[ECOLOG-L] Postdoctoral position in quantitative climate ecology
Postdoctoral position in quantitative climate ecology The Pinsky Lab at Rutgers University (http://pinsky.marine.rutgers.edu) is seeking an outstanding postdoc to study the responses of marine communities to climate change and climate velocity using long-term ecological and environmental datasets. The research will aim to quantify community change across North American continental shelves, determine the impacts of climate change and variability on these patterns, and understand how these factors alter the emergent properties of communities and food webs. Topics will include the processes of community assembly and disassembly, the appearance of non-analog communities, and changes in potential species interactions and food web dynamics. The research will build from an existing, four decade-long ecological dataset for the continental shelves of North America (e.g., Pinsky et al. 2013 Science) and will integrate statistical analysis with ecological modeling. There will also be opportunities to apply the research to conservation and applied fisheries questions through existing partnerships with governmental and non-governmental organizations. **Qualifications** The ideal candidate will have a Ph.D. in ecology or related field, a strong background in statistics using R, excellent written and oral communication abilities, a promising record of publication, and evidence of creativity and enthusiasm. **Application process** Interested candidates should send an email describing their research interests and qualifications along with a CV and two representative publications to malin.pin...@rutgers.edu. Strongly qualified applications will be encouraged to apply for the IMCS Postdoctoral Fellowship, due December 15, 2013 (http://marine.rutgers.edu/main/). Malin Pinsky Assistant Professor Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Natural Resources and the Institute of Marine and Coastal Sciences Rutgers University New Brunswick, NJ 08901 USA http://pinsky.marine.rutgers.edu malin.pin...@rutgers.edu
[ECOLOG-L] Graduate student opportunity in Forest Ecosystem Restoration and Ecology
Graduate student opportunity in Forest Ecosystem Restoration and Ecology with the School of Environment and Natural Resources, The Ohio State University We are seeking a MS- or PhD-level graduate student to conduct field-based research on the compositional and structural dynamics of temperate forest ecosystems. Funding is anticipated for a new research project that will focus on quantifying and modeling forest change in southeastern Ohio and the adjoining region utilizing the remeasurement of an extensive network of permanent plots. For specific information about our program please visit: http://oardc.osu.edu/ferel/index.htm The position is available starting mid-August 2014 (Autumn Semester) and can be either a master’s or doctoral appointment depending on the interests and experience of the candidate. Financial support may be a combination of teaching and research assistantships; fellowship support may be possible for outstanding applicants. Applicants with expertise and backgrounds in forest ecology and silviculture preferred. Information about the Environment Natural Resources Graduate Program is available at: http://senr.osu.edu/graduate If you are interested, please send your resume and specific information explaining your educational background and experiences that would be relevant to the areas of forest ecology, dendrology, and silviculture by Dec. 6, 2013to David Hix at *hi...@osu.edu* hi...@osu.edu. To be considered for funding the deadline to complete the application process isJan. 7, 2014. David M. Hix School of Environment and Natural Resources The Ohio State University 2021 Coffey Road Columbus, OH 43210-1085 614-292-1394 *hi...@osu.edu* hi...@osu.edu
[ECOLOG-L] Funding Opportunity
FUNDING FOR PRAIRIE RESEARCH offered by Prairie Biotic Research, Inc. We Are Prairie Biotic Research (PBR) is an all-volunteer, Wisconsin nonprofit established in 2000 to foster basic biotic research in prairies and savannas. One way we do this is through a competitive Small Grants Program that funds grants up to $1000 to individuals for the study of any grassland taxon anywhere in the USA. We support both natural history and experimental science. We are especially eager to support independent researchers (those lacking institutional support), but anyone having a U.S. Social Security number may apply. Since 2002, we've awarded 155 grants worth $148,946 to people in 32 states to study insects, plants, mammals, reptiles, slime molds, mycorrhizal fungi, spiders, snails, amphibians, birds, fish, invasive species, effects of management, and the human dimensions of conservation. Many of these grants supported graduate student research. In 2014, we expect to fund at least 10 grants of up to $1000 each with the donations we have received, including some restricted by donors to support research in IA, IL, MI, MN, ND, SD, WI. To Apply for a Grant Visit our website (prairiebioticresearch.org) to learn more, to download our proposal form, instructions, and a sample researcher agreement form that winners of this competition must sign. Check out the history and overview files in the Small Grants section of the website to see what sorts of proposals have won funding in the past. Review the reports submitted by researchers of past years. We must receive your proposal through the mail before December 31, 2013. Those who won funding in 2013 are ineligible for this funding in 2014, but those who won funding longer ago are welcome to submit proposals to further that same work or to support a new project. Our Supporters We are very grateful for gifts recently received from individuals, businesses, foundations and nonprofit organizations in support of our Small Grants Program: Michael Anderson, Armund Bartz, Neil Bernstein, Connie Beroza, Big Bluestem Audubon Society (Ames, IA), Andria Blattner, Stephen Nancy Bloom, Aaron Brees, Kurt Christoffel, Rebecca Christoffel, Citizens Natural Resources Association of Wisconsin, Conservation and Research Foundation, Lloyd Crim, Robert Nancy Dott, James E. Dutton Foundation, Marlene Bruce Ehresman, Hildy Feen, Felburn Foundation, Tamara Felden, Catherine Gimse-Owen Robert Owen, MJ Hatfield, Hillsdale Fund, Iowa Native Plant Society, George Marilyn Johnson, Herbert H. Kohl Charities, The Fred Maytag Family Foundation, Merganser Fund, The Leo Model Foundation, The R. D. and Linda Peters Foundation, Irwin Andrew Porter Foundation, Ron Helen Priest, Dennis Schlicht, Jim Rose Sime, Glenn Teschendorf, Richard Elaine Tinberg, TOSA Foundation, Laura Van Slyke, Andrew Williams, Willow Springs Foundation, Ken Wood. Become a Supporter Please make a donation to support PBR. Any amount is welcome. PBR is volunteer-run so our overhead is very low. You may specify that your entire tax-deductible donation be given to researchers through our Small Grants Program, or to expand our research endowment that produces income we give away annually through this program. Please help us to help others! Michael Anderson, Craig Brabant, Rebecca Christoffel, Linda Duever, Jaime Edwards, Brick Fevold, Kerry Katovich, Douglas LeDoux, Victoria Nuzzo, Ursula Petersen, Dennis Schlicht, Scott Swengel, David Voegtlin, Andrew Williams, Daniel Young, who comprise the Board of Directors and Scientific Advisors of Prairie Biotic Research, Inc. We foster curiosity!
