Re: [ECOLOG-L] Non-Majors Biology

[David L. McNeely]

June _Scientific American_ has an excellent article that very effectively 
relates microbiology to the lives of students.  It considers the ecology of 
human symbiotic microbes.  More microbiology of this kind, and less 
memorization of how microbial cells metabolize could be quite meaningful in a 
non-majors (or for that matter, a majors) biology course.   David McNeely

 CHELSEA LYNN TEALE  wrote: 
> Instead of addressing
> actual curriculum
> (except to say I
> agree cellular/microbiology is a turn-off for the majority of non-biologists),
> I want to emphasize context through interaction with off-campus scientists and
> current events.  Biology majors already know how the subject relates to them
> but non-majors may need examples, and my single suggestion is
> to take advantage of your local museum.
> 
> 
> At the New
> York State Museum - within a half hour of at least 8 colleges/universities -
> research scientists are expected to engage in educational
> outreach and regularly present their work through lunchtime lectures (geared
> toward the general public), K-12 teacher workshops (demonstrating concepts 
> like
> evolution using local/regional examples), and evening programs such as 
> "Cooking
> the Tree of Life" (to celebrate Darwin's birthday, a local chef cooks a single
> food item a variety of ways while a museum scientist explains its evolutionary
> and cultural development).  In any given year the NYSM hosts over 40,000
> people in its programs, and other museums are likewise mandated to engage the
> public.  Museums also loan material and may have collections
> specifically for classroom use; many schools have their own
> skulls, etc. for students to measure, but if yours doesn't, ask a museum.
>  Instead of talking about how snowshoe hares change color with the
> seasons, get some actual pelts.  You may even have luck inviting the
> museum mammalogist to your class to give a first-hand account of changes in
> hare populations in your area.  At a minimum, the education experts at
> some museums will be able to provide you with written material and
> local/regional examples.  
> 
> Take your lab
> sections on a behind-the-scenes tour of
> museum research and collections.  Not all
> museums will be able to accommodate you, but ask to see what materials are
> collected and why - and hear it from the people who do that full-time.
>  Such a tour could have something for everyone: herbarium, beetling tank
> for cleaning bones, bird-mounting room, DNA lab, fossils being prepared, and 
> so
> on.  The anthropology collections may offer insights into human
> A&P and the media liaisons at larger institutions might talk about science
> communication.  In a single visit you could discuss plant evolution from
> 19th C.
> fossil collection to emerging molecular techniques, and see examples of both. 
> Because so many museums formed as natural history emerged as a topic of study,
> they can present biology within its historical context and from a holistic
> perspective with enough "ooh" and "aah" moments to be digestible for
> non-majors.  Even if the
> museum does not have an active research program, their collections are still
> managed by knowledgeable staff who will at least try to convince the most
> anti-biology
> student that a drawer of pine cones has value.  Most museum staff are
> happy to do this if given sufficient advance notice and a list of topics to
> touch on.  Some are featured in newspapers summarizing a project that was
> recently published, so you could read the article, discuss the publication,
> then meet the person and see where the magic
> happened!
>  
> The more our state museums (and
> the like) are able to demonstrate their utility to current administrators and
> future voters, the better.  Use these resources as they were intended: for
> the public benefit.
> 
> 
> 
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
> >
> 
> Chelsea Teale
> PhD Candidate, Geography
> The
> Pennsylvania State University
> NYS Museum Research &
> Collections

--
David McNeely

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Subject: Re: Non-Majors Biology

[David L. McNeely]

 george middendorf  wrote: 
> For a wider list of disciplines with programmatic accreditation,
> including several
> of those listed by earlier responders, take a look at the CHEA (Council for
> Higher Education Accreditation) website  {stuff cut}
> I’d like to suggest that ecologists interested in developing an accreditation
> system for biology step cautiously.  There’s been quite a bit of discussion
> over the past two decades regarding establishment of foundations and
> standards in the discipline—not all of which have been favorable to
> ecology, evolution, organismal biology, and natural history.

American Institute of Biological Science has led some efforts at accrediting 
undergraduate biology programs.  Those attempts have failed, mostly breaking 
down due to lack of agreement as to what constitutes the "core" of biology as a 
discipline.  From my perspective, the failure has been because too many folks 
really don't see what the essential substance of the core is -- evolution, 
genetics, ecology, biodiversity.  But some folks in biology seem to focus on 
how organisms are structured and work, especially at the cellular level.  
Ironically, so far as institutional offerings are concerned, the institutional 
programs that are broadest and most complete with respect to the spectrum of 
the discipline appear to be at regional institutions, where a "general" biology 
program is still usually offered.  But some of those can be, where a focus on 
preparing students for medical school has dominated, quite limited.

If undergraduate biology program accreditation appears to be seriously 
considered again, I would encourage ESA to become involved.  ESA is large, has 
credibility, and a presence on most campuses (at least a member or two).  If no 
ecological organization participates, then we stand a chance of being read out 
of programs because other groups dominate.

I continue to be amazed at the number of biologists who see ecology as 
peripheral to their science.  But then, biodiversity courses have totally 
disappeared from many campuses.  They persist mainly in large institutions or 
as service courses to resource management programs.

mcneely

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Field Experience! Certificate Programs and Internships

[David L. McNeely]

Lauren and others, my previous post, which referred to the Student Conservation 
Society, should have said Student Conservation Association.  Good luck, David

 Lauren Kiser  wrote: 
> Dear Ecologgers,
> 
> I would love to get some feedback/advice on the subject of obtaining more
> field experience.
> 
> I am an M.S. student obtaining my degree in Integrated Environmental Science
> (B.S. Biology), and I am beginning to apply for internships and jobs
> post-graduation. I have the educational background, and my application
> package is well-written, but I lack experience (time and again, this is what
> I am told).
> 
> I am subscribed to Ecolog, I browse Texas A&M's job board, and I also have
> access to Ecojobs.com. I have been applying for internships that I come
> across, and looking into certificate programs (the one at Sacramento City
> College, http://www.scc.losrios.edu/Documents/catalog/programs/BIOL.pdf, is
> precisely what I am looking for).
> 
> What I want to know is: do YOU have any recommendations? Are you aware of
> any field ecology/biology certificate programs (preferably in the U.S., as
> that would most likely be the cheapest option for me)? Do you know of any
> internships, organizations or agencies involved with wildlife ecology,
> particularly large carnivores? For internships, I can afford the cost of
> travel, but I would prefer recommendations of places/programs that cover
> housing and food. International internships are welcomed and encouraged, as
> I love to travel and experience a variety of climates and cultures.
> 
> I am particularly interested in mammalogy, animal behavior, and conservation
> biology. I am not trying to focus on wildlife management- more so the study
> of endangered species, charismatic megafauna, mammalian carnivores... I
> would really love to gain field experience with radiotelemetry, collaring
> and tracking, scat-sniffing dogs, and experience with capture-recapture
> methods (using program MARK, etc.). I am also open to opportunities in
> ornithology and herpetology.
> 
> I recognize how hard it is to break into the field of mammalogy and
> conservation biology. Field studies that accept people lacking in experience
> are rare. I do have some varied experience (I have attached my CV for those
> who are curious). Because opportunities are limited and competition is
> fierce, I recognize my need to improve my skills. Any suggestions are
> welcome, and thank you if you read this whole message!
> 
> Warmest regards,
> 
> LK

--
David McNeely

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Field Experience! Certificate Programs and Internships

[David L. McNeely]

Lauren, look into the Student Conservation Society.  This organization funds 
internships with government agencies and NGOs.  Expenses and a small stipend 
are paid.  The internships include ones involving management activities, and 
research.  There are usually large numbers of internships in widespread parts 
of the U.S. and perhaps in other countries.  David McNeely

 Lauren Kiser  wrote: 
> Dear Ecologgers,
> 
> I would love to get some feedback/advice on the subject of obtaining more
> field experience.
> 
> I am an M.S. student obtaining my degree in Integrated Environmental Science
> (B.S. Biology), and I am beginning to apply for internships and jobs
> post-graduation. I have the educational background, and my application
> package is well-written, but I lack experience (time and again, this is what
> I am told).
> 
> I am subscribed to Ecolog, I browse Texas A&M's job board, and I also have
> access to Ecojobs.com. I have been applying for internships that I come
> across, and looking into certificate programs (the one at Sacramento City
> College, http://www.scc.losrios.edu/Documents/catalog/programs/BIOL.pdf, is
> precisely what I am looking for).
> 
> What I want to know is: do YOU have any recommendations? Are you aware of
> any field ecology/biology certificate programs (preferably in the U.S., as
> that would most likely be the cheapest option for me)? Do you know of any
> internships, organizations or agencies involved with wildlife ecology,
> particularly large carnivores? For internships, I can afford the cost of
> travel, but I would prefer recommendations of places/programs that cover
> housing and food. International internships are welcomed and encouraged, as
> I love to travel and experience a variety of climates and cultures.
> 
> I am particularly interested in mammalogy, animal behavior, and conservation
> biology. I am not trying to focus on wildlife management- more so the study
> of endangered species, charismatic megafauna, mammalian carnivores... I
> would really love to gain field experience with radiotelemetry, collaring
> and tracking, scat-sniffing dogs, and experience with capture-recapture
> methods (using program MARK, etc.). I am also open to opportunities in
> ornithology and herpetology.
> 
> I recognize how hard it is to break into the field of mammalogy and
> conservation biology. Field studies that accept people lacking in experience
> are rare. I do have some varied experience (I have attached my CV for those
> who are curious). Because opportunities are limited and competition is
> fierce, I recognize my need to improve my skills. Any suggestions are
> welcome, and thank you if you read this whole message!
> 
> Warmest regards,
> 
> LK

--
David McNeely

Re: [ECOLOG-L] are millipedes fully submersible?

[David L. McNeely]

http://ekologie.upol.cz/ad/tuf/pdf/papers/Tufova_Tuf_2005a.pdf

 R K  wrote: 
>     For the past three days, I've been keeping tabs on a millipede who's 
been exploring a bucket of rainwater in my yard.  Ordinarily I would've 
fished him out, but he seems perfectly comfortable wandering around the 
sides and bottom, despite being under a foot or so of water.  

   
 I knew that millipedes enjoyed the damp, but this one has literally 
gone overboard.  If there's anyone who's familiar with millipede ecology
 and behaviour (not to mention respiration), and who would be willing to
 answer my rather naive questions, please send me an off-the-list reply.


--
David McNeely

Re: [ECOLOG-L] How to collect Green Darner Dragonflies? (Anax sp.) in Gainesville, FL?

[David L. McNeely]

Aaron, if you are willing to do it, and are a good enough wing shot, a 28 gauge 
shotgun with dust shot works.  Only tiny holes in the wings, usually not 
damaging the taxonomically important features.  However, if you need the beasts 
alive, that is another matter.

If your collection location is marsh, a small boat and patience will help.

Just a thought, no experience with this at all:  Would they entangle in a mist 
net of the sort used for birds?

david mcneely

 "Aaron T. Dossey"  wrote: 
> Hello,
> 
> I need to get ahold of a regular supply, about 10-15 every couple of 
> weeks, of dragonflies in the genus Anax.
> 
> These seem to be some of the most challenging to get with the standard 
> daytime netting method, as they land much less frequently than other 
> species and are almost always over water.
> 
> Any suggestions?
> 
> Can they be easily found at night resting, etc.?
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> -- 
> Aaron T. Dossey, Ph.D.
> Biochemistry and Molecular Biology
> Founder/Owner: All Things Bugs
> http://www.allthingsbugs.com
> https://www.facebook.com/Allthingsbugs
> 1-352-281-3643

--
David McNeely

Re: [ECOLOG-L] How to collect Green Darner Dragonflies? (Anax sp.) in Gainesville, FL?

[David L. McNeely]

Michael, my suggestion was not a joke.  It is a technique advocated by Kenneth 
Stewart, the noted aquatic entomologists who accomplished a lot of excellent 
research during his 40 year career at The University of North Texas .  He 
advocated the technique to students in his aquatic entomology course for 
collecting aerial stages of dragonflies, and some of the students in the class 
used it.  Dust shot leaves minute holes in the wings.  The specimens are quite 
suitable for museum mounts and the most important taxonomic features, the wing 
veins, are not damaged seriously.

David

 "J. Michael Nolan"  wrote: 
> David
> 
> Only saying this jokingly! Used to keep a bulletin board in my classroom 
> devoted entirely to the National Enquirer. Your post below reminded me of an 
> article many years ago about farmers in the south, using 30-30's to shoot 
> Grasshoppers in their fields. One weighed in at 38 lbs.! Sounds kind of silly 
> to use this "publication" in a classroom, but actually, it stimulated much 
> interest in real science and the brief discussion sessions we had were 
> excellent!
> 
> Not exactly sure how many Reserchers would have access to a .28 gauge 
> shotgun, I might recommend something like a .410! Am wondering even using 
> "dust shot" how much of the Dragonfly would be left!? Again, just joking with 
> you. I would also tell Aaron to look at his State Fish and Game Laws to see: 
> a) is a liscense needed? and b) what the limit is per day/season on this sp. 
> of Dragonfly?
> 
> Aaron, you can obviously chase these guys around and use your typical 
> Butterfly net. About mist netting them like we might Birds or Bats, yes it 
> does work. Get the finest mesh mist net you can find. They usually get caught 
> right behind their large heads by one strand of nylon, so not too difficult 
> to remove.
> 
> Thanks and best of luck!
> 
> Mike Nolan
> 
> 
> 
> Aaron, if you are willing to do it, and are a good enough wing shot, a 28 
> gauge shotgun with dust shot works.  Only tiny holes in the wings, usually 
> not damaging the taxonomically important features.  However, if you need the 
> beasts alive, that is another matter.
> 
> If your collection location is marsh, a small boat and patience will help.
> 
> Just a thought, no experience with this at all:  Would they entangle in a 
> mist net of the sort used for birds?
> 
> david mcneely
> 
>  "Aaron T. Dossey"  wrote: 
> > Hello,
> > 
> > I need to get ahold of a regular supply, about 10-15 every couple of 
> > weeks, of dragonflies in the genus Anax.
> > 
> > These seem to be some of the most challenging to get with the standard 
> > daytime netting method, as they land much less frequently than other 
> > species and are almost always over water.
> > 
> > Any suggestions?
> > 
> > Can they be easily found at night resting, etc.?
> > 
> > Thanks!
> > 
> > -- 
> > Aaron T. Dossey, Ph.D.
> > Biochemistry and Molecular Biology
> > Founder/Owner: All Things Bugs
> > http://www.allthingsbugs.com
> > https://www.facebook.com/Allthingsbugs
> > 1-352-281-3643
> 
> --
> David McNeely
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> 
> If we are on another line or away from the phone, please leave your number, 
> best time to return your call and/or your e-mail address.
>  
> After hours and weekend phone appointments are available upon request.
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> J. Michael Nolan, Director
>  
> Rainforest and Reef 501 (c)(3) non-profit
> 
> **
> “Outstanding-Affordable Field Courses in Rainforest & Marine Ecology”
> 
> “Spanish/Cultural Immersion Programs: Spain, Mexico, Central and South 
> America”
> 
> Rainforest and Reef 501 (c)(3) non-profit
> 161 Main St. 
> Coopersville, MI 49404 
> Local/International Phone: 1.616.604.0546
> Toll Free U.S. and Canada: 1.877.255.3721
> Fax: 1.616.604.0546
> Google Talk/MS IM/Skype: travelwithrandr
> AOL IM: buddythemacaw
> E-mail: i...@rainforestandreef.org and travelwithra...@gmail.com
> Note: Please send inquiries to both e-mail addresses
> Web: http://rainforestandreef.org (under revision for 2012)
> **

--
David McNeely

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Confronting climate deniers on college campuses - EOS Forum

[David L. McNeely]

Hamilton, you got a couple of things right:  Water is a more powerful 
greenhouse gas than is carbon dioxide.  Climate models predict warming based on 
carbon dioxide increases, but no one has done an actual controlled experiment 
with a population of planets to test those models in the classical manner.

But you don't know what you are talking about.  Overall, we are not causing a 
change in atmospheric water vapor, therefore any greenhouse effect due to water 
vapor is a wash, and the models properly include water vapor in their 
extrapolations.  The models are robust, and we only have one planet.  No 
experiment is possible, but none is needed.  The forcing is there.  Ecologists 
have long known how to analyze natural experiments.  I think the climatologists 
know what they are doing.

Another thing you got right is that politics has sure messed up the public 
response to science, to the detriment of the public, scientists and science, 
and politicians.

But what is new about that?

David McNeely
 Robert Hamilton  wrote: 
> Actually this climate debate is more about hocus pocus than anything else. at 
> least a it is. That climate change is occurring is undeniable, and the oddity 
> would be no climate change occurring. The climate is going to change 
> regardless. The issue of why is where the hocus pocus comes in. There is no 
> evidence that changes in CO2 levels have caused any sort of atmospheric 
> warming; none. It is a predicted outcome of climate models designed to show 
> that CO2 can affect atmospheric temperatures. We know for a fact that 
> atmospheric warming would cause CO2 levels to increase because all the 
> various organisms would increase respiration rates. It is dubious to suggest 
> that CO2 levels that we observe could have any influence on the greenhouse 
> effect on earth given the overwhelming effect of water vapour, and the flux 
> of water vapour, which in itself is substantially greater than the total 
> effect of CO2, let alone the difference in CO2 past and present.
> 
> Many of the things we do could cause climate change. The massive increase in 
> runoff of freshwater from terrestrial systems; various drainings and fillings 
> in of wetlands and floodplains, channeling if rivers along with rapid runoff 
> through sewers and other means. A lot less standing water in the spring to 
> ameliorate continental warming through the summer. Conversion of heat sinks 
> like say Manhattan Island (via urbanization) into heat sources, possibly 
> radiating more energy back than is input from the sun due to additional heat 
> from things like air conditioners and automobiles, and this sort of thing 
> occurs on a massive scale (like say Germany, which used to be a very moist 
> deciduous forest) in the northern hemisphere. But such issues are not allowed 
> to be investigated for the sake of the political hacks with their CO2 
> argument. There is no science to this process, and amazingly the public in 
> general sees the weakness of the science.
> 
> The thing of it is that what goes around comes around, and the truth will out 
> in the end. If we are wrong about CO2 but right about human impacts the 
> political hacks will blame us for being unscientific even though it is they 
> that force us this way via the way they dispense power in the form of 
> academic appointments and funding. A bit like CFCs causing the ozone hole. 
> They could cause the ozone hole for sure, but do they actually cause it? 
> Never seen any evidence of that. Could be that flying jet aircraft is causing 
> the ozone hole, but political hacks don't want to go there! If it isn't CFCs, 
> they will blame us for sure, because we are supposed to know for sure in 
> their eyes in such situations. We are the scapegoat if they (we) are wrong).
> 
> I suppose I am a "denier" because I reject politically motivated science, and 
> that sort would shout me down, pull my hair and throw things at me if I were 
> ever to present such heretical arguments to the public. But I don't need to. 
> As the consequences of the CO2 based policies sink in, they will be revisited 
> with a more skeptical eye. We move forward, but do bumble along, and that 
> seems to work in general, although there are casualties along the way, and 
> the way it looks now is Ecology will be one of those casualties, which is the 
> real crime here IMHO.
> 
> Rob Hamilton
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news on behalf of malcolm 
> McCallum
> Sent: Tue 7/3/2012 10:07 PM
> To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
> Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Confronting climate deniers on college campuses - EOS 
> Forum
>  
> society has never been trusting of scientists.
> However, the same could be said of business with identical survey mechanisms.
> So what.
> 
> This isn't about a bunch of hocus pocus and its not about baseless opinions.
> ITs about the facts that exist.
> Period.
> 
> As for track records of academics, 

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Confronting climate deniers on college campuses - EOS Forum

[David L. McNeely]

Cherubini, the fallacy of your interpretation of the graph has been pointed out 
several times on this list.  What part of the explanations did you not 
understand?  You certainly have no reason to extrapolate that the temperatures 
will not rise in the future on the basis of one short period in the graph.  
That short period is only a few years out of a very long trend of increasing 
temperature.  I could just as easily pick out one of the periods when the 
temperature rose dramatically more than at other times, and say that the 
temperature might increase at that rate in the future.  Good grief!!

So far as jobs being generated, institutions are going to want to study things 
that exist.  Makes sense to me.

David McNeely

 Paul Cherubini  wrote: 
> On Jul 5, 2012, at 11:54 AM, Beth wrote:
> 
> > given the claim that so much money is involved in
> > advancing claims of anthropogenic causes for climate change,
> > I am interested to know the facts figures and comparisons
> > behind this claim that it's simply about salaries and 'influence'.
> 
> Consider the job postings to Ecolog-L the past 2 years.
> At least half of them involve the study or mitigation of
> (assumed) CO2 driven anthropogenic climate change.
> 
> That wasn't the case 10 years ago.  So like Rob said,
> "enormous wealth is being generated based on
> consequences of the belief that anthropogenic CO2
> emissions cause climate change."
> 
> If the warming trend line of this NOAA graph
> http://tinyurl.com/6ca5gzt continues to stay relatively flat
> for another 5 years then more and more people will
> become anthropogenic doubters which in turn could
> deminish the creation of climate change jobs and
> threaten existing ones.
> 
> Paul Cherubini
> El Dorado, Calif.

--
David McNeely

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Are we doomed yet: A journal debate about science, the practice of sustainability, and communicating issues

[David L. McNeely]

Ok, I'll bite:  A sustainable practice is one which can be continued 
indefinitely without depleting the resources upon which it and other features 
necessary to the system it supports depend.

I submit that as written it captures the essence of the idea.  Knock it down if 
you wish, or modify it.  I'll give you a couple of starts in those directions.  
This definition would not preclude depletion of entities not essential to the 
practice or to other aspects of the system it supports, and so might not 
satisfy those like myself who value such immaterial resources as solitude and 
beauty.  Most aspects of natural systems are still poorly understood.  That 
could allow persons who have particular motives dependent on resource 
exploitation to argue, based on this definition and current knowledge, that 
their practice is sustainable.  However, the consequences may simply be unknown.

