Re: [ECOLOG-L] Tree stump removal in sensitive area
Ecolog: I know I won't convince Me that while public safety concerns about falling trees (and dropping branches) might sometimes be exaggerated, the truth is that trees do fall and break and people die from it, and it is only prudent to get the dangerous ones down before they fall down. Me's point is also irrational, on this basis, and using straw-man arguments does not advance the issue, it only adds an emotional component. He knows damned well I did not imply that every tree that falls is going to kill someone; thankfully, even in heavily-used areas such deaths are somewhat rare, but that does not mean that dangerous trees should not be removed. Talk to the families of the victims and tell them you stopped the tree that killed their loved one from being removed. In my area, a public protest prevented a severely leaning large tree that showed clear signs of root failure opposite the direction of the lean from being removed. Those people should have to face the families of the victims, but God will be blamed, as usual. What poppycock! WT PS: I have lost one friend to a falling tree, almost another, and several people have been killed over the years in my community by falling trees and branches. While running a tree survey strip when I was in the Forest Service, I was narrowly missed by a big widowmaker, and I saw a logger's body being carried out with his flattened hard hat where his head used to be. A widowmaker. That's how frequently falling branches kill people in the forest--there's even been a name for them for years. - Original Message - From: Me gwpatt...@yahoo.com To: Wayne Tyson landr...@cox.net Cc: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2013 8:20 PM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Tree stump removal in sensitive area Omg. The moment it falls, someone is in the perfect position to be fatally injured. That's the reason there is a war on trees in the Washington DC area. There is this unreasonable perception that something that looms over us is out to kill us. Parks here have trees near paths cut for the same irrational fear. Yet you can go to other states like NY or ME and find that there is no such rampant tree culling. There is a distorted perception of risk to me versus averaged risk to populations. Geoff Patton Wheaton, MD Sent from my iPhone On Jan 19, 2013, at 12:23 PM, Wayne Tyson landr...@cox.net wrote: Good idea in the wild, but in a place where there are lots of people, one has to think of what it hits when it falls after the roots rot enough--it's just fine until that instant when the last bit of rot or burrowing rodent or whatever cuts the last bit of dead tissue--and BAM! Somebody's dead. Drawing birds and other creatures into the urban context is wonderful, but I worry about the populations of predators like domestic and feral cats and the lack of understory for laddering fledglings up off the ground when they make their first hard landing. Context is everything. WT - Original Message - From: eann e...@gsinet.net To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2013 7:02 AM Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Tree stump removal in sensitive area Rather than worry about stump removal, why not cut the tree off higher up and leave it for cavity birds? Ann ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ E. Ann Poole, NH-CWS Poole Ecological Consultancy PO Box 890, 741 Beard Rd Hillsborough, NH 03244 (603)478-1178 e...@gsinet.net www.eannpoole.com ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1430 / Virus Database: 2639/5543 - Release Date: 01/19/13 - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1430 / Virus Database: 2639/5543 - Release Date: 01/19/13
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Tree stump removal in sensitive area
Omg. The moment it falls, someone is in the perfect position to be fatally injured. That's the reason there is a war on trees in the Washington DC area. There is this unreasonable perception that something that looms over us is out to kill us. Parks here have trees near paths cut for the same irrational fear. Yet you can go to other states like NY or ME and find that there is no such rampant tree culling. There is a distorted perception of risk to me versus averaged risk to populations. Geoff Patton Wheaton, MD Sent from my iPhone On Jan 19, 2013, at 12:23 PM, Wayne Tyson landr...@cox.net wrote: Good idea in the wild, but in a place where there are lots of people, one has to think of what it hits when it falls after the roots rot enough--it's just fine until that instant when the last bit of rot or burrowing rodent or whatever cuts the last bit of dead tissue--and BAM! Somebody's dead. Drawing birds and other creatures into the urban context is wonderful, but I worry about the populations of predators like domestic and feral cats and the lack of understory for laddering fledglings up off the ground when they make their first hard landing. Context is everything. WT - Original Message - From: eann e...@gsinet.net To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2013 7:02 AM Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Tree stump removal in sensitive area Rather than worry about stump removal, why not cut the tree off higher up and leave it for cavity birds? Ann ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ E. Ann Poole, NH-CWS Poole Ecological Consultancy PO Box 890, 741 Beard Rd Hillsborough, NH 03244 (603)478-1178 e...@gsinet.net www.eannpoole.com ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1430 / Virus Database: 2639/5543 - Release Date: 01/19/13
[ECOLOG-L] graduate undergraduate RA positions in environmental psychology
Funded graduate and undergraduate student RA positions in en Hi All, Funded graduate and undergraduate student RA positions in environmental psychology are available at University of Waterloo, Canada. The research is focused on an investigation of the motives for conservation behavior in private landowners. Most of the land in southern Ontario is in private hand and therefore the behavior of private landowners is critical for conservation initiatives. The work takes place in cooperation with the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, which is interested in using the study results for evaluating and improving conservation incentive programs. Student RAs will be affiliated with the School of Planning in the Faculty of Environment at University of Waterloo. Faculty collaborators to the research are members of the departments of Environmental Resource Studies and Sociology Legal Studies. Criteria for eligibility include the right to work in Canada (i.e., residency, work permit, Canadian citizenship or such). The expected start date for the graduate RA is September 2013 (or sooner) and for the undergraduate RAs summer 2013. Applications should include a cv, letter of intent, university transcripts and a list of 3 references. Please direct inquiries to: Michael Drescher, School of Planning, Faculty of Environment, University of Waterloo, 200 University Avenue West, Waterloo, ON, N2L 3G1, Canada. Email: mdresche-at-uwaterloo.ca.
