Re: [ECOLOG-L] hourly wage for ecological consulting?
Since I have to cover my professional fees and insurance, I've been charging $50 per hour, remaining somewhat conservative regarding how many hours I claim (e.g., I don't usually charge travel time although I may charge mileage). Warren W. Aney Senior Wildlife Ecologist Tigard, OR -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of David Inouye Sent: Monday, 19 January, 2015 12:31 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: [ECOLOG-L] hourly wage for ecological consulting? I have a senior colleague who has been asked about doing some consulting work for a client trying to restore bird-friendly habitat on a large farm. He hasn't done this previously, and wonders what a reasonable hourly rate would be for this. Any suggestions from people with prior experience?
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Which kind of species are logged?
Pacific Northwest forests from the Cascades to the Coast Range are predominately Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), a long-lived pioneer species. It is the preferential tree for timber harvest. It does not reproduce well in a closed canopy forest so forests tend to eventually (over 1000 years) climax with shade-reproducing species such as western redcedar (Thuja plicata). Interior forests (from the Cascades east to the Rocky Mountains) tend to be ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) which is both the preferential tree for timber harvest and the pioneer and climax species. And, of course, there are many exceptions to these generalities due to factors such as elevation and precipitation. Warren W. Aney Senior Wildlife Ecologist Tigard, OR -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of Alexandre Fadigas de Souza Sent: Tuesday, 23 December, 2014 10:05 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Which kind of species are logged? Dear friends, Sorry for the timing of the posting, right before the hollidays. I would like to ask if any of you have ever read any reference to the successional status of the tree species preferentially cut by the timber logging industry. Are most of them pioneers, long-lived pioneers, of mature-climax species? Any help will do. Sincerely, Alexandre
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Summary of responses about edible parasites
The Pacific lamprey (Lampetra tridentate) is an important and highly valued food species by indigenous peoples of the Pacific Northwest. They continue to harvest this species mostly by hand at anadromous migration concentration sites such as Willamette Falls in Oregon. Warren W. Aney Senior Wildlife Ecologist Tigard, OR -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of David Inouye Sent: Thursday, 01 May, 2014 15:59 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Summary of responses about edible parasites Thanks to the many people who responded, some off-list. Here's a summary so far, of a very interesting topic. David Inouye My original message cited pea crabs, parasitic on oysters and mussels, (apparently a favorite of George Washington): http://chowhound.chow.com/topics/880556 http://www.sms.si.edu/IRLFieldGuide/Pinnot_ostreu.htm and the corn smut huitlachoche. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/27/huitlacoche-corn-smut-goo_n_553422. html The lobster mushroom, Hypomyces spp., would be another one. It's an ascomycete parasitizing basidiomycetes of the Russula genus. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypomyces_lactifluorum Lobster mushrooms (Hypomyces lactifluorum) are fungi which parasitize other fungi, typically gilled mushrooms, and they're sometimes considered a delicacy by mushroomers. I happen to consider this an absolutely bone-stupid thing to do, because the Hypomyces usually smothers the host mushroom and makes identification impossible--which means anyone who eats one is potentially eating Hypomyces and something deadly underneath. But there are 'shroomers who love their lobsters. Lamprey has long been considered a delicacy enjoyed by royalty. See http://www.godecookery.com/nboke/nboke68.html for an old recipe. Lamprey pie is still enjoyed in the UK. King Henry I reportedly died of overindulgence in lamprey. Also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamprey On 4 March 1953, <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_II_of_the_United_Kingdom>Queen Elizabeth II's coronation pie was made by the <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Air_Force>Royal Air Force using lampreys. June 2012 - Queen Elizabeth, celebrated the diamond jubilee of her ascent to the throne, which marked the 60th anniversary of her coronation, was sent a lamprey pie. I'll admit that I first learned of eating lampreys while reading the "Game of Thrones" series http://whatscookingamerica.net/History/PieHistory/LampreyPie.htm Also a Finnish delicacy: http://www.helsinkitimes.fi/eat-and-drink/3940-delicious-lamprey-s-looks-are -deceptive.html Guthrie, R. D. 2005. The Nature of Paleolithic Art. University of Chicago Press. http://books.google.com/books?id=3u6JNwMyMCEC&pg=PA6&lpg=PA6&dq=inuit+eat+wa rble+fly+larvae&source=bl&ots=JNvVRqWlUt&sig=LcoqBPY9Sku4XZb7z86tl6R2gPQ&hl= en&sa=X&ei=Z8FiU_rNAtGHogT3iYDICQ&ved=0CEUQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=inuit%20eat%20 warble%20fly%20larvae&f=false "There are thousands of images that can give us a more rounded view of Paleolithic people and their times, images that are not customarily shown in coffee table volumes. Take, for example, these little wormlike creatures from Paleolithic art. Eskimo from northern Alaska delight in eating the large spring maggots, or larvae, of the reindeer warble fly, Oedemagena tarandi. I suspect Eurasian people did the same in the Paleolithic. This is one of the few insects eaten by northern people. When reindeer are killed, the hide is skinned back and the warbles are exposed on the underside. They are fat and salty, a spring treat: I have tried them several times. During this time of year many people in the villages have sore throats from the raspers on the maggots' sides." Liver flukes, copepods parasitic on fish, tapeworms and others are mentioned in this address from a President of the American Society of Parasitologists: Overstreet, R. M. (2003). "Flavor buds and other delights." Journal of Parasitology 89(6): 1093-1107. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1305&context=paras itologyfacpubs ["flavor buds" = reindeer warble fly larvae] http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,4570,7-153-10370_12150_12220-26639--,00.html has a photo of the "little liver" that is a deer liver fluke, mentioned in that paper. This one is used in Chinese medicine: Ophiocordyceps sinensis <http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2012/08/tibetan-mushroom/finkel-text>http ://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2012/08/tibetan-mushroom/finkel-text In my mycology class, I mentioned examples of parasitic fungi as food and medicine, such as succulent stem of Zizania latifolia infected by Yenia esculenta (Ustilago esculenta); necrotrophic parasites of insect adults, larvae or pupae by cate
Re: [ECOLOG-L] ECOLOG-L Digest - 25 Apr 2013 to 26 Apr 2013 (#2013-114)
As a graduate student in biometrics I witnessed a basic difference between biologists (such as I) and mathematicians (most of my biometrics cohorts). We biologists had difficulty comprehending and applying the intertwined absolutes of math. Mathematicians had difficulty in accepting and dealing with the loose conditionalities of biology. I got B's and C's in my math and statistics classes and I believe the mathematicians got similar grades in their biology and ecology courses. Warren W. Aney Senior Wildlife Ecologist Tigard, OR -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of R Erickson Sent: Monday, 29 April, 2013 09:11 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] ECOLOG-L Digest - 25 Apr 2013 to 26 Apr 2013 (#2013-114) As somebody who just defended his PhD in Environmental Toxicology, I found Calculus (and mathematical literary) to be very helpful for graduate school. Directly, I use it for population modeling as part of my research. Indirectly, understanding Calculus (and other areas of math such as linear algebra) makes learning statistics much, much, much easier. That being said, it is possible to make it through a graduate program without Calculus. It largely depends what you want to do and what program you want to attend. See the recent Ecolog postings about E.O. Wilson's WSJ editorial for a larger discussion about the role of mathematics in ecology. Back to your original question, here are some perspectives that discuss the importance of Calculus in the ecology and closely related fields such as wildlife management: Check out Gary White's Aldo Leopold Memorial Award speech/essay from 2001 (the award is TWS's equivalent to ESA's MacArthur Award): Why take calculus? Rigor in wildlife management. Wildlife Society Bulletin 29:380-386. A pdf is available here: http://people.cst.cmich.edu/gehri1tm/BIO%20440/Summer%202010/Readings/White% 202001.pdf Also, Aaron Ellison and Brian Dennis wrote an article in 2010 where they talk about the need for additional mathematical literacy in ecology: Paths to statistical fluency for ecologists. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 8:362-370. A PDF is available here: http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/~brian/reprints/Ellison_and_Dennis_Frontiers_ in_Ecology_and_Environment_2010.pdf As a closing thought, here is a quote from James Watson's recent book, Avoid Boring People: "Only by taking higher math courses would I develop sufficient comfort to work at the leading edge of my field, even if I never got near the leading edge of math. And so my B's in two genuinely tough math courses were worth far more in confidence capital than any A I would likely have received in a biology course, no matter how demanding. Though I would never use the full extent of analytical methods I had learned, the Poisson distribution analyses needed to do most phage experiments soon became satisfying instead of a source of crippling anxiety." On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 9:55 PM, Joseph McElligott wrote: > How important is Calculus for an environmental studies/science or forestry > graduate degree? >
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Arguments for Native Plants
Native plants host native insects that provide food for native birds. See Tallamy, Douglas W. 2007. Bringing nature home; how you can sustain wildlife with native plants. Timber Press. Prof. Tallamy is chair of the Dept of Entomology and Wildlife Ecology, University of Delaware. Warren W. Aney Senior Wildlife Ecologist 9403 SW 74th Ave Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 539-1009 (503) 246-2605 fax -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of Ted Turluck Sent: Wednesday, 24 April, 2013 07:17 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Arguments for Native Plants Hello List Members, I am working with native plants and would like to make sure I have all the arguments for native plants correct. If I am missing some, please let me know. My goal is to promote native plants for use in landscaping and grazing. Native plants provide habitat and food for native wildlife. This is particularly important with increasing urban development and the habitat loss that goes along with development. Native plants make up a large part of the ecological heritage of an area. They made up the environment in which the first settlers lived and the resources they used. Native plants are less likely to become invasive because the herbivores, parasites, and pathogens they evolved with are still present. That is all I have at the moment. Please let me know what other arguments I need to add or how I can strengthen the ones I already have. Thanks! -- Ted Turluck
[ECOLOG-L] The ecology of homosexuality? (was [ECOLOG-L] Expedition notice and question)
Wayne and Ecolog-L, I recall reading some time ago about a hypothesis that homosexuality in populations is or may be a response to heightened population density, implying that it is an innate stratagem to reduce reproduction while maintaining adult productivity. Anyone know anything about this? Warren W. Aney Tigard, Oregon (503) 539-1009 -Original Message- From: Wayne Tyson [mailto:landr...@cox.net] Sent: Wednesday, 27 March, 2013 11:53 To: Warren W. Aney; ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Expedition notice and question Warren and Ecolog: As a stock-farmer's son, I have seen plenty of what appears to us to be homosexual behavior among, for example, cows and bulls and ducks and dogs, but I have never witnessed actual penetration, nor have I witnessed any cases where bulls eschew cows in favor of sex with bulls. Homosexual in the sense that it occurs in humans is the center of my interest, and anything that is relevant to that question is of interest to me, including anecdotes. "Mounting" of other bulls has long been considered dominance behavior, and this occurs in humans who consider themselves heterosexual, as appears to be the case with dogs. Your point is well made about the continuum; Alan Watts once wrote an article entitled (as I recall) "The Circle of Sex." That, or anything else I have read, does not address my intentionally restricted question. WT - Original Message ----- From: "Warren W. Aney" To: "'Wayne Tyson'" ; Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 10:30 AM Subject: RE: [ECOLOG-L] Expedition notice and question > Wayne, I once had a beef cow that refused to mate with a bull -- she did > lactate and help nurture another cow's calf. The cow may have been > homosexual or asexual. I've heard livestock owners say that cows > frequently > display homosexual behavior (mounting other cows) but a cow exhibiting > excessive homosexual behavior including avoiding bills is usually sold for > slaughter. > As I understand it, in nature (including humans) there is a wide and > continuous spectrum of sexual behavior ranging from pure heterosexuality > to > bisexuality to pure homosexuality, and this range of behaviors is further > modified by a varying continuum of sexual intensity from hypersexuality to > asexuality. > > Warren W. Aney > Tigard, Oregon > (503) 539-1009 > > > -Original Message- > From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news > [mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of Wayne Tyson > Sent: Wednesday, 27 March, 2013 10:32 > To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU > Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Expedition notice and question > > [NOTE:] I will be on expedition (with a stop at the National Native Seed > Conference in Santa Fe NM on April 10) until the two weeks at the end of > April and the first week of May, then gone again beginning the 2nd week of > May until around May 24. I will not be checking email during those > periods, > but will respond to as many email messages as possible during those > hiatuses. A third expedition following those is likely, but the period of > hiatus is iffy.] > > Here is my parting question. Please feel free to post it on other lists. > > Re: Homosexuality in animals other than Homo sapiens. We know that > homosexual behavior occurs in other species in some forms (Bonobo > chimpanzees [Pan paniscus], for example), and we know that hermaphrodites > of > some species fertilize each other simultaneously. But my question is in > which species other than humans, does EXCLUSIVE homosexuality, especially > in > the form of pair bonds, occur? > > WT > > I'll pick up my answers in late April. If I have time, I may be able to > respond to some today. Please respond on-list, and not to me personally. > > > > - > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 10.0.1430 / Virus Database: 2641/5707 - Release Date: 03/27/13 >
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Expedition notice and question
Wayne, I once had a beef cow that refused to mate with a bull -- she did lactate and help nurture another cow's calf. The cow may have been homosexual or asexual. I've heard livestock owners say that cows frequently display homosexual behavior (mounting other cows) but a cow exhibiting excessive homosexual behavior including avoiding bills is usually sold for slaughter. As I understand it, in nature (including humans) there is a wide and continuous spectrum of sexual behavior ranging from pure heterosexuality to bisexuality to pure homosexuality, and this range of behaviors is further modified by a varying continuum of sexual intensity from hypersexuality to asexuality. Warren W. Aney Tigard, Oregon (503) 539-1009 -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of Wayne Tyson Sent: Wednesday, 27 March, 2013 10:32 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Expedition notice and question [NOTE:] I will be on expedition (with a stop at the National Native Seed Conference in Santa Fe NM on April 10) until the two weeks at the end of April and the first week of May, then gone again beginning the 2nd week of May until around May 24. I will not be checking email during those periods, but will respond to as many email messages as possible during those hiatuses. A third expedition following those is likely, but the period of hiatus is iffy.] Here is my parting question. Please feel free to post it on other lists. Re: Homosexuality in animals other than Homo sapiens. We know that homosexual behavior occurs in other species in some forms (Bonobo chimpanzees [Pan paniscus], for example), and we know that hermaphrodites of some species fertilize each other simultaneously. But my question is in which species other than humans, does EXCLUSIVE homosexuality, especially in the form of pair bonds, occur? WT I'll pick up my answers in late April. If I have time, I may be able to respond to some today. Please respond on-list, and not to me personally.
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Bigfoot footage in TX (gag me).
Presence of rare mammals can and is being verified through DNA analysis of hair or scat samples. The sasquatchers cannot be taken seriously until they do this in a replicable and independently verifiable manner. Warren W. Aney Senior Wildlife Ecologist Tigard, Oregon (503) 539-1009 -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of malcolm McCallum Sent: Friday, 15 February, 2013 18:12 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Bigfoot footage in TX (gag me). I am very familiar with the Texas Bigfoot society folks having got in a tuff with them back in the early part of the decade. They are total charlatans, see this video of a bigfoot from the twitter of Melba Ketchum. Is there anything we can do to discredit these folks with the public? We really need to address this and make it obvious they are literally making stuff up http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khHSX3ZYaKI -- 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.
[ECOLOG-L] Cycled carbon dioxide?
There have been a lot of concerns expressed about greenhouses gases produced by processes such as brewing, livestock production and timber harvest. As an ecologist, I see a difference between what I call cycled greenhouse gases and non-cycled gases. Consider a stand of grass: it greens up and starts growing in the spring, capturing carbon dioxide and using it to produce hydrocarbon compounds that make up its cellular structure. This growth dies in the winter and over the next few months or years decay releases its captured carbon dioxide back into the atmosphere. Or some of this grass may be eaten by an animal herbivore, who digests it and converts it into body energy and structure, releasing and exhaling carbon dioxide in the process. Next year the cycle repeats -- part of the cycle that has gone on for eons with no net increase in greenhouse gases. This is even true if the grass produces fodder for livestock or grains for breweries. This natural plant product is going to be consumed, whether by decay, livestock, brewers or in your breakfast, without producing a systemic net increase in greenhouse gases nor providing any means for reducing greenhouse gas production. The total carbon dioxide produced in a brewery is no more than the total carbon dioxide produced by a bunch of barley-eating goats or a host of barley-bread eating humans consuming the same tonnage. (Yes, some of it does get converted to methane, a powerful greenhouse gas, but we have ways for converting that back to carbon dioxide and water through combustion - have you ever lit your flatulence?) Of course some ecosystems can retain vegetative hydrocarbons for long periods, e.g., peat bogs and old growth forests. But none of it approaches the storage length of hydrocarbons in fossil fuels, which in effect are megamillennial old sources of non-cycled greenhouse gases. Does this make sense? Doesn't it seem prudent to concentrate on reducing fossil fuels combustion rather than get distracted by cycled sources of greenhouse gases? Warren W. Aney Senior Wildlife Ecologist Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 539-1009 (503) 246-2605 fax
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Climate change - EOS Forum
As a resource manager who depended on applied science, I frequently had to
help make decisions based on science that was much weaker than the current
climate change scientific findings. So I adopted the practice of comparing
costs, benefits and risks: What is the cost or risk of taking a wrong
action compared to the cost or risk of not acting?
For example, if we've had a dry summer and fall, an early winter, and
reports of low fat reserves in our deer, should we have an emergency hunt to
reduce deer numbers? If we take this action we might reduce winter kill and
reduce range damage. If we are wrong, we've at least provided a little more
recreation but we end up with a smaller population and reduced recreation
next season.
But if we decide to take no action and this is a wrong decision, we could
end up with a bad outcome -- a large winter die-off, damaged range
conditions that will slow population recovery, reduced future recreation and
a sullied reputation as managers.
I learned later that this decision making tool is called the precautionary
approach. In the case of climate change, taking action will have costs and
risks (and even some benefits such as reduced air pollution and reduced
reliance on non-sustainable energy sources). But the costs and risks of not
taking action and being wrong will probably be catastrophic, maybe in the
short term and certainly in the long term. So the precautionary approach
directs us to take action.
Is that difficult to understand and accept, even by the skeptics?
Warren W. Aney
Senior Wildlife Ecologist
Tigard, OR
(503) 539-1009
(503) 246-2605 fax
-Original Message-
From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news
[mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of malcolm McCallum
Sent: Wednesday, 04 July, 2012 20:25
To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Climate change - EOS Forum
Its hard to interpret all that.
Its amazing how any one of us can make a mistake, or a bad
judgementbut it would be nice if once in a while each of us
actually listened to others more knowledgeable than we are, and
recognize that our judgement may be again flawed.
No admissions necessary.
:)
Can you imagine having a moment of bad judgement leading to your
setting up an automatic sprayer in someone's property w/o obtaining
permission, and then setting the time w/o the owner's knowledge so
that the sprayer sets off the burgler alarm, leading to the arrival of
police officers who check out the scene only to get sprayed with
pesticides???
None of us is beyond reproach, all of us make mistakes.
I wish more of us were born with perfect judgement in all
things,...pesticide application, climate change, whatever.
On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 6:00 PM, David Schneider
wrote:
> Hello all,
> We have seen considerable diversity in how to respond, as
> scientists, on the topic of climate change. Clearly one
> size does not fit all. For those friends and acquaintances
> who ask, I like to start with simple statements based on
> evidence, which I value highly as a scientist - evidence
> assembled by IPCC and accessible explanation of what happens
> in a greenhouse and why it applies to CO2 (methane etc)
> in the atmosphere.
>
> For policy makers, I start with evidence (IPCC) and
> then to risks if no action (much less clear!).
>
> For those who respond with arguments we recognize
> (ad hominem attacks, cherry picked data, etc) I describe the
> fallacy, being careful not to stray to the ad hominem.
>
> For those who venture into a public forum (e.g. talk on
> College campus) I like debate, not surprise. In the
> debates about evolution, Stephen J. Gould mastered the
> arguments, and so was prepared to debate the topic.
>
> For those who go political ('warmist' or 'climate alarmist' as
> below) I like Don Stong's response - call them on going political.
>
> Finally, it helps to do some research on the person to whom you
> are responding, to find out motivation ($$$ ? or something else?).
> Search
> Paul Cherubini El dorado
>
> You might be surprised.
>
> David Schneider
> http://www.mun.ca/osc/dschneider/bio.php
>
> On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 4:14 PM, Paul Cherubini wrote:
>
>> On Jul 2, 2012, at 1:45 PM, Corbin, Jeffrey D. wrote:
>>
>> 1) but I made the specific point at our counter-presentation that
>>> we have a great deal to discuss as to HOW society should
>>> confront climate change - Cap&Trade, Carbon tax, mitigation,
>>> etc. But such a discussion must begin with an acceptance of
>>> the understood science.
>>>
>>
>> The notion of anthropogenic global warming is not hardly
>> settled. There is a large body of anthropogenic doubters,
>> especially because global mean temps have stabilized
>> since 1998 http://t
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Non-Majors Biology
The course-defining criteria should be: What do you want the students to become because they took your course and what do you want them to do because of what they became? As Francisco says, "...true passionate interest could be elicited from a class for at least some topics that are much more relevant to who the students are, where they are in their life, and what they are likely to do from then on." Warren W. Aney Senior Wildlife Ecologist Tigard, Oregon -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of Francisco Borrero Sent: Monday, 28 May, 2012 08:06 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Non-Majors Biology Hi all, I have read this listserv for a good while but have never wrote until now. I already deleted several of the previous emails so I don¹t remember who said what. However. I want to make two points: 1- Somebody suggested that a list of suggested topics were more appropriate in an "Environmental Science" class than as part of a "Intro. Biology" for non-majors. I would like to suggest that perhaps something more akin to a "Intro. Environmental Science" or "Biology and Society", or something like that, may be much more valuable if a group is to have a single (never re-visited) biology class, than something more like a classic General Biology class. Please note that I am not referring to pre-meds or the like, which after all are a type of biological scientists. I am talking about mechanical engineers, architects, and business people. I sincerely believe that despite one's best intentions, the great majority of non-major attendees of the General Biology-like class will find it boring, irrelevant, a turn-off and learn little from it. Alternatively, true passionate interest could be elicited from a class for at least some topics that are much more relevant to who the students are, where they are in their life, and what they are likely to do from then on. In fact, some may even find true relevance between (some of) such topics and what they are likely to do in their chosen careers. After all, even if at a very basic level, all students would have had a high school introduction to what DNA is, why is important, a little bit of the history of biological and ecological thought, a cursory examination of the types of living things, etc. Why bore them again with the topics they have chosen not to study (by virtue of their having chosen a non-biological major)? Thus, perhaps a class that tries to quickly survey some major "pillar topics", without going into great detail, and then tackles current issues on environmental quality, human impacts, population growth and resource use, even of the relationship of the water cycle and human activities on their effects on modifying ecosystems eliciting water and food shortages, globally important or emerging diseases, and other topics that non-biologists are likely to continue hearing about in their non-biologist lives. I realize some of these topics may be though to be more relevant in Environmental Sciences of even Earth Sciences, but so what... They impact more the biology as perceived by non-biologists than other, "purely biological" topics. This is the type of stuff we need non-scientists to know, since after all, they will be making decisions and building things that affect everybody else. 2- Chelsea Teale makes an excellent point - Better use can be made of museum, nature centers and similar institutions. Beyond what they do as depositories of natural and cultural values, and centers for research that interests the naturalists (myself included), a major role they can play is that of serving as resources for "non-traditional" education (i.e, different that typical classroom stuff). The use of these resources for age-groups beyond children is incredibly limited. I believe that some creative thinking and putting into practice could enrich some adult programs such as those of college non-biology-majors biology classes. Cheers, Francisco. Francisco J. Borrero, Ph.D. Research Associate & Adjunct Curator of Mollusks Cincinnati Museum Center at Union Terminal Geier Research & Collections Center 1301 Western Avenue Cincinnati, OH 45203 On 5/28/12 9:45 AM, "CHELSEA LYNN TEALE" wrote: >Instead of addressing >actual curriculum >(except to say I >agree cellular/microbiology is a turn-off for the majority of >non-biologists), >I want to emphasize context through interaction with off-campus >scientists and >current events. Biology majors already know how the subject relates to >them >but non-majors may need examples, and my single suggestion is >to take advantage of your local museum. > > >At the New >York State Museum - within a half hour of at least 8 >colleges/universities - >research scienti
Re: [ECOLOG-L] definition of "native"
I've been skimming over this discussion and trying not to get involved. My observation (which probably has already been covered) is that, except for extinction, there are no absolutes in the field of ecology. We can't even standardize the word's spelling (ecology vs. oecology) and its meaning (does ecology=environmentalism?). So terms such as native, invasive, indigenous, endemic, exotic, introduced, etc. all have to be considered and defined in terms of a particular context or usage. Warren W. Aney Senior Wildlife Ecologist -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of Chris Carlson Sent: Tuesday, 20 March, 2012 08:13 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] definition of "native" Came across this "op-documentary" this morning on the New York Times. Cute - and just the kind of thing that is helping shift our cultural awareness to be specifically accepting of certain non-natives on our landscape. Just don't plant your garden by the canal! http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/20/opinion/hi-im-a-nutria.html
Re: [ECOLOG-L] request for your comments concerning proposed changes to Endangered Species Act
The link Sean recommends goes to a regulations site that seems to provide only a chance to comment on the site, not on the regulations. The comments page has this caveat: "Please do not submit comments or submissions on specific regulatory documents using this form as they cannot be forwarded to the proper Federal agencies via this mailbox." The site also shows a comment expiration date of 7 February. Warren W. Aney Tigard, Oregon -Original Message- From: Sean Hoban [mailto:sho...@alumni.nd.edu] Sent: Wednesday, 08 February, 2012 06:25 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU; Warren W. Aney Subject: Re: request for your comments concerning proposed changes to Endangered Species Act I would like to encourage everyone who is signing the letter to also take five to ten minutes to write specific comments and suggestions to the website that the Fish and Wildlife Service has for the proposal: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FWS-R9-ES-2011-0031-0001. You can enter comments up to 2000 characters, and the form is very easy to fill out. While the number of names on the letter sponsored by the CBD is important, I think that an equally democratic and scientifically useful contribution is to write particular critiques, based on our specific experiences as ecologists or conservation biologists in our studies of range edges, small populations, or whichever is our expertise. The comments by Warren, for example, would be great feedback for the USFWS. Cheers all, Sean Hoban http://sites.google.com/site/hoban3/ Post-doc, Laboratorio di Genetica Delle Popolazioni Dipartimento di Biologia ed Evoluzione Università di Ferrara 44100 FERRARA, Italy
Re: [ECOLOG-L] request for your comments concerning proposed changes to Endangered Species Act
There are two aspects to this question regarding whether or not a species should be protected "on a significant portion of its range" and both relate to how we define "significant." The first aspect is protecting a species from extinction. The second aspect is preserving ecosystem diversity. Certainly if an at-risk species is not protected on at least part of its range it is in danger of extinction. But there is an implication in this proposed revision that it does not require protection over its entire range if it can be adequately protected on this "significant" part of its range. This reasoning does not consider the second aspect of why we have an Endangered Species Act, and this aspect relates to protecting the resilience, diversity and sustainability of natural ecosystems. If a species is lost in part of its range, this part of its range has become devalued in terms of ecosystem health -- to me, that is also significant. I have chosen to sign onto this letter for this reason. Warren W. Aney Senior Wildlife Ecologist 9403 SW 74th Ave Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 539-1009 (503) 246-2605 fax -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of Kim Landsbergen Ph.D. Sent: Tuesday, 07 February, 2012 16:54 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: [ECOLOG-L] request for your comments concerning proposed changes to Endangered Species Act ECOLOG members, I am sharing a letter with you on behalf of a colleague of mine at the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD). This letter encourages ecologists to participate in an open request for comments from the USFWS and NMFS about proposed revisions to the Endangered Species Act. Please direct your questions to CBD's Noah Greenwald - his contact information is at the end of this email. Kim Landsbergen Ph.D., Certified Senior Ecologist Associate Professor, Columbus College of Art & Design Visiting Research Scholar, EEOB, The Ohio State University CarbonEcology Consulting LLC, Owner e: kim.landsbergen at gmail dot com p: 01-614-795-6003 - - - - - - - - - - Dear Scientists, The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service are currently accepting comments on a draft policy that interprets the phrase significant portion of its range (SPOIR) in the Endangered Species Act. The Act defines an endangered species as any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range and a threatened species as any species which is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. These definitions make clear that a species need not be at risk of worldwide extinction to qualify for Endangered Species Act protection. Rather, as noted in the draft policy, a species would qualify as an endangered species if it is in danger of extinction throughout all of its range, or if it is in danger of extinction in a significant portion of its range.[1] As such, this provision provides a means to protect species before they are on the brink of extinction and is thus of tantamount importance to species conservation. Unfortunately, the draft policy includes two provisions that were first proposed under the Bush administration and have the effect of sharply limiting the circumstances under which species will be protected because they are in trouble in portions of their range. First, the draft policy specifies that a portion of the range of a species is significant if its contribution to the viability of the species is so important that without that portion, the species would be in danger of extinction. This is a distinction without a difference and as a result overly restrictive. In effect, any species that would qualify for protection because it is endangered in a SPOIR, would qualify for protection anyway because it is endangered in all of its range. This approach will result in species that are severely endangered in portions of their range being denied protection because they are secure in some portion of their range even if that portion is just a fraction. This reasoning has already resulted in denial of protection for the cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl, which is undeniably endangered in the Sonoran Desert in Arizona and New Mexico, but arguably common further south in Mexico in different habitats. Fish and Wildlife denied protection despite recognizing that the Sonoran Desert Ecoregion represents an important portion of the Western DPS, and of the taxon as a whole, and that the birds found here were adapted to a drier warmer climate, so may be better adapted to a warming world. Another example of a species that may very well get denied protection under this policy is the little brown bat, which has undergone severe declines across the northeastern U.S. because of white-nose syndrome, but still remai
Re: [ECOLOG-L] overpopulation and the abuse of facts by religon
You make some good points, Christian, deserving a better response than I'm going to provide right now at 11 p.m. First, the basic problem is not so much overpopulation as it is overconsumption. According to one source I've read, the average U.S. citizen has a consumption footprint as large as 90 Bangladeshis. Second, many religions, including mainstream Protestants, promote or at least tolerate birth control and other limits on procreation. Third, I can teach (and have taught) cosmological, geological and biological evolution in my church's youth and adult education programs. The myths and metaphors of our religious heritage (what you call "lies") frequently parallel current science. And they try to answer questions that current science cannot answer, e.g., "Why is there something instead of nothing?" "Why is there life?" "Why is their human intelligence and cognition?" "Why are humans altruistic to other humans outside their genetic clan?" "Why are we here?" Warren W. Aney Senior Wildlife Ecologist Tigard, OR 97223 -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of Christian Vincenot Sent: Thursday, 08 December, 2011 18:56 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] overpopulation and the abuse of facts by religon > Why is this forum arguing about the influence of Judaic religions on > population growth? I believe that Nathan answered this question in the very first post. Simply because there is indeed an obvious dogma coming with these religions (and a few other ones) that forbids abortion and/or promotes uncontrolled procreation while spreading flat lies about the carrying capacity of our Earth. This in turn obviously impacts demography. I find the link straightforward and the original question raised in this thread legitimate. > If the population growth of the earth is going to be impacted it won't be > by coaxing popular religions like Catholicism and Christianity to be > less"fruitful". Will it be by acknowledging or even ignoring what these religions preach then? > Despite the predominance of these religions in countries > like the U.S. and Britain, the growth rate in these countries are > decreasing and have been steadily for years. Why? Of course, education and birth control played a role... but the decrease of power of religions also did. Actually the two are linked. Education generally lowers the belief in archaic mysticisms like religions. (Actually, I am pretty sure that the strength of belief in religions could be seen as a metric to measure the level of education of countries.) Also, note that the US or GB are not really examples of extremely religious countries relatively to the rest of the world (although they definitely are compared to other developed countries). > On the other hand, the countries with the highest population growth rates > such as Liberia, Burundi, Afghanistan, W. Sahara, E. Timer, Niger, > Eritrea, Uganda, DR Congo, and the Palestinian Territories, etc have what > sort of women's rights? What do you know, (...) With all due respect, most of the countries that you cite are Christian countries (i.e. Liberia, Burundi, DR Congo, Uganda, East Timor), and on top of this, all of them are way more religious than the US or GB. > Take a look at all the countries with growth rates higher than 2% and then > look at how women are treated in that nation. Take a look at all the countries with growth rates higher than 2%, and then look at how religious they are. You will also be surprised. Again, your argumentation against the importance of religions in this issue does not stand. Take a look at this survey: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3423/3277768007_e06378be14_b.jpg What you are ignoring is the opposition between religion and education. Of course education would and hopefully will solve the issue of overpopulation, but it will do so by explaining the flat lies that religions carry, and which prevent women from enjoying their rights and freedom in terms of birth control (and others). Therefore, you cannot deny the fact that, in many cases (like in the one originally brought up by Nathan), there is a link between religion (especially what you refer to as "Judaic religions") and demography. You cannot fight one without fighting the other. Best regards, Christian Vincenot
Re: [ECOLOG-L] overpopulation and the abuse of facts by religon
The phrase "Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it and rule over the fish of the sea and over the winged creatures in the heavens and over every creature that crawls on the ground" is from the Hebrew bible, so it is part of both Jewish and Christian tradition. Many, if not most, conservative, mainstream and progressive Jews and Christians are now acknowledging that we as humans have fulfilled the conditions of this directive (we've filled the earth and subdued it) so now it's time to go on to the next step and be responsible rulers. As Edward O. Wilson (a self-proclaimed agnostic) puts it: "Science and religion are the two most powerful forces of society. Together they can save creation." Warren W. Aney Tigard, Oregon -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of Nathan Brouwer Sent: Wednesday, 07 December, 2011 00:53 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: [ECOLOG-L] overpopulation and the abuse of facts by religon As pointed out, many conservative Christians believe the mandate in Genesis to "be fruitful and increase in number" is a directive to produce as many children as possible. Whenever I have heard this argument put forward, there is usually a science-sounding adjunct like, "and you know, the whole population of the earth could fit into the state of Texas, each with a ranch house and a back yard." The logic seems to be that as long as there is space to fit people we should keep populating the earth. (This logic was recently put forward by the father on the popular TV show 19 Kids and Counting. I have also heard this from the influential - and controversial -- pastor Mark Driscoll of Mars Hill Church in Seattle). It seems this odd argument of fitting the word's population into Texas or wherever adds a science-like justification to their faith-based values. While its frustrating that this erroneous thinking is invoked I think it indicates some level of appreciation for science, facts, math, even modeling. A potential response could invoke the ecological footprint concept and point out how much land it would take to feed a population of 7 billion living in suburban ranch houses.