David McNeely

 Wayne Tyson  wrote: 
> Ecolog:
> 
> "johoma," thanks for this summary. PLos Biology is leading the way, and 
> someday Opens Source journals will be more common, edging out the ripoff 
> journals and truly advancing science and education for all. There is more 
> work to be done, but PLos Biology is helping to put steam behind the trend 
> toward adaptative progress rather than competitive concentration of power 
> that has stultified true progress in the past. Science will prosper in the 
> sunlight as the Information Age emerges from the selfish Dark Ages of 
> exclusivity, excess, and concentration of power in the hands of vulcanized 
> institutionalism. 
> 
> Doomed? Only if "we" persist in our comfortable delusions. 
> 
> But "sustainability" still needs definition. The term has suffered a similar 
> fate that "ecology" has--captured by spinmeisters and twisted into all sorts 
> of buzz-phrases that make all sorts of unsustainable practices salable by Mad 
> Av and its ilk. 
> 
> For starters, Ecolog subscribers could do this right here--define 
> sustainability with clarity. 
> 
> Please proceed. (Can 14,000+ ecologists be wrong?)
> 
> WT
> 
> 
> - Original Message - 
> From: "johoma" 
> To: 
> Sent: Monday, June 25, 2012 2:15 PM
> Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Are we doomed yet: A journal debate about science, the 
> practice of sustainability, and communicating issues
> 
> 
> An excerpt from the PLoS Biology editor-in-chief's overview:
> 
> One of the reasons we publish more accessible magazine-like articles in the
> front section of *PLoS Biology*  is
> to raise awareness about issues that are important both to practicing
> scientists and to the wider public. As an open access journal, we can reach
> communities and organisations that don’t have access to the pay-walled
> literature, and they in turn can redistribute and reuse these articles
> without permission from us or the authors. The articles we published
> yesterday in our front section provide a case in point. In Rio de Janeiro
> last week, world leaders met for the Rio+20 UN Conference on Sustainable
> Development  to ”shape how we can reduce
> poverty, advance social equity and ensure environmental protection”. We’re
> featuring three articles and an accompanying
> podcastfrom leading ecologists
> and conservation scientists that raise absolutely
> fundamental concerns about the physical limits on resource use that should
> be considered at the conference—but almost certainly won’t be, because
> sustainability has focused primarily on the social and economic sciences
> and developed largely independently of the key ecological principles that
> govern life.
> 
> Burger et al argue that resources on earth are finite and ultimately we are
> constrained by the same hard biophyisical laws that regulate every other
> species and population on the planet. Famous photograph of the Earth taken
> on December 7, 1972, by the crew of the Apollo 17 spacecraft en route to
> the Moon at a distance of about 29,000 kilometers. (Photo: NASA)
> 
> The inspiration for this article collection came from Georgina
> Mace,
> one of our Editorial Board
> membersand Professor
> of Conservation Science and Director of the NERC
> Centre for Population Biology . It started
> with an essay
> submitted
> by Robbie Burger , Jim
> Brown, Craig
> Allenand
> others from Jim
> Brown’s lab , in which
> they argue that the field of sustainability science does not sufficiently
> take account of human ecology and in particular the larger view offered by
> human macroecology, which aims

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Are we doomed yet: A journal debate about science, the practice of sustainability, and communicating issues

[David L. McNeely]

 Michael Riedman  wrote: 
> Hello sustainable eco-loggers,
> 
> This is my first eco-log post!  I just graduated from University of
> Maryland with a minor in Sustainability Studies.  We were taught the
> Brundtland Commission definition of Sustainability, which I believe is
> clear and concise.  Sustainability is meeting the needs of the present
> without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs.
> 
> Michael Riedman

It works for an anthropocentric perspective (I am assuming that "needs" and 
"generations" refer to people).  With that caveat, I believe it is very close 
to the definition I provided.
> 
> 
> On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 6:05 AM, Neil Paul Cummins <
> neilpaulcumm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > I'll start off:
> >
> >
> > Sustainability =  "the biosphere of the Earth continuing to exist in a
> > state which can sustain complex life-forms"
> >
> >
> > This is how I define sustainability in my book:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > What Does it Mean to be ‘Green’? : *Sustainability, Respect & Spirituality*
> >
> > **
> >
> > *http://www.amazon.com/dp/1907962131/ref=nosim?tag=cranmorpublic-20*
> >
> >
> > Dr Neil Paul Cummins
> >
> > http://neilpaulcummins.blogspot.co.uk/
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 3:58 AM, Wayne Tyson  wrote:
> >
> > > Ecolog:
> > >
> > > "johoma," thanks for this summary. PLos Biology is leading the way, and
> > > someday Opens Source journals will be more common, edging out the ripoff
> > > journals and truly advancing science and education for all. There is more
> > > work to be done, but PLos Biology is helping to put steam behind the
> > trend
> > > toward adaptative progress rather than competitive concentration of power
> > > that has stultified true progress in the past. Science will prosper in
> > the
> > > sunlight as the Information Age emerges from the selfish Dark Ages of
> > > exclusivity, excess, and concentration of power in the hands of
> > vulcanized
> > > institutionalism.
> > >
> > > Doomed? Only if "we" persist in our comfortable delusions.
> > >
> > > But "sustainability" still needs definition. The term has suffered a
> > > similar fate that "ecology" has--captured by spinmeisters and twisted
> > into
> > > all sorts of buzz-phrases that make all sorts of unsustainable practices
> > > salable by Mad Av and its ilk.
> > >
> > > For starters, Ecolog subscribers could do this right here--define
> > > sustainability with clarity.
> > >
> > > Please proceed. (Can 14,000+ ecologists be wrong?)
> > >
> > > WT
> > >
> > >
> > > - Original Message -
> > > From: "johoma" 
> > > To: 
> > > Sent: Monday, June 25, 2012 2:15 PM
> > > Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Are we doomed yet: A journal debate about science,
> > the
> > > practice of sustainability, and communicating issues
> > >
> > >
> > > An excerpt from the PLoS Biology editor-in-chief's overview:
> > >
> > > One of the reasons we publish more accessible magazine-like articles in
> > the
> > > front section of *PLoS Biology* 
> > > is
> > > to raise awareness about issues that are important both to practicing
> > > scientists and to the wider public. As an open access journal, we can
> > reach
> > > communities and organisations that don’t have access to the pay-walled
> > > literature, and they in turn can redistribute and reuse these articles
> > > without permission from us or the authors. The articles we published
> > > yesterday in our front section provide a case in point. In Rio de Janeiro
> > > last week, world leaders met for the Rio+20 UN Conference on Sustainable
> > > Development  to ”shape how we can reduce
> > > poverty, advance social equity and ensure environmental protection”.
> > We’re
> > > featuring three articles and an accompanying
> > > podcastfrom leading ecologists
> > > and conservation scientists that raise absolutely
> > > fundamental concerns about the physical limits on resource use that
> > should
> > > be considered at the conference—but almost certainly won’t be, because
> > > sustainability has focused primarily on the social and economic sciences
> > > and developed largely independently of the key ecological principles that
> > > govern life.
> > >
> > > Burger et al argue that resources on earth are finite and ultimately we
> > are
> > > constrained by the same hard biophyisical laws that regulate every other
> > > species and population on the planet. Famous photograph of the Earth
> > taken
> > > on December 7, 1972, by the crew of the Apollo 17 spacecraft en route to
> > > the Moon at a distance of about 29,000 kilometers. (Photo: NASA)
> > >
> > > The inspiration for this article collection came from Georgina
> > > Mace,
> > > one of our Editorial Board
> > > membersand Professor
> > > of Conservation Science and Director of the NERC
> > > Centre for Popu

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Jordan's rule

[David L. McNeely]

Wrong Jordan.  The Jordan's Rule being queried was named for David Starr 
Jordan, a late 19th/early 20th century ichthyologist who did a great deal of 
field work and descriptive ichthyology in North America.  He was the first 
president of Stanford University.  Besides his scientific writings (they 
literally fill a library), his autobiography was an influential book for many 
biologists:   _Days of a Man_.   The term Jordan's Rule would likely have been 
coined by Carl Hubbs, Jordan's star student and for many years the "Dean of 
American Ichthyology" of Scripps Institute.

Here are some references that might shed light:

http://65.54.113.26/Publication/42926475/variations-in-the-number-of-vertebrae-and-other-meristic-characters-of-fishes-correlated-with-the

David McNeely


 Jan Ygberg  wrote: 
> Dear all
> 
> Maybe this one? :
> 
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordan_algebra
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascual_Jordan
> 
> Cheers
> 
> 
> Jan H. N. Ygberg
> Public Relations
> Resident Naturalists Programme Coordinator
> 
>  EXPLORER'S INN
>in the
>  TAMBOPATA NATIONAL RESERVE
> A PERUVIAN SAFARIS ECO LODGE – A LODGE WITH A DIFFERENCE
> Since 1976 A SHOWCASE OF THE AMAZON RAINFOREST
> Peruvian Safaris S.A
> Alcanfores 459 - Miraflores
> Lima 18 - Peru
> Phone: (51 1) 447 
> Fax: (51 1) 241 8427
> E-mail: safa...@amauta.rcp.net.pe / sa...@explorersinn.com
> Web Site: http://www.explorersinn.com
> Facebook:http://www.facebook.com/explorerslodge
> Twitter: @explorersinn
> 
> 2012/8/28 Philippe Golay 
> 
> > Dear all,
> >
> > do you know who coined the expression « Jordan’s rule » or « Jordan’s law »
> > (fish species develop more vertebrae in a cold environment than in a warm
> > one) ?
> >
> > Thank you in advance.
> > Truly yours.
> >
> > Philippe
> >
> > 
> >
> > Philippe GOLAY
> > elapsoïdea
> > 21, chemin du Moulin
> > CH – 1233 Bernex
> > tel : +41(0)22 7771131
> > mail : g...@geneva-link.ch
> >
> > 
> > L’autre jour, au fond d’un vallon, Un serpent piqua Jean Fréron. Que
> > pensez-vous qu’il arriva? Ce fut le serpent qui creva.. (Voltaire, Poésies
> > mêlées)
> >
> 
> 
> 
> --

--
David McNeely

Re: [ECOLOG-L] David Starr Jordan Indiana U Re: [ECOLOG-L] Jordan's rule

[David L. McNeely]

Why do people keep posting things that seem as if the matter is a bit 
equivocal.  It is not.  "Jordan's Rule" refers to David Starr Jordan's work 
with meristic features of fishes.  It was almost certainly so named by his star 
student, Carl Hubbs.  The references I posted earlier should clear the matter 
up for those for whom it is not clear (it is clear to me), and if pursued, 
likely would definitively answer the original question in favor of Carl Hubbs.  
That original question was not for whom was the rule named, but by whom was the 
term coined.

David McNeely

 Susan Kephart  wrote: 
> The last few posts all lead to the same path.. I"m not an expert on all 
> Jordan's accomplishments as I work w. plants, but Indiana University should 
> have quite a digest on him since that's where he worked for many years. One 
> of the biology buildings there is named after him
> 
> S
> 
> On Aug 29, 2012, at 8:02 AM, Chava Weitzman wrote:
> 
> > How about this one:  Jordan, D.S. (1892) Relations of temperature to
> > vertebrae among fishes. Proceedings of the United States National Museum,
> > 1891, 107–120.
> > 
> > Cited in:
> > R. M. McDowall. 2007. Jordan’s and other ecogeographical rules, and the
> > vertebral number in fishes.  Journal of Biogeography.
> > http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10./j.1365-2699.2007.01823.x/full
> > Chava
> > 
> > 
> > On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 7:25 AM, Jan Ygberg  wrote:
> > 
> >> Dear all
> >> 
> >> Maybe this one? :
> >> 
> >> 
> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordan_algebra
> >> 
> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascual_Jordan
> >> 
> >> Cheers
> >> 
> >> 
> >> Jan H. N. Ygberg
> >> Public Relations
> >> Resident Naturalists Programme Coordinator
> >> 
> >> EXPLORER'S INN
> >>   in the
> >> TAMBOPATA NATIONAL RESERVE
> >> A PERUVIAN SAFARIS ECO LODGE – A LODGE WITH A DIFFERENCE
> >> Since 1976 A SHOWCASE OF THE AMAZON RAINFOREST
> >> Peruvian Safaris S.A
> >> Alcanfores 459 - Miraflores
> >> Lima 18 - Peru
> >> Phone: (51 1) 447 
> >> Fax: (51 1) 241 8427
> >> E-mail: safa...@amauta.rcp.net.pe / sa...@explorersinn.com
> >> Web Site: http://www.explorersinn.com
> >> Facebook:http://www.facebook.com/explorerslodge
> >> Twitter: @explorersinn
> >> 
> >> 2012/8/28 Philippe Golay 
> >> 
> >>> Dear all,
> >>> 
> >>> do you know who coined the expression « Jordan’s rule » or « Jordan’s
> >> law »
> >>> (fish species develop more vertebrae in a cold environment than in a warm
> >>> one) ?
> >>> 
> >>> Thank you in advance.
> >>> Truly yours.
> >>> 
> >>> Philippe
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> Philippe GOLAY
> >>> elapsoïdea
> >>> 21, chemin du Moulin
> >>> CH – 1233 Bernex
> >>> tel : +41(0)22 7771131
> >>> mail : g...@geneva-link.ch
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> L’autre jour, au fond d’un vallon, Un serpent piqua Jean Fréron. Que
> >>> pensez-vous qu’il arriva? Ce fut le serpent qui creva.. (Voltaire,
> >> Poésies
> >>> mêlées)
> >>> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> --
> >> 

--
David McNeely

Re: [ECOLOG-L] David Starr Jordan Indiana U Re: [ECOLOG-L] Jordan's rule Folkloric Tangent

[David L. McNeely]

Well, Laura Hubbs herself was a scientist, working alongside Carl.  She 
coauthored papers with him, especially ethnographic and marine mammal papers.

Clark Hubbs followed in his father's footsteps as an ichthyologist, one of the 
outstanding ones.  He was a professor at University of Texas at Austin.  His 
latter years were focused on conservation.  Clark was a leader in scientific 
and conservation organizations, helping to found some, and serving as president 
and in other offices in others, including ASIH.  He was an inspiration to 
legions of students.  Field work with Clark was quite an experience.  I learned 
far more from him in informal settings than I did from most courses I took, 
without a doubt.

Hubbs family members are still active and leaders in ecology and ichthyology, 
and some in other fields of science.

http://www.utexas.edu/tmm/tnhc/fish/hubbs/HIS/CV_HUBBS_2008-10-01.pdf

David McNeely

 Wayne Tyson  wrote: 
> McNeely and all:
> 
> Most interesting. That's a great story about the kids. Whatever happened to 
> Clark? I wonder if he ever connected with Ed Ricketts? I don't remember 
> anything I've read about Ricketts mentioning him.
> 
> -
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 10.0.1424 / Virus Database: 2437/5233 - Release Date: 08/29/12
> 
> 

--
David McNeely

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Visiting Assistant Professor Positions in Ecology and Evolutionary Biology

[David L. McNeely]

Just wanted to say how refreshing it is to see your statement that, "Electronic 
applications will not be considered," in this era.  I like it.  David Mcneely

 Dan Ardia  wrote: 
> The Biology Department of Franklin & Marshall College invites applications 
> for three one-year VISITING ASSISTANT PROFESSOR positions in ecology and 
> evolutionary biology, beginning July 2013 (pending administrative approval). 
> Candidates should have the Ph.D., demonstrated strengths in teaching and 
> research in field and/or laboratory settings, and broad interests in ecology 
> and/or evolutionary biology. Teaching responsibilities will include lectures 
> and laboratories in an evolution-centered introductory course that includes 
> basic Mendelian genetics and ecology, and an upper-level lecture/laboratory 
> course in the candidate’s area of specialization. Applicants with the ability 
> to teach introductory biostatistics will be preferred. The successful 
> candidates will have the opportunity to engage undergraduates in research, 
> and participate in our interdisciplinary major programs, including 
> Environmental Studies/Science and Biological Foundations of Behavior 
> (neuroscience and animal behavior).  Franklin & Marshall is a small 
> (enrollment 2400), highly selective coeducational liberal arts college with a 
> tradition of excellence in science and student research.
> 
> Applicants should arrange to have letters sent from three referees, and 
> should submit a curriculum vitae, plans for actively engaging undergraduates 
> through teaching, and undergraduate and graduate transcripts. Electronic 
> applications will not be accepted. Priority will be given to completed 
> applications received by November 9, 2012. Send applications to: Dr. Daniel 
> Ardia, Department of Biology, Franklin & Marshall College, P.O. Box 3003, 
> Lancaster, PA, 17604. Telephone: 717-291-4118; fax: 717-358-4548; e-mail: 
> janice.kauf...@fandm.edu; website: http://www.fandm.edu/biology. Franklin & 
> Marshall College is committed to having an inclusive campus community, and as 
> an Equal Opportunity Employer, does not discriminate in its hiring or 
> employment practices on the basis of gender, race or ethnicity, color, 
> national origin, religion, age, disability, family or marital status, or 
> sexual orientation.
> 
>  
> 
> Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail or any 
> unimportant document. 
> 
> -
> Dan Ardia
> Associate Professor of Biology
> Franklin & Marshall College
> P.O. Box 3003
> (for couriers: 415 Harrisburg Ave.)
> Lancaster, PA 17604
> 1-717-291-3949
> Fax 1-717-358-4548
> daniel.ar...@fandm.edu
> http://edisk.fandm.edu/daniel.ardia/index.html

--
David McNeely

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Visualizing functional diversity

[David L. McNeely]

Finally, people are talking on my simplistic level, and I hope I can respond in 
a meaningful way.  I say these things with the definite understanding that they 
may mark me as just an old, irrelevant fart in today's exciting world.

It seems to me that ecosystems do two things, and that both are outlined in 
Ecology 101 and the texts used for that course.  First, they collect and 
process energy (one ecosystem function is energy flow).  Second, they move 
materials through ecosystem compartments (a second ecosystem function is 
biogeochemical cycling).  Each of these two functions drives and modulates the 
other.

That does not mean that the other things that people are interested in, and 
sometimes speak of as ecosystem functions are not important, and should not be 
considered.  Those things can also contribute to understanding ecosystems in 
greater depth and more accurately.  The things mentioned by others on here are 
certainly important.  But the function of an entity is, to me, simply what it 
does.  What ecosystems do is process energy and matter, in the general ways I 
have described above.  Certainly many of the things we are interested in, 
things like carbon balance and heat accumulation, natural resource use and 
protection, agriculture are dependent on what ecosystems do -- process energy 
and matter.

To speak of the other things that have been discussed as the functions of 
ecosystems would be akin to saying that the function of the pancreas is to 
prevent diabetes.  The function of the pancreas is to secrete hormones and 
digestive enzymes.  The part about diabetes relates more to its integration 
with the body of which it is a part.

I hope this is of some use.  Just thought a reminder of fundamentals might be 
appropriate.  David McNeely

 Martin Meiss  wrote: 
> Nicolas,
> Why would you restrict your interest to the flow of energy, and not
> include the flow of material, such as a nutrient like fixed nitrogen, or
> potassium?
> 
> Martin M. Meiss
> 
> 2012/9/27 Katharine Miller 
> 
> > Hi,
> >
> > I wanted to thank everyone for their responses and recommendations.  Some
> > of
> > them were quite helpful and have got me thinking in new ways.
> >
> > With respect to the use of the Rao index, I didn't express my question very
> > well. What I was really trying to discern was whether it was appropriate to
> > use the Rao index values as a distance matrix of functional dissimilarity
> > between estuaries that could then be evaluated using standard multivariate
> > methods (i.e. clustering).  I have not seen Shannon entropy used this way
> > either, but it is understood that pairwise beta diversity calculated by
> > either of these approaches is a measure of dissimilarity between sites. So,
> > on that basis, it doesn't seem too much of a stretch. Also, the index
> > values
> > are used as dissimilarities in Mantel tests or other matrix calculations.
> >
> > I am not sure whether the reason these indices have not been used this way
> > is because it would be inappropriate statistically or mathematically, or
> > whether there is some ecological reason for not doing it.
> >
> > Thanks again.
> >
> > - Katharine
> >
> >
> >

--
David McNeely

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Fwd: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Visualizing functional diversity

[David L. McNeely]

Martin, I will give you, absolutely and without reservation, that ecosystems 
process matter and energy through organisms.   Since the questions dealt with 
ecosystems, I assumed that the involvement of organisms was a given.  I will 
also give you that what kinds of organisms are involved is of great importance. 
 I believe that gets at the idea of functional diversity that was originally 
what the inquirer was interested in.  I suppose, without having stated it 
explicitly, that I think that the details of the energy and material processing 
are what constitutes functional diversity.  At least that would be my 
understanding and why I responded as I did -- I thought some might be straying 
from that.

Beyond that I might just be both too naive and too dense to see.  David McNeely

 Martin Meiss  wrote: 
>It seems to me that saying ecosystem "functions" are the flow of
> matter and energy is a coded way of saying that these are the most
> important things for characterizing ecosystems.  As Neahga Leonard pointed
> out, other systems do these things also, such as stars, volcanoes, oceans,
> etc.  Ecosystems are special because they process matter and energy THROUGH
> ORGANISMS.  Larry Slobodkin, who was on my thesis committee and S.U.N.Y. at
> Stony Brook, used to refer to refer to this emphasis on matter and energy
> flows, with little regard to actual organisms, as "odumology."  He found it
> puzzling that an ecologist wouldn't be particularly concerned with whether
> it was algae or aspens doing the carbon fixation, as long as the carbon was
> being fixed.
> 
>Nicolas and  others in this thread have stated that the importance
> of this "functional diversity" approach is that it is useful for
> understanding human interactions with ecosystems.  But how does it tell us
> any more about our impact on the environment than measuring changes in
> species abundance?  After all, for the most part we interact with organism
> (well, except for breathing), not directly with potassium or carbon.  If we
> learn that phosphorus in more mobile or more abundant in system A than in
> system B, do we really care unless this difference is reflected in
> organisms and populations?
> 
>My questions probably reflect my naivete, but if so, perhaps they
> are especially worthy of being addressed.
> 
>   Thank you.
> 
> Martin M. Meiss
> 
> 2012/10/1 Nicolas PERU 
> 
> > Hi, Ted
> >
> > Your  work is interesting and provide a kind of synthesis on
> > functional
> > aspects of ecosystems. I think that we can all agree on your vision of
> > ecosystem for themselves and not for human interests. Nonetheless, you
> > have created another classification as our human mind need it. But, what
> > about things that would not fall into you categorization of Nature ? And
> > for sure, one day, somebody will find something outside this
> > classification. In this case, should we create another category ? I think
> > that any strict categorization inevitably leads to a need of a
> > multiplication fo categories. This is simply because Nature isn't cut into
> > strict part. Our study of biodiversity should have teach this point to
> > anybody. Even the very well known concept of species is not so clear. For
> > example, some fish "species" can produce some fertile hybrids (e.g.
> > roach-bream). Though, if these individuals from different species can
> > produce fertile descendant they are from the same species, aren't they ?.
> >
> > So, I do not agree on the fact that we wouldn't need of fuzzy set
> > mathematics. Clearly, they don't muddy our perception of functional
> > diversity or even ecosystem functioning. We must understand that our mind
> > is limited in its capacity to perceive complex mechanisms and particularly
> > in very complex systems such as ecosystems. So, our challenge is to fit
> > our limited perceptions to the complexity of systems. I think that fuzzy
> > mathematics can help us to achieve this part of the problem. Fuzzy
> > mathematics can furnish flexible classifications for example. Hence, we
> > could better match our need to classify things and the continuity of
> > Nature's processes. Once we will have some means to fit our perceptions
> > and real mechanisms in action we will be able to design some practical
> > measures to evaluate ecosystems functions and functioning more precisely.
> > This could seem counterintuitive to have more precise things when we would
> > use fuzzy methods but this is a reality (for example, many methods in
> > medical imaging are using fuzzy mathematics and statistics to give very
> > precise images of human body).
> > Maybe, we could say that we don't need to measure things and
> > ecosystems
> > processes would be no exception. But, I think that quantification is a
> > second need (after classification) for human being. And this not only
> > encompass a philosophical thought but also a very practical one. Indeed,
> > we can sti

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Ecosystem Function Re: [ECOLOG-L] Visualizing functional diversity

[David L. McNeely]

Wayne, I thought we went through that, a bit back.  Ecosystem function is what 
ecosystems do.  They process energy and chemicals.  As someone else pointed 
out, in both cases those functions are mediated through organisms and other 
compartments.

Evidently some think that the consequences (such as perceived benefits to 
people, or sequestering of materials in particular compartments) of the 
functions are the functions.  I do not.  I think that the consequences are 
exactly that -- consequences, much in the way that the stabilizing of blood 
sugar levels is a consequence of the function of the pancreas in secreting 
insulin.

But what do I know, I am old.

mcneely

 Wayne Tyson  wrote: 
> Ecolog:
> 
> I still want to know what "ecosystem function" is. Just a simple definition, 
> no more, no less.
> 
> WT
> 
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Matt Chew" 
> To: 
> Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2012 11:54 PM
> Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Visualizing functional diversity
> 
> 
> This has been an interesting conversation.  Ecological functions entail
> putative benefits to some population or individual.  It doesn't have to be
> a human population, so it doesn't have to be anthropocentric, but that is
> the second most common centrism.  Biocentrism and ecocentrism are generally
> proxies for the most common one: idiocentrism.  Biocentrism and ecocentrism
> involve benefits to things that benefit the author of the argument.  If
> this seems dubious, how many times have you seen discussions of "functions"
> without benefits, such as "the function of mass extinction" or "the
> function of acid precipitation"?  That suggests ecosystem function and
> ecosystem service are fundamentally identical concepts.  Processes are more
> benefits-equivocal than functions.  A designed system (e.g., a farm)
> includes processes more and less beneficial from various points of
> reference, but has a designed function benefiting the farmer. An
> accumulated system (e.g., an ecosystem) likewise includes processes but
> lacks a designer or a function—if your metaphysics will allow.
> 
> Matthew K Chew
> Assistant Research Professor
> Arizona State University School of Life Sciences
> 
> ASU Center for Biology & Society
> PO Box 873301
> Tempe, AZ 85287-3301 USA
> Tel 480.965.8422
> Fax 480.965.8330
> mc...@asu.edu or anek...@gmail.com
> https://cbs.asu.edu/people/chew-0
> http://asu.academia.edu/MattChew
> 
> 
> -
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 10.0.1427 / Virus Database: 2441/5307 - Release Date: 10/03/12

--
David McNeely

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Ecosystem Function Re: [ECOLOG-L] Visualizing functional diversity

[David L. McNeely]

Ms. Dussalult, I accept completely that when beneficial consequences of the two 
ecosystem functions of energy flow and biogeochemical cycling are impaired, 
then intervention is appropriate.  It is just that intervention itself often 
has the unexpected and undesired consequence of altering the situation 
unfavorably rather than favorably both from an ecosystem function point of 
view, and from our point of view.  Thus, intervention must be done with great 
caution.

I also recognize, though it may seem to some otherwise, that the details of the 
energy flow and biogeochemical cycling matter a great deal.  Despite some 
apparent perceptions to the contrary, btw, so did both Odums, who were never 
the "systems ideologues" that they have been painted.  

The compartmental composition (what species, what population size, what 
geographic extant and so on) matter immensely, and must be detailed for us to 
understand anything about functions and their interactions with each other in 
any given ecosystem.  And finally, of course I recognize that when we partition 
the biosphere and the abiotic realm into ecosystems, we are arbitrarily 
delimiting for our sake, not recognizing real divisions of nature.  It is very 
important to keep that in mind.  Had folks done so, we might still have native 
chestnut trees in N. America, and the Niger Delta might still be a supportive 
system, both functioning and producing what we perceive as beneficial 
consequences of its functions.

