Dear colleagues, I have been following the discussion about the decline in field-based training in ecology research with interest. Experimental manipulations in the field are often challenging, more so in my area of subtidal research on benthic invertebrates. There is certainly a big difference from the many enjoyable university field trips in which I engaged as an undergraduate and the countless arduous and cold hours that I and my research teams have spent recording observations underwater along wave exposed temperate rocky coastlines over the past 30 years. This is far more rewarding but far less comfortable than spending one's time in a temperature controlled laboratory listing the the monotonous clicks and whirs of a genomics machine sequencing squillions of nucleotides. The discomfort is not confined to the field because the acquired data are often incredibly heterogeneous presenting further challenges in mathematical analysis, often well beyond the statistical methods taught to undergraduate biology students. Worse still are fisheries monitoring data riddled with uncertainty(the invertebrates that I are study are heavily exploited due to their high commercial value)where we are trying to understand the ecological consequences of substantial removals of biomass over decadal time frames in terms of population dynamics and resilience.
The challenges of analysing field data is what led to me joining the Resource Modeling Association. A small but highly skilled group of natural resource scientist interested in the ecological consequences of human exploitation of fish populations, forests, soil nutrients; their holy grail being to ensure that the destruction of these system components can be restrained to sustainable levels. Many RMA members are mathematicians with a strong interest in the natural environment evidenced by their enthusiasm for passive outdoor pursuits. Like me many of you will relate to how a love of being outdoors in the 'wilderness' led to a career studying the biology and ecology of natural communities of plants and animals to discover what makes them tick. Just as institutional interest in promoting or engaging in fieldwork is waning, so is interest in organisations like the RMA. Perhaps there is some correlation related to a common root cause? I am not a mathematician and am not going to kid myself that I can get the most of the data that I collect without expert assistance. Ecologists and natural resource biologists need groups like the RMA to provide them with a forum for discussing new approaches to analysis, beyond institutionalised conventions and existing paradigms, with those who have the ability to develop new mathematical methods. The RMA can help us in making sense of our hard-won data that is often collected under the duress of challenging environmental conditions that can test the resolve of the most hardened of those who dare venture outdoors in pursuit of knowledge and understanding. Equally the RMA needs to increasingly engage with ecologists to identify where they can best assist in the application of the their skills in mathematical modelling. I urge you to consider joining the RMA www.resourcemodeling.org and I also urge you to give serious consideration to joing us in Vilnius during July for our 2014 conference www.resourcemodellingconference2014.com. You will be made to feel welcome, nobody stands on ceremony at these events, and RMA conferences are among the few scientific meetings where a budding young postgraduate student can get the undivided attention of a distinguished professor of ecological modeling to sound them out about their ideas and tap into their considerable knowledge and experience. This mailing list is large, but my modest hope is that I will meet at least a small percentage of you in Vilnius during July. Sincerely, Harry Gorfine, RMA 2014 Conference Organiser.