[ECOLOG-L] Seeking radio collar advice
Dear All: I am interested in purchasing radio-collars that weigh ~200g to place on leopard cats. We are leaning towards VHF collars, but are curious whether anyone has had positive experiences with GPS collars in this weight range? We welcome any advice provided regarding manufacturers/models for VHF or GPS collars. Please respond via email (kapf0...@umn.edu), and thank you for your time. Best, Paul
[ECOLOG-L] Call for Abstracts: International Association for Great Lakes Research Annual Conference
IAGLR 2013 - Call for Papers 56th Annual Conference on Great Lakes Research The International Association for Great Lakes Research invites you to participate in IAGLRs annual conference, June 2 6, 2013, at Purdue University in West Lafayette, Indiana. Abstract submissions for both oral and poster presentations are welcome. Deadline: January 25, 2013 Proposed sessions highlight the conference theme, Great Lakes Restoration and Resiliency, and include invasive species, climate change, land-use and eutrophication, contaminants, nearshore health, fisheries, data management and modeling, foodweb and ecosystem ecology, physical processes and stakeholder engagement. To view the complete call for papers, visit http://iaglr.org/iaglr2013/abstracts/call-for-papers/. To submit an abstract, visit http://iaglr.org/iaglr2013/abstracts/ Further information about the conference is available online at http://iaglr.org/iaglr2013/.
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Tree stump removal in sensitive area
Sorry to contradict you here Wayne, but your argument is anecdotal and seems to be as straw-manly as GWPatton's - people who work in the Forest Service are likely to get injured by trees, (lethally or otherwise) from falling branches, trees etc. - there's a term for that - occupational hazard. That doesn't necessarily mean that the general populace has the same odds of facing such an injury. 2010 CDC data indicate 4.88% accidental deaths (at #5 reason), and ~80% of those were due to poisoning, accidental falling and motor vehicle related, that pushes other reasons to sub-1% levels. Wind related tree failures caused 31 deaths/year from 1995-2007. http://www.bama.ua.edu/~jcsenkbeil/gy4570/schmidlin%20tree%20fatalities.pdf. That's 407 people in 12 years, don't blame the trees here. Blame human carelessness, thoughtlessness and Nature's unmitigated fury (the last cannot be controlled). Trees would be the means here, not the cause. My point being, yes there are some activities which cause people to be injured - but this always begs the question of what the odds are. As for the irrational fear of urban people to dying from tree-related as related by GWPatton - in my anecdotal experience, yes such fears exist. And trees are easy to pin the blame on, they aren't vocal about it, and with urban areas heavily paved and a whole gamut of underground disturbances related to utility lines etc., it is expected trees don't really find the unfettered access to the soil to stabilize themselves as evolution and Nature intended. The solution lies in learning to think more holistically instead of knee-jerk reactions, which many tend to do. And talking to victims of tree-fall injuries or their family members to get your ideas about its dangers is not proper science, neither is hearing anecdotes from of the likes of you, both would be called biased sources. I am yet to hear families and victims of auto accidents stopping riding or driving cars (in significant numbers), post-accident. Or people stopping use of household poisons because some one they knew mistakenly drank rat poison. As scientists it behooves us to keep emotion out of science. NC On 19 January 2013 23:11, Wayne Tyson landr...@cox.net wrote: Ecolog: I know I won't convince Me that while public safety concerns about falling trees (and dropping branches) might sometimes be exaggerated, the truth is that trees do fall and break and people die from it, and it is only prudent to get the dangerous ones down before they fall down. Me's point is also irrational, on this basis, and using straw-man arguments does not advance the issue, it only adds an emotional component. He knows damned well I did not imply that every tree that falls is going to kill someone; thankfully, even in heavily-used areas such deaths are somewhat rare, but that does not mean that dangerous trees should not be removed. Talk to the families of the victims and tell them you stopped the tree that killed their loved one from being removed. In my area, a public protest prevented a severely leaning large tree that showed clear signs of root failure opposite the direction of the lean from being removed. Those people should have to face the families of the victims, but God will be blamed, as usual. What poppycock! WT PS: I have lost one friend to a falling tree, almost another, and several people have been killed over the years in my community by falling trees and branches. While running a tree survey strip when I was in the Forest Service, I was narrowly missed by a big widowmaker, and I saw a logger's body being carried out with his flattened hard hat where his head used to be. A widowmaker. That's how frequently falling branches kill people in the forest--there's even been a name for them for years. - Original Message - From: Me gwpatt...@yahoo.com To: Wayne Tyson landr...