Just some ramblings by an old guy in response to a query.

david mcneely

 "Antoine C.-Dussault"  wrote: 
> Hi Dr. McNeely (and others), 
> 
> There were many posts on the notion of ecosystem function, I'd like to raise 
> the question of ecosystem dysfunction or malfunction. Can such notions make 
> any sense in you view? Dr. McNeely made the analogy with the secretion of 
> insulin by the pancreas stabilyzing blood sugar levels. It seems to me that 
> in the case where the pancreas stops doing that efficiently, one will say 
> that the pancreas is dysfunctional and that something should be done to cure 
> it or at least to reestablish the normal (healthy) blood sugar level. My 
> question would be, can a similar reasoning be made with respect to 
> ecosystems, so that when a part stops performing its function efficiently, 
> one should say that it is dysfunctional?
> 
> Best, 
> 
> Antoine
> 
> > Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2012 22:30:44 -0500
> > From: mcnee...@cox.net
> > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Ecosystem Function  Re: [ECOLOG-L] Visualizing 
> > functional diversity
> > To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
> > 
> > Wayne, I thought we went through that, a bit back.  Ecosystem function is 
> > what ecosystems do.  They process energy and chemicals.  As someone else 
> > pointed out, in both cases those functions are mediated through organisms 
> > and other compartments.
> > 
> > Evidently some think that the consequences (such as perceived benefits to 
> > people, or sequestering of materials in particular compartments) of the 
> > functions are the functions.  I do not.  I think that the consequences are 
> > exactly that -- consequences, much in the way that the stabilizing of blood 
> > sugar levels is a consequence of the function of the pancreas in secreting 
> > insulin.
> > 
> > But what do I know, I am old.
> > 
> > mcneely
> > 
> >  Wayne Tyson  wrote: 
> > > Ecolog:
> > > 
> > > I still want to know what "ecosystem function" is. Just a simple 
> > > definition, 
> > > no more, no less.
> > > 
> > > WT
> > > 
> > > - Original Message - 
> > > From: "Matt Chew" 
> > > To: 
> > > Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2012 11:54 PM
> > > Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Visualizing functional diversity
> > > 
> > > 
> > > This has been an interesting conversation.  Ecological functions entail
> > > putative benefits to some population or individual.  It doesn't have to be
> > > a human population, so it doesn't have to be anthropocentric, but that is
> > > the second most common centrism.  Biocentrism and ecocentrism are 
> > > generally
> > > proxies for the most common one: idiocentrism.  Biocentrism and 
> > > ecocentrism
> > > involve benefits to things that benefit the author of the argument.  If
> > > this seems dubious, how many times have you seen discussions of 
> > > "functions"
> > > without benefits, such as "the function of mass extinction" or "the
> > > function of acid precipitation"?  That suggests ecosystem function and
> > > ecosystem service are fundamentally identical concepts.  Processes are 
> > > more
> > > benefits-equivocal than functions.  A designed system (e.g., a farm)
> > > includes processes more and less beneficial from various points of
> > > reference, but has a designed function benefiting the farmer. An
> > > accumulated system (e.g., an ecosystem) likewise includes processes but
> > > lacks a designer or a function—if your metaphysics will allow.
> > > 
> > > Matthew K Chew
> > > Assistant Research Professor
> > > Arizona 

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Teaching kids about abiotic factors

[David L. McNeely]

Voltini, Day length, light intensity, humidity, temperature, light wavelength, 
soil moisture, soil nutrient concentration, soil composition,  nutrient 
composition in water,  are all fairly easily manipulated.  Effects on plant 
growth; seed germination; fruiting response; seed production; leaf size, 
number, and chlorophyl content; activity schedule of animals; nutritional 
content of plant parts; depths to which roots grow and animals burrow in soil 
all can be measured as responses.  Good luck.  David McNeely

 VOLTOLINI  wrote: 
> Dear friends, 
> 
> I am preparing a course about teaching ecology for kids. The students in the 
> course are teachers from public shools and one of the topics is about abiotic 
> factors. I would like to suggest and develope simple experiments about the 
> effect of abiotic factors on plant and animals. In general I am using 
> experiments about seed germination and ant behaviour but I would like to 
> hear about other ideas too! Thanks for any help!
> 
> 
> Voltolini
> 
> 
> Prof. Dr. J. C. VOLTOLINI 
> Grupo de Pesquisa e Ensino em Biologia da Conservação - ECOTROP
> Universidade de Taubaté, Departamento de Biologia Taubaté, SP. 12030-010. 
> E-Mail: jcvol...@uol.com.br 
> * Grupo de pesquisa ECOTROP CNPq: 
> http://dgp.cnpq.br/buscaoperacional/detalhepesq.jsp?pesq=8137155809735635 
> * Currículo Lattes: 
> http://lattes.cnpq.br/8137155809735635 
> * Fotos de Cursos e Projetos no Orkut e Facebook: 
> http://www.orkut.com.br/Main#Profile?uid=17608429643840608483 
> http://www.facebook.com/VoltoliniJC?v=info 
> 
> "Siamo tutti angeli con un'ala e possiamo volare soltanto se ciabbracciamo"

--
David McNeely

Re: [ECOLOG-L] FIRE Wildland and Urban Interface Myth or Truth 1 Fire dependent plants?

[David L. McNeely]

Wayne, I have heard this "fire dependent" terminology in reference to both 
community types and specific plants.  However, most often it has been in 
reference to community types that included dominant fire adapted species.  I 
also have heard more convincingly that lodgepole pine, _Pinus contorta_, was 
fire dependent due to serotinous cones.  I accepted this without judgement.  
However, one of these references suggests that though serotinous, under warm 
enough conditions 45 - 50 C soil surface temperature) the cones may open 
without fire.  I wonder if soils in the northern portions and higher elevations 
of the range get that hot, but I don't know.

I have also heard the term applied to Longleaf Pine, _Pinus palustris_ , and 
the communities that it dominated prior to extensive exploitation of the SE 
U.S. forests.  My understanding has always been that in that case, more shade 
tolerant species that have seeds that can reach the soil surface despite dense 
grassy understory replace the longleaf pine when fire is absent from an area 
for extensive time.

Here are some references, some of them secondary, that discuss these phenomena.

I am definitely not a forest or fire ecologist.

David McNeely

 Wayne Tyson  wrote: 
> Ecolog:
> 
> I just caught a video production on TV done by a major governmental fire 
> authority. It contained a mixture of truth and superstition, as well as some 
> questionable assumptions that y'all can help me clear up. 
> 
> 1. A uniformed fire official claimed that some plants are DEPENDENT upon fire 
> for their survival. He did not say that some plants are ADAPTED to fire, he 
> said "dependent." 
> 
> Please share your knowledge and references, please. 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> WT

--
David McNeely

Re: [ECOLOG-L] FIRE Wildland and Urban Interface Myth or Truth 1 Fire dependent plants?

[David L. McNeely]

I apologize.  I left off the list of references I compiled for this post.  Here 
it is:

http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1010&context=barkbeetles

http://www.gffp.org/pine/ecology.htm

http://www.esa.org/education_diversity/pdfDocs/fireecology.pdf

http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/tree/pinconl/all.html

http://fireecology.org/docs/Journal/pdf/Volume08/Issue02/107.pdf

http://www.na.fs.fed.us/pubs/silvics_manual/Volume_1/pinus/contorta.htm

http://www.firescience.gov/projects/briefs/01B-3-1-01_FSBrief30.pdf

http://www.fws.gov/southeastfire/what/ecology.html

http://cee.unc.edu/people/graduate-students/theses/Kaplan_MA.pdf


---- "David L. McNeely"  wrote: 
> Wayne, I have heard this "fire dependent" terminology in reference to both 
> community types and specific plants.  However, most often it has been in 
> reference to community types that included dominant fire adapted species.  I 
> also have heard more convincingly that lodgepole pine, _Pinus contorta_, was 
> fire dependent due to serotinous cones.  I accepted this without judgement.  
> However, one of these references suggests that though serotinous, under warm 
> enough conditions 45 - 50 C soil surface temperature) the cones may open 
> without fire.  I wonder if soils in the northern portions and higher 
> elevations of the range get that hot, but I don't know.
> 
> I have also heard the term applied to Longleaf Pine, _Pinus palustris_ , and 
> the communities that it dominated prior to extensive exploitation of the SE 
> U.S. forests.  My understanding has always been that in that case, more shade 
> tolerant species that have seeds that can reach the soil surface despite 
> dense grassy understory replace the longleaf pine when fire is absent from an 
> area for extensive time.
> 
> Here are some references, some of them secondary, that discuss these 
> phenomena.
> 
> I am definitely not a forest or fire ecologist.
> 
> David McNeely
> 
>  Wayne Tyson  wrote: 
> > Ecolog:
> > 
> > I just caught a video production on TV done by a major governmental fire 
> > authority. It contained a mixture of truth and superstition, as well as 
> > some questionable assumptions that y'all can help me clear up. 
> > 
> > 1. A uniformed fire official claimed that some plants are DEPENDENT upon 
> > fire for their survival. He did not say that some plants are ADAPTED to 
> > fire, he said "dependent." 
> > 
> > Please share your knowledge and references, please. 
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > 
> > WT
> 
> --
> David McNeely

--
David McNeely

Re: [ECOLOG-L] FIRE Wildland and Urban Interface Myth or Truth 1 Fire dependent plants?

[David L. McNeely]

Your commentary is interesting.  In North America, we do consider the prairies 
and their plants to be adapted to grazing, and that is true of grasses in 
general around the world.  They have meristems distributed in the plant body so 
that they grow from the base, and regenerate if cut back almost to the soil 
level.  Many other prairie plants have below ground reproductive structures in 
the form of tubers, bulbs, and roots.

Some excellent examples, though generally small in extant, of "native" prairie, 
have survived because they were grazed rather than converted to row crops.  
Some other examples have survived because they were hay meadows, mowed 
periodically.  The Nature Conservancy (TNC) and some state and national 
entities are now using grazing as one tool in conservation of protected areas.  
For one example, see TNC Tall Grass Prairie Preserve just north of Tulsa, 
Oklahoma.  This preserve was a ranch that preserved native prairie species not 
on purpose necessarily, but because its cattle grazing program sort of mimicked 
grazing by bison.  Today TNC maintains a herd of bison on the preserve, and 
also sometimes moves bison from there onto smaller preserves temporarily to 
promote the prairies there.  TNC practices "flash grazing," whereby a herd is 
moved onto a property and literally allowed to trample and chew so that the 
landscape begins to look pretty beaten up.  But the prairie plants seem to 
thrive if then allowed to recover well before another flash grazing episode.  I 
do not know what the interval used is, and that might vary from locale to 
locale depending on conditions.

In the southern plains, under the grazing regime practiced by many ranches, and 
on smaller landholdings where fire is excluded, Eastern Red Cedar, a noxious 
native weed tree under those circumstances, soon crowds out the native prairie.

David McNeely

 David Burg  wrote: 
> I find this discussion very interesting. I am not a scientist, but have
> been looking for management studies that directly compare grazing, fire,
> and combinations of the two.   My friend, paleoecologist Guy Robinson, was
> coauthor of a paper published in Science on changing conditions at the end
> of the pleistocene in North American.   A consistent find all around the
> world seems to be that fire frequencies shoot up dramatically with the
> die-off of megafauna and the arrival of humans.  Which leads me to wonder
> how many of the species we now consider fire dependent were also adapted to
> impacts of large animals?   I see so many management prescriptions for fire
> in prairies and savannas, but fewer studies of impacts of various grazing
> regimes.  Based on historic and ongoing conservation conflicts with
> agriculture one suspects a bias towards fire and against grazing.
> 
> David Burg
> 
> On Sun, Oct 7, 2012 at 3:28 PM, Thomas J. Givnish  > wrote:
> 
> > The list goes on and on and on. Bulbostylis in Venezuelan savannas flowers
> > within a few days after fires; several orchids in Australian woodlands
> > obligately depend on fires to trigger flowering; many other plants in other
> > systems flower profusely a year or two after fires (e.g., Xanthorrhoea,
> > Xerophyllum, Lilium). Several species in Mediterranean scrub in sw
> > Australia, sw South Africa, and s California germinate in response to
> > compounds released in smoke. Hundreds of species in many genera (e.g.,
> > Pinus, Cupressus, Eucalyptus, Hakea, Banksia, Protea) release their seeds
> > promptly from serotinous cones, follicles, etc. only in response to fire.
> > Many carnivorous or nitrogen-fixing plants are facilitated by fire. A suite
> > of ca. 17 federally endangered species endemic to the Lake Wales Ridge in
> > south-central Florida are almost surely facilitated by the extraordinarily
> > high frequency of lightning strikes there. Long-term studies at Konza
> > Prairie and Cedar Creek show that different plant species are favored by
> > different long-term fire frequencies. The Karner Blue Butterfly has no life
> > stages resistant to fire, but depends on fire to renew its habitat and
> > maintain an abundance of Lupinus perennis, the sole larval food plant.
> >
> > --
> > Thomas J. Givnish
> > Henry Allan Gleason Professor of Botany
> > University of Wisconsin
> >
> > givn...@wisc.edu
> > http://botany.wisc.edu/givnish/Givnish/Welcome.html
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 10/07/12, "David L. McNeely"  wrote:
> > > I apologize. I left off the list of references I compiled for this post.
> > Here it is:
> > >
> > >
> > http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1010&context=barkbeetles
> > >
> > > http://www.gffp.o

Re: [ECOLOG-L] correlation v. causation

[David L. McNeely]

 Miles Medina  wrote: 

> 
> Also, I would add, in response to a comment above.. someone said
> correlation implies causation. Yes it may, of course, but let's not forget
> that there could be a third variable that causes the two correlated ones
> originally in question. 

I believe that the meaning of what was originally stated was that correlation 
suggests a possibility, not that it implies or infers causation.  Certainly we 
all know about the false reasoning that allows us to believe in causation due 
to correlation, when the relationship is simply coincidental.

BTW, for your story about the cat: In a statistical sense, the head predicts 
the tail.  Quite a difference from the head causes the tail.

David McNeely

Re: [ECOLOG-L] "The Audacity of Graduate School" -Knowledge of Today Documentary

[David L. McNeely]

 "Borrett wrote: 
> Colleagues,
> 
> We need to be careful about the assumption that the only "real" job for a 
> person trained with a PhD is a tenure track faculty job.  I do not believe 
> this assumption to be true.  Several of my colleagues are using their degree 
> in the private sector.  

Government service in science and conservation agencies is certainly an 
excellent line of work.  EPA, USFWS, NOAA, NASA, state agencies, Army Corps of 
Engineers all are engaged in science and conservation.  NGOs do good things, 
and employ ecologists also.  David McNeely
> 
> Respectfully,
> 
> Stuart
> 
> ---
> Stuart Borrett
> http://people.uncw.edu/borretts
> 
> On Oct 19, 2012, at 10:16 PM, "George Wang"  wrote:
> 
> > "not all PHDs are in permanent, tenure-track or jobs related to their 
> > training"
> > 
> > I believe the term you are looking for is "under-employed", and in the 
> > case of PhD's, this often comes in the form of adjunct instructorship or 
> > dead-end technician positions. I would be interested in knowing this under-
> > employment rate for (EEB) PhD's, and it's relativeness to other 
> > professions. I think this would be a more relevant number than the 
> > unemployment rate per se.
> > 
> > 
> > On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 08:11:02 -0500, malcolm McCallum 
> >  wrote:
> > 
> >> the 2010 unemployment rate for PHDs was 2.5%.
> >> Considering that its well into the 70%s (or so I'm told) in
> >> humanities, this is pretty darn good.  However, not all PHDs are in
> >> permanent, tenure-track or jobs related to their training.  But, this
> >> is true in an discipline and at any education level.
> >> 
> >> M
> >> 
> >> On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 11:57 PM, brandi gartland  
> > wrote:
> >>> As I am currently deciding on whether to enter a PhD program vs. 
> > consulting work/career position, I am finding this feed quite informative 
> > and wanted to respond to:
> >>> 
> >>> "When we graduate, we have more or less the same credentials as 
> > everyone else a degree. There are many successful scientists without 
> > Ph.D.'s but many more with Ph.D.'s who are unemployed."
> >>> 
> >>> I immediately thought of sharing this documentary, as it illustrates 
> > this very point as well as other ideas:
> >>> 
> >>> http://www.knowledgeoftoday.org/2012/02/education-college-conspiracy-
> > exposed.html
> >>> 
> >>> -It illustrates how the U.S. educational system is not what it used to 
> > be and "exposes the facts and truth about America's college education 
> > system. It was was produced over a six-month period by NIA's team of 
> > expert Austrian economists with the help of thousands of NIA members who 
> > contributed their ideas and personal stories for the film. NIA believes 
> > the U.S. college education system is a scam that turns vulnerable young 
> > Americans into debt slaves for life."
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> Best wishes for us all in life, love, work, and happiness.
> >>> 
> >>> Brandi
> >>> M.S. Candidate Avian Sciences
> >>> University of California, Davis
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> 
>  Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 10:29:21 -0700
>  From: jane@gmail.com
>  Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] "The Audacity of Graduate School"
>  To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
>  
>  On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 6:40 AM, Aaron T. Dossey  
> > wrote:
> > When we graduate, we have more or less the same credentials as 
> > everyone else
> > - a degree.  There are many successful scientists without Ph.D.'s 
> > but many
> > more with Ph.D.'s who are unemployed.
>  
>  Can you make a rough estimate of the relative frequencies of each.
>  
> > Also, to emphasize how little we get out of
> > a Ph.D. (a lot is stolen from us), we don't get credit for our work 
> > or
> > publications because the professor always gets credit for everything 
> > we do
> > while in their lab as a student or postdoc (which is something I am 
> > fighting
> > on other fronts - I call it institutionalized intellectual property 
> > theft).
>  
>  Isn't that taken care of by the first author/last author distinction?
>  A PI may get some undeserved credit, but that's different from the
>  student not getting credit. The paper is still cited as Student et al.
>  Or are you talking about taking the student's idea outright?
>  
>  BTW, if you believe that grad students are employees to the point of
>  needing a union and thinking of their advisor as their boss, I would
>  point out that people who do creative work as employees rarely keep
>  the rights to their work. Typically, the intellectual property belongs
>  to their employer ("work done for hire"). Isn't it better to say that
>  grad students are not employees?
>  
>  --
>  -
>  Jane Shevtsov, Ph.D.
>  Mathematical Biology Curriculum Writer, UCLA
>  co-founder, www.worldbeyondborders.org
>  
>  “Those who say it cannot be done should not inte

Re: [ECOLOG-L] audacity of graduate school--follow-up

[David L. McNeely]

I recommend not being pessimistic at all, but a healthy dose of realism is a 
good thing.  Broadening what one considers acceptable employment helps.  
Enrollments are booming in community colleges and regional state schools during 
this time of high unemployment/underemployment.  Eventually jobs will start to 
be available in those circumstances, and that will take up some of the pool of 
scientists who decide they'd rather teach than starve.  We won't be in this "to 
hell with education and research" mode forever.  Wiser heads will eventually 
prevail in congress and state governments.  Despite present circumstances, we 
actually have a history as a country of supporting higher education.  That's 
why our higher education system is so attractive to foreign students.  We also 
have a history of supporting science, and will do so again.  David McNeely

 J B  wrote: 
> As a graduate student, how
pessimistic should one be about obtaining academic employment after completing
a PhD?  Many articles I’ve seen present a
rather pessimistic picture, although most of these are not specific to ecology,
but address STEM in general:
 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/us-pushes-for-more-scientists-but-the-jobs-arent-there/2012/07/07/gJQAZJpQUW_story.html
 
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=does-the-us-produce-too-m
 
http://www.economist.com/node/17723223
 
http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/24301
 
http://wuphys.wustl.edu/~katz/scientist.html
 
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/05/12/workforce

-curious grad student

--
David McNeely

Re: [ECOLOG-L] "The Audacity of Graduate School" -training grad students in teaching and outreach

[David L. McNeely]

Dossey, one of the greatest strengths of the teaching component of the higher 
education system in the U.S. is that the people doing the teaching are truly 
experts in the fields in which they teach.  These experts range from full 
professors through junior faculty members and down to post doctoral fellows and 
graduate students.  But they are teaching subjects that they have a passion 
for.  We do have institutions where teaching exists as a stand alone activity, 
unrelated to research.  Though many of the faculty members teaching in such 
institutions are devoted, passionate, hard working, and do an excellent job, 
still, the effort is divorced from research activity, and in order for students 
in such a program to experience research, they have to be "farmed out" to 
research programs.  One of the strengths of regional universities that has 
developed in recent years is greater involvement of their faculty in research, 
and in particular, greater participation of their students in re!
 search.

Now we just need to get state legislators to recognize the importance of the 
research activity in these institutions.  In my home state of Texas recently 
faculty are being attacked by the government for being "do nothings" because 
their teaching loads don't add up to a forty hour work week when only time in 
the classroom ("contact hours") is considered.  Of course, that is posturing 
for political consumption, but it has a serious impact on these institutions 
where the typical teaching load for a biology faculty member is three lecture 
courses with associated laboratories per semester, putting the faculty member 
in the classroom and teaching laboratory for 15 to 18 hours per week.

To divorce teaching from research completely would be akin to sending a young 
woman who wanted to become the greatest she could be at automobile mechanics to 
learn from someone who read books about cars, rather than to master mechanics.  
I do not mean this analogy to demean those who have chosen teaching for their 
focus, but rather to emphasize that research has an important contribution to 
make to effective teaching.  We just need to get the politicians to understand 
the connection.

A university's contribution to society is the creation and dissemination of 
knowledge.  When the creation and the dissemination are conjoined, the 
institution is most effective.

I realize that my description is an idealized one, and that many paths to 
success exist.  But to try to separate teaching absolutely from research, in my 
view, would be a serious mistake, damaging to both teaching and research, and 
to the overall scholarly endeavor.

David McNeely

 "Aaron T. Dossey"  wrote: 
> I wonder if the mixing of teaching and research is causing a lot of 
> these problems?  In academia the only position for conducting original 
> research long-term is professor (ostensibly?) but they are also 
> responsible for teaching too (ostensibly?)...  I wonder if the 
> enterprise has grown too large and we need to start parsing out the 
> teaching to those who want to do it and are good at it and the research 
> who want to do and are good at that - with some kind of more structured 
> overlap so students can still experience "real world research".  The 
> overlap I think has become a huge gray area, and sharks feed in gray 
> areas and murky waters - as do opportunists, thus causing a lot of the 
> problems we have been discussing.
> 
> 
> 
> On 10/23/2012 12:01 AM, malcolm McCallum wrote:
> > I personally do not consider it an opportunity as you put it.
> > I consider it a necessity or requirement you just better do.
> >
> > I have sat on a ton of search committees, and I guarantee you that
> > teaching experience will trump none in every case except maybe a
> > research doctoral school.
> >
> > I'm not sure if that is fair or not, but it is what it is.
> >
> > You can't guarantee yourself an R1 position, but you can at least give
> > yourself a chance at a teaching post if you can show effective
> > teaching at any level.
> >
> > M
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 7:54 PM, Aaron T. Dossey  wrote:
> >> Although I agree that experience teaching can give one a competitive edge 
> >> in
> >> the ever more tiny faculty job market, and provide other benefits as 
> >> helping
> >> guide one's career priorities, stay fresh with the basics etc BUT:
> >>
> >> I fear that this emerging trend to "give more teaching 'opportunities' to
> >> students and postdocs" is a thinly veiled method to, like has been done 
> >> with
> >> research, grantwriting and many other things, farm out or pass along
> >> undesirable workloads to students and postdocs (ie: distill the faculty job
> >> description down to pullet points, keep those with a career benefit and 
> >> have
> >> students and postdocs do those which are left).  In fact I generally cringe
> >> (literally, often physically) when I see the word "opportunity" in titles 
> >> of
> >> emails in this list 

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Is there a Water Quality Index for lakes?

[David L. McNeely]

 Kirsten Harma  wrote: 
> Does anyone know if someone has developed a single, integrated water 
quality index that combines the basic parameters (Temp, DO, Conductivity, pH 
and secchi depth).  We're curious if 
there is an easy way to categorize a lake as in "good" "fair" or "poor" 
condition based on such an index (along the lines of an Index of Biotic 
>Integrity based on fish or macroinvertebrates). 

I believe that would be a hard thing to make valid.  Lakes can be very healthy 
with widely different values for most of those variables, depending on the 
lake.  Geography, geology and so on make a difference.  Mono Lake would be 
considered to be quite healthy despite its very high pH and conductivity, and 
low transparency.  The same would be true of the Great Salt Lake.  But Crater 
Lake would be considered very healthy also, despite its extreme transparency, 
and extremely low conductivity.  There are simply different kinds of lakes.  I 
believe a different index would be required for different regions and different 
underlying geological conditions.  Development of indices of that nature might 
work out, though.  And then we would just have to recognize exceptional 
conditions, conditions that simply don't fit.

David McNeely

Re: [ECOLOG-L] ...what sorts of questions might pertain to sampling "bushmeat"?...

[David L. McNeely]

I do not see enough scientific value in this endeavor to justify the potential 
conservation harm.  Bush meat is a serious conservation concern in substantial 
parts of the tropics.  For a person from a wealthy country to encourage this 
practice for the sake of what is admitted to be  play rather than a serious 
scientific endeavor seems to me to be unethical.  The scientific questions 
mentioned could be addressed much more directly with experiments involving 
particular species that are not threatened and are not regular parts of the 
bush meat trade.  Of course, to design such experiments, a person would need to 
be knowledgeable enough about the species involved and their ecology to know 
what he or she was doing. 

Jared Diamond has addressed the matter of consumption of the flesh of bird 
specimens collected for science (only the skins and skeletons were normally 
preserved for scientific purposes) and their relative palatability in his works 
on New Guinea ornithology.  He mentions in those discussions whether his New 
Guinean native assistants regularly ate particular birds or not, and the 
reasons they gave him.  Perhaps the investigator could begin her studies by 
investigating what is already known in this area.

What this "investigation" sounds like is simply a desire on the part of the 
"investigator" to collect gastronomic trophies.  Please don't.

