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 a...@coho.net 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 mcnee...@cox.net Matt Chew anek...@gmail.com 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 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
[ECOLOG-L] GRADUATE OPPORTUNITIES IN ECOLOGY AND EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY
GRADUATE OPPORTUNITIES IN ECOLOGY AND EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY The Graduate Program in Ecology and Evolution in the Department of Ecology and Evolution at Stony Brook University is recruiting doctoral and master's level graduate students for Fall 2012. The program trains students in Ecology, Evolution and Biometry. The following faculty are seeking graduate students: H. Resit Akcakaya http://life.bio.sunysb.edu/ee/akcakayalab/ Stephen B. Baines http://life.bio.sunysb.edu/ee/baineslab/ Michael A. Bell http://life.bio.sunysb.edu/ee/belllab/ Liliana M. Dávalos http://life.bio.sunysb.edu/ee/davaloslab/how2succeed.html Lev Ginzburg http://life.bio.sunysb.edu/ee/ginzburglab/ Catherine Graham http://life.bio.sunysb.edu/ee/grahamlab/ Jessica Gurevitch http://life.bio.sunysb.edu/gurevitchlab/ Heather Lynch http://lynchlab.wordpress.com/opportunities/ Dianna K. Padilla http://life.bio.sunysb.edu/ee/padillalab Joshua Rest http://life.bio.sunysb.edu/ee/restlab/ John Wiens http://life.bio.sunysb.edu/ee/wienslab/homepage.html For more information regarding the Graduate Program in Ecology and Evolution see http://life.bio.sunysb.edu/ee and http://life.bio.sunysb.edu/ee/programs.htm The deadline for receipt of all application materials for the PhD program is January 15, 2012 although earlier submission is encouraged to ensure full consideration for available fellowships. The deadline for receipt of all application materials for the master's program is April 15, 2012. For additional assistance, e-mail our Graduate Program Coordinator, Lee Stanley, astan...@notes.cc.sunysb.edu
[ECOLOG-L] NSF Webinar about new DEB solicitation - today
Division of Environmental Biology Core Solicitation Webinar hosted by program staff from DEB - September 12, 2011 1:45-3:00 Eastern time. Participants must register. See http://www.nsf.gov/events/event_summ.jsp?cntn_id=121479org=BIO for further details. This concerns the changes made for the next deadline, including requiring pre-proposals, and restrictions on the number of submissions. David W. Inouye Program Director Population and Community Ecology Cluster Division of Environmental Biology National Science Foundation 4201 Wilson Blvd, Suite 635 Arlington, VA 22230 Phone: 703.292.8570 Fax: 703.292.9064 E-mail: dino...@nsf.gov
Re: [ECOLOG-L] a non Ivory Tower view of invasive species
This is a troubling thread to me in far too many respects. I'll do my best to brief. I would argue that Mr. Cruzan misses a big point that WT points to. Species do expand their ranges, yes. BUT, they will only do so into conditions that favor them. Sure, speciation will create others. But, what constitutes a successful species? A species, within a group, that has the largest range and broadest niche breadth? If dispersal and random chance were the limiting factors in all species' distributions, then everything would be everywhere. How would we be able to show in say, NMDS analyses, that ph drives a species' occurrence at certain sites? How many species, in say, the plant kingdom, have shown to expand their ranges northward following the retreat of glaciers, while others languish in glacial refugium? I couldnt agree more with the statement of preserving natural processes and not systems. However, my understanding is that certain processes are in no way natural when they are impinged upon by species that have been introduced by man and cause immeasurable damage to trophic interactions within a normally coevolving system. I should be ashamed as Wisconsinite to not have to the quote tattooed on my hand, but Aldo Leopold's line about the first rule of intelligent tinkering is to keep all the parts. Sure, we've given up on Dandelions, and many others, but that's CERTAINLY no reason to just throw up our hands in invasives defeat. I wouldn't even begin to claim even remote knowledge of every invaded system, but surely we could and have set parameters on how to measure invasiveness. The idea of pre-settlement has changed. It's much less of a setting the clock back to a frontier state because we want big trees again, and more of an idea of trying to restore SOME SEMBLANCE of a region of working systems. Up here in the north, we clear cut EVERYTHING a hundred years ago. South of us, there's not much left for praries, but there's LOTS of corn and soybean farms. C'mon folks, lets be real here. The whole sciences of Conservation Biology, Resource Management and Forestry (to name a few) were spawned in hopes of devising ways of bringing back to some respectable state, that which we have destroyed and denuded (or nearly so). These sciences, as all science is designed to do, evolves. So are we okay with deforestation of Madagascar? Should we write off Hawaii and whats left of its endemic species? All this talk of letting nature take its course smacks too much of the god will provide idea in the Bible. Please correct me on or off list. Best- Eric Eric North All Things Wild Consulting P.O. Box 254 Cable, WI 54821 928.607.3098 Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2011 17:03:51 -0700 From: landr...@cox.net Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] a non Ivory Tower view of invasive species To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Ecolog: There is such a fundamental and pervasive misunderstanding of this point that to challenge the ecoillogical concept of pristine is broadly considered treasonous heresy. Freezing ecosystems in time has strong roots in the presumption that gardening and landscaping are related to ecology. I tried to make this point at a 1986 meeting (in Berkeley?) called Conservation and Management of Rare Endangered Plants. The reception ranged from chilly to freezing. One highly respected professor objected to my being permitted to speak at all. I no longer have an electronic copy (The Restoration of California: A Practical Guide), and I couldn't find one on the Internet, but I did find an old draft in my files. The book is available through bookfinder.com for fifteen bucks or so (one site has it for $240+!). Here's an excerpt, laboriously pecked out on my keyboard: What's wrong with landscaping? Nothing is really wrong with it, but it is only cosmetic. The trouble is, most people think that it is natural, just like Yosemite Valley, and don't recognize it for what it is--an artificial decoration on the land that happens to be constructed of living organisms. The fact that the plant assemblage does not function biologically [ecologically] is lost in the simple lust for the desired [sic] phantasy. It is simply not widely recognized, as Cruzan points out, that ecosystems are not static. Many biologists and not a few ecologists apparently believe that they are. Again, as Cruzan says, . . . we should focus on conserving natural processes, not entities. I might only add that where conditions that match an organism's requirements exist, the major problem will not be getting them to occupy such sites, but keeping them from occupying them, given the presence of viable propagules. But it would be the epitome of arrogance to declare that we know enough about ecosystems to prescribe what they should be--or, for that matter, what they were in the past. All we can do is to modify damaged sites to enable adapted (preferably indigenous) organisms to
[ECOLOG-L] growing oaks from acorns
Hello, I'd like to talk with someone who is expert at growing oaks from acorns. If you are that person or know of someone, my contact information is below, as are my interests and questions. Thanks, David I am interested in growing oaks from acorns collected from the heritage trees of Boise, Idaho. I refer to heritage trees as those trees of outstanding character and community value, usually of great age or beauty or serving as a landmark for sites of interest. My questions regard how best to propagate oaks from acorns. How do I know if an acorn is good or bad? Because it is green/brown, or floats/sinks when immersed in water? Is it better to overwinter acorns in a fridge/freezer in paper/plastic bags? Is it better to transplant them directly into potting/native/mixed soil? Better to plant in the fall or spring? In soil that is wet/dry/left to natural conditions? Should acorns be sprouted first in wet sawdust? Or other advice you think would be helpful. Thanks in advance from the future heritage oaks of Boise. -- *David L. Anderson**, Ph.D.* *Lecturer, Department of Biological Sciences* Boise State University 1910 University Drive Boise, ID 83725 208-426-3216 davidlander...@boisestate.edu
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Should ecological evaluation be a component of regular forest inventory?