[ECOLOG-L] Mongabay Prize for Environmental Reporting
I thought you all might be interested in seeing this exciting news, since many of you have followed my career from the time I was a wee undergrad. I just found out last week I was awarded Mongabay's first Prize for Environmental Reporting! This is a competitive 6-mo grant that will fund me to travel to explore the question What is the next big idea in tropical biodiversity conservation? I selected the concept of polycentric governance (thanks to Jean-Baptiste Pichancourt who tipped me off to this fascinating important concept) to explore and will report at least 4 stories, including 2 in Uganda (one with mountain gorillas Conservation Through Public Health ctph.org) and one with the Batwa people, 1 in Peru on REDD and how polycentric governance can informs that program overcome some of the resistance to it by indigenous groups, and then one on Nobel prize winner Elinor Ostrom's life and work. I will probably blog at Mongabay along the way still working out the details. Here's the announcement: http://news.mongabay.com/2013/1116-sri01-winner-announced.html And if any of you have any leads in Uganda (decentralization policies etc) or Peru (with REDD projects specifically). I'm already connected with the mountain gorilla folks I was going to report on but I am always open to ideas and thoughts :) Wendee Wendee Nicole, M.S. Wildlife Ecology Freelance Writer * Photographer * Bohemian Web: http://www.wendeenicole.com Adventures Blog: http://bohemianadventures.blogspot.com Writing Green ~ online class http://www.wendeenicole.com/nature.htm
Re: [ECOLOG-L] new HR bill requires NSF funders to justify funding
That is false logic. There have been numerous studies demonstrating the remarkable over-all productivity of American scientists. However, that does not mean that the system for funding is the reason. In fact, it is quite possible, and i'ld argue very likely that these same individuals would be remarkably more productive if not devotion time to grantsmanship. A point I should also offer is that this is not coming from someone who has difficulty with grantsmanship. heck, I was a proposal writer for a major not-for-profit and managed their grants program during the entire time. I'm just pointing out what is frank logic. you have a trade-off with time you devote to professional activities. If you are spending time doing data collection, then that same time cannot be used for other things. Likewise, if you are using it to get proposals prepared, you are not collecting, analyzing data or preparing manuscripts aat the same time. You must divide your time among these activities. I've long thought it would be wise for science departmetns to hire a professional grantwriter who specializes in science grants, particularly for non-research funding. A good grantwriter is worth his/her weight in gold because he/she understands the system. I don't think anyone does this though! :) M On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 4:14 PM, mcnee...@cox.net wrote: Well, politics certainly interferes with the furtherance of science, as do the mechanics you describe. But, hmmm... . Do European institutions excel relative to the U.S. in scientific progress? Many of them do have funded institutions, with funded laboratories within them. David McNeely malcolm McCallum malcolm.mccal...@herpconbio.org wrote: Well, first they disbanded political science research, and now they are trying to do the first steps to slowing science. The person at NSF who approves funding must justify such. why? that way the congress can go after that person, exert pressure on the scientific process, and turn it into a political instead of a scientific process. http://news.sciencemag.org/education/2013/11/republican-plan-guide-nsf-programs-draws-darts-and-befuddlement-research-advocates These developments are interesting to me because when NSF was first being conceived there were those who felt the concept would slow science by turning it into a search for funding rather than a search for facts. More and more, we are becoming important for the money we can bring in rather than our contribution to the greater good. From the Mark Gable Foundation (A short story in the compendium, The Voices of Dophins, by Leo Szilard) published in (http://books.google.com/books?id=xm2mIAAJprintsec=frontcover#v=onepageqf=false), when Mark Gable asked how to slow science, this was the answer provided: Well, I said, I think that shouldn't be very difficult. As a matter of fact, I think it would be quite easy. You could set up a foundation, with an annual endowment of thirty million dollars. Research workers in need of funds could apply for grants, if they could make out a convincing case. Have ten committees, each composed of twelve scientists, appointed to pass on these applications. Take the most active scientists out of the laboratory and make them members of these committees. And, the very best men in the field should be appointed as chairmen at salamries of fifty thousand dollars each. Also have about twenty prizes of one hundred thousand dollars each for hte best scientific papers of the year. This is just about all you would have to do. Your lawyers could easily prepare a charter for the foundation. As a matter of fact, any of the National Science Foundation bills which were introduced in the Seventy-ninth and Eightieth Congresses could perfectly well serve as a model. I think you had better explain to Mr. Gable why this foundation would in fact retard the progress of science, said a bespectacled young man sitting at the far end of the table, whose name i didn't get at the time of introduction. It should be obvious, i said. First of all, the best scientists would be removed from their laboratories and kept busy on committees passing on applications for funds. Secondly, the scientific workers in need of funds would concentrate on problems which were considered promising and were pretty certain to lead to publishable results. For a few years there might be a great increase in scientific output; but by going after the obvious, pretty soon science would dry out. Science woudl become something like a parlor game. Some things would be considered interesting, others not. There would be fashions. Those who followed the fashion would get grants. Those who wouldn't woudl not, and pretty soon they would learn to follow the fashion, too. In other words, scientists would not take chances, because that risks getting grants, they would not do long-term research because it is slow
Re: [ECOLOG-L] new HR bill requires NSF funders to justify funding
Arguably, the changes DEB itself has installed in the NSF review process over the past two years are also likely to damage the American scientific enterprise. In order to relieve pressure on staff and reviewers, DEB has gone to a once-a-year cycle of pre-proposals, with at most two pre-proposals per investigator, and with ca. 30% of submissions allowed to go forward with full proposals. The once-per-year aspect is deadly, in my opinion and that of every senior ecologist and evolutionary biologist I've spoken with. The chances of going for more than two years without support – whether for justifiable cause, or a wacko review or two from a small pool of screeners – are quite substantial. No funding for two or three years = lab death for anyone pursuing high-cost research w/o a start-up or retention package in hand. Lab death can hit both junior and senior investigators; the forced movement to a once-a-year cycle means that the ability to respond quickly to useful reviewer comments and erroneous reviewer claims is halved. The role of random, wacko elements in the review process (and we all know very well those are there), is probably doubled. And the ability to pursue timely ecological research is substantially reduced by doubling the lags in the system. The full proposal for those who are invited effectively increases the proposal-writing workload for many of the best scientists. We have been saddled with a system that is sluggish, slow to adapt, more prone to stochastic factors, and more ensnarling of the top researchers in red tape. We can and must do better. My advice: Return to two review cycles per year, no pre-proposals, and make the full proposals just six pages long. Total review efforts will most likely be reduced over even the current experimental approach, and writing efforts by successful proposers will be greatly reduced. One incidental advantage: by reducing the amount of eye-glazing detail on experimental protocols – which we are not in any case bound to follow if we receive the award – we might reduce the core temptation to which (alas) many reviewers and panel members are prone, of playing gotcha with minor details of protocol while giving short shrift to the innovative or possibly transformational value of the studies being proposed. Thomas J. Givnish Henry Allan Gleason Professor of Botany University of Wisconsin givn...