[ECOLOG-L] Job Opportunity - Field Director, North America Regional Climate Center
Job Title: Field Director, North America Climate Change Field Center Reports to: Director of Field Centers, Earthwatch Institute Department: Field Management Position: Grant Funded, full-time, salaried, exempt Position location: North America Regional Climate Center (NARCC) located on the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center (SERC) campus in Edgewater, Maryland Earthwatch Institute is an international environmental organization that engages people worldwide in scientific field research and education to promote the understanding and action necessary for a sustainable environment. Our research program focuses on Climate Change; the sustainable management of resources; oceans; and communities in order to better understand critical environmental issues and inform and influence local agendas. Earthwatch is seeking a Field Director to lead Earthwatch programs at the NARCC, to close out the final year of the HSBC Climate Partnership (HCP), as well as to participate in strategy for the continuation of NARCC activities beyond HCP funding. HCP is a global, 5 year program initiated in 2007 to reduce the impacts of Climate Change on people and their livelihoods, by promoting action in some of the world's major cities, river basins and ecosystems. Earthwatch's focus within this partnership is engaging corporate employees and the general public in a field research and learning program that enables participants to investigate climate change impacts on forest ecosystems while participating in a formal learning program. The Field Director will be based out of the North America Regional Climate Center on the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center (SERC) in Edgewater, Maryland. The Field Director will have two direct reports - Learning and Communications Manager and a Program Officer. Principal responsibilities include: A. Program Delivery a. Deliver a program of climate change research and field-based learning at the NARCC in adherence with Earthwatch Institute's health and safety policies and field standards. b. Oversee implementation of Earthwatch's risk management system at the NARCC. c. Maintain primary responsibility for implementation of Emergency Response Plan as well as coordinate incident response. Function as primary point of contact with the Incident Management team during incidents and emergencies. d. Coordinate the fielding relationship between the research partner and Earthwatch to ensure that Climate Partnership goals are delivered in the field. e. Oversee all participant teams at the NARCC from rendezvous to departure and assist research partners in the field as agreed. f. Deliver learning content as required to participant teams to include content on the science of climate change and the socio-economic impacts of climate change. g. Ensure that the field learning program is integrated with the research project and meets the program key performance indicators. h. Develop and manage relationships with local stakeholders: education groups, conservation NGO's, local public and business communities, and with local government in order to maximize the impacts of the program. i.In conjunction with the Director of Field Centers and other Earthwatch staff, develop and implement the business/legacy plan for the NARCC after HSBC funding ceases, including possible networking with local businesses, individuals and government in order to identify potential local sponsors. j.Liaise with other Earthwatch Field Directors to share best practice and learning across all field centers and to input into shared systems and research monitoring processes for all climate change research projects. B. Management a. Line Management of two Field Center employees. b. Manage and maintain the partnership between Earthwatch and SERC. c. Manage fiscal and administrative reporting duties including budget and expense reporting, team outcomes, quarterly reports on climate change outcomes, and impacts of activities against agreed key performance indicators. d. Ensure the NARCC is 'fit for purpose'. e. Manage the local communications program, working with the office PR team and Learning Communications Officer to deliver agreed communications messages to local and regional audiences, including attending local conferences and other events to promote the NARCC. f. Central point of communication to the Earthwatch office for the Field Center. C. Other Responsibilities a. Oversee the training and development for Field Center staff. b. Coordinate Field Center IT requirements and database development needs in liaison with the Earthwatch and research partner's IT resources. c. Overnight at the Climate Center when teams are present, sharing responsibility with the Learning Communications Manager, Program Officer and
[ECOLOG-L] Graduate Student Opportunities in Biogeosciences at Boston University