Dear Colleagues, Few days ago I asked the following question on how to integrate ecological evaluation into the regular forest inventories. So far I have received some very helpful replies. However, all replies referred me to works done by US Forest Services or other US organizations. Does anyone have information on similar works conducted in a different country? Thank you very much! On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 7:18 PM, Larix Yang larix...@gmail.com wrote: Dear Colleagues, We recently had a heated debate with the forestry administration on whether ecological evaluation should be a component of regular forest inventory. Those who support the idea thought ecological evaluation could be easily integrated with the regular forest inventory and provided valuable information. Those who against the idea felt that the addition of ecological investigation would interfere with the main purpose of regular forest inventory, which is to monitor the growth of forests, and would add burdens to field workers. Currently in a pilot project the following factors were investigated along with the regular forest inventory: Forest ecological function index, which is a composite index calculated from timber volume, cover rate, average tree height, species composition and other factors; Forest health classes, which include four classes from unhealthy to health based on the growth of trees; Biodiversity indexes, which include diversity of forest types, diversity of species, diversity of age classes; Naturalness, which measures how close is the structure of the forest to the climax community in the region; Fragmentation index, which is represented as the number of forest patches. I want to hear your advices on the following issues: 1. Should ecological evaluation be included in regular forest inventories or should it be done in separate investigations? 2. If you believe that ecological evaluation should be included in regular inventories, which factors should be investigated? Any opinion on the current factors? 3. If you knows a good literature resource which has discussed this issue, please kindly share with us. Thank you very much for your help! Jun Yang, PhD Professor of Forestry Beijing Forestry University P.O.Box 47 No. 35 Qinghua Donglu Haidian District, Beijing 100083 China
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Flooding and stream geomorphology question from Vermont (response from Vermont resident)
Hi, I study (among other things) watersheds and rivers and flood policy, and I live in Vermont (and in fact was an evacuee) so perhaps I can offer some other thoughts on this. I fully agree with the points people are making that people should not have built in the way they did in floodplains, that people should not try to control nature, and also feel that most floods are as much anthropomorphic (due to watershed degradation, etc) as natural disasters. That being said, the Vermont flood situation is VERY different. Our state is one of the most (re)- forested in the nation, and while we have our share of ecological problems like anyone else, our watersheds are in really good shape. In particular, most Irene flooding came from the Green Mountains, where orographic factors caused the rain to be the heaviest, and the Greens are almost entirely forest (preserved areas and timberland that is for the most part well managed.) Impervious substrates, type conversion, and so many of the other problems facing the United States are not major problems in most of these watersheds that had flooding. With the possible exception of climate change (though we can't say for sure with one specific storm), this is not a human-caused flood. I come from southern California, where the river systems are very flashy: most are dry for the entire summer, except for a few spring-fed creeks... but in winter, massive wet storms can dump 20+ inches of rain in the mountains, causing immense floods. (California is also dealing with lots of watershed degradation as mentioned above). When I moved to Vermont I was amazed at the old infrastructure - mill buildings, homes, etc, that were literally hanging into rivers. These aren't new buildings that keep getting rebuilt - these are buildings over 100 years old that did not wash away (except, in some cases, last month). Why? Vermont's winters have a well-deserved reputation for being cold, snowy, and harsh, but the summers are very gentle here. The 11+ inches of rain we had in Irene was a state record and a freak event... whereas in southern California our family cabin in the San Bernardino mountains got over 20 inches of rain in 24 hours, and the damage during that event was much less than the damage caused by Irene. We certainly need to change our relationship with rivers. If Irene is a climate change related even and we are going to get more storms like this, we absolutely need to rebuild wisely, and far from the rivers. But it's important to see this for what it is - a freak event (or sign of change) that had very little precedent - the massive Vermont floods of the 1920s and 1930s were as much a response to deforestation as to rainfall. Someone mentioned that 'all of Vermont is in a flood plain' but that is not actually true. Very little of Vermont is in a flood plain, but almost all of Vermont is prone to flash floods. The only places safe from flash floods are the immense old glacial lakebeds (and in part flood plains) of the Champlain and Connecticut valleys. Surprisingly, the swamps, lowlands, and flood plains that fill up with water every spring did not have record floods during Irene, and the water in some of the mainstem rivers wasn't much higher than during the spring snowmelt. This was an upper watershed event, and as such, a lot more complicated than people building in a flood plain. That being said, we absolutely need to take this crisis as also a teaching point, and make changes. I wrote a bit about that in my blog and will provide a link rather than posting it here since it is a bit long, but check it out if you're interested: http://slowwatermovement.blogspot.com/2011/08/preparing-for-or-preventing-next.html Thanks! -Charlie Hohn Slowwatermovement.blogspot.com
Re: [ECOLOG-L] a non Ivory Tower view of invasive species
What is NATURAL? In environmental science no one talks about NATURAL. You have impaired, unimpaired, and degrees of impairment because that has a meaning. Natural is too nebulous and subjective. Malcolm McCallum On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 10:50 PM, Eric North xcs...@hotmail.com wrote: This is a troubling thread to me in far too many respects. I'll do my best to brief. I would argue that Mr. Cruzan misses a big point that WT points to. Species do expand their ranges, yes. BUT, they will only do so into conditions that favor them. Sure, speciation will create others. But, what constitutes a successful species? A species, within a group, that has the largest range and broadest niche breadth? If dispersal and random chance were the limiting factors in all species' distributions, then everything would be everywhere. How would we be able to show in say, NMDS analyses, that ph drives a species' occurrence at certain sites? How many species, in say, the plant kingdom, have shown to expand their ranges northward following the retreat of glaciers, while others languish in glacial refugium? I couldnt agree more with the statement of preserving natural processes and not systems. However, my understanding is that certain processes are in no way natural when they are impinged upon by species that have been introduced by man and cause immeasurable damage to trophic interactions within a normally coevolving system. I should be ashamed as Wisconsinite to not have to the quote tattooed on my hand, but Aldo Leopold's line about the first rule of intelligent tinkering is to keep all the parts. Sure, we've given up on Dandelions, and many others, but that's CERTAINLY no reason to just throw up our hands in invasives defeat. I wouldn't even begin to claim even remote knowledge of every invaded system, but surely we could and have set parameters on how to measure invasiveness. The idea of pre-settlement has changed. It's much less of a setting the clock back to a frontier state because we want big trees again, and more of an idea of trying to restore SOME SEMB! LANCE of a region of working systems. Up here in the north, we clear cut EVERYTHING a hundred years ago. South of us, there's not much left for praries, but there's LOTS of corn and soybean farms. C'mon folks, lets be real here. The whole sciences of Conservation Biology, Resource Management and Forestry (to name a few) were spawned in hopes of devising ways of bringing back to some respectable state, that which we have destroyed and denuded (or nearly so). These sciences, as all science is designed to do, evolves. So are we okay with deforestation of Madagascar? Should we write off Hawaii and whats left of its endemic species? All this talk of letting nature take its course smacks too much of the god will provide idea in the Bible. Please correct me on or off list. Best- Eric Eric North All Things Wild Consulting P.O. Box 254 Cable, WI 54821 928.607.3098 Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2011 17:03:51 -0700 From: landr...