@wisc.edu http://botany.wisc.edu/givnish/Givnish/Welcome.html On 11/20/13, malcolm McCallum wrote: That is false logic. There have been numerous studies demonstrating the remarkable over-all productivity of American scientists. However, that does not mean that the system for funding is the reason. In fact, it is quite possible, and i'ld argue very likely that these same individuals would be remarkably more productive if not devotion time to grantsmanship. A point I should also offer is that this is not coming from someone who has difficulty with grantsmanship. heck, I was a proposal writer for a major not-for-profit and managed their grants program during the entire time. I'm just pointing out what is frank logic. you have a trade-off with time you devote to professional activities. If you are spending time doing data collection, then that same time cannot be used for other things. Likewise, if you are using it to get proposals prepared, you are not collecting, analyzing data or preparing manuscripts aat the same time. You must divide your time among these activities. I've long thought it would be wise for science departmetns to hire a professional grantwriter who specializes in science grants, particularly for non-research funding. A good grantwriter is worth his/her weight in gold because he/she understands the system. I don't think anyone does this though! :) M On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 4:14 PM, mcnee...@cox.net wrote: Well, politics certainly interferes with the furtherance of science, as do the mechanics you describe. But, hmmm... . Do European institutions excel relative to the U.S. in scientific progress? Many of them do have funded institutions, with funded laboratories within them. David McNeely malcolm McCallum malcolm.mccal...@herpconbio.org wrote: Well, first they disbanded political science research, and now they are trying to do the first steps to slowing science. The person at NSF who approves funding must justify such. why? that way the congress can go after that person, exert pressure on the scientific process, and turn it into a political instead of a scientific process. http://news.sciencemag.org/education/2013/11/republican-plan-guide-nsf-programs-draws-darts-and-befuddlement-research-advocates These developments are interesting to me because when NSF was first being conceived there were those who felt the concept would slow science by turning it into a search for funding rather than a search for facts. More and more, we are becoming
[ECOLOG-L] Ph.D. Assistantship in Sustainable Food Systems
A Ph.D. assistantship for fall 2014 is available in the Dept. of Horticulture at Virginia Tech in the field of Sustainable Food Systems. Areas of interest may include: climate change, organic agriculture, land-use change, ecosystem services, and local food systems. I am looking for a self-motivated student who is comfortable working independently and would like to design their own research program. M.S. preferred. Excellent GRE and GPA scores, and interest in agriculture and interdisciplinary research required. Two to three years of GRA support and additional TA assistance plus tuition and health care coverage is available. Please contact Megan O'Rourke at megor...@vt.edu with a copy of your cv and a description of your research ideas. List your GRE and GPA in the body of the email. A full application for graduate school would be due Jan. 15, 2014 http://graduateschool.vt.edu/admissions/applying
[ECOLOG-L] A Herpdigest Special Issue- 11/20/13 A Primer on Ranavirus
A Herpdigest Special Issue- 11/20/13 A Primer on Ranavirus Herpdigest is The Only Free Weekly Electronic Newsletter That Reports on the Latest News on Herpetological Conservation, Husbandry and Science Publisher/Editor- Allen Salzberg _ HerpDigest is a non-profit organization that is totally dependent on your generosity for its continued existence: Please make a donation on top of your order. _ Check with your Human Resources Department-Do they have a Matching Gifts program? ___ Only 3 TURTLE and 1 SEA TURTLES, 2014 calendars are left -same price as last year, $14.99 each, plus $6.00 SH $2.00 for every additional calendar. To order, and see photos of the front and back covers as well as a sample photo of an inside page from both calendars go to http://www.herpdigest.org/calendars.html DON’T WAIT UNTIL WE ARE OUT OF STOCK OF ALL CALENDARS. Interested in any of the 3 publications below go to http://herpdigest.org/books.html for further information on them and info on how to order. THE NEW --The Map Turtle and Sawback Atlas: Ecology, Evolution, Distribution, and Conservation, by Peter V. Lindeman AND BACK IN STOCK The Tortoise- Volume 1 Number 1 -- LIMITED # AVAILABLE (Available only if you also buy issue number 2) The Tortoise- Volume 1 Number 2 (Brand New) Each issue of “The Tortoise” contains 160 pages and over 160 color photos on turtles and tortoises from all over the world. This is not a how to care magazine, but how to conserve, and why its so hard, often told by the herpetologists involved. Overseas please email us at asalzb...@herpdigest.org for exact shipping costs. The Magnets of Herps, Birds, Mammals, Invertebrates, Sea Creatures and... Are Back But we are running out of them, 18 different kinds are already sold out. half were herps. Go to the url below to see what is left. Act Now. Don’t wait until the last minute when there is nothing left. Don’t wait until Black Friday or Cyber Tuesday. Great Hanukah Christmas gifts. For a $25.00 donation we will thank you with 4 magnets of your choice. (For each additional magnet add $6.00.) Please include three alternatives. Samp;H is included. See order form below. All magnets are 2.5 x 3.5 Mylar UV protected on a flat magnetic back. To see the extensive collection and information on how to order go to http://herpdigest.org/donate.html or The University College Herp Diplomas For a $25.00 donation we will thank you with a personalized diploma of your choice (add $20 for each additional personalized diploma). SH is included. Give as gifts to others or yourself and help HerpDigest stay alive. Diplomas available Turtle University (Sea) Turtle University, Frog University, Snake University, Gecko, Salamander State, Bearded Dragon and Chameleon Universities. For information on how to order. Go to http://herpdigest.org/diplomas.html Both great gifts for you, family and friends. Animal or Herp lover. __ Please send all questions or correspondence to the author Dave Lee Dave Lee, torres...@aol.com If you are a turtle, a frog or even a tadpole you need to read this— It’s really scary! A Primer on Ranaviruses. David S. Lee, The Tortoise Reserve Forget vampires and zombies there is a real cold-blooded killer out there, it’s a pathogen named Ranavirus. As the label implies it is not exactly frog friendly, but it also causes illness and death in salamanders, reptiles and fish. This virus is now found worldwide. Transmission is rapid and can result from either direct or indirect contact with infected animals. The virus enters cells of the host and takes over the cell processes for its own replication. Ranaviruses can infect multiple cell types and cell death can occur in as little as 9 hours, quickly leading to loss of organ function. Susceptibility varies with species. In some frogs, for example, mortality can result in just 3 days. Experiments done on infected and uninfected salamanders showed the virus could be transmitted when the salamanders were in contact for as little as 1 second. Exposure to water or soil contaminated with Ranavirus can also result in disease. History and background Ranaviruses are believed to have evolved in fish and only later began to infect amphibians and reptiles (Jancovich et al 2010). It was first reported from amphibians in the 1960’s in a population of northern leopard frogs, Lithobates pipiens (Granoff, et al. 1965), yet the impact of widespread virus related die-offs was not recognized until
[ECOLOG-L] A Herpdigest Special- Unstoppable Anaconda Invasion in Florida? What Slate Got Wrong.