Graduate Student Opportunities in Terrestrial Biogeosciences at Boston University The Departments of Biology, Geography Environment, and Earth Sciences at Boston University invite applications from interested students for the PhD program in Terrestrial Biogeosciences at Boston University. This one-of-a-kind Ph.D. program is focused on students interested in interdisciplinary graduate training in one or more of the following areas: terrestrial biogeochemistry, ecohydrology and biophysical ecology, climate-ecosystem interactions, land surface hydrology and hydro-meteorology, coastal processes, remote sensing, and land use and land cover change. Boston University offers a rich set of coursework, research opportunities, and faculty working in these related areas. Each department provides state-of-the-art-facilities, and financial support is available to students through university fellowships, teaching fellowships, and research assistantships. Applications are invited from students with a broad range of backgrounds including physical, natural, or engineering sciences. For more information about the program, please visit our website: www.bu.edu/bio-geo For information on how to apply, please contact: Mr. Chris Devits: dev...@bu.edu -- Pamela Templer, PhD Assistant Professor Co-Director BU Stable Isotope Laboratory Department of Biology Boston University 5 Cummington Street Boston, MA 02215 phone 617-353-6978 fax 617-353-6340 people.bu.edu/ptempler
[ECOLOG-L] PhD course in Boreal Forest Ecology
First announcement: PhD Course on ‘Functioning of Boreal Forest Ecosystems’, June 4-10 2011. This course will provide a comprehensive coverage on topics relevant to the functioning of boreal forest ecosystems, including linkages between aboveground and belowground subsystems, nutrient cycling, role of mycorrhizae, ecosystem effects of herbivores, and the role of major disturbances (notably fire). It will be run along similar lines to a course that we have run on this topic in June 2004, 2007 and 2009. Language: The course will be conducted in English Location: The course is to be held in Arvidsjaur, approximately 300 km NW of Umeå, Sweden, which is in the heart of the northern boreal forest zone and also proximal to the Scandes mountain ranges near the Norwegian border. Participants: This course is open to all PhD students who have an interest in boreal ecosystems. We will limit the course to 25 participants, and will select applicants on the basis of merit and relevance of their research if the number of applicants exceeds the number of positions available. Course format: The course will consist of a mixture of lectures, student presentations, discussion groups, and field trips and field instruction. Students will be expected to be prepared in advance for participation in discussions. Course credits (relevant for European participants only): 7.5 ECTS Costings: Students are responsible for covering their own transport to and from Umeå. All costs including food, travel and lodging for the course duration will covered by SLU. Course organization: The course will be run by the Department of Forest Ecology and Management, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU), Umeå, Sweden. Course instructors: The course will be taught by 8 ecologists who each have been actively involved in research on various aspects of northern ecosystems. These instructors are: Professor Marie-Charlotte Nilsson (SLU, Umeå), Professor David Wardle (SLU, Umeå), Professor Richard Bardgett (University of Lancaster, UK), Professor Heikki Setälä (University of Helsinki, Finland), Dr. Anders Dahlberg (SLU, Uppsala), Professor Mats Nilsson (SLU Umeå), Dr. Paul Kardol (SLU, Umeå) and Dr Michael Gundale (SLU, Umeå). Expressions of interest: Please prepare a brief CV and a statement of 200 words or less outlining your PhD research topic and why you think the course would be beneficial to you, as a single Word file with your surname as the file name. This information, and any enquiries, should be sent to Dr. Paul Kardol by e-mail (paul.kar...@seksko.slu.se) no later than January 15 2011.
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Taxonomy and Ecology Integrating or Disintegrating?
Getting back to the original question, I think the botanist deserves at least a little sympathy. When it comes to objectively defining things like ecoregions, we're still far behind systematists and their attempts to come up with objective tools for defining species. After all, people have debated species concepts for decades. Imagine a world in which species were defined the way we define ecological units. We'd have to deal with multiple classification systems, inconsistent usage of terminology within classification systems, and boundaries based more on gestalt than on scientific rigour. To make matters worse, different systems tend to be favoured in different countries. (That said, it sounds like there's plenty else to criticise in what the speaker had to say). Quoting Wayne Tyson landr...@cox.net: 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] Taxonomy and Ecology Integrating or Disintegrating?