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Ecology What is it?
I've been casually scanning these discussions but not participating until now. So excuse me if I repeat something that's already been said. To me, as a professionally certified Senior Wildlife Ecologist (i.e., certified Senior Ecologist by ESA and certified Wildlife Biologist by The Wildlife Society), there seems to be three (over?)simple answers to the question "Ecology What is it?": 1. The word "ecology" comes from the Greek "oikos" meaning "household" plus the Greek "logos" meaning "reckoning." So, to me, "ecology" at its roots is the reckoning or consideration of natural households. (Other words with the "oikos" base include economics and ecumenical.) 2. When wandering through the woods (or the plains) with a group of biological professionals, it seems that the foresters/botanists are looking at the trees and shrubs, the wildlife biologists/zoologists are looking through the trees and shrubs to see the animals, and the soils scientist/geologist is looking down to see the ground and rocks. But the ecologist in me is looking at all of the above trying to make out how it all integrates and interacts. 3. The word "ecology" has become transmogrified by the media and the general public into a much wider meaning. Newspapers find that "ecology" fits the headlines better than "environmental" so the two words have become synonymous in their dictionary. And sometimes when I tell someone that I am an ecologist, the spoken or unspoken response is "oh, so you're another one of those gdamdvirnmentlists" (pronouncing the latter with only 5 syllables). Summation? For me, applied professional ecology is team formation -- integrating the more specific disciplines and perspectives into a cohesive and interrelating whole by providing insights on how natural things work together. Warren W. Aney Tigard, Oregon -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of Astrid Caldas Sent: Tuesday, 15 November, 2011 07:21 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Ecology What is it? I am an ecologist because I can't help but think in ecological terms - which can be both a good and a bad thing. Sometimes the broader view creates more trouble than finds solutions, but it is what it is. I always end up coming to terms with my inability to sometimes evaluate a problem properly or account for all the factors that should be taken into consideration, if nothing else for practical purposes (if you want to finish part of a project, for instance, you must draw the line somewhere - maybe because the grant is done and you need to write a report, a paper, and get more funding - I can see that one starting a whole new discussion!). It helps that I have degrees, of course, since those degrees "taught" me the language, the background, and the method that makes me think ecologically. But they didn't turn me into who I am - I am sure there are plenty of people out there with degrees who don't particularly become ecologists but rather call themselves environmental scientists or something else. Maybe being an ecologist is a vision? I always wondered about the ESA certifications. In my mind, it has always been something for others, not for ourselves. Like a court of law or EPA might need someone to testify on something, and they like titles and certifications and such. I never thought of getting certified because I don't think it would add anything to me as an ecologist, but I may be wrong. Astrid Caldas, Ph.D. Climate Change and Wildlife Science Fellow Defenders of Wildlife 1130 17th Street N.W. Washington D.C. 20036-4604 Tel: 202-772-0229 |Fax: 202-682-1331 acal...@defenders.org | www.defenders.org -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of Matt Chew Sent: Monday, November 14, 2011 5:41 PM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Ecology What is it? As of the latest digest I received, this thread had attracted input from fewer than 0.1% of the list's 12K recipients. Perhaps there are 12K reasons for remaining unengaged but I suspect they are all variations or combinations of a few basic themes. Rather than debate plausible rationalizations, I challenge you all to consider Wayne's question carefully. Sociologists who study the formation and dynamics of scientific disciplines use the concept of "boundary work" to describe the process of deciding what ideas (and those who adhere to them) are "inside" (therefore also "outside') of the group. So, what's "in" and what's "out" of ecology? Academic ecologists and biogeographers have a long tradition of border skirmishing. But bey
Re: [ECOLOG-L] a non Ivory Tower view of invasive species -- feral horses
For a good statement and some facts on feral horses and donkeys go The Wildlife Society sites: http://joomla.wildlife.org/documents/positionstatements/Feral.Horses.July.2011.pdf http://joomla.wildlife.org/documents/policy/feral_horses_1.pdf The most recent release of domestic horses into the wild probably occurred this morning due to someone's inability to feed their stock or sell them to a meat processor. Warren W. Aney Senior Wildlife Ecologist Tigard, Oregon -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of Hamazaki, Hamachan (DFG) Sent: Tuesday, 13 September, 2011 01:12 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] a non Ivory Tower view of invasive species While we are still on invasive species in the US South Western Regions, what is everyone's opinion about wild horses in the US? They are apparently introduced and became invasive, yet are protected by law. BLM manages them as invasive species, while there is a law suit in the 9th circuit court of Appeals to consider them as native species. http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21028174.300-are-the-wild-horses-of-the-american-west-native.html http://tdn.com/lifestyles/article_71e93474-92ff-11e0-9d41-001cc4c002e0.html I always wondered about this issue while I was in NM. Toshihide "Hamachan" Hamazaki, 濱崎俊秀PhD Alaska Department of Fish and Game: アラスカ州漁業野生動物課 Division of Commercial Fisheries: 商業漁業部 333 Raspberry Rd. Anchorage, AK 99518 Phone: (907)267-2158 Cell: (907)440-9934
Re: [ECOLOG-L] a non Ivory Tower view of invasive species
Wayne, it would seem to be as simple as this: a stand of junipers has greater biomass and a deeper root system than a flora composed of grasses, forbs and scattered shrubs. As a result the stand of juniper transpires more water from more levels than its counterpart biota. However, the observed effect of juniper removal on springs and streams is primarily anecdotal, as you said. Oregon's Great Basin ranges were heavily overgrazed starting way back in the late 19th century. The increase in juniper cover has occurred since then, primarily as a result of reduced fire carrying forage species. You can find out much more than you probably want to know about this in the 2005 Oregon State University Technical Bulletin 152, Biology, Ecology, and Management of Western Juniper. http://www.sagebrushsea.org/pdf/Miller_et_al_Juniper_Tech_Bulletin.pdf This publication will answer your questions about pre-fire-exclusion stand characteristics, management practices, and causes for increased juniper recruitment. It will informs us that cow pies have little or no effect juniper seeds spread by birds, not cattle. Warren W. Aney Tigard, Oregon -Original Message- From: Wayne Tyson [mailto:landr...@cox.net] Sent: Monday, 12 September, 2011 19:28 To: Warren W. Aney; ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] a non Ivory Tower view of invasive species Warren and Ecolog: Well, Warren, I guess I'll have to take your word for it. You've got more experience with that area than I do, but I would still like to know more about the theoretical foundations and evidence to justify some of those conclusions. And, I'm concerned about the actual costs and benefits to wildlife as well as cows. To me, that area shouldn't have a cow on it, but certainly not a subsidized cow on a subsidized "range." And I come from a cow background, so I'm not prejudiced; I had a Hereford bull for a 4-H project, so I'm not insensitive to "ranchers" either. But I have seen plenty of cow-burnt "range" in the Intermountain West. I've heard the same "water-hog" story about pinyon pines and other "brush" all over the western US. I've heard the restored spring and streamflow stories too, but haven't seen evidence beyond anecdotal stuff. However, you know me, I think that anecdote is the singular of data. But correlation, again, is not necessarily causation. I'm still skeptical, but holding any "final" judgment in reserve. I do agree that "nothing" grows under junipers, but out beyond the drip line it's a different story, at least where I've observed it elsewhere (I wasn't that carefully-observant at Steen's). I don't doubt the stemflow part either, but it's not uncommon for plants to shade out other plants; this doesn't mean that said "parched mini-desert" is a serious problem in the context of the ecosystem--or does it? But the channeling down into the ground works to the benefit of the juniper--ain't that the way it's supposed to work? What is the penetration profile like in the absence of the juniper? What's the ratio of annual unit biomass production to water consumption for junipers? For the "replacement" vegetation? Has it been demonstrated that groundwater recharge is more effectively intercepted by junipers than, say, grasses. The former have deeper, ropier root systems than grasses that mine the capillary fringe and other water on its way down, but enough to shut off springs and stop streamflow? It seems to me that any given site has a given effective carrying capacity that is going to limit vegetation growth accordingly, no matter what the (natural) vegetation is. The water may have a better chance of percolating past the junipers than the grass, no? The junipers have a limited capacity (and a limited need) for water; the grasses will increase transpiration surfaces much faster in response to water. What were pre-fire-exclusion stand characteristics? Are management practices aiming for that, or for some other target? How much increased juniper recruitment occurred as a result of fire exclusion rather than some other cause, such as livestock-induced soil disturbance? Do cow pies have any effect, etc? Now I guess we have to add "intrusive" to our list of terms? But really, Warren--crying cowboys? Is that fair? WT - Original Message - From: "Warren W. Aney" To: "'Wayne Tyson'" ; Sent: Monday, September 12, 2011 3:44 PM Subject: RE: [ECOLOG-L] a non Ivory Tower view of invasive species Yes, Wayne, the BLM is cutting down "big junipers" as you saw -- 100 years of fire protection means we now have some pretty good-sized junipers in the areas that once burn
Re: [ECOLOG-L] a non Ivory Tower view of invasive species
Yes, Wayne, the BLM is cutting down "big junipers" as you saw -- 100 years of fire protection means we now have some pretty good-sized junipers in the areas that once burnt over. However, the BLM is not cutting down the really big "grandfather" junipers growing on rims and rocky ridges where wildfires did not reach or burn hot enough to kill these old junipers. Regarding water and vegetation effects, junipers are water hogs and vegetation excluders. The ground under a big juniper tends to be void of grasses, forbs and shrubs. That's because the juniper not only mines the deep water, its canopy also collects rainwater and channels it down the trunk into the ground, creating a parched mini-desert where other species are inhibited from growing. My son tells an anecdote from when he was a Forest Service district ranger on the east (Great Basin) side of the Fremont-Winema National Forest: He took a senior rancher to see an area adjacent to his ranch property where they had been removing intrusive juniper from a draw leading into the Chewaucan River. When the rancher saw rejuvenated springs he teared up, saying "I remember seeing those springs go away many years ago and I thought I'd never see them flowing again." Warren W. Aney Tigard, Oregon -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of Wayne Tyson Sent: Monday, 12 September, 2011 13:08 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] a non Ivory Tower view of invasive species All: The BLM has a "demonstration" project on Steen's mountain, complete with plasticized photos and text explaining that fire suppression was the culprit in the juniper "invasion," but my bias tends to line up more with Hohn's. However, I suspect trampling and hoof-dragging (soil disturbances) are more likely to be primary factor, borne more of gut feelings than evidence. The BLM PR discusses the comparative effects of various treatments, but the bias seems to be pretty much as Hohn describes. Back in 1980, I used the field-trial approach to "test" various treatments for grassland restoration. One of the results showed that evaporative losses went up, apparently drastically, as the clayey soil developed large desiccation cracks quickly, while the uncleared plots did not crack until much later in the dry season. If the cracks are deep enough and swelling doesn't close them too fast, there might be an advantage to the cracks as a means of depositing free water (especially in low-volume precipitation events) at depth rather than depending upon percolation alone. This sort of thing cries out for more and better research than we had the budget to do. Based on what I have read and heard over the years, I suspect that plant-soil-water relations, especially in wildland soils, is not well-understood by most researchers. The more certain a researcher is concerning such conclusions, the more I tend to consider them suspect. I think that a lot of range managers are shooting themselves in the foot by cutting down big junipers (as has been done at Steen's Mountain). First, interception of solar radiation tends to reduce evaporative loss. Second, junipers and other woody plants of semi-arid and arid regions tend to be fairly efficient in terms of "water use." Third, grasses tend to mine water from shallow depths and transpire more (higher ET?) from the first, say, meter or less of soil, thus intercepting percolating water, especially in heavier soils, possibly or probably reducing rather than enhancing groundwater recharge. Fourth, I suspect that the marginal "improvement" in forage production is a snare and a delusion; nobody seems to check the alternative of a mixed stand, so there is no comparative basis for any such conclusions apart from intuitive inference. Fifth, heterogeneous sites are more resilient than more homogeneous ones; the big, old junipers (ironically far older than the acknowledged beginning of fire suppression) shade areas where grasses tend to remain active longer as the season advances, providing more palatable forage as well as providing for wider reproduction potential via zones of seed production when the more open areas die or go dormant, resulting in diminished seed production or "crop" failure (provided the stock has been taken off soon enough to keep the seeds from being eaten before maturity). Sixth, the old junipers provide stock shade and wildlife cover. There may be more, but that's what comes to mind at the moment. If managers want to control the juniper invasion, why not kill the trees that truly represent the invasion, i.e., the younger seedlings, saplings, and smaller trees rather than the ones they must acknowledge existed prior to the "invasion?" As usual, I look forward to alternative evaluations of the evidenc
Re: [ECOLOG-L] a non Ivory Tower view of invasive species
I was speaking from a contemporary perspective, Manuel. From a very long term perspective perhaps we can say that a species that somehow translocated into another ecosystem may have initially disrupted that ecosystem but after a few thousand generations the species and the ecosystem evolved together to form a coherent and mutually productive stability. There is a hypothesis that Native Americans disrupted the American ecosystems resulting in the extinction of several large mammal species shortly after their arrival. But after a few thousand generations it appears that they became a component of the American ecosystems, sometimes managing certain ecosystem elements to their benefit but certainly not disrupting and degrading these systems to the extent that Euro-Americans did (and continue to do so). Taking your island fauna example, consider the Galapagos finches. Charles Darwin concluded that there was probably a single invasion of a finch species eons ago, but these finches evolved into different species so as to fill various ecological niches, resulting in a diverse and stable set of finch-inhabited ecosystems. Certainly introduced rats could also eventually evolve along with the ecosystems to become a stable component. But in the short term that ecosystem is going to be disrupted, and in the long term that ecosystem is going to be a somewhat different system. We humans, as overseers have the ability and duty to evaluate that current disruption and that future potential. There are those of us who say let nature take its course and there are those who say manage for human values I say we should be following the axiom of Aldo Leopold: "A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise." We need to evaluate and manage invaders with that axiom as our beacon. Warren W. Aney Tigard, Oregon _ From: Manuel Spínola [mailto:mspinol...@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, 11 September, 2011 04:54 To: Warren W. Aney Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] a non Ivory Tower view of invasive species Hi Warren, Take an island, you have "native" birds and later in time you have black rats that you consider invaders, but why those "native" birds are in the island, they needed to be invaders at some point in time. If Homo sapiens originated in Africa, from where the native Americans are from? Best, Manuel 2011/9/10 Warren W. Aney There can be a meaningful ecological difference between an organism that evolved with an ecosystem and an organism that evolved outside of but spread, migrated or was otherwise introduced into that ecosystem. An organism that evolved with an ecosystem is considered a component that characterizes that ecosystem. An introduced organism that did not evolve with that ecosystem should at least be evaluated for its potential modifying effects on that ecosystem. Am I being too simplistic? Warren W. Aney Senior Wildlife Ecologist Tigard, OR -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of Manuel Spínola Sent: Saturday, 10 September, 2011 12:22 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] a non Ivory Tower view of invasive species With all due respect, are not we all invaders at some point in time? Best, Manuel Spínola 2011/9/10 David L. McNeely > Matt Chew wrote: > > > We can compose effectively endless lists of cases where human agency has > > redistributed biota and thereby affected pre-existing populations, > > ecological relationships and traditional or potential economic > > opportunities. Those are indisputable facts. > > The House Sparrow is in North America by human hand. > > > > But what those facts mean is disputable. > > House sparrows are in serious decline in Europe, probably as an unintended > consequence due to human actions. > > > > I see effects; they see impacts. > > I see change; they see damage. > > Many people see a need to eradicate non-natives. At the same time, many > people see a need to preserve natives. > > With regard to the house sparrow -- hmmm. . > > Where does the "arms race" that Matt mentioned further along in his post > lead? > > mcneely > > > > -- *Manuel Spínola, Ph.D.* Instituto Internacional en Conservación y Manejo de Vida Silvestre Universidad Nacional Apartado 1350-3000 Heredia COSTA RICA mspin...@una.ac.cr mspinol...@gmail.com Teléfono: (506) 2277-3598 Fax: (506) 2237-7036 Personal website: Lobito de río <https://sites.google.com/site/lobitoderio/> Institutional website: ICOMVIS <http://www.icomvis.una.ac.cr/> -- Manuel Spínola, Ph.D. Instituto Internacional en Conservación y Manejo de Vida Silvestre Universidad Nacional A
Re: [ECOLOG-L] a non Ivory Tower view of invasive species
There can be a meaningful ecological difference between an organism that evolved with an ecosystem and an organism that evolved outside of but spread, migrated or was otherwise introduced into that ecosystem. An organism that evolved with an ecosystem is considered a component that characterizes that ecosystem. An introduced organism that did not evolve with that ecosystem should at least be evaluated for its potential modifying effects on that ecosystem. Am I being too simplistic? Warren W. Aney Senior Wildlife Ecologist Tigard, OR -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of Manuel Spínola Sent: Saturday, 10 September, 2011 12:22 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] a non Ivory Tower view of invasive species With all due respect, are not we all invaders at some point in time? Best, Manuel Spínola 2011/9/10 David L. McNeely > Matt Chew wrote: > > > We can compose effectively endless lists of cases where human agency has > > redistributed biota and thereby affected pre-existing populations, > > ecological relationships and traditional or potential economic > > opportunities. Those are indisputable facts. > > The House Sparrow is in North America by human hand. > > > > But what those facts mean is disputable. > > House sparrows are in serious decline in Europe, probably as an unintended > consequence due to human actions. > > > > I see effects; they see impacts. > > I see change; they see damage. > > Many people see a need to eradicate non-natives. At the same time, many > people see a need to preserve natives. > > With regard to the house sparrow -- hmmm. . > > Where does the "arms race" that Matt mentioned further along in his post > lead? > > mcneely > > > > -- *Manuel Spínola, Ph.D.* Instituto Internacional en Conservación y Manejo de Vida Silvestre Universidad Nacional Apartado 1350-3000 Heredia COSTA RICA mspin...@una.ac.cr mspinol...@gmail.com Teléfono: (506) 2277-3598 Fax: (506) 2237-7036 Personal website: Lobito de río <https://sites.google.com/site/lobitoderio/> Institutional website: ICOMVIS <http://www.icomvis.una.ac.cr/>
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Responses to Davis_etal..Nature article on invasive species (UNCLASSIFIED)
A couple of regional examples, Melissa: Reed canarygrass in wetlands and Armenian (Himalayan) blackberry in oak savannas. Warren W. Aney Senior Wildlife Ecologist Tigard, OR -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of Kirkland, Melissa J NWP Sent: Thursday, 28 July, 2011 09:36 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Responses to Davis_etal..Nature article on invasive species (UNCLASSIFIED) Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: NONE As part of this debate, and I give nod to those that have declared the original article as over-simplified, there are vast differences in the impacts of "invasive" species that displace desirable species, and non-native species that simply naturalize in an area with minimal impacts to the ecosystem. Which brings up another concept for me. Ecosystem functions and how those functions collapse in the face of replacement of native plant communities with monocultural stands of invasive species. Just my humble thoughts. Melissa Kirkland Natural Resource Specialist US Army Corps of Engineers Eugene, Oregon Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: NONE
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Case studies: food & energy sustainability
Wayne, there are hundreds of definitions being used for "sustainability" -- some even more ambiguous than the one Francesca suggests. Here are some more examples, some of which assume or imply that future technology will bail us out: "Meeting present needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs." 1987 Brundtland Report, Our Common Future. "When a process is sustainable, it can be carried out over and over without negative environmental effects or impossibly high costs to anyone involved." "Maintaining your consumption without eroding your capital." Johannesburg Summit Secretary-General Nitin Desai. "Stabilizing resource exploitation while allowing the less privileged an equitable share of our earth's bounty without compromising its livability." "Providing the best outcomes for the human and natural environments both now and into the indefinite future." "Bearing in mind the effects of our actions on our descendants for seven generations." Iroquois Confederacy Hargroves & Smith 2005: . Deal cautiously with risk, uncertainty and irreversibility. . Ensure appropriate valuation, appreciation and restoration of nature. . Integrate environmental, social and economic goals in policies and activities. . Provide equal opportunity and community participation/Sustainable community. . Conserve biodiversity and ecological integrity. . Ensure inter-generational equity. . Recognize the global dimension. . Commit to best practice. . Allow no net loss of human capital or natural capital. . Abide by the principle of continuous improvement. . Meet the need for good governance. "In a sustainable society, nature is not subject to systematically increasing: 1. concentrations of substances extracted from the Earth's crust; 2. concentrations of substances produced by society; 3. degradation by physical means and, in that society. . . 4. the ability for humans to meet their needs is not systematically undermined." The Natural Step Framework "Sustainability means using, developing and protecting resources at a rate and in a manner that enables people to meet their current needs and also provides that future generations can meet their own needs. Sustainability requires simultaneously meeting environmental, economic and community needs." State of Oregon's Sustainability Act "To maintain forever the current productivity of renewable resource systems including soils, waters, forests, wildlands and the atmosphere; and to deplete nonrenewable resources only at the rate that cost-equivalent substitutes can be developed, with costs measured on economic, social and ecological scales." Sustainability: "An activity that is performed in such a way that the object of the activity will renew itself or be renewable in a time-frame that does not diminish the source." Kelly Stettner, Black River Action Team, Springfield, VT "A thing is sustainable when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability and beauty of the biotic community. It is not sustainable when it tends otherwise." Paraphrasing Aldo Leopold *** Here's the definition I like best (so far): "To maintain forever the current integrity, stability and productivity of renewable resource systems including soils, waters, forests, wildlands and the atmosphere; and to deplete nonrenewable resources only at the rate that cost-equivalent substitutes can be developed, with costs measured on economic, social and ecological scales." Warren W. Aney Senior Wildlife Ecologist Tigard, Oregon -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of frah...@yahoo.com Sent: Tuesday, 26 July, 2011 14:49 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Case studies: food & energy sustainability Dear Wayne, I am sure it can be defined in various ways and it is possible to give it a more or less ecological, social or ethical twist. What I came up with thinking of a "dry" scientific definition is: "Sustainability is what guarantees that life supporting systems keep functioning over time" Looking forward to comments and other definitions. Francesca From: Wayne Tyson To: frah...@yahoo.com; ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2011 11:17 PM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Case studies: food & energy sustainability Honorable Forum and Francesca: Please define, in scientific terms, sustainability. Thanks, WT - Original Message - From: To: Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2011 2:15 AM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Case studies: food & energy sustainability The Story of Stuff Project has put together and made avai Dear Shelly, The Story of Stuf
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Animal Summer Camp Activities
I have taken youth in this age category to a small stream and used a small hand net to collect aquatic invertebrates -- have one of the youth put the net in contact with the bottom and another to stir up the bottom just upstream. Place the collected specimens in a white plastic tub so everyone can see them and you can identify them and talk about their role in stream ecology. You can easily get a kit for this such as the LaMotte Aquatic Bug Kit: http://www.lamotte.com/pages/edu/3-0030.html You can go a step further and do some water sampling, relating the specimen collection to water temperature and quality. I've used a water monitoring kit to measure basic water quality parameters: http://www.lamotte.com/component/option,com_pages/mid,/page,69/task,item/ I have also had the youth explore and sample for soil organisms using simple garden hand tools. A little raking and shallow digging in forest duff soil results in discovery of a variety of arthropods, annelids, gastropods, etc., leading to a discussion on their roles in the ecosystem. In all of these cases, there is an emphasis on returning the animals to the exact place where they were found and restoring the disturbed areas as much as possible. If you want, I can email you an idea sheet produced for youth outdoor explorations (it was prepared for area church youth groups, so it does have an Oregon emphasis and a religious component). Warren W. Aney Senior Wildlife Ecologist 9403 SW 74th Ave Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 539-1009 (503) 246-2605 fax -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of Melissa Barlett Sent: Sunday, 17 July, 2011 09:00 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Animal Summer Camp Activities Hello Ecolog! I'm working at a Girl Scout camp this summer, and this week's theme is all about animals, and I'm looking for activities to do with 6-7th graders (11-13 years old) about animals of any kind! Thanks for anything you have! -- Dr. Melissa A. Barlett Dept of Microbiology University of Massachusetts Amherst, MA 01003 Phone: (413) 577-0447 Email: mbarl...@microbio.umass.edu www.Geobacter.org <http://www.geobacter.org/>
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Responses to Davis_etal..Nature article on invasive species
Wayne, the juniper "invasion" in the northern Great Basin sort of defines one boundary for what "invasiveness" really is. In this case the endemic western juniper begins to dominate the landscape because of reduction or elimination of wildfires. A typical wildfire managed landscape will have a diversity of shrub and grass communities with junipers limited to rocky ridges and other areas less vulnerable to wildfire. A landscape dominated by juniper will have less diversity and less productivity. There are other similar examples of how wildfire control is resulting in changed native communities, e.g., Oregon white oak woodlands in western Oregon valleys being overwhelmed by endemic Douglas-fir and shrubby undergrowth; open Ponderosa pine forests in the Blue Mountains changing into denser mixed fir and pine forests. An argument can be made that since wildfire is the natural agent maintaining certain conditions, lack of wildfire just allows another natural succession to occur. In the cases described management such as cutting, thinning and controlled burns may be necessary to maintain or produce desired and "healthier" conditions. Warren W. Aney Tigard, Oregon -Original Message- From: Wayne Tyson [mailto:landr...@cox.net] Sent: Thursday, 07 July, 2011 15:17 To: Warren W. Aney; ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Responses to Davis_etal..Nature article on invasive species Warren: How about giving us a rundown on the juniper "invasion" at Steen's Mountain, and your take on the BLM's actions there? WT - Original Message - From: "Warren W. Aney" To: Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2011 10:53 PM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Responses to Davis_etal..Nature article on invasive species Geoff, mantras such as you cite are good as long as we recognize that they tend to simplify grand complexity. The more or less natural barred owl invasion of spotted owl habitat resulting in population displacement and reduction is a good example of how even natural evolution/change can be seen as adverse. Warren W. Aney Senior Wildlife Ecologist Tigard, Oregon -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of Geoffrey Patton Sent: Wednesday, 06 July, 2011 17:40 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Responses to Davis_etal..Nature article on invasive species My wife and I were discussing this topic the other day while hiking through a Maryland park infested with Chinese garlic mustard and Japanese stilt grass (among other invasives). We'd biked past slopes of kudzu and came from Florida's expanses of Brazilian peppers and punk trees. Certainly, we appreciate that Science will note positive aspects in selected situations where there are temporally-beneficial effects. However, the mantra that remains to be overturned is that "Any change from the natural evolution of an ecosystem is, by definition, adverse". Ecosystems took millions of years of experimentation to achieve a deep dynamic balance. Upset by out-of-control human intervention can tilt against a healthy balance and remains counter to maintenance of diversity. Cordially yours, Geoff Patton, Ph.D. 2208 Parker Ave., Wheaton, MD 20902 301.221.9536 --- On Wed, 7/6/11, Christopher M Moore wrote: From: Christopher M Moore Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Responses to Davis_etal..Nature article on invasive species To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Date: Wednesday, July 6, 2011, 6:30 PM Thanks for the post David. As a newcomer to science (working on my Ph.D.), there were some lingering questions I had while reading Davis et al. and the responses: Is this how we want to move forward as a science? What does it mean when we resort to gathering signatures? Is this how our science should work? What does it contribute? How should we deal with issues that are debated in a more productive and less polarizing manner? Personally, I don't think that petitioning changes ecology nor any other natural phenomena. I would like to add Peter Kareiva's blog on the matter to be added to this discussion: http://blog.nature.org/2011/06/invasive-species-fight-mark-davis-peter-karei va/ Opening of the piece: "A famous person once observed that the signature of a civilized mind is the ability to hold two seemingly contradictory ideas in one's head at the same time. This is exactly what conservation must learn to do when it comes to introduced (or what we often call "non-native" or "invasive") species." Cheers, Chris On Jul 6, 2011, at 2:18 PM, David Duffy wrote: >> Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2011 19:52:27 + > > > >> Forwarded from rom: Shyama Pagad >> on Aliens-L list server >> >> Correspondence Nature Vol 475 July 7 2011 >> >> -- >> Non-natives: 141 scientists object >> &
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Responses to Davis_etal..Nature article on invasive species