@cox.net Cc: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2013 8:20 PM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Tree stump removal in sensitive area Omg. The moment it falls, someone is in the perfect position to be fatally injured. That's the reason there is a war on trees in the Washington DC area. There is this unreasonable perception that something that looms over us is out to kill us. Parks here have trees near paths cut for the same irrational fear. Yet you can go to other states like NY or ME and find that there is no such rampant tree culling. There is a distorted perception of risk to me versus averaged risk to populations. Geoff Patton Wheaton, MD Sent from my iPhone On Jan 19, 2013, at 12:23 PM, Wayne Tyson landr...@cox.net wrote: Good idea in the wild, but in a place where there are lots of people, one has to think of what it hits when it falls after the roots rot enough--it's just fine until that instant when the last bit of rot or burrowing rodent or whatever cuts the last bit of dead tissue--and BAM! Somebody's dead. Drawing birds and other creatures into
[ECOLOG-L] 2012 annual report La MICA
For those of you have followed the development and pr Hello everyone - For those of you have followed the development and progression of La MICA Biological Station (El Cope, Cocle, Panama), our 2012 annual report is now available on our Website at http://www.lamica.org/files/2012_Annual_Report.pdf. Please take a moment to check out our accomplishments in 2012 and what we hope to do in 2013. Thank you to everyone who has provided comments, suggestions, donations, and general support! Julie Dr. Julie M. Ray Director La MICA Biological Station US Address: Julie Ray, 12458 132nd Street, Chippewa Falls, WI 54729Fundación Centro de Investigación Biológica El Copé, S.A. (Panama) El Cope-La Pintada. Provincia de Cocle. Republica de Panama http//www.lamica.org
[ECOLOG-L] Faculty Positions Open
The Department of Biological Sciences at Chicago State University seeks applications for three tenure-track Assistant Professor positions. Appointments begin in August 2013. All areas of biology will be considered, but preference will be given to candidates in microbiology, cell biology, zoology, urban agriculture/aquaponics and secondary education. Selected individuals are expected to establish a research program involving undergraduate and graduate students, supported by extramural funding. Ph.D. in Biology or related fields required, post-doctoral and/or teaching experience preferred. Only electronic applications will be accepted. Instructions are available at https://chicagostate.peopleadmin.com/postings. Review of applications will begin immediately and will continue until February 28, 2013. Reference letters (3) will be accepted via e-mail at bh...@csu.edu. CSU is an Equal Opportunity/ Affirmative Action Employer. -- Eric L. Peters, Ph.D. Professor of Ecology and Environmental Science Department of Biological SciencesVoice: (773)995-2421 Chicago State University 9501 S. King Drive mailto:e-pet...@csu.edu Chicago, IL 60628-1598http://fiercereptiles.org Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. -Aldous Huxley
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Tree stump removal in sensitive area
Thanks, Nirmalya! For comparison, tree failures cause about half as many deaths in the US as lightning in any or all contexts. Very sad if it happens to you or someone you know, but not worth a whole lot of worry. -- Thomas J. Givnish Henry Allan Gleason Professor of Botany University of Wisconsin givn...@wisc.edu http://botany.wisc.edu/givnish/Givnish/Welcome.html On 01/20/13, Nirmalya Chatterjee wrote: Sorry to contradict you here Wayne, but your argument is anecdotal and seems to be as straw-manly as GWPatton's - people who work in the Forest Service are likely to get injured by trees, (lethally or otherwise) from falling branches, trees etc. - there's a term for that - occupational hazard. That doesn't necessarily mean that the general populace has the same odds of facing such an injury. 2010 CDC data indicate 4.88% accidental deaths (at #5 reason), and ~80% of those were due to poisoning, accidental falling and motor vehicle related, that pushes other reasons to sub-1% levels. Wind related tree failures caused 31 deaths/year from 1995-2007. http://www.bama.ua.edu/~jcsenkbeil/gy4570/schmidlin%20tree%20fatalities.pdf. That's 407 people in 12 years, don't blame the trees here. Blame human carelessness, thoughtlessness and Nature's unmitigated fury (the last cannot be controlled). Trees would be the means here, not the cause. My point being, yes there are some activities which cause people to be injured - but this always begs the question of what the odds are. As for the irrational fear of urban people to dying from tree-related as related by GWPatton - in my anecdotal experience, yes such fears exist. And trees are easy to pin the blame on, they aren't vocal about it, and with urban areas heavily paved and a whole gamut of underground disturbances related to utility lines etc., it is expected trees don't really find the unfettered access to the soil to stabilize themselves as evolution and Nature intended. The solution lies in learning to think more holistically instead of knee-jerk reactions, which many tend to do. And talking to victims of tree-fall injuries or their family members to get your ideas about its dangers is not proper science, neither is hearing anecdotes from of the likes of you, both would be called biased sources. I am yet to hear families and victims of auto accidents stopping riding or driving cars (in significant numbers), post-accident. Or people stopping use of household poisons because some one they knew mistakenly drank rat poison. As scientists it behooves us to keep emotion out of science. NC On 19 January 2013 23:11, Wayne Tyson landr...