I can't disagree with most of what most posters have said regarding this matter (the question of species and the question of ecoregions, I can disagree with the perception that people generally throw stones at fellow scientists in disciplines other than their own). That said, I do have to point out that species is an attempt to define something real in nature, a recognition that populations really do consist of more or less homogeneous components. Whether recognized on the basis of morphology, genetics, or other attributes, the actual population components exist in their own right, and not just because we define them. The ecological units that are being called ecoregions are not actual, real, concrete entities. Rather, they are attempts to divide geography for our own purposes. Sure, there are properties that are the basis for the division, but the dividing is an exercise, not a recognition of components that have their own reality. These units are a convenience for our purposes, while species are actually real things in nature, whether we know how to define them or not. Populations are the real units of our study. Ecoregions, ecosystems, communities and so on are our own means of organizing populations collectively so that we can understand how they work together. There, I've said it to a group of professionals. These things are not real entities (they ARE useful concepts). So, do we need folks who are expert in the various groups of organisms that we study, and can say that one population constitutes a species named _Bvwdz gxzydwz_, but that three different populations, occurring elsewhere, collectively constitute a species named _Bvwdz nwxnvd_ ? Sure we do. Do they need us, to tell them what ecoregions and what ecological properties one of those species has? Well, I guess that's up to them. Seems to me that geographic (including ecological) knowledge of populations is essential to understanding their evolution. At least a couple of chaps named Russell Wallace and Charles Darwin thought so. But who am I to say? Back to the question of needing systematic experts: There are ecologists who specialize in taxonomic groups, you know. I have long considered myself a fish ecologist, as well as a stream ecologist, thereby covering both a group of organisms AND an ecological construct. David McNeely Ian Ramjohn ramjo...@msu.edu wrote: Getting back to the original question, I think the botanist deserves at least a little sympathy. When it comes to objectively defining things like ecoregions, we're still far behind systematists and their attempts to come up with objective tools for defining species. After all, people have debated species concepts for decades. Imagine a world in which species were defined the way we define ecological units. We'd have to deal with multiple classification systems, inconsistent usage of terminology within classification systems, and boundaries based more on gestalt than on scientific rigour. To make matters worse, different systems tend to be favoured in different countries. (That said, it sounds like there's plenty else to criticise in what the speaker had to say). Quoting Wayne Tyson landr...@cox.net: 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,
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Taxonomy and Ecology Integrating or Disintegrating?
David, I don’t understand your distinction between something that is 'real' in nature versus something that is 'not actual, real, or concrete'. Whether something is real or not depends on the context in which it is used. A 'real' ecoregion, is real in that it represents a spatial area that is homogenous in the composition of certain species or other ecosystem properties of interest. Similiarly, a species is only 'real' in that it represents a group of organisims that have similar genetics, reproductive attributes, or evolutionary lineage. -Burak -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu] On Behalf Of David L. McNeely Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2010 10:06 AM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Taxonomy and Ecology Integrating or Disintegrating? I can't disagree with most of what most posters have said regarding this matter (the question of species and the question of ecoregions, I can disagree with the perception that people generally throw stones at fellow scientists in disciplines other than their own). That said, I do have to point out that species is an attempt to define something real in nature, a recognition that populations really do consist of more or less homogeneous components. Whether recognized on the basis of morphology, genetics, or other attributes, the actual population components exist in their own right, and not just because we define them. The ecological units that are being called ecoregions are not actual, real, concrete entities. Rather, they are attempts to divide geography for our own purposes. Sure, there are properties that are the basis for the division, but the dividing is an exercise, not a recognition of components that have their own reality. These units are a convenience for our purposes, while species are actually real things in nature, whether we know how to define them or not. Populations are the real units of our study. Ecoregions, ecosystems, communities and so on are our own means of organizing populations collectively so that we can understand how they work together. There, I've said it to a group of professionals. These things are not real entities (they ARE useful concepts). So, do we need folks who are expert in the various groups of organisms that we study, and can say that one population constitutes a species named _Bvwdz gxzydwz_, but that three different populations, occurring elsewhere, collectively constitute a species named _Bvwdz nwxnvd_ ? Sure we do. Do they need us, to tell them what ecoregions and what ecological properties one of those species has? Well, I guess that's up to them. Seems to me that geographic (including ecological) knowledge of populations is essential to understanding their evolution. At least a couple of chaps named Russell Wallace and Charles Darwin thought so. But who am I to say? Back to the question of needing systematic experts: There are ecologists who specialize in taxonomic groups, you know. I have long considered myself a fish ecologist, as well as a stream ecologist, thereby covering both a group of organisms AND an ecological construct. David McNeely Ian Ramjohn ramjo...@msu.edu wrote: Getting back to the original question, I think the botanist deserves at least a little sympathy. When it comes to objectively defining things like ecoregions, we're still far behind systematists and their attempts to come up with objective tools for defining species. After all, people have debated species concepts for decades. Imagine a world in which species were defined the way we define ecological units. We'd have to deal with multiple classification systems, inconsistent usage of terminology within classification systems, and boundaries based more on gestalt than on scientific rigour. To make matters worse, different systems tend to be favoured in different countries. (That said, it sounds like there's plenty else to criticise in what the speaker had to say). Quoting Wayne Tyson landr...@cox.net: 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
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Taxonomy and Ecology Integrating or Disintegrating?