@cox.net Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] a non Ivory Tower view of invasive species To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Ecolog: There is such a fundamental and pervasive misunderstanding of this point that to challenge the ecoillogical concept of pristine is broadly considered treasonous heresy. Freezing ecosystems in time has strong roots in the presumption that gardening and landscaping are related to ecology. I tried to make this point at a 1986 meeting (in Berkeley?) called Conservation and Management of Rare Endangered Plants. The reception ranged from chilly to freezing. One highly respected professor objected to my being permitted to speak at all. I no longer have an electronic copy (The Restoration of California: A Practical Guide), and I couldn't find one on the Internet, but I did find an old draft in my files. The book is available through bookfinder.com for fifteen bucks or so (one site has it for $240+!). Here's an excerpt, laboriously pecked out on my keyboard: What's wrong with landscaping? Nothing is really wrong with it, but it is only cosmetic. The trouble is, most people ! think that it is natural, just like Yosemite Valley, and don't recognize it for what it is--an artificial decoration on the land that happens to be constructed of living organisms. The fact that the plant assemblage does not function biologically [ecologically] is lost in the simple lust for the desired [sic] phantasy. It is simply not widely recognized, as Cruzan points out, that ecosystems are not static. Many biologists and not a few ecologists apparently believe that they are. Again, as Cruzan says, . . . we should focus on conserving natural processes, not entities. I might only add that where conditions that match an organism's requirements exist, the major problem will not be getting them to occupy such sites, but keeping them from occupying them, given
Re: [ECOLOG-L] a non Ivory Tower view of invasive species
To be honest, the whole 'invasive species management backlash' logic being used sounds a little too similar to global warming denialism. What I've heard people say: 'nature will work it out in the end' (maybe, but in the mean time we have ecosystem crashes!' 'if we caused the problem how can we be trusted to solve it' 'we need better science/more proof before we do anything' etc. It's a valid point that we need to avoid mixing 'non-native' with 'invasive'. But, invasive species are a very well-documented phenomena, as are the ill ecosystem effects they cause. What is 'natural' is irrelevant. We value biodiversity, we value healthy forests, we value plants that keep the hillside from sliding down and killing us in our sleep. It is in our best interest to preserve complex ecosystems and try to keep them from 'crashing' to a simple, ruderal based, non-productive system that provides much less values to us as humans. On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 11:26 AM, malcolm McCallum malcolm.mccal...@herpconbio.org wrote: What is NATURAL? In environmental science no one talks about NATURAL. You have impaired, unimpaired, and degrees of impairment because that has a meaning. Natural is too nebulous and subjective. Malcolm McCallum On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 10:50 PM, Eric North xcs...@hotmail.com wrote: This is a troubling thread to me in far too many respects. I'll do my best to brief. I would argue that Mr. Cruzan misses a big point that WT points to. Species do expand their ranges, yes. BUT, they will only do so into conditions that favor them. Sure, speciation will create others. But, what constitutes a successful species? A species, within a group, that has the largest range and broadest niche breadth? If dispersal and random chance were the limiting factors in all species' distributions, then everything would be everywhere. How would we be able to show in say, NMDS analyses, that ph drives a species' occurrence at certain sites? How many species, in say, the plant kingdom, have shown to expand their ranges northward following the retreat of glaciers, while others languish in glacial refugium? I couldnt agree more with the statement of preserving natural processes and not systems. However, my understanding is that certain processes are in no way natural when they are impinged upon by species that have been introduced by man and cause immeasurable damage to trophic interactions within a normally coevolving system. I should be ashamed as Wisconsinite to not have to the quote tattooed on my hand, but Aldo Leopold's line about the first rule of intelligent tinkering is to keep all the parts. Sure, we've given up on Dandelions, and many others, but that's CERTAINLY no reason to just throw up our hands in invasives defeat. I wouldn't even begin to claim even remote knowledge of every invaded system, but surely we could and have set parameters on how to measure invasiveness. The idea of pre-settlement has changed. It's much less of a setting the clock back to a frontier state because we want big trees again, and more of an idea of trying to restore SOME SEMB! LANCE of a region of working systems. Up here in the north, we clear cut EVERYTHING a hundred years ago. South of us, there's not much left for praries, but there's LOTS of corn and soybean farms. C'mon folks, lets be real here. The whole sciences of Conservation Biology, Resource Management and Forestry (to name a few) were spawned in hopes of devising ways of bringing back to some respectable state, that which we have destroyed and denuded (or nearly so). These sciences, as all science is designed to do, evolves. So are we okay with deforestation of Madagascar? Should we write off Hawaii and whats left of its endemic species? All this talk of letting nature take its course smacks too much of the god will provide idea in the Bible. Please correct me on or off list. Best- Eric Eric North All Things Wild Consulting P.O. Box 254 Cable, WI 54821 928.607.3098 Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2011 17:03:51 -0700 From: landr...@cox.net Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] a non Ivory Tower view of invasive species To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Ecolog: There is such a fundamental and pervasive misunderstanding of this point that to challenge the ecoillogical concept of pristine is broadly considered treasonous heresy. Freezing ecosystems in time has strong roots in the presumption that gardening and landscaping are related to ecology. I tried to make this point at a 1986 meeting (in Berkeley?) called Conservation and Management of Rare Endangered Plants. The reception ranged from chilly to freezing. One highly respected professor objected to my being permitted to speak at all. I no longer have an electronic copy (The Restoration of California: A Practical Guide), and I couldn't find one on the Internet, but I did find an old draft in my files. The book is available through
[ECOLOG-L] Old Cummins stream macroinvertebrate key booklet?