David McNeely

 "Clara B. Jones"  wrote: 
> Ecolog-l-ers:
> 1. ...several individuals have posted me asking to share more about why i
> want to sample "bushmeat"...
> 2. ...there's really no reason not to be open w this project [intended to
> be fun, anecdotal, and a type of "sciency" play for me]...
> 3. ...the primary thing i'd like to get some sense of is whether qualities
> of the aftertastes [and associated physical after-effects] of terrestrial
> folivores and/or primarily folivorous animals correlate in any manner with
> preferences of the animals as prey...
> 4. ...however i go about this, there will be many problems related to
> reliability & validity that i will not be in a position to [nor,
> particularly, interested in] control [variation of all sorts, e.g.,
> gustatory variations, chemical defense, and, sebaceous gland, variations, &
> in humans, cooking & other culinary treatments, etc, etc]...
> 5. ...nonetheless, though this project  is"fishing", it's something i've
> wanted to do for a long time...
> 6. ...obviously, i can begin with folivorous taxa i've already tasted [a
> few in No Am*, a few in Central America*]...
> 7. ...based upon 1 of my studies + interviews + observation, etc, in the
> tropics over some period of *T*, frugivores &/or non-folivorous herbivores
> are preferred tissue [as one would expect, i suppose]...[e.g., frugivorous
> spider monkeys preferred to folivorous howler monkeys; many animal tissues
> preferred to opossums]
> 8. ...the literature i've perused so far [v interesting stuff by Tom Kunz]
> basically rules out volant taxa [birds, bats]...in the US...
> 9. ...among terrestrial taxa in the US, i would guess that some spp of rats
> & snakes [& numerous insects] are folivores or, predominantly, folivorous...
> 10. ...however, on balance, i do not know what they might be nor would i
> know whether they are common or, whether the snakes might be poisonous but
> edible...
> 11. ...directly related to the above, for quite some time, i've been
> interested in what, if any, adaptive significance [rather than simply
> byproduct effects] "gaminess" may be all about; though, i haven't looked at
> the literature to see what is already stated on this topic...
> 12. ...because, for me, at present, this exercise is equivalent to "play"
> [an aside to other things], i am only hoping to generate some ideas, maybe
> a few serious questions, maybe thoughts about rigorous research designs...
> 13. ...i am aware that there are many scientific and commercial studies
> related to my exercise...both in the field [e.g., Paul Garber's work w
> monkeys], in the lab [e.g., John Garcia's work w rats], and in industry
> [e.g., "taste tests"]...
> 12. ...if any of this interests any of you, please do not hesitate to
> contact me...best, clara
> 
> *...as a granddaughter and daughter of 3 gourmands, as a field worker, as a
> traveler, as a relative & friend of many serious hunters & fishermen, as
> well as, as a serious home cook, i have more experience than average with a
> relatively wide range of capture [e.g., some trapping], preparations, and
> foods, themselves [e.g., exotic produce & meat, eggs, entrails, wild
> foraging, etc]...i severely qualify these statements knowing, and,
> acknowledging, that many of you have, not only, more, and a wider range of,
> examples & experiences than i, but that, many of you have, no doubt,
> sampled a much wider range of exotic organisms than have i and on many more
> continents...i understand that, in the domain of "wild" foods, there are
> "lifers" as well as in birding...
> 
> -- 
> Cla

Re: [ECOLOG-L] ...re: responses concerning my "bushmeat" request...

[David L. McNeely]

 "Clara B. Jones"  wrote: 
> Ecolog-l-ers:
> 1. ...a few individuals have contacted me with concerns about the ethics of
> my post requesting "bushmeat"...
> 2. ...i was not concerned about the ethical dimension for several
> reasons...perhaps, the most important is that it didn't seem likely at all
> that anyone here or there, so to speak, would go to much trouble or expense
> to answer my "call"...

You simply asked for samples, it seemed evident that you hoped to receive them.

> 3. ...also, most anybody reading our listserv's posts would be operating
> from a platform of professional ethics*.
> 4. ...further, i was using no monetary incentive to induce respondents to
> reply to my query, a topic of concern to many professional organizations...

Ethical concerns can involve other than money.

> 5. ...i was using "bushmeat" broadly...and, though, i would not be averse
> to receiving samples from outside the US...i was thinking not only of
> domestic folivore or folivorous taxa that i've not sampled [tasted] such
> as, opposum, but, also, was thinking of tissues from zoo animals,
> post-preparation museum specimens, tissues culled at animal "farms", and,
> the like...

Regardless of your answer to me in private, it is simply the case that the term 
"bushmeat" or "bush meat" is not applied to game in the U.S.  People speak of 
game.  We do not call the habitats occupied by wild animals here "bush," and 
wild game long ago ceased to be a commercial product here.  Whenever one hears 
or sees the term, one is definitely not taken to the high plains of Colorado or 
the mountains of Wyoming.  It is Africa that one thinks of.

You certainly did not mention in your appeal that you were asking for samples 
from animals sacrificed for other purposes.  You simply asked for "bush meat."  
I have never heard of a specimen sacrificed for science referred to as "bush 
meat."

You have referred to the o'possum repeatedly as a folivore.  The only U.S. 
o'possum is the Virginia O'possum, _Didelphis virginiana_,.  It is an omnivore 
that feeds on a wide variety of small animals, carrion, fruits.  Perhaps it 
does eat leaves, but the things I mentioned are its mainstays.  It's dental 
apparatus is not well suited to a diet of leaves.  And I assure you that 
despite your earlier statement that it is not a preferred food of those who eat 
wild animals, many a person in the southern U.S. has eaten many a "possum."  

> 6. ...my opportunistic project aside, i've studied the topic of "defensive
> mimicry" in mammals, and it has occurred to me that organisms may advertise
> unpalatability via several modalities, not only olfactory, visual, &
> auditory [most common in mammals]...
> 7. ...John Garcia's work showed that rodents, anyway, may base future food
> selection and foraging decisions on taste of a food product
> 8. ...there are many questions that pertain that, in my opinion, would
> justify rigorous treatment..
> 9. ...the area of Conservation Biology is highly charged emotionally,
> possibly, preventing us from addressing the topic of when and under what
> circumstances we support the conduct of invasive experimentation with
> animals in natural conditions...whatever their Red Book status may
> be...and, related to this, whether we have an ethical right or
> responsibility to prevent others from doing so [within legal bounds]...
> 10. ...it remains to be seen whether there will be sufficient interest to
> continue these conversations...
> 11. ...i appreciate all communication received to date...sincerely, clara
> 
> 
> *...leading one to trust that the respondent would behave professionally as
> we all do when we, for example, share a pre-print w a colleague, requesting
> that it not be quoted...
> 
> 
> -- 
> Clara
> Director
> Mammals and Phenogroups (MaPs)
> Blog: http://vertebratesocialbehavior.blogspot.com
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/cbjones1943
> Cell: -828-279-4429
> Brief CV:
> http://vertebratesocialbehavior.blogspot.com/2012/10/clara-b-jones-brief-cv.html
> 
> 
>  "Where no estimate of error of any kind can be made, generalizations about
> populations from sample data are worthless."  Ferguson, 1959

--
David McNeely

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Discussion Panel Topic Suggestions

[David L. McNeely]

Hello All,

I believe that the argument here, and throughout this discussion, IS one of 
semantics.  It arises from the view that non-scientists have taken in the past 
that holds that recent organisms are in some way better organisms.  They 
definitely have viewed humans as some sort of pinnacle of the natural world.  
Concomitant with that they have viewed mammals as better organisms than 
reptiles, reptiles as better than amphibians and so on.  Bacteria, from that 
perspective, would be very incomplete and inferior organisms.  The alternative 
view is that each population of organisms is an adaptation to circumstances, 
building on what was available before, and no kind of organism is any better or 
worse than any other kind in that regard.  An iguana is a marvel of adaptation, 
as is a human being.

Evolutionists early on objected to this particular concept of phylogenetic 
improvement, and still do, but some non-scientists cling to it.  The belief 
that some kinds of organisms are better than others in the extreme is a part of 
creationism, but creationism is not prerequisite to such a mind set.

What you are arguing is that adaptation works.  None of us would dispute that, 
or at least I would not.  But having accepted that, I would also have to offer 
the caveat that environments change, and what constitutes successful adaptation 
for a population evolved in one environment simply does not work when that 
environment is replaced.  This does not mean that the population consists of 
inferior organisms, but rather that they have become maladapted.

This is one person's understanding and others may think differently.

Sincerely, David McNeely

 Jeff Houlahan  wrote: 
> Hi Joey, I am not arguing that evolution has led to progress on some axis - 
> that's an empirical question. I am only arguing that it is not a 
> misunderstanding of evolution by natural selection to suggest that it is 
> possible.  You've stated conclusively that evolution by natural selection 
> cannot lead to progress.  So, if I could provide empirical evidence that, on 
> average, current organisms are better adapted to their environments than 
> organisms were 3,000,000, years ago would you still deny that was 
> progress?  I'm OK with that but it's just a semantic issue then - something 
> that I would be willing to call progress you wouldn't be willing.  On the 
> other hand, if you're saying that it's not possible that over time time 
> organisms have become better adapted to their environments then our 
> difference of opinion is more fundamental. But, keep in mind - this is not a 
> debate about whether evolution by natural selection HAS resulted in progress, 
> it is about whether it's reasonable to ask the question, has evolution 
> resulted in progress?  Just because the answer might be no doesn't mean the 
> question doesn't make sense.
And what about the example from Lenski's work - he has absolutely demonstrated 
in his population of E. coli that later generations were more fit than earlier 
generations.   The population that had been around longer was better adapted. 
Why would it be possible over 75,000 generations of E.coli but not possible as 
a general rule?
The problem I have is not that you believe that evolution by natural selection 
has not resulted in better adapted organisms - it's that you believe that 
anybody who suggests it's possible, misunderstands evolution by natural 
selection.  Best, Jeff Houlahan



From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news 
[ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] on behalf of Joey Smokey 
[northwestbird...@gmail.com]
Sent: December 6, 2012 7:24 PM
To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Discussion Panel Topic Suggestions

Ecolog:

I would like to commend Wayne for his devil's advocate approach to
suggesting the third question and starting this discussion. It seems my
original interpretation was correct: the whole purpose of the question was
to dispel the misconceptions around the semantics of evolution.

I find it interesting how several of you use the word "progress" in
different contexts, and I especially like the idea of defining progress
along some sort of axis, such as increasing complexity. This all being
said, I do have some retorts. Firstly, if the argument is to be made that
evolution leads to increasingly complex life forms, it should be noted that
this has happened many times in evolutionary history. Adaptive radiations
and mass extinctions produce a cycle of "simple-to-diverse" organisms over
millenia. However, at the end of every mass extinction, the diversification
of organisms and their niches is eliminated, and complexity of life is
severely reduced. So, given our idea of progress, however you want to
define it, you still cannot use it. If organisms did in fact progress over
whatever axis you'd like to use, then despite mass extinctions they would
continue to become more and more advanced. We are curren

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Discussion Panel Topic Suggestions

[David L. McNeely]

 Wayne Tyson  wrote: 
> A term is worthless if it has more than one meaning. Especially when the 
> stakes are high, unless one's just kidding around, when the confusion can be 
> punny. Shirley, you can't be Cereus?

But from the discussion, it is clear that people are talking about different 
meanings for "progress."  Some mean development of what they perceive as 
"superior" organisms.  Others speak of adaptation.  They are not the same 
thing, and I for one does not think that there are some kinds of organisms that 
are better than others, just different.  But there are adaptations to different 
environments, or different adaptations to similar environments.

What your wife said.  It was right.
> 
> WT
> 
> - Original Message - 
> From: 
> To: ; "Wayne Tyson" 
> Sent: Friday, December 07, 2012 1:46 PM
> Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Discussion Panel Topic Suggestions
> 
> 
>  Wayne Tyson  wrote:
> > David and Ecolog:
> >
> > I think I understand and believe everything you say except I do not 
> > understand how you conclude that the discussion is one of semantics.
> 
> It is a matter of what "improve," "better," and "advance" mean.  To 
> different people, they mean different things.
> >
> > WT
> >
> > - Original Message - 
> > From: "David L. McNeely" 
> > To: 
> > Sent: Friday, December 07, 2012 7:09 AM
> > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Discussion Panel Topic Suggestions
> >
> >
> > Hello All,
> >
> > I believe that the argument here, and throughout this discussion, IS one 
> > of semantics.  It arises from the view that non-scientists have taken in 
> > the past that holds that recent organisms are in some way better 
> > organisms.  They definitely have viewed humans as some sort of pinnacle of 
> > the natural world.  Concomitant with that they have viewed mammals as 
> > better organisms than reptiles, reptiles as better than amphibians and so 
> > on.  Bacteria, from that perspective, would be very incomplete and 
> > inferior organisms.  The alternative view is that each population of 
> > organisms is an adaptation to circumstances, building on what was 
> > available before, and no kind of organism is any better or worse than any 
> > other kind in that regard.  An iguana is a marvel of adaptation, as is a 
> > human being.
> >
> > Evolutionists early on objected to this particular concept of phylogenetic 
> > improvement, and still do, but some non-scientists cling to it.  The 
> > belief that some kinds of organisms are better than others in the extreme 
> > is a part of creationism, but creationism is not prerequisite to such a 
> > mind set.
> >
> > What you are arguing is that adaptation works.  None of us would dispute 
> > that, or at least I would not.  But having accepted that, I would also 
> > have to offer the caveat that environments change, and what constitutes 
> > successful adaptation for a population evolved in one environment simply 
> > does not work when that environment is replaced.  This does not mean that 
> > the population consists of inferior organisms, but rather that they have 
> > become maladapted.
> >
> > This is one person's understanding and others may think differently.
> >
> > Sincerely, David McNeely
> >
> >  Jeff Houlahan  wrote:
> > > Hi Joey, I am not arguing that evolution has led to progress on some 
> > > axis - that's an empirical question. I am only arguing that it is not a 
> > > misunderstanding of evolution by natural selection to suggest that it is 
> > > possible.  You've stated conclusively that evolution by natural 
> > > selection cannot lead to progress.  So, if I could provide empirical 
> > > evidence that, on average, current organisms are better adapted to their 
> > > environments than organisms were 3,000,000, years ago would you 
> > > still deny that was progress?  I'm OK with that but it's just a semantic 
> > > issue then - something that I would be willing to call progress you 
> > > wouldn't be willing.  On the other hand, if you're saying that it's not 
> > > possible that over time time organisms have become better adapted to 
> > > their environments then our difference of opinion is more fundamental. 
> > > But, keep in mind - this is not a debate about whether evolution by 
> > > natural selection HAS resulted in progress, it is about whether it's 
> > > reasonable to ask the question, has evolution resulted in p

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Discussion Panel Topic Suggestions

[David L. McNeely]

 Douglas Shoemaker  wrote: 
> 
> Finally, I wonder what can be said of a system that has produced "Love"? Is
> this not directional advancement?
>

Not any more than fingers, pheromones, or flagella would be.

David McNeely

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Permaculture + Leadership - Bring a friend FREE!

[David L. McNeely]

I too looked at the web site.  My impressions were identical with Wayne's.  
David McNeely

 Wayne Tyson  wrote: 
> Ecolog:
> 
> My questions remain unanswered.
> 
> WT
> 
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Vladislav Davidzon" 
> To: "Wayne Tyson" ; 
> Sent: Monday, December 17, 2012 12:33 PM
> Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Permaculture + Leadership - Bring a friend FREE!
> 
> 
> Wayne,
> 
> The core curriculum of a permaculture design training is contained in the
> Permaculture Designer's Manual by Bill Mollison that you can pick up at a
> public library or buy it for about $120.  Permaculture is much bigger than
> gardening or agriculture -- kinda like math is about a lot more than 
> building
> briges.
> 
> What you said about being counter-intuitive to mainstream approaches is
> exactly true.  Functionally permaculture is a sustainable design science
> rooted in patterns of nature.  Learning to observe those patterns however
> requires letting go of all the nonsense our society teaches us as "truth";
> it's really really simple. For example, the same branching pattern of a
> river is present in a tree and in every heart and body -- but we rarely
> ask why -- and obviously that pattern serves a tremendous number of
> design functions.
> 
> "As the world's problems are continuing to get ever more complicated, the
> solutions remain embarassingly simple"  (Bill Mollison).   All the answers
> are out there for us, as you likely know -- we're just not paying attention.
> 
> There is no woo-woo or anything to hide here… just very basic observation
> skills that lead us towards reconnecting with nature in really profound and
> meaningful ways.
> 
> -Vladislav
> 
> --
> Regenerative Leadership Institute
> www.permaculturedesigntraining.com
> 
> 
> On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 5:01 PM, Wayne Tyson  wrote:
> > I went to the website and found it to be not up-front about the fees and
> > charges. I take this as a bad sign. There's a lot of text of the
> > salesmanship variety, and that's not too impressive to me either.
> >
> > Permaculture may be the greatest thing that's come along, but without
> > detailed information it's hard to judge. I ran into the guy who started it
> > in the late 1960's or early 1970's at big conference in Los Angeles, and
> > came away from that encounter a bit uneasy about the guy. I don't know why
> > these folks are timid about revealing the details, but maybe it's because
> > they want me to pay for them? How much and what, exactly, do I get? How 
> > much
> > additional training will I need, and how much will that cost me? In other
> > words, what's the end-cost and the end-product?
> >
> > WT
> >
> > PS: A restoration ecologist of some repute once accused me of "keeping
> > secrets." I told him that I didn't have any secrets and that my approach 
> > to
> > ecosystem restoration and integration with human systems was not rocket
> > science but required enough knowledge of the constituent disciplines to
> > enable one to know what one didn't know and to avoid doing that. I invited
> > him for coffee and asked him to ask away and I would not hold back any
> > secrets from him. I told him I would be willing to follow up, but he never
> > called back. The more one knows about the details, the better one can be 
> > at
> > the art and science of ecosystem restoration, but I think I could convey
> > most of the details required to carry out the concept in a few hours. The
> > biggest problem seems to be the agronomic/horticultural concepts that many
> > seem to believe are relevant to ecosystem restoration makes my approach 
> > seem
> > so counterintuitive that they simply don't believe it. Now that it is
> > apparently ok to post a call for participants in seminars, etc., maybe I
> > should "institute" one and see how many takers I could get for how much
> > money . . .
> >
> >
> > - Original Message - From: "Regenerative Leadership Institute"
> > 
> > To: 
> > Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2012 8:15 PM
> > Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Permaculture + Leadership - Bring a friend FREE!
> >
> >
> >> Hello friends,
> >>
> >> We're thrilled to announce an incredible promotion -- sign up for
> >> any permaculture course before January 1st and bring a friend FREE - or
> >> sign up by yourself and take a significant discount!
> >> More details at http://www.permaculturedesigntraining.com
> >>
> >> Join an unforgettable program in leadership, permaculture and sustainable
> >> design in California with the world's most renowned
> >> instructors and change your life, your community and your planet.  Not
> >> only do Common Circle Education courses offer the
> >> most complete curriculum of any similar course, but the people
> >> who come to the programs make this the most powerful leadership
> >> training offered anywhere.
> >>
> >> With powerful instructors and a deeply rich curriculum grounded in
> >> social/urban/suburuban permaculture and regenerative leadership, this is 
> >> the
> >> most pow

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Tree stump removal in sensitive area

[David L. McNeely]

If you can live with the stump while it rots, that is one approach.  Rotting 
can be hastened by drilling many holes deep into the stump and filling them 
with fertilizer and water.  Potassium nitrate works.  This will promote 
bacterial and fungal growth, and the stump will rot faster than without 
treatment.  But, you may not be ok with the extra fertilizer in your plantings. 
 David McNeely

 Martin Meiss  wrote: 
> Hi, Scott,
>   Depending on the tree's rooting system, specifically whether it has a
> tap root, you might be able to do most of the ax work while standing on the
> stump, if the sawyers can leave you a nice flat stump about a foot high or
> lower.
> 
>  I have heard that you can accelerate decomposition by boring holes
> into a stump and poring in a commercially available (I don't know the
> company name) mixture of decomposing organism.  I have no experience with
> this.
> 
> Another thing you might consider is to use the stump as an interesting
> feature in the garden.  I have seen this done by placing large planters on
> the stump, but you could also use a birdbath, a sculpture, a stone lantern,
> or something else that would harmonize.
> 
>  Hope this helps.
> 
> Martin M. Meiss
> 
> 2013/1/17 Scott Creary 
> 
> > Does anyone have any experience removing tree stumps from very sensitive
> > areas?  We have a botanically important planting around a tree that we need
> > to remove for safety reasons, but we cannot leave an unsightly stump in the
> > process. However, the traditional grinders or pick-axe method won't work
> > as it would destroy the surrounding plantings. Does anyone know of a way
> > to remove stumps or decompose them quickly such that the area is plant-able
> > soon after tree removal (a year or so)?
> >
> > I'm going out on a limb with this, but I feel that managed areas are
> > sometimes the most ecologically important, especially in a highly urban
> > environment like where we are.
> >
> > Thanks much!
> >
> >
> > --
> > Scott Creary, M.S. Entomology, ISA Certified Arborist
> > IPM Specialist
> > Phipps Conservatory and Botanical Gardens
> > www.phipps.conservatory.org
> >

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Bird count data

[David L. McNeely]

 Jeff Davis  wrote: 
> Many birders now enter such count data into eBird, a powerful, citizen 
> science, online database sponsored by The Cornell Lab of Ornithology and 
> Audubon.  Check it out at www.ebird.org.

Also, given the time of year, the birders may have been involved in Audubon 
Christmas Bird Counts (which should be called Audubon Winter Bird Counts).  
Those data eventually are available from Audubon, and they go back in some 
locations for decades.  David McNeely

> 
> Jeff Davis
> Fresno, CA
> 
> 
> On Jan 21, 2013, at 10:52 AM, ling huang  wrote:
> 
> > Hi
> > 
> > I go to the wetland area at the Yolo Causeway near Davis (in between Davis 
> > and Sacramento) - large wetland area with my children. Yesterday I saw a 
> > lot of pelicans there and bird watchers who seem to be making a count. I 
> > was wondering if there is a data bank somewhere with all of these counts, 
> > especially for example in the wetlands and coastal areas? So as to see 
> > patterns of the counts over time etc. The pelicans we saw were the American 
> > white pelicans, but I have been told some brown pelicans have been there 
> > too. The Yolo - Davis wetland area is about 80 miles from the nearest 
> > coastline.
> > 
> > Thanks.
> > 
> > Ling
> > Ling Huang, 
> > Sacramento City College 

--
David McNeely

Re: [ECOLOG-L] (repost) Do decaying plants in lakes melt surface ice?

[David L. McNeely]

Kirsten, some microbial metabolism does occur at low temperatures.  That is why 
there is sometimes oxygen depletion in winter, under ice.  When ice cover 
occurs, gas exchange with the atmosphere is obviously precluded.  Under ice 
metabolism has been sufficient to deplete oxygen enough to cause fish deaths.

That said, Occam's razor serves me in the instance you speak of.  We are 
experiencing exceptionally warm winters in recent years (even while we do have 
some extremes like the -32 F recorded in Oklahoma a couple of years ago, and 
the current bout of brutally cold weather across the northern U.S. states and 
much of Canada east of the Rockies).  Why would your unfrozen or thinly frozen 
lake not be a part of the general phenomenon of warmer than normal winters?  
This is a pattern, not limited to certain geographic regions.  It has been 
exceptionally warm for the past few years, and this winter is no exception to 
that.

David McNeely

 Kirsten Harma  wrote: 
> In my corner of eastern British Columbia we've h
> Greetings Ecologists,

In my corner of eastern British Columbia we've had a warmer than average winter 
and a later than average date of freeze of our local lake (surface freezes 
completely, usually thick enough to drive on). Yet no one talks of "climate 
change," rather, some people have been attributing the thin ice to decaying 
aquatic plants.  I assume this is because gases as a byproduct of decay bubble 
up, bringing +4 water to the surface-- but would decay be happening during the 
winter?  We have a pretty shallow lake (maximum depth = 7 metres; average = 3 
metres) and we haven't recorded thermal stratification in our lake in the 
spring, summer or fall.  I would like to educate the community about how much 
of an influence decaying plants might be having on creating thin sections of 
ice on the lake.  I would appreciate hearing your ideas on the impacts of 
decaying plants on ice melt and their possible relative contribution to thin 
ice.

Thanks so much!

~Kirsten Harma, MSc.
  Invermere, BC

(my apologies for the repost -- the first posting appeared with a very strange 
format on Ecolog)

--
David McNeely

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Advice for 36 year old trying to get into M.S. program

[David L. McNeely]

 Sean  wrote: 
> Having graduated with an abysmal GPA from Colorado State University back in 
> 2000 ( wildlife 
> biology 2.7), I have found it very difficult getting into graduate school.   
> Two winters ago I 
> completed two graduate level classes at Oregon State: Forest Wildlife 
> Management and a 
> graduate Statistics course.   Unfortunately just a B+ on the statistics but A 
> on the wildlife.   Of 
> course I have a ton of field experience going back 14 years in lots of 
> different taxonomic 
> groups.   Having just turned 36 I'm at my wits end trying to move forward.   
> So I am soliciting 
> advice.   Would a non-thesis program like the field naturalist program at U. 
> of Vermont be 
> worthwhile?  Frankly at this point I want to get into something permanent.   
> I'll always engage 
> my naturalists interest regardless of the employment I have.   If I do 
> something unfunded (such 
> as non-thesis) I would really need to have good employment prospects coming 
> out of it.
> Sage words of wisdom are welcome!   I'm completely open to any and all 
> advice.  My ideal 
> situation would be a thesis based M.S. on any of the many taxa I have 
> experience with (birds, 
> butterflies, amphibians, bats, plants etc).