An Unstoppable Anaconda Invasion in Florida? What Slate Got Wrong. Photo By Dave Lonsdale, Wikimedia by Dr. David Steen from his Living Alongside Wildlife blog. Last week Slate ran a piece in their Wild Things blog entitled, “Green Anacondas in the Everglades: The Largest Snake in the World has Invaded the United States.” Obviously the sensational headline caught my attention as did the subtitle, which refers to this invasion as unstoppable. However, after reading the actual article I realized that it was basically just a smattering of anecdotes. That makes for a fun story and some interesting conversations, but unfortunately it is too easy to interpret the article as news. Let me be clear: There is virtually no evidence that a population of anacondas exists in Florida. Curiously, Slate does not mention that the two individuals that provided the bulk of their anaconda information are affiliated with the Skunk Ape Museum in Ochopee, Florida (the facility is instead described as a “roadside zoo” or the “Trail Lakes Campground”). The Skunk Ape, if you’re not familiar, is the South Florida equivalent of Bigfoot. For what it’s worth, the official website of the Skunk Ape Museum unequivocally states that there are between 7-9 Skunk Apes living in the Everglades. Now, just because someone believes that there is a population of Skunk Apes living in the Everglades does not mean that we can or should discount everything they say, but it does indicate that they probably have different standards than most people when deciding what is circumstantial evidence and what is proof when it comes to determining whether an animal population exists. If you give the article a careful read, the entire premise that there is a breeding population of Green Anacondas (Eunectes murinus) in the Everglades boils down to: 1) ten years ago a juvenile Green Anaconda was found in the Everglades; the snake didn’t eat anything and died, 2) another Green Anaconda was later found in the region and finally, 3) lots of people around the Everglades have seen large snakes they did not identify but that possibly could have been Green Anacondas. I don't know about you, but this does not convince me that anacondas have invaded South Florida. The worst (and incredibly ironic) part of the article is that it repeatedly suggests that the well-publicized concern about the Burmese Python in Florida is largely a result of media-hype while the real problem (i.e., Green Anacondas) is overlooked. The fact that there is a large, reproducing population of Burmese Pythons in Florida is well-documented: thousands have been found including everything from juveniles to giant adults with 87 eggs inside. This population has been the subject of several large and ongoing research projects that have produced numerous scientific papers. For example, a recent paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences described how mammal populations have crashed as the Burmese Python population expanded (and presumably, as they ate many of the mammals). On the other hand, documentation of the Green Anaconda invasion basically consists entirely of the majorly hyped-up Slate article, which hints that the snakes can get as wide as hula-hoops (they can’t) and probably eat people. The irony boggled my mind. Because I only have very little first-hand experience with large invasive snakes, I contacted some of my friends and colleagues that study these Florida reptiles for their perspectives on the article. Unfortunately, I can’t repeat most of their reactions here (this is a family-friendly blog after all). But, fortunately Dr. J.D. Willson did provide a printable response. J.D. is an Assistant Professor at the University of Arkansas and has authored numerous articles about Burmese Pythons in Florida. Notably, he is also co-author of the new book, Invasive Pythons in the United States: Ecology of an Introduced Predator. I figured he could set the record straight. J.D. replied, “Although there certainly has been a strong dose of sensationalism about the Burmese Python issue from the media, our research suggests that the problem is severe and should be considered a major threat to the Everglades. Over the past decade, Burmese Pythons have spread over an area of at least 4,000 square miles and including all of Everglades National Park and Big Cypress National Preserve. They also appear to have wiped out mammals such as rabbits, raccoons, and bobcats in the heart of the Everglades National Park. Over 2,000 of these snakes have been captured and our research shows that this is just a tiny fraction of the overall population… On the other hand… “…We currently have no reason to suspect that anacondas are established in South Florida. This species certainly is kept in captivity and apparently escaped or released pets have been found. However, the small number of individuals that have been found were far apart and there has been no evidence of
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Mongabay Prize for Environmental Reporting
Congratulations!!! A phenomenal accomplishment for an admirable career thus far. keep up the good work! For those who have not read Wendee's work, you should. She does an outstanding job of environmental reporting. Malcolm On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 8:17 PM, Wendee Nicole wendeenic...@nasw.org wrote: I thought you all might be interested in seeing this exciting news, since many of you have followed my career from the time I was a wee undergrad. I just found out last week I was awarded Mongabay's first Prize for Environmental Reporting! This is a competitive 6-mo grant that will fund me to travel to explore the question What is the next big idea in tropical biodiversity conservation? I selected the concept of polycentric governance (thanks to Jean-Baptiste Pichancourt who tipped me off to this fascinating important concept) to explore and will report at least 4 stories, including 2 in Uganda (one with mountain gorillas – Conservation Through Public Health ctph.org) and one with the Batwa people, 1 in Peru on REDD and how polycentric governance can informs that program overcome some of the resistance to it by indigenous groups, and then one on Nobel prize winner Elinor Ostrom's life and work. I will probably blog at Mongabay along the way – still working out the details. Here's the announcement: http://news.mongabay.com/2013/1116-sri01-winner-announced.html And if any of you have any leads in Uganda (decentralization policies etc) or Peru (with REDD projects specifically). I'm already connected with the mountain gorilla folks I was going to report on but I am always open to ideas and thoughts :) Wendee Wendee Nicole, M.S. Wildlife Ecology Freelance Writer * Photographer * Bohemian Web: http://www.wendeenicole.com Adventures Blog: http://bohemianadventures.blogspot.com Writing Green ~ online class http://www.wendeenicole.com/nature.htm -- Malcolm L. McCallum Department of Environmental Studies University of Illinois at Springfield Managing Editor, Herpetological Conservation and Biology Peer pressure is designed to contain anyone with a sense of drive - Allan Nation 1880's: There's lots of good fish in the sea W.S. Gilbert 1990's: Many fish stocks depleted due to overfishing, habitat loss, and pollution. 2000: Marine reserves, ecosystem restoration, and pollution reduction MAY help restore populations. 2022: Soylent Green is People! The Seven Blunders of the World (Mohandas Gandhi) Wealth w/o work Pleasure w/o conscience Knowledge w/o character Commerce w/o morality Science w/o humanity Worship w/o sacrifice Politics w/o principle Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