Does anyone have a pdf, or a copy, of the old stream macroinvertebrate identification key for students by Ken Cummins? It was a small black and white booklet. Can anyone recommend a new simple key to stream macroinvertebrates suitable for high school students? -- Sincerely, David F. Raikow da...@raikow.com www.davidraikow.com
Re: [ECOLOG-L] a non Ivory Tower view of invasive species
Warren (and others), how might the juniper invasion on Steen's Mountain (or other invasions of indigenous species, particularly dominant, long-lived indicators) fit into this discussion? WT - Original Message - From: Warren W. Aney a...@coho.net To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2011 9:08 PM Subject: 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 a...@coho.net 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 mcnee...@cox.net Matt Chew anek...@gmail.com 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/
[ECOLOG-L] Woody plant identification workshop @ LSU
The Louisiana State University Herbarium is offering a woody plant identification workshop on October 10-12, 2011. It will consist of a field study of native and exotic trees, shrubs, and vines of wetland and upland habitats. Prior experience in plant taxonomy or botany is not a requirement. More information is available at http://www.herbarium.lsu.edu/keys/ -- Timothy M. Jones Life Science Annex Building, Room A257 Louisiana State University Baton Rouge, LA 70803 Website - http://www.herbarium.lsu.edu/keys/
[ECOLOG-L] Environmental Chemistry Textbook (undergrad)?
Hello All: I am looking for an Environmental Chemistry textbook to use for undergraduate Environmental Science majors. Typically, students are sophomores and have a limited background in chemistry- only 1 semester of general chemistry prior to taking the course. I'd like recommendations for textbooks that have been updated in the last 1- 4 years. Specifically, I am looking for a book that is at the appropriate level of detail for students that have a good environmental background but are NOT chemistry majors. Please let me know if you have some suggestions. Thanks in advance! Farrah Fatemi, Ph.D. Post-doctoral Fellow Department of Geography The Environment Mendel Hall G61E Villanova University 800 Lancaster Ave, Villanova 19085 Phone: 610-519-3590 Email: farrah.fat...@villanova.edu
Re: [ECOLOG-L] a non Ivory Tower view of invasive species
Wayne, as I understand the situation western junipers in the northern Great Basin are a native species once managed by naturally recurring wildfires. Fire control has allowed this species to increase in density and occurrence, dominating landscapes where it was once only spotty and localized. I'm sure there are other instances where human intervention has resulted in unintentional changes to native species mixes and relationships. In this case, junipers are not really invasive on a landscape scale since they were long time natives -- maybe intrusive would be a better descriptor. Warren W. Aney. -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of Wayne Tyson Sent: 12 September, 2011 06:41 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] a non Ivory Tower view of invasive species Warren (and others), how might the juniper invasion on Steen's Mountain (or other invasions of indigenous species, particularly dominant, long-lived indicators) fit into this discussion? WT - Original Message - From: Warren W. Aney a...@coho.net To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2011 9:08 PM Subject: 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 a...@coho.net 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 mcnee...@cox.net Matt Chew anek...@gmail.com 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
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 evidence, including speculation with a sound theoretical foundation. WT PS: I'd like to see some conclusive evidence that, in the long-term, exclusion of livestock from cheatgrass areas would not result in reduced cheatgrass populations. The restoration process could be speeded up by planting colonies of indigenous grasses and perhaps other species (as propagule-generators and for site heterogeneity) consistent with comparable sites without heavy cheatgrass populations. - Original Message - From: Charlie Hohn To: Wayne Tyson Cc: ECOLOG-L@listserv.umd.edu Sent: Monday, September 12, 2011 10:06 AM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] a non Ivory Tower view of invasive species Native invasives are an important thing to acknowledge, because again the issue is not where plants are native to, but if they are invasive. Native invasives are necessarily behaving in this way due to changes in their environment (I think in the juniper's case it has to do with grazing, right?)... and in these cases - as well as with many non-native invasives, it makes sense to deal with the problem by addressing the changes in the environment (adopt better grazing practices, fire management practices, or whatever the case may be). However, I do think there are some invasive organisms that would be a problem even WITHOUT all these other human disturbances (for instance, cheatgrass)... that invade undisturbed areas and 'crash' ecosystems without being caused by environmental changes. I think that is the main reason to differentiate native invasives from introduced ones. On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 9:41 AM, Wayne Tyson landr...@cox.net
[ECOLOG-L] Correction: Undergraduate Field Ecology and Environmental Science Programs though Notre Dame-Summer 2012
Please note correction to dates for UNDERC-East from previous post (8/9/2011). The University of Notre Dame Environmental Research Center (UNDERC) offers two Field Ecology and Environmental Science Programs for the summer of 2012 Hands on field work … Paid tuition and housing… 6 credits/summer…and get paid $2,500/summer!! Applications due November 4th! UNDERC-East: (May 21 – July 27) Spend the summer studying northwoods ecology and conducting your own research in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula where UNDERC encompasses more than 7500 acres with abundant wildlife (including wolves, black bear, deer) and includes lakes, streams, wetlands, and forests that have been protected for nearly a century. UNDERC-West: (June 1 – August 10): Spend the summer studying the ecology of an intermountain valley in Montana, learn how Native Americans lived and how this created their environmental awareness, and conduct your own research. Explore more than a million acres on the Flathead Reservation with abundant wildlife (including bison, elk, mountain lion, and grizzly bear) and includes grasslands, montane forests, streams and lakes. (Pre-requisite - UNDERC-East). These programs promote understanding of field environmental biology and how field research is conducted through 9 – 10 weeks in the wild. Applications are accepted from students who will be completing at least their sophomore year at a 4-year college or university. Acceptance is based on past academic performance and a statement of purpose. Preference is given to students pursuing a career in environmental sciences. Additional information and applications are available online (http://underc.nd.edu) or from Dr. Michael Cramer, UNDERC-East Assistant Director (mcra...@nd.edu) or Dr. Page Klug, UNDERC-West Assistant Director (pk...@nd.edu). Application deadline is Friday, November 4, 2011 and notification of acceptance will be provided by Friday, December 2, 2011.
