, > > > > Slate recently had a great article on correlation and causation with a > > historical perspective. > > > > My favorite line: "'No, correlation does not imply causation, but it > > sure as hell provides a hint." > > > > http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2012/10/correlation_does_not_imply_causation_how_the_internet_fell_in_love_with_a_stats_class_clich_.html > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Having nothing better to do, I set fire to the prairie." > > -- Francis Chadron, 1839, Fort Clark, North Dakota > > > > http://www.devanmcgranahan.info -- Thomas J. Givnish Henry Allan Gleason Professor of Botany University of Wisconsin givn...@wisc.edu http://botany.wisc.edu/givnish/Givnish/Welcome.html
Re: [ECOLOG-L] FIRE Wildland and Urban Interface Myth or Truth 1 Fire dependent plants?
The distinction between grazing and fire blurs – fire is, in some ways, a kind of omnivorous grazer/browser. A number of the same traits can adapt plants to both fire and herbivory, but several traits (including many I mentioned in my earlier post) are very clearly NOT adapted to grazing/browsing. Prairies and their plants are also adapted to fire, at least in the tallgrass prairie region – and many grasses (not all, please) are adapted to respond to fire as well as grazing. Belowground reproductive structures can be adapted to be both grazing and fire. Many patches of native prairie have persisted because they were burnt regularly. In Wisconsin, we showed that species losses from prairie remnants (primarily along railroad rights-of-way) were consistent with fire suppression, presumably associated with the shift away from steam locomotives in the mid-20th century. The widespread occurrence and abundance of legumes in tallgrass prairie is geochemically consistent with fire, not so much with grazing. Indeed, experiments at Cedar Creek show that grazers greatly limit the abundance of nitrogen fixers. Fire obviously is not so important, or perhaps important at all, in shortgrass prairie or, especially, desert grasslands. Thomas J. Givnish Henry Allan Gleason Professor of Botany University of Wisconsin givn...@wisc.edu http://botany.wisc.edu/givnish/Givnish/Welcome.html On 10/08/12, "David L. McNeely" wrote: > Your commentary is interesting. In North America, we do consider the prairies > and their plants to be adapted to grazing, and that is true of grasses in > general around the world. They have meristems distributed in the plant body > so that they grow from the base, and regenerate if cut back almost to the > soil level. Many other prairie plants have below ground reproductive > structures in the form of tubers, bulbs, and roots. > > Some excellent examples, though generally small in extant, of "native" > prairie, have survived because they were grazed rather than converted to row > crops. Some other examples have survived because they were hay meadows, mowed > periodically. The Nature Conservancy (TNC) and some state and national > entities are now using grazing as one tool in conservation of protected > areas. For one example, see TNC Tall Grass Prairie Preserve just north of > Tulsa, Oklahoma. This preserve was a ranch that preserved native prairie > species not on purpose necessarily, but because its cattle grazing program > sort of mimicked grazing by bison. Today TNC maintains a herd of bison on the > preserve, and also sometimes moves bison from there onto smaller preserves > temporarily to promote the prairies there. TNC practices "flash grazing," > whereby a herd is moved onto a property and literally allowed to trample and > chew so that the landscape begins to look pretty beaten up. But the prairie > plants seem to thrive if then allowed to recover well before another flash > grazing episode. I do not know what the interval used is, and that might vary > from locale to locale depending on conditions. > > In the southern plains, under the grazing regime practiced by many ranches, > and on smaller landholdings where fire is excluded, Eastern Red Cedar, a > noxious native weed tree under those circumstances, soon crowds out the > native prairie. > > David McNeely > > David Burg wrote: > > I find this discussion very interesting. I am not a scientist, but have > > been looking for management studies that directly compare grazing, fire, > > and combinations of the two. My friend, paleoecologist Guy Robinson, was > > coauthor of a paper published in Science on changing conditions at the end > > of the pleistocene in North American. A consistent find all around the > > world seems to be that fire frequencies shoot up dramatically with the > > die-off of megafauna and the arrival of humans. Which leads me to wonder > > how many of the species we now consider fire dependent were also adapted to > > impacts of large animals? I see so many management prescriptions for fire > > in prairies and savannas, but fewer studies of impacts of various grazing > > regimes. Based on historic and ongoing conservation conflicts with > > agriculture one suspects a bias towards fire and against grazing. > > > > David Burg > > > > On Sun, Oct 7, 2012 at 3:28 PM, Thomas J. Givnish > > wrote: > > > > > The list goes on and on and on. Bulbostylis in Venezuelan savannas flowers > > > within a few days after fires; several orchids in Australian woodlands > > > obligately depend on fires to trigger flowering; many other plants in > > > other > > > systems flower profusely a year or two af
Re: [ECOLOG-L] FIRE Wildland and Urban Interface Myth or Truth 1 Fire dependent plants?