[ECOLOG-L] Graduate Student Leaders Sought to Shape Science Policy
Applications are now being accepted for the 2014 AIBS Emerging Public Policy Leadership Award. This award recognizes graduate students in the biological sciences who have demonstrated initiative and leadership in science policy. Recipients receive first-hand experience at the interface of science and public policy. Winners receive: -A trip to Washington, DC, to participate in the Biological and Ecological Sciences Coalition Congressional Visits Day, an annual event that brings scientists to the nation’s capital to advocate for federal investment in the biological sciences, with a primary focus on the National Science Foundation. The event will be held on 9-10 April 2014. Domestic travel and hotel expenses will be paid for the winners. -Policy and communications training, and information on trends in federal science funding and the legislative process. -Meetings with Congressional policymakers to discuss the importance of federal investments in the biological sciences. -A 1-year AIBS membership, including a subscription to the journal BioScience and a copy of “Communicating Science: A Primer for Working with the Media.” -An award certificate and membership in the EPPLA alumni network. The 2014 award is open to U.S. citizens enrolled in a graduate degree program in the biological sciences, science education, or a closely allied field. Applicants should have a demonstrated interest in and commitment to science policy and/or science education policy. Prior EPPLA winners and AIBS science policy interns/fellows are not eligible. Applications are due by 11:59 PM Eastern Time on Monday, 13 January 2014. The application can be downloaded at http://www.aibs.org/public-policy/eppla.html . Please help us to spread the word about this valuable program. Julie Palakovich Carr Public Policy Manager American Institute of Biological Sciences 1444 I Street, NW Suite 200 Washington, DC 20005 202-568-8117 www.aibs.org This message is confidential and should only be read by its intended recipients. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender and delete all copies.
Re: [ECOLOG-L] A Herpdigest Special- Unstoppable Anaconda Invasion in Florida? What Slate Got Wrong.
This whole report and the skunk apes (which I never heard of before) could inspire another hilarious book from Carl Hiaassen. An Unstoppable Anaconda Invasion in Florida? What Slate Got Wrong. Photo By Dave Lonsdale, Wikimedia by Dr. David Steen from his Living Alongside Wildlife blog. Last week Slate ran a piece in their Wild Things blog entitled, Green Anacondas in the Everglades: The Largest Snake in the World has Invaded the United States. Obviously the sensational headline caught my attention as did the subtitle, which refers to this invasion as unstoppable. However, after reading the actual article I realized that it was basically just a smattering of anecdotes. That makes for a fun story and some interesting conversations, but unfortunately it is too easy to interpret the article as news. Let me be clear: There is virtually no evidence that a population of anacondas exists in Florida. Curiously, Slate does not mention that the two individuals that provided the bulk of their anaconda information are affiliated with the Skunk Ape Museum in Ochopee, Florida (the facility is instead described as a roadside zoo or the Trail Lakes Campground). The Skunk Ape, if youre not familiar, is the South Florida equivalent of Bigfoot. For what its worth, the official website of the Skunk Ape Museum unequivocally states that there are between 7-9 Skunk Apes living in the Everglades. Now, just because someone believes that there is a population of Skunk Apes living in the Everglades does not mean that we can or should discount everything they say, but it does indicate that they probably have different standards than most people when deciding what is circumstantial evidence and what is proof when it comes to determining whether an animal population exists. If you give the article a careful read, the entire premise that there is a breeding population of Green Anacondas (Eunectes murinus) in the Everglades boils down to: 1) ten years ago a juvenile Green Anaconda was found in the Everglades; the snake didnt eat anything and died, 2) another Green Anaconda was later found in the region and finally, 3) lots of people around the Everglades have seen large snakes they did not identify but that possibly could have been Green Anacondas. I don't know about you, but this does not convince me that anacondas have invaded South Florida. The worst (and incredibly ironic) part of the article is that it repeatedly suggests that the well-publicized concern about the Burmese Python in Florida is largely a result of media-hype while the real problem (i.e., Green Anacondas) is overlooked. The fact that there is a large, reproducing population of Burmese Pythons in Florida is well-documented: thousands have been found including everything from juveniles to giant adults with 87 eggs inside. This population has been the subject of several large and ongoing research projects that have produced numerous scientific papers. For example, a recent paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences described how mammal populations have crashed as the Burmese Python population expanded (and presumably, as they ate many of the mammals). On the other hand, documentation of the Green Anaconda invasion basically consists entirely of the majorly hyped-up Slate article, which hints that the snakes can get as wide as hula-hoops (they cant) and probably eat people. The irony boggled my mind. Because I only have very little first-hand experience with large invasive snakes, I contacted some of my friends and colleagues that study these Florida reptiles for their perspectives on the article. Unfortunately, I cant repeat most of their reactions here (this is a family-friendly blog after all). But, fortunately Dr. J.D. Willson did provide a printable response. J.D. is an Assistant Professor at the University of Arkansas and has authored numerous articles about Burmese Pythons in Florida. Notably, he is also co-author of the new book, Invasive Pythons in the United States: Ecology of an Introduced Predator. I figured he could set the record straight. J.D. replied, Although there certainly has been a strong dose of sensationalism about the Burmese Python issue from the media, our research suggests that the problem is severe and should be considered a major threat to the Everglades. Over the past decade, Burmese Pythons have spread over an area of at least 4,000 square miles and including all of Everglades National Park and Big Cypress National Preserve. They also appear to have wiped out mammals such as rabbits, raccoons, and bobcats in the heart of the Everglades National Park. Over 2,000 of these snakes have been captured and our research shows that this is just a tiny fraction of the overall population On the other hand We currently have no reason to suspect that anacondas are established in South Florida.