[ECOLOG-L] Global Change Ecology Assistant Professor, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
The School of Integrative Biology and the School of Earth, Society, and Environment at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, seek an outstanding ecologist who studies biogeochemical cycles at landscape to global scales using observational, experimental, theoretical and/or modeling techniques. Candidates must have a Ph.D. or equivalent in a relevant field. Post-doctoral experience is highly desirable. The successful candidate will be expected to develop an externally funded research program, teach at undergraduate and graduate levels, and collaborate with faculty to develop research initiatives in global change ecology and earth system science. The University of Illinois is a public university with more than 40,000 students and provides a highly collaborative and supportive academic environment, with opportunities for interactions with the Program in Ecology, Evolution, and Conservation Biology; the Center for Water as a Complex Environmental System; the Energy Bioscience Institute; the Institute for Genomic Biology; the National Center for Supercomputer Applications; the Beckman Institute; the Center for Transformative Climate Solutions, and the Illinois State Natural History, Geological, and Water Surveys. Urbana-Champaign, located 120 miles south of Chicago, is home to a diverse ethnic population, and provides superb public and private schools, a variety of cultural opportunities, quality public transportation, and a rapidly expanding community of high-tech businesses. The appointment is for a full-time tenure-track Assistant Professor. The target start date is August 16, 2012. Salary is commensurate with experience. To ensure full consideration, please create your candidate profile through http://go.illinois.edu/GCEAsstProf and upload your application letter, curriculum vitae, summary of research and plans, teaching philosophy and experience, and contact information for three professional references by October 21, 2011. Referees will be contacted electronically upon the submission of the application. Applicants may be interviewed before the closing date; however, no hiring decision will be made until after that date. For further information contact Global Change Ecology Search Chair, s...@life.illinois.edu. Illinois is an Affirmative Action /Equal Opportunity Employer and welcomes individuals with diverse backgrounds, experiences, and ideas who embrace and value diversity and inclusivity. (www.inclusiveillinois.illinois.edu).
[ECOLOG-L] Environmental Studies Online Corodinator / GIS Instructor
ONLINE PROGRAM COORDINATOR / GIS INSTRUCTOR Department of Environmental Studies, in the College of Public Affairs and Administration, seeks applications for a full time Online Program Coordinator with expertise in geographic information systems (GIS). The Online Program Coordinator serves as the primary academic resource for online/blended students, maintain contact, assessing retention and recruitment strategies, and ensuring students' academic progress. This position is central to student support, and focuses on the efficient, responsive, and effective coordination and management of recruitment, student advocacy, service referral, enrollment and retention, and advising support. The Online Program Coordinator will also contribute to departmental course offerings by teaching an introductory course on GIS and other courses in her/his area of expertise. The teaching load will include both online and on-campus courses. The University of Illinois at Springfield serves over 5,000 students in more than 40 undergraduate and graduate programs, with an emphasis on liberal arts and professional programs. The 12-month salary will be $40,000, and the anticipated start date for this position is approximately 1 December 2011. To apply, send a letter of application addressing qualifications, resume or vita, undergraduate and graduate transcripts (unofficial acceptable), and contact information of three professional references Online Coordinator Search Committee, Department of Environmental Studies, University of Illinois at Springfield, One University Plaza, PAC 308, Springfield, Illinois 62703. Review of applications will begin 3 October 2011, and will continue until the position is filled or the search is terminated. Read the complete position announcement online at uis.edu/ens. UIS is an affirmative action/equal opportunity employer with a strong institutional commitment to recruitment and retention of a diverse and inclusive campus community. Persons with disabilities, women, and minorities are encouraged to apply. Dennis R. Ruez, Jr. Assistant Professor and Chair Department of Environmental Studies One University Plaza, PAC 308 University of Illinois at Springfield Springfield, Illinois 62703-5407 http://uis.edu/enshttp://www.uis.edu/environmentalstudies P Think Green before printing this e-mail
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Flooding and stream geomorphology question from Vermont (response from Vermont resident)
Charlie and All: From Charlie's blog: Re: Manage for Healthy Forests While dealing with the current flood, there has been reference to older floods, like theNew England Flood of 1927 . That flood dropped similar amounts of rain to Irene but in many cases had much higher water flow. Why? Part of the reason may be that in 1927 the forests of Vermont were still recovering from clear cutting and hillside farming in the 1800s, and there was much less mature forest at that time than the current day. Our forests have recovered since then, which helped keep Irene's floods from being even worse. [end excerpt] Why? I have zero specific knowledge of Vermont, but know a little bit about the Southern California watersheds and flood of which Hohn speaks. The principles, however, are the same. I used to demonstrate with a bunch of kitchen sponges and a big cookie-sheet. Watersheds absorb a fraction of the precipitation, and when one takes away that absorptive capacity, the runoff (Q) increases, creating a spikey hydrograph. The first kind of absorption is interception; an enormous amount of water can be held under tension on the surfaces of terrestrial features, and trees and other vegetation hold the most. Free water flow rates are reduced by stemflow, and the infiltration rate of undisturbed soil is much greater than disturbed soil; in disturbed soil, smaller particles clog soil pores much as Stop Leak used to stop radiators from leaking (percolating). That fraction