Burak, you are correct that an ecoregion is a specific piece of real estate. I guess I have been bothered considerably over the years by attempts to assign Clementsian community meaning to all the various ways we divide natural real estate. Sure, a Cross Timbers Ecoregion is a defined piece of the lower midwestern-southwestern portion of the U.S., and it is recognized because a few oak species are dominant trees there. I was just being pesky. I'll go back in my hole, and those who assign more than I believe there is to such entities can have their way. The pieces of natural real estate indeed do exist. Thanks for your forbearance. David Pekin wrote: David, I don’t understand your distinction between something that is 'real' in nature versus something that is 'not actual, real, or concrete'. Whether something is real or not depends on the context in which it is used. A 'real' ecoregion, is real in that it represents a spatial area that is homogenous in the composition of certain species or other ecosystem properties of interest. Similiarly, a species is only 'real' in that it represents a group of organisims that have similar genetics, reproductive attributes, or evolutionary lineage. -Burak -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu] On Behalf Of David L. McNeely Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2010 10:06 AM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Taxonomy and Ecology Integrating or Disintegrating? I can't disagree with most of what most posters have said regarding this matter (the question of species and the question of ecoregions, I can disagree with the perception that people generally throw stones at fellow scientists in disciplines other than their own). That said, I do have to point out that species is an attempt to define something real in nature, a recognition that populations really do consist of more or less homogeneous components. Whether recognized on the basis of morphology, genetics, or other attributes, the actual population components exist in their own right, and not just because we define them. The ecological units that are being called ecoregions are not actual, real, concrete entities. Rather, they are attempts to divide geography for our own purposes. Sure, there are properties that are the basis for the division, but the dividing is an exercise, not a recognition of components that have their own reality. These units are a convenience for our purposes, while species are actually real things in nature, whether we know how to define them or not. Populations are the real units of our study. Ecoregions, ecosystems, communities and so on are our own means of organizing populations collectively so that we can understand how they work together. There, I've said it to a group of professionals. These things are not real entities (they ARE useful concepts). So, do we need folks who are expert in the various groups of organisms that we study, and can say that one population constitutes a species named _Bvwdz gxzydwz_, but that three different populations, occurring elsewhere, collectively constitute a species named _Bvwdz nwxnvd_ ? Sure we do. Do they need us, to tell them what ecoregions and what ecological properties one of those species has? Well, I guess that's up to them. Seems to me that geographic (including ecological) knowledge of populations is essential to understanding their evolution. At least a couple of chaps named Russell Wallace and Charles Darwin thought so. But who am I to say? Back to the question of needing systematic experts: There are ecologists who specialize in taxonomic groups, you know. I have long considered myself a fish ecologist, as well as a stream ecologist, thereby covering both a group of organisms AND an ecological construct. David McNeely Ian Ramjohn ramjo...@msu.edu wrote: Getting back to the original question, I think the botanist deserves at least a little sympathy. When it comes to objectively defining things like ecoregions, we're still far behind systematists and their attempts to come up with objective tools for defining species. After all, people have debated species concepts for decades. Imagine a world in which species were defined the way we define ecological units. We'd have to deal with multiple classification systems, inconsistent usage of terminology within classification systems, and boundaries based more on gestalt than on scientific rigour. To make matters worse, different systems tend to be favoured in different countries. (That said, it sounds like there's plenty else to criticise in what the speaker had to say). Quoting Wayne Tyson landr...@cox.net: Honourable Forum: Recently there was a discussion about the importance of getting
[ECOLOG-L] DNR bat ecologist discusses bats white-nose syndrome on Wisconsin Public Radio- Wednesday Nov 17 11:05AM
Here's your chance to hear about Wisconsin bats and the epidemic [white-nose syndrome] that threatens them (and call in if you want)! Wisconsin Pub Radio Wed Nov 17 11:05 - 11:45 AM - DNR bat ecologist Dave Redell talks about white-nose syndrome and WDNR's response on the Larry Meiller show. Should be quite informative - spread the word. Also, feel free to check WDNR's bats white-nose page: * http://dnr.wi.gov/org/land/er/bats/* http://dnr.wi.gov/org/land/er/bats/ And see *http://dnr.wi.gov/news/WeeklyNews_Print.asp?id=1541*http://dnr.wi.gov/news/WeeklyNews_Print.asp?id=1541
[ECOLOG-L] NEON - STREON Scientist job - Revised Skill Requirements