[ECOLOG-L] Lab Manager/Instructor position in the Biology Department at UNC-Asheville
The Biology Department at the University of North Carolina at Asheville is seeking applications for a full-time (12 month) Lab Manager/Instructor position. Requires a Master's degree in Biology or a related discipline. Duties will include teaching six contact hours per semester and over the summer while coordinating laboratory teaching and support activities for introductory Biology courses. We are accepting applications until January 5th, 2014. You can see the full position description and submit applications here: https://careers.unca.edu/applicants/jsp/shared/position/JobDetails_css.jsp?postingId=145023 -- *** Jonathan Horton Ph.D. Biology Department CPO#2040 UNC-Asheville One University Heights Asheville, NC 28804 phone: 828-232-5152 email: jhor...@unca.edu ***
[ECOLOG-L] EOL Podcast Highlights - Women in Science
EOL Podcast Highlights - Women in Science The following podcasts from the Encyclopedia of Life's One Species at a Time Podcast series feature female scientists in the field! Listen to each podcast and make sure to check out the Meet the Scientist interview links. http://eol.org/collections/97612 The One Species at a Time podcast series is supported by the Harvard Museum of Comparative Zoology.
Re: [ECOLOG-L] new HR bill requires NSF funders to justify funding
Excellent proposal Givnish.
MacCallum, I was not intending to disagree with your comments. In fact, I
stated that I agreed. I just thought all related information should be
considered before declaring the grants system a total bust. It does result in
good science, it just interferes with a lot of other good science getting done.
David McNeely
Thomas J. Givnish givn...@facstaff.wisc.edu wrote:
Arguably, the changes DEB itself has installed in the NSF review process over
the past two years are also likely to damage the American scientific
enterprise. In order to relieve pressure on staff and reviewers, DEB has gone
to a once-a-year cycle of pre-proposals, with at most two pre-proposals per
investigator, and with ca. 30% of submissions allowed to go forward with full
proposals. The once-per-year aspect is deadly, in my opinion and that of
every senior ecologist and evolutionary biologist I've spoken with. The
chances of going for more than two years without support – whether for
justifiable cause, or a wacko review or two from a small pool of screeners –
are quite substantial. No funding for two or three years = lab death for
anyone pursuing high-cost research w/o a start-up or retention package in
hand. Lab death can hit both junior and senior investigators; the forced
movement to a once-a-year cycle means that the ability to respond quickly to
useful reviewer comments and erroneous reviewer claims is halved. The role of
random, wacko elements in the review process (and we all know very well those
are there), is probably doubled. And the ability to pursue timely ecological
research is substantially reduced by doubling the lags in the system. The
full proposal for those who are invited effectively increases the
proposal-writing workload for many of the best scientists. We have been
saddled with a system that is sluggish, slow to adapt, more prone to
stochastic factors, and more ensnarling of the top researchers in red tape.
We can and must do better.
My advice: Return to two review cycles per year, no pre-proposals, and make
the full proposals just six pages long. Total review efforts will most likely
be reduced over even the current experimental approach, and writing efforts
by successful proposers will be greatly reduced. One incidental advantage: by
reducing the amount of eye-glazing detail on experimental protocols – which
we are not in any case bound to follow if we receive the award – we might
reduce the core temptation to which (alas) many reviewers and panel members
are prone, of playing gotcha with minor details of protocol while giving
short shrift to the innovative or possibly transformational value of the
studies being proposed.
Thomas J. Givnish
Henry Allan Gleason Professor of Botany
University of Wisconsin
givn...@wisc.edu
http://botany.wisc.edu/givnish/Givnish/Welcome.html
On 11/20/13, malcolm McCallum wrote:
That is false logic.
There have been numerous studies demonstrating the remarkable over-all
productivity of American scientists. However, that does not mean
that the system for funding is the reason. In fact, it is quite
possible, and i'ld argue very likely that these same individuals would
be remarkably more productive if not devotion time to grantsmanship.
A point I should also offer is that this is not coming from someone
who has difficulty with grantsmanship. heck, I was a proposal writer
for a major not-for-profit and managed their grants program during the
entire time. I'm just pointing out what is frank logic. you have a
trade-off with time you devote to professional activities. If you are
spending time doing data collection, then that same time cannot be
used for other things. Likewise, if you are using it to get proposals
prepared, you are not collecting, analyzing data or preparing
manuscripts aat the same time. You must divide your time among these
activities. I've long thought it would be wise for science
departmetns to hire a professional grantwriter who specializes in
science grants, particularly for non-research funding. A good
grantwriter is worth his/her weight in gold because he/she understands
the system.
I don't think anyone does this though! :)
M
On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 4:14 PM, mcnee...@cox.net wrote:
Well, politics certainly interferes with the furtherance of science, as
do the mechanics you describe.
But, hmmm... . Do European institutions excel relative to the U.S. in
scientific progress? Many of them do have funded institutions, with
funded laboratories within them.