@cox.net wrote: Ecolog: I know I won't convince Me that while public safety concerns about falling trees (and dropping branches) might sometimes be exaggerated, the truth is that trees do fall and break and people die from it, and it is only prudent to get the dangerous ones down before they fall down. Me's point is also irrational, on this basis, and using straw-man arguments does not advance the issue, it only adds an emotional component. He knows damned well I did not imply that every tree that falls is going to kill someone; thankfully, even in heavily-used areas such deaths are somewhat rare, but that does not mean that dangerous trees should not be removed. Talk to the families of the victims and tell them you stopped the tree that killed their loved one from being removed. In my area, a public protest prevented a severely leaning large tree that showed clear signs of root failure opposite the direction of the lean from being removed. Those people should have to face the families of the victims, but God will be blamed, as usual. What poppycock! WT PS: I have lost one friend to a falling tree, almost another, and several people have been killed over the years in my community by falling trees and branches. While running a tree survey strip when I was in the Forest Service, I was narrowly missed by a big widowmaker, and I saw a logger's body being carried out with his flattened hard hat where his head used to be. A widowmaker. That's how frequently falling branches kill people in the forest--there's even been a name for them for years. - Original Message - From: Me gwpatt...@yahoo.com To: Wayne Tyson landr...@cox.net Cc: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2013 8:20 PM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Tree stump removal in sensitive area Omg. The moment it falls, someone is in the perfect position to be fatally injured. That's the reason there is a war on trees in the Washington DC area. There is this unreasonable perception that something that looms over us is out to kill us. Parks here have trees near paths cut for the same irrational fear. Yet you can go to other states like NY or ME and find that there is no such rampant tree culling. There is a distorted perception of risk to me
[ECOLOG-L] Tree hazards and their management Re: [ECOLOG-L] Tree stump removal in sensitive area
Nirmalya and Ecolog: Contradict what? People get killed and injured by falling trees and branches--true or false? The victims don't give a damn about the statistics and they and their loved ones don't care about how small the odds are. (Anecdote: A year or so ago a tree fell on a woman walking her dog, so humans are not the only casualties. Park officials were not blamed for failing to remove a potentially dangerous tree in a high-traffic area and they got away with blaming God again. The truth is that such bureaucracies refuse to scientifically analyze tree hazard potential, largely because it is politically risky. The lawyers [perhaps realistically] cynically point out that if an assessment program is in place, the responsible entity is more likely to lose in court, where if they do nothing the victims get nothing because it was God's fault.) Chatterjee knows that I am not advocating wholesale tree slaughter and blaming the trees--if those implications aren't a straw-man army, I don't know what is. He knows that I am restricting my point to the original issue (but openly and properly generalizing as to how similar cases should be handled) of whether or not it would be a good idea to leave a dead tree standing where it could cause damage, while acknowledging the value of snags to cavity-nesting birds. In the forest, by all means leave the snags where the probability of damage is infinitesimally low, but take down trees that have a higher likelihood of falling or shedding branches than their healthier brethren, such as private gardens, public parks, and streets where the probability of damage is higher. This is not restricted to wind-related falls and limb-shedding, but certainly the probability is high under windy conditions--the laws of physics cannot be violated, and are not subject to legislative or administrative, or political veto. Trees with compromised root systems or branches do not require wind to fall. I never did blame the trees and Chatterjee knows it--or if he doesn't know it . . . In fact, the whole point IS human incompetence (NOT blaming the trees), and incompetence is knowing that a hazard exists and doing nothing about it. And leaving a snag (or other structurally compromised tree) standing until it falls in an area where the probability of its doing damage when it does is high, should fall into the category of criminal negligence, particularly in cases where the tree in question is under human management. That may or may not be the case with the tree presently in question or not. Maybe what we have here is a failure to communicate. Assuming the worst in the absence of evidence does not advance communication--it tends to cut it off. Let us try first to find common ground rather than resort to divisive devices. I look forward to discussing THE ISSUE to a reasoned conclusion, and leaving the personalities out of it. WT Anecdote is the singular of data. --Author forgotten PS: I hope that Chatterjee will delineate his alternative to hazardous tree management clearly. - Original Message - From: Nirmalya Chatterjee buba...