Overview The National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON, Inc.) is a nonprofit science corporation dedicated to understanding how changes in climate, land use and invasive species impact ecology. For the next three decades NEON will collect a comprehensive range of ecological data on a continental scale across 20 eco-climatic domains representing US ecosystems. NEON will use cutting edge technology including an airborne observation that will capture images of regional landscapes and vegetation; mobile, relocatable, and fixed data collection sites with automated ground sensors to monitor soil and atmosphere; and trained field crews who will observe and sample populations of diverse organisms and collect soil and water data. A leading edge cyberinfrastructure will calibrate, store and publish this information. The Observatory will be the first of its kind designed to detect and enable forecasting of ecological change at continental scales. The Observatory will also operate a long-term experiment - STREON: a chronic nutrient enrichment and predator exclusion experiment that will be operated at ten of the NEON Aquatic sites. Summary: The STREON Scientist will be part of an Aquatic/STREON Team that is responsible for developing a national program to assess physical, chemical, and biological changes in streams and lakes over 30 years. The Team will define measurements, document field and lab methods, train personnel, and perform QA/QC in order to produce high quality data products for the research, education, and decision making community. Specifically, the STREON Scientist is responsible for development, documentation and implementation of detailed sampling designs and analytical protocols of the STREON experiment. This position will require collaboration with the NEON Engineering Team for development and engineering-level documentation of the experiment components (nutrient addition station, in-situ baskets, recirculation chambers, flumes, predator-exclusion system). The position will co-develop and documents sampling designs and audit procedures for aquatic flora and fauna and freshwater chemistry, in conjunction with the Aquatic Team. As STREON is the first Observatory experiment, the STREON Scientist will play a key role in communications with the STREON Technical Working Group and the larger stream community. The STREON Scientist will work with an interdisciplinary team of ecologists, engineers, and other scientists to design, develop, test, and implement statistically valid protocols to produce data products that will enable researchers to investigate the impact of climate change, land-use change, invasive species, and unsustainable water use on freshwater ecosystems of North America. The STREON Scientist is expected to produce reports and publications of NEON procedures and protocols and is encouraged to collaborate with the research community to investigate continental scale ecology. This position requires a broad experience base in freshwater ecology, including experience and knowledge of biogeochemical cycles of streams, isotopic chemistry, biodiversity, foodweb response to nutrient enrichment, the role of microbes in detrital-based foodwebs, and regime and state shift theory in aquatic systems. The ideal candidate will have at least ten years of research and leadership experience beyond the PhD. Essential Duties and Responsibilities: • Develop and document experiment components of the STREON experiment • Develop a data collection and audit program for the STREON experiment, including experiment sampling protocols for algae, macrophytes, invertebrates, and fish. • Development and implementation of data QA/QC plan. • Develop training program for field crews. • Document the scientific rationale for STREON-related measurements and methods. • Co-develop detailed sampling designs for microbial communities and stream morphology. • Co-coordinate activities of the STREON Technical Working Group. • Collaborate with NEON engineers and scientists to define audit sampling procedures. • Participate in the larger NEON science community, including participating in independent research and collaborations and attending meetings/conferences. Education: • PhD in stream ecology or related field. Specialization in stream food-web structure and function, stream community ecology, or related ecology with emphasis on biological-chemical-physical linkages of stream ecosystems. • 5+ years experience beyond post-doctoral level in stream ecology or closely related field. Required Experience: • 5+ years research experience in freshwater stream ecology, with emphasis in the role of food-web structure and function, biogeochemistry, and microbial ecology. • Significant field experience working in streams of North America. • Significant experience communicating to
[ECOLOG-L] Ph.D. Student Opportunity - Population Connectivity / Ocean Modeling
Ph.D. Student Opportunity MIT/WHOI Joint Program Population Connectivity / Ocean Modeling We are looking for a highly motivated Ph.D. student to join a team of scientists in the Biology Department at WHOI to work on modeling marine population connectivity in a tropical ecosystem. Research will focus on developing reliable predictors of population connectivity from a range of habitat and oceanographic metrics that influence larval dispersal and settlement. A suite of tools, including a population model, a coupled biological-hydrodynamic model, and GIS-based spatial analysis will be developed. Detailed information about the MIT/WHOI Joint Program and application guidelines can be found at http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=7999. Interested applicants are encouraged to send a letter and resume detailing interests, previous research experience, and education to Dr. Julie Kellner (jkell...@whoi.edu) and Dr. Rubao Ji (r...@whoi.edu). Additional details on the project collaborators is available at: Dr. Julie Kellner Website: http://www.whoi.edu/profile.do?id=jkellner Dr. Rubao Ji Website: http://www.whoi.edu/profile.do?id=rji Dr. Simon Thorrold Website: http://www.whoi.edu/profile.do?id=sthorrold Dr. Michael Neubert Website: http://www.whoi.edu/profile.do?id=mneubert
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Taxonomy and Ecology Integrating or Disintegrating?