Sean, is your interest in continuing graduate school for a Ph.D., or is the 
M.S. intended to be a terminal degree for you?  That can make a difference in 
where you go, and what degree you seek at the master's level.

There are lots of regional state schools that admit students like yourself, and 
some of them are well connected for state and other employment opportunities.  
Perhaps you are trying for schools that may be a bit of a competitive reach.  
Your work experience should speak well for you in state regional institutions.  
Some of them consider only the terminal two years of undergraduate work, rather 
than the entire undergraduate record.

Find a professor with whom you'd like to work, send him or her you background 
information, and make an appointment.  See what you get from that, and apply if 
encouraged.

David McNeely

> 
> -Sean

--
David McNeely

Re: [ECOLOG-L] EVOLUTION Misconceptions Re: [ECOLOG-L] evolution vs. natural selection videos

[David L. McNeely]

Wayne, I believe you are substantially correct in your understanding of the 
general perception of "improvement" through natural selection and evolution.  I 
am surprised at Dawkins, as he is considered both one of the top evolutionary 
biologists and a top publicist for evolution and scientific thinking.  
Hmmm.. .  Attenborough I am not surprised about, and though he has been 
very successful at helping the public understand a great deal about nature, I 
have heard a good bit of this "progress" notion from him in the "Nature" 
series, including just this week regarding Chimpanzees, tool usage, and the 
relationship of Chimpanzees to people (though of course, and as Attenborough 
certainly knows, there is no ancestral relationship between the two).

David McNeely

 Wayne Tyson  wrote: 
> Thanks to Catherine for the link to this actual list. My example of a 
> misconception (example: Evolution improves species over time.) is quite well 
> answered:
> 
> "MISCONCEPTION: Evolution results in progress; organisms are always getting 
> better through evolution.
> 
> "CORRECTION: One important mechanism of evolution, natural selection, does 
> result in the evolution of improved abilities to survive and reproduce; 
> however, this does not mean that evolution is progressive - for several 
> reasons. First, as described in a misconception below (link to "Natural 
> selection produces organisms perfectly suited to their environments"), 
> natural selection does not produce organisms perfectly suited to their 
> environments. It often allows the survival of individuals with a range of 
> traits - individuals that are "good enough" to survive. Hence, evolutionary 
> change is not always necessary for species to persist. Many taxa (like some 
> mosses, fungi, sharks, opossums, and crayfish) have changed little 
> physically over great expanses of time. Second, there are other mechanisms 
> of evolution that don't cause adaptive change. Mutation, migration, and 
> genetic drift may cause populations to evolve in ways that are actually 
> harmful overall or make them less suitable for their environments. For 
> example, the Afrikaner population of South Africa has an unusually high 
> frequency of the gene responsible for Huntington's disease because the gene 
> version drifted to high frequency as the population grew from a small 
> starting population. Finally, the whole idea of "progress" doesn't make 
> sense when it comes to evolution. Climates change, rivers shift course, new 
> competitors invade - and an organism with traits that are beneficial in one 
> situation may be poorly equipped for survival when the environment changes. 
> And even if we focus on a single environment and habitat, the idea of how to 
> measure "progress" is skewed by the perspective of the observer. From a 
> plant's perspective, the best measure of progress might be photosynthetic 
> ability; from a spider's it might be the efficiency of a venom delivery 
> system; from a human's, cognitive ability. It is tempting to see evolution 
> as a grand progressive ladder with Homo sapiens emerging at the top. But 
> evolution produces a tree, not a ladder - and we are just one of many twigs 
> on the tree."
> 
> According to my straw polls of randomly selected people, usually with quite 
> good minds and broad knowledge, cling to this misconception. I wonder what 
> percentage of "scientists," particularly evolutionary biologists, continue 
> to entertain this misconception. I may, myself, be laboring under a 
> misconception, but I first became interested in this when I saw a David 
> Attenborough nature program on TV, where he and a professor were discussing 
> the evolution of trilobites; both spoke of the concept of "advancement" of 
> species. I was unable to contact Sir Attenborough, but I did contact the 
> professor, tops in the field, and asked if he thought that trilobites 
> "advanced" or improved with time. He responded in the affirmative. I asked 
> the same question that has thus far been circumvented by this thread 
> recently, particularly by questioners on that specific point, of the 
> professor--if he then though that Neanderthals were inferior to Cro-Magnons. 
> He did not, then, reply.
> 
> I then posted the question to Jerry Coyne's blog, "Why Evolution is True," 
> and immediately got a response from someone calling himself "Richard 
> Dawkins" who said something to the effect that species certainly did advance 
> or improve--an answer quite on point of the question. Other respondents 
> became angry and seemed to avoid the point (with at least one notable 
> exception), but the long and the short of it was that I ended up having to 
> apologize (for my impertinence?), for just what I'm not sure--but it kept me 
> from being asked to "leave," as Coyne has done with other impertinent 
> posters. My attempts at clarification having no substantial effect, I went 
> dark on the blog and now rarely read the posts.
> 

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Advice for 36 year old trying to get into M.S. program

[David L. McNeely]

Each individual school has a score age after which it expects new results.  
However, AFAIK one can take the exam as often as one wants to pay the money and 
spend the time and effort.  The most recent score is the one reported.  So, for 
a person whose scores are "high enough," retaking is foolish (may be risky?).  
For a person with low scores, retaking may make sense.  For a person with 
"seasoned" undergraduate training, some brush-up might be appropriate.

I doubt retaking would make the difference in admission to a program unless it 
is a matter of a cutoff score, and one is able to move the score above that 
mark.  Especially for a seasoned applicant, performance in the work world would 
be more important to a prospective adviser (and having a prospective adviser 
who wants you is the single most important factor in admission to many 
programs).  Many programs that have a cutoff score for the GRE treat that as a 
"pass-fail" condition.  If one makes the cutoff, then other variables are 
considered, but the GRE is of no further consideration.  That may not be true 
for some programs, but I have never met a faculty member who looked beyond 
pass-fail on the cutoff score.  All I have met looked at other variables.  
Another way of putting that is that I have known situations where a prospective 
adviser said to an applicant, "I couldn't take you because the Graduate School 
turned you down for GRE scores.  If you can get your GRE scores up to the 
Graduate School's cutoff, then we can try again."  I have never known one who, 
faced with two applicants, opted for the one with the higher GRE scores rather 
than the applicant whose prospects for success in science were higher otherwise.

David McNeely

 Kyle Finn  wrote: 
> Someone mentioned retaking the GRE in a previous comment to this question. SO 
> at what point then are your GRE scores old enough to warrant retaking the 
> test?  



 From: Aaron T. Dossey 
To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU 
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 8:25 PM
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Advice for 36 year old trying to get into M.S. program
 
If you do for some reason (which I cannot currently imagine) to go to graduate 
school, here is some advice that will help you get the most out of it without 
putting the future of your career at risk: 1) pick a very HANDS-ON professor 
who spends a lot of time with his or her students and postdocs (eg: they spend 
lots of time in the lab) in a successful lab with a great reputation (lots of 
publications, with students and postdocs who have left it and have successful 
careers currently who can attribute it to having worked in that lab) and 2) 
insist that you ONLY will work on work that is from the professor's own ideas - 
from their grants and based on their ideas.  Do not fall into the trap of 
working for a professor who expects you to come up with your own projects.  You 
are there to learn from them primarily, and also to do parts of their research. 
 If you already have a certain skillset and can come up with your own research 
projects and successfully
>  execute them, you do NOT need to be a student (at least in that lab).  Pick 
> a lab and a professor who have a lot to offer you in the form of TRAINING, 
> connections and projects likely to be very fruitful.

IF and when you have your own ideas you want to pursue, keep a log book of 
those and save those for when you graduate and are on your own/independent.  
Otherwise, it can get ugly.  Many professors will, to put it bluntly, steal 
credit and reward for your ideas and independent work.  Might as well avoid 
that pitfall and keep everyone happy (and keep you learning) by doing whatever 
work originates from the professor - besides, it's their job to drive the 
research and come up with the ideas.

Basically, pick a prof and lab who seems to have YOUR CAREER INTERESTS at heart 
and act like it.


On 1/30/2013 8:49 PM, Michael Garvin wrote:
> All depends on what you want,
> 
> I went back at 35.  Best decision I ever made.  You can only go so far in the 
> scientific world with a BS.  Fact of life.  It's a card that opens doors.   
> But the most important thing is to enjoy what you are doing.  If you can do 
> that with a BS, do it.  If not, go back.  And I agree with previous posts.  
> Find someone who is studying what you want and convince them you have a skill 
> set to offer.  Worked for me.
> 
> M.
> On Jan 30, 2013, at 4:18 PM, "Aaron T. Dossey"  wrote:
> 
>> My advice is: forget about graduate school.  Find a way to get going with 
>> your dreams, passions interests and desired work rather than seeking 
>> "training" for it.  I am 35 and the only thing that would take me back to 
>> any kind of school would be if I wanted to go to law or medical school, or 
>> some sort of professional training with a very specific and targeted purpose 
>> in mind.  I CERTAINLY wouldn't do something like a postdoc or other similar 
>> type of temporary te

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Measuring the Human Mind Re: [ECOLOG-L] Advice for 36 year old trying to get into M.S. program

[David L. McNeely]

Wayne, the case you cite is quite different from the matter of the single datum 
of a GRE score.  It also sounds like the department and faculty member were 
arrogant, but I was not there .. .  Too bad for your friend.  That 
clearly was not the place for her.  But it sounds like it was the supposedly 
"inferior" program she had been in rather than GRE scores that mattered at the 
time when she originally entered the "flagship" school.

For what it is worth, I have known high falutin' programs that advised students 
without research experience as undergraduates (formerly almost no one had it, 
now it seems that many grad programs demand it as a prerequisite for entrance, 
even if not explicitly stated) that they would stand a better chance for 
admission if they got into a MS program first, including at a regional state 
university, and applied after completing a thesis there.  I have known students 
for whom that approach worked, and consequently have advised others that it 
might be a good move for them.

david mcneely

 Wayne Tyson  wrote: 
> McNeely and Ecolog:
> 
> "I have never known one [adviser] who, faced with two applicants, opted for 
> the one with the higher GRE scores rather than the applicant whose prospects 
> for success in science were higher otherwise." --David McNeely
> 
> Is this universally true, or does McNeely live in some academic paradise far 
> from the maddening crowd?
> 
> I have zero data on this, but do have anecdotes of other cases where, for 
> example, a top student who had an M.S. from a (what do you call them, 
> "second tier?") state University that used to be a mere "College" wanted to 
> get her Ph.D. from the "top" state university, which required her to take 
> the M.S. program all over again before they would admit her to the Ph.D. 
> program. Not only that, the student was required to practically prostrate 
> herself at the feet of the department chair and major professor and be on 
> campus practically all the time. The student had several jobs teaching and 
> working at a museum (all relevant to her major, just to pay for her 
> education and eat a sumptuous meal of beans and weenies (or their equivalent 
> in luxury). She took it for a while, then left (forced out) and got her 
> Ph.D. at Oxford at huge additional  expense. I knew this woman very well, 
> and, with the exception of my wife, I have never known a more  tireless 
> scholar and worker. In addition, she will be paying off, with huge interest, 
> the student loan burden she incurred in the process, for the rest of her 
> life.
> 
> I know the professor well enough to get the distinct impression that she has 
> a grand impression of herself.
> 
> The students are finally demonstrating about extremely high tuition rates 
> and huge golden parachutes for retiring (some with as little as three years 
> at the university) officials.
> 
> NOTE: No student or professor dare make this kind of comment on a Forum of 
> this kind and you will notice how circumspect I had to be, careful not to 
> name names.
> 
> WT
> 
> - Original Message - 
> From: "David L. McNeely" 
> To: 
> Sent: Friday, February 01, 2013 6:53 AM
> Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Advice for 36 year old trying to get into M.S. 
> program
> 
> 
> Each individual school has a score age after which it expects new results. 
> However, AFAIK one can take the exam as often as one wants to pay the money 
> and spend the time and effort.  The most recent score is the one reported. 
> So, for a person whose scores are "high enough," retaking is foolish (may be 
> risky?).  For a person with low scores, retaking may make sense.  For a 
> person with "seasoned" undergraduate training, some brush-up might be 
> appropriate.
> 
> I doubt retaking would make the difference in admission to a program unless 
> it is a matter of a cutoff score, and one is able to move the score above 
> that mark.  Especially for a seasoned applicant, performance in the work 
> world would be more important to a prospective adviser (and having a 
> prospective adviser who wants you is the single most important factor in 
> admission to many programs).  Many programs that have a cutoff score for the 
> GRE treat that as a "pass-fail" condition.  If one makes the cutoff, then 
> other variables are considered, but the GRE is of no further consideration. 
> That may not be true for some programs, but I have never met a faculty 
> member who looked beyond pass-fail on the cutoff score.  All I have met 
> looked at other variables.  Another way of putting that is that I have known 
> situations where a prospective adviser said to an applicant, "I cou

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Amazing facts about insects? (Education/Outreach)

[David L. McNeely]

 "Aaron T. Dossey"  wrote: 
> What are some of the most amazing facts about insects you can think of?

Bombardier beetle.  African beetle that harvests water from mists via 
exoskeletal surface texture.  endosymbionts of termites.  life cycle of aphids. 
 Lacewing larvae that build portable housing from exoskeletons of prey (I once 
examined a moving pile of tiny ant heads, to find a lacewing larva inside).  
Grasshopper glaciers in the western U.S.  Probable extinction or at least 
virtual disappearance of Great Plains Locust rapidly following settlement by 
Europeans.

Just a few.  David McNeely

> 
> -- 
> Aaron T. Dossey, Ph.D.
> Biochemistry and Molecular Biology
> Founder/Owner: All Things Bugs
> Capitalizing on Low-Crawling Fruit from Insect-Based Innovation
> http://allthingsbugs.com/about/people/
> http://www.facebook.com/Allthingsbugs
> 1-352-281-3643

--
David McNeely

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Suggestions wanted: world's weirdest plants

[David L. McNeely]

I sent this list privately to Benjamin, but realized others might be interested:

http://images.google.com/search?q=Bursera+microphylla&biw=1015&bih=569&tbm=isch 
 
http://www.loscabosinsider.com/cabo-life/plants-animals-baja/insider_boojum.htm 
 
http://plants.usda.gov/java/profile?symbol=SELE2 
 
http://www.americansouthwest.net/texas/big_bend/living-rock-cactus_l.html 
 
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2009/08/26/orchids-mimic-alarm-pheromone
s-of-bees-to-attract-wasps/ 
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuscuta 
 
http://www.sarracenia.com/faq/faq5980.html 
 
http://www.botany.org/Parasitic_Plants/ 
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strangler_fig 

Another one I'll add, and being residents of Arizona the students might find 
this particularly interesting, the leafy members of the cactus family in S. 
America.

mcneely

 Martin Meiss  wrote: 
> If I may have another go at it:
> 
> 1. How about the duckweeds, especially *Wolfia*, because it is so small and
> featureless (like grains of sand).
> 2. Bladderworts, because of the neat way they trap arthropods, and because
> they have aquatic and terrestrial species.
> 3. The aquatic floating ferns, like *Azolla*,* Marsilea*, and *Salvinia*,
> because most of us don't think of ferns as aquatic
> 4. *Riccia*, the floating OR terrestrial liverwort
> 5. The various marginal aquatic/marsh plants, whose leaves take on wildly
> different forms depending on whether they are below the water surface, at
> the surface, or above the water level
> 
> Another area to consider is taxons that have unusual diversity, such as:
> 1. The genus *Cornus*, which has the small woody dogwood tree and the
> herbacious bunchberry.
> 2. The palms, which have at least one species that is a mangrove and one
> that is a vine.
> 3. Common cabbage, a single species whose cultivars include such diversity
> as collards, Brussels sprouts, cauliflower, broccoli, kale, and kohl rabi.
> I find it interesting that these very different physical forms can be
> achieved just by tweaking a few genes that regulate the growth processes.
> 
> Martin M. Meiss
> 
> 2011/8/16 Kathleen Knight 
> 
> > Skunk cabbage, Symplocarpus foetidus, creates heat and melts the snow
> > around it in early spring. It smells like rotting meat to attract the flies
> > that pollinate it.
> > -Kathleen
> >
> >
> > On Aug 16 2011, Judith S. Weis wrote:
> >
> >  Venus fly traps would definitely appeal to middle school kids.
> >>
> >>
> >>  I nominate:
> >>> 1.  Trigger plants (Stylidiaceae - Australia).  They slap pollinators
> >>> with their reproductive parts to effect pollination.
> >>> 2.  Resurrection plant (Selaginella)- desert species and eastern
> >>> epiphytes.  Yes, they look dead until you add water.
> >>> 3.  Epiphytic Bromeliads (in general) because they are so obviously cool.
> >>> 4.  Rafflesiaceae includes one of the worlds largest (Rafflesia
> >>> arnoldii) and smallest (Pilostyles thurberi) flowers (The second one is
> >>> a plant that lives entirely inside the stems of desert shrubs - except
> >>> for the flowers).
> >>>
> >>  5. Ophrys speculum orchids for their pseudocopulation pollination system.
> >
> >> 6.  Marine flowering plants like Zostera and Thallasia (sea grass)
> >>> because they represent weird evolutionary transitions back to the ocean,
> >>> they are some of the only plants that flower and are pollinated
> >>> completely under water, and they have some of the largest pollen grains
> >>> (long, thread-like).
> >>> 7.  Vallisneria seems like an ordinary aquatic plant, but it has a weird
> >>> pollination system where male flowers break off and float on the water
> >>> surface like little boats.  The female flowers stay attached on long
> >>> stems and open on the water surface. Male flowers are then drawn to the
> >>> females as the water surface is depressed by surface tension around the
> >>> females.
> >>> 8.  Basal Angiosperms (water lilies such as Nymphaea, Brasenia, Nuphar)
> >>> because they like leftover dinosaurs from the deep evolutionary past of
> >>> the flowering plants.
> >>> 9.  Buzz pollination plants like shooting star (Dodecatheon) and
> >>> Melestoma because they are also cool.  Steve Buckman did an awesome
> >>> analysis of that demonstrated the physics of pollen ejection from the
> >>> anthers and then electrostatic charges that sicks the pollen to the
> >>> pollinator's body.
> >>> 10.  Gnetum, which is classified as a Gymnosperm but is really a
> >>> transitional group because they have double fertilization that is more
> >>> like the Angiosperms.  Some species are also used as herbal remedies in
> >>> China.
> >>> 11.  Wild ginger (Asarum) because they are one of the only plants that
> >>> is (might be) ant pollinated.
> >>> 12. Touch-me-not (jewel weed - Impatiens) and other plants with
> >>> projectile seed dispersal.
> >>>
> >>> Yeah, and there are plenty of others, but there are a few I can think of
> >>> right off.
> >>>
> >>> Mitch Cruzan
> >>>
> >>> On 8/15/20

Re: [ECOLOG-L] how many ecologists

[David L. McNeely]

Well, I guess it is obvious that the number of ecologists will depend on the 
definition of "ecologist."  So, are you referring to persons who research 
ecology, persons who research ecology plus persons involved in application, 
other persons  ??  Are wildlife personnel 
included?  fisheries personnel?  What about persons whose affiliations are with 
zoology, botany, microbiology, public health, epidemiology, .. 
?  Many of these folks are ecologists, but they might not show up in a survey. 

How about the number of persons who are members of The Ecological Society of 
America?  I think that is on the society web page (if not, someone at the 
society office surely would supply the number).  But many persons are 
ecologists who might not be members, or who might not be primarily ecologists.

mcneely
 Richard Stevens  wrote: 
> Insightful listserve,
> 
> I will once again be introducing my ecology class to Ecology on Tuesday.
> I was thinking it would be nice to throw out how many people in the USA
> (because that is where I live) are ecologists.  Does anyone know how
> many ecologists there are in the USA?  Is there any data on this?  I
> would be happy to entertain any and all estimates.  Thanks.
> 
> Richard 
> 
>  
> 
> ***
> 
> Richard D. Stevens
> 
> Associate Professor
> 
> Department of Biological Sciences
> 
> Louisiana State University
> 
> Baton Rouge, LA 70803
> 
>  
> 
> (225) 578-0224--Office
> 
> (225) 578-4284--Lab
> 
> (225) 578-2597--Fax
> 
>  
> 
> Check out my webpage at:
> http://www.biology.lsu.edu/faculty_listings/fac_pages/rstevens.html
> 
>  
> 
> **
> 
>  

--
David McNeely

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Is academic publishing a racket? Yes

[David L. McNeely]

 "Alexandre F. Souza"  wrote: 
> Dear Julie,
(stuff cut out)

>  I am also not a fan of high-impact journals. In a web era like ours,
> articles are searched for easily and most people tends to pick them
> according to affinity to current interests and not so much by the
> "importance" of the vehicle. We should free ourselves from the
> largely psychological need to publish in famous journals.

Not agreeing or disagreeing with the above, just asking:

Are these journals "high impact" for a reason?  Of course, by definition, high 
impact says that the reports in them are cited more frequently than are reports 
in other journals.  But is that because the articles are more meaningful?  Is 
it because the journals are best known?  Certainly, someone who publishes in 
_Nature_ , _Ecology_, or _Science_ becomes better known than someone who 
publishes in (just as an example, not to denigrate it as a medium or a source, 
its articles are good) _The Southwestern Association of Naturalists_.   More 
people read the former journals than read the latter one.  The reviewing is 
considered to be more rigorous.  Are the reports more likely to become 
discussed and to lead to scientific progress?

Some things to think about.

mcneely

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Ecology as a discipline Citations and References Are they overrated?

[David L. McNeely]

Wayne, right or wrong, you are good at bringing up things that warrant 
consideration, and that most people would not mention.

The "rules" I was taught and have always tried to operate by are:  (1) always 
give credit by citation for the sources of your information or ideas unless 
original or generally recognized as accepted or long established (one does not 
need to cite sources for the idea that life is as it is due to evolution), (2) 
cite the 3 most relevant and original sources, rather than listing a litany of 
all who ever wrote on a subject, (3)  cite only material you have personally 
consulted.

I do not think that publications that follow these "rules" are overly plump 
with citations.

mcneely
 
 Wayne Tyson  wrote: 
> Ecolog:
> 
> I have only some vague observations, no scholarship, but as I suspect that 
> better women and men have laid this out in detail somewhere, I am asking if 
> anyone can steer me toward an answer. 
> 
> Are citations and references overdone in the published literature of ecology? 
> 
> I get the uneasy feeling that they are overdone; even that the practice of 
> paper-padding could be on its way to epidemic proportions. I get this 
> impression from reading papers that are exceedingly long, fully of all sorts 
> of complex mathematics, contain citations in what seems to be every other 
> sentence (or at least several per paragraph), and are backed by lists of 
> references that would take me years to consult (even if, which is rarely the 
> case, each had a link and there was no firewall preventing me from going 
> beyond an absurdly brief "abstract." Again, I hope I am wrong. 
> 
> It seems that I was taught that the relevance of a citation and its text had 
> to be supported by something other than a previous claim, (itself, perhaps, 
> based on yet another similar claim) to my text, which I was required to 
> justify, and to ultimately consult the original research or theoretical 
> foundation. In addition, I was supposed to consult communications that might 
> refute the research, as well as replicated studies. And on and endlessly, it 
> seemed, on and on . . .
> 
> This may be one aspect of academic work that spooked me toward "applied" 
> stuff; I just don't remember. But I bought into that idea of scholarly 
> writing, and I've been pretty satisfied with its validity ever since. I have 
> always tended to cite too little; at least that has been a criticism. In fact 
> I have always preferred not to publish at all, finding applied field work 
> just too much fun. 
> 
> Here's part of my problem. I like to scan the literature at home without 
> going to the university library. I seldom read entire papers (or, for that 
> matter, books, although I do get sucked into reading all of the exceptionally 
> good ones frequently). When I get bored or confused by a paper, or encounter 
> the issues just mentioned, I fear that my prejudice may be unfounded (and my 
> ignorance all too well founded) and I will miss something elegant buried in 
> all that complexity. 
> 
> Is there any validity to my observations at all; most of all, am I 
> exaggerating and indulging in unwarranted criticism when only my ignorance is 
> to blame? 
> 
> Thanks for any thoughts,
> 
> WT

--
David McNeely

Re: [ECOLOG-L] a non Ivory Tower view of invasive species

[David L. McNeely]

 Matt Chew  wrote: 

> We can compose effectively endless lists of cases where human agency has
> redistributed biota and thereby affected pre-existing populations,
> ecological relationships and traditional or potential economic
> opportunities.  Those are indisputable facts.

The House Sparrow is in North America by human hand.

 
> But what those facts mean is disputable.  

House sparrows are in serious decline in Europe, probably as an unintended 
consequence due to human actions.
> 
> I see effects; they see impacts.
> I see change; they see damage.

Many people see a need to eradicate non-natives.  At the same time, many people 
see a need to preserve natives.

With regard to the house sparrow -- hmmm. .

Where does the "arms race" that Matt mentioned further along in his post lead?

mcneely

>

Re: [ECOLOG-L] a non Ivory Tower view of invasive species

[David L. McNeely]

Thank you Eric!!