@gmail.com To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2013 12:32 PM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Tree stump removal in sensitive area Sorry to contradict you here Wayne, but your argument is anecdotal and seems to be as straw-manly as GWPatton's - people who work in the Forest Service are likely to get injured by trees, (lethally or otherwise) from falling branches, trees etc. - there's a term for that - occupational hazard. That doesn't necessarily mean that the general populace has the same odds of facing such an injury. 2010 CDC data indicate 4.88% accidental deaths (at #5 reason), and ~80% of those were due to poisoning, accidental falling and motor vehicle related, that pushes other reasons to sub-1% levels. Wind related tree failures caused 31 deaths/year from 1995-2007. http://www.bama.ua.edu/~jcsenkbeil/gy4570/schmidlin%20tree%20fatalities.pdf. That's 407 people in 12 years, don't blame the trees here. Blame human carelessness, thoughtlessness and Nature's unmitigated fury (the last cannot be controlled). Trees would be the means here, not the cause. My point being, yes there are some activities which cause people to be injured - but this always begs the question of what the odds are. As for the irrational fear of urban people to dying from tree-related as related by GWPatton - in my anecdotal experience, yes such fears exist. And trees are easy to pin the blame on, they aren't vocal about it, and with urban areas heavily paved and a whole gamut of underground disturbances related to utility lines etc., it is expected trees don't really find the unfettered access to the soil to stabilize themselves as evolution and Nature intended. The solution lies in learning to think more holistically instead of knee-jerk reactions, which many tend to do. And talking to victims of tree-fall injuries
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Tree stump removal in sensitive area
The number of people killed by falling trees each year isn't really the information we need. That number could be low because few decayed trees kill (or severely injure) people or because there are few such trees in populated areas. What we really want to know is the probability that a decayed tree will fall on somebody (or come close) when it eventually falls, given that it is in an area frequented by people. We can guesstimate this by finding out what fraction of the time there are people in the tree's fall zone, adjusting for any inaccessible areas/directions. (Yes, this ignores things like weather, but that's what makes it a back-of-the envelope estimate.) Suppose there are no inaccessible areas around the tree and there are people near it about 1/4 of the time. Then the probability of a hit or near miss when the tree eventually falls is 1/4 -- quite substantial in my eyes. Adjusting for weather and time of day or treefall may reduce it to 5% or 10%, which is not small considering the stakes. Some might object to this calculation, saying that it could be used to justify the removal of any urban trees. But the chances of a randomly chosen urban tree falling in the near future are very small and we can generally detect the conditions that make a tree likely to fall. The estimate above only makes sense for a tree that we know is likely to fall in the near future. If you wanted to, you could multiply the probability by an estimate of the probability of the tree falling in the next ten years (or whatever the time horizon of interest is), which the calculation above assumes to be 100%. Jane Shevtsov On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 12:32 PM, Nirmalya Chatterjee buba...@gmail.comwrote: Sorry to contradict you here Wayne, but your argument is anecdotal and seems to be as straw-manly as GWPatton's - people who work in the Forest Service are likely to get injured by trees, (lethally or otherwise) from falling branches, trees etc. - there's a term for that - occupational hazard. That doesn't necessarily mean that the general populace has the same odds of facing such an injury. 2010 CDC data indicate 4.88% accidental deaths (at #5 reason), and ~80% of those were due to poisoning, accidental falling and motor vehicle related, that pushes other reasons to sub-1% levels. Wind related tree failures caused 31 deaths/year from 1995-2007. http://www.bama.ua.edu/~jcsenkbeil/gy4570/schmidlin%20tree%20fatalities.pdf . That's 407 people in 12 years, don't blame the trees here. Blame human carelessness, thoughtlessness and Nature's unmitigated fury (the last cannot be controlled). Trees would be the means here, not the cause. My point being, yes there are some activities which cause people to be injured - but this always begs the question of what the odds are. As for the irrational fear of urban people to dying from tree-related as related by GWPatton - in my anecdotal experience, yes such fears exist. And trees are easy to pin the blame on, they aren't vocal about it, and with urban areas heavily paved and a whole gamut of underground disturbances related to utility lines etc., it is expected trees don't really find the unfettered access to the soil to stabilize themselves as evolution and Nature intended. The solution lies in learning to think more holistically instead of knee-jerk reactions, which many tend to do. And talking to victims of tree-fall injuries or their family members to get your ideas about its dangers is not proper science, neither is hearing anecdotes from of the likes of you, both would be called biased sources. I am yet to hear families and victims of auto accidents stopping riding or driving cars (in significant numbers), post-accident. Or people stopping use of household poisons because some one they knew mistakenly drank rat poison. As scientists it behooves us to keep emotion out of science. NC On 19 January 2013 23:11, Wayne Tyson landr...