Geoff, mantras such as you cite are good as long as we recognize that they tend to simplify grand complexity. The more or less natural barred owl invasion of spotted owl habitat resulting in population displacement and reduction is a good example of how even natural evolution/change can be seen as adverse. Warren W. Aney Senior Wildlife Ecologist Tigard, Oregon -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of Geoffrey Patton Sent: Wednesday, 06 July, 2011 17:40 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Responses to Davis_etal..Nature article on invasive species My wife and I were discussing this topic the other day while hiking through a Maryland park infested with Chinese garlic mustard and Japanese stilt grass (among other invasives). We'd biked past slopes of kudzu and came from Florida's expanses of Brazilian peppers and punk trees. Certainly, we appreciate that Science will note positive aspects in selected situations where there are temporally-beneficial effects. However, the mantra that remains to be overturned is that "Any change from the natural evolution of an ecosystem is, by definition, adverse". Ecosystems took millions of years of experimentation to achieve a deep dynamic balance. Upset by out-of-control human intervention can tilt against a healthy balance and remains counter to maintenance of diversity. Cordially yours, Geoff Patton, Ph.D. 2208 Parker Ave., Wheaton, MD 20902 301.221.9536 --- On Wed, 7/6/11, Christopher M Moore wrote: From: Christopher M Moore Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Responses to Davis_etal..Nature article on invasive species To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Date: Wednesday, July 6, 2011, 6:30 PM Thanks for the post David. As a newcomer to science (working on my Ph.D.), there were some lingering questions I had while reading Davis et al. and the responses: Is this how we want to move forward as a science? What does it mean when we resort to gathering signatures? Is this how our science should work? What does it contribute? How should we deal with issues that are debated in a more productive and less polarizing manner? Personally, I don't think that petitioning changes ecology nor any other natural phenomena. I would like to add Peter Kareiva's blog on the matter to be added to this discussion: http://blog.nature.org/2011/06/invasive-species-fight-mark-davis-peter-karei va/ Opening of the piece: "A famous person once observed that the signature of a civilized mind is the ability to hold two seemingly contradictory ideas in ones head at the same time. This is exactly what conservation must learn to do when it comes to introduced (or what we often call non-native or invasive) species." Cheers, Chris On Jul 6, 2011, at 2:18 PM, David Duffy wrote: >> Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2011 19:52:27 + > > > >> Forwarded from rom: Shyama Pagad >> on Aliens-L list server >> >> Correspondence Nature Vol 475 July 7 2011 >> >> -- >> Non-natives: 141 scientists object >> >> We the undersigned feel that in advocating a >> change in the environmental management of >> introduced species (Nature 474, 153154; 2011), >> Mark Davis and colleagues assail two straw men. >> First, most conservation biologists and >> ecologists do not oppose non-native species per >> se only those targeted by the Convention on >> Biological Diversity as threatening ecosystems, >> habitats or species. There is no campaign >> against all introductions: scarcity of resources >> forces managers to prioritize according to the >> impact of troublesome species, as in the Australian Weed Risk Assessment. >> >> Second, invasion biologists and managers do not >> ignore the benefits of introduced species. They >> recognize that many non-native species curtail >> erosion and provide food, timber and other >> services. Nobody tries to eradicate wheat, for >> instance. Useful non-native species may >> sometimes still need to be managed because they >> have a negative impact, such as tree invasions >> that cause water loss in the South African fynbos. >> >> Davis and colleagues downplay the severe impact >> of non-native species that may not manifest for >> decades after their introduction as occurred >> with the Brazilian pepper shrub (Schinus >> terebinthifolius) in Florida (J. J. Ewel in >> Ecology of Biological Invasions of North America >> and Hawaii (eds H. A. Mooney and J. A. Drake) >> 214230; Springer, 1986). Also, some species may >> have only a subtle immediate impact but affect >> entire ecosystems, for example through their effect on soils. >> >&
Re: [ECOLOG-L] EcoTone: Speaking of species and their origins
Empirical evidence is not needed when observational evidence shows severe and widespread adverse effects of invasive species on local systems. Examples I know of include: Reed Canary Grass (Phalaris arundinacea) monocultures replacing diverse native sedge and forb wetland species mixes and reducing wildlife habitat productivity. Himalyan (Armenian) Blackberry (Rubus discolor) monocultures taking over meadows, pastures and field edges and reducing native wildlife use. Feral Horse (Equus cabalus) overuse of steppe grasslands and damage to streambanks, increasing soil erosion and stream degradation. Feral Pig (Suus scrufa) soil disturbance, vegetation removal and disease transmission. Knapweeds (Centaurea and Acroptilon spp.) taking over both disturbed and undisturbed rangelands, replacing native grasses and forbs, and reducing herbivory; some species also supress native grasses and forbs through allelopathy. Garlic mustard (Alliaria petiolata) takeover of forest floor systems by outcompeting native species and effective allelopathy. English and Irish Ivy (Hedera spp.) monocultural takeover of forest floor and shrub systems, excluding native forbs and shrubs, adversely affecting tree survival and severely reducing native wildlife use. Cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) invasion of rangelands outcompeting native grasses by usurping soil water and promoting early wildfire (after which it quickly reseeds). As is the case with many ecological concepts, "invasive" is a subjective and relative term and not an absolute categorization. Some may consider dandelions to be invasive and others may say they're just a weed (another subjective term) adding diversity to lawn monocultures -- they are seldom a "takeover" species causing localized extirpation of native species as is the case with too many other prolific exotics. And not all "invasives" are non-native to a particular continent or region -- but they are usually and typically non-native to a particular adversely affected ecosystem. My conclusion: There have been successes in invasive control (e.g., tansy ragwort), and there are numerous cases where lack of control efforts will seriously deplete natural system diversity and value (both ecological and economic). All of the species I've listed above, and many more, are worth controlling or eliminating, and not all of this effort will make Monsanto richer. Warren W. Aney Senior Wildlife Ecologist Tigard, Oregon -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of Jeff Houlahan Sent: Saturday, 11 June, 2011 16:19 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] EcoTone: Speaking of species and their origins Hi all, not that Esat needs me to defend him but the list of species that can be 'googled' and identified as invasive scourges is, I suspect, longer than the list that actually are scourges. One of the species that was identified in Amyarta's list, purple loosestrife, is a classic example. You can go to hundreds of websites that will identify it as a species that competitively excludes native plant species and causes local extirpations. The empirical evidence to support this claim is almost non-existent (or was a couple of years ago when I checked last). There have been several reviews done on the topic and most conclude that there is little evidence that loosestrife causes extinctions at almost any scale. This isn't to suggest that invasives are never a problem but my understanding of the literature is that there is lots of evidence of extinctions caused by invasive predators and relatively little evidence of extinctions caused by competitive exclusion (zebra mussels are probably an exception to that general statement). I don't think it's a bad idea to actually step back and see if the investment in controlling invasive species is warranted. Jeff Houlahan
Re: [ECOLOG-L] EcoTone: Speaking of species and their origins
And here's a similar attack by Mark Ludwig, fellow with online progressive Truthout news: http://www.truth-out.org/pesticides-and-politics-americas-eco-war/1307539754 Ludwig claims invasive control is inspired and promoted by the likes of Monsanto. Warren W. Aney Tigard, Oregon -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of Judith S. Weis Sent: Friday, 10 June, 2011 11:31 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] EcoTone: Speaking of species and their origins IMHO, they are attacking a "straw man." I haven't seen many scientists, managers, policy-makers etc. getting all worked up about non-indigenous species who integrate well into the environment, get a green card, pay their taxes etc. The ones that are being attacked and for which they are spending lots of money are the truly invasive ones that cause ecological and economic damage - eating up everything in sight, outcompeting native species for food, space etc. - and generally taking over - affecting the environment in negative ways. > An essay published in the June 8 issue of Nature is causing something of a > stir. Eighteen ecologists who signed the essay, titled "Don't judge > species on their origins," "argue that conservationists should assess > organisms based on their impact on the local environment, rather than > simply whether they're native," as described in a recent Scientific > American podcast. > > In the essay, Mark Davis from Macalester College, St. Paul, Minnesota and > colleagues argue that adherence to the idea of non-natives as "the enemy" > is more a reflection of "prejudice rather than solid science," wrote > Brandon Keim in a Wired Science article. As the authors wrote, the > "preoccupation with the native-alien dichotomy" among scientists, land > managers and policy-makers is prohibitive to dynamic and pragmatic > conservation and species management in a 21st century planet that is > forever altered by climate change, land-use changes and other > anthropogenic influences. As a result of this misguided preoccupation, > claim the authors, time and resources are unnecessarily spent attempting > to eradicate introduced species that actually turn out to be a boon to the > environment; the authors cite the non-native tamarisk tree in the western > U.S. as an example of this... > > Read more and comment at > http://www.esa.org/esablog/ecologist-2/speaking-of-species-and-their-origins / >
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science Ecology Terms Definitions Invasive etc.
Wayne, part of the challenge in defining invasives is keeping it simple while making it complete. For example, the word "native" may or may not cover all invasives. Also, there can be non-human caused introductions or spread. The barred owl is native to North America. Its recent non-human induced spread in range and its resultant harm to endemic spotted owl populations would appear to quality it as an invasive, even though it doesn't fit some of the cited definitions. Reed canarygrass may be indigenous but its monocultural takeover of wetlands means it is classified as an invasive on most lists. Some of its spread has been due to cultivation use. So to me, the definition of an invasive is a species whose presence and spread reduces natural ecosystem qualities such as diversity, productivity, stability and resilience. Warren W. Aney Senior Wildlife Ecologist Tigard, OR -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of Wayne Tyson Sent: Sunday, 01 May, 2011 18:29 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Science Ecology Terms Definitions Invasive etc. Ecolog: Some may find it informative or ill-informative to follow the bouncing links on this site (they come up as pdf files). I am particularly interested in all ecologists' views of the definition of "invasive species," (here reproduced for your convenience), but there also are other flaws. Does ESA agree (aside from grammar nit-picking) with the text of the cited "laws?" http://www.iscc.ca.gov/cisac-strategic-framework.html INVASIVE SPECIES What is an Invasive Species? The ISCC Bylaws define invasive species as "non-native organisms which cause economic or environmental harm." The bylaws clarify that invasive species within the scope of the council do not include humans, domestic livestock or non-harmful exotic organisms. This matches the definition established at the federal level by Executive Order 13112 in 1999, which established the National Invasive Species Council. It defines invasive species as "alien species whose introduction does or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health." The order clarifies that alien species are those introduced to an area, whether intentionally or unintentionally, as a result of human activity. California Food and Agricultural Code (Section 5260.5) defines "invasive pests" as "animals, plants, insects, and plant and animal diseases, or groups of those animals, plants, insects, and plant and animal diseases, including seeds, eggs, spores, or other matter capable of propagation for which introduction into California would or likely would cause economic or environmental harm." Invasive species come in all shapes and sizes, and their impacts range from clogging water pipes to killing wildlife, from ruining crops to posing a human health hazard. Many organizations are involved in addressing invasive species in California. The ISCC and CISAC formed to coordinate and strengthen the efforts of these organizations. WT
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Media Inquiry: Wilderness
As a field ecologist, my observations are not entirely scientific or empirical but I hope they are objective. First, a Wilderness designation does not generally prevent mining since the Federal Mining Act of 1872 precedes and supersedes the Wilderness Act of 1964. Second, designated Wilderness Areas vary so much ecologically it is difficult to generalize about conditions of air, water, and biota. Generally, however, it has been my observation that designated Wilderness Areas tend to have these qualities in comparison to adjacent non-wilderness lands: 1. Wilderness tends to be structurally and biologically more diverse and resilient. 2. Wilderness source streams and lakes tend to be cleaner in terms of pathogens, pollutants and silt (but grazing is still allowed in wilderness areas, so don't drink downstream from the sheep herd -- and even high altitude wilderness streams may contain giardia). 3. The greatest risks to headwaters are from soil disturbance due to road construction and mining, steep slope soil movement due to tree removal, chemical-laden seepages and runoff from mined areas, over-grazing, and riparian area disturbances. Except for mining and grazing, these activities do not occur in designated Wilderness Areas. 4. Certain species assemblages are much more likely to exist and be productive in designated Wilderness Areas or in areas with wilderness conditions, e.g., wolverine, fisher, lynx, brown and grizzly bears, Capercaillie, Northern Spotted Owl and some of its prey species, bull trout. 5. Several species are less likely to conflict with humans and human enterprises when they inhabit large, contiguous wilderness areas, e.g., cougar, grizzly bear, wolves. Hope this helps a little, and I'm sure others on this list will provide more specific information. Warren W. Aney Senior Wildlife Ecologist 9403 SW 74th Ave Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 539-1009 (503) 246-2605 fax -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of Jonathan Brown Sent: Thursday, 28 April, 2011 14:15 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Media Inquiry: Wilderness Hello- My name is Jonathan Brown. I'm a reporter with Colorado Public Radio and I'm working on a story about federal designations of wilderness. I'm trying to get a scientific/empirical response to this question: "What do federal wilderness designations do?" We already know they prevent road building, construction of any kind, motorized use, drilling, mining, timber harvesting and humans can only visit, not remain. But what - if anything - is the result of all this? Are the air and water cleaner? Fauna and flora healthier somehow? Do wilderness areas protect headwaters, as many proponents claim? Again, I'm looking for an empirical response to these questions and I'm hoping someone out there can provide substantive answers. Thank you- Jonathan Brown Colorado Public Radio (303) 871-9191 x 456 jbr...@cpr.org
Re: [ECOLOG-L] M.S vs. M.A.
I don't know if this is still the case with universities, but when I received my MA it was considered a slightly higher degree than an MS because it meant I had met the foreign language requirements for a PhD. Warren W. Aney MA, Biometrics Oregon State Unversity, 1973 -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of Priya Shukla Sent: Sunday, 17 April, 2011 17:14 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: [ECOLOG-L] M.S vs. M.A. Hello Ecologgers! I'm wrapping up my fourth-year in environmental sciences at UC Davis and have been looking at graduate schools. I notice that different schools will offer either an M.S. or an M.A. degree. While I've heard there isn't a true difference between the two degree types, I've noticed that many government positions require an M.S. degree. I was hoping some of you could provide me with some insight on the difference between the two degrees -- if there even is one at all. Also, all else equal, would you hire an individual with an M.S. over an M.A.? Many thanks! -- Priya
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Education Public Science Media Writing Speaking Ecology Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible?
The hypothesis that Yellowstone grizzlies have lost pine-nuts as a major seasonal diet component due to a massive climate-related beetle kill of whitebark pine and are therefore forced to seek other sources of protein (including humans) seems valid and worthy of further study. The serious losses of certain species of pines due to bark beetle population increases has been pretty well documented and accepted by forest scientists as a climate-warming result. However, the source quoted in the NPR broadcast, Paul Solotaroff, is not a scientist. He is primarily a sports writer/journalist, so he is probably more interested in developing a good story than parsing the facts. Nevertheless, he seems to communicate the situation better than most scientists would be able to. And, if valid, it is important information that needs to be communicated to both the public and our policy makers. You can also read about it at this site: http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/08/hungry-bears-in-yellowstone-coming-i nto-conflict-with-people.php I'm interested in seeing what others have to say about this. Warren W. Aney Senior Wildlife Ecologist Tigard, OR 97223 -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of Wayne Tyson Sent: Saturday, 16 April, 2011 20:13 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Education Public Science Media Writing Speaking Ecology Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible? Ecolog While the "Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible?" discussion thread contained some very useful discussion of principles, nothing illustrates principle like specific examples. I would be interested in Ecolog's evaluation of a current example of scientific writing, speaking, and media production. Here's an interesting example of how the public is being "informed" by a respected source: http://www.npr.org/2011/04/16/135468901/climate-change-making-the-nations-be ars-hungry For those who have time to listen to the item, I'd be interested especially in your analysis of the tone of the featured authority. WT - Original Message - From: "David L. McNeely" To: Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2011 5:09 PM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible? > Martin Meiss wrote: >> A reasoned argument that when scientists have an important point to make to the public, they should find a way to do it repeatedly, somewhat like a television commercial is repeated over and over to get the words out to the public. The idea is that a claim made often enough becomes true in the collective mind, without consideration for whether it is true or not. Implicit in Martin's recommendation is that the point that scientists have to make is true, and thus the drum of repetition would not lead to acceptance of a non-truth. > > If my understanding is correct, then perhaps Martin is correct. But then again, wouldn't the public begin to think about science as just another one of the myriad of interests groups that bombards it with a barrage of claims, regardless of veracity, but only for the benefit of the group doing the bombardment? > > Methinks the studied, careful delivery of properly vetted information has the greatest chance of doing real, lasting service to truth. Now, should we deny interest groups (say Union of Concerned Scientists, or American Wildlife Federation) the privilege we deny to ourselves of advertising for welfare? No. > > Nor should we never toot our own horn. We sometimes should. > > mcneely > > > - > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 10.0.1204 / Virus Database: 1435/3511 - Release Date: 03/16/11 > Internal Virus Database is out of date. >
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible?
I have had enough dealings with the media (plus an undergraduate class in journalism) to know that it is inappropriate for an interviewee to review and approve a story before it is published or aired and to make this a condition of the interview. That's interfering with journalistic freedom. However, that does not mean you cannot offer to review for accuracy the quotes or information the interviewer prepares, as long as you don't intend to approve or change the interviewer's conclusions or interpretations. And don't be surprised if the interviewer turns down this offer (and don't be upset or refuse to be interviewed). It's your duty to provide an expert's information to the public, and it's the interviewer's duty to do this objectively and accurately. Most of the time this works. Warren W. Aney Senior Wildlife Ecologist 9403 SW 74th Ave Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 539-1009 (503) 246-2605 fax -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of Jane Shevtsov Sent: Sunday, 10 April, 2011 19:29 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible? On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 11:38 AM, Wayne Tyson wrote: > I am not suggesting that there be a LAW that reporters clear their stories with the interviewee, but a CUSTOM. Getting at truth is the issue, reducing > error. Once the cat is out of the bag, it is not a matter of suffering in silence or writing the editor and getting a "correction" buried in an > obscure corner of some obscure page. The place to work on the issue is where it starts. Maybe those being interviewed should insist that the reporter > explain back to the interviewee what she/he has just heard, like a pilot repeating a clearance to an air traffic controller. APPROVAL is NOT the > point--getting it RIGHT is the avowed MUTUAL goal. So I don't disagree with Dave's point, but it's not my point. Wayne makes an excellent point. Dave, the reason it would be a bad idea to have a politician check a story before you publish it is that it would interfere with conveying the facts to the public. And the reason why it would be a bad idea NOT to have a scientist check a story before you publish it is that it would interfere with conveying the facts to the public. The same goal may be served by different actions in different circumstances. Jane Shevtsov > - Original Message - From: "David M. Lawrence" > To: > Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2011 4:22 AM > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general > public: are scientists making science readily accessible? > > >> Let's do a thought experiment here. Do we want journalists clear pieces >> with politicians, powerful political interests, and attorneys persons >> accused of serious crimes first? If not, why should journalists do the same >> with scientists? I personally know a handful of scientists whose word I >> would never take for granted -- and I damn sure wouldn't get their approval >> of a story I wrote involving them first. >> >> Many of us who specialize as science/environment reporters work very hard >> at getting facts correct and in making sure we get them correct by running >> quotes past sources. Many of my colleagues won't share an advance copy of a >> story with a source (for the implications above). I understand why -- it >> creates a huge ethical problem for journalists -- how can we fulfill our >> CONSTITUTIONALLY recognized (in the U.S., at least) role as an independent >> source of information when we submit our stories to our sources for >> approval? We cannot. >> >> I can assure you that you don't want to live in a society where such >> clearing is required. There is no shortage of evidence to support my >> statement. >> >> There is an unfortunate trend in the news business in which specialist >> reporters -- such as science and environment reporters -- are removed from >> their beats (because the news publication cannot or does not want to support >> such specialist beats) or are removed from their jobs altogether. The >> coverage gets picked up in a haphazard fashion with more generalist or less >> experienced people who often don't work as hard to understand the material >> or make sure they understand the material. Even when we are allowed to >> specialize, we are forced to achieve unrealistic "productivity" targets that >> may make it difficult to adequately examine our copy for things that need to >> be checked out with a source. And once we file, other people take our >>
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible?
There's an excellent book on this topic published by the Union of Concerned Scientists: Hayes, Richard and Daniel Grossman. 2006. A scientist's guide to talking with the media. Rutgers Univ. Press. (And I must claim bias because they quote me 3 times.) Warren W. Aney Senior Wildlife Ecologist 9403 SW 74th Ave Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 539-1009 (503) 246-2605 fax -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of Laura S. Sent: Thursday, 07 April, 2011 01:17 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible? Dear all: I am interested in your thoughts. If needed, I can elaborate more on these questions. Are scientists making scientific findings readily accessible to the general public? What can scientists do to improve dissemination of scientific information to the general public? Do scientists need to be involved in teaching the public about the scientific method? Thank you, Laura
Re: [ECOLOG-L] What´s the difference between Ecology and Natural H istory?
As a field ecologist, I perhaps oversimplify. Anyway, here's my simple-minded answer: Natural History is basically describing nature through observation. Ecology is the scientific study of the relationships of organisms to each other and their environments. Warren W. Aney Senior Wildlife Ecologist 9403 SW 74th Ave Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 539-1009 (503) 246-2605 fax -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of Jaime Garizabal Sent: Friday, 08 April, 2011 10:07 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: [ECOLOG-L] What´s the difference between Ecology and Natural H istory? Hi! By these days I´ve thinking about the differences between Ecology and Natural History, and maybe I´m just not so good differenciating this terms or I just need to read more about it, but sometimes it seems like the limits between them aren´t always clear. For example, if you´re studying some bird and you are taking into account things like clutch size, clutch mass, incubation rhythm, social structure (in case for example, the bird is a cooperative breeder), diet, feeding strategy, habitat description and so on... How do I know, according to the definitions and the conceptual commitment, wich part is mostly ecology and wich one natural history? how can I draw the limits? Of course, it´s always depend on the research question and the context and limits I´m using to think about it, but, even so, sometimes it´s not clear for me differenciate conceptually and in the practice when I´m studying the Ecology and when the Natural History of some living thing.. Could you help me a little bit with this? Pd. Sorry about my english and thanks a lot for your time and pacience! Jaime. A Garizábal C. Instituto de Biología - Universidad de Antioquia Sociedad Antioqueña de Ornitología. Medellín - Colombia.
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Climate Change Data
In the face of uncertainty with potential consequences of great magnitude, the precautionary approach should rule. Under this approach it is safer and more prudent to take effective action to counter climate change than it is to take no action and risk its effects. The costs of taking action are high, but there are also benefits (cleaner air and healthier oceans, for example). The costs of not taking action are potentially catastrophic. Our ancestors will enjoy an improved world and thank us for taking action even if they determine we were wrong. Our surviving ancestors will condemn us if we took no action and this proved to be wrong. I know, this is rhetoric and not science, but I have frequently had to deal with decision making in the face of scientific uncertainty and this is the approach I finally learned to apply or recommend. Warren W. Aney Senior Wildlife Ecologist Tigard, OR 97223 -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of Hal Caswell Sent: Sunday, 20 March, 2011 15:12 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Climate Change Data Wayne, Whether it's a "trick" question or not depends, of course, on the details. However, if you really want information about the "direct and indirect effects of anthropogenic causes of climate change" you could not do better than to start with the 4th IPCC report. This is freely available to anyone with internet access at http://www.ipcc.ch/ It represents the output of the largest scientific collaboration in history. Each volume is prefaced by a summary for policy-makers which is purposely designed to be accessible to non-specialists. Most policy-makers are not, after all, scientists. As you know, one of the essential aspects of any scientific endeavor, especially one with serious policy implications, is uncertainty. Another advantage of the IPCC reports is that they have developed the most explicit quantification of uncertainty for such a large body of scientific work that has ever been attempted. The disadvantage of that approach is that they tend to be slanted towards underestimating effects rather than overestimating them. So, read it as a conservative assessment. Hal Caswell On Mar 20, 2011, at 8:20 PM, Wayne Tyson wrote: > James and Ecolog: > > No, it's not a "trick" question, it's an honest plea for better, more convincing information about quantification of the direct and indirect effects of anthropogenic causes of climate change. "The public at large" has an even tougher time sorting out the scientific sheep from the goats, on this and other issues in science. It may be a tough question, but there's nothing tricky about it. > > The plenitude of data is the problem, not the solution. The problem is credibility of good science in the eyes and minds of "the public." "Scientists" tend to come off as elitist, patronizing snobs who decry the "dumbing-down" of we, the unwashed (if not unclean) through the only media to which we have access, e.g., TV and the Internet. Scientists sit on their hands and let these media get by with incredible distortions of science. I have tried to raise these issues to the scientific community, only to hear a deafening silence, or at best, diversionary mumbling about how we should accept "scientific" conclusions uncritically. The minute we ask critical questions (some say this is the root of science), we get condescension and the doors to further enquiry are slammed shut in our faces. > > With all due respect to climate change, for example, we, the unscientific, dumbed-down rabble who dare to enquire beyond unconditional faith in accepting what we are told by "science" are immediately classified as "deniers" (we of little faith) if we question the dictum of the day. We know a straw-man fallacy when we're hit with one, whether or not we can articulate it. This adversely affects the credibility of science in general and the subset in question in particular. We do not, for example, question whether or not there IS an anthropogenic factor in climate change phenomena, we just want to be able to start at the generalizations and follow a clear trail of the supporting chain of evidence as far as we care to. > > The "scientific" conclusions get all mixed up with each other, and we're trying to sort out the well-founded from the unfounded. Are, for example, we being switchgrassed into submitting to a wholesale acceptance of "renewable fuels" and "biofuels" and "carbon credits," or are these THE solution to switching off our apps? Is our concern that the part of "science" we are allowed to see is leading us down a gardening path where we destroy more and more complex, diverse ecosystems to plant (and presumably irr
Re: [ECOLOG-L] working in academia vs govt vs consultancies
There have been relevant responses to Malcolm's challenge. Even so, let me offer something semi-relevant using a perspective gained from a career with government followed by several years as a consultant: You can go to work for a government agency and end up very content with maintaining a status quo. You can get an academic appointment and end up satisfied with a short publication list in obscure journals and herding a progression of students through the mill. You can work for a not-for-profit organization begging for grants and then feel useful completing a long string of short term random projects. Or you can become a consultant with wildly fluctuating incomes and work loads and perhaps successfully educate or transform a client or two without selling your soul. So what do you want to accomplish given your knowledge and skills? What do you hope is going to happen because of you? These should be the top criteria for selecting a career slot in ecology. If you're good at planning, organizing and performing improved ecological management, then a government job may be the way to make a difference. If you're good at discovering and comprehending the meaning of rigorous ecological details and inspiring others to employ this knowledge, then academia may be our route. If you are good at envisioning and promoting an ecologically considerate socio-political structure, then some non-profit organizations could make great use of you. And if doing the right thing ecologically in ways that improve both the natural and human systems is your forte (and you don't need to make a lot of money), then consulting can be your field. In every one of these situations, you want to be able to finish your career able to look back and see where things changed and improved because of you -- you didn't just maintain a status quo, do some obscure research, make temporary improvements, or satisfy a client. You made a difference because you chose the field where you, with your special abilities and interests, could make a difference. And I wish someone had told me that early in my career. Warren W. Aney Senior Wildlife Ecologist 9403 SW 74th Ave Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 539-1009 (503) 246-2605 fax -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of malcolm McCallum Sent: Friday, 04 March, 2011 15:08 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: [ECOLOG-L] working in academia vs govt vs consultancies Hi, With all the graduate students and recently graduated on this listserv, might it not be interesting to compare from personal experience working in different academic sectors (e.g. research, regional, private, public, SLAC), government (e.g. US EPA, USGS, US FWS, NOAA, USACE, USFS, state vs fed), not for profits (e.g. nature conservancy, zoos, museums), and consultancies (e.g. self-employed, tetra tech, &c.). I just think this might be a useful discussion and we seem to have people from all groups! -- Malcolm L. McCallum 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! 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.
Re: [ECOLOG-L] definition of covert vegetation
It seems to refer to a somewhat arcane use of the word "covert" to mean what we generally call cover. But it can be a little more specific since it can mean a hiding place for wildlife, as in a rabbit covert. Warren W. Aney Senior Wildlife Ecologist Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 539-1009 (503) 246-2605 fax -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of Renee Richer Sent: Monday, 07 February, 2011 06:33 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: [ECOLOG-L] definition of covert vegetation Dear colleagues, Can someone provide me with a definition of "covert vegetation"? Renee A. Richer
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Conservation or just gardening?