 Eric North  wrote: 
> This is a troubling thread to me in far too many respects. I'll do my best to 
> brief.
> 
> I would argue that Mr. Cruzan misses a big point that WT points to. Species 
> do expand their ranges, yes. BUT, they will only do so into conditions that 
> favor them. Sure, speciation will create others. But, what constitutes a 
> "successful" species? A species, within a group, that has the largest range 
> and broadest niche breadth? If dispersal and random chance were the limiting 
> factors in all species' distributions, then "everything" would be 
> "everywhere". How would we be able to show in say, NMDS analyses, that ph 
> drives a species' occurrence at certain sites? How many species, in say, the 
> plant kingdom, have shown to expand their ranges northward following the 
> retreat of glaciers, while others languish in glacial refugium?
> 
> I couldnt agree more with the statement of preserving natural processes and 
> not systems. However, my understanding is that certain processes are in no 
> way "natural" when they are impinged upon by species that have been 
> introduced by man and cause immeasurable damage to trophic interactions 
> within a normally coevolving system. I should be ashamed as  Wisconsinite to 
> not have to the quote tattooed on my hand, but Aldo Leopold's line about "the 
> first rule of intelligent tinkering is to keep all the parts". Sure, we've 
> given up on Dandelions, and many others, but that's CERTAINLY no reason to 
> just throw up our hands in "invasives" defeat. I wouldn't even begin to claim 
> even remote knowledge of every invaded system, but surely we could and have 
> set parameters on how to measure invasiveness. The idea of "pre-settlement" 
> has changed. It's much less of a "setting the clock back to a frontier state 
> because we want big trees again", and more of an idea of trying to restore 
> SOME SEMB!
 LANCE of a region of working systems. Up here in the north, we clear cut 
EVERYTHING a hundred years ago. South of us, there's not much left for praries, 
but there's LOTS of corn and soybean farms. C'mon folks, lets be real here. The 
whole sciences of Conservation Biology, Resource Management and Forestry (to 
name a few) were spawned in hopes of devising ways of bringing back to some 
respectable state, that which we have destroyed and denuded (or nearly so). 
These sciences, as all science is designed to do, evolves. 
> 
> So are we okay with deforestation of Madagascar? Should we write off Hawaii 
> and whats left of its endemic species? All this talk of "letting nature take 
> its course" smacks too much of the "god will provide" idea in the Bible. 
> 
> Please correct me on or off list.
> 
> Best-
> Eric
> 
> 
> 
> Eric North 
> All Things Wild Consulting
> 
> P.O. Box 254
> 
> Cable, WI 54821
> 
> 928.607.3098
> 
> 
> > Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2011 17:03:51 -0700
> > From: landr...@cox.net
> > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] a non Ivory Tower view of invasive species
> > To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
> > 
> > Ecolog:
> > 
> > There is such a fundamental and pervasive misunderstanding of this point 
> > that to challenge the ecoillogical concept of "pristine" is broadly 
> > considered treasonous heresy. Freezing ecosystems in time has strong roots 
> > in the presumption that gardening and landscaping are related to ecology. I 
> > tried to make this point at a 1986 meeting (in Berkeley?) called 
> > "Conservation and Management of Rare & Endangered Plants." The reception 
> > ranged from chilly to freezing. One highly respected professor objected to 
> > my being permitted to speak at all. I no longer have an electronic copy 
> > (The Restoration of California: A Practical Guide), and I couldn't find one 
> > on the Internet, but I did find an old draft in my files. The book is 
> > available through bookfinder.com for fifteen bucks or so (one site has it 
> > for $240+!). Here's an excerpt, laboriously pecked out on my keyboard: 
> > "What's wrong with landscaping? Nothing is really wrong with it, but it is 
> > only cosmetic. The trouble is, most people!
  think that it is natural, just like Yosemite Valley, and don't recognize it 
for what it is--an artificial decoration on the land that happens to be 
constructed of living organisms. The fact that the plant assemblage does not 
function biologically [ecologically] is lost in the simple lust for the desired 
[sic] phantasy." 
> > 
> > It is simply not widely recognized, as Cruzan points out, that ecosystems 
> > are not static. Many biologists and not a few ecologists apparently believe 
> > that they are. Again, as Cruzan says, ". . . we should focus on conserving 
> > natural processes, not entities." I might only add that where conditions 
> > that match an organism's requirements exist, the major problem will not be 
> > getting them to occupy such sites, but keeping them from occupying them, 
> > given the presence of viable propagules. But it would be the epi

Re: [ECOLOG-L] growing oaks from acorns

[David L. McNeely]

David, I am no expert on growing oaks from acorns.  However, I have observed 
that most large oaks produce a great acorn crop.  Multitudes of these, in a 
suitable environment, germinate and produce seedlings.  Given that, if I were 
interested in growing oaks from acorns, I would gather large numbers of acorns, 
and attempt to propagate them under a range of conditions in both pots and 
greenhouse flats.  Now, transplantation might be different.

I would also contact native plant nurseries in the areas where I was interested 
in producing oaks.  Most parts of the country have them.  I know that "Sunshine 
Nursery" in Clinton, Oklahoma produces native oaks for transplantation to 
restoration projects, parks, and private properties.  Steve Bierback, the owner 
mentioned to me on one occasion that he gathered litter and soil from under the 
parent tree when he gathered acorns, so that he would propagate the appropriate 
myccorhyzae  with the seedlings.  I have several post oaks and black jacks  
that I purchased as saplings from Sunshine Nursery on my property, so the 
owner's methods must work.  These two native oaks, though abundant in the wild, 
have been claimed by some nurserymen to be impossible to propagate.

Vines, Robert A., _Trees and Shrubs of the Southwest_, University of Texas 
Press, Austin, 1960, gives propagation directions for hundreds of native woody 
plants that grow in the southwestern U.S.   Perhaps methods he gives for oaks 
could be adapted to your oaks, especially related ones to those he describes.  
Be sure to check under "Remarks" in his species descriptions as well as 
"Propagation," since he sometimes includes planting instructions under either 
heading.

Storage overwinter in cool temperatures, and stratification at cool 
temperatures are both included for various acorns, according to Vines.

Whether one propagates woody plants or not, Vines is a great book to have 
around.

david mcneely

 David L Anderson  wrote: 
> Hello,
> 
> I'd like to talk with someone who is expert at growing oaks from acorns.  If
> you are that person or know of someone, my contact information is below, as
> are my interests and questions.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> David
> 
> I am interested in growing oaks from acorns collected from the "heritage"
> trees of Boise, Idaho.  I refer to heritage trees as those trees of
> outstanding character and community value, usually of great age or beauty or
> serving as a landmark for sites of interest.  My questions regard how best
> to propagate oaks from acorns.
> 
> How do I know if an acorn is good or bad?  Because it is green/brown, or
> floats/sinks when immersed in water?
> 
> Is it better to overwinter acorns in a fridge/freezer in paper/plastic
> bags?  Is it better to transplant them directly into potting/native/mixed
> soil?  Better to plant in the fall or spring?  In soil that is wet/dry/left
> to natural conditions? Should acorns be sprouted first in wet sawdust?
> 
> Or other advice you think would be helpful.  Thanks in advance from the
> future heritage oaks of Boise.
> 
> -- 
> *David L. Anderson**, Ph.D.*
> *Lecturer, Department of Biological Sciences*
> 
> Boise State University
> 1910 University Drive
> Boise, ID 83725
> 208-426-3216
> davidlander...@boisestate.edu

--
David McNeely

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Monarch butterfly migration status

[David L. McNeely]

Paul and others,

I live in central Oklahoma.  The photos you show look like the isolated patches 
of bloom that I see around.  Maximilian sunflower should be at its peak right 
now.  Instead, I see only scattered groups of a few plants, versus the acres of 
fields and right of way normally covered in yellow in late September.  Snow on 
the Mountain (a euphorb) should also have extensive stands of blooming plants.  
Again, scattered.  There are almost no fields of broomweed in bloom, one of the 
most drought tolerant late composites.  Little ironweed is blooming, and little 
goldenrod compared to normal years.  I can find patches of all these, but not 
the extensive fields.  On my own property, I have a large patch of goldenrod, 
and lots of common and Maximilian sunflowers.  Partridge pea as well.  All 
should be at peak right now.  Instead, I have isolated plants with flowers, 
others seem very late or simply have begun to wilt without the heads opening.  
Common sunflowers are dwarfed compared to norm!
 al years, so many fewer flower heads.  My Liatris (gayfeather), an important 
late composite, simply failed to emerge from the ground.  I hope the corms are 
alive.

David McNeely, Edmond, Oklahoma

 Paul Cherubini  wrote: 
> On Sep 27, 2011, at 11:32 AM, David Inouye wrote:
> 
> > Monarch Population Status - September 2011
> > by Chip Taylor - Director, Monarch Watch
> >
> > The migration is just beginning to navigate
> > a 1000 miles of hell - a nearly flowerless/nectarless and waterless
> > expanse of central KS, OK, TX, and NE MX (see Drought Monitor at
> > http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/).
> 
> 
> On Sept. 18-19 I drove around northwestern Oklahoma
> and south-central Kansas (in the "hell" zone) and what I
> saw did not match Dr. Taylor's frightening description.
> 
> I found a green or greenish-tan landscape with the
> usual abundance of sunflowers and other nectar plants
> one typically sees in Sept.  The milkweed also looked
> normal and not severely water stressed.
> 
> Starting from Oklahoma City, I drove a roughly circular
> route through the "hell" zone (exceptional drought zone)
> of northwestern Oklahoma and south-central Kansas as
> shown on this map:
> http://i636.photobucket.com/albums/uu87/4ALC/new/hellzone.jpg
> 
> Here are some pictures and videos I took, all of which were
> taken in the "hell" zone:
> 
> On Sept. 18 I drove north on I-35 from Oklahoma City
> and often saw Asclepias viridis milkweed along the roadside.
> I stopped at a few patches and found one plant with a 3rd
> instar monarch caterpillar:
> http://i636.photobucket.com/albums/uu87/4ALC/new/viridisa.jpg
> http://i636.photobucket.com/albums/uu87/4ALC/new/viridisb.jpg
> 
> I also saw occassional stands of sunflower nectar plants like this:
> http://i636.photobucket.com/albums/uu87/4ALC/new/sunflowersOKC.jpg
> 
> Along the eastern outskirts of Enid, Oklahoma the landscape
> was still mostly green with sunflowers and lots of monarchs:
> Still photo:
> http://i636.photobucket.com/albums/uu87/4ALC/new/enida.jpg
> Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0chg-fzeKbU
> 
> 10-15 miles north of Enid, Oklahoma along Hwy 81 there were
> fields galore of sunflowers:
> Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LJV3ZMOJ5I
> At one spot I found a monarch caterpillar in a patch
> of latifolia milkweed that looked healthy and not water
> stressed: Video:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzBh6m_CyjE
> 
> Now going west on hwy 64 about 5 miles before the town
> of Nash, Oklahoma, I took this video of monarchs nectaring
> on sunflowers:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDwcTaI2Iak
> 
> Continuing west on hwy 64 one mile past Nash, OK I
> saw large fields of sunflowers like this:
> http://i636.photobucket.com/albums/uu87/4ALC/new/nash.jpg
> 
> Continuing west on hwy 64 two miles west of Jet, OK I
> saw many monarchs nectaring on an unidentified flower:
> Still photo:
> http://i636.photobucket.com/albums/uu87/4ALC/new/jetb.jpg
> Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rhrcyRD1ULA
> 
> Five miles west of Nash, still on hwy 64, I encountered this
> huge field of alfalfa (cow feed) with numerous monarchs
> nectaring in it: Still photo:
> http://i636.photobucket.com/albums/uu87/4ALC/new/jetc.jpg
> 
> Six miles south of Cherokee, Oklahoma, at the intersection
> of Hwy 64 and Hwy 8 I saw many monarchs nectaring on
> sunflowers:
> Video:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jHvnZ3WwzI
> 
> At the town of Burlington, Oklahoma I encountered yet another
> huge field of alfalfa with numerous monarchs nectaring in it.
> Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTnVIlbbNI4
> 
> Another nectar plant I saw from time to time in this
> region was goldenrod:
> http://i636.photobucket.com/albums/uu87/4ALC/new/kansasa.jpg
> 
> The next morning (Sept. 19) in the town of Alva, Oklahoma,
> I observed monarchs migrating east and southeastward at
> the rate of 1-5 per minute which indicates they were abundant
> in this northwest region of the State:
> Video: http://www.youtube

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Monarch butterfly migration status

[David L. McNeely]

Paul and others, I actually made a good part of the Oklahoma circuit that Paul 
made this past Sunday.  I did see Monarchs, and have been seeing them in modest 
numbers for the past three weeks or so.  But the numbers are fewer than prior 
years.  I never saw more than a half dozen or so at any one time, whereas in 
other years I usually see a couple of dozen pass by at intervals, and sometimes 
will see many tens in low valleys.  I also saw flowers, probably some of the 
actual patches that Paul saw, as I was at Enid, Nash, Jet, Salt Plains National 
Wildlife Refuge, Cherokee, places Paul visited.  Whereas in normal years 
Polygonum (smartweed), the "unidentified flower" Paul saw, is abundant in the 
more moist pastures and open bottomland, it was only in linear swaths along 
ditches.  I saw no tall asters, usually one of our more important fall 
composites, and a favorite butterfly plant.  I saw very limited Maximilian 
sunflowers compared to typical years, and this is also an importa!
 nt fall composite and favorite for butterflies.  The refuge was dried out in 
the extreme, with the reservoir only holding water in the central area.  I did 
see Monarchs puddling on damp, saline soil and around some partially decomposed 
fish carcasses in the reservoir proper.  The marsh on the north end of the 
reservoir, a favorite area for migrating cranes and waterfowl, was simply dried 
out completely, and the streams that normally flow into it were dry.

Looking at rainfall records for the year, Texas is a lot drier than we are, in 
terms of fraction of average rainfall.

I agree completely with the poster who said that such observations as mine and 
Paul's prove nothing except what we saw (or didn't see) at the specific places 
we looked.  Butterflies Paul and I did not see may have been elsewhere.  Paul 
saw the flowers he saw.  I saw those I saw.  There were no flowers in some 
fields where I usually see them this time of year.  Simple, uncoordinated, 
non-systematic, non-experimental observations.

Hoping for the best.  David McNeely  

 Paul Cherubini  wrote: 
> Thanks for your observations, David.
> 
> Here's an eyewitness account of how the migrating
> monarchs are still able to findnectar in drought plagued
> south-central Texas:
> 
> http://www.learner.org/cgi-bin/jnorth/jn-query-byday?1317405754
> 
> "Observed on Gentry Creek ten miles north of Junction, TX. I
> counted approximately 200 Monarchs feeding on blooming
> plants along creek banks in one area. Some were roosting.
> In another area on the creek I counted approximately 300
> Monarchs feeding and roosting on native Pecan leaves.
> Both of the areas have been traditional roosts in the past
> years. Last year there were none, so this is encouraging.
> Blooming plants include: Salvia farinacea, Goldenrod,
> Mullen, Frostweed, Smooth Bidens, Buttonbush. Our
> area is in an extreme drought, but these plants are
> along the creek banks." Judy Hall, Junction, TX
> 
> Paul Cherubini
> 
> On Sep 29, 2011, at 6:05 PM, David L. McNeely wrote:
> 
> > Paul and others,
> >
> > I live in central Oklahoma.  The photos you show look like the  
> > isolated patches of bloom that I see around.  Maximilian sunflower  
> > should be at its peak right now.  Instead, I see only scattered  
> > groups of a few plants, versus the acres of fields and right of way  
> > normally covered in yellow in late September.  Snow on the Mountain  
> > (a euphorb) should also have extensive stands of blooming plants.   
> > Again, scattered.  There are almost no fields of broomweed in  
> > bloom, one of the most drought tolerant late composites.  Little  
> > ironweed is blooming, and little goldenrod compared to normal  
> > years.  I can find patches of all these, but not the extensive  
> > fields.  On my own property, I have a large patch of goldenrod, and  
> > lots of common and Maximilian sunflowers.  Partridge pea as well.   
> > All should be at peak right now.  Instead, I have isolated plants  
> > with flowers, others seem very late or simply have begun to wilt  
> > without the heads opening.  Common sunflowers are dwarfed compared  
> > to norm!
> >
> >  al years, so many fewer flower heads.  My Liatris (gayfeather), an  
> > important late composite, simply failed to emerge from the ground.   
> > I hope the corms are alive.
> >
> > David McNeely, Edmond, Oklahoma

--
David McNeely

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Ecology What is it?

[David L. McNeely]

 Matt Chew  wrote: 
> Wayne, et al-
> 
> It is simple to ask what ecology is (and isn't) but that doesn't make it
> easy to answer. By definition and tradition it's a pretty broad concept. If
> you have access, look at the OED entry.  If we're trying to pin down what
> ecology SHOULD be, well, good luck with that. For example, if we exclude
> prescriptive philosophical approaches, we'd have to lose conservation and
> restoration (along with a slew of inspirational authors including such as
> Aldo Leopold and Ed Wilson).

Matt, most of us accept the definitions provided by standard textbooks, such as 
"the science that investigates biotic interactions with environment."  You are 
correct that that is very broad.  However, to my mind, that does not exclude 
such approaches as you mentioned.  Conservation and restoration are only 
effectively practiced when one applies principles gleaned from scientific 
investigation, and conservationists and restorationists themselves investigate 
scientifically in order to know how to conserve and restore.  Sure, a good many 
practitioners of such arts simply apply prescriptions from others, akin to 
physicians applying the products of science to their practice.  But the 
connection certainly is sufficiently direct to allow lots of folks who work to 
keep and heal nature to be called ecologists just as those who work 
scientifically to understand it are.

mcneely

> 
> Matthew K Chew
> Assistant Research Professor
> Arizona State University School of Life Sciences
> 
> ASU Center for Biology & Society
> PO Box 873301
> Tempe, AZ 85287-3301 USA
> Tel 480.965.8422
> Fax 480.965.8330
> mc...@asu.edu or anek...@gmail.com
> http://cbs.asu.edu/people/profiles/chew.php
> http://asu.academia.edu/MattChew

--
David McNeely

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Ecology What is it?

[David L. McNeely]

Comments inserted below, with much stuff cut out:

 Matt Chew  wrote: 
> As of the latest digest I received, this thread had attracted input from
> fewer than 0.1% of the list's 12K recipients.  Perhaps there are 12K
> reasons for remaining unengaged but I suspect they are all variations or
> combinations of a few basic themes.  Rather than debate plausible
> rationalizations, I challenge you all to consider Wayne's question
> carefully.

I suspect that for the vast majority of list participants, responding to 
rhetorical questions like Wayne's is simply a waste of time.  Many of them are 
likely busy practicing ecology.


> Are you an ecologist?  What makes you one? 

I still call myself an ecologist, though I seldom actually do any work any 
more.  I have the requisite training (degrees in related sciences including a 
Ph.D. in Zoology with research emphasis in ecology), experience (I investigated 
and published on ecological questions and taught ecology for many years), and 
approach (I used observational and experimental techniques to resolve testable 
hypotheses).

Recycling stuff?  Organic
> gardening? Watching a TV show?  Joining the Sierra Club, Audubon, and/or
> TNC (etc.)?  Taking a class?  Two classes? Earning a certificate?  An
> Associate's degree?  A BA? A BS? An MA? An MS? A Ph.D.? Some other
> accredited degree?  Working in the field for 1/5/10/20 years?

Ecology is a science, like other sciences.  One who does not investigate 
scientifically is not a scientist, hence not an ecologist, regardless of 
confused beliefs about what constitutes ecology, regardless of training, 
regardless of degrees and certificates held.
> 
> Should anyone who calls whatever they feel, think or do "ecology" be
> considered an ecologist because they call themselves one?  

Of course not.

>If so, why does> ESA have a certification process?  

Because industry prefers to be able to say that a person whom they pay to do 
work for them as a contractor is "certified" by an appropriate entity, or 
because persons feel more authority when they seek contractual employment with 
industry.  Few academic ecologists, unless consulting is important to them, 
bother with certification.  Many industrial ecologists do.

>Does that process exclude anyone who > seeks certification?  If so, can 
>excluded individuals still call themselves
> an ecologists?  Can those of us who never seek certification call ourselves > 
> ecologists?

Likely few or none who lack the published qualifications apply for 
certification, therefore few or none are excluded.  Certification is not a 
prerequisite for practicing our science.  Practicing our science is a 
prerequisite for being an ecologist.  Anyone can call himself anything he wants 
to.  Making such a claim for some professions (military officer, physician, 
lawyer) might be illegal in some contexts.  Claiming degrees, training, or 
experience one does not have could be grounds for a lawsuit or prosecution for 
fraud.  But simply calling oneself an ecologist through ignorance or puffery is 
none of those things.  But if one has training, or experience, and practices 
the science of ecology, then one is an ecologist.

> 
> Does being certified mean you know what you're talking about, or merely
> that you're using the right words?

Being certified means that one applied, and holds the required credentials and 
experience.  It is a screen, but it does not and cannot guarantee competence.

> 
> If ecology means all those things, can it really mean any one of them?

Ecology does not mean all of those things, though some folks are confused.

> 
> The impending 100th anniversaries of Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring" 

_Silent Spring_ was published in 1962, not 100 years ago.  The fiftieth 
anniversary of its publication is impending, not the 100th.  _Silent Spring_ 
was a plea for environmental sanity regarding pesticide use, not a founding 
document for the science of ecology. 

and of
> ESA and BES as organizations are good excuses to ponder all this.
> 
> I'm expecting 12,000 answers by Monday night. But don't cc me.  Just
> respond to the list.

Most list members are more engaged in what they do than they are in responding 
to rhetorical questions.

mcneely

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Ecology What is it?

[David L. McNeely]

Defining ecology is not really all that hard, and yes, it is worth doing.  The 
definitions found in elementary ecology texts like that of Krebs are quite 
satisfactory.  Krebs said, "Ecology is the scientific study of the interactions 
that determine the distribution and abundance of organisms."  Whether a person 
believes that ecology has been divorced from organisms or not ( subject for 
another 
 endless bull session), the interactions that those who do not address 
organisms 
 directly study do in part determine the distribution and abundance of 
organisms. 
 
Simple and straightforward definitions are valuable, whether or not some claim 
that our science is "too complex" for them.  Krebs' definition entails all the 
complexity that we investigate.  His definition (other straightforward 
definitions serve as well, I just chose his for now) is useful especially in 
that it provides a starting point for students and the public to understand 
what 
we do and why we do it.   
 
Does Krebs' definition take "environment" out, since it does not use the word?  
No, it does not.  Begon, Townsend and Harper, in their elementary ecology text 
explained this quite well.  With what do organisms interact?  Their 
environment.  
To belabor the fact that interactions are based in physics is unnecessary.  
Yes, 
ultimately physical laws explain what organisms do.  For complex behaviors, 
such 
as social interactions, the steps between the physical law and the biotic 
activity are many and lengthy, and the study of the behavior does not require, 
nor even benefit from an analysis of the underlying physical laws until the 
higher levels of complexity have been examined.  Yes, ultimately energy flow 
matters, even in mate choice.  But one does not have to consult thermodynamics 
to investigate valid questions about mate choice. 
 
Sometimes I think that WE are why so many people misunderstand ecology.  We are 
not willing to address it for them to their benefit. 
 
Liane, keep teaching, and keep giving your students a chance to get started on 
the path that so many of us have forgotten we had to tread. 
 
mcneely 

 Matt Chew  wrote: 
> It's nice to see signs of life.  Right now responding to one in particular:
> 
> Defining ecology is much harder than Liane Cochran-Stafira's hopeful
> assertion suggests.
> 
> She favors "The scientific discipline that is concerned with the
> relationships between organisms and their past, present and future
> environments, both living and non-living." which may well have been
> mentioned during the 2000 ESA meeting but can't easily be traced there; it
> does appear on the ESA website at
> http://www.esa.org/education/resources_teachers/generalEdu/ecologyEducation.php.
> That document cites only two draft documents produced by the ESA Education
> Committee in 1991.
> 
> What's "wrong" with Liane's definition? Much of current ecology explicitly
> avoids dealing with organisms. Only past relationships can be described
> because they are all "past" by the time data are recorded, and very much
> past by the time research is published.  Futures can be modeled, and model
> outputs can be studied, but the future cannot be studied. Finally, the
> elephant in the room: "concerned" allows for a wide range of
> interpretations.
> 
> Meanwhile, there are other definitions of ecology lurking in the current
> ESA website:
> **
> "Ecology is the study of the relationships between living organisms,
> including humans, and their physical environment; it seeks to understand
> the vital connections between plants and animals and the world around them.
> Ecology also provides information about the benefits of ecosystems and how
> we can use Earth's resources in ways that leave the environment healthy for
> future generations." (http://www.esa.org/education/LME/ecologyANDme.php)
> 
> "Ecology is *the study of* interconnectedness." (
> www.esa.org/education_diversity/pdfDocs/coralreefs.pdf)
> 
> "[Ecology, in its simplest form is] the study of the interactions between
> organisms and their environment" (
> www.esa.org/seeds/pdf/2011%20AM%20Report.pdf)
> 
> "ECOLOGY: from Greek oikos = house (place we live) logos = (study of)
> ·   the scientific study of organisms and their environment, addressing:
> · the distribution and abundance of organisms
> · how living things interact with each other and their environment
> · the fluxes of matter and energy through the living world
> ·   the full set of relationships between organisms and their environment,
> for example:
> · the ecology of the tropical rainforest
> · the ecology of the malaria mosquito
> ·  a disciplinary field, a profession, a community of scientists of which
> you can be a part!"
> (www.esa.org/education_diversity/pdfDocs/careers-undergrad.pdf)
> 
> Spreading the net slightly wider, if we take ecology to be what ecologists
> do, we can add:
> 
> *"E*cologists study oceans, deserts, forests, cities, grasslands, rivers,
> and every other corner o

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Treatment of Ecology in AP classes

[David L. McNeely]

I can't speak directly to the question of whether the classes provide adequate 
coverage of any given topic.  Consulting the AP web site confirms your 
suspicion that ecology coverage comes last in the course.  And of course, 
whether any given topic is covered adequately is strictly dependent on the 
school and the teacher, not the topical listing on the web site.  I can say, 
from having served as a grader for the AP Biology exam, that ecology is well 
covered on the exam. 
 