runs off, causing erosion (more disturbance and creation of silt loads, which compromise stream/drainage capacity. Logging reduces the amount of water that can be held under tension and the metering effects of stemflow. Clearcutting compounds this phenomenon, both by removing the surface area for a fraction of the precipitation that can be held under tension, and by reducing the infiltration and percolation capacity through equipment disturbance. (This is not an argument for or against logging; it is only a statement of facts that interpreted as such by special interests who fear the facts will gore their particular ox.) Urbanization tends to seal the watershed even more, including highways, roofs, irrigated agriculture and gardens, etc. I'll stop here and possibly comment further on Charlie's blog. WT PS: I do not blame Vermonters for their suffering; most no doubt were completely unaware of the hazard potential. If any flood was unexpected with justification, this one, unlike the Mississippi and other well-known flood plains and riverbottoms. - Original Message - From: Charlie Hohn naturalist.char...@gmail.com To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Monday, September 12, 2011 8:20 AM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Flooding and stream geomorphology question from Vermont (response from Vermont resident) Hi, I study (among other things) watersheds and rivers and flood policy, and I live in Vermont (and in fact was an evacuee) so perhaps I can offer some other thoughts on this. I fully agree with the points people are making that people should not have built in the way they did in floodplains, that people should not try to control nature, and also feel that most floods are as much anthropomorphic (due to watershed degradation, etc) as natural disasters. That being said, the Vermont flood situation is VERY different. Our state is one of the most (re)- forested in the nation, and while we have our share of ecological problems like anyone else, our watersheds are in really good shape. In particular, most Irene flooding came from the Green Mountains, where orographic factors caused the rain to be the heaviest, and the Greens are almost entirely forest (preserved areas and timberland that is for the most part well managed.) Impervious substrates, type conversion, and so many of the other problems facing the United States are not major problems in most of these watersheds that had flooding. With the possible exception of climate change (though we can't say for sure with one specific storm), this is not a human-caused flood. I come from southern California, where the river systems are very flashy: most are dry for the entire summer, except for a few spring-fed creeks... but in winter, massive wet storms can dump 20+ inches of rain in the mountains, causing immense floods. (California is also dealing with lots of watershed degradation as mentioned above). When I moved to Vermont I was amazed at the old infrastructure - mill buildings, homes, etc, that were literally hanging into rivers. These aren't new buildings that keep getting rebuilt - these are buildings over 100 years old that did not wash away (except, in some cases, last month). Why? Vermont's winters have a well-deserved reputation for being cold, snowy, and harsh, but the summers are very gentle here. The 11+ inches of rain we had in Irene was a state
[ECOLOG-L] Postdoc: Quantitative Modeling of Pollinator Populations
JOB DESCRIPTION JOB TITLE: Post-doctoral Associate, Quantitative Modeling of Pollinator Populations DEPARTMENT: Environmental Sciences, Policy and Management, UC-Berkeley REPORTS TO: Professor Claire Kremen GENERAL SUMMARY The Department of Environmental Science, Policy, Management at the University of California-Berkeley seeks a quantitative population or community ecologist for a two to four year post-doctoral position to work on how native plant hedgerows in intensive agricultural regions may influence the occupancy dynamics, community assembly and functional properties of pollinator communities. The post-doctoral associate will analyze existing datasets (4+ years of data over 20 sites), select new sites to expand the project, supervise the field team, and assist as needed in collection of field data on pollinator communities and habitat attributes. The post-doc will be supervised by PI Prof. Claire Kremen. This research will elucidate how re-diversification of intensive monoculture landscapes may influence pollinator conservation and pollination function/services. Required Knowledge and Experience: * Significant experience conducting multi-season occupancy analysis and/or spatial capture-recapture models, or other relevant experience * Quantitative statistics background, especially with model selection and multimodel inference using Maximum Likelihood or Bayesian estimation * Experience managing/analyzing large datasets * Adept at statistical programming in R and/or WinBUGS * General background in ecology and experience conducting ecological field work Desirable Additional Experience * Experience in entomology or bee/pollinator biology * Development of null models for community assembly analyses * Geographic Information Systems, espescially ArcGIS Additional Responsibilities * Supervision of field team and data entry/processing * Disseminate results at scientific professional conferences and in peer-reviewed literature * Report writing * Grant proposal development, as needed Salary: Salary is commensurate with experience (starting salary is $38,496 per year). This position is eligible for benefits. Timing and duration: The position is available beginning January, 2012 (possible earlier start date may be negotiable) and is fully-funded for four years. A two-year commitment is requested. Location: Berkeley, CA Please submit PDFs of a CV, a brief cover letter highlighting your relevant experience, interests and career goals, and names and contacts of 3 references by email to mailto:qepost...@gmail.comqepost...@gmail.com no later than Oct 7, 2011. Applicants should have a recent PhD degree. Applications may be reviewed as they are received. For further information about the project please contact Dr. Claire Kremen directly at mailto:ckre...@berkeley.educkre...@berkeley.edu. The University of California is an Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer committed to excellence through diversity. Applicants should ask referees to review the UC Berkeley Statement of Confidentiality found at http://apo.chance.berkeley.edu/evalltr.htmlhttp://apo.chance.berkeley.edu/evalltr.html.