David McNeely
malcolm McCallum malcolm.mccal...@herpconbio.org wrote:
Well, first they disbanded political science research, and now they
are trying to do the first steps to slowing science. The person at
NSF who approves funding must justify such. why? that way the
congress can go after that person,
[ECOLOG-L] [SUSPICIOUS MESSAGE] [POTENTIAL JUNK MAIL] Re: [ECOLOG-L] new HR bill requires NSF funders to justify funding
-- WARNING: Your email security system has determined the message below may be a potential threat. It may pose as a legitimate company proposing a risk-free transaction, but requests money from the victim to complete a business deal. If you do not know the sender or cannot verify the integrity of the message, please do not respond or click on links in the message. Depending on the security settings, clickable URLs may have been modified to provide additional security. -- Suspicious threat disclaimer ends here I agree with you on most of this. Personally, I'ld like them to do one thing differently than you suggest, use pre-proposals all the time, but have two cycles. By doing this, it would allow the initial screening to eliminate the huge pile of generally unfundable submissions. The bad thing for the proposers though is that their feedback would be much less extensive, so future success may be reduced. Currently, or at least I heard that most people get rejected on the first submission. but, the % success on resubmissions is much higher. I think its pretty obvious that the biggest problem is manpower. David Hillis (UT-Austin) has for some time been promoting that it would be more beneficial and productive for NSF (and other agencies) to award more smaller grants than a few giant ones. Apparently, there is research demonstrating that small grants actually give more bang for the buck. Personally, i think this would be an interesting approach, but i'm pretty convinced it would never happen. If NSF just abandoned funding indirect costs, that would make a huge difference. And, frankly most indirect costs are real costs, but I'm not sure that going above 10-20% negotiated rate is valid. Some schools get substantially higher rates which simply eats up money intended for research and dumps it in other areas. Even breaking up indirect costs to eliminate the chaff might be seriously considered. On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 10:13 AM, Thomas J. Givnish givn...@facstaff.wisc.edu wrote: Arguably, the changes DEB itself has installed in the NSF review process over the past two years are also likely to damage the American scientific enterprise. In order to relieve pressure on staff and reviewers, DEB has gone to a once-a-year cycle of pre-proposals, with at most two pre-proposals per investigator, and with ca. 30% of submissions allowed to go forward with full proposals. The once-per-year aspect is deadly, in my opinion and that of every senior ecologist and evolutionary biologist I've spoken with. The chances of going for more than two years without support – whether for justifiable cause, or a wacko review or two from a small pool of screeners – are quite substantial. No funding for two or three years = lab death for anyone pursuing high-cost research w/o a start-up or retention package in hand. Lab death can hit both junior and senior investigators; the forced movement to a once-a-year cycle means that the ability to respond quickly to useful reviewer comments and erroneous reviewer claims is halved. The role of random, wacko elements in the review process (and we all know very well those are there), is probably doubled. And the ability to pursue timely ecological research is substantially reduced by doubling the lags in the system. The full proposal for those who are invited effectively increases the proposal-writing workload for many of the best scientists. We have been saddled with a system that is sluggish, slow to adapt, more prone to stochastic factors, and more ensnarling of the top researchers in red tape. We can and must do better. My advice: Return to two review cycles per year, no pre-proposals, and make the full proposals just six pages long. Total review efforts will most likely be reduced over even the current experimental approach, and writing efforts by successful proposers will be greatly reduced. One incidental advantage: by reducing the amount of eye-glazing detail on experimental protocols – which we are not in any case bound to follow if we receive the award – we might reduce the core temptation to which (alas) many reviewers and panel members are prone, of playing gotcha with minor details of protocol while giving short shrift to the innovative or possibly transformational value of the studies being proposed. Thomas J. Givnish Henry Allan Gleason Professor of Botany University of Wisconsin givn...@wisc.edu http://secure-web.cisco.com/auth=11gZHa535JwsQxbwSEr6k4Z7lhNe_turl=http%3A%2F%2Fbotany.wisc.edu%2Fgivnish%2FGivnish%2FWelcome.html On 11/20/13, malcolm McCallum wrote: That is false logic. There have been numerous studies demonstrating the remarkable over-all productivity of American scientists. However, that does not
[ECOLOG-L] Assistant Professor in Ecoinformatics at UC Berkeley
POSITION ANNOUNCEMENT ASSISTANT PROFESSOR IN ECOINFORMATICS IN THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE, POLICY, AND MANAGEMENT UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY The Department of Environmental Science, Policy, and Management’s (ESPM) Division of Organisms and Environment at the University of California, Berkeley is recruiting for a tenure-track (academic year), assistant professor position in the field of Ecoinformatics, with an expected start date of July 1, 2014. This position includes a joint appointment with the California Agricultural Experiment Station. The department seeks candidates whose research, teaching and service position them to develop a world class ecoinformatics program that connects with one or more related programs on the Berkeley campus, such as the Berkeley initiative on Global Change Biology (BiGCB), the College of Natural Resources Geospatial Innovation Facility (GIF), or the Center for Computational Biology (CCB). We are seeking a candidate either with exceptionally strong computational and modeling skills or with extensive data mining and manipulation, and information management experience. We are particularly interested in candidates capable of linking physical and biological processes to obtain a comprehensive understanding of environmental and ecosystem processes. The successful candidate will be expected to offer an upper division undergraduate course in management and analysis of ecological data and develop a cutting edge ecoinformatics course for graduate students in their sub-area of expertise. Candidates are also expected to contribute to diversity and equal opportunity in higher education through their teaching, research, and service. The minimum requirement to be considered as an applicant for this position is the completion of all doctoral degree requirements except the dissertation in an applicable area of research. The Ph.D. or equivalent is required by the date of hire. Post-doctoral experience in the ecological and environmental sciences demonstrating an ability to manage, visualize and analyze large sets of data is desired. Women and under-represented ethnic minorities are especially encouraged to apply. Applications will be accepted through January 10, 2014. Applicants should submit the following materials online at http://aprecruit.berkeley.edu/apply/JPF00268: 1) a cover letter, 2) a curriculum vitae, 3) a statement of research and teaching interests, 4) pdf copies of three peer-reviewed publications, and 5) three letters of recommendation (requested directly through our online application system). All letters will be treated as confidential per University of California policy and California state law. Please refer potential referees, including those submitting letters via a third party (i.e., dossier service or career center), to the UC Berkeley statement of confidentiality: http://apo.chance.berkeley.edu/evalltr.html. Applicants may direct questions to espm_recr...@berkeley.edu. Additional information on this position can be found at http://ourenvironment.berkeley.edu/Ecoinformatics.pdf . For additional information on the Department and the campus visit http://ourenvironment.berkeley.edu, and http://berkeley.edu. The University of California is an equal opportunity, affirmative action employer.