Consider fisheries as a good example of overlap between conservation and gardening: Fish farms are 100% gardening. Rearing fish to adult size in hatcheries so as to provide catchable trout is almost 100% gardening. Using fish hatcheries to provide releasable smolts so as to maintain harvestable runs of salmon is still principally gardening. Using fish hatcheries to re-establish self-maintaining wild populations is partially gardening and partially conservation. Less gardening and more conservation occurs when wild fish are trapped and relocated to re-establish self-maintaining populations. Habitat restoration and fish harvest restriction is partially gardening but mostly conservation. Managing and maintaining a self-sustaining population through habitat protection and harvest controls is conservation. The pros for gardening in the above cases? Plenty of fish for the market and the creel; the fish on your table costs less. Cons? Pollution, disease spread, genetic contamination, competition with conservation efforts. The pros for conservation? Self-sustaining, balanced and healthy aquatic systems that are more stable over time and less expensive to manage. Cons? Fewer fish for the market and the creel; the fish on your table costs more (but can be of higher quality); potentially less funding for conservation because of reduced fishing license and fee collections. I think we're in the process of transitioning to fisheries based on more conservation and less gardening, at least here in the Pacific Northwest. Our markets feature wild-caught salmon coming mostly from self-sustaining Alaska fisheries (although some are also coming from hatchery supported Pacific coast fisheries). Trout anglers are becoming more satisfied with catch and release fisheries and salmon anglers have to release wild-stock fish in many fisheries. But this transitioning must occur more internationally and can probably only occur if we recognize and adjust to limits of growth and consumption. That is probably the looming cloud that could make the gardening vs. conservation discussion futile. Warren W. Aney Senior Wildlife Ecologist Tigard, Oregon -Original Message- From: Wayne Tyson [mailto:landr...@cox.net] Sent: Friday, 28 January, 2011 20:14 To: Warren W. Aney; ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Conservation or just gardening? Ecolog: In many ways, I like Warren's comment better than mine; it's certainly more concise. I'd like to hear more about the overlap, especially with regard to its pros and cons, with tradeoffs, and transitions toward transformations--especially culturally. WT - Original Message ----- From: "Warren W. Aney" To: Sent: Friday, January 28, 2011 3:07 PM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Conservation or just gardening? > I've weighed in on this before, but this time let me present what may be > an > oversimplification -- to me the defining difference between gardening and > conservation is based on intent: > The intent of conservation is to maintain or attain ecosystem complexity > through management protection, enhancement and/or restoration to achieve > naturally maintained ecocentric stability, diversity and productivity. > The intent of gardening is to simplify ecosystems through intensive and > continuous management to achieve human-maintained anthropocentric output > and/or attractiveness. > And yes, they can and do overlap sometimes. > > Warren W. Aney > Senior Wildlife Ecologist > Tigard, Oregon > > > -Original Message- > From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news > [mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of Wayne Tyson > Sent: Thursday, 27 January, 2011 17:54 > To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU > Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Conservation or just gardening? Re: [ECOLOG-L] > ECOLOG-L > Digest - 22 Jan 2011 to 23 Jan 2011 (#2011-23) > > Each decision about species or habitat intervention is (or should be) > context driven. Generalizations don't hack it in science, and it's high > time > > journalists gave them up in the "popular" press. Over 4,000 words of > "provocative" prose is more than naive in this Age of the Twit, though, > and > if the authors are serious about investigating the details of this very > serious subject, they should engage, not instruct. Forums like Ecolog > could, > > if respondents would stick to the question and the responses to it, make a > real contribution to sorting out the facts from the weedy patches of > opining. > > I, and I presume Jason, continue to await an answer to the original > question. > > WT > > > - Original Message - > From: "austin ritter" > To: > Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2011 1:19 PM > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] ECOLOG-L Digest - 22 Jan 2011 to 23 Jan 2011
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Conservation or just gardening?
I've weighed in on this before, but this time let me present what may be an oversimplification -- to me the defining difference between gardening and conservation is based on intent: The intent of conservation is to maintain or attain ecosystem complexity through management protection, enhancement and/or restoration to achieve naturally maintained ecocentric stability, diversity and productivity. The intent of gardening is to simplify ecosystems through intensive and continuous management to achieve human-maintained anthropocentric output and/or attractiveness. And yes, they can and do overlap sometimes. Warren W. Aney Senior Wildlife Ecologist Tigard, Oregon -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of Wayne Tyson Sent: Thursday, 27 January, 2011 17:54 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Conservation or just gardening? Re: [ECOLOG-L] ECOLOG-L Digest - 22 Jan 2011 to 23 Jan 2011 (#2011-23) Each decision about species or habitat intervention is (or should be) context driven. Generalizations don't hack it in science, and it's high time journalists gave them up in the "popular" press. Over 4,000 words of "provocative" prose is more than naive in this Age of the Twit, though, and if the authors are serious about investigating the details of this very serious subject, they should engage, not instruct. Forums like Ecolog could, if respondents would stick to the question and the responses to it, make a real contribution to sorting out the facts from the weedy patches of opining. I, and I presume Jason, continue to await an answer to the original question. WT - Original Message - From: "austin ritter" To: Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2011 1:19 PM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] ECOLOG-L Digest - 22 Jan 2011 to 23 Jan 2011 (#2011-23) >A week or so ago Jason asked: "Are there any recognized criteria for > determining the boundary between > conservation and gardening?" > > This article from High Country News seem extremely relevant: > http://www.hcn.org/issues/363/17481. The artical is call *Unnatural > preservations* and the thesis is: "In the age of global warming, > public-land > managers face a stark choice: They can let national parks and other > wildlands lose their most cherished wildlife. Or they can become gardeners > and zookeepers." Its a provocative read no matter what you conservation > goal > is. > > -Austin Ritter > Middlebury College > > > > Date:Sat, 22 Jan 2011 21:52:57 -0800 > From:Wayne Tyson > Subject: Re: Conservation or just gardening? > > Jason, > > You have asked such good questions that, even though you have received a > plethora of very thoughtful responses, I'm going to take another crack at > being more directly responsive and insert some additional thoughts into > your > text in an attempt to keep myself from wandering off the subject. I'll put > my responses into double-brackets with my initials [[like this WT]] to > minimize confusion in case others may wish to add their own comments or > correct mine. At some point, I hope you will write a summary statement to > give us your own answers once you have thought about the questions again. > > - Original Message - > From: "Jason Hernandez" > To: > Sent: Monday, January 17, 2011 5:08 PM > Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Conservation or just gardening? > > > This question is inspired by a conversation with a former employer. When > do > our interventions cease to be conservation and become gardening? > > [[I, and perhaps others, may have jumped to conclusions about what you > mean > by "conservation" and "gardening." I'd be interested in your own > definitions > of the terms in the sense of your original intent. WT]] > > For the sake of argument, I was taking the purist position: that ideally, > we > want to be able to put a fence around a natural area and walk away, > letting > nature manage it. > > [[Again, I think we should consider just what you mean by "purist" and > "fence" and "letting nature manage it." WT]] > > But as my employer rightly pointed out, that is just not a realistic > expectation in the 21st century, what with invasive species, systemic > pollution, human pressures on surrounding areas, and countless other > factors > which will not go away. But of course, she also knew that there is a > degree > of intervention which crosses the line from conservation to gardening, > that > is, caring for a population that no longer participates in its ecosystem > processes. > > [[And, of course, I/we might have had some difficulty interpreti
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Conservation or just gardening?
Wayne (and others):adaptive management is a strategic process that involves planning, action, monitoring and feedback. Some just call it learning by doing, but it can and should be more sophisticated and deliberate, perhaps something along the line of what I posted to this list in October: Step 1. Assess current ecosystem situation/condition. Step 2. Describe and agree on desired future/restored ecosystem condition. Step 3. Define and agree on actions needed to reach desired condition. Step 4. Take bold but safe-to-fail actions. Step 5. Monitor and evaluate results from desired ecosystem condition perspective. Step 6. Modify actions and/or expectations in light of results. Step 7. Continue with revised actions and monitoring. Step 8. Celebrate success. Defining desired ecosystem condition may be the most challenging step, but the 3 goals and considerations that Juan Alvez lists help us take that step. Warren W. Aney Senior Wildlife Ecologist Tigard, OR _ From: Wayne Tyson [mailto:landr...@cox.net] Sent: Wednesday, 19 January, 2011 17:05 To: Warren W. Aney; ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Conservation or just gardening? Well, yes. But I would suggest even more detail, and hope Aney will expand his outline. Also, when habitats have been degraded or essentially destroyed, as in, say, volcanic eruptions or surface mining, the issue of feasible future state is a question to be squarely addressed, as well as the timing and sequence of events, both artificial and natural that lead to that state, including markers that confirm whether or not progress toward them is occurring. In the "gardening" approach, for example, propagules may be introduced and monitored and desired states that are arbitrarily determined (e.g. a certain amount of "coverage" at a certain date) required that may or may not be feasible that could undermine, rather than advance, the three "Aney descriptors." In the ecosystem restoration approach, trend lines, including survivorship curves and measures of diversity are less forgiving and more to the point that the urgent cosmetics common to desire-based "standards," which may bear little resemblance to ecosystem processes, function, and successional structure. I hope Aney will contribute further on just how adaptive management would be applied. WT ----- Original Message - From: "Warren W. Aney" < <mailto:a...@coho.net> a...@coho.net> To: < <mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU> ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU> Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 10:41 AM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Conservation or just gardening? Juan Alvez is right about having long term goals but leaves out important defining adjectives. Ecosystems structures, functions, processes and services exist regardless of ecosystem condition (even a crack in a paved parking lot is an ecosystem with structure, functions and maybe even some services). So we need to insert adjectives that describes a desired future state -- e.g., 1. Reestablishment of the naturally complex and stable ecosystem structure. 2. Reestablishment of the naturally diverse ecosystem functions and process. 3. Reestablishment of the productive flow of ecosystem services. Of course these modifiers would tend to be site dependent and I'm sure others can come up with better examples. And how about employing principles of adaptive management to make sure our efforts are both effective and informative? Warren W. Aney Senior Wildlife Ecologist Tigard, OR -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of Juan P Alvez Sent: Tuesday, 18 January, 2011 19:53 To: <mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU> ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Conservation or just gardening? Ecologers, Building on Prof. W. Tyson's comment... I completely agree. Restoring a degraded ecosystem to its pristine pure stage is almost impossible, not to mention the costs involved in the mitigation process. There were (and still are) successful attempts of regenerating barren and ultra degraded places in Brazil (i.e. mine sites) by Prof. Ademir Reis and others. Prof. Reis also committed several mistakes in his attempts until he figured it out the best ways to achieve some sort of succession and vegetation. From my humble point of view, important long-term goal and considerations to have in mind are: 1. the reestablishment of ecosystem structure (not an easy task!); 2. the reestablishment of ecosystem functions and processes (consider yourself lucky when this is accomplished); 3. Finally, the reestablishment of the flow of ecosystem services. These events take time and resources but are worth doing. Just my 2 cts! Juan P. Alvez On 1/18/2011 4:04 PM, Wayne Tyson wrote: > Jason and Ecolog: > > > > Many years ago (early 1980's?) I did a &qu
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Conservation or just gardening?
Juan Alvez is right about having long term goals but leaves out important defining adjectives. Ecosystems structures, functions, processes and services exist regardless of ecosystem condition (even a crack in a paved parking lot is an ecosystem with structure, functions and maybe even some services). So we need to insert adjectives that describes a desired future state -- e.g., 1. Reestablishment of the naturally complex and stable ecosystem structure. 2. Reestablishment of the naturally diverse ecosystem functions and process. 3. Reestablishment of the productive flow of ecosystem services. Of course these modifiers would tend to be site dependent and I'm sure others can come up with better examples. And how about employing principles of adaptive management to make sure our efforts are both effective and informative? Warren W. Aney Senior Wildlife Ecologist Tigard, OR -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of Juan P Alvez Sent: Tuesday, 18 January, 2011 19:53 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Conservation or just gardening? Ecologers, Building on Prof. W. Tyson's comment... I completely agree. Restoring a degraded ecosystem to its pristine pure stage is almost impossible, not to mention the costs involved in the mitigation process. There were (and still are) successful attempts of regenerating barren and ultra degraded places in Brazil (i.e. mine sites) by Prof. Ademir Reis and others. Prof. Reis also committed several mistakes in his attempts until he figured it out the best ways to achieve some sort of succession and vegetation. From my humble point of view, important long-term goal and considerations to have in mind are: 1. the reestablishment of ecosystem structure (not an easy task!); 2. the reestablishment of ecosystem functions and processes (consider yourself lucky when this is accomplished); 3. Finally, the reestablishment of the flow of ecosystem services. These events take time and resources but are worth doing. Just my 2 cts! Juan P. Alvez On 1/18/2011 4:04 PM, Wayne Tyson wrote: > Jason and Ecolog: > > > > Many years ago (early 1980's?) I did a "paper" that I think I called "Ecosystem Restoration and Landscaping: A Comparison." I don't remember the name of the conference and I'm not sure of the place, but it might have been one of the early conferences of the Society for Ecological Restoration (SER), maybe it's less-formal precursor, "Native Plant Restoration" or something like that, and I believe it was held in Berkeley, at some big old wooden hotel in the Berkeley Hills. I was a pretty young upstart, and I don't recall anyone paying much attention to it. [Note: I looked through some old files and found a folder: "Restoration and Landscaping: a Comparison." 2nd Native Plant Revegetation Symposium, 1987, but there was no paper in it. I was close but a bit foggy. Even it might be wrong; a search revealed other papers which said it was 1987 and the location was San Diego. Maybe a better searcher can find it, or maybe someone has the Proceedings--however, I can't even be sure that it was published. I wasn't so young as it turns out, but an upstart nonetheless, I guess.] > > > > Anyway, I hope Jason or others can do a better job than I did in communicating what I still think is an important--in fact, crucial point: that landscaping/gardening is a whole different paradigm from ecosystem restoration and management, and recognizing that crucial distinction is fundamental to a real understanding of the interplay between Nature and culture. > > > > I spent at least 15 years making the same fundamental mistake over and over again-using gardening/agronomic/landscaping practices in the attempt to restore/manage ecosystems. Failure after failure after failure, even though I had training in ecology and botany-and in gardening/agronomy/landscaping/landscape architecture. My fundamental error was letting the latter paradigm contaminate the former; I probably made the same mistake that remains common-thinking that they were synonymous. I could have not been more wrong-they are in fundamental opposition to each other. > > > > Not wanting to blather on and one with this post, I'll stop here for now . . . > > > > WT > > > - Original Message - > From: "Jason Hernandez" > To: > Sent: Monday, January 17, 2011 5:08 PM > Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Conservation or just gardening? > > > This question is inspired by a conversation with a former employer. When do our interventions cease to be conservation and become gardening? > > For the sake of argument, I was taking the purist position: that ideally, we want to be able to put a fence around a natural area and walk a
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Conservation or just gardening?
The terms "conservation" and "gardening" do not cover the full range and intent of human manipulations of natural systems if you consider such terms as preservation, restoration, mitigation, and enhancement. Nevertheless, and to answer Jason's questions, I would consider "gardening" to be relatively high investment and continuing management with the intent of achieving and maintaining a predefined stable and productive state, measuring production in terms of values such as timber, grazing, botanical displays, an attractively landscaped pond, etc. I would consider "conservation" to be investing and managing with the goal of achieving the system's self-maintaining natural state, e.g., mature and relatively stable forests, shrub-grassland steppes, wetlands. This may involve intensive first steps such as invasive removal and native replanting, stream diversion and restoration, or woodland thinning. It may also entail subsequent interventions such as invasives control and controlled burns. In my view tree farms, arboretums and game farms are "gardening" -- but so is the California Condor restoration effort in its present state. "Conservation" can be anything from its popular definition of "wise use" to the strict non-interventionist "let nature take its course" (which may require centuries to achieve any sort of balanced state, if it ever does). Warren W. Aney Senior Wildlife Ecologist Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 539-1009 -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of Jason Hernandez Sent: Monday, 17 January, 2011 17:09 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Conservation or just gardening? This question is inspired by a conversation with a former employer. When do our interventions cease to be conservation and become gardening? For the sake of argument, I was taking the purist position: that ideally, we want to be able to put a fence around a natural area and walk away, letting nature manage it. But as my employer rightly pointed out, that is just not a realistic expectation in the 21st century, what with invasive species, systemic pollution, human pressures on surrounding areas, and countless other factors which will not go away. But of course, she also knew that there is a degree of intervention which crosses the line from conservation to gardening, that is, caring for a population that no longer participates in its ecosystem processes. There is, of course, a continuum of interventions. Removal of invasive competitors is a relatively light intervention; growing seedlings in a greenhouse and then planting them out is more intensive; maintaining an in vitro germplasm collection still more intensive. Are there any recognized criteria for determining the boundary between conservation and gardening? And if a species is beyond saving with conservation, how worthwhile is it to save that species with gardening? Can we determine when a species' only hope is gardening? Jason Hernandez Biological Science Technician, USDA Forest Service
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Defining Biodiversity
As a field ecologist who has frequently evaluated and described natural systems in their entirety and then communicated this information to non-scientists, I find the term and concept of biodiversity very helpful. To me, the best definition is the most general definition: biodiversity relates to diversity of species (including genetic and age diversity) and of structure, currently and over time. A system with high biodiversity tends to be more productive, stable and resilient. A single-age, single-species tree plantation may be productive in economic terms but it lacks species, genetic and structural diversity so it is not as ecologically productive, stable or resilient as it could be because of this lack of biodiversity. Warren W. Aney Senior Wildlife Ecologist 9403 SW 74th Ave Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 539-1009 (503) 246-2605 fax -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu] On Behalf Of Alexandre F. Souza Sent: Thursday, 16 December, 2010 13:37 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Defining Biodiversity Hi Euan, I use the broad definition of biodiversity as senctioned by the US Congressional Biodiversity Act, HR1268 (1990), according to which "biological diversity means the full range of variety and variability within and among living organisms and the ecological complexes in which they occur, and encompasses ecosystem or community diversity, species diversity, and genetic diversity." I think biodiversity should continue to have a broad and all-encompassing meaning, and the communication problem you mention arises much more from the use of the term in place of more specific ones, when we refer to specific issues. When communicating with the public, we should be more specific when speaking about specific issues, rather than abolishing a term that has a broad meaning, and that should be reserved for broad themes. The California Biodiversity Council has a compilation of scientific definitions of biodiverstiy (http://biodiversity.ca.gov/Biodiversity/biodiv_def2.html). Best whishes, Alexandre Date:Mon, 13 Dec 2010 15:05:31 -0800 From:"Ritchie, Euan" Subject: Defining biodiversity, and does the term capture the public's attention? Hi everyone, I have just returned from the Ecological Society of Australia meeting and a= mong other issues, there was much discussion about the term biodiversity. M= any people argue that this term is hard to define, and importantly, the pub= lic have no idea what it actually means and therefore they have less connec= tion/concern to preserve/conserve species and habitats. I thought it would = be interesting to hear how others define biodiversity, and if this term isn= 't helpful for conveying the importance of species diversity to the public,= what term(s) should we use? Over to you, Euan Dr. Euan G. Ritchie, Lecturer in Ecology, School of Life and Environmental = Sciences Dr. Alexandre F. Souza Programa de Pós-Graduação em Biologia: Diversidade e Manejo da Vida Silvestre Universidade do Vale do Rio dos Sinos (UNISINOS) Av. UNISINOS 950 - C.P. 275, São Leopoldo 93022-000, RS - Brasil Telefone: (051)3590-8477 ramal 1263 Skype: alexfadigas afso...@unisinos.br http://www.unisinos.br/laboratorios/lecopop
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Intellectual and anti-intellectual society
Good analysis, Martin. Some relevant quotes from today's newspaper: "Modern Americans behave as if intelligence were [sic] some form of hideous deformity." "Stupidity is the basic building block of the universe." "Let's not be too rough on our own ignorance, it's what makes America great." (From "The Edge" - a humor and nonsense column) I was surprised to also read claims that college graduates are now America's most faithful churchgoers, at least partly due to religious conservatives becoming better educated and becoming one of America's best-educated demographics (Ross Douthat, New York Times, "The changing face of our long-running culture war") I, and some of my scientific colleagues and friends, fit into the first category of being faithful churchgoers. But we don't fit into the category of religious conservatism -- we find no conflict between our faith and our scientific understanding. We just see them as two perspectives that broaden and enrich our appreciation of reality. Warren W. Aney Tigard, Oregon -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu] On Behalf Of Martin Meiss Sent: Tuesday, 07 December, 2010 14:13 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Intellectual and anti-intellectual society I would define an intellectual as one who loves the life of the mind. This person need not be particularly intelligent, but merely derive pleasure from pondering issues in theology, art, history, philosophy, science, etc. If this same person also loves, say, team sports, his/her appreciation is likely to include not just common athletic participation and boosterism, but also theoretical topics like competitive strategies, exercise physiology, the sociological role of athletics, etc. An intellectual society, I posit, is one that respects such individuals and their values, and elevates them to leadership roles. Why is intellectualism under attack in our society? I can suggest many possible contributory factors: 1. The tendency of some intellectuals and institutions to discredit themselves A. Arrogance. Some professors, academics, professionals, etc. speak and act like they think they are better than other people. Not just intellectually superior, but also superior in morals and taste. B. Whoring. Some scientists and academics will take money from anyone to support their research, without regard to who will benefit from the research or what its consequences will be. Does gene modified corn increase the power of agri-business companies over small farmers? Hey, that's not a SCIENTIFIC issue. Will the government use my technology to sow cluster bombs in playgrounds? Hey, I can't control how people USE my stuff! C. Failures. Many of the fruits of science (as one representative of intellectual pursuits) have caused harm, or are perceived to have caused harm. For instance, nuclear energy, nuclear weapons, thalidomide babies. D. Esoterica. While specialized disciplines do require specialized vocabulary, too often this is used to excess and creates unnecessary barriers to non-specialists. 2. Fundamentalist religions. A. To fundamentalists, Christian and otherwise, science and learning are direct threats to their orthodoxy and the power of their "priesthood." If you believe that the Bible or the Koran is to be understood literally, science (and almost any form of learning) is your enemy. The priesthood sees its power threatened, and it fights back with its tools of fear, ridicule, money, public relations, and the ballot. B. I believe it is fairly well established that the more educated a person is (in the modern era), the less likely he/she is to be religious, especially religious in a fundamental way. Again, science is the enemy. 3. Material Greed. A. Although the technology that derives from science can make people wealthy, it also threatens people's wealth. Science says that CO2 emissions are causing climate change, but addressing this problem threatens those with vested interests in burning fossil fuels. B. The vested interests, in trying to attack the specific science that threatens them, raise the obfuscation levels above even what scientists themselves are able to do. C. When attacking the specific science fails, they attack science in general. Even if this is not intended, it is a consequence of B, above, giving science a bad name for those who don't understand the process. 4. Laziness A. I think our society has truly embraced instant gratification. We flip a switch and light comes on, we turn a faucet and water squirts out. Compare that to lighting a whale oil lamp or breaking ice to haul water from a well. People complain if their flight from New York to California takes an extra hour, and never think about doing it an
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Taxonomy and Ecology Integrating or Disintegrating?
I suspect taxonomists consider their science more rigorous than some of the other biological sciences, particularly ecology. After all, isn't a species an absolute thing to be definitively described and classified, whilst an ecoregion is a loosey-goosey entity with a definition more or less dependent on the describer's perspectives and whims? But then there are the century long disputes between the taxonomic splitters and the taxonomic lumpers. Did we once have 4 species of the now-extirpated grizzly bear in Oregon, as the early 20th century taxonomists had it split? Or did we have just one subspecies of the circumboreal brown bear as the lumpers now have it? And how was the decision made that recently reclassified the Oregon junco and several other Pacific Northwest species into one species -- the dark-eyed junco? Was it a more defensible decision than the splitters' original classifications, or was it based mostly on a subjective redefinition of what a species is? So isn't part of this dependent on how taxonomists define what a species is? We know it's not as simple as the old standard: "A set of organisms that does not viably breed with another set of organisms." Even the dictionary (Webster's New Word College Dictionary, Fourth Edition) uses subjective verbage such as "similar organisms" that "usually interbreed" in defining the biological term. Maybe taxonomists should stick to labeling species with objective rigor instead of labeling other scientists with snobby scorn. Both of our sciences are evolving, just as species evolve. And will taxonomic science be able to catch the moment when one species evolves into another, or is that process just too fuzzy? Warren W. Aney Senior Wildlife Ecologist Tigard, Oregon -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu] On Behalf Of Wayne Tyson Sent: Saturday, 13 November, 2010 18:40 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Taxonomy and Ecology Integrating or Disintegrating? I could only take this person's word for it. The interpretation I came away with was that it was something akin to stamp collecting, but I suspect that part of the story might be that taxonomy is taxing enough in itself without being overly concerned with ecology and evolution. It was the apparent disdain with ecology and the ecologists (plant geographers?) who determined the ecoregion boundaries that caught my attention most. As to entomologists, my own observations have left me with the impression that they know more about plants than botanists do about "bugs." WT - Original Message - From: "Charles Stephen" To: Sent: Saturday, November 13, 2010 10:30 AM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Taxonomy and Ecology Integrating or Disintegrating? > Why would he care about compiling a checklist of a region if he was not > interested in geographical patterns of species distributions? > > If it's pure nomenclature that he cares about, surely teaching-quality > samples with no locality info would suffice. For that matter, why bother > looking at real organisms at all - why not just search through the > botanical > nomenclature tomes and correct invalid names? > > Seems crazy to me. I - not that I'm that particularly advanced in my > career > - view ecology as an integrative approach that has access to many tools > for > answering research questions. Taxonomy is one such tool, and is a > descriptive science (which is ok!) that builds the foundation for > integrative disciplines, like ecology and systematics. It's essential to > get the names right, otherwise what beans are you counting, really, and > shouldn't you have an ethical problem with convincing people about > patterns > or making laws based on the relative amounts of the different beans you've > found? > > My experience to date has been with ecologists who believe in the value of > taxonomy, so I've yet to witness any schism. But then maybe I've just > been > lucky. :) > > Cheers, > > Charles > > -- > Charles Stephen > MS Entomology student > email: charles.step...@auburn.edu > cell phone: 334-707-5191 > mailing address: 301 Funchess Hall, Auburn University, AL, 36849, USA > > > On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 5:18 PM, Wayne Tyson wrote: > >> Honourable Forum: >> >> Recently there was a discussion about the importance of getting >> nomenclature right in ecological studies. The general conclusion was that >> this is important. To me, the implication was that ecologists need >> taxonomists on the team (this may or may not always or even rarely be >> possible), or at least a procedure by which taxonomic accuracy can be >> assured. >> >
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Taxonomy and Ecology Integrating or Disintegrating?
After spending many years afield with interdisciplinary teams, I concluded that geologists/soil scientists spend their time looking at the ground, botanists/silviculturists spend their time looking at the plants and trees; zoologists/wildlife biologists spend their time looking through the plants and trees to see the animal life, while ecologists look at everything to see how it all interacts. Warren W. Aney Senior Wildlife Ecologist Tigard, OR 97223 -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu] On Behalf Of Wayne Tyson Sent: Friday, 12 November, 2010 15:19 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Taxonomy and Ecology Integrating or Disintegrating? Honourable Forum: Recently there was a discussion about the importance of getting nomenclature right in ecological studies. The general conclusion was that this is important. To me, the implication was that ecologists need taxonomists on the team (this may or may not always or even rarely be possible), or at least a procedure by which taxonomic accuracy can be assured. I recently attended a lecture by a botanist of regional and international repute who described a large project to compile a checklist of the vascular flora of an inadequately-explored, but quite large region. It is undeniable that this is important work, and through this person's leadership, significant additions to knowledge of the area have been made. The lecture included maps of "bioregions" or "ecoregions." This botanist dismissed the value and importance of them, adding that they were the province of the ecologists and were highly flawed (I can't quote the lecturer precisely, but this is the best of my recollection and my distinct impression). The lecturer essentially dismissed ecology, remarking that the lecturer was interested only in individual plants and seemed contemptuous of ecologists in general, and particularly those involved in establishing the ecoregions that were a part of the lecture. I may have misunderstood, as I have long held this person in high regard, and those remarks seemed inconsistent with past behavior. Do you find this state of mind to be common among taxonomists in general or botanists in particular? Is this apparent schism real or imaginary? Other comments? WT PS: During the lecture, the speaker remarked about ecological phenomena which were not understood (no clue), but at least one reason for one phenomenon was apparent to me. I said nothing, as the lecture had been very long and the question period short.