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 evidence, including speculation with a sound theoretical foundation. WT PS: I'd like to see some conclusive evidence that, in the long-term, exclusion of livestock from
Re: [ECOLOG-L] response to ECOLOG thread Re: a non Ivory Tower view of invasive species
Ecolog: At Krista's request, I am posting her comments herewith. For the most part, I tend to agree with her while disagreeing with her, but will not comment further on those points--much. I especially agree that the discussion has wandered off into the intellectual weeds, but I also am willing to weed out the wheat from the chaff. As an invader myself, I don't pull out easily, and share her desire for clarity, even though I probably have been guilty of creating much of the fog myself. Perhaps the best way to begin to disentangle the discussion is to ask one question or make one statement at a time, and a very specific one at that. WT We must disenthrall ourselves. --Abraham Lincoln Krista: If you are subscribed, just address ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU - Original Message - From: Krista Lindley lindley.kri...@gmail.com To: landr...@cox.net Sent: Monday, September 12, 2011 2:25 PM Subject: response to ECOLOG thread Re: a non Ivory Tower view of invasive species Wayne, Either my computer will not allow me to post to this thread (first time poster) or I'm experiencing a user error : ) Would you be willing to post this on my behalf or email me brief instructions for posting? Thanks in advance, Krista Lindley As a student currently in search of a graduate program in which to study invasion ecology, I am also troubled to see some of the rhetoric espoused in this comment stream. Thank you to those in this stream who have not yet given up. Don’t get me wrong, I understand and acknowledge there are terms commonly used in the field of invasion ecology that could be better defined (i.e. native, natural, exotic, invasive, etc). Still, I can’t help but feel we are getting lost in a discussion of semantics. This aversion to certain terms is dismissive of years of hard work and worthwhile research conducted by our colleagues beginning decades ago. Before we rush to the conclusion that we’re arrogant in our attempts to conserve diversity and ecosystem functions, or that invasive species management is futile, or resign to the idea that we don’t even know what we mean by “nature” and therefore everything else is moot, remember, we do know a thing or two about what is happening in ecosystems. Indeed there are interesting philosophical discussions to be had about the implications of science, but let’s be careful not to belittle the science in doing so. The idea that invasive species management is blindly “gardening” on landscape level merits discussion. Still, this idea is overly simplistic and pays little respect to invasion ecologists. The parallel to climate change is a good one; while we haven’t yet worked out all the kinks we know the climate is changing and can anticipate widespread negative effects (on food webs, nutrient cycling, economies, etc.) based on the interpretation of scientific data, not linguistics. Yes, communities are dynamic, may have multiple stable states, and may be constantly in flux. Still, it’s hard to tell yourself that when you’re standing waist deep in a vast monoculture of an exotic perennial plant that has colonized that space following wild boar disturbance event. As a kid I often thought about the weeds growing in the cracks of the pavement and was filled with admiration for the plant; “You made it against all odds!” Now, as a budding ecologist, I cannot imagine ever being able to simply accept the net global loss of species due to this phenomenon. Let’s not lose focus of what we already know about the overwhelmingly negative effects of invasive (distinct from “exotic”) species in introduced areas. We’re not just talking about species shuffling around the globe; we’re talking about a massive loss of species for good. Maybe one of the biggest advantages afforded to invasives is the time we provide them while we sit in our offices debating the words in which to describe what is obvious. Not discouraged, Krista Lindley Sonoma State University Alum - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1392 / Virus Database: 1520/3892 - Release Date: 09/12/11
[ECOLOG-L] FW: Adjunct professorships, Johns Hopkins University
We are currently seeking to add several adjunct professors to the teaching pool of our program, especially, but not exclusively, on the energy side of the equation. We are looking for instructors to teach in both our on the ground program at the Hopkins Washington DC Center, as well as in a new distance learning component of the program that we contemplate launching in the summer. We offer courses in fall, spring and summer terms. Prior teaching experience is required, as well as evaluations from past courses. In the case of distance learning applicants, teaching experience in this context is highly desirable. I would encourage prospective applicants to peruse our course offerings initially to see if you are qualified to teach any of these courses; however, we are not precluding new course offerings either. Applicants should submit the following to my attention via email: 1. Cover letter 2. CV 3. Teaching evaluations 4. In cases where you are proposing a new course, a description of the proposed course and how you think it would fit into our curriculum. Of course, I am also always available to discuss the program with any prospective students or professors with students that might be interested in joining us! Thanks, wil Dr. Wil Burns, Associate Director Master of Science - Energy Policy Climate Program Johns Hopkins University 1717 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Room 104J Washington, DC 20036 202.663.5976 (Office phone) 650.281.9126 (Mobile) wbu...@jhu.edu http://advanced.jhu.edu/academic/environmental/master-of-science-in-energy-p olicy-and-climate/ SSRN site (selected publications): http://ssrn.com/author=240348 Skype ID: Wil.Burns Teaching Climate/Energy Law Policy Blog: http://www.teachingclimatelaw.org http://www.teachingclimatelaw.org/
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Ecology in Korea
Eco-Logers, Hi all. I want to thank David for bringing attention to an ecologically important but often ignored (at least by ecologists) region of the planet. I have been working as a science adviser to Birds Korea, an organization dedicated to avian conservation on the Korean peninsula and Yellow Sea ecoregion. In the past decade I have witnessed an astonishing loss of biodiverse habitats on Korean peninsula. This includes vast reclamation of tidal flat and coastal wetlands including the recently completed 33km long Saemangeum seawall that reclaimed over 30,000 ha of intertidal wetlands (not far from the previously mentioned National Ecological Institute; also see http://www.birdskorea.org/Habitats/Wetlands/Saemangeum/BK-HA-Saemangeum.shtml). Reclamation of intertidal wetlands continues at remarkable pace with major reclamation taking place at several sites across the country including at Song Do where a new International Business District (http://www.songdo.com/songdo-international-business-district/why-songdo/sustainable-city.aspx) is being developed on top of critical habitat for a number of endangered species and yet is being advertised as a sustainable development. Several North American Universities are currently being courted to house an international campus on this site (for a complete list http://saveinternational.org/saveinaction/song-do-tidal-flats/). Away from the coast the Four River's Project will detrimentally impact South Korea's 4 major river systems and result in the construction of 30 new dams, the dredging of over 400 miles of river, and an additional 200+ miles of concrete lining along the four rivers and their tributaries (http://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2188). I hope that the development of this new National Ecological Institute is a sign that perhaps the tide is turning on environmental protection and conservation in the region and not just another green smokescreen by the ROK Ministry of the Environment. I hope for the aforementioned but tend to believe the latter. I hope that I am proven wrong and that this new institute will draw researchers from around the world and will bolster environmental and ecological sciences within ROK. I look forward to more updates on the development of the National Ecological Institute. If anyone has more info please pass it along. Cheers, Tyler L Hicks PhD Student Washington State University - Vancouver E-mail: tyler_hi...