That said, I also suspect that ecology may be a subject that gets less than 
full 
coverage in some of the classes because of sequencing.  Also, it is typically 
covered in most intro biology courses late in the second semester if a two 
semester course.  So, if you are wanting to assign credit according to coverage 
(seems to make sense), the proposal to give credit for the ecology portion of 
your course may be out of sync with the sequencing in the AP course. 
 
FWIW, I have long had a problem with AP coursework.  Many schools likely do a 
good job with it -- but, and I know, I am an old school curmudgeon -- if these 
kids are ready for college, just send them to college.  If they are not ready, 
don't let a high school offer them college level courses.  But of course, that 
is a fight long ago lost. 
 
mcneely 
 "Corbin wrote: 
> Hello Ecologgers - My department is trying to figure out how to best assign 
> credit to incoming students who get 4's and 5's on the AP Biology exam. One 
> proposal is to give them credit for the first class in our Intro Bio 
> sequence, which happens to be the one that presents ecology (along with 
> evolution and genetics).
> 
> I suggested that this would be a mistake, as ecology is likely given short 
> shrift in many high school classes because it is at the end of all of the 
> textbooks. Quite reasonably, I've been challenged as to whether that is 
> really the case.
> 
> Does anyone know of any comparison of the weight given to various biology 
> subjects (e.g. ecology, physiology, cell, etc.) in high school classes and 
> the AP exam? I still have a suspicion that ecology is the most likely to be 
> rushed or dropped, but maybe that's just because it is what happened when I 
> took it. In any case, I'd be on firmer ground if I had even one piece of 
> evidence to back it up!
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> -Jeff
> 
> ***
> Jeffrey D. Corbin
> Department of Biological Sciences
> Union College
> Schenectady, NY 12308
> (518) 388-6097
> ***

--
David McNeely

Re: [ECOLOG-L] What Can I DO?? Re: [ECOLOG-L] Message from Paul Ehrlich

[David L. McNeely]

 Steve Young  wrote: 
> Lawren et al.,
> Unfortunately, I think you may be preaching to the choir. I'm not trying 
> to be pessimistic, but if every ESA member were to follow through and 
> commit to the 'doing something', instead of just 'talking more', what 
> would that accomplish? Just going by the numbers, conservatively speaking, 
> ESA membership is around 10,000 and according to the Census Bureau, the 
> current population in the US is 312,718,825 (
> http://www.census.gov/population/www/popclockus.html) So, what do we do 
> about the other 312,708,000? 
> I'm in the education arena and it is a question that I've been trying to 
> figure out how to answer for a long time. I know advocacy is one way and 
> something I work on all the time. Maybe this should be part of the focus 
> of the 'doing something' approach. 
> Steve

I believe when we help to educate others we are doing something.  I'm funny 
that way, I guess.

The difficulty comes when our educational efforts fail, as they seem to be 
doing on this matter.  So, I need help in knowing what to do that will actually 
work.  So far as individual effort, I already try to buy only what I need and 
to use old stuff.  I minimize my fuel use by driving a Toyota Prius, walking 
for local transportation when I can, not using air conditioning though I live 
in a very hot climate, wearing warm clothing and keeping the house cool in 
winter  .  But I have not been able to persuade many others to 
engage in the same actions.  Reading and understanding the data that come in 
seems unconvincing to so many.  Science is only trusted when it reinforces 
already held beliefs, even if less than 1% of those claiming to be scientists 
provide the claims that reinforce.

So, what can I do?

David McNeely

Re: [ECOLOG-L] What Can I DO?? Re: [ECOLOG-L] Message from Paul Ehrlich

[David L. McNeely]

Well, I don't know exactly how to respond to such a claim from a professional 
biologist.  Could the importance of the coal industry to the endowment of Alice 
Lloyd and other economic entities in Kentucky have anything to do with this 
outrageous claim?  How much credible science is needed to convince you?  Does 
the fact that the world's leading climatologists and the National Academies of 
Science all disagree with you matter?  Does the fact that the "conflict" you 
claim comes from fewer than 1% of all reports on the question, while those few 
reports lack credible analysis matter?

Sincerely, David McNeely

 Robert Hamilton  wrote: 
> Science works to persuade when it provides real data, not weak
> hypotheticals. Consider the issue of ozone vs CO2. Lots of real data on
> ozone, nothing but political hackery on CO2, so we get some action on
> ozone and nothing but conflict on CO2. However, we are only as strong as
> our weakest link, so the CO2 argument defines us.
> 
> Robert Hamilton, PhD
> Professor of Biology
> Alice Lloyd College
> Pippa Passes, KY 41844
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news
> [mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of Bowles, Elizabeth Davis
> Sent: Monday, December 05, 2011 12:07 PM
> To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
> Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] What Can I DO?? Re: [ECOLOG-L] Message from Paul
> Ehrlich
> 
> Social and environmental psychologists have known for some time now that
> knowledge does not change *behavior* and that information-only campaigns
> rarely are effective.  This is because, as opposed to commercial
> marketing campaigns, usually you are asking the public to give something
> up, step out of social norms, or do something that does not reap
> immediate benefits to them.  This requires a completely different
> approach, including removing perceived or structural barriers to
> sustainable behavior.  Ecologists should strongly consider collaborating
> with psychologists on any outreach program in which a behavior change in
> the public is the goal. 
> 
> See this paper in conservation biology:
> http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10./j.1523-1739.2011.01766.x/full
> 
> and this website:
> http://www.cbsm.com/pages/guide/fostering-sustainable-behavior/
> 
> and this report from the APA:
> http://www.apa.org/science/about/publications/climate-change.aspx
>  
> Beth Davis Bowles, Ph.D.
> Research Specialist
> Bull Shoals Field Station
> Missouri State University
> 901 S. National
> Springfield, MO  65897
> phone (417) 836-3731
> fax (417) 836-8886
> 
> From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news
> [ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of David L. McNeely
> [mcnee...@cox.net]
> Sent: Monday, December 05, 2011 9:55 AM
> To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
> Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] What Can I DO?? Re: [ECOLOG-L] Message from Paul
> Ehrlich
> 
>  Steve Young  wrote:
> > Lawren et al.,
> > Unfortunately, I think you may be preaching to the choir. I'm not 
> > trying to be pessimistic, but if every ESA member were to follow 
> > through and commit to the 'doing something', instead of just 'talking 
> > more', what would that accomplish? Just going by the numbers, 
> > conservatively speaking, ESA membership is around 10,000 and according
> 
> > to the Census Bureau, the current population in the US is 312,718,825 
> > (
> > http://www.census.gov/population/www/popclockus.html) So, what do we 
> > do about the other 312,708,000?
> > I'm in the education arena and it is a question that I've been trying 
> > to figure out how to answer for a long time. I know advocacy is one 
> > way and something I work on all the time. Maybe this should be part of
> 
> > the focus of the 'doing something' approach.
> > Steve
> 
> I believe when we help to educate others we are doing something.  I'm
> funny that way, I guess.
> 
> The difficulty comes when our educational efforts fail, as they seem to
> be doing on this matter.  So, I need help in knowing what to do that
> will actually work.  So far as individual effort, I already try to buy
> only what I need and to use old stuff.  I minimize my fuel use by
> driving a Toyota Prius, walking for local transportation when I can, not
> using air conditioning though I live in a very hot climate, wearing warm
> clothing and keeping the house cool in winter  .  But I
> have not been able to persuade many others to engage in the same
> actions.  Reading and understanding the data that come in seems
> unconvincing to so many.  Science is only tru

Re: [ECOLOG-L] What Can I DO?? Re: [ECOLOG-L] Message from Paul Ehrlich

[David L. McNeely]

 Robert Hamilton  wrote: 
> I see no evidence that CO2 causes global warming. CO2 levels would rise if we 
> had global warming in any event due to increased cellular respiration. I 
> don't know what causes global climate changes, all I know is that the global 
> climate will always change one way or another. 

Rob, read the literature, and you'll see the evidence.  I mean the 
climatological literature, not the stuff published by those who are working at 
the behest of the fossil fuel companies.   mcneely
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: kerry Cutler [mailto:cutler.ke...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tue 12/6/2011 2:04 PM
> To: Robert  Hamilton
> Cc: ECOLOG-L@listserv.umd.edu
> Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] What Can I DO?? Re: [ECOLOG-L] Message from Paul 
> Ehrlich
>  
> Dear Rob and the rest of Ecolog listserve,
> 
> I am not a climate scientist, but am an ecologist.  Your idea that it is
> not CO2 causing global warming is not new to me and I know that people put
> forth several other hypotheses for the current global warming.  I am
> curious about what research (a link to a paper, perhaps?) you know of to
> support your idea and what evidence you have to invalidate some of the
> calculations on the absorptive quality of CO2 effects and some of the
> analyses that support the opposite conclusion to yours (Philipona 2004,
> Evans 2006, etc...).
> 
> For that matter, I would love to hear some evidence-based arguments from
> the other side:  What are some of the most controversial issues surrounding
> this topic and what kind of research could be done to improve upon our
> models and convince even the most unshakable skeptic?
> 
> I am sure that this is well discussed in other forums, but I would be
> interested to have us consider it here.  This seems like an important
> enough issue to warrant some sensible intelligent discourse and to leave
> out the rhetorical extravagance.  Let's give it a shot.
> 
> Kerry Cutler
> 
> 
> On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 5:11 PM, Robert Hamilton wrote:
> 
> > I would not be much of a scientist if I accepted conjecture based solely
> > on authority. My reason for not accepting the view that CO2 causes current
> > global warming is based on my acceptance of conjecture related to the
> > effect of water vapour on the energy of the atmosphere, and it's variation,
> > relative to the effect of CO2, conjectures for which there are actual data.
> > I have done my own analysis for my own sake and come to my own conclusions,
> > but saying CO2 causes global warming to me is like saying someone throwing
> > a bucket of water into the Pacific Ocean in Hawaii caused the tragic
> > Tsunami in Japan last year.
> >
> > As for attacking me personally, even if I worked for the coal industry
> > itself, so what? If CO2 is not causing global warming it is not, what I do
> > has no effect on that. I am somewhat fortunate that I don't have to sell
> > myself out to some political establishment though (I don't have to get
> > grants from politically biased granting agencies). If I did research the
> > issue I would probably look at things like "development" and the way we
> > manipulate watersheds as a human cause of global warming over CO2, and thus
> > would fail, so I am lucky!
> >
> > Nice thing about where I work is that while we have a tiny endowment, our
> > students graduate with the least debt of any school in the US. No Greek
> > columns, no art galleries, no mahogany garbage cans, but then we don't
> > force students into massive debt to support such things either. As for the
> > coal, IMHO the coal is worth more in the ground than it is to mine it
> > presently, IMHO. Maybe after generations of being ruthlessly exploited by
> > commercial and consumer interests for the sake of cheap electricity to run
> > air conditioners and computers, people around here might get a good return
> > on their labour once it starts costing a person like you the equivalent of
> > @2000.00 per month to heat your home to 68 degrees in the winter, something
> > that is just around the corner IMHO.
> >
> > The thing that bothers me about this sort of issue is the effect it has on
> > Ecology a a science though. I have seen go from being required in every
> > school I have known to not being so required (it is here though), and I
> > blame that decline on the emphasis on political hackery that has developed
> > in Ecology over the past generation. I applaud your desire to stand up for
> > your political view, but it they are not science and they are not Ecology,
> > and when any science exists to serve politics, it ceases to be

Re: [ECOLOG-L] What Can I DO?? Re: [ECOLOG-L] Message from Paul Ehrlich

[David L. McNeely]

you have to invalidate some of the
> calculations on the absorptive quality of CO2 effects and some of the
> analyses that support the opposite conclusion to yours (Philipona 2004,
> Evans 2006, etc...).
> 
> For that matter, I would love to hear some evidence-based arguments from
> the other side:  What are some of the most controversial issues surrounding
> this topic and what kind of research could be done to improve upon our
> models and convince even the most unshakable skeptic?
> 
> I am sure that this is well discussed in other forums, but I would be
> interested to have us consider it here.  This seems like an important
> enough issue to warrant some sensible intelligent discourse and to leave
> out the rhetorical extravagance.  Let's give it a shot.
> 
> Kerry Cutler
> 
> 
> On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 5:11 PM, Robert Hamilton wrote:
> 
> > I would not be much of a scientist if I accepted conjecture based solely
> > on authority. My reason for not accepting the view that CO2 causes current
> > global warming is based on my acceptance of conjecture related to the
> > effect of water vapour on the energy of the atmosphere, and it's variation,
> > relative to the effect of CO2, conjectures for which there are actual data.
> > I have done my own analysis for my own sake and come to my own conclusions,
> > but saying CO2 causes global warming to me is like saying someone throwing
> > a bucket of water into the Pacific Ocean in Hawaii caused the tragic
> > Tsunami in Japan last year.
> >
> > As for attacking me personally, even if I worked for the coal industry
> > itself, so what? If CO2 is not causing global warming it is not, what I do
> > has no effect on that. I am somewhat fortunate that I don't have to sell
> > myself out to some political establishment though (I don't have to get
> > grants from politically biased granting agencies). If I did research the
> > issue I would probably look at things like "development" and the way we
> > manipulate watersheds as a human cause of global warming over CO2, and thus
> > would fail, so I am lucky!
> >
> > Nice thing about where I work is that while we have a tiny endowment, our
> > students graduate with the least debt of any school in the US. No Greek
> > columns, no art galleries, no mahogany garbage cans, but then we don't
> > force students into massive debt to support such things either. As for the
> > coal, IMHO the coal is worth more in the ground than it is to mine it
> > presently, IMHO. Maybe after generations of being ruthlessly exploited by
> > commercial and consumer interests for the sake of cheap electricity to run
> > air conditioners and computers, people around here might get a good return
> > on their labour once it starts costing a person like you the equivalent of
> > @2000.00 per month to heat your home to 68 degrees in the winter, something
> > that is just around the corner IMHO.
> >
> > The thing that bothers me about this sort of issue is the effect it has on
> > Ecology a a science though. I have seen go from being required in every
> > school I have known to not being so required (it is here though), and I
> > blame that decline on the emphasis on political hackery that has developed
> > in Ecology over the past generation. I applaud your desire to stand up for
> > your political view, but it they are not science and they are not Ecology,
> > and when any science exists to serve politics, it ceases to be real
> > science, IMHO.
> >
> > Rob Hamilton
> >
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news on behalf of David
> > L. McNeely
> > Sent: Mon 12/5/2011 1:49 PM
> > To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
> > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] What Can I DO?? Re: [ECOLOG-L] Message from Paul
> > Ehrlich
> >
> > Well, I don't know exactly how to respond to such a claim from a
> > professional biologist.  Could the importance of the coal industry to the
> > endowment of Alice Lloyd and other economic entities in Kentucky have
> > anything to do with this outrageous claim?  How much credible science is
> > needed to convince you?  Does the fact that the world's leading
> > climatologists and the National Academies of Science all disagree with you
> > matter?  Does the fact that the "conflict" you claim comes from fewer than
> > 1% of all reports on the question, while those few reports lack credible
> > analysis matter?
> >
> > Sincerely, David McNeely
> >
> >  Robert Hamilton  wrote:
> > > Science works to pe

Re: [ECOLOG-L] What Can I DO?? Re: [ECOLOG-L] Message from Paul Ehrlich

[David L. McNeely]

 Susan Pienta  wrote: 
> If scientists are not receptive to or rigorously examining opposing
> viewpoints, then they failing as their role as scientists. However, that is
> not to say they there are not many viewpoints out there (especially in
> terms of climate change) that are not backed by any actual science data.
> 
> I think this whole discussion should serve as a reminder about the kind of
> science education that is happening in our country at the k-12 level and
> the transformation that is needed. In order for society to make these
> changes that we are asking them, they have to be scientifically literate.
> If we are just teaching content and science facts in school, then we will
> not have a society with the skills to understand modeling, reason through
> arguments, ask probing questions, and argue evidence based on data not
> personal bias. Not everyone is going to grow up to be a scientist, but if
> we want to be able to have these discussions with *everyone*, we have to
> teach our students to be able to think. examine evidence. and question.

I agree with everything you say.

Now, from one who has long experience teaching science at the college level:  
The large majority of U.S. college students do not attend elite private and 
state "flagship" universities.  They attend less than stellar public and 
private institutions (those that U.S. News and World Report labels as having 
"noncompetitive" admissions, or being  "moderately competitive"), including 
community colleges, regional state colleges ("universities"), and in smaller 
numbers rather mediocre private schools.  There is incredible pressure in such 
institutions to teach information rather than how to use information.  If one 
teaches critical thinking along with information, and tests for critical 
thinking, he or she quickly is labeled by the students as a poor teacher ("She 
expected me to figure it out, rather than telling me what I needed to know.")  
Teaching evaluations suffer.  Students select other instructors where there is 
a choice.  Administrators label the instructor as not student fri!
 endly.

I'm not saying it can't be done.  I did it for 40 years, and survived despite 
less than stellar student evaluations.  There is a minority (in some 
institutions it is a large minority) of students who understand what is going 
on, and who want to learn substance rather than to be given a body of 
information to be regurgitated on tests.  Consequently, good teachers, if they 
persevere and win a following (the only way it can be done), survive.  A good 
many good teachers do not.  I saw more than one excellent scientist and teacher 
burn out quickly and give up, partly because of administrative response to 
"instructor shopping."   Teaching critical thinking, scientific investigation, 
how to read and interpret data, how to deliver analytical reports, is 
definitely not in favor with the majority of students, and therefore not in 
favor with administrators in such institutions.

Currently, 25% of those who enter high school fail to graduate.  Those who do 
go through a school system where the phenomena described above are even more 
evident.  In the public schools, a teacher who works hard to teach critical 
thinking and analysis to students is attacked by parents, in addition to being 
avoided by students and labeled as not student friendly by administrators.

Is it any wonder that "Johnny can't think"?

When Adlai Stevenson was told by a supporter that every thinking person in the 
country would vote for him for president, Stevenson replied, "Yes, but I need a 
majority."  He lost the election.  That was sixty years ago.  Things have 
changed.  For the better?

David McNeely

> now.
> 
> My two cents.
> 
> Susan Pienta

--
David McNeely

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Regenerative Leadership and Urban Permaculture - Deadline

[David L. McNeely]

Wayne, I am not connected with the organization, nor had I ever heard of it 
until this post.

>From the description of "permaculture," it is an approach to personal and 
>community living that incorporates technologies intended to be sustainable.  
>In fact, it looks similar to some things that a good many of us do already in 
>our lives, and that we encourage communities to do.

What does it have to do with ecology?  Well, some of the things evidently 
advocated are supposed to conserve and protect resources.  Certainly in the 
popular mind (not that of we professionals of course, where we are focused on 
the science of natural systems -- figuring out how things work), conservation 
and protection of natural resources is what "ecology" is (though we would tend 
to call that "applied environmental science" or "environmental engineering."

Is this institute and its use of the term "permaculture" just another case of 
an entrapreneur exploiting concern for "the environment"?  I don't know. 

What does a hiring criterion for graduate researchers and its sociopolitical 
implications have to do with ecology?

mcneely

 Wayne Tyson  wrote: 
> Ecolog:
> 
> Can some ecologist out there, not connected to the organization, tell me 
> anything about the relationship of "Permaculture" to ecology?
> 
> WT
> 
> 
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Common Circle Education" 
> To: 
> Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2011 6:04 PM
> Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Regenerative Leadership and Urban Permaculture - 
> Deadline
> 
> 
> > Hello friends,
> >
> > Join an unforgettable program in leadership, permaculture
> > and sustainable design and change the world!  The upcoming
> > Regenerative Leadership and Permaculture Design course will
> > change your life with nature connection, leadership,
> > permaculture and more.  Details @ http://commoncircle.com
> >
> > Who:Common Circle Education, the nation's leadership,
> >sustainable living and permaculture school.
> > What:   Regenerative Leadership & Urban Permaculture Design
> > Dates:  April 14 - 22nd - Eugene, Oregon
> >August 11 - 19th - Eugene, Oregon
> >
> > -- Find out details @ http://www.commoncircle.com/pdc   --
> > -- Read reviews @ http://www.commoncircle.com/reviews   --
> > -- Sign up before January 15 and take 40%+ off tuition  --
> >
> > "Common Circle's Permaculture Design course was a genuine
> > heart and mind opening experience. If you are interested
> > in finding how you can be part of the life giving earth
> > healing solution in today's global ecological and social
> > crisis this course gives you an in depth and extensive
> > overview of what it takes to make it happen."
> >  - Jessica  M, Course Graduate
> >  (read the reviews @ http://commoncircle.com/reviews)
> >
> > During the workshop, we will talk about:
> >
> > * Smart nature-inspired design principles
> > * Rainwater catchment and storage
> > * Greywater - smart water re-use with plant filters
> > * Food forest design for abundance
> > * Eco-psychology and Regenerative Leadership
> > * Intentional community design and dynamics
> > * Bio-remediation and toxic waste cleanup
> > * Natural building design - cob, strawbale and more
> > * Soil biology and regeneration
> > * Sustainable transportation and fuels
> > * Green business and sustainable economics
> > * Natural patterns and principles
> > * Everything you ever wanted to know about plants and soil!
> >
> > "My experience in the course was invaluable.  I find
> > myself with a new permaculture lens that I can put on at
> > will, and see the world around me in a way that I feel
> > leads to making more conscious decisions and living
> > better in harmony with the earth."
> >  - Deborah F., Course Graduate
> >  (read the reviews @ http://commoncircle.com/reviews)
> >
> > This course will combine critical design skills with
> > leadership, nature connection, and most importantly an
> > urban focus, building and exceeding upon the
> > internationally-recognized Permaculture Design
> > Certification curriculum.  Our programs offer by far the
> > most complete curriculum of any similar course -- with a
> > huge focus on leadership, personal growth and community
> > design as well as green business.
> >
> > "This course was the BEST time I have had in the past
> > 6 years"  - Lana T, Graduate
> > (read the reviews @ http://commoncircle.com/reviews)
> >
> > You'll learn how to create sustainable, thriving human
> > systems, from green houses and organic gardens, to local
> > micro-economies and communities, using sustainable design
> > principles that are applicable to every human system,
> > from businesses, communities, and cities to personal
> > relationships.
> >
> > "The experiences I have had and people I have met through
> > Common Circle has been life changing.  On these trips, a
> > community is created and everyone's individuality is
> > honored, welcomed and celebrated as you work together
> > each day to prepare meals, confr

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Regenerative Leadership and Urban Permaculture - Deadline

[David L. McNeely]

 Matthew McTammany  wrote: 

(things removed by me, and the following)

> a permaculture project in Ghana over the next
> couple of years, primarily focused on aquaponics (in her words, "an
> agricultural method, based in water, which combines growing fish –
> 'aquaculture' – with growing plants in water – 'hydroponics.'  Instead of
> costly filtration to remove fish waste from the water, the water in the
> system is cleaned by the plants, and instead of costly chemical
> fertilization of the hydroponic water beneath the plants, the plants are
> fertilized by the fish.  All in all, it's possible to grow eight times as
> many vegetables, with much less cost and maintenance, using 5% of the water
> as growing in the ground – and you can do this anywhere.)

Several years ago I visited a farm in northern Oklahoma.  The farmer had 
several large greenhouses.  In the greenhouses he grew a variety of common 
vegetables and fruits.  His largest crops were tomatoes, peppers, and herbs 
such as basil and rosemary.  In fact, he had the largest rosemary plant I have 
ever seen -- it was over 10 feet across.  He also had circular fish tanks in 
which he grew _Tilapia_.  At that time, he only harvested the fish for his own 
family needs and to sell a few occasionally as a favor to acquaintances.  He 
gave me a few fish.  He said he intended to increase the number of tanks, and 
to eventually harvest fish for market.

His system was partially closed, with the fish waste collected in a conical 
bottom of the tanks and drawn off into a circulation system that delivered 
water to the plants.  He used no other fertilizers for the plants, or so he 
claimed.  He also used no pesticides on the plants, and had bumblebee colonies 
inside the greenhouses to pollinate some crops.

He said he had been unable to get the Agricultural Extension Service in 
Oklahoma interested.  I mentioned it to my friends who run the aquaculture 
program and are a part of the Extension Service at Langston University.  They 
were unaware of his operation, but said they would contact him.

I do not know if his operation was profitable.  I have never revisited his 
place, and have lost track of him personally.