[ECOLOG-L] Call for papers on Sustainable Payments for Ecosystem Services --2014 AAG
Dear Ecologers, Please spread the following call to people with interest you know of. Thanks. Call for Papers*: AAG Annual Meeting, 8-12 April 2014 *Session Title: *Paths toward Sustainable Payments for Ecosystem Services Co-organizers: Li An, Stephen Crook Co-chairs: Li An, Douglas Stow Payments for ecosystem services (PES) are direct incentives paid to resource users to take actions (or to refrain from previous actions) to secure ecosystem services such as clean air and water, food, soil fertility, forest resources, and eco-tourism. Governments, the private sector, and many non-governmental organizations worldwide invest billions of dollars each year in PES programs. Despite reported successes in restoring and conserving ecosystems and their corresponding services, lack of sustainability has become a serious concern for many PES programs worldwide; one of the problems is that PES participants may return to their previous behavioral patterns when payments end. This session will explore possible pathways toward PES sustainability, addressing the complex reciprocal relationships between PES programs and corresponding socioeconomic, demographic, and environmental systems. We particularly encourage review and research articles to address theoretical, methodological, and empirical issues related to (but not limited to) the following topics: 1. Potential mechanisms for successful (or unsuccessful) PES programs 2. Ecological effects of PES programs (e.g., wildlife habitat or behavioral change, biodiversity change) 3. Socioeconomic, demographic, and political consequences of PES programs 4. Methodological issues: collection of qualitative and quantitative data related to PES, data analysis and modeling, application of GIS techniques and spatial statistics, integration of multidisciplinary and multi-scale data, and addressing complexity in PES related coupled natural and human systems (CNH). Analyses using similar integrated frameworks including coupled human and natural systems (CHANS), social-ecological systems, or social-environmental systems are also welcome. This session (sessions) is co-sponsored by both the Spatial Analysis and Modeling group and the Human Dimensions of Global Change group. To be considered for the sessions: 1. Please register and submit your abstract online following the AAG Guidelines (http://www.aag.org/cs/annualmeeting); and 2. Please send your paper title, PIN, and abstract no later than Friday, November 29 to Stephen Crook (scr...@gmail.com mailto:scr...@gmail.com) and cc to Dr. Li An (l...@mail.sdsu.edu mailto:l...@mail.sdsu.edu). Thanks, LI -- * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Li An (??), PhD Professor Department of Geography San Diego State University http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/~lian/ (Personal website) http://complexity.sdsu.edu/ (Group Website) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [ECOLOG-L] new HR bill requires NSF funders to justify funding
A few quick things in regard to the comments below. 1. DEB did institute a Small Grants Program, see Program Solicitation NSF 13-508 and NSF 14-503. Relevant wording: Small Grants: The Division welcomes proposals for Small Grants to the core programs via this solicitation. These awards are intended to support full-fledged research projects that simply require total budgets of $150,000 or less. Small Grant proposals follow the same two-stage review process and will be assessed based on the same merit review criteria as all other proposals to this solicitation. 2. NSF has nothing to do with the setting of Indirect Costs. 3. The formal survey that DEB sent to the ecological and evolutionary communities on 17 April 2013 (to over 19,660 individuals) which assessed the communities' satisfaction with aspects of the new proposal process in DEB and IOS has been analyzed. We are in the process of writing that paper for submission to Bioscience by the end of the year. 4. NSF does listen to the scientific community and tries very hard to do what's best for science. Flat budgets and the subsequent sinking success rates are the real problems. ___ Dr. Leslie J. Rissler Associate Professor Department of Biological Sciences MHB Hall Room 307 University of Alabama Tuscaloosa, AL 35487 205-348-4052 riss...@as.ua.edumailto:riss...@as.ua.edu www.ljrissler.org On Nov 20, 2013, at 10:34 AM, malcolm McCallum malcolm.mccal...@herpconbio.orgmailto:malcolm.mccal...@herpconbio.org wrote: -- WARNING: Your email security system has determined the message below may be a potential threat. It may pose as a legitimate company proposing a risk-free transaction, but requests money from the victim to complete a business deal. If you do not know the sender or cannot verify the integrity of the message, please do not respond or click on links in the message. Depending on the security settings, clickable URLs may have been modified to provide additional security. -- Suspicious threat disclaimer ends here I agree with you on most of this. Personally, I'ld like them to do one thing differently than you suggest, use pre-proposals all the time, but have two cycles. By doing this, it would allow the initial screening to eliminate the huge pile of generally unfundable submissions. The bad thing for the proposers though is that their feedback would be much less extensive, so future success may be reduced. Currently, or at least I heard that most people get rejected on the first submission. but, the % success on resubmissions is much higher. I think its pretty obvious that the biggest problem is manpower. David Hillis (UT-Austin) has for some time been promoting that it would be more beneficial and productive for NSF (and other agencies) to award more smaller grants than a few giant ones. Apparently, there is research demonstrating that small grants actually give more bang for the buck. Personally, i think this would be an interesting approach, but i'm pretty convinced it would never happen. If NSF just abandoned funding indirect costs, that would make a huge difference. And, frankly most indirect costs are real costs, but I'm not sure that going above 10-20% negotiated rate is valid. Some schools get substantially higher rates which simply eats up money intended for research and dumps it in other areas. Even breaking up indirect costs to eliminate the chaff might be seriously considered. On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 10:13 AM, Thomas J. Givnish givn...@facstaff.wisc.edumailto:givn...@facstaff.wisc.edu wrote: Arguably, the changes DEB itself has installed in the NSF review process over the past two years are also likely to damage the American scientific enterprise. In order to relieve pressure on staff and reviewers, DEB has gone to a once-a-year cycle of pre-proposals, with at most two pre-proposals per investigator, and with ca. 30% of submissions allowed to go forward with full proposals. The once-per-year aspect is deadly, in my opinion and that of every senior ecologist and evolutionary biologist I've spoken with. The chances of going for more than two years without support – whether for justifiable cause, or a wacko review or two from a small pool of screeners – are quite substantial. No funding for two or three years = lab death for anyone pursuing high-cost research w/o a start-up or retention package in hand. Lab death can hit both junior and senior investigators; the forced movement to a once-a-year cycle means that the ability to respond quickly to useful reviewer comments and erroneous reviewer claims is halved. The role of random, wacko elements in the review process (and we all know very well those are there), is probably doubled. And the ability to pursue timely ecological research is