@wsu.edu Website: www.thingswithwings.org Back off man, I'm a scientist! - Bill Murray, Ghostbusters Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2011 22:07:00 -0400 From: ino...@umd.edu Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Ecology in Korea To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU I made a trip to Korea earlier this month to talk at a symposium organized by the National Ecological Institute, which was created recently by the Ministry of Environment. The NEI has started construction on a 100ha $330 million facility near Seocheon, about a 3-hr bus ride south of Seoul. We took a field trip to the site, where a large number of research greenhouses are finished, and work is proceeding on an ecology education center, a guest house for 300, an ecosystem exhibit area (somewhat reminiscent of Biosphere II), an endangered species research center (5,200 m2), and an ecology research center (8,400 m2) (some architectural information at http://architecture-now2.blogspot.com/2010/04/ecorium-project-of-national-ecological.htmlhttp://architecture-now2.blogspot.com/2010/04/ecorium-project-of-national-ecological.html). There's an adjacent reservoir and wetland area for research use, an agricultural garden area, and a variety of plantings of types of forest representative of Korean ecosystems. They intend to hire a staff of 300, largely ecologists, and plan an inaugural symposium for late 2012. NEI head is Dr. Chang-seok Lee, a restoration ecologist and formerly a faculty member at a university in Seoul. There will be an inaugural conference in late 2012, when the facility is expected to open. David Dr. David W. Inouye, Professor Dept. of Biology University of Maryland College Park, MD 20742-4415 Rocky Mtn. Biological Laboratory PO Box 519 Crested Butte, CO 81224 ino...@umd.edu 301-405-6946
Re: [ECOLOG-L] a non Ivory Tower view of invasive species
I take issue with the statement that no one in Environmental Science talks about ANY one thing. That is a generalization and we, as scientists particularly in todays' political climate, know how damaging and at the same time demeaning generalizations can be. As stated before, the meaning we give to natural is a moot point. Maybe it makes more sense in the context of returning a system to a more natural state. In that context, as it is often used and as well pertains to the degrees of impairment idea mentioned, a natural state happens when the major system processes are those we would expect if fully controlled by nature in the said system. The corollary would be an anthropogenic view where man moves everything around everywhere and the resulting species assemblages are what they are. I had no idea there was so much discourse among us where invasive species were concerned. I remember having these philosophical discussions in my head 15 years ago as an undergrad, but very quickly came to terms with the realities of modern day conservation. Maybe I was just lucky to read lots and lots of Leopold... eric Eric North All Things Wild Consulting P.O. Box 254 Cable, WI 54821 928.607.3098 Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2011 10:26:54 -0500 Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] a non Ivory Tower view of invasive species From: malcolm.mccal...@herpconbio.org To: xcs...@hotmail.com CC: ECOLOG-L@listserv.umd.edu What is NATURAL? In environmental science no one talks about NATURAL. You have impaired, unimpaired, and degrees of impairment because that has a meaning. Natural is too nebulous and subjective. Malcolm McCallum On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 10:50 PM, Eric North xcs...@hotmail.com wrote: This is a troubling thread to me in far too many respects. I'll do my best to brief. I would argue that Mr. Cruzan misses a big point that WT points to. Species do expand their ranges, yes. BUT, they will only do so into conditions that favor them. Sure, speciation will create others. But, what constitutes a successful species? A species, within a group, that has the largest range and broadest niche breadth? If dispersal and random chance were the limiting factors in all species' distributions, then everything would be everywhere. How would we be able to show in say, NMDS analyses, that ph drives a species' occurrence at certain sites? How many species, in say, the plant kingdom, have shown to expand their ranges northward following the retreat of glaciers, while others languish in glacial refugium? I couldnt agree more with the statement of preserving natural processes and not systems. However, my understanding is that certain processes are in no way natural when they are impinged upon by species that have been introduced by man and cause immeasurable damage to trophic interactions within a normally coevolving system. I should be ashamed as Wisconsinite to not have to the quote tattooed on my hand, but Aldo Leopold's line about the first rule of intelligent tinkering is to keep all the parts. Sure, we've given up on Dandelions, and many others, but that's CERTAINLY no reason to just throw up our hands in invasives defeat. I wouldn't even begin to claim even remote knowledge of every invaded system, but surely we could and have set parameters on how to measure invasiveness. The idea of pre-settlement has changed. It's much less of a setting the clock back to a frontier state because we want big trees again, and more of an idea of trying to restore SOME SEMBLANCE of a region of working systems. Up here in the north, we clear cut EVERYTHING a hundred years ago. South of us, there's not much left for praries, but there's LOTS of corn and soybean farms. C'mon folks, lets be real here. The whole sciences of Conservation Biology, Resource Management and Forestry (to name a few) were spawned in hopes of devising ways of bringing back to some respectable state, that which we have destroyed and denuded (or nearly so). These sciences, as all science is designed to do, evolves. So are we okay with deforestation of Madagascar? Should we write off Hawaii and whats left of its endemic species? All this talk of letting nature take its course smacks too much of the god will provide idea in the Bible. Please correct me on or off list. Best- Eric Eric North All Things Wild Consulting P.O. Box 254 Cable, WI 54821 928.607.3098 Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2011 17:03:51 -0700 From: landr...@cox.net Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] a non Ivory Tower view of invasive species To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Ecolog: There is such a fundamental and pervasive misunderstanding of this point that to challenge the ecoillogical concept of pristine is broadly considered treasonous heresy. Freezing ecosystems in time has strong roots in the presumption that gardening and landscaping are related to
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 a...@coho.net To: 'Wayne Tyson' landr...@cox.net; ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU 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 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
Re: [ECOLOG-L] a non Ivory Tower view of invasive species
Native invasives are an important thing to acknowledge, because again the issue is not where plants are native to, but if they are invasive. Native invasives are necessarily behaving in this way due to changes in their environment (I think in the juniper's case it has to do with grazing, right?)... and in these cases - as well as with many non-native invasives, it makes sense to deal with the problem by addressing the changes in the environment (adopt better grazing practices, fire management practices, or whatever the case may be). However, I do think there are some invasive organisms that would be a problem even WITHOUT all these other human disturbances (for instance, cheatgrass)... that invade undisturbed areas and 'crash' ecosystems without being caused by environmental changes. I think that is the main reason to differentiate native invasives from introduced ones. On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 9:41 AM, Wayne Tyson landr...@cox.net wrote: Warren (and others), how might the juniper invasion on Steen's Mountain (or other invasions of indigenous species, particularly dominant, long-lived indicators) fit into this discussion? WT - Original Message - From: Warren W. Aney a...@coho.net To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2011 9:08 PM Subject: 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 a...@coho.net 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:ecolo...@listserv.umd.**EDU 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 mcnee...@cox.net Matt Chew anek...@gmail.com wrote: We can compose effectively endless lists of cases