@cox.net wrote: Ecolog: I know I won't convince Me that while public safety concerns about falling trees (and dropping branches) might sometimes be exaggerated, the truth is that trees do fall and break and people die from it, and it is only prudent to get the dangerous ones down before they fall down. Me's point is also irrational, on this basis, and using straw-man arguments does not advance the issue, it only adds an emotional component. He knows damned well I did not imply that every tree that falls is going to kill someone; thankfully, even in heavily-used areas such deaths are somewhat rare, but that does not mean that dangerous trees should not be removed. Talk to the families of the victims and tell them you stopped the tree that killed their loved one from being removed. In my area, a public protest prevented a severely leaning large tree that showed clear signs of root failure opposite the direction of the lean from being removed. Those people should have to face the families of
[ECOLOG-L] Graduate student postdoc positions: beetle evolution
Several PhD student, Maters student, and postdoc positions available in bark beetle evolution, systematics symbiology Students seriously interested in any or all of the following should apply: molecular phylogenetics hi-tech morphological systematics bark beetles, their ecology and evolution symbioses among insects, fungi and bacteria citizen science, science communication Join our growing Forest Entomology and Symbiology team at the University of Florida on a new NSF-funded project. Feel free to call for more info (352-273- 0299), or simply send your CV and a short summary of your accomplishments to Jiri Hulcr, hu...@ufl.edu. Application deadline: February 15, 2013. Start date: flexible, ideally Summer 2013.
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Tree stump removal in sensitive area
So much talk. There is a reason that trees are designated as hazard trees. Sometimes, we have to take a tree down. I don't even know why there is a discussion about this. Chances are that there aren't more people killed/injured by falling trees because we REMOVE trees when they are deemed unsafe. Talk to a good arborist sometime. They aren't all about removal... In fact it is a last resort. I think I may unsubscribe to this list. Jesse On Jan 20, 2013, at 8:02 PM, Jane Shevtsov jane@gmail.com wrote: The number of people killed by falling trees each year isn't really the information we need. That number could be low because few decayed trees kill (or severely injure) people or because there are few such trees in populated areas. What we really want to know is the probability that a decayed tree will fall on somebody (or come close) when it eventually falls, given that it is in an area frequented by people. We can guesstimate this by finding out what fraction of the time there are people in the tree's fall zone, adjusting for any inaccessible areas/directions. (Yes, this ignores things like weather, but that's what makes it a back-of-the envelope estimate.) Suppose there are no inaccessible areas around the tree and there are people near it about 1/4 of the time. Then the probability of a hit or near miss when the tree eventually falls is 1/4 -- quite substantial in my eyes. Adjusting for weather and time of day or treefall may reduce it to 5% or 10%, which is not small considering the stakes. Some might object to this calculation, saying that it could be used to justify the removal of any urban trees. But the chances of a randomly chosen urban tree falling in the near future are very small and we can generally detect the conditions that make a tree likely to fall. The estimate above only makes sense for a tree that we know is likely to fall in the near future. If you wanted to, you could multiply the probability by an estimate of the probability of the tree falling in the next ten years (or whatever the time horizon of interest is), which the calculation above assumes to be 100%. Jane Shevtsov On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 12:32 PM, Nirmalya Chatterjee buba...@gmail.comwrote: Sorry to contradict you here Wayne, but your argument is anecdotal and seems to be as straw-manly as GWPatton's - people who work in the Forest Service are likely to get injured by trees, (lethally or otherwise) from falling branches, trees etc. - there's a term for that - occupational hazard. That doesn't necessarily mean that the general populace has the same odds of facing such an injury. 