Please be sure to use "adaptation" in a modern sense – that is, a variation in a trait which on average increases the fitness of its bearer in a specified context. That says NOTHING WHATSOEVER about the survival of individuals. Pinus banksiana is adapted to fire, but individuals fail to survive fire – it has advantages (often via serotinous cones) in dispersing and establishing on recently burnt sites. Pinus resinosa is adapted to fire, in that individuals can often survive fire, and have advantages in competing, surviving, and reproducing subsequently. Thomas J. Givnish Henry Allan Gleason Professor of Botany University of Wisconsin givn...@wisc.edu http://botany.wisc.edu/givnish/Givnish/Welcome.html On 10/08/12, Wayne Tyson wrote: > David and others: > > YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT! Thanks for catching this brain fart on my part. > (Speaking of mushy definitions!) > > What I INTENDED to say is that "adapted" means that organisms may have > evolved mechanisms to survive fire in some form, and indeed to proliferate > following fire, those adaptations do not mean that reproduction will not or > cannot occur in the absence of fire. Certain closed-cone pine cones, for > example, have been found encased in the hearwood of knobcone pines. However, > while this pine throws a lot of seed following a fire, there are other ways > that the seeds can be released. > > I am only suggesting that "it ain't always necessarily so" that organisms > MUST have fire to reproduce at all, but certainly fire does stimulate > reproduction following fire on a large scale. > > I'm still a bit tired and distracted, so I hope you will give this intense > scrutiny and perhaps come up with more corrections and interpretations. The > generalization voiced by the fire official is a long-standing one that > persists widely, possibly still amongst some botanists, foresters, and even > ecologists, and I am sincere in wanting to see more clarity and evidence. In > this case, the "authority" was referring broadly to California chaparral. I > continue to welcome well-founded examples of fire DEPENDENCY from around the > world, as distinguished to folklore, including "scientific" folklore. > > I am eager to be corrected--based on evidence and good, solid, science. > > WT > > - Original Message - > From: > To: ; "Wayne Tyson" > Sent: Monday, October 08, 2012 10:22 AM > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] FIRE Wildland and Urban Interface Myth or Truth 1 > Fire dependent plants? > > > Wayne, help me to understand, because to me it looks like your two > definitions are the same. Yet you clearly are trying to distinguish between > the two terms in your earlier posts. Am I just two dense to read plain > English? David McNeely > > Wayne Tyson wrote: > > Ecolog: > > > > My standard for distinguishing between "dependent" and "adapted" is that if > > a species or a group of species (say, "association" or "plant community"?) > > is dependent upon fire, it would cease to exist permanently in the absence > > of fire. If a species or association of species is adapted to fire, that > > means that it MUST have fire to continue to exist. > > > > Is this correct or incorrect, more true than untrue, or more untrue than > > true? > > > > WT > > > > Mushy definitions are escape valves for sloppy scholarship, but need not be > > "black" or "white," they only need to have their "ifs," "ands," and "buts" > > also clearly defined. > > > > > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "David L. McNeely" > > To: > > Sent: Monday, October 08, 2012 8:10 AM > > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] FIRE Wildland and Urban Interface Myth or Truth 1 > > Fire dependent plants? > > > > > > Your commentary is interesting. In North America, we do consider the > > prairies and their plants to be adapted to grazing, and that is true of > > grasses in general around the world. They have meristems distributed in the > > plant body so that they grow from the base, and regenerate if cut back > > almost to the soil level. Many other prairie plants have below ground > > reproductive structures in the form of tubers, bulbs, and roots. > > > > Some excellent examples, though generally small in extant, of "native" > > prairie, have survived because they were grazed rather than converted to > > row crops. Some other examples have survived because they were hay meadows, > > mowed periodically
Re: [ECOLOG-L] FIRE Wildland and Urban Interface Myth or Truth 1 Fire dependent plants?