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Ecosystem Restoration Fundamentals
Wayne, this may be simplistic and not exactly what you're looking for: Step 1. Assess current ecosystem situation/condition. Step 2. Describe and agree on desired future/restored ecosystem condition. Step 3. Define and agree on actions needed to reach desired condition. Step 4. Take bold but safe-to-fail actions. Step 5. Monitor and evaluate results from desired ecosystem condition perspective. Step 6. Modify actions and/or expectations in light of results. Step 7. Continue with revised actions and monitoring. Step 8. Celebrate success. Defining desired ecosystem condition may be the most challenging step: Do we want a pristine, zero human disturbance condition? E.g., a mature mixed conifer-deciduous woodland cycled with infrequent wildfires and no management of invasives. Do we want a slightly human-controlled condition? E.g., a mature mixed conifer-deciduous woodland preserved through fire prevention and some invasive management of invasives. Do we want a slightly more human-managed condition? E.g., oak savannahs maintained by periodic controlled burns, conifer removals and intensive invasive species removals. Warren W. Aney Tigard, Oregon -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu] On Behalf Of Wayne Tyson Sent: Sunday, 24 October, 2010 15:38 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Ecosystem Restoration Fundamentals Ecolog: By way of trying to catch up and perhaps assess my slip-ups, I wonder if y'all would care to tell me what you think are the fundamental principles of ecosystem restoration? WT
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Naturefaking in media
Isn't the traditional scientific paradigm, simply stated, to first objectively observe, then formulate a hypothesis based on those observations, then collect data to test that hypothesis? Journalists, documentarians, revisionist historians and maybe even some scientists tend to come up with a hypothesis or concept first, then look for information that supports that hypothesis or concept, resulting in a somewhat biased product or predetermined finding. There is probably nothing very wrong with the media doing a little staging if it's based on sound scientific findings, but too much of the naturefaking I've seen is based on an overly dramatic, Bambi-derived view of nature. It may entertain, but it doesn't educate and it does misinform. And I admit knowing very little about fuzzy logic (educate me, Bill), but it would seem particularly important that gainful applications of fuzzy logic would need to start out with objectivity as a prime guiding principle. Yes, subjectivity is always present, but science needs to recognize this and take measures to minimize its influence. Warren W. Aney Tigard, Oregon -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu] On Behalf Of William Silvert Sent: Sunday, 26 September, 2010 13:30 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Naturefaking in media I thank Dave for his posting, which addresses the controversial topic of subjectivity in science. Many scientists condemn any hint of subjectivity even though it is always present. I have run into this a lot because I have been advocating the use of fuzzy logic, which is often rejected out of hand because of the overtones of subjectivity. It is intersting that reference to paradigms does not generate the same hostility, even though the concept implies that the whole field is prone to subjective bias! Bill Silvert - Original Message - From: "David M. Lawrence" To: Sent: domingo, 26 de Setembro de 2010 17:02 Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Naturefaking in media > Scientists do "story selection" all the time, though they may be > reluctant to admit it. They (we) select the hypotheses to be tested, then > select the subjects, data to be collected, field and analytical methods, > presentation methods, etc. It's not much different than what documentary > filmmakers or journalists do. All are choices driven by the need to make > the best use of the medium you are communicating in. > > Scientists shouldn't be so blind to the "subjectivity" that goes into > their work. Such blindness, as we have seen in the scientific controversy > over the past few years, has helped feed the erosion of credibility that > many institutions in our society have felt. > > Dave
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Naturefaking in media
This is a good, explanatory message. However, the most telling line in this message is "Nick... [was]always filming in a way most likely to get the shot for the story he was trying to tell." This describes the difference between entertainment (the story the person filming wants to tell) vs. science (recording the story the subject is telling). Warren W. Aney Senior Wildife Ecologist Tigard, Oregon -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu] On Behalf Of Cara Lin Bridgman Sent: Friday, 24 September, 2010 00:23 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Naturefaking in media In 2003, my husband and I were fixers to Nick Upton, a BBC-trained producer of nature films. We helping him and his camera men work with Taiwan's scientists and local people to produce the film 'Typhoon Island.' To this day, I think this film is the best introduction to Taiwan's geological and ecological diversity. The scientists acting as advisers were most pleased with their interactions with Nick (who actually read their papers) and with the scenes portrayed in the film. On some of his other films, Nick even managed to film behavior that was suspected but not yet observed. Almost all the herp shots and night shots were filmed on constructed sets in labs. Many of the close-ups were filmed in Taipei Zoo. Many of the mammal shots were of animals raised in captivity since they were young. Even so, the animals do what animals do. Other than trying to get frogs to hop at certain times and snakes to slither in certain directions, hiding raw chicken meat in rotten logs, and offering branches laden with acorns to captive bears, there wasn't much in the way of training or manipulating the animals. There is, however, a great deal to be said for careful editing, especially for scenes that appear to portray close calls between predators and prey. No animals were hurt in the making of the film, but the film crew were nearly sucked dry by mosquitoes and during one on-scene outdoor shoot a skink escaped captivity, managing to return to where it had been originally captured. This film has been enormously enjoyed by all age groups in Taiwan. I've shown it to my undergraduates every semester, because they have such a poor understanding of their own country's wildlife and environments. Taiwan's own wildlife photographers, however, have been almost uniformly critical of the film. Many of them have spent years in the field and never seen some of the things Nick documented. Nick was accused of using computer graphics, of training animals, and of filming animals and places outside Taiwan. As someone who has spend years trying to observe a rare species in the field, I can understand the complaints of Taiwan's own photographers. They spent years trying to film the animals in the wild. Nick, who spoke no Chinese, spent <6 months in Taiwan, sometimes filming in the wild, sometimes filming in the zoo or lab, but always filming in a way most likely to get the shot for the story he was trying to tell. My own experience is that even when filming animals in the wild, it's hard to say the animals are truly untouched or unaffected by humans. A little documentary made by a Taiwanese photographer of my own study species, Taiwan's mikado pheasant, was mostly filmed in my study site, used blinds constructed by my research team, and featured animals I had watched and followed for over two years. The most important thing I have learned about nature filming is that when film crews and scientists cooperate, great things can be done and stories can be told accurately and well. Nick did his homework, finding out from scientists and local people the times and places where things were most likely to happen. CL who has no problems with hiding jelly beans in carcasses for grizzlies to find or imitating splashing sounds, who liked the few Steve Irwin shows she saw, but who has been unimpressed with Bear Grylls type of man-vs-nature films where the narrator psychs himself up to harassing an animal. ~~ Cara Lin Bridgman cara@msa.hinet.net P.O. Box 013 Shinjhuang http://megaview.com.tw/~caralin Longjing Township http://www.BugDorm.com Taichung County 43499 TaiwanPhone: 886-4-2632-5484 ~~
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Spontaneous fermentation: the role of microorganisms in beer
I doubt the authenticity of that Benjamin Franklin quote, since the word bacteria (bacterium) was not coined until 1838 and Franklin died in 1790. Warren W. Aney Senior Wildlife Ecologist (and a fan of good wine and beer) 9403 SW 74th Ave Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 539-1009 (503) 246-2605 fax -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu] On Behalf Of Katie Kline Sent: Friday, 10 September, 2010 14:43 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Spontaneous fermentation: the role of microorganisms in beer Benjamin Franklin, one of the Founding Fathers of the United States, was once quoted as saying: "In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is Freedom, in water there is bacteria." While there is certainly some truth to this quote, especially considering water quality in the 1700s, it should be noted that beer's long history is also fraught with microorganisms-both helpful and harmful in the eyes of the brewer. The four main ingredients in most modern beer recipes are water, a starch such as barley (usually malted), hops and yeast. And each ingredient has a very specific role in the brewing process. Any home brewer knows that the quality of the water used in brewing beer can significantly impact the flavor of the finished product. For example, excessive amounts of fluoride in the tap water can alter the flavor (and then some) of beer, not to mention the presence of bacteria and other microorganisms naturally found in tap water which can turn beer sour, acidic or give it a foul odor. Read more and comment at http://www.esa.org/esablog/research/spontaneous-fermentation-the-role-of-mic roorganisms-in-beer/
Re: [ECOLOG-L] ecosystem based fisheries management
Wendee, it might be helpful to look at the two extreme deviations when considering what ecosystems based fisheries management is (or is not): A "non-ecosystem-economics-based" management system might consist of total reliance on hatchery production, drastic removal of competitor and predator species and a total emphasis on fish in the catch -- even introducing non-native species with more sports or market appeal (such as striped bass on the Pacific Coast or rainbow trout in New Zealand). A "let-nature-take-its-course" approach might consist of a total hands-off, no manipulation system with total preservation (no take) and no human habitat restoration efforts. So, in my view (and based on my experience in trying to do "ecosystem based fish management") anything between these two extremes qualifies. Some of the best ecosystems based fish management is now occurring through riparian restoration and protection, stream re-channelization, water quality and flow enhancement, and reduction of invasive predators and competitors. Of course this is rather simple and straightforward in freshwater and estuary systems; not so simple and easily accomplished in ocean systems. But for many species, particularly anadromous and catadromous species, all our freshwater ecosystem management efforts may be trivial if we don't take better care of our oceans. (Note that I use the term "fish management" instead of "fisheries management" -- the latter seems to emphasize management for the taking of rather than management for the conservation of. Mr. Hamazaki's anecdote is a good fisheries management example.) Warren W. Aney Senior Wildlife Ecologist 9403 SW 74th Ave Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 539-1009 -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu] On Behalf Of Hamazaki, Hamachan (DFG) Sent: Monday, 16 August, 2010 10:55 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] ecosystem based fisheries management Wendee My guess is that we are still struggling with what "ecosystem based fisheries management" really means. In the end, fishery managers want to know the answer to this simple question: "How many fish can we take this year?" (I am asked this all the time.) In single stock fisheries management scheme, we know how to do in theory, such as stock-recruit analysis, etc. Although, it's not perfect, but at least this is based on theory. To answer this simple question in ecosystem base, you have answer, "How many fish is needed to maintain integrity of an ecosystem, so that the fish exceeding the number can be harvested?", and "How can you practically determine the number (i.e., what data do you need, what formula do you use to come up with the number)?" As I feel guilty of conducting single species MSY fishery management, I pose the above questions to anybody who promote ecosystem based fisheries management. But, so far, I haven't gotten definite answers. -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu] On Behalf Of Wendee Holtcamp Sent: Saturday, August 14, 2010 5:43 PM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: [ECOLOG-L] ecosystem based fisheries management Are there any fisheries in the world that are actually managed using an ecosystem approach versus single-species stock assessment models? I know there's debate over whether the Bering Sea fisheries could become that way. The comprehensive research done there feeds into their regional fishery council's decisions, but I don't think it's truly an ecosystem-based approach in terms of analyzing how many of say Pollock are needed not just to feed people but also to feed the fur seals, the seabirds, etc to prevent ecosystem collapse. But my question is not about the Bering Sea but about whether there is ANY fishery that is actually managed in an ecosystem approach or whether it's still theoretical at this stage? Wendee Blogs for Nature from the Bering Sea ~ http://tinyurl.com/2ctghbl ~~ Wendee Holtcamp, M.S. Wildlife Ecology ~ @bohemianone Freelance Writer * Photographer * Bohemian http://www.wendeeholtcamp.com <http://www.wendeeholtcamp.com/> http://bohemianadventures.blogspot.com <http://bohemianadventures.blogspot.com/> ~~ 6-wk Online Writing Course Starts Sep 4 (signup by Aug 28) ~~ ~~~ I'm Animal Planet's news blogger - http://blogs.discovery.com/animal_news
Re: [ECOLOG-L] field safety manual for mammal/herp/tick project -- breath as a repellent
Jim mentions how breathing or blowing on them can cause ticks to drop off your body. I have noticed this also works similarly with wasps and hornets. If they try to share my outdoor meal, a little puff in their direction seems to repel them more definitively than arm and hand waving. Maybe they associate my bad breath (or CO2) with a potential predator. Has anybody else noticed this? I haven't tried this with mosquitoes, but it probably would have the opposite effect -- they would associate CO2 with a breathing source of blood. Warren W. Aney Tigard, Oregon -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu] On Behalf Of James J Roper Sent: Monday, 28 June, 2010 08:24 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] field safety manual for mammal/herp/tick project The manual is good, but there are a few small errors. Tick rainthe manual says that ticks do not fall on passersby, but indeed they do. I have been "colonized" by ticks that way in both Panama and Paraguay. In Paraguay, when the truck I was riding on went under a tick infested branch of tree (actually, the preceding truck) the ticks apparently sense the CO2 and dropped, landing on the people in the back of the truck that followed. It happened more than once and was easily verified. In Panama, I was sitting in the understory waiting while looking up with binoculars. Every now and then, I felt "dust" on my face. I pulled out my compass with mirror and discovered that the dust was ticks. As I plucked them from my face, their numbers were growing, on my face and not by climbing to my face. Finally, I noticed that they were all over my body, so I moved. In the field, I have done the simple experiment. Tick walks up arm or leg or finger. If you merely fan the tick with your hand (passing an air current), they cling, but if you breathe or blow on it, the tick often drops, presumably from "smelling" CO2. Now I have not done this experiment with ticks everywhere, but everywhere I have done it, the ticks respond the same way. Cheers, Jim Diane S. Henshel wrote on 19-Jun-10 14:24: > Thanks for a great start on a manual many will use! > >
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Humans in the definition of ecosystems
Instead of looking for recent, confounded definitions, I prefer to go back to simpler, classical definitions such as: "Any area of nature that includes living organisms and nonliving substances interacting to produce an exchange of materials between the living and nonliving parts is an ecological system or ecosystem." (Odum, Fundamentals of Ecology, 1953) That definition would cover an ant-colonized crack in my driveway, the urban system I live in, and the pristine (almost) wilderness that contains my footprints. Warren W. Aney Senior Wildlife Ecologist 9403 SW 74th Ave Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 539-1009 (503) 246-2605 fax -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu] On Behalf Of Fabrice De Clerck Sent: Friday, 25 June, 2010 08:21 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Humans in the definition of ecosystems Dear Friends, An environmental economist colleague of mine is disappointed with the CBD definition of ecosystems which gives the impression that only pristine areas are ecosystems. Can anyone point us to a more recent definition of ecosystems that explicitly includes humans as an integral part of the definition? Here is the original question: The CBD defines ecosystems as a dynamic complex of plant, animal and micro-organism communities and their non-living environment interacting as a functional unit. I find this boring, as it leaves us humans, as special animals, out of the picture. When you read it, it is easy to think of pristine environments. Has there been any reaction or correction of this definition? I need an authoritative quote that balances the CBD´s All reactions welcome, and citations welcome! Fabrice Fabrice DeClerck PhD Community and Landscape Ecologist Division of Research and Development CATIE 7170, Turrialba, Costa Rica 30501 (506) 2558-2596 fadecle...@catie.ac.cr Adjunct Research Scholar Tropical Agriculture Programs The Earth Institute at Columbia University
Re: [ECOLOG-L] The Real "Point" of Research?
You raise a very good question, Patrick. As a non-academic wildlife ecologist, I have found that some scientific research helps me do a better job of understanding ecological processes in a way that promotes good decision-making. I frequently find research papers and articles that directly apply to this process in publications such as Ecological Applications, Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, Conservation in Practice, and Journal of Wildlife Management. The true "point" of this scientific research is better decision-making for conserving, managing and protecting species and the systems they depend on. Granted, a lot of scientific research does not produce information that seems to have any degree of applicability. If, as author Chet Raymo writes, knowledge is a finite island in a sea of infinite mystery, then it behooves us to prioritize our research so we are not just tabulating the grains of sand on the beach. There are infinite ways we can do research to extend the beaches of this knowledge island, most of which are of little utilitarian value. We need to extend the beaches of this island in directions that provide useful answers. In effect, you should be looking for service-oriented research opportunities. Engage in conversations with scientists and others engaged in fish and wildlife conservation, ecosystem management, and resource policy making. Find out what they need to know in order to make their efforts more effective. Then design and conduct research that provides answers that carry out this service goal. Warren W. Aney Senior Wildlife Ecologist 9403 SW 74th Ave Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 539-1009 (503) 246-2605 fax -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu] On Behalf Of Patrick Green Sent: Wednesday, 26 May, 2010 11:10 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: [ECOLOG-L] The Real "Point" of Research? Hello All, I am a recent UCLA grad with a B.S. in Ecology, Behavior, and Evolution. I love learning about science and research, and I am especially interested in Vertebrate Morphology. I feel like grad school is the best future for me, but there is one question that always bites me when I think about the future: What is the true "point" of all this scientific research? I know that without this knowledge there are several important advancements we as humans couldn't have made. I know that fields like conservation and ecology are especially important in terms of mitigating the impact humans have on the environment. However, I am still torn. I come from a background of serving others as much as possible, so to join a field that seems less service-oriented is hard for me. If anyone can help me get over this issue with some kind advice or specific examples, I'd really appreciate it. Feel free to email me personally, unless this issue is something others feel as well. Thanks a lot! Patrick Green -- Patrick Green patrick.gree...@gmail.com (530) 417-2089 2753 Knollwood Dr., Cameron Park, CA 95682
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict?
There's an old saying, and it's probably already been brought up, that science is about answering the questions of what, where, when and how. Religion tries to address the question of why. Warren W. Aney Tigard, Oregon -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu] On Behalf Of James J. Roper Sent: Thursday, 20 May, 2010 13:46 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict? To reify the idea of a god and call it nature offers no explanation of anything. To say that there are other ways of knowing, rather than logic is a trivial observation that things are sometimes discovered through insight - and that insight normally comes about because the highly trained individual was thinking a lot about it, but the answer didn't really pop out at them until left to "digest." Additional ways of "knowing" all will have to be tested logically. It is easy to make up questions for which there are no answers. That does not make the question interesting. Moral questions are about how we get along, and they can indeed be informed by logic as well as emotion. Finally, asking a why question implies that the question is sensible and an answer exists. I would propose that we may have no reason to think either. Cheers, Jim On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 15:33, Warren W. Aney wrote: > Why is there something rather than nothing? > And why is some of this something aware of itself? > And why is this self aware of the something? > And why does it ask these questions? > > Are these questions best addressed by science or by religion? Or do they > represent some of the areas where science and religion interface and > interconnect? > > Warren W. Aney > Senior Wildlife Ecologist > Tigard, Oregon > > -Original Message- > From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news > [mailto:ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu] On Behalf Of James Crants > Sent: Wednesday, 19 May, 2010 07:37 > To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict? > > I, too, appreciate Jane's contribution to this conversation. We can only > speculate on the origins of religion, since religion originated long before > written language, or even cave art (if neanderthal and modern human > religion > have a common origin; though I will agree with William Silvert that > religion > probably didn't come about because any gods revealed their existence to our > ancestors). > > However, science can say something about what goes on in the brain when > people have religious experiences, and perhaps it can say something about > why some people seem to need religion while others couldn't be religious if > they wanted to. It can tell us how similar the experience of meditation is > to the experience of prayer, or getting mentally absorbed in an anthill, or > drawing, or playing an instrument, or driving a car, and so on. Based on a > biological understanding of religious experience, plus the archeological > evidence, we can form models of how religion originated and evolved in > modern humans, and how it is relevant to modern life. > > I do think the "naturalist's trance" is basically the same as a religious > experience. I don't know of any hard evidence bearing on that, but the > experience is similar to those I've had from meditation, intense prayer, > playing music, painting pictures, and running much further than a mile or > so. Such experiences say nothing at all about whether there is such a > thing > as divinity, but I think they have a lot to do with the origins of > humanity's belief in divinity. > > Jim Crants > > On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 8:55 PM, Wayne Tyson wrote: > > > Ah-HA! > > > > I think she's GOT IT! By Jove, I think she's got it! The rain in Spain . > . > > . > > > > Eureka! Peak experiences! > > > > As in all art, the concentration of the intellect somehow gets > "processed" > > by our inner resources, and "breaks through" back into the conscious > after > a > > period of gestation and there is a birth of insight. Burning bushes and > > other hallucinations aside, just about all scientific discovery is thus > > produced. > > > > WT > > > > > > - Original Message - From: "Jane Shevtsov" > > > > To: > > Sent: Monday, May 17, 2010 7:48 PM > > > > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict? > > > > > > I think it's a mistake to reduce religion to > >> anthropomorphism/explanations and morality/politics. There is a
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict?
As Andrew Yost said: "Why does energy and matter organize itself through time to ask questions like why does energy and matter organize itself to ask?" Warren W. Aney Tigard, Oregon _ From: Micah Moore [mailto:mmoore1...@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, 20 May, 2010 12:30 To: Warren W. Aney; ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict? I agree, well said Mr. Warren. I will restate your words to see if I am on the same "wavelength". How could all energy arise from the "Big Bang" without everything being energy in some form? How is the "human" collection of energy able to study energy itself? How are hydrogen bonds, water or iron able to discuss themselves? How did the force of natural selection produce energy forms that "talk" about natural selection? Because the "words", science and religion exist, energy produced both of them, and it must have been present with all other energy released from the "Big Bang". As systems change (evolve), will there be intermediates(missing links) for majority of the energetic/genetic/behavioral recombinations(adaptations)? Respectfully, Micah J. Moore _ From: Warren W. Aney To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Thu, May 20, 2010 1:33:02 PM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict? Why is there something rather than nothing? And why is some of this something aware of itself? And why is this self aware of the something? And why does it ask these questions? Are these questions best addressed by science or by religion? Or do they represent some of the areas where science and religion interface and interconnect? Warren W. Aney Senior Wildlife Ecologist Tigard, Oregon -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu] On Behalf Of James Crants Sent: Wednesday, 19 May, 2010 07:37 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict? I, too, appreciate Jane's contribution to this conversation. We can only speculate on the origins of religion, since religion originated long before written language, or even cave art (if neanderthal and modern human religion have a common origin; though I will agree with William Silvert that religion probably didn't come about because any gods revealed their existence to our ancestors). However, science can say something about what goes on in the brain when people have religious experiences, and perhaps it can say something about why some people seem to need religion while others couldn't be religious if they wanted to. It can tell us how similar the experience of meditation is to the experience of prayer, or getting mentally absorbed in an anthill, or drawing, or playing an instrument, or driving a car, and so on. Based on a biological understanding of religious experience, plus the archeological evidence, we can form models of how religion originated and evolved in modern humans, and how it is relevant to modern life. I do think the "naturalist's trance" is basically the same as a religious experience. I don't know of any hard evidence bearing on that, but the experience is similar to those I've had from meditation, intense prayer, playing music, painting pictures, and running much further than a mile or so. Such experiences say nothing at all about whether there is such a thing as divinity, but I think they have a lot to do with the origins of humanity's belief in divinity. Jim Crants On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 8:55 PM, Wayne Tyson wrote: > Ah-HA! > > I think she's GOT IT! By Jove, I think she's got it! The rain in Spain . . > . > > Eureka! Peak experiences! > > As in all art, the concentration of the intellect somehow gets "processed" > by our inner resources, and "breaks through" back into the conscious after a > period of gestation and there is a birth of insight. Burning bushes and > other hallucinations aside, just about all scientific discovery is thus > produced. > > WT > > > - Original Message - From: "Jane Shevtsov" > > To: > Sent: Monday, May 17, 2010 7:48 PM > > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict? > > > I think it's a mistake to reduce religion to >> anthropomorphism/explanations and morality/politics. There is a >> crucial third element -- the human capacity for spiritual (meditative, >> oceanic, transcendent, pick your favorite adjective) experiences. >> These experiences are now being studied by psychologists and >> neuroscientists (look up "neurotheology") and are often connected to >> experiences in nature. >> >> My hypothesis about the origins of such experiences is partially
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict?
Why is there something rather than nothing? And why is some of this something aware of itself? And why is this self aware of the something? And why does it ask these questions? Are these questions best addressed by science or by religion? Or do they represent some of the areas where science and religion interface and interconnect? Warren W. Aney Senior Wildlife Ecologist Tigard, Oregon -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu] On Behalf Of James Crants Sent: Wednesday, 19 May, 2010 07:37 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict? I, too, appreciate Jane's contribution to this conversation. We can only speculate on the origins of religion, since religion originated long before written language, or even cave art (if neanderthal and modern human religion have a common origin; though I will agree with William Silvert that religion probably didn't come about because any gods revealed their existence to our ancestors). However, science can say something about what goes on in the brain when people have religious experiences, and perhaps it can say something about why some people seem to need religion while others couldn't be religious if they wanted to. It can tell us how similar the experience of meditation is to the experience of prayer, or getting mentally absorbed in an anthill, or drawing, or playing an instrument, or driving a car, and so on. Based on a biological understanding of religious experience, plus the archeological evidence, we can form models of how religion originated and evolved in modern humans, and how it is relevant to modern life. I do think the "naturalist's trance" is basically the same as a religious experience. I don't know of any hard evidence bearing on that, but the experience is similar to those I've had from meditation, intense prayer, playing music, painting pictures, and running much further than a mile or so. Such experiences say nothing at all about whether there is such a thing as divinity, but I think they have a lot to do with the origins of humanity's belief in divinity. Jim Crants On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 8:55 PM, Wayne Tyson wrote: > Ah-HA! > > I think she's GOT IT! By Jove, I think she's got it! The rain in Spain . . > . > > Eureka! Peak experiences! > > As in all art, the concentration of the intellect somehow gets "processed" > by our inner resources, and "breaks through" back into the conscious after a > period of gestation and there is a birth of insight. Burning bushes and > other hallucinations aside, just about all scientific discovery is thus > produced. > > WT > > > - Original Message - From: "Jane Shevtsov" > > To: > Sent: Monday, May 17, 2010 7:48 PM > > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict? > > > I think it's a mistake to reduce religion to >> anthropomorphism/explanations and morality/politics. There is a >> crucial third element -- the human capacity for spiritual (meditative, >> oceanic, transcendent, pick your favorite adjective) experiences. >> These experiences are now being studied by psychologists and >> neuroscientists (look up "neurotheology") and are often connected to >> experiences in nature. >> >> My hypothesis about the origins of such experiences is partially >> inspired by a passage from E.O. Wilson's book _Biophilia_. "In a twist >> my mind came free and I was aware of the hard workings of the natural >> world beyond the periphery of ordinary attention, where passions lose >> their meaning and history is in another dimension, without people, and >> great events pass without record or judgment. I was a transient of no >> consequence in this familiar yet deeply alien world that I had come to >> love. The uncounted products of evolution were gathered there for >> purposes having nothing to do with me; their long Cenozoic history was >> enciphered into a genetic code I could not understand. The effect was >> strangely calming. Breathing and heartbeat diminished, concentration >> intensified. It seemed to me that something extraordinary in the >> forest was very close to where I stood, moving to the surface and >> discovery. ... I willed animals to materialize and they came >> erratically into view." >> >> What does this passage, which describes an experience I suspect most >> members of this list have had, most resemble? It sounds a lot like how >> practitioners of some types of meditation describe their experience. >> But what is this "naturalist's trance" good for, other than science? >> Hunting, gathering and looking out for predators! Maybe, just maybe, >> this was our ancestors' normal state of consciousness and maybe >> various religious and spiritual practices arose as a way of >> recapturing this state as, for biological and social reasons, our >> minds changed. >> >> This is, of course, a guess, but what do you folks think? >> >> Jane Shevtsov >> >> >> >>
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict? Re: [ECOLOG-L] evolution for non-scientists textbook
How about: Science is trying to discover the world as it is, religion is trying to develop a world as it should become. Warren W. Aney (503) 246-8613 -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu] On Behalf Of William Silvert Sent: Wednesday, 12 May, 2010 14:50 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict? Re: [ECOLOG-L] evolution for non-scientists textbook My preferred definition is that science is about seeing the world as it is, religion about seeing the world as we would like it to be. A good example is the Copernican revolution. Copernicus and Galileo showed that the earth was not the centre of the universe, but the church insisted that it was and that man was god's favoured creation. Bill Silvert - Original Message - From: "Wayne Tyson" To: Sent: quarta-feira, 12 de Maio de 2010 19:49 Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict? Re: [ECOLOG-L] evolution for non-scientists textbook > Science is about questioning one's assumptions; religion is about what's > right and what's wrong.