2010 CDC data indicate 4.88% accidental deaths (at #5 reason), and ~80% of those were due to poisoning, accidental falling and motor vehicle related, that pushes other reasons to sub-1% levels. Wind related tree failures caused 31 deaths/year from 1995-2007. http://www.bama.ua.edu/~jcsenkbeil/gy4570/schmidlin%20tree%20fatalities.pdf . That's 407 people in 12 years, don't blame the trees here. Blame human carelessness, thoughtlessness and Nature's unmitigated fury (the last cannot be controlled). Trees would be the means here, not the cause. My point being, yes there are some activities which cause people to be injured - but this always begs the question of what the odds are. As for the irrational fear of urban people to dying from tree-related as related by GWPatton - in my anecdotal experience, yes such fears exist. And trees are easy to pin the blame on, they aren't vocal about it, and with urban areas heavily paved and a whole gamut of underground disturbances related to utility lines etc., it is expected trees don't really find the unfettered access to the soil to stabilize themselves as evolution and Nature intended. The solution lies in learning to think more holistically instead of knee-jerk reactions, which many tend to do. And talking to victims of tree-fall injuries or their family members to get your ideas about its dangers is not proper science, neither is hearing anecdotes from of the likes of you, both would be called biased sources. I am yet to hear families and victims of auto accidents stopping riding or driving cars (in significant numbers), post-accident. Or people stopping use of household poisons because some one they knew mistakenly drank rat poison. As scientists it behooves us to keep emotion out of science. NC On 19 January 2013 23:11, Wayne Tyson landr...@cox.net wrote: Ecolog: I know I won't convince Me that while public safety concerns about falling trees (and dropping branches) might sometimes be exaggerated, the truth is that trees do fall and break and people die from it, and it is only prudent to get the dangerous ones down before they fall down. Me's point is also irrational, on this basis, and using straw-man arguments does not advance the issue, it only adds an emotional component. He knows damned well I
[ECOLOG-L] Tree Hazards and Their Management Re: [ECOLOG-L] Tree stump removal in sensitive area
Ecolog: Quite! Thank you Jane, for putting it in better (and more neutral) words than I. I have a photograph of a hazardous tree as an example, but don't know how to send it to all Ecologgers efficiently. If someone knows how to post it where everybody can see it, I'll send it to them. I'll send one or two to Jane, and she can feel free to share it if she wishes. I've inserted a few comments into Jane's text [[thus]]. WT - Original Message - From: Jane Shevtsov jane@gmail.com To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2013 5:05 PM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Tree stump removal in sensitive area The number of people killed by falling trees each year isn't really the information we need. That number could be low because few decayed trees kill (or severely injure) people or because there are few such trees in populated areas. What we really want to know is the probability that a decayed tree will fall on somebody (or come close) when it eventually falls, given that it is in an area frequented by people. We can guesstimate this by finding out what fraction of the time there are people in the tree's fall zone [[some fraction of 360 degrees? WT]], adjusting for any inaccessible areas/directions. (Yes, this ignores things like weather, but that's what makes it a back-of-the envelope estimate.) Suppose there are no inaccessible areas around the tree and there are people near it about 1/4 of the time. Then the probability of a hit or near miss when the tree eventually falls is 1/4 -- quite substantial in my eyes. Adjusting for weather and time of day or treefall may reduce it to 5% or 10%, which is not small considering the stakes. [[There are lots of factors to be considered in tree hazard potential assessment, but this is an excellent start. The task is to decide which tree is definitely hazardous and which trees are not obviously hazardous, and back-of-the-envelope WAGs and SWAGs will do for starters. The objective of tree hazard assessment is to get the low-hanging fruit (yuk, yuk!) or top priorities first, then work on the more marginally-hazardous ones next, and so on . . . WT]] Some might object to this calculation, saying that it could be used to justify the removal of any urban trees. But the chances of a randomly chosen urban tree falling in the near future are very small and we can generally detect the conditions [[Yes, but sometimes the reasons are so well-hidden that no one could have detected the defect. I used to do post-mortems on urban trees, and one that looked normal turned out to have been planted years in the past (by a famous horticulturist) in a rootbound condition--a major root had wound around the other main structural or tap root at the bole and in effect squeezed it (prevented its lateral expansion) to the point that it could no longer support the tree and it broke off more than a foot below the soil surface. WT]] that make a tree likely to fall. The estimate above only makes sense for a tree that we know is likely to fall in the near future. If you wanted to, you could multiply the probability by an estimate of the probability of the tree falling in the next ten years (or whatever the time horizon of interest is), which the calculation above assumes to be 100%. [[Some trees are obviously going to fall sooner rather than later; for example when there is excessive lean, or when stress cracks appear in the soil. No one can know when the tree will fall because we have no present means of which I am aware that can measure the stress on roots without increasing the failure potential. But if tree managers were allowed to follow a kind of triage system where those considered most likely to fall were preemptively removed, the number of falling trees, and thus the total hazard, could be reduced, not eliminated. WT]] Jane Shevtsov On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 12:32 PM, Nirmalya Chatterjee buba...