The list goes on and on and on. Bulbostylis in Venezuelan savannas flowers within a few days after fires; several orchids in Australian woodlands obligately depend on fires to trigger flowering; many other plants in other systems flower profusely a year or two after fires (e.g., Xanthorrhoea, Xerophyllum, Lilium). Several species in Mediterranean scrub in sw Australia, sw South Africa, and s California germinate in response to compounds released in smoke. Hundreds of species in many genera (e.g., Pinus, Cupressus, Eucalyptus, Hakea, Banksia, Protea) release their seeds promptly from serotinous cones, follicles, etc. only in response to fire. Many carnivorous or nitrogen-fixing plants are facilitated by fire. A suite of ca. 17 federally endangered species endemic to the Lake Wales Ridge in south-central Florida are almost surely facilitated by the extraordinarily high frequency of lightning strikes there. Long-term studies at Konza Prairie and Cedar Creek show that different plant species are favored by different long-term fire frequencies. The Karner Blue Butterfly has no life stages resistant to fire, but depends on fire to renew its habitat and maintain an abundance of Lupinus perennis, the sole larval food plant. -- Thomas J. Givnish Henry Allan Gleason Professor of Botany University of Wisconsin givn...@wisc.edu http://botany.wisc.edu/givnish/Givnish/Welcome.html On 10/07/12, "David L. McNeely" wrote: > I apologize. I left off the list of references I compiled for this post. Here > it is: > > http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1010&context=barkbeetles > > http://www.gffp.org/pine/ecology.htm > > http://www.esa.org/education_diversity/pdfDocs/fireecology.pdf > > http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/tree/pinconl/all.html > > http://fireecology.org/docs/Journal/pdf/Volume08/Issue02/107.pdf > > http://www.na.fs.fed.us/pubs/silvics_manual/Volume_1/pinus/contorta.htm > > http://www.firescience.gov/projects/briefs/01B-3-1-01_FSBrief30.pdf > > http://www.fws.gov/southeastfire/what/ecology.html > > http://cee.unc.edu/people/graduate-students/theses/Kaplan_MA.pdf > > > "David L. McNeely" wrote: > > Wayne, I have heard this "fire dependent" terminology in reference to both > > community types and specific plants. However, most often it has been in > > reference to community types that included dominant fire adapted species. I > > also have heard more convincingly that lodgepole pine, _Pinus contorta_, > > was fire dependent due to serotinous cones. I accepted this without > > judgement. However, one of these references suggests that though > > serotinous, under warm enough conditions 45 - 50 C soil surface > > temperature) the cones may open without fire. I wonder if soils in the > > northern portions and higher elevations of the range get that hot, but I > > don't know. > > > > I have also heard the term applied to Longleaf Pine, _Pinus palustris_ , > > and the communities that it dominated prior to extensive exploitation of > > the SE U.S. forests. My understanding has always been that in that case, > > more shade tolerant species that have seeds that can reach the soil surface > > despite dense grassy understory replace the longleaf pine when fire is > > absent from an area for extensive time. > > > > Here are some references, some of them secondary, that discuss these > > phenomena. > > > > I am definitely not a forest or fire ecologist. > > > > David McNeely > > > > Wayne Tyson wrote: > > > Ecolog: > > > > > > I just caught a video production on TV done by a major governmental fire > > > authority. It contained a mixture of truth and superstition, as well as > > > some questionable assumptions that y'all can help me clear up. > > > > > > 1. A uniformed fire official claimed that some plants are DEPENDENT upon > > > fire for their survival. He did not say that some plants are ADAPTED to > > > fire, he said "dependent." > > > > > > Please share your knowledge and references, please. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > WT > > > > -- > > David McNeely > > -- > David McNeely
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Biodiversity Symposium - Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia
I agree wholeheartedly with Professor Resetarits. As someone who grew up in the Philadelphia area, was a frequent visitor to the Academy in my youth, and indeed spent one summer conducting research at the Academy, this announcement really jangled my nerves. It's huge overreach, and could easily have been avoided. Of the speakers, at least Lucinda McDade was directly involved with the Academy, but several of the other speakers involve areas that simply have never been covered by the Academy. I would have like to have seen at least one appreciation of the Academy of Natural Sciences offered by someone from the region, or by someone with regional experience and historical perspective. Thomas J. Givnish Henry Allan Gleason Professor of Botany University of Wisconsin givn...@wisc.edu http://botany.wisc.edu/givnish/Givnish/Welcome.html On 09/19/12, "Resetarits, William" wrote: > I always try to keep my comments on ECOLOG positive, and that involves > biting my tongue quite a bit, but this really is quite beyond the pale. > 200 years of Research at the Academy of Natural Sciences of DREXEL > UNIVERSITY! Really? The utter hubris involve in this simple title is > staggering to anyone with a sense of history of science and any sense of > decorum. While I applaud the historic merger of the Academy with Drexel, > surely someone must have noticed how incredibly egotistical and inaccurate > the title of this symposium is. It is an impressive lineup, and I would > attend if in the area, but REALLY! There is less than 1 year of Research > at the Academy of Natural Sciences of Drexel University, and 199 years of > research at the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia. I thought > this kind of branding nonsense was limited to corporations and political > parties. Why not "A Bicentennial Symposium to Celebrate > 200 Years of Research at the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia" > and then mention the historic merger of the Academy with Drexel. A > certain level of subtlety and humility often goes a lot further than > blatant and totally inaccurate self promotion. Shame on you Drexel for > trying to claim credit for 199 years of research in the Natural Sciences > that you had nothing to do with. You potentially gain a lot of > credibility by this merger, unless you continue to handle it badly. > > William J. Resetarits, Jr. > Professor > Department of Biological Sciences > Texas Tech University > Lubbock, Texas 79409-3131 > Phone: (806) 742-2710, ext.300 > Fax (806) 742-2963 > > http://www.myweb.ttu.edu/wresetar/ > > > > > > > > On 9/19/12 5:19 PM, "Don Charles" wrote: > > >Please join the Academy of Natural Sciences of Drexel University in > >Philadelphia on October 11 - 12, 2012 as we explore current and future > >research on the diversity of life with a focus on evolutionary history, > >ecology, and environmental quality. > > > >Biodiversity: From Evolutionary Origins to Ecosystems Function > >A Bicentennial Symposium to Celebrate > >200 Years of Research at the Academy of Natural Sciences of Drexel > >University > ><http://www.ansp.org/symposium> > >ansp.org/symposium<http://ansp.org/symposium> > > > >The two-day conference will open at 2 p.m. on Thursday, October 11, with > >tours of the Academy's collections and environmental labs. We will close > >with a poster session and reception on the evening of Friday, October 12. > > > >SPEAKERS - Title and abstract of all talks are on-line: > >ansp.org/symposium/talks<http://ansp.org/symposium/talks> > ><http://www.ansp.org/explore/our-research/bicentennial-symposium/talks/> > > > >Thursday, October 11 - 5:30 - 7 p.m. > >Leidy Medal Presentation and keynote by DOUGLAS J. FUTUYMA, Stony Brook > >University > > > >Friday, October 12 > >9:00 a.m. Welcome > >9:15 a.m. LUCINDA A. McDADE, Rancho Santa Ana Botanic Garden > >10:00 a.m. J. PATRICK KOCIOLEK, University of Colorado Museum of > >Natural History > >11:00 a.m. DANIEL OTTE, The Academy of Natural Sciences of Drexel > >University > >11:45 a.m. DAVID TILMAN, University of Minnesota > > > >12:30 - 2:00 p.m. LUNCH BREAK > > > >2:00 p.m. SANDRA KNAPP, Natural History Museum in London, England > >2:45 p.m. WAYNE P. MADDISON, University of British Columbia and > >Director of the Beaty Biodiversity Museum > >3:30 p.m. SHAHID NAEEM, Columbia University > >4:30 p.m. Panel discussion > >5:30 p.m Poster session and reception > > > > > > > >SYMPOSIUM SCHEDULE > >Thursday, October 11, 2012 > >The Academy of Natural Sciences of Drexel