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Extra-terrestrial "Species"
The word "species" is based on the word "specere" -- to see. So I guess if we see that ET is a distinct sort of living thing, it is a species. So now do we need to define "living"? Warren W. Aney Senior Wildlife Ecologist -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu] On Behalf Of Shelly Thomas Sent: Friday, 07 May, 2010 13:47 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Extra-terrestrial "Species" Dear Colleagues, This is outside the normal ecological questions we post here, but I am very interested in your opinions on this. I was having an armchair philosophical discussion with a colleague and some students the other day, trying to figure out if we (ecologists / scientists) would use the word "species" to describe an extra-terrestrial life form (supposing that someday we find one - or one finds us [c.f. Hawking]). Here is why we were unsure of the proper term to use. -The discussion over the basic definition of the word "species" -We seem to be leaning more toward the phylogenetic definition (although there is much discussion still going on about this and others may disagree); this definition uses the ancestor/lineage model. -If a life form is outside of our planet's big-picture evolutionary lineage, do we then use a different term than "species"? If so, what might we use? Would love to hear your ideas about this! Thanks, Shelly _ The New Busy is not the old busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your inbox. http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:W L:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_3
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Ecology Terminology Ecologist Landscape Re: [ECOLOG-L] Marine Landscape Ecologist
"Landscaping" is an "applied pursuit." "Landscape ecology" is an applied or descriptive science. Or is that an oversimplification? Warren W. Aney Senior Wildlife Ecologist Tigard, Oregon -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu] On Behalf Of Wayne Tyson Sent: Sunday, 18 April, 2010 13:08 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Ecology Terminology Ecologist Landscape Re: [ECOLOG-L] Marine Landscape Ecologist Warren, I'm all for updating, but I also recognize that all scholarship is not always perfect. Either American Heritage was in error, or Webster hacked out the earlier definition intentionally or unintentionally. Just because 2006 comes fifty years after 1956 doesn't necessarily mean that it is the final authority. I am not an etymologist, but I am suspending judgment until I hear the whole story. That said, moving on . . . Please understand that I am accepting "landscape ecology" as it is defined by its practitioners, period. What I am challenging is the confusion that arises when one term is used for two quite different meanings, muddying the semantic, colloquial, lexicographic, intellectual, and scientific waters. I quite embrace the idea of "matches," "best fits," consistency, and relevance--none of those characteristics interfere with discipline or clarity. The point I last attempted to make was confined to the absence of those features which is evident when one term is used to mean two quite different things or when two or more terms are unnecessarily used to mean the same thing. The central issue is clarity of communication, and avoidance of obfuscation or confusion. Worst of all, this leads to a tradition of people not knowing what they are talking about, as in "professional" jargon, advertising, and politics, ad nauseam. I am trying to be as literal as possible here, and I hope I have communicated clearly and not set up any conditions through which well-intentioned interpretation can render it otherwise. Meanwhile, back at the ranch, from what you say, am I misinterpreting you when I respond that it appears that landscape ecology is an applied pursuit rather than a science, or am I still missing something? Thanks to you and all for your patience. WT - Original Message - From: "Warren W. Aney" To: Sent: Saturday, April 17, 2010 9:56 PM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Ecology Terminology Ecologist Landscape Re: [ECOLOG-L] Marine Landscape Ecologist > Wayne, my source is Webster's New World College Dictionary (2006 -- I find > it helps to upgrade one's dictionary every decade or so). > > In this source there are 3 noun definitions -- a picture of scenery, the > branch of art dealing with such pictures, and an expanse of natural > scenery; > plus 1 verb definition -- to change the natural features of a piece of > ground to make it more attractive. > > > To me, "landscape ecology" does not really match this "natural scenery" > definition, because we study, describe and manipulate "landscapes" that > range from pristine wilderness to urbanized developments. The key seems > to > be in the scale at which we study and operate. I am really not practicing > landscape ecology if I let a diverse native plant community grow in my > small > urban backyard or restore 1 acre of rural wetland. But I am practicing > landscape ecology if I utilize city land use decision making and action to > maintain or increase tree cover retention, structural and (native) species > diversity, stream buffers, wetlands and surface water management features, > even though the density standard is 5 dwellings per acre. And I am > practicing landscape ecology if I work to restore and preserve 1,000 acres > of natural wetland and its adjacent and affected ecosystems. > > Warren W. Aney > Tigard, Oregon > > > -Original Message- > From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news > [mailto:ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu] On Behalf Of Wayne Tyson > Sent: Saturday, 17 April, 2010 20:59 > To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Ecology Terminology Ecologist Landscape Re: > [ECOLOG-L] Marine Landscape Ecologist > > Thanks, Warren, that's more understandable. > > I haven't looked up the etymology of landscape recently, but when I did > some > > years ago, I ended up at the Indo-European root "skep," to "hack" or "to > cut."* Either way, the term is embedded in the language. It is only a > curiosity, and the actual original meaning is most likely lost to history. > However, I do think it is unfortunate that the term aid in the > misunderstanding that "landscape" (being
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Ecology Terminology Ecologist Landscape Re: [ECOLOG-L] Marine Landscape Ecologist
Wayne, my source is Webster's New World College Dictionary (2006 -- I find it helps to upgrade one's dictionary every decade or so). In this source there are 3 noun definitions -- a picture of scenery, the branch of art dealing with such pictures, and an expanse of natural scenery; plus 1 verb definition -- to change the natural features of a piece of ground to make it more attractive. To me, "landscape ecology" does not really match this "natural scenery" definition, because we study, describe and manipulate "landscapes" that range from pristine wilderness to urbanized developments. The key seems to be in the scale at which we study and operate. I am really not practicing landscape ecology if I let a diverse native plant community grow in my small urban backyard or restore 1 acre of rural wetland. But I am practicing landscape ecology if I utilize city land use decision making and action to maintain or increase tree cover retention, structural and (native) species diversity, stream buffers, wetlands and surface water management features, even though the density standard is 5 dwellings per acre. And I am practicing landscape ecology if I work to restore and preserve 1,000 acres of natural wetland and its adjacent and affected ecosystems. Warren W. Aney Tigard, Oregon -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu] On Behalf Of Wayne Tyson Sent: Saturday, 17 April, 2010 20:59 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Ecology Terminology Ecologist Landscape Re: [ECOLOG-L] Marine Landscape Ecologist Thanks, Warren, that's more understandable. I haven't looked up the etymology of landscape recently, but when I did some years ago, I ended up at the Indo-European root "skep," to "hack" or "to cut."* Either way, the term is embedded in the language. It is only a curiosity, and the actual original meaning is most likely lost to history. However, I do think it is unfortunate that the term aid in the misunderstanding that "landscape" (being expanded [I wonder by whom and when?] to include natural areas) is equivalent to "landscape" as a verb, almost exclusively meaning to replace ecosystems with plants (with little or not regard to animals except to exclude and kill them) chosen, not by the interaction of co-evolved species with each other and their environment, but in accordance with the whims of the owner or artist (e.g. landscape architect) to concoct a "proper" fantasyland, commonly "using" plants (from a "palette") readily available from a nursery industry that bear little relation to the natural environmental context. Such semantic confusion is regrettable in my view, particularly when it plays into the hands of those who displace natural, self-sufficient biological systems with maintenance-dependent assemblages that have effects far beyond their physical boundaries. I did not intend to expand this query into this area, and I do not intend to imply that it is (apparently) more than a part of what appears to be "landscape ecology" as you have explained it. Certainly some watersheds and their "landscapes" are free of "landscaping," but many have been greatly altered, even poisoned, with their Q pushed through the erosion threshold, by landscaping and other urban development that is not only insensitive to natural, self-sufficient ecosystems, but actively and intentionally hostile to them. That's mostly why I think there should be separate terms for such distinctly different systems, especially within the realm of science and intellectual discipline. WT *I believe the Old Dutch "scap" shares this root. As I recall, the "American Heritage Dictionary" was one reference for this. I would appreciate learning of any "correction" that may have been made to this. - Original Message - From: "Warren W. Aney" To: Sent: Saturday, April 17, 2010 11:08 AM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Ecology Terminology Ecologist Landscape Re: [ECOLOG-L] Marine Landscape Ecologist > Wayne, as you probably know, we used to use terms such as "watershed > management" to describe a more holistic approach to broad-area applied > ecology. Wanting to make it geographically less exclusive and > scientifically more refined, we started using the term "landscape > ecology." > > That's an oversimplification, I know, but it's a useful term that makes > sense to practitioners, decision-makers and bystanders. And "scape" in > this > sense comes from the Dutch "scap" which is related to "create" or "shape" > (e.g., "landscaping" which produces a "landscape"). So the meaning of > "l
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Ecology Terminology Ecologist Landscape Re: [ECOLOG-L] Marine Landscape Ecologist
Wayne, as you probably know, we used to use terms such as "watershed management" to describe a more holistic approach to broad-area applied ecology. Wanting to make it geographically less exclusive and scientifically more refined, we started using the term "landscape ecology." That's an oversimplification, I know, but it's a useful term that makes sense to practitioners, decision-makers and bystanders. And "scape" in this sense comes from the Dutch "scap" which is related to "create" or "shape" (e.g., "landscaping" which produces a "landscape"). So the meaning of "landscape" was expanded to include natural areas which are already nature-"shaped." Warren W. Aney Senior Wildlife Ecologist Tigard, Oregon -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu] On Behalf Of Wayne Tyson Sent: Friday, 16 April, 2010 23:09 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Ecology Terminology Ecologist Landscape Re: [ECOLOG-L] Marine Landscape Ecologist What is a landscape ecologist? WT PS: "scape" comes from the root, "skep," meaning to cut or to hack. Ironic, given the current vernacular, no? - Original Message - From: "Jim DeCoster" To: Sent: Friday, April 16, 2010 9:42 AM Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Marine Landscape Ecologist > Marine Landscape Ecologist - isn't that an oxymoron? > > > > > > Date:Thu, 15 Apr 2010 11:12:54 -0400 > From:Chris Jeffrey > Subject: Job Announcement - Marine Landscape Ecologist > > *MARINE SCIENTIST NEEDED FOR CONTRACT POSITION WITH NATIONAL OCEANIC & > ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION (NOAA)* No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.437 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2815 - Release Date: 04/16/10 18:31:00
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Petition to protect Lake Baikal
It's interesting how this petition process only wants signatures from PhD scientists with institutional affiliation. That leaves me out, since I have only an MA in ecological statistics, ESA Senior Ecologist certification, The Wildlife Society's certification as a Wildlife Biologist, several decades of practical field experience including aquatic habitat management, and some knowledge of Siberian environmental management. Warren W. Aney Senior Wildlife Ecologist 9403 SW 74th Ave Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 539-1009 (503) 246-2605 fax -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu] On Behalf Of Dennis Lavrov Sent: Thursday, 25 March, 2010 15:29 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Petition to protect Lake Baikal Dear colleagues, It's not publicized much in the news, but there has been a very unfortunate turn of events for Lake Baikal, the largest and the most ancient lake on the planet and one of the UNESCO World Nature Heritage Sites. On January 13, the Russian government made several changes in the list of activities prohibited in the area of Lake Baikal that allowed the re-opening of the Baikalsk pulp and paper mill, the main air and water polluter in the region. This decision is very unpopular in Russia, but the opposition is being suppressed (e.g., http://www.www.greengrants.org/breakingnews.php?news_id=271). Furthermore, the government is propagating the myth that there is no scientific evidence for the negative effect of the mill on Lake Baikal. I am trying to gather support from the scientific community in order to convince Russian President Dmitry Medvedev to revert the changes in the regulation. I posted an open letter at http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/baikal/ and ask you to sign it. You can find more information at http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/03/biologist-petitions-russia -to-sa.html. Thank you very much in advance and sorry for a potential double posting, Dennis Dennis V. Lavrov, Assistant Professor Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Organismal Biology, Iowa State University, 343A Bessey Hall, Ames, IA 50011 phone: (515) 294-9091; fax: (515) 294-1337 http://www.eeob.iastate.edu/faculty/LavrovD/
Re: [ECOLOG-L] ECOSYSTEMS Rangeland definition Re: [ECOLOG-L] Workshop: Interpreting and Measuring Indicators of Rangeland Health
>From my perspective as a wildlife ecologist, "rangeland" is basically an agro-economic term used to encompass a wide range of ecosystems that are used for domestic livestock grazing. The image that most commonly comes to mind is the open shrub-grasslands of the Great Basin or the prairies of the Midwest and this is what I assume this workshop encompasses. But the term can also include open forest and alpine grazing lands and even managed pastureland. Rangeland health would mean the system is being managed in a sustainable manner with regard to maintaining a productive range of natural values including all native species, watershed stability, water quality (including water temperatures), control of invasives, and soil stability. I'm sure others will come up with more sophisticated academic definitions. Warren W. Aney Tigard, Oregon -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu] On Behalf Of Wayne Tyson Sent: Thursday, 11 March, 2010 09:49 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: [ECOLOG-L] ECOSYSTEMS Rangeland definition Re: [ECOLOG-L] Workshop: Interpreting and Measuring Indicators of Rangeland Health Dear Ecolog: I'd like to learn of your definitions of rangeland and rangeland health. Thanks for any responses. WT - Original Message - From: "David Inouye" To: Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2010 1:40 PM Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Workshop: Interpreting and Measuring Indicators of Rangeland Health > Interpreting and Measuring Indicators of Rangeland Health Workshop > > May 4-7 2010: Phoenix AZ > June 22-25 2010: Casper WY > > What > Participants in this 3.5 day course will learn how to apply the > "Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health" qualitative evaluation > protocol and learn how to quantify selected indicators. > > Why > The protocol is widely applied by individuals and agencies to provide > early > warning of potential degradation, opportunities for recovery and to help > design monitoring programs. The quantitative indicators can also be used > as > baseline for monitoring. > > Cost > No cost. Download more information > from http://usda-ars.nmsu.edu/monit_assess/courses_main.php No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.436 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2735 - Release Date: 03/10/10 19:33:00
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Ecosystem Restoration and Climate Change Re: [ECOLOG-L] Restoration ecology and climate change survey
I tend to agree with Wayne -- this survey not only had questions that I as a field ecologist couldn't readily answer, I felt that I had some possible answers for which they did not have questions. It was almost as if the survey had been written to validate some deskbound pre-answers and had not been vetted by those with actual field experience in restoration and management. Warren W. Aney Senior Wildlife Ecologist Tigard, OR 97223 -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu] On Behalf Of Wayne Tyson Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2009 6:42 PM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Ecosystem Restoration and Climate Change Re: [ECOLOG-L] Restoration ecology and climate change survey Ecolog: I did my best to fill out this survey, but I must confess there were just some questions I didn't have an answer for (and, no doubt because my arrogance was in overload, I thought I had answers for which there were no questions, but hey, I'm glad they kept it simple). I have no doubt that "the climate" is changing; it always has, and the rate and degree of change has always changed too. I don't doubt that cultural activities have had, and are having some influence on those changes, but I don't know how much and in which direction. By simple deduction, there must be people who know a lot more than I do about atmospheric carbon loads, residence times, carbon exchange, the influence of living things like rain forests and bacteria, the tilt of the earth, ad infinitum. But I harbor a dark suspicion that there also are people who are convinced that they know, who don't know as much as it appears. As for restoration, my limited experience has led me to think that it is a mere finger in the dike, and much of that is illusory, at least as far as the role of "restorationists" is concerned. Ecosystem resilience is a much more important factor than whether or not a restoration ecologist thinks he or she knows where to move organisms and that kind of stuff. I don't mean that restoration shouldn't be done or that it is a futile spit in the ocean, but I suggest that it needs a more questioning than answering perspective. When there's a gash in the face of the earth some actions can be taken to accelerate "healing," and that is worth doing, especially if ecosystem degradation can be slowed even a little bit, and if some germplasm that otherwise would have gone down the sewer is able to persist a little longer, maybe even long enough for the forces of degradation to be relaxed long enough to prevent functional extinction. Had some zoo had the foresight to harbor some passenger pigeons, for example, perhaps there could have been releases and enough reproduction to fill whatever niches might have been left, preserved, even restored. While it might be unlikely that the sky would ever be darkened by them again, at least until Homo sapiens cultureboundensis fulfilled hisher potential for perfection or went extinct or bombed himherself back into the Stone Age, a functional, truly sustainable population might have been established. No one is sure, for example, of the California condor will ever reach a self-sustaining population, but if we can hang onto it long enough, we can at least blunt the effects of too many .22 long rifle cartridges, lead-filled offal, puddles of antifreeze, and coyote-getters, ad nauseam, and when we come to recognize the true effects of displacing elk, deer, pronghorns and the like with beeves, maybe there will be enough of them for a sustainable population. I don't know whether or not trying to move organisms to prevent their demise from the coming Great Warming or the Great Cooling, is a good idea or a bad one, or if it answers to the Precautionary Principle on some scale of priorities. Certainly there is what might be called the Ark impulse afoot, and that less-traveled road might make all the difference. It also might suck funding away from other priorities, but how can we know until data sharing and integration comes of age and open sources rule? I guess we can't, so perhaps the present chaotic "system" is good enough, maybe even superior. What say you? WT - Original Message - From: "Tom Kaye" To: Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2009 9:22 PM Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Restoration ecology and climate change survey > The Institute for Applied Ecology is conducting a survey of international > professionals, academics, students, etc. about their perspectives on > restoration, climate change, and working with and moving organisms. > Climate > change may be the defining challenge to the field of restoration ecology > this century. How does the wider restoration community currently approach > the challenges of habitat and species restoration, and how is
Re: [ECOLOG-L] to Capitalize or not to capitalize
A botanist may correct me, but my understanding is hyphenation is used to
indicate the common name is not a true species, e.g., Douglas-fir is not a
true fir.
Warren W. Aney
Senior Wildlife Ecologist
Tigard, OR
-Original Message-
From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news
[mailto:ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu] On Behalf Of James Crants
Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2009 7:54 AM
To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] to Capitalize or not to capitalize
My experience in botany is that most people only capitalize words in common
names if they would be capitalized in regular writing (in the "down" style,
I guess). Example: "Here are a few easy ways to distinguish Norway maple,
sugar maple, and black maple." You would also capitalize adjective versions
of proper nouns ("English," "Chinese," etc.), and people's names ("Short's
aster"). Traditionally, two-part common names were hyphenated
("Norway-maple"), but I don't see this in the recently-published literature
too often.
In the following statement: the Narraguagus and Penobscot
riversshould the word "rivers" be capitalized?
I say yes, because (along the same lines as what Malcolm McCallum said) the
lowercase "rivers" would imply "the rivers of the regions called Narraguagus
and Penobscot." If you capitalize "rivers," it implies "the two rivers
called Narraguagus and Penobscot" more clearly to me.
Jim Crants
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 7:15 PM, Warren W. Aney wrote:
> In my journalism and technical writing classes I learned there are two
> accepted styles for capitalization: An "up" style and a "down" style. In
> the "up" style you would capitalize river, lake, stream, county, etc. if
> it's part of the proper name, e.g., Penobscot River, Penobscot County.
> Many
> "up" style adherents would also capitalize the proper names of species,
> e.g., Mule Deer.
>
> In the "down" style you would be very stingy with capitalizations. So you
> would write Narraguagus river and mule deer.
>
> And then ornithologists have a policy of always capitalizing bird species
> names, but since I always write in the "down" style I tend to ignore that
> policy for the sake of consistency, e.g., Canada geese and pileated
> woodpecker.
>
> Some newspapers write in the "down" style but most in the "up" style --
and
> as you've probably noted, MSWord spellcheck keeps nagging you to use the
> "up" style.
>
> You can also mix styles, e.g., write about Atlantic salmon in the
Penobscot
> River. That's part of the frustration (or beauty) of writing -- it's an
> art
> and not a science.
>
> Warren W. Aney
> Senior Wildlife Ecologist
> 9403 SW 74th Ave
> Tigard, OR 97223
> (503) 246-8613 phone
> (503) 246-2605 fax
> (503) 539-1009 mobile
> a...@coho.net
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news
> [mailto:ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu] On Behalf Of Michael Cooperman
> Sent: Wednesday, 30 September, 2009 11:19
> To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
> Subject: [ECOLOG-L] to Capitalize or not to capitalize
>
> In the following statement: the Narraguagus and Penobscot
> riversshould the word "rivers" be capitalized? I have my opinion,
> but in the spirit of not biasing responses I'll keep it to myself; my
> office as a whole is split 50/50. One way or the other, half the people
> in my office are wrong!
>
> Michael
>
> --
>
>
> -
> Michael Cooperman, PhD
> National Research Council - Research Fellow
> in residence at NOAA-Fisheries, NE Fisheries Science Center - Maine Field
> Station
> Atlantic Salmon Research and Conservation Task
> 17 Godfrey DR., Suite 1
> Orono, ME 04473
>
> (work) 207-866-7409
> (cell) 207-974-9846
> (fax) 207-866-7342 (pls call before faxing)
> email: michael.cooper...@noaa.gov
>
>
> -
>
Re: [ECOLOG-L] to Capitalize or not to capitalize
In my journalism and technical writing classes I learned there are two accepted styles for capitalization: An "up" style and a "down" style. In the "up" style you would capitalize river, lake, stream, county, etc. if it's part of the proper name, e.g., Penobscot River, Penobscot County. Many "up" style adherents would also capitalize the proper names of species, e.g., Mule Deer. In the "down" style you would be very stingy with capitalizations. So you would write Narraguagus river and mule deer. And then ornithologists have a policy of always capitalizing bird species names, but since I always write in the "down" style I tend to ignore that policy for the sake of consistency, e.g., Canada geese and pileated woodpecker. Some newspapers write in the "down" style but most in the "up" style -- and as you've probably noted, MSWord spellcheck keeps nagging you to use the "up" style. You can also mix styles, e.g., write about Atlantic salmon in the Penobscot River. That's part of the frustration (or beauty) of writing -- it's an art and not a science. Warren W. Aney Senior Wildlife Ecologist 9403 SW 74th Ave Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 246-8613 phone (503) 246-2605 fax (503) 539-1009 mobile a...@coho.net -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu] On Behalf Of Michael Cooperman Sent: Wednesday, 30 September, 2009 11:19 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: [ECOLOG-L] to Capitalize or not to capitalize In the following statement: the Narraguagus and Penobscot riversshould the word "rivers" be capitalized? I have my opinion, but in the spirit of not biasing responses I'll keep it to myself; my office as a whole is split 50/50. One way or the other, half the people in my office are wrong! Michael -- - Michael Cooperman, PhD National Research Council - Research Fellow in residence at NOAA-Fisheries, NE Fisheries Science Center - Maine Field Station Atlantic Salmon Research and Conservation Task 17 Godfrey DR., Suite 1 Orono, ME 04473 (work) 207-866-7409 (cell) 207-974-9846 (fax) 207-866-7342 (pls call before faxing) email: michael.cooper...@noaa.gov -
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Population control
Thanks for completing the triangle, Robert: Consumption, Population and Equity must be balanced in terms of both economics and ecology. (No wonder that these disciplines have the same root: oikos = household). Warren Aney _ From: rnmowb...@att.net [mailto:rnmowb...@att.net] Sent: Sunday, September 27, 2009 11:48 AM To: Warren W. Aney; ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Population control There is a third problem which is at least equal to consumption and population as a cause of environmental degradation - inequitable access to economic opportunity. In most developing countries inequity is the major cause of deforestation. The poor clear forests to carry on subsistence agriculture to feed their families and the rich clear vast expanses of forest to create inefficient cattle ranches and plantations. And, of course, inequity on the international scale, is an obvious problem with the U.S. being the leading offender - consuming far more than our fair share of the planet's resources on a per capita basis and contributing substantially to greenhouse gas emissions. Robert Mowbray Tropical Forest Ecologist -- Original message from "Warren W. Aney" : -- > I know this has been discussed before, but the point still needs to be made > that overconsumption and overpopulation both need to be addressed as our > greatest problems.
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Population control
I know this has been discussed before, but the point still needs to be made that overconsumption and overpopulation both need to be addressed as our greatest problems. We over-consumers might say overpopulation is the greatest problem, since we can then point at other cultures as being the primary source of the population problem, thereby exonerating our overconsumption. And I'm sure these other cultures point at us overconsumers as exonerating their high reproductive rates -- they need these extra hands to produce and survive, perhaps in hopes of somehow approaching even a fraction of our level of consumption in the process. But the fact remains, in a high-population growth nation such as Bangladesh it takes 90 of these over-populators to consume as much as one of us over-consumers. In Ecology 101 we all learned that species' population growth limits aren't defined by numbers but rather by resource consumption. Warren W. Aney Senior Wildlife Ecologist -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu] On Behalf Of William Silvert Sent: Saturday, 26 September, 2009 13:28 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Population control It is always time to address the problem of overpopulation. It is probably the greatest problem we face. Of course there are those who disagree. I received an off-list reply accusing me of racism because I bemoaned the world's increasing population, but we still have to deal with the issue rationally, and overpopulation is definitely a huge issue. Bill Silvert - Original Message - From: "bangrand" To: Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2009 6:38 PM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Population control >I raised this issue about a year ago and was admonished that >overpopulation was a red herring. Is it finally time to address this >taboo? > > randy
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Intelligence Who is the greatest of them all?
I agree with Tom: I don't think we can generalize. Some religions do profess the superiority of humans over the animals, end of story. However, many religions now agree that any such superiority carries with it a divinely directed duty to act within creation as care-taking stewards rather than outside of creation as exploiting overlords. And some evolutionary scientists might ask how you define "most advanced" -- in terms of species' specialization, Malcom's bovine might be considered more advanced than humans, e.g, hooved instead to toed feet are better for running, a complex digestive system is better for processing a wide variety of plant materials, a better sense of smell and hearing, more efficiently spaced estrus cycles, etc. Warren W. Aney Senior Wildlife Ecologist Tigard, OR -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu] On Behalf Of malcolm McCallum Sent: Friday, 18 September, 2009 08:55 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Intelligence Who is the greatest of them all? Do Hindu's believe this? I thought the bovine was the top of the caste system? I am reminded of an east asian religion (which one I do not remember) that believed humans were lice on God's head. Not sure where that fits in. On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 7:23 AM, Tom Cuba wrote: > Please consider the number of humans on the planet, their wide variety of > both stereotypical and highly personal beleifs and ask if a generalization > such as this is even properly posed. > > Tom Cuba > >> > Ecolog: >> >> Would you please assess the following > statement for its veracity and >> completeness? Is it misleading in > any way, especially with respect to >> evolutionary biology? >> >> "Humans consider themselves to be above 'the > animals,' believing that they >> are superior, either chosen by > 'God' or are products of an evolutionary >> process in which they > are the most highly developed example of that >> process, the most > highly 'advanced' species." >> >> >> >> WT >> > -- Malcolm L. McCallum Associate Professor of Biology Managing Editor, Herpetological Conservation and Biology Texas A&M University-Texarkana Fall Teaching Schedule: Vertebrate Biology - TR 10-11:40; General Ecology - MW 1-2:40pm; Forensic Science - W 6-9:40pm Office Hourse- TBA 1880's: "There's lots of good fish in the sea" W.S. Gilbert 1990's: Many fish stocks depleted due to overfishing, habitat loss, and pollution. 2000: Marine reserves, ecosystem restoration, and pollution reduction MAY help restore populations. 2022: Soylent Green is People! Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
Re: [ECOLOG-L] falsifying results in clinical research, why so common?
I am only a sometimes reader of scientific journals, preferring to read synopses and rewrites in semi-scientific journals such as Frontiers in Ecology, Conservation, The Wildlife Professional, or even Natural History magazine. However, I do notice what might be a slight tendency towards publishing scientific papers that counter accepted science, particularly in high-prestige journals. These may get published because they bring notice to the journal and the authors, not necessarily because they are better science than some other potential papers. A case that may fit this category is the 2005-2007 spate of papers claiming that temperate forests do little to counter climate change, in particular a 2007 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science by Gibbard et al, "Combined climate and carbon-cycle effects of large-scale deforestation" (PNAS 104:16). It got a lot of press but apparently not much credence because I've heard nothing about its claims in recent discussions of forests and climate change. I'm not saying this article is fraudulent, I'm just saying that it may have been published because it would get attention more than because it demonstrated impeccable science. Warren W. Aney Senior Wildlife Ecologist -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu] On Behalf Of ta...@southwestern.edu Sent: Monday, 07 September, 2009 17:37 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] falsifying results in clinical research, why so common? It is also possible that there is fraud in ecology and evolution, but it gets discovered at a very low rate. Most findings in these areas probably don't get the sort of intense scrutiny that a potential medical breakthrough gets. And if nobody can replicate the findings we tend to figure that there is variation from population to population, from year to year, etc. We would almost never suspect fraud. Quoting "Judith S. Weis" : > There's a lot more money to be made in this sort of biomedical and > clinical research, of course, than there is in ecology and evolution. > I recently read that the famous other "fake" - the midwife toad, may not > have been a fake after all, but don't remember the details at the moment. > > >> Why, do we continue to see this ticker tape of falsified studies >> coming out of the clinical sciences? >> The last ecological/evolution study I recall like this was Piltdown Man! >> If it is "just human nature" why do we see so few in ecology and >> evolution? >> I thought this might be a good talking point! :) >> >> Looking forward to the discussion! >> >> (oops left off the article! see below!) >> Malcolm >> >>> From the Chronicle of Higher Education: >> >> Company Says Research It Sponsored at Pitt and Hopkins Was Fraudulent >> By Goldie Blumenstyk >> Technology-transfer deals at universities can easily go sour, but >> rarely do they end up with the corporate partner suing an inventor and >> his institution for research fraud. >> >> The University of Pittsburgh and the Johns Hopkins University now find >> themselves in that unusual situation, as a company that says it spent >> millions of dollars sponsoring research by a prominent scientist, >> expecting to use his promising inventions as the basis for a new test >> for prostate cancer, is now accusing the professor and the >> institutions of falsifying his results. >> >> The company, Onconome Inc., says the professor, Robert H. Getzenberg, >> lied about his findings and progress from 2001 through 2008. Mr. >> Getzenberg has been a professor of urology and director of research at >> a urology institute at Johns Hopkins since 2005; previously he held >> similar posts at Pitt. He was also a paid scientific adviser to >> Onconome. >> >> Onconome, of Redmond, Wash., was founded in 2001 to turn Mr. >> Getzenberg's work into a cancer-detection test. In addition to >> financing some of Mr. Getzenberg's research, the company had obtained >> licenses from Pitt and Johns Hopkins for rights to commercialize his >> research. It says it spent more than $13-million supporting the >> research and on licensing fees. >> >> A Company's Suspicions >> As recently as 2007-when Johns Hopkins issued a news release about a >> study Mr. Getzenberg published in the journal Urology that suggested >> his work could produce a better test for prostate cancer than the >> existing PSA test-there were no obvious signs of trouble. >> >> At the time, however, a writer familiar with the biotechnology >> industry wrote a commentary questi
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Seminal books and papers in Conservation and Natural Resources
I recently pulled off the shelf my old copy of Game Management by Aldo Leopold (1933). I am surprised by how much this book anticipates present day concerns such as biodiversity, sustainability, and ecosystems management. Warren W. Aney Senior Wildlife Ecologist 9403 SW 74th Ave Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 246-8613 phone (503) 246-2605 fax (503) 539-1009 mobile a...@coho.net -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu] On Behalf Of Christopher A. Lepczyk Sent: Friday, 04 September, 2009 13:17 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Seminal books and papers in Conservation and Natural Resources Good Morning, I am developing a new graduate course focused on foundational literature in the fields of conservation and natural resources. While I have a long list of titles already, I am interested in hearing from other professionals and graduate students on what key papers and books you would define in these fields. They need not be strictly academic. For instance, such titles could include Silent Spring, A Sand County Almanac, Life and Death of a Salt Marsh, The Population Bomb, Adaptive Management or Renewable Resources, Tragedy of the Commons, etc. I look forward to your thoughts. Aloha, Chris Christopher A. Lepczyk Assistant Professor Dept. of Natural Resources and Environmental Management University of Hawaii at Manoa
Re: [ECOLOG-L] ecosystem approach to project evaluations
Maybe I don't understand your question, because I'm sure you are aware that the standard approach to assessing the effects of projects on natural systems is spelled out in the National Environmental Protection Act and its implementing regulations. This has been in place since 1969 and many individual states have similar requirements. For example, a state highway bridge project requires at least a biological evaluation to determine if there are potential effects on ecosystem components. If some of these effects might impinge on federal or state listed sensitive, threatened or endangered species or their habitats, biological and environmental assessments are done to determine if these effects are significant in terms of context (affected area) and magnitude. If this is the case, than an Environmental Impact Statement is required as a decision making document. That is an oversimplification, I know, but in my experience over the years this evaluation process has matured from a simple, species-based approach to a more rigorous and effective ecosystems-based approach. Warren W. Aney Senior Wildlife Ecologist Tigard, Oregon -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu] On Behalf Of Cyril Egar Sent: Friday, 28 August, 2009 01:38 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: [ECOLOG-L] ecosystem approach to project evaluations Most of us have read about systems approaches to management and more on the block now, ecosystem approach to management. I would like to know if there is anyone working on" Ecosystem approach to project evaluations" in order to share information on the subject. Hope lots of response will fly in.. Thanks in advance for your contributions. Cyril Egar MSc. Environmental Management Christian-Albrechts Uni-Kiel Tel: 017675593400
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Education vs Indoctrination Can sustainability be sustained?