Honorable Forum: . . . species are actually real things in nature, whether we know how to define them or not. There, I've said it to a group of professionals. These things are not real entities (they ARE useful concepts). --David McNeely Why should McNeely imply that there is some kind of risk in his statement. He strikes at the heart of a central truth--that all things which we humans have conceived existed before we conceived them, ipso facto. IS there an argument on the other side of this issue? If so, what, precisely, is it? WT - Original Message - From: Pekin, Burak K bpe...@purdue.edu To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2010 10:01 AM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Taxonomy and Ecology Integrating or Disintegrating? David, I don’t understand your distinction between something that is 'real' in nature versus something that is 'not actual, real, or concrete'. Whether something is real or not depends on the context in which it is used. A 'real' ecoregion, is real in that it represents a spatial area that is homogenous in the composition of certain species or other ecosystem properties of interest. Similiarly, a species is only 'real' in that it represents a group of organisims that have similar genetics, reproductive attributes, or evolutionary lineage. -Burak -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu] On Behalf Of David L. McNeely Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2010 10:06 AM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Taxonomy and Ecology Integrating or Disintegrating? I can't disagree with most of what most posters have said regarding this matter (the question of species and the question of ecoregions, I can disagree with the perception that people generally throw stones at fellow scientists in disciplines other than their own). That said, I do have to point out that species is an attempt to define something real in nature, a recognition that populations really do consist of more or less homogeneous components. Whether recognized on the basis of morphology, genetics, or other attributes, the actual population components exist in their own right, and not just because we define them. The ecological units that are being called ecoregions are not actual, real, concrete entities. Rather, they are attempts to divide geography for our own purposes. Sure, there are properties that are the basis for the division, but the dividing is an exercise, not a recognition of components that have their own reality. These units are a convenience for our purposes, while species are actually real things in nature, whether we know how to define them or not. Populations are the real units of our study. Ecoregions, ecosystems, communities and so on are our own means of organizing populations collectively so that we can understand how they work together. There, I've said it to a group of professionals. These things are not real entities (they ARE useful concepts). So, do we need folks who are expert in the various groups of organisms that we study, and can say that one population constitutes a species named _Bvwdz gxzydwz_, but that three different populations, occurring elsewhere, collectively constitute a species named _Bvwdz nwxnvd_ ? Sure we do. Do they need us, to tell them what ecoregions and what ecological properties one of those species has? Well, I guess that's up to them. Seems to me that geographic (including ecological) knowledge of populations is essential to understanding their evolution. At least a couple of chaps named Russell Wallace and Charles Darwin thought so. But who am I to say? Back to the question of needing systematic experts: There are ecologists who specialize in taxonomic groups, you know. I have long considered myself a fish ecologist, as well as a stream ecologist, thereby covering both a group of organisms AND an ecological construct. David McNeely Ian Ramjohn ramjo...@msu.edu wrote: Getting back to the original question, I think the botanist deserves at least a little sympathy. When it comes to objectively defining things like ecoregions, we're still far behind systematists and their attempts to come up with objective tools for defining species. After all, people have debated species concepts for decades. Imagine a world in which species were defined the way we define ecological units. We'd have to deal with multiple classification systems, inconsistent usage of terminology within classification systems, and boundaries based more on gestalt than on scientific rigour. To make matters worse, different systems tend to be favoured in different countries. (That said, it sounds like there's plenty else to criticise in what the speaker had to say). Quoting Wayne Tyson landr...@cox.net: Honourable Forum: Recently there was a discussion about the importance of getting
Re: [ECOLOG-L] What is the best equipement for recording bird calls?