@gmail.comwrote: Sorry to contradict you here Wayne, but your argument is anecdotal and seems to be as straw-manly as GWPatton's - people who work in the Forest Service are likely to get injured by trees, (lethally or otherwise) from falling branches, trees etc. - there's a term for that - occupational hazard. That doesn't necessarily mean that the general populace has the same odds of facing such an injury. 2010 CDC data indicate 4.88% accidental deaths (at #5 reason), and ~80% of those were due to poisoning, accidental falling and motor vehicle related, that pushes other reasons to sub-1% levels. Wind related tree failures caused 31 deaths/year from 1995-2007. http://www.bama.ua.edu/~jcsenkbeil/gy4570/schmidlin%20tree%20fatalities.pdf . That's 407 people in 12 years, don't blame the trees here. Blame human carelessness, thoughtlessness and Nature's unmitigated fury (the last cannot be controlled). Trees would be the means here, not the cause. My point being, yes there are some activities which cause people to be injured - but this
[ECOLOG-L] The impact of changing seasonality of rainfall on plant growth and water relations
A full time PhD Scholarship is available in the Department of Biological Sciences associated with Dr Melanie Zeppel's ARC DECRA on plant responses to changing patterns of rainfall under future climates (DE120100518). http://www.hdr.mq.edu.au/information_about/scholarships/hdr_scholarships_dom estic_candidates_only Please quote reference 'ARC Plant Responses to Extreme Precipitation PhD Scholarship' on your application form. Project Name: Plant responses to extreme precipitation: tree growth and water use This project is part of an ARC DECRA on plant responses to changing patterns of rainfall under future climates. The seasonality of rainfall is projected to change in future climates. Additionally, rainfall is likely to become more intense, with larger rain events and longer periods between rain, i.e. floods followed by droughts. Plants are expected to have different growth rates and water relations. Overseas studies have shown that grasses have different growth rates and levels of water stress. However, no published research has demonstrated how trees will respond to more intense timing of rainfall. This exciting project will fill a crucial research gap by measuring how Australian trees respond to changes in the timing of rainfall, while the volume of rainfall remains constant. The project will involve field work, experiments in glasshouses and a modelling component. Field work and glasshouse components of the project will involve growing and measuring various attributes of different tree species. The project will use process- based modelling to quantify how tree water and carbon fluxes will respond to future climates. The successful applicant will be expected to work outdoors with a team of International researchers on nationally funded facilities. A knowledge of plant biology, enthusiastic attitude and self-motivation are required. Current drivers licence and willingness to work under field conditions are essential. Applicants should be either Australian citizens or permanent residents of Australia and should have a first class Honors degree in plant sciences (particularly plant physiology) or equivalent qualifications and/or experience. The project will be supervised by Professor Lesley Hughes, and Dr Melanie Zeppel. This PhD scholarship is funded in line with the Australian Postgraduate Award rate at $23,728 pa tax exempt - for 3 years. Project funds for equipment and conference travel are available from the Department of Biological Sciences. There may be opportunities for the student to travel to the United States to work with International partners. Interested prospective applicants should contact, in the first instance, Melanie Zeppel to discuss the project, at email:melanie.zep...@mq.edu.au or phone 02 9850 9256 Prospective PhD applicants should have a first class Honours degree or equivalence, and forscholarship holders, additional relevant research experience and/or qualifications in line with the University's scholarship rating guidelines. Refer to Scholarship Requirements for further information about this. Applicants will need to complete a candidature/scholarship application form and arrange for two academic referee reports to be submitted to the Higher Degree Research Office. Refer to the Applications page for further application instructions. Macquarie University will advise the successful applicant of entitlements at the time of scholarship offer.
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Tree stump removal in sensitive area
Jesse, I couldn't agree with you more. In fact, you took the words right out of my mouth, specifically in regards to unsubscribing from this list. While faced with an ecological crisis that threatens the very survival of our species, some are debating the probability of being killed by a falling tree. TALK ABOUT MISSING THE FOREST FOR THE TREES! It is time to get out into the streets, and if you happen to be struck by a fallen tree, I'm truly sorry about that. But crusading against falling trees is like crusading against evolution or gravity. Eric