There are many definitions for "sustainability" with some canted towards the user's interests. Most imply that we can keep doing a lot of things that are really not sustainable over the long term, e.g., eternally producing tilled crops on the eroding soils that are characteristic of almost all of our farmland. Even the 1987 Brundtland definition (the most widely used definition) is so general that it has serious limitations and insufficiencies: Meeting present needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs can be interpreted as including an unstated assumption that future generations' technology will be able to make up for our generation's diminishment of irreplaceable resources. To me, this is, as Wayne says, unsustainable sustainability. So I tried to write a definition that addresses these weaknesses: "To maintain forever the current productivity of renewable resource systems including soils, waters, forests, wildlands and the atmosphere; and to deplete nonrenewable resources only at the rate that cost-equivalent substitutes can be developed, with costs measured on economic, social and ecological scales." This is part of the sample of sustainability definitions that I've collected over the last few years (pasted below). I would be interested in hearing of other definitions, particularly any that are substantially different or better from an ecological perspective. Warren W. Aney Senior Wildlife Ecologist Tigard, Oregon *** Sustainability some definitions Meeting present needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs. 1987 Brundtland Report, Our Common Future. The ability to provide for the needs of the world's current population without damaging the ability of future generations to provide for themselves. When a process is sustainable, it can be carried out over and over without negative environmental effects or impossibly high costs to anyone involved. Maintaining your consumption without eroding your capital. Johannesburg Summit Secretary-General Nitin Desai. Ecological conservation and equitable resource distribution. Free market capitalism plus technology will let us keep consuming without limits. Stabilizing resource exploitation while allowing the less privileged an equitable share of our earth's bounty without compromising its livability. Providing the best outcomes for the human and natural environments both now and into the indefinite future. Bearing in mind the effects of our actions on our descendants for seven generations. Iroquois Confederacy Hargroves & Smith 2005: · Deal cautiously with risk, uncertainty and irreversibility. · Ensure appropriate valuation, appreciation and restoration of nature. · Integrate environmental, social and economic goals in policies and activities. · Provide equal opportunity and community participation/Sustainable community. · Conserve biodiversity and ecological integrity. · Ensure inter-generational equity. · Recognize the global dimension. · Commit to best practice. · Allow no net loss of human capital or natural capital. · Abide by the principle of continuous improvement. · Meet the need for good governance. Achieving human and ecosystem well-being together. In a sustainable society, nature is not subject to systematically increasing: 1. concentrations of substances extracted from the Earth's crust; 2. concentrations of substances produced by society; 3. degradation by physical means and, in that society. . . 4. the ability for humans to meet their needs is not systematically undermined. The Natural Step Framework >From the State of Oregons Sustainability Act "Sustainability means using, developing and protecting resources at a rate and in a manner that enables people to meet their current needs and also provides that future generations can meet their own needs. Sustainability requires simultaneously meeting environmental, economic and community needs." "To maintain forever the current productivity of renewable resource systems including soils, waters, forests, wildlands and the atmosphere; and to deplete nonrenewable resources only at the rate that cost-equivalent substitutes can be developed, with costs measured on economic, social and ecological scales." -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu]on Behalf Of Wayne Tyson Sent: Monday, July 20, 2009 08:42 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Education vs Indoctrination Can sustainability be sustained? Re: [ECOLOG-L] Managing the social aspects of ecosystem management - LfS portal update Ecolog Forum: I am using this post as a springboard to ask you all whether or not you consider this an important matter, much less a cru
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Ecosystem function at the most basic level
An ecosystem can be defined as a community of living organisms and their non-living environment. "Collapse" can be defined as a change in status of this ecosystem from something ecologically more complex and productive to something less so (e.g., draining a wetland) but you still have an ecosystem; it's just a different type of ecosystem. Or you could define collapse as complete loss of all living organisms, if that ever happens. Even a crack in the sidewalk is an ecosystem. Or maybe, in eco-socio-political terms, you could say an ecosystem collapses when it no longer supports the organisms or provides the services we are interested in, e.g., drainage, pollution and invasives turn our more complex and productive wetland ecosystem into a relatively simple and non-productive gutter ecosystem. Am I being too simplistic? Warren W. Aney Tigard, Oregon -Original Message- From: Wayne Tyson [mailto:landr...@cox.net] Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 21:47 To: Warren W. Aney; ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Ecosystem function at the most basic level Warren et al: I may have a right to my own "meaning," but do I have a right to my own facts? (apologies to D. Moynihan) If I knew the answer, believe me, I wouldn't ask the question. Therefore, I did not condition the terms of the question on my biases. I must presume that a discipline like ecology has a definition of "ecosystem" and a definition of "collapse." If not, the discussion should be all the more interesting and useful. I should perhaps add that I would consider an answer valid that explained what prevents collapse at ANY level, such as a bacterium and an immune system. WT - Original Message - From: "Warren W. Aney" To: "Wayne Tyson" ; Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 9:17 PM Subject: RE: [ECOLOG-L] Ecosystem function at the most basic level > Doesn't your question depend somewhat on what "ecosystem" and "collapse" > means to you? > > Warren W. Aney > Tigard, Oregon > > -Original Message- > From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news > [mailto:ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu]on Behalf Of Wayne Tyson > Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 20:06 > To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU > Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Ecosystem function at the most basic level > > > Ecolog: > > In that complex ballet between organisms and their "hosts" or "prey" at > every level of life, just what is it that keeps the ecosystem from > collapsing? > > WT > > No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.53/2154 - Release Date: 06/04/09 05:53:00
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Ecosystem function at the most basic level
Doesn't your question depend somewhat on what "ecosystem" and "collapse" means to you? Warren W. Aney Tigard, Oregon -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu]on Behalf Of Wayne Tyson Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 20:06 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Ecosystem function at the most basic level Ecolog: In that complex ballet between organisms and their "hosts" or "prey" at every level of life, just what is it that keeps the ecosystem from collapsing? WT
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Consultation on Education for Sustainable Development
This survey sure offers a number of frustratingly incomplete multiple choices. At least it gets you to thinking about some of your perspectives on education and sustainable development from an international (and religious) perspective. Warren W. Aney Senior Wildlife Ecologist 9403 SW 74th Ave Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 246-8613 phone (503) 539-1009 mobile (503) 246-2605 fax a...@coho.net -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu]on Behalf Of Luis Gutierrez Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2009 23:15 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Consultation on Education for Sustainable Development Your are cordially invited to participate in a "Consultation on Education for Sustainable Development" The agenda includes the eight educational priorities defined by UNESCO: 1. Gender equity 2. Human health 3. Environmental stewardship 4. Rural development 5. Cultural diversity 6. Human security 7. Sustainable urbanization 8. Sustainable consumption Version 1 of the online consultation survey is already online: http://spreadsheets.google.com/viewform?formkey=cDNoNGlfcDh6NmQ0NUFGTjhjampx Vmc6MA.. Luis Luis T. Gutierrez, Ph.D. Editor, E-Journal of Solidarity, Sustainability, and Nonviolence http://www.pelicanweb.org/solisust.html This is a monthly, free subscription, open access e-journal.
Re: [ECOLOG-L] assessment of environmental literacy?
David, I don't know if ideas from outside academia are all that relevant, but my experience with others outside our field leads me to several environmental literacy questions that might we worth assessing: 1. How do you define sustainability? Not everyone agrees that sustainability is (as the project site quotes the Brundtland definition) "the ability to provide for the needs of the current generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs." Some say that's too permissive in that it might seem to presume that future technology could make up for loss of resources such as soil and water quality and availability. Others lean to a more permissive definition under the assumption that "free market capitalism plus technology will let us keep consuming without limits." 2. What is the difference between "ecology" and "environment(al)" -- are they or should they be interchangeable terms? 3. What is an ecosystem? Is a crack in the sidewalk an ecosystem? Is the biosphere an ecosystem? Who or what defines an ecosystem? 4. What is a natural resource? Is it just something we use, or is it something we appreciate? Should we adopt terms such as "natural amenity" or "natural value" as supplementary or replacement terms? 5. What is conservation? How much does the term imply use vs. preservation? 6. What is biodiversity? Is my backyard weed patch more "biodiverse" than a natural meadow? 7. What are "ecosystem services" and should we be using this term just in relation to human economies? 8. What is "carrying capacity" and does it apply to human economic systems as well as biological systems? 9. What is meant by "the balance of nature" and is it or should it be an achievable objective? 10. Will nature left alone do better than nature managed by humans? How is "better" defined in this case? Warren W. Aney Senior Wildlife Ecologist Tigard, Oregon -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu]on Behalf Of David Inouye Sent: Saturday, April 25, 2009 13:56 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: [ECOLOG-L] assessment of environmental literacy? Our campus is embarking on a project designed to help faculty integrate sustainability across all academic disciplines. Faculty participants in a 2-day workshop will learn about core concepts of environmental, economic, and social sustainability from resource experts who help the participants integrate sustainability into their existing courses. Through these revised courses, students will have the opportunity to explore sustainability through artistic, cultural, historical, mathematical, philosophical, and scientific lenses to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the subject. For instance, an art professor might lead a class discussion about sustainable materials and a math professor might frame math problems as they relate to the declining oyster population of the Chesapeake Bay. This integration across the disciplines helps students think critically about their local environment, fosters interdisciplinary learning and problem solving, and prepares students to find solutions to complex 21st century problems. [See more at http://www.sustainability.umd.edu/index.php?p=chesapeake_project] I've been asked to help think about how to measure changes in student "understanding" of environmental and sustainabiltiy issues. If you have experience (or ideas) about assessments of environmental literacy, I'd appreciate hearing about it. David Inouye Dept. of Biology University of Maryland
Re: [ECOLOG-L] "Natural" systems
I would challenge the statement "Any alteration of the natural situation is, by default, an adverse effect or change." Smallpox or polio vaccinations are an anthropomorphic alteration of the natural situation, but are they an adverse effect or change? I suppose some might argue that vaccines result in increased human populations, and that is an adverse effect. But now we need to define "adverse effect" -- is it adverse from a broad human perspective, or is it adverse from some other entity's perspective (Mother Nature? Creator/God/Allah/Brahma/Odin/Wicca? The Society for the Total Overall Protection of Everything Wild?). I can think of other examples of human intervention that we might debate over whether or not they have "adverse" effects: Stopping a highly intensive wildfire before it destroys an old growth stand. Building a salmon fish ladder around a recent landslide barrier. Protecting endangered northern spotted owls from niche takeover by a natural invasion of barred owls. Providing nest boxes for cavity nesters after a blowdown of snag habitat. Granted, most human alterations of natural systems have had an adverse effect, even some well-intention alterations (e.g., introducing Russian olive and multiflora rose to improve North American wildlife habitat) but I think we're slowly learning how to do a better job than even nature can do. Warren W. Aney Senior Wildlife Ecologist Tigard, Oregon -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu]on Behalf Of Geoffrey Patton Sent: Saturday, March 07, 2009 19:09 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] "Natural" systems Dear Good Ecologers: While Dr. Czech has produced an elegant and exhaustive treatise on the application of important concepts in "natural" systems, it is a bit dense and unapproachable for many. It is with deep regret that I am unable to cite the specific reference for what I am about to write. I have frequently attributed it to John Clark's Ecosystem Management while knowing that's inaccurate. However, the quote I've constucted is "Any alteration of the natural situation is, by default, an adverse effect or change." Paraphrased, Nature took millenia to achieve the current dynamic balance of plants and animals, predators and prey, entropy and enthalpy. Any alteration at Man's hand away from the natural order of things conflicts with the balance and is adverse. Thus, we should try to our last breath to make things as conducive to nature's way as possible. I think that's what we're talking about here. Cordially yours, Geoff Patton, Ph.D. 2208 Parker Ave., Wheaton, MD 20902 301.221.9536 --- On Sat, 3/7/09, Czech, Brian wrote: From: Czech, Brian Subject: [ECOLOG-L] "Natural" systems To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Date: Saturday, March 7, 2009, 5:09 PM It's true that "natural" is just semantics in some contexts, but defining the term can affect the way our public lands are managed. See for example the Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health Policy of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Here is one proposal for a frame of reference for natural conditions: http://steadystate.org/Chronological_Frame_of_Reference_for_Ecological_Integ rity.pdf <http://steadystate.org/Chronological_Frame_of_Reference_for_Ecological_Inte grity.pdf> Brian Czech, Visiting Professor Natural Resources Program Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University National Capital Region, Northern Virginia Center 7054 Haycock Road, Room 411 Falls Church, Virginia 22043 From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news on behalf of Steve Kunz Sent: Fri 2009-03-06 10:24 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Climate change and Agroecosystems In the case of human mammals, there is something unique about our place in the world. We have the "intelligence" to control our environment on a large scale. Our control of otherwise "natural" systems can throw them out of balance, or at least, into a new balance. In an extreme case, this intelligent control can completely wipe out most if not all of our own species and most others (think: nuclear war). The planet doesn't care if this happens, and some species will survive and help start things over. Is the result "natural" or "unnatural"? At that point, it's just semantics anyway. Peace! Steve Kunz In a message dated 3/5/2009 6:08:37 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, atom.fuller...@gmail.com writes: I'm a grad student who reads the list-serve to look for job opportunities, but these threads on agroecosystems and climate change bring up a question I have never really gotten a satisfactory answer to, namely: Are humans to be considered a p
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Thank you for responding to the survey!
Phil challenges us "to name a metropolitan area that doesn't include a disgustingly 'suburban' area" so let me offer one (assuming that his definition of a "disgustingly" suburban area is one with uncontrolled sprawl converting farms and wildlands into lawns): I live in a suburb of the Portland (Oregon) metropolitan area where the required density is 5 homes per acre, which is rapidly being met (it used to be 1 home per 2 acres). There are other parts of the suburban metro area where density requirements are even higher. And much of the inner city is experiencing considerable redevelopment and upgrading (what some call "gentrification"). Much of this is due to an established "urban growth boundary" which limits the spread of development into adjacent farm, forest and open land. As a result, the Portland metro area has one of the nation's lowest degree of urban sprawl in proportion to population size. And yes, there are challenges in trying to maintain my neighborhood's natural values such as trees, green spaces, and stream corridors in the face of increased suburban density. Warren W. Aney Tigard, Oregon -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu]on Behalf Of Phil Morefield Sent: Friday, March 06, 2009 20:09 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Thank you for responding to the survey! I disagree with, what I perceive to be, the sentiment that "cities are bad". Is it not the case that one of the best predictors of diminished ecosystem integrity is the presence of humans, e.g. roads, resorts, etc.? I would argue that confining the human footprint to the smallest area possible is crucial to preserving natural systems. As one of my professors put it many years ago, cities can be "an efficient use of the land". Unfortunately, as a species we have neglected to enact policy that optimizes the potential efficiency of urban systems. Instead of encouraging dense, mix-used development along mass transit corridors, the contemporary model is, and has been, to build more roads, McMansions, and strip malls. (There are numerous exceptions, but I challenge anyone to name a metropolitan area that doesn't include a disgustingly "suburban" area). I dread the notion of humans occupying every square hectare of land, disturbing and modifying native flora to grow crops and polluting the nearest stream with whatever waste is deemed unseemly by the local tenant. In my opinion, cities provide valuable bottlenecks for pollution and the human/nature interface. Phil M. Man brings all things to the test of himself, and this is notably true of lightning. -Aldo Leopold --- On Fri, 3/6/09, Robert Hamilton wrote: From: Robert Hamilton Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Thank you for responding to the survey! To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Date: Friday, March 6, 2009, 8:36 AM The effects of overcomsumption and overdevelopment on the part of people in modern cities are very obvious, and one does not need to make the sorts of arguments that Miller makes below to show the effects. The obscene amount of energy required to maintain people living in modern cites would be greatly ameliorated if people moved onto less arable lands and became more responsible for their own existence. Grow some of your own food for example, or at least support local food producers rather than forage on food shipped in from Thailand and Chile. I wonder if that practice is factored into people's "carbon footprint?". IMHO, nothing does more ecological harm than maintaining populations in large urban centers. I could equally argue that Birkenstock shoes have caused global warming. The effects are difficult to see, but if you were a nuclear physicist you could see them. If you remain unconvinced, get a degree in nuclear physics and do some research. There is no "side" to this thing, IMHO. Science is a particular type of philosophy. You must have an explanation that makes a risky prediction, and you must have empirical evidence to show that nature behaves in accordance with your risky prediction. What we see with CO2 arguments is akin to Freudian psychology. The data are explained regardless; the hypothesis cannot be wrong. Explanations are changed to suit each particular contigency. We have seen, with CFC's, that science can make meaningful contributions in related areas, with real evidence. Here, with CO2, there is none. What is most disturbing to me is the presentation of evidence spun to support one view or another, be they some weatherman saying there is no human generated increase in CO2 levels, which is ridiculous to me, or some environmentalist saying that increased CO2 levels will destroy our civilization, equally ridiculous, to me. I can understand them as political arguments. As science, they are invalid, and the shadow cast when
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Thank you for responding to the survey!
Maiken and others, don't get me wrong. I am a strong proponent for using good science to inform our decision makers. I have presented or helped present statements along this line for many agency and legislative hearings and deliberations. Usually I find it most effective to present the science without advocating a particular action or decision. However, in many or most cases the best available science so obviously indicates what must be done that I don't have to advocate -- the science does it for me -- and the climate change/energy use issue is a prime example of this. Warren W. Aney Tigard, Oregon -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu]on Behalf Of Maiken Winter Sent: Monday, March 02, 2009 23:43 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Thank you for responding to the survey! I owe you all a short explanation - I developed the survey I posted yesterday (http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=S2Q7Cyxa8xmJSiRNn_2b8Opw_3d_3d) not for a scientific study but to get a quick overview over the thoughts of scientists about their role in climate action. I plan to use the results to write a commentary ona blog, the Clean Energy Project (www.cleanenergy-project.de). Obviously, the survey is not perfect at all; but it does give interesting results so far. As it turns out, the responses are so many, the debate so intense, the answers so contradictory, that I do want to improve this survey and repeat it professionally to be able to have a more scientific debate on an issue that is - in my opinion - of major importance. Basically, I believe it is high time what we seriously rethink and debate our role as scientists in society, and about the prioritization of our work. Is it true that scientists have no more responsibility to act than any other citizen - as some people commented? But isn't it also true that we are privileged to be educated and wealthy enough to have the means and freedom to think through the scientific evidence, and to understand what that evidence truly means? If we, as scientists, feel that we understand science better than other people, isn't it our uttermost responsibility to pass on this knowledge and understanding on to others? Not only to other scientists, but also to the public and politicians as well. "Science is not politics, and scientists should stay away from politics", one scientist commented. But relying on politicians and media to interpret our data got us in the trouble we are in today. I hope this survey stimulates further discussion (but please more friendly; I love debate, but only when it is based on mutual respect) and helps us to step a bit further out of our science glasshouse to take responsibility for what we all work for - a deeper understanding of nature so that future generations can admire and witness what we discover. Many of those discoveries will be useless if we do not act quickly on climate change together. Please do know that I am well aware of the danger to lose credibility when getting active in public affairs, and that I absolutely do not pretend to know the solution of how to best balance both sides. But I do believe that at the moment we are not courageous enough to try out how to best stand on that rope, and that our priorities at the moment are often too selfish and short-sighted, myself included. Thank you to all those who have participated in the survey so far! And thanks for those who will. Maiken Winter
Re: [ECOLOG-L] CLIMATE CHANGE Anthropogenic ignition? Re: [ECOLOG-L] Thank you for responding to the survey!
Since Wayne cited the precautionary principle, I'll second what he says with
some simpler and more direct language: If we act now under the premise that
climate change is human-caused, and we are wrong about this cause, then the
costs will be high but the benefits could still be tremendous in terms of
reduced pollution and reductions in reliance on non-renewable carbon based
energy sources. If we fail to act now under the premise that climate change
is not human-caused, and we are wrong, the human and environmental costs
could be catastrophic, particularly in third world and developing countries.
Warren W. Aney
Senior Wildlife Ecologist
Tigard, OR
-Original Message-
From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news
[mailto:ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu] On Behalf Of Wayne Tyson
Sent: Tuesday, 03 March, 2009 20:48
To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
Subject: [ECOLOG-L] CLIMATE CHANGE Anthropogenic ignition? Re: [ECOLOG-L]
Thank you for responding to the survey!
Y'all:
Hamilton's point is well-taken--the devil is in the details. Speaking of
circularity, "the boy who cried wolf" phenomenon might be on the opposite
side of the clock diagram from "crying in the wilderness," each on the other
side of the vertical or "midnight" position, i.e., "worlds" apart in one
sense, but in the apparent sense close together.
While I maintain a state of suspended judgment in the absence of evidence,
neither do I recognize absence of evidence as evidence of absence.
While CO2 well might be a surrogate for habitat destruction that is at once
sufficiently vague and sufficiently (or vaguely) "scientific," I have
decided to not cloud the issue just in case the right things get done, even
if for the wrong reasons.
It may well be true that one can't add up all the carbon emissions directly
caused by culture, the possibility of a sort of "keystone" or "domino"
effect might be laid in the lap of Homo sapiens, and there is little doubt
that there is prima facie evidence that the contributions therefrom have
increased for the last ten millennia or so. So . . . a case in absolute
refutation is similarly difficult. Therein might lie the (evil or saintly?)
"genius" behind the carbon obsession?
In any case, it seems clear that, particularly given the probable futility
of sufficient actual reduction ("credits" and other means of capitalizing
upon the rage), the precautionary principle is probably preferable to the
needless and heedless fraction of the unique human talent for consuming
outside energy/mass cycles.
That is, no matter how inevitably nutty human expression may be, no matter
how "wrong" some might be, a change in current trends could benefit the
earth and its life--even, perhaps, including the guilty parties.
A Pax upon us all, great and small . . .
WT
"The suspension of judgment is the highest exercise in intellectual
discipline." --Raymond Gilmore
- Original Message -
From: "Robert Hamilton"
To:
Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2009 9:11 AM
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Thank you for responding to the survey!
> Don't know if you want to post a contrasting view, but I'll offer one
> up.
>
> No question that human generated CO2 is causing global warming, in my
> opinion. There is, however, no evidence of a deleterious effect,
> especially given the fact that the climate does and will change one way
> or another anyways. Models predicting catastrophes have been overblown
> to a degree that is embarrassing to an informed scientist, and results a
> in classic "boy who cried wolf" type loss of credibility for informed
> scientists.
>
> With respect to our ecological impact, habitat destruction is the #1
> negative human impact, and the overall ecological footprint is the real
> issue, not just the "carbon footprint". There is no activity we engage
> in as humans that is worse than the building of modern cities,
> especially when you factor in the type of agricultural practices needed
> to support those cities. The carbon footprint approach also strongly
> discriminates against those living in poorer, more rural areas, singling
> out the activities that support the economies in those areas as the
> major problem, as opposed to the much more destructive activities of
> people who live in urban areas, particularly modern urban areas. It's
> obvuiously more politically prudent to attack the weak.
>
> There is an issue with global warming, but it is relatively minor, as
> far as we know at this point in time, and it appears to be just another
> way of deflecting the real issue, habitat conversion. Allowing people in
> large modern cities to feel good about themselves re environmental
> issues while continuing on with the most destructive of
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Please participate in short survey on the role of scientists in climate action
I seriously question the title of this survey: "Should scientists participate in civil disobedience?" The title does not reflect the essence of the survey, or vice versa. Warren W. Aney Senior Wildlife Ecologist Tigard, Oregon -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu]on Behalf Of Maiken Winter Sent: Monday, March 02, 2009 09:26 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Please participate in short survey on the role of scientists in climate action Dear friends and colleagues, I would greatly appreciate it if you could find 3 minutes of your time to fill out and pass on this very short and anonymous survey on the role of scientists in climate action: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=S2Q7Cyxa8xmJSiRNn_2b8Opw_3d_3d Thank you very much for your participation! Maiken Winter -- "The significant problems we face cannot be solved with the same level of thinking we used when we created them" (Albert Einstein) "350 - know it and do something about it!" www.350.org "The question I've been asking is, why didn't we save ourselves while we had the chance?" http://www.ageofstupid.net/video/ Maiken Winter, PhD Freelance editor and climate change educator Scientific Assistant, Potsdam Institute for Climate Research, Potsdam Hesseloherstr. 22 82396 Paehl Phone: +49 (0)8808266364 Cell: 0176-26956853 www.cleanenergy-project.de - for a sustainable future www.theclimateproject.org www.klimaschutz.pbwiki.com http://www.linkedin.com/in/maikenwinter
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Ecosystems and agronomy Definition of agroecosystem Re: [ECOLO G-L] The Role of Ecos
A quick and simplistic response: There are very few "natural" ecosystems because nearly all have been anthropogenically altered. Even a Pacific Northwest forest wilderness has been altered by past overgrazing of its meadows, fire suppression, and introduction of exotic species. Perhaps the mid-Antarctic or the deep ocean has escaped anthropogenic alteration, but I would have a hard time identifying other systems where this is the case. So maybe it's not about whether or not a system has been altered by humans, maybe its more about how much of an alteration has occurred before we no longer consider it "natural." Warren W. Aney Senior Wildlife Ecologist Tigard, Oregon -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu]on Behalf Of Wayne Tyson Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2009 15:26 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Ecosystems and agronomy Definition of agroecosystem Re: [ECOLO G-L] The Role of Ecos Kristin and Ecolog: I hope I have not been misunderstood. I do not object to the study of species interactions and habitat conditions in agriculture; I am concerned, however, that the distinction between "natural" ecosystems and anthropogenic alterations of them. The distinction I believe useful, if not critical, is that between a "system" that is DEPENDENT upon external influence and displacement/destruction of indigenous ecosystems (e.g., plowing, planting and maintenance of monocultures and introduction of other organisms that did not co-evolve with them as a TREND. I certainly do recognize the value of the study of such phenomena, particularly when its trend is in the direction of preservation of genetic diversity, not its reduction. I do seriously question the habit of terming anthropogenic assemblages of species "ecosystems," as they are quite distinguishable from "natural" ecosystems. I think scientists in general, and ecologists in particular, have a duty to do no harm, to pass knowledge along in a clear and directly honest fashion to the population at large. I think the distinction is CRUCIAL. If I am wrong in this, I look forward to being corrected with persuasive logic and evidence. WT - Original Message - From: "Kristin Mercer" To: Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 2:35 PM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Ecosystems and agronomy Definition of agroecosystem Re: [ECOLO G-L] The Role of Ecos > Dear Wayne, > > The definition you received from another ecologger is a good > one. Given your concern about the term agroecosystems, I think the > best way to understand agroecosystems is to see that they are > connected to, but distinct from, the natural or urban or managed > ecosystems around them. Just as savana may be surrounded by forests, > agroecosystems can exist within a matrix of other kinds of > ecosystems. So although parts of agroecology does study the effects > of agriculture on natural ecosystems, it is certainly not limited to > that perspectives. Studies of weed community dynamics, insect pest > population genetics, nutrient cycling under various management > practices (i.e., studies within the agroecosystem) all fall within > agroecology. > > I would think that few agroecologists see themselves as promoting the > "business as usual" agriculture or "destruction and degredation". In > fact, within the context of needing to grow food on our landscapes, I > think most ESA members would be cheering agroecologists along. In > that vein, the agroecology section of ESA is alive and well. > > Cheers, > Kristin > > > At 06:03 PM 2/3/2009, Wayne Tyson wrote: >>Ecolog: >> >>I received the following off-list response to my enquiry about the >>definition of agroecosystem: >> >>"Agroecosystems are best understood as the unit of study of >>agroecology, which looks at agricultural production systems in terms >>of ecosystem prosperities: e.g. stability, resilience, disturbance >>regime, stocks and flows of nutrients and energy, and niche >>dynamics, etc. Look to Miguel Altieri for a thorough, scientifically >>based discussion of agroecology. Additionally, the wikipedia article >>on agroecology is more substantial and less vague than the one agroecosystems." >> >>I agree with the respondent that "the wikipedia article on >>agroecology is more substantial and less vague than the one >>agroecosystems." Agro-ecology seems somewhat less of an oxymoron >>than agro-ecosystem. Certainly the study of ecosystems and the >>effects of agriculture upon them is legitimate, but it seems to me >>that the use of the term agro-ecosystem implies that the two are >>somehow interdependent or that agriculture is just
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Isaac Asimov quote/was Gallup poll on evolution
Tom asks "...what better word than 'belief' do we have to describe a person's world-view?" Well, my world view tends to be based on knowledge, not belief, and I believe many other scientists share this perspective. Warren W. Aney Senior Wildlife Ecologist Tigard, Oregon -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu]on Behalf Of Raffel, Thomas Sent: Saturday, February 14, 2009 17:04 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Isaac Asimov quote/was Gallup poll on evolution To anyone following this thread: I liked the way Jimmy Green phrased his suggested poll question, "do you think there is scientific evidence that supports the theory of evolution (by natural selection)?" To me the most vexing thing about the evolution/creationism culture war isn't how many people believe in young-Earth creationism. If someone chooses to believe, DESPITE the evidence, that an all-powerful creator made everything LOOK as if life evolved over billions of years (perhaps to "test their faith"), more power to them. I find this viewpoint absurd, but it poses little threat to science, so long as the evidence is acknowledged. The most vexing thing for me is how little the general public seems to know about the evidence in favor of evolution (both the fact that evolution occurs and the theory for how it works). People who doubt evolution are usually ignorant of the evidence. And religious people might actively avoid learning about the evidence, out of fear that admitting to the truth of evolution will destroy their faith. We need to find new ways to provide people with key pieces of evidence supporting evolutionary theory, and ways to help them reconcile an evolutionary worldview with their religious views. Here's why I like Jimmy's suggestion so much. The various forms of evidence for evolution take time to explain, and Americans have short attention spans. They also have many different specific religious views that need reconciling before they are willing to listen. More intelligent polling questions about what people DO know about evidence for evolution, and what if anything they find threatening about evolutionary theory, would be extremely useful for designing science education and outreach programs. We need to know what pieces of evidence are likely to convince people and what it will take to get them to listen (perhaps tailored to particular audiences). Also, regarding the thread's semantic argument, what better word than "belief" do we have to describe a person's world-view? I have no problem with a scientist saying he/she "believes" that life evolved from a common origin. We all have beliefs about the way the world works, though as scientists we should be open to changing our beliefs in light of new (and compelling) contradictory evidence. Tom Raffel -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu] On Behalf Of Jimmy Green Sent: Saturday, February 14, 2009 5:22 PM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Isaac Asimov quote/was Gallup poll on evolution Greetings, I currently teach high school biology in Charlottesville, VA. Adaptation, natural selection, and evolution are a big part of the state standards of learning and standards based tests. Despite this emphasis, the controversy all comes back to students' full grasping of the idea of a scientific theory--including that a theory is not necessarily something you believe in or not. Even though I would rather just ensure that students really grasp how scientific thought and processes work together to produce usable knowledge, I unfortunately cannot guarantee that this will happen anytime soon--schools would have to improve this type of basic science education at all grade levels, probably by stripping some of the more superficial standards from the curriculum. So, at the least, we could ask more appropriate poll questions, as some of you have pointed out--questions that would elucidate what people really understand about the theory, and point out possible misconceptions to the poll-reading public. I think a series of questions that starts with "do you think there is scientific evidence that supports the theory of evolution (by natural selection)?" Yes? Then what evidence do you know of? No? What evidence is not convincing to you? If polls are not asking these questions in the terms of theory and evidence, then they are not asking about real science. The results of such a poll might be even more embaressing, but at least they could serve some purpose beside reinforcing the status quo. Thanks for continuing this conversation! I encourage people concerned about science education to examine their local schools' standards and in-school practices (especially at lower gra