Rebecca, We have been using a Olympus LS-10 Linear PCM Recorder with a AudioTechnica AT 897 condenser microphone to record a variety of animal vocalizations successfully (including cranes and kiwis). We're saving the files in .wav format. Hope this helps, Anne Anne Marchant, PhD. Associate Director Mason Center for Conservation Studies c/o Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute 1500 Remount Road Front Royal, VA 22630 Prince William Campus Mailstop 5F7 571-296-6008 - Original Message - From: Rebecca Stirnemann rstirnem...@gmail.com Date: Thursday, November 11, 2010 9:44 pm Subject: [ECOLOG-L] What is the best equipement for recording bird calls? Can any one recomend equipment for recording bird calls for analysis and playback? I have heard MP3 players have a poorer resolution and birds do not respond as well. Can any one confirm this is true? Thanks Rebecca
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Taxonomy and Ecology Integrating or Disintegrating?
Yes, I agree that the importance of the 'reality' that any categorization represents is an issue in itself. Perhaps their interest in categorizing organisms to purely reflect their genetics rather than their ecological functions has made taxonomists less prone to justifying categorizations that reflect capitalistic human interests rather than real ecological phenomenon. -Burak -Original Message- From: mcnee...@cox.net [mailto:mcnee...@cox.net] Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2010 2:01 PM To: 'ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU'; Pekin, Burak K Subject: RE: [ECOLOG-L] Taxonomy and Ecology Integrating or Disintegrating? Burak, you are correct that an ecoregion is a specific piece of real estate. I guess I have been bothered considerably over the years by attempts to assign Clementsian community meaning to all the various ways we divide natural real estate. Sure, a Cross Timbers Ecoregion is a defined piece of the lower midwestern-southwestern portion of the U.S., and it is recognized because a few oak species are dominant trees there. I was just being pesky. I'll go back in my hole, and those who assign more than I believe there is to such entities can have their way. The pieces of natural real estate indeed do exist. Thanks for your forbearance. David Pekin wrote: David, I don’t understand your distinction between something that is 'real' in nature versus something that is 'not actual, real, or concrete'. Whether something is real or not depends on the context in which it is used. A 'real' ecoregion, is real in that it represents a spatial area that is homogenous in the composition of certain species or other ecosystem properties of interest. Similiarly, a species is only 'real' in that it represents a group of organisims that have similar genetics, reproductive attributes, or evolutionary lineage. -Burak -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu] On Behalf Of David L. McNeely Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2010 10:06 AM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Taxonomy and Ecology Integrating or Disintegrating? I can't disagree with most of what most posters have said regarding this matter (the question of species and the question of ecoregions, I can disagree with the perception that people generally throw stones at fellow scientists in disciplines other than their own). That said, I do have to point out that species is an attempt to define something real in nature, a recognition that populations really do consist of more or less homogeneous components. Whether recognized on the basis of morphology, genetics, or other attributes, the actual population components exist in their own right, and not just because we define them. The ecological units that are being called ecoregions are not actual, real, concrete entities. Rather, they are attempts to divide geography for our own purposes. Sure, there are properties that are the basis for the division, but the dividing is an exercise, not a recognition of components that have their own reality. These units are a convenience for our purposes, while species are actually real things in nature, whether we know how to define them or not. Populations are the real units of our study. Ecoregions, ecosystems, communities and so on are our own means of organizing populations collectively so that we can understand how they work together. There, I've said it to a group of professionals. These things are not real entities (they ARE useful concepts). So, do we need folks who are expert in the various groups of organisms that we study, and can say that one population constitutes a species named _Bvwdz gxzydwz_, but that three different populations, occurring elsewhere, collectively constitute a species named _Bvwdz nwxnvd_ ? Sure we do. Do they need us, to tell them what ecoregions and what ecological properties one of those species has? Well, I guess that's up to them. Seems to me that geographic (including ecological) knowledge of populations is essential to understanding their evolution. At least a couple of chaps named Russell Wallace and Charles Darwin thought so. But who am I to say? Back to the question of needing systematic experts: There are ecologists who specialize in taxonomic groups, you know. I have long considered myself a fish ecologist, as well as a stream ecologist, thereby covering both a group of organisms AND an ecological construct. David McNeely Ian Ramjohn ramjo...@msu.edu wrote: Getting back to the original question, I think the botanist deserves at least a little sympathy. When it comes to objectively defining things like ecoregions, we're still far behind systematists and their attempts to come up with objective tools for defining species. After all, people have debated species concepts
[ECOLOG-L] IGERT grad student opportunity - Portland State Univ.