Re: [ECOLOG-L] New Book for Nature Enthusiasts
On nature walks with kids I will frequently pick up a native banana slug. Their first reaction is inevitably a back-away "eeew!" But I then ask them take a closer look as the slug starts to extend its eyestalks and feeler stalks, waving them around to get a sense of the new world around it on my finger surrounded by human faces. I can't know what the slug senses, but I know these kids begin to see this slug as an interesting and complex being they can interact with at a basic level -- not something just to be stepped on or over. Too me, a slug has beauty and that beauty lies in both the simplicity and efficiency of its form as well as in the vital role it plays as a detritivore -- and in the way it complacently reacts to my presence and handling. It has a right to co-exist with me and these kids. And yes, I do get slime on my fingers, but it can be rubbed off. Warren W. Aney Senior Wildlife Ecologist 9403 SW 74th Ave Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 246-8613 phone (503) 539-1009 mobile (503) 246-2605 fax a...@coho.net -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu]on Behalf Of Jane Shevtsov Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2009 09:40 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] New Book for Nature Enthusiasts Agreed, completely. I would say that conservation of species is primarily about emotion and aesthetics, although there are exceptions. Other aspects of environmentalism, however, including conservation of many types of landscapes, are primarily about life support or "ecosystem services". I tend to be skeptical of statements invoking "intrinsic rights" or "intrinsic value". They seem to be shorthand for, "I, the speaker, like this thing but can't really say why". Jane Shevtsov On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 11:37 AM, Heather Reynolds wrote: > These are all great points. But balance would argue that care for the > environment should stem both from an appreciation of its utility as well as > from moral sensibilities. Indeed, there has been a long-standing debate in > philosophy on the utilitarianism vs. intrinsic rights as a basis for > preserving nature. Granted, I haven't quite said where love fits into this > - but would offer that we can love something both because we recognize we > need it, as well as just for itself. > > Heather Reynolds > Associate Professor > Department of Biology > Jordan Hall 142 > Indiana University > 1001 E 3rd Street > Bloomington IN 47405 > > Ph: (812) 855-0792 > Fax: (812) 855-6705 > hlrey...@indiana.edu > > On Jan 6, 2009, at 10:39 AM, Jane Shevtsov wrote: > >> I don't know about parasitologists, but the mycologists I know are >> more enthused about their subjects than any other group of biologists >> I've met! "Loving" something in nature has, for many scientists, >> nothing to do with conventional beauty. (Luckily for most of us, >> something similar applies to human relationships.) My work is in basic >> science, without immediate practical application, and I wouldn't be >> doing it if I didn't love forests and food webs. >> >> However, I agree with your larger concern. While I'm all for getting >> people to experience nature, it makes me cringe to hear people say >> care for the environment depends on such experiences or love of >> nature. Do you love your water main, the farms that grow your food, >> penicillin? This is about life support, people! >> >> Jane Shevtsov >> >> On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 8:01 AM, William Silvert >> wrote: >>> >>> Although this sounds like a lovely book, I am not terribly comfortable >>> with >>> the concept, at least not in connetion with an ecology mailing list. Part >>> of >>> our work as scientists is promoting a rational, rather than romantic, >>> concern for our environment, and while some of us (like Ehrlich) may have >>> gotten involved with ecology because of an emotional attachment to >>> beautiful >>> creatures, many of us are having difficulty defending the role of the >>> ugly >>> and even disgusting organisms that are an essential part of ecosystems >>> (such >>> as detritivores). >>> >>> I am curious to know how many parasitologists and mycologists feel that >>> their life's work was rooted in some "rapturous love affair" with >>> tapeworms >>> or mildew. Who ever fell in love with nematodes and polychaetes? >>> (Although >>> my late friend Peter Schwinghamer had a sign over his door saying "Worms >>> can >>> teach us awe and wonder.") >>> >&g
Re: [ECOLOG-L] McCain on Bear Study
I have driven a wide variety of field vehicles under a wide variety of weather and road conditions. I have even driven the military HUMM-V. The latter would be one of my last choices for a field vehicle -- too big, too wide, and not much room inside. But that's not the thrust of this discussion, so it's interesting to read in Scientific American that this study actually cost $4.8 million and is yielding some important information on grizzly numbers, distribution, sex and age structure, and population status. And I wonder how much this study would cost if Halliburton had the research contract. Warren W. Aney Senior Wildlife Ecologist Tigard, Oregon -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of David M. Lawrence Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2008 19:57 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] McCain on Bear Study Transportation is a legitimate line item to include in a grant proposal -- which, I assume, was peer-reviewed. I doubt most reviewers would approve a Hummer, but the purchase of a field vehicle, if needed and approved, should not be controversial. Field researchers generally understand that. Desk jockeys who rarely set foot outside the comfort of their cubicle, may fail to realize the importance of actually being able to reach the study sites. Dave Matthew Warren wrote: > Dear Ecologgers- > I was very disappointed to hear presidential candidate Sen. John McCain clearly state during the first nationally televised debate that a 3 million dollar study on bear DNA in Montana was a waste of money. I do not know which study he was referring to, but to me this statement makes it very clear how much McCain values ecological research. The government spent 2,730 billion dollars in 2007. The 3 million dollar study accounted for about 0.0001% of the total spending. It seems that if the pittance spent on ecological research (relative to total spending) is reduced in this country, our natural systems will continue to go misunderstood or unknown, to the detriment of our citizens. > > If the PI's of the study mentioned care to express their concern, and the scientific value of the study, I would be happy to support and encourage a petition to Sen. McCain concerning the value of ecological research. If the PI's used part of the money to buy a Hummer to cruise the Montana backcountry, I would agree with Sen. McCain. > > Sincerely, > Matthew Warren > > > > > -- -- David M. Lawrence| Home: (804) 559-9786 7471 Brook Way Court | Fax: (804) 559-9787 Mechanicsville, VA 23111 | Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] USA | http: http://fuzzo.com -- "We have met the enemy and he is us." -- Pogo "No trespassing 4/17 of a haiku" -- Richard Brautigan
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Ecosystems, faux ecosystems, and habitat valuation
You raise some good points, Dr. Hayes, and I've been struggling with the problem of including these variations while still try to keep the concept simple (that's the trouble with ecology, what looks simple on the surface always becomes much more complicated as you dig into it). The simple categories I suggest would lump any natural grassland or shrub-grassland, including your private grazed grasslands if they are sufficiently diverse, all together as rangelands which are part the managed resource lands category. Less diverse grasslands managed primarily for forage might be in the pastureland/rangeland category. Pastured farm land would be like croplands -- places where a monoculture forage crop is being maintained. These are all based on categories used in the University of Oregon's Oregon Atlas. The challenge is, of course, using categories that include all land/habitat variations in the area being considered (Oregon, in my case), allowing for some subjectivity in deciding what category a particular piece of land best fits into, and still coming up with a simple, useable system. The risk is getting snarled up in fruitless debates over what category a particular piece of land should be put in -- in your California case a prospective developer might say that a privately owned, cattle grazed grassland is really not much better than farm cropland or even urban lawns, thus resulting in a lower habitat repayment. You might argue that the privately owned, cattle grazed grassland has a habitat value at least as high as managed resource lands, resulting a much high repayment schedule for the developer. If this is indicative of a real problem and it's not possible to come up with a simple resolution, scientifically or socially, the system probably has no legs. Warren W. Aney Tigard, Oregon -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Grey Hayes Sent: Saturday, June 14, 2008 07:56 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Ecosystems, faux ecosystems, and habitat valuation Hi Warren, Your work valuing ecosystems is very interesting, and I'm looking forward to seeing more.? I want to suggest one caveat for your work to see if you might be able to integrate it. On California's coast, according to my and others' research, it appears that privately owned, cattle grazed grasslands might be valued in your schema more highly than publicly owned, ungrazed grasslands.? I understand some of the same ecological processes might be at work in your state where unmanaged (eg., 'wilderness') areas often have some of the major disturbance regimes suppressed, negatively impacting disturbance-dependent native plant species. In California's vernal pool systems of the Sacramento Valley, research suggests a similar story, but also more clearly affecting native wildlife populations. And so, your valuation system might need to address (especially) grassland ecosystems where privately managed land might be able to maintain some elements of biodiversity more than on underfunded public lands. Grey Hayes, PhD Coastal Training Program Coordinator Elkhorn Slough National Estuarine Research Reserve Moss Landing, California, USA -Original Message- From: Warren W. Aney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 10:31 pm Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Ecosystems and faux ecosystems Re: [ECOLOG-L] Wetland creation Wayne, Bill, Andy, Amartya, et al., I'm in the process of relating all this discussion to a project I am currently working on and I have found our exchanges helpful. The basic question I've been working on is: how do we determine the actual per land unit value of habitat (= ecosystem) that is modified or destroyed? To put it most simply, if, in a given area, broadly defined wildlife related activities each year create $2 billion in economic activity and we have 50 million land units of habitat, then each land unit is worth $40 in terms of annual economic activity. However, different categories of land have different habitat values: A natural (or restored) wetland will have more value than a created wetland, and this will have more value than a drained wetland. A late successional forest will have more habitat value than a tree farm, which will have more habitat value than a golf course, which will have more habitat value than a housing development. So, for this project I arbitrarily assigned relative habitat values by land category: RHV 1.0: Protected natural areas (ecosystems in Late Successional Forest Reserves, Wilderness Areas, National Wildlife Refuges, National Parks and Monuments, state wildlife areas, etc.). A protected natural wetland or late successional forest would fall into this category. RHV 0.90: Managed resource lands (rangeland, public and private forestland, etc.). A restored wetland might fall into t
Re: [ECOLOG-L] ECOSYSTEMS Value analysis RHVs Re: [ECOLOG-L] Ecosystems and faux ecosystems Re: [ECOLOG-L] Wetland creation
Thanks, Wayne, I guess Anyway, I didn't give enough information on where I got the economic data. The total economic activity value of $2,074 million is an "apples and pears" concoction from the 2006 US Fish and Wildlife Service survey of hunters, anglers and wildlife viewers, plus a somewhat different estimate of commercial fishing dollars. So it only accounts for dollars changing hands because of these wildlife-related activities, not the host of other ecosystem values. The goal is to evaluate wildlife (including fish) related values, perhaps under some naive prospect that changes of land use might somehow result in some form of compensation that will serve to perpetuate these values. That could be the real mouse-stomping elephant in the room. Warren W. Aney Tigard, Oregon -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Wayne Sent: Saturday, June 14, 2008 19:14 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: [ECOLOG-L] ECOSYSTEMS Value analysis RHVs Re: [ECOLOG-L] Ecosystems and faux ecosystems Re: [ECOLOG-L] Wetland creation Sere gut! Oh, well, I reckon there might be a few issues worth discussing . . . The elephant in the room, it seems to me, is "actual." And the roaring mouse might be "simple." That is, are there any devils or gods in the details? What about watershed value? Fisheries? Damage compensation? Ad infinitum . . . Seems the valuations are low . . . I do hope this is classified TOP SECRET--NTK EYES ONLY! Just in case your boss sees it and runs with it. WT - Original Message - From: "Warren W. Aney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Friday, June 13, 2008 10:31 PM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Ecosystems and faux ecosystems Re: [ECOLOG-L] Wetland creation > Wayne, Bill, Andy, Amartya, et al., I'm in the process of relating all > this > discussion to a project I am currently working on and I have found our > exchanges helpful. > > The basic question I've been working on is: how do we determine the actual > per land unit value of habitat (= ecosystem) that is modified or > destroyed? > To put it most simply, if, in a given area, broadly defined wildlife > related > activities each year create $2 billion in economic activity and we have 50 > million land units of habitat, then each land unit is worth $40 in terms > of > annual economic activity. However, different categories of land have > different habitat values: A natural (or restored) wetland will have more > value than a created wetland, and this will have more value than a drained > wetland. A late successional forest will have more habitat value than a > tree farm, which will have more habitat value than a golf course, which > will > have more habitat value than a housing development. > > So, for this project I arbitrarily assigned relative habitat values by > land > category: > > RHV 1.0: Protected natural areas (ecosystems in Late Successional Forest > Reserves, Wilderness Areas, National Wildlife Refuges, National Parks and > Monuments, state wildlife areas, etc.). A protected natural wetland or > late > successional forest would fall into this category. > > RHV 0.90: Managed resource lands (rangeland, public and private > forestland, > etc.). A restored wetland might fall into this category. > > RHV 0.70: Pasture/rangeland (mostly privately owned). A tree farm might > fall into either this or the previous category, depending on how it is > managed. A created wetland might also fall into this category. > > RHV 0.50: Farm cropland (harvested and pastured farm land). A golf course > might also fall into this category. > > RHV 0.05: Urban built-up area (residential, industrial, commercial, > institutional land, etc.). > > RHV 0.00: Roads and railroads. > > Using these relative habitat values, the total economic activity generated > in the state of Oregon by wildlife (and fish) related activities in a > recent > year, and the state acreage in each of the above land categories, I came > up > with the following per acre per year values: > > $40.56 for each acre of protected natural areas > $36.50 for each acre of managed resource lands > $28.39 for each acre of pasture/rangeland > $20.28 for each acre of farm cropland > $2.03 for each acre of built-up areas > $0 for each acre of roads and railroads > > (These figures, multiplied by total land area in each category, sum up to > the total economic activity of $2,074 million.) > > How can these figures be put to use? Let's say that one acre is changed > from managed resource lands to a built-up area. The reduction in wildlife > habitat value is $34.47 (the difference between $36.50 and $2.03). In > order > to provide $34.47 per
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Ecosystems and faux ecosystems Re: [ECOLOG-L] Wetland creation
Wayne, Bill, Andy, Amartya, et al., I'm in the process of relating all this discussion to a project I am currently working on and I have found our exchanges helpful. The basic question I've been working on is: how do we determine the actual per land unit value of habitat (= ecosystem) that is modified or destroyed? To put it most simply, if, in a given area, broadly defined wildlife related activities each year create $2 billion in economic activity and we have 50 million land units of habitat, then each land unit is worth $40 in terms of annual economic activity. However, different categories of land have different habitat values: A natural (or restored) wetland will have more value than a created wetland, and this will have more value than a drained wetland. A late successional forest will have more habitat value than a tree farm, which will have more habitat value than a golf course, which will have more habitat value than a housing development. So, for this project I arbitrarily assigned relative habitat values by land category: RHV 1.0: Protected natural areas (ecosystems in Late Successional Forest Reserves, Wilderness Areas, National Wildlife Refuges, National Parks and Monuments, state wildlife areas, etc.). A protected natural wetland or late successional forest would fall into this category. RHV 0.90: Managed resource lands (rangeland, public and private forestland, etc.). A restored wetland might fall into this category. RHV 0.70: Pasture/rangeland (mostly privately owned). A tree farm might fall into either this or the previous category, depending on how it is managed. A created wetland might also fall into this category. RHV 0.50: Farm cropland (harvested and pastured farm land). A golf course might also fall into this category. RHV 0.05: Urban built-up area (residential, industrial, commercial, institutional land, etc.). RHV 0.00: Roads and railroads. Using these relative habitat values, the total economic activity generated in the state of Oregon by wildlife (and fish) related activities in a recent year, and the state acreage in each of the above land categories, I came up with the following per acre per year values: $40.56 for each acre of protected natural areas $36.50 for each acre of managed resource lands $28.39 for each acre of pasture/rangeland $20.28 for each acre of farm cropland $2.03 for each acre of built-up areas $0 for each acre of roads and railroads (These figures, multiplied by total land area in each category, sum up to the total economic activity of $2,074 million.) How can these figures be put to use? Let's say that one acre is changed from managed resource lands to a built-up area. The reduction in wildlife habitat value is $34.47 (the difference between $36.50 and $2.03). In order to provide $34.47 per year in repayment value, at an annual interest rate of 6% this developer could contribute or mitigate a total one-time dollar value of $574.50 per acre. These figures and categories are for the purpose of initiating discussion and will probably be changed and refined if the process takes hold. But I think the basic concept has merit and can be useful when assessing the economic effect of land use changes when wildlife habitat is either degraded or improved. There is one caveat I've tried to remember: if this system is to be used and understood by a wide variety of decision makers, administrators and land managers, it has to be kept reasonably simple. If anyone wants more details, I'll be glad to share a more detailed write-up and the actual spreadsheet with formulas. Meanwhile, I'd be pleased to receive your reactions, suggestions and criticisms (I know you're all good at the latter). Does this seem to have merit? Is anyone aware of similar attempts along this line by others? Warren W. Aney Senior Wildlife Ecologist Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 246-8613 phone (504) 539-1009 mobile (503) 246-2605 fax [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Wetland creation
I guess it depends on how you define "ecosystem" and what timeframe you're talking about. Certainly over the centuries we've created many more cropland or pastureland or residential landscape ecosystems than wetland ecosystems. And some might argue that even though its human-made, a created (or restored) wetland is not really an artificial landscape if that's your reference point. Perhaps we need to tighter terminology. Warren W. Aney Senior Wildlife Ecologist Tigard, OR 97223 -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Charles Andrew Cole Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2008 12:42 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Wetland creation Hi, I'm trying to back up an assertion of mine that we deliberately plan for and create wetland ecosystems more than any other type of ecosystem (save, perhaps, lawns). I'm not necessarily talking acreage here - foresters might have the edge there (as I leave myself open to criticism from foresters about artificial forests), but actual projects. Mind you, this is a gut feeling on my part with no actual data - which is the point of my query. Does anyone have any citations on this topic specific to wetlands or just on how many artificial landscapes we create in the US each year? Thanks - just another odd question from moi. Andy Charles Andrew Cole, Ph.D. Department of Landscape Architecture Penn State University 301a Forest Resources Laboratory University Park, PA 16802 814-865-5735 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.larch.psu.edu/watershed/home.html
[ECOLOG-L] Onomatopoeia animal names
Is anyone aware of a comprehensive study or report on the onomatopoeia of animal names? Of course their are obvious examples such as chickadee, crow, kookaburra, katydid, cuckoo. And it seems there may be other less obvious examples in English and other languages, e.g., duck, cow (Latin bos, German kuh), titmouse (Scandinavian titt), pig (Latin sui), owl (Latin ulula). I also remember running across a speculation that human language may have first evolved as a means of communicating the presence of animals (imagine a proto-hominid running back to his clan calling out "Woo-woo" = wolf = vulpe = lobo). And can you come up with other possible examples? Warren W. Aney Senior Wildlife Ecologist Tigard, Oregon
Re: Response to Nadine Lymn Re: Economic Growth
As an organization of professional and academic ecologists, we need to emphasize that ecology and economics are closely intertwined disciplines. This interrelationship, as best demonstrated in steady state economics, is neither new nor is it a concept limited to a small group of ecologists. (1) The idea of a steady state economy has been around a long time and comes from classical economics. John Stuart Mill's "Principles of Political Economy" (1848) discusses the idea of a "stationary state." This book was a principle economics text in England until the early 1900s. (2) Today, steady state economics is being promulgated by many economists of stature. Professor Herman Daly (University of Maryland) and Professor Joshua Farley (University of Vermont) made adopting steady-state economics the theme of their 2004 book "Ecological Economics" (Island Press). So for the ESA, this is more than just a small group supporting a one-man campaign. It is both a long-standing and a compellingly current imperative that is strongly ecology-based and economically rational. We need to reassure organizations that have failed to adopt a clear and strong steady-state policy -- The Wildlife Society, for example -- that this is a widely recognized and credibly supported position. And we need to make sure that ESA takes the lead on this and does not fall in behind those who have chosen to produce unclear and weak statements. Warren W. Aney Senior Wildlife Ecologist Tigard, Oregon -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of J. Edward Gates Sent: Friday, January 18, 2008 8:43 AM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Response to Nadine Lymn Re: Economic Growth Dear Nadine, I am one of the 50-some ESA members proposing that ESA take a position on economic growth similar to the one being circulated on this list. I am encouraged to hear that some progress is being made, but I am also concerned about what has happened to our initiative. My concern stems from experience. I am a member of The Wildlife Society, which published a technical review on economic growth in 2003 that found a "fundamental conflict between economic growth and wildlife conservation." In 2004 TWS developed a position on economic growth. Early drafts of the position described that conflict in clear terms, like the technical review, but then a very small group, the TWS policy director and four Council members (the Policy Statements Subcommittee), took the draft position into their own hands and kept their work secret. Without any input from the experts that had originally drafted the position, they published a different version in /The Wildlifer/ and asked for comments on it. That version was weak and also showed a lack of familiarity with the language and principles of ecological economics, and even of conventional economics, but eventually it was adopted by TWS. Many TWS members were incredulous over the outcome of this process and felt betrayed by TWS staff. In 2006, my co-authors and I published "Perspectives on The Wildlife Society's Economic Growth Policy Statement and the Development Process" in the /Wildlife Society Bulletin/ (Volume 34, No. 2) to describe the shortcomings of the position and the process used to develop it. To prevent a similar outcome in ESA, I propose that some of the original group be included from the beginning and throughout the process, working with the Public Affairs Committee, in developing the ESA position. Clearly the proposers are very concerned about this issue, and concern brings about familiarity and expertise. Several of the proposers have published papers on this topic and teach courses or portions of courses on ecological economics. The core group who drafted the position would be a good place to start. They are especially experienced with this subject and would be helpful not only with the technical issues but also with identifying political red flags. Along these lines, although I would not classify myself as the foremost expert on this topic, I have had a long-running interest in economic growth and teach about the effects of growth on the environment at my institution. I am also editing a book on peak oil, economic growth, and wildlife conservation, stemming from a symposium I helped organize on the same topic. I would be willing to serve on the ESA group that is developing the position. Sincerely yours, Ed J. Edward Gates University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science Appalachian Laboratory 301 Braddock Road Frostburg, Maryland 21532, USA
Re: Data set with many many zeros..... Help?
Bill, are we the Luddites in this arena? I agree with you, and my statistics professor would have taken it one important step further: Choose your statistical analysis methods before you start collecting your data -- that way you can carry out your data collection so as to fit your chosen statistical procedure. Too many people collect their data first, then search for a statistical procedure that will fit their data. The best time to seek the advice of a statistician is before you design your study, not after you've collected your data. Warren W. Aney Senior Wildlife Ecologist Tigard, Oregon -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of William Silvert Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2008 1:57 PM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: Data set with many many zeros. Help? One point about the various replies to this and other posts that disturbs me is the focus of the responses. It used to be that statistical questions were answered in terms of statistical techniques, such as regression or ANOVA or t-tests. Now the answers are phrased in terms of software - SAS, R, SysStat, etc. I am not confident that relying on proprietary black boxes is the best way to analyse data. Bill Silvert - Original Message - > If you have access to SAS, ...
Re: invasive
Although all this is quite simplified, the first definition would pretty well fit a benign alien species, although some benign aliens do stick around without seemingly displacing natives -- possibly because they inhabit a human-modified landscape. An example might be the ringneck pheasant in agricultural landscapes. The second would seem to define a small-scale or limited habitat invasive that is not noxious but still displaces some natives (or is that a contradiction in terms?). An example might be the adventive English daisy (Bellis perennis). The third would be a noxious invader and we can come up with many examples of this. See this U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service website for a pretty good discussion of alien/invasive/noxious species definitions: http://www.pwrc.usgs.gov/WLI/wris1.htm Warren W. Aney Senior Wildlife Ecologist Tigard, OR 97223 -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Lui Marinelli Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2008 9:50 AM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: invasive I'm sure someone has already done this thinking and if so, please direct me towards it When is an invasive no longer an invasive? Presumably once the effect of an invasion is no longer "measurable" then one might say that the invader is no longer an invader but a resident. I can envision a variety of levels of invasion. 1. effect is minimal and the invasion is unsuccessful, the invader doesn't stick around 2. effect is measurable but not substantial, the invader nudges its way into the new ecosystem, everyone moves over and are effected (more competition for resources, carrying capacity may be reduced, etc.). The effect is measurable for a period of time, but then doesn't change...becomes stable. 3. effect is measurable and substantial, the invader bullies its way into the new ecosystem, everyone moves over, some get hit especially hard. The effect is measurable for a period of time, but then doesn't change...becomes stable. The 3 levels is a simplistic accounting for all that happens out there, but works as a general starting point, at least for me. Thoughts? Lui Lui Marinelli, PhD VP Contract Administration, SCFA Instructor, School of Renewable Resources Selkirk College 301 Frank Beinder Way Castlegar, BC V1N 3J1 CANADA (250) 365-1269 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ecosystem Definition as Sustainable Re: SUSTAINABLE SITES INITIATIVE - we need your feedback.
Good response, Wayne. Yes, we do need to question assumptions, and also terminology including the use of currently in vogue terms such as "ecosystem" "sustainable" "green" "ecology" etc. If we define ecosystem as the community of living organisms plus the non-living environment, then everything from the crack in the sidewalk to a lawn to a rice field to a landfill to a tree farm to a wilderness to an ocean to the planet earth can be defined as an ecosystem -- some certainly more natural than others, and some certainly very pauperate of a variety and wealth of living organisms. So I think your use of the term needs to at least be qualified, e.g., "natural ecosystems" (I prefer the more general term "natural systems" because of the tawdry overuse and devaluation of the word "ecosystem"). The word "sustainable" has suffered from the same overuse and devaluation. Too many accept the "cheapest" definition (meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs). This can imply some sort of faith in technology that will benefit future generations, so we can use up nonrenewable resources or we can degrade renewable resource systems because technology can find something to take their place. E.g., topsoil erosion is sustainable because future generations can replace the lost soil horizon with mulch and fertilizer. Overallocation of ground water is sustainable because future generations can recharge the aquifers. Urbanization of productive farmland is sustainable because future generations can ship food in from further away. I prefer a stricter, more costly definition of sustainable: "To maintain forever the current productivity of renewable resource systems including soils, waters, forests, wildlands and the atmosphere, and to deplete nonrenewable resources only at the rate that cost-relative substitutes can be developed, with costs measured on economic, social and ecological scales." And I don't need to pontificate to ecologists on how the term "ecology" has been degraded, e.g., "we have to take care of the ecology" and "the threat of eco-terrorists." Warren W. Aney Tigard, Oregon -Original Message- From: Wayne Tyson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2007 4:35 PM To: Warren W. Aney; ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Ecosystem Definition as Sustainable Re: SUSTAINABLE SITES INITIATIVE - we need your feedback. Dear Warren and Forum: I was trying to come up with different ideas, not criticize theirs. I wish them well, and hope that they will vigorously refute any or all of my responses to their request. It is not my intention to manipulate, but to stimulate. Either the points I have made are true or not true, more true than untrue, or more untrue than true. All may judge them, and, I hope, refute or validate them with intellectual and scientific--CRITICAL vigor. I do see that they are trying, and a laud their efforts and willingness to ask ecologists for "input" (if not invite them to join them). I hope others on this list will make suggestions that are more potent than mine. Intellectual progress, however, comes from questioning assumptions (especially one's own), not manipulating others or being manipulated by them. It is a NEUTRAL process, neither positive nor negative--merely inquisitive. I guess my definition of ecosystem is defecktive. I consider landscaping that is dependent upon intervention for its persistence to be a cultural artifact, not an ecosystem. A crack in the sidewalk, while not intentionally maintained, is at least indirectly a result of a cultural influences, but more subject to ecosystem processes (colonization and selection of ecotypes if not genotypes), so I'll give you that much. I'll even extend that to "old fields" covered with alien plants--a point I was not so willing to concede fully until Ma Nature gave me a good slap back in '80. In landscaping and gardening, one is altering the environment that has produced a biological complex (ecosystem) congruent with that environment and its fluctuations. Landscaping and gardening act against, not in concert, with that congruity. When the external (cultural) influences are withdrawn, a process of readjustment begins, in accordance with the altered environment, and the biological complex changes to one independent of those influences. The complex of organisms that ultimately develop must do so in accordance with interacting with each other and the environment altered by cultural influences, and often come to at least resemble those which originally occupied the site, but at least more so than not. The exception to this is when the cultural alterations (e.g. alien species introductions) continue to reproduce more than the recolonizing species which once occupie
Re: SUSTAINABLE SITES INITIATIVE - we need your feedback.
Aw, c'mon Wayne. Can't you see that they're trying. A landscaped plot is still an ecosystem (heck, a crack in a sidewalk is an ecosystem) although very simplified and humanized. But a landscaped plot can also be complex and natural -- check out my yard: no lawn, just native trees, shrubs, groundcover (and weeds). I didn't find any reference to mass-grading. Did you? I did see (page 9) something about the importance of native soil horizons. I didn't find anything about weed-covered wastelands, either. Nor anything about relying on "expert opinion" nor any seemingly hyperbolic use of the terms "ecological" "sustainable" "green" -- buy maybe you read the publication more thoroughly than I did. I think this is progress -- and I know we're obligated to help them make sure it's effective progress. That's why they sent this out for our look see. Okay, they did send it out late on Friday when we're all cranky after not getting everything done this week that we intended to. But let's take another look at it after we've had a good night's sleep. Warren W. Aney Tigard, Oregon -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Wayne Tyson Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 6:03 PM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: SUSTAINABLE SITES INITIATIVE - we need your feedback. Uh, oh--I'm headed for trouble again. Nobody=20 (well, with the exception of a distinct minority)=20 likes my ideas; they seem to offend just about=20 everybody. (How can an idea offend? Certainly=20 rudeness, body odor, etc. can be offensive, but=20 why do so many of us consider an idea or=20 statement with which we might disagree=20 offensive? How can any intellectual endeavor=20 proceed under pressure to be politically=20 correct?) Have some fun refuting them. Anyway, here goes (with a sample): 1. End landscaping. Unlike ecosystems,=20 landscaping requires water, fertilizer,=20 maintenance, and all the resource/energy/habitat=20 depletion and outright waste connected with those=20 activities. But this seems to be attacking a=20 multi-billion-dollar complex of businesses;=20 therefore it will be attacked by all those who=20 think their professional ox will be gored in some=20 way. Landscaping is, by definition,=20 unsustainable--a sizeable "footprint" on the face=20 of the earth, however cosmetic. 2. End mass-grading. So-called "structural"=20 fills are a profit-extending device that places=20 the equivalent of ancient landslides over lower=20 lands. They will "slide" in the future, when=20 they load up with water. But that takes enough=20 time for the "builders" to be long gone. 3. Permit building only on land that diminishes=20 only those habitats that are in the greatest=20 supply. End building in flood plains and other=20 hazardous sites, as well as biologically rare ones. 4. Tolerate no lying about biology and=20 ecology. For example, stop claiming that sites=20 are "only" weed-covered wastes, and report the=20 site's historic biological character. And=20 require that it be treated in accordance with its=20 biological and ecological potential, based on=20 real, complete scientific assessment, not upon "expert opinion." 5. Tolerate no hyperbole via use of the terms=20 "ecological," "sustainable," "green," etc. I could go on and on . . . WT At 01:54 PM 12/14/2007, Ray Mims wrote: >** High Priority ** > >This is a project of which we are extremely proud to be a part. We are >in a comment period right now and would like to have additional >architects, builders, engineers, ecologists, horticulturist, landscape >maintenance contractors, soil scientist, architect, green building >consultant and planners to give us feed back. Please take the time to >look at the email and go to our website to view the draft report. > >ALSO PASS ON TO ANYONE YOU KNOW THAT MIGHT HAVE INSIGHT OR COMMENTS. >thank you, >Ray > > > >--- = -- >The USBG has been involved in this partnership and is very excited >about Sustainable Sites. >The Sustainable Sites Initiative is developing national, voluntary >standards and guidelines for sustainable land development and >management >practices as well as metrics to assess site performance and a rating >system to recognize achievement. It is a partnership of the American >Society of Landscape Architects, the Lady Bird Johnson Wildflower >Center, the United States Botanic Garden and a diverse group of >national >stakeholder organizations. The U.S. Green Building Council, a major >stakeholder > in the initiative, has committed to incorporat
Re: all those selfish mothers!
No, we are dedicated to living exponentially as if there are no limits. So the greatest shortcoming of the human race is failure to understand the asymptote (and its implied consequences for exponential growth). Warren W. Aney Senior Wildlife Ecologist Tigard, OR -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of joseph gathman Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2007 2:49 PM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: all those selfish mothers! "The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function." Albert A. Bartlett, emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Colorado at Boulder, Time will tell... __ __ Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