Colleagues, I'm writing to ask for your help in recruiting students to our new interdisciplinary PhD program at Portland State University (PSU). With support from the National Science Foundation's Integrative Graduate Education and Research Traineeship (IGERT) program, we are seeking prospective PhD applicants for our first incoming class in Fall 2011. The substantive focus of this program is on ecosystem services (terrestrial and marine) to support urbanizing regions (ESUR IGERT). We aim to recruit up to 6 PhD students for our first cohort. Of particular interest are underrepresented candidates who are permanent residents or US Citizens. For information about this IGERT program, including the application process, community partners, and participating departments, please see our recently launched website: http://www.pdx.edu/esur-igert Participants in the IGERT PhD program will received multiple benefits. Aside from alleviating many of the financial woes of graduate school (three year traineeship with annual stipend of $30K, tuition remission, $10,500 in research funding, national and international conference travel, etc.), the IGERT program offers extensive opportunities for PhD trainees to engage faculty from a broad array of disciplines, community partners in local, national, and international organizations and agencies, and involvement in team-based research in an emerging area of scholarship. Please forward this note to prospective applicants, and those responsible for advising graduate students. Our 2-page recruiting document is attached. Thanks in advance for your help! Elise Granek -- Elise Granek, Ph.D. Assistant Professor, Environmental Science and Management and co-Director ESUR IGERT Portland State University PO Box 751 Portland, OR 97207 503-725-4241 gran...@pdx.edu -- Elise Granek, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Environmental Science and Management Portland State University PO Box 751 Portland, OR 97207 503-725-4241 gran...@pdx.edu
[ECOLOG-L] PhD position - Marine Ecology
Location: Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Tulane University, New Orleans Start Date: Summer or Fall, 2011 Project: Applications are invited for a highly motivated Ph.D. student to conduct an interdisciplinary research project studying the effects of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill on marine zooplankton or on the larval stages of fish or crustaceans. Research questions will be developed by the student and may range from population dynamics to species distribution and diversity patterns. The project will involve analysis of plankton samples that have been collected various distances from the spill site over time and collection of new samples. The student will also work on incorporation of results from this analysis into a fine-scale hydrodynamics computer model of larval dispersal of the Gulf of Mexico. Qualifications: A bachelors degree in a related field is required. Previous experience with zooplankton identification and/or experience with computer programming preferred, but training for either task can be provided for an enthusiastic and well-qualified candidate. Salary and Benefits: Full tuition scholarships and health insurance for successful applicants are provided. Support of $21,000 to $25,000 per year is provided by teaching assistantships and research assistantships when available. Please submit a Curriculum Vitae, GRE scores, and a cover letter to Dr. Caz Taylor (c...@tulane.edu) by Dec 15 2010 for consideration.
[ECOLOG-L] Volunteer research assistants sought for bat project in Panama
VOLUNTEER RESEARCH ASSISTANTS (4 positions available) needed for February 1, 2011 to June 1, 2011 to assist with a study on the foraging behavior of the tropical frog-eating bat, Trachops cirrhosus. Work will be conducted at Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute facilities in PANAMA, both in the mainland town of Gamboa, and for the month of March on Barro Colorado Island in the Panama canal. No prior experience is required, but applicants should be comfortable working late at night in hot, humid, and buggy conditions. Work will include mistnetting bats, recording frog and insect calls in the field, ecological surveys, and behavioral experiments. As the position is unpaid, volunteers are expected to work only 4 days a week with 3 days off. Volunteers must cover all their own expenses including airfare to Panama City, housing and food. Housing in Gamboa is $300-$400 per month and we will make regular trips to the grocery store in Panama City. On Barro Colorado Island combined room and board is $980. If interested, please send a resume and contact information for three references to PATRICIA JONES (email: mailto:patricia.jo...@mail.utexas.edupatricia.jo...@mail.utexas.edu).