David McNeely

Re: [ECOLOG-L] UC-Berkeley and other 'public Iv ies'in fiscal peril

[David L. McNeely]

Whether prestigious private universities, private liberal arts colleges, public 
ivies like UC Berkeley and UT Austin, state universities, or state colleges, I 
do not accept that increases in professor's salaries have increased at the 
expense of other expenditures.  An assistant professor in a state university in 
Texas in 1970 might have started his or her career at $15k per nine months.  
Today that might be $50k or $60k, or 3-4 times as much.  At the major national 
universities in Texas the amounts would be higher, but the proportion holds.  
Tuition in Texas state universities has increased from $50 per full load 
semester to $5k or $6K over the same period.  In this instance, it is 
unwillingness of the public to foot the bill for "public" education.  Somehow, 
we have stopped believing that an educated citizenry is a benefit to the 
nation, and have started considering "an education" to be a commodity of 
benefit only to the consumer (the student).  One candidate for president,!
  from Texas, has forcefully and loudly successfully argued that higher 
education is not worth the state spending money on.

mcneely

 Martin Meiss  wrote: 
> One thing that would help satisfy my curiosity would be to see two
> pie-charts showing where college fees go (or went), one for the early
> seventies and one for today.  How much of the room/board/tuition goes to
> professors' salaries, administrators' salaries, non-teaching professionals'
> salaries, to janitors and buildings-and-grounds workers' salaries, etc.
> How much goes to new construction, to maintenance, to grounds keeping, to
> pensions, to fund raising, to compliance, to research, to scholarships,
> etc.  Does anyone have the data that would go into making these pie
> charts?   What shifts would we see?  From what I've read in the previous
> posts on this thread, we might see increases of the pie slivers
> representing compliance, professors' salaries, administrators' salaries,
> and scholarships.  Which pie slices will have gotten smaller to fund these
> increases?
> 
> Martin M. Meiss
> 
> 2011/12/29 Dawn Stover 
> 
> > My experience is similar to Martin's, and I inquired about the high cost
> > at my last college reunion. I was told that the reason the price tag is so
> > high is because many students who have the academic credentials to qualify
> > for acceptance come from lower-income backgrounds than in earlier times.
> > The college wants to admit those students to maintain diversity within the
> > student body, so they give them financial aid and subsidize it by raising
> > the price for students who can afford to pay full freight.
> >
> > When you're calculating the cost of a college education, you have to
> > consider how many students at that college are receiving financial aid, and
> > how much they receive on average. At my alma mater, few students are paying
> > the full price. If they come from a middle-class or low-income family, they
> > typically receive financial-aid packages that can include grants, loans,
> > and on-campus jobs.
> >
> > One thing that has changed is that many liberal arts colleges no longer
> > can afford to admit 100 percent of their students on a "need-blind" basis
> > (i.e. based on their academic credentials alone). Now many private, liberal
> > arts colleges admit a small (but growing) percentage of students who are
> > slightly less qualified than needier applicants but have the ability to pay
> > the full price.
> >
> > Dawn Stover
> >
> > On Dec 28, 2011, at 10:05 AM, Martin Meiss wrote:
> >
> > > Hi, Rick,
> > >  I don't think the answer is that simple.  I went to a small,
> > private,
> > > liberal arts college from 1970 through 1974 and it cost my father about
> > > $3,000 per year for room, board, and tuition.  Now it would cost about
> > > $42,000, about a 14-fold increase.  Inflation, which I'm guessing has
> > been
> > > about three-fold since then, obviously only accounts for a small part of
> > > that, and since it is a private school, declining government subsidies
> > are
> > > not the reason.  The professors haven't all become millionaires.  The
> > > campus hasn't been plated with gold.  The students aren't getting an
> > > education that is ten times better than what I got.  This is a general
> > > trend, not just a phenomenon of my alma mater, and I really do want to
> > know
> > > what the hell is going on.  My father had a bachelor's degree, and my
> > > annual college costs were about on fifth of his annual income.  I have a
> > > PhD and the costs for my kids would be well over half of my annual
> > income.
> > >
> > > Can someone out there tell my why higher education is becoming something
> > > only for the rich?
> > >
> > > Martin M. Meiss
> > >
> > >
> > > 2011/12/28 Rick Lindroth 
> > >
> > >> The answer is simple and (nearly) universal: states' support for higher
> > >> education has declined precipitously over recent decades, especially in
> > >> recent years. In essence, st

Re: [ECOLOG-L] UC-Berkeley and other 'public Iv ies'in fiscal peril

[David L. McNeely]

Absolutely true.  Then, we mostly expected a single family member to be able to 
support a family on one salary.  Of course, another change is that women have 
more nearly the same opportunities as do men.  In fact, in biology, new faculty 
hires are women as often as men.  There was a time when women would routinely 
get questioned about their family situation, and whether they could do the job 
while taking care of a family.  Or, the questions would go unasked but the 
answers assumed to be "no," and that was that.  But the point that a person who 
taught at a university or college could expect to pay the bills on his salary 
then, but not now, is accurate.  My undergraduate professors generally lived in 
upper middle income neighborhoods, had good cars, had kids who could expect to 
attend good colleges and universities , on one salary.  I know 
junior faculty who have been happy that they could buy a small house in what 
was a working class neighborhood, drive ten-ye!
 ar-old vehicles and use public transportation (for those who have access to 
it), and so on.

mcneely

 R Omalley  wrote: 
> Hmmm... My father earned enough as a junior faculty member to support a wife 
> and three kids. My junior  colleagues certainly  cannot, at least in 
> California. 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> On Dec 28, 2011, at 6:49 PM, "Judith S. Weis"  
> wrote:
> 
> > Another element is that now faculty earn a reasonable living wage, while
> > several decades ago they didn't.
> > 
> > 
> >> One element in the increase in college costs, not just research, is
> >> accountability. Congress has passed laws that had good objectives
> >> (protecting human subjects, protecting animals, ensuring occupational
> >> safety, reducing campus crime, ensuring no discrimination on campus,
> >> ensuring fair value for federal student loans, etc etc.). Laws become
> >> rules and regulations which are monitored and enforced by federal agencies
> >> that have no real need to restrain themselves, so they add more
> >> regulations, the better to enforce the intent of the law.  Universities
> >> meanwhile, trying to stay in compliance, add senior administrators and
> >> assistants and assistants to assistants to deal with the regulations.
> >> These bureaucracies (well any bureaucracy) protect themselves and the best
> >> way to be protected is to jump through every hoop the agencies put in
> >> place. Because the university might get in trouble, compliance gets handed
> >> what is often essentially a blank check.
> >> 
> >> 
> >> Whole industries have developed around animal care, human subjects,
> >> college accreditation etc. These classes and consultants  don't tell the
> >> universities how to maximize compliance at minimal cost, instead they
> >> suggest ever better and more expensive ways to be in compliance, selling
> >> something the compliance bureaucrats are more than happy to buy.  Even
> >> more senior administrators are brought on board and again, they need more
> >> support staff.
> >> 
> >> 
> >> For research, the more the university spends on compliance, the higher the
> >> indirect cost it can charge the federal government, thus providing even
> >> more money for compliance. Unless the funder is NIH, higher indirect means
> >> the amount the researcher actually gets is smaller, so research loses. And
> >> so it goes. With federal funds in short supply, the agencies should be
> >> taking a look at compliance, but then they have their own compliance
> >> empires to support.
> >> 
> >> 
> >> Is the compliance industry the only cause of increased tuition costs? No.
> >> As one of the articles mentioned, higher tuition makes a college more
> >> attractive (never mind that like hotel room rates the list price is not
> >> necessarily what you end up paying). State and federal governments no
> >> longer feel education is so important so they have decreased support. This
> >> is in stunning contrast to after World War II when the GI Bill jump
> >> started American prosperity through essentially free higher education for
> >> returning vets. Too many Americans, politicians and administrators now
> >> seem to regard universities as factories that produce degrees, learning
> >> being incidental. In that case, climbing walls and Jacuzzis make sense,
> >> making one factory/college more competitive than another. So does hiring
> >> of 'rock star' professors that, like professional athletes, lend their
> >> names but not always their teaching skills to the university's "brand",
> >> while driving up faculty salaries. 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> More and more people are telling universities to jump and fewer and fewer
> >> universities are bothering to ask why before they do. Until faculty and
> >> students start asking why, the universities won't so things will continue
> >> as they are, or get worse.
> >> 
> >> 
> >> That's the way it is. Happy New Year.
> >> 
> >> 
> >> David Duffy
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> David Cameron Du

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Climate Change Models May Vasty Underestimate Extinctions

[David L. McNeely]

 Christopher Heckscher  wrote: 
> This underscores the critical need for baseline inventory of multiple 
> taxonomic groups in all parts of the world - not just tropical or remote 
> regions.  Even in relatively well studied regions of North America like the 
> northeast we generally have a poor understanding of rare species' 
> distributions.  Without a basic baseline we cannot expect to accurately 
> predict how sensitive species will react to climate change nor will we be 
> able to assess the effects of climate change decades in the future.  Yet 
> funding for species inventory projects to assist in amassing this baseline 
> data is next to impossible to obtain and is often shunned by armchair 
> ecologists with little or no field experience as not "real" science.  In 
> fact, many grant programs specifically state they will >not support survey or 
> inventory work.

This is in general a matter of priorities of the funding programs.  We do have 
the big picture on what organisms are where, for the most part and in well 
studied regions.  We have much less understanding of how they are integrated to 
function at higher levels of organization.  The agencies often see surveys as 
redundant, even if they do fill in gaps or address specialized locales .  The 
best way to get the funding for inventory work is to show that the inventory is 
essential to answering higher order questions, and to make those questions the 
main focus of the proposal.  At least that is how I have seen it work, and what 
I have been told by funding organizations.  Another situation occurs when The 
Nature Conservancy (or other NGO) is interested in a property, then they are 
interested in finding out what its community is.  But they sometimes are 
interested for a particular reason, and will hope for "volunteer" inventories 
of other groups of organisms.

David McNeely

> 
> 
> Christopher M. Heckscher, Ph.D.
> Assistant Professor, Environmental Science & Ecology
> Institutional Project Director, NOAA Environmental Cooperative Science Center
> Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources
> Delaware State University
> 1200 N. DuPont Highway
> Dover, DE  19901
> 
> 
> From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news 
> [ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of Allen Sa;lzberg 
> [asalzb...@herpdigest.org]
> Sent: Friday, January 06, 2012 9:09 AM
> To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
> Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Climate Change Models May Vasty Underestimate Extinctions
> 
> Climate Change Models May Vasty Underestimate Extinctions
> 
> ScienceDaily (Jan. 3, 2012) — Predictions of the loss of animal and plant 
> diversity around the world
> are common under models of future climate change. But a new study shows that 
> because these
> climate models don't account for species competition and movement, they could 
> grossly
> underestimate future extinctions.
> See Also:
> 
> "We have really sophisticated meteorological models for predicting climate 
> change," says ecologist
> Mark Urban, the study's lead author. "But in real life, animals move around, 
> they compete, they
> parasitize each other, and they eat each other. The majority of our 
> predictions don't include these
> important interactions."
> 
> Plenty of experimental studies have shown that species are already moving in 
> response to climate
> change, says Urban, assistant professor of ecology and evolutionary biology 
> at the University of
> Connecticut. For example, as temperatures rise over time, animals and plants 
> that can't take the
> heat are moving to higher altitudes where temperatures are cooler.
> 
> But not all species can disperse fast enough to get to these more suitable 
> places before they die
> off, Urban says. And if they do make it to these better habitats, they may be 
> out-competed by the
> species that are already there -- or the ones that got there first.
> 
> With coauthors Josh Tewksbury and Kimberly Sheldon of the University of 
> Washington, Urban
> created a mathematical model that takes into account the varying rates of 
> migration and the
> different intensities of competition seen in ecological communities. The goal 
> was to predict just
> how successful species within these communities would be at shifting to 
> completely new habitats.
> 
> Their results showed that animals and plants that can adjust to climate 
> change will have a
> competitive advantage over those that don't.
> 
> Animals with small geographic ranges, specific habitat needs and difficulty 
> dispersing are likely to
> go extinct under climate change, their model shows. Further, these animals 
> are more likely to be
> overrun by other species that can tolerate a wider range of habitats.
> 
> "When a species has a small range, it's more likely to be out-competed by 
> others," Urban says. "It's
> not about how fast you can move, but how fast you move relative to your 
> competitors."
> 
> Urban likens this scenario to a trai

Re: [ECOLOG-L] ESA Position on Open Access

[David L. McNeely]

 Jane Shevtsov  wrote: 
> I just checked, and ESA charges nonsubscribers $20 for a single article
> published in the December 2011 issue of Ecology. How is that reasonable?
> And I'm no business maven, but isn't that far past the optimal price point
> in terms of revenue generation? I could see paying $2 or $3 for an article
> if I was an infrequent reader, but $20?
> 
> There's a good blog post on what alternatives publishers might support at <
> http://researchremix.wordpress.com/2012/01/07/what-should-the-publishers-lobby-for/
> >.

Is it really so difficult to get a paper?  I have never been unable to get a 
paper I wanted or needed, and I have never paid the high prices that publishers 
demand for instant access on the internet.  Most of us live within 50 miles of 
a library.  If the library does not subscribe to the journal in which the paper 
appears, interlibrary loan will get it for a reasonable cost.  The real problem 
is the demand for instant gratification that we have developed.  It is that 
that we are being asked to pay for.

Should a paper cost $50?  I really don't know what it costs the journal to 
produce the paper, what the demand is (well, for some papers the demand is 
virtually nothing), or what distribution costs.  I do know that such services 
as BioOne have greatly improved the bottom lines of some scholarly 
organizations, which in the long run makes papers more available, not less. 

I guess in this one instance I am suggesting that free market is not so bad.  
If you really must have the paper the instant you locate it through the free 
search and free abstract mechanisms of the publishers, why then pay the asking 
price.  Otherwise, use more traditional means of getting it.  If publishers are 
getting the asking price, they will maintain it, or maybe ask a little more.  
If they are not getting it, they will back off.

If you are so far back in the sticks that you don't have ready access to a 
library, investigate a bit.  I'll bet some library serves you if you find out 
how.  If you are living in a cabin off the traveled roads and off the grid, 
then you don't have internet access either, so your complaints about no open 
access are moot.

David McNeely
> 
> Jane Shevtsov
> 
> On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 9:08 PM, M.S. Patterson wrote:
> 
> > Here's an additional opinion on the matter, and it is rather less
> > charitable:
> > http://phylogenomics.blogspot.**com/2012/01/yhgtbfkm-**
> > ecological-society-of-america.**html?utm_source=feedburner&**
> > utm_medium=twitter&utm_**campaign=Feed%3A+**TheTreeOfLife+%28The+Tree+of+*
> > *Life%29<
> > http://phylogenomics.**blogspot.com/2012/01/yhgtbfkm-**
> > ecological-society-of-america.**html?utm_source=feedburner&**
> > utm_medium=twitter&utm_**campaign=Feed%3A+**TheTreeOfLife+%28The+Tree+of+*
> > *Life%29
> > >
> >
> > The fact that ESA forces authors to cede the copyright to their work is
> > offensive, IMO, even if they 'grant' the author reprint or reproduction
> > rights.  It also means that ESA could choose to rewrite their rules such
> > that authors could lose rights to reprint or reproduce their own work.
> >  Academic publishers should be granted first printing rights, with the
> > option to acquire additional rights at a later date, as they desire.
> >  Nothing more.  As it currently stands, ESA's policy is essentially
> > treating research articles as work-made-for-hire, which is ludicrous, given
> > that authors must pay page charges to print the work!  In essence
> > researchers are paying to have their work printed, while ceding all of
> > their rights to the publisher in the process.
> >
> > Further, I don't think anyone is suggesting that ESA should be denied all
> > subscription fees (or page fees), but simply that papers should become
> > available publicly over time, and that any research funded by public monies
> > should be available to the public sooner rather than later.  Which is
> > entirely reasonable, and more than likely beneficial to the public.
> >
> > -m
> >
> >
> > On 1/5/2012 12:33 AM, Jane Shevtsov wrote:
> >
> >> Fellow Ecologgers,
> >>
> >> Have people read ESA's response to a proposed requirement that the results
> >> of federally funded research be publicly available, possibly after an
> >> embargo period? It's available here.
> >> http://www.esa.org/pao/**policyStatements/Letters/**
> >> ESAResponsetoPublicAccessRFI20**11.pdf
> >>
> >> I have to say I find this response somewhat disappointing. While some of
> >> the concerns raised in it are cer

Re: [ECOLOG-L] ESA Position on Open Access

[David L. McNeely]

 Jordan Mayor  wrote: 
> Just email the author for a digital reprint.

If (s)he has them.  Authors may have to pay for these with some publishers, and 
depending on circumstances, may or may not get them.  For older papers they may 
not exist.  authors contact addresses may not be the same as shown on the 
abstract, and they may not necessarily be easy to track down.  Libraries are 
always there, with helpful personnel who do not charge a fee (there may or may 
not be a small fee for the copy depending on your relationship with the library 
-- student, faculty or staff, community library, community patron of academic 
library .. ).  mcneely

> 
> 
> Jordan
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Jan 9, 2012, at 9:51 AM, David L. McNeely wrote:
> 
> >  Jane Shevtsov  wrote: 
> >> I just checked, and ESA charges nonsubscribers $20 for a single article
> >> published in the December 2011 issue of Ecology. How is that reasonable?
> >> And I'm no business maven, but isn't that far past the optimal price point
> >> in terms of revenue generation? I could see paying $2 or $3 for an article
> >> if I was an infrequent reader, but $20?
> >> 
> >> There's a good blog post on what alternatives publishers might support at <
> >> http://researchremix.wordpress.com/2012/01/07/what-should-the-publishers-lobby-for/
> >>> .
> > 
> > Is it really so difficult to get a paper?  I have never been unable to get 
> > a paper I wanted or needed, and I have never paid the high prices that 
> > publishers demand for instant access on the internet.  Most of us live 
> > within 50 miles of a library.  If the library does not subscribe to the 
> > journal in which the paper appears, interlibrary loan will get it for a 
> > reasonable cost.  The real problem is the demand for instant gratification 
> > that we have developed.  It is that that we are being asked to pay for.
> > 
> > Should a paper cost $50?  I really don't know what it costs the journal to 
> > produce the paper, what the demand is (well, for some papers the demand is 
> > virtually nothing), or what distribution costs.  I do know that such 
> > services as BioOne have greatly improved the bottom lines of some scholarly 
> > organizations, which in the long run makes papers more available, not less. 
> > 
> > I guess in this one instance I am suggesting that free market is not so 
> > bad.  If you really must have the paper the instant you locate it through 
> > the free search and free abstract mechanisms of the publishers, why then 
> > pay the asking price.  Otherwise, use more traditional means of getting it. 
> >  If publishers are getting the asking price, they will maintain it, or 
> > maybe ask a little more.  If they are not getting it, they will back off.
> > 
> > If you are so far back in the sticks that you don't have ready access to a 
> > library, investigate a bit.  I'll bet some library serves you if you find 
> > out how.  If you are living in a cabin off the traveled roads and off the 
> > grid, then you don't have internet access either, so your complaints about 
> > no open access are moot.
> > 
> > David McNeely
> >> 
> >> Jane Shevtsov
> >> 
> >> On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 9:08 PM, M.S. Patterson 
> >> wrote:
> >> 
> >>> Here's an additional opinion on the matter, and it is rather less
> >>> charitable:
> >>> http://phylogenomics.blogspot.**com/2012/01/yhgtbfkm-**
> >>> ecological-society-of-america.**html?utm_source=feedburner&**
> >>> utm_medium=twitter&utm_**campaign=Feed%3A+**TheTreeOfLife+%28The+Tree+of+*
> >>> *Life%29<http://phylogenomics.blogspot.com/2012/01/yhgtbfkm-ecological-society-of-america.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheTreeOfLife+%28The+Tree+of+Life%29><
> >>> http://phylogenomics.**blogspot.com/2012/01/yhgtbfkm-**
> >>> ecological-society-of-america.**html?utm_source=feedburner&**
> >>> utm_medium=twitter&utm_**campaign=Feed%3A+**TheTreeOfLife+%28The+Tree+of+*
> >>> *Life%29<http://phylogenomics.blogspot.com/2012/01/yhgtbfkm-ecological-society-of-america.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheTreeOfLife+%28The+Tree+of+Life%29>
> >>>> 
> >>> 
> >>> The fact that ESA forces authors to cede the copyright to their work is
> >>> offensive, IMO, even if they 'grant' the author reprint or reproduction
> >>> rights.  It also means that ESA could choose to rewri

Re: [ECOLOG-L] ESA Position on Open Access

[David L. McNeely]

 Jane Shevtsov  wrote: 
> 
  I do know that such
> > services as BioOne have greatly improved the bottom lines of some scholarly
> > organizations, which in the long run makes papers more available, not less.
> >
> 
> Having more papers in existence is not the same as improving the
> availability of each paper.

BioOne is not a paper publisher.  It is an online, nonprofit service that makes 
papers available to readers, for a fee (or a subscription fee for 
organizations), and pays a portion to the publisher.  It has made papers more 
easily available in that readers can find them on the web, and access them 
there if a member of an organization that has a subscription, or by paying the 
fee.  One might consider it to be just another layer, and another cost.  But it 
provides the instant gratification that we have come to want.  It does not 
bring more papers into existence.  It remits part of the fee to the journal, 
which is why I said that it has improved the bottom line of some societies.

> 
> 
> > I guess in this one instance I am suggesting that free market is not so
> > bad.
> 
> 
> There's no free market here. A free market would exist if you could get the
> same paper from several different "stores". 

You can get the same paper from different sources.  You can subscribe to the 
journal in print or online.  You can go to a library that subscribes to the 
journal.  You can request a reprint from the author (who may have had to pay 
for it himself).  You can use online sources that may or may not have a cost 
associated, depending on the journal and the source.  You can use interlibrary 
loan.  There are multiple media through which a journal article may be 
obtained.   These different media have different costs in coin and effort 
associated with them.

>From a reader's point of view,
> a publisher is a monopoly. It's a natural monopoly -- but natural
> monopolies must be regulated.
> 
> 
> >  If you really must have the paper the instant you locate it through the
> > free search and free abstract mechanisms of the publishers, why then pay
> > the asking price.  Otherwise, use more traditional means of getting it.  If
> > publishers are getting the asking price, they will maintain it, or maybe
> > ask a little more.  If they are not getting it, they will back off.
> >
> 
> Now this is a fascinating point. How often do people actually pay the
> publisher's asking price? Like you say, a reader can go to a university
> library (public libraries rarely subscribe to technical journals), go to an
> author's web site, or email the author. Heck, if you access the Web without
> a university IP address, Google Scholar will automatically try to find free
> copies of papers you search for. So is the $20 per paper price really
> intended to make money directly, or to get people to do something else,
> like joining ESA and buying a journal subscription?

Which is a pretty good idea.  It supports ESA (or whatever organization 
publishes the journal, not all ecological work is published in ESA journals), 
and it gives one an opportunity to regularly review the spectrum of work being 
done in Ecology.  Joining provides a great many benefits beyond the opportunity 
to subscribe to the journals, as well.  One of those benefits is eventual life 
membership in emeritus status, which I have earned and take advantage of.

David McNeely

Re: [ECOLOG-L] ESA Position on Open Access

[David L. McNeely]

 Jane Shevtsov  wrote: 
> To be fair, ESA's profit margin is much smaller than that of commercial
> publishers. But I wonder how much of that money comes from people paying
> outrageous sums for individual articles. Not much, I'll bet.
> 
> There would seem to be a simple technical solution. Just as IP addresses
> are currently used to check whether someone is at a subscribing
> institution, they could be used to see whether an article request is coming
> from someone at a university. If yes, they'd only have access if their
> library subscribed (or if they had an individual subscription).
> Non-institutional users would get free access.

H.  Jane, perhaps you might include sorts of institutions other than 
universities, such as government agencies, industrial organizations (why should 
Exon Mobil get a free ride?), NGOs?

Suppose a student or faculty member works at home at night, and makes the 
request from there?  Free then, but if he makes the request from his office or 
a laboratory, he gets dinged?

Fact is, the publisher has to recoup costs and costs for a a scholarly 
organization include things other than publishing.  When students first get 
into this game most are unaware that authors pay for preprints (including 
electronic preprints) and pay page charges for publication.  That being the 
case, why shouldn't the publisher offset some costs by charging users for 
access?  ESA and most scholarly organizations that publish journals are truly 
nonprofit.  Elsevier Press is another matter, and "There oughta be a law 
... ."

So far as the university library is concerned, the universal copyright 
agreement that allows interlibrary loan is something akin to what you suggest:  
If a library makes more than five requests from a journal in a year, then the 
library is expected to subscribe.  In other words, requests beyond five would 
be a copyright violation. 
> 
> Jane Shevtsov
> 
> On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 2:39 PM, M.S. Patterson wrote:
> 
> > David, you're correct that many libraries have subscriptions to various
> > journals, and are capable of getting an article via interlibrary loan.
> >
> > However, this is simply a case of passing the buck.  Do you think
> > publishers give free access to libraries and universities?
> > They do not.   The subscription fees that libraries pay are exceedingly
> > steep, and as library budgets have been getting slashed, many have been
> > cutting back substantially on their journal access, counting on others
> > within the library system to maintain subscriptions.  And, of course, every
> > interlibrary loan request costs time, labor, and money to the communities
> > involved.  Surely it is more socially efficient to charge a few dollars for
> > an article, and make it easily available to people, than it is to charge a
> > large sum to a library, and then incur additional labor costs to shuttle a
> > document around from place to place?
> >
> > The cost of distribution for the publishers is essentially nil, given that
> > they already have invested in the sites in place to distribute their
> > articles, whether they cost $50 or $2.  Electrons are quite cheap.  This is
> > a simple case of an industry with substantial monopoly power engaging in
> > rent seeking.  A simple search on "academic publisher profits" would be
> > extremely enlightening, I suspect.  Here is a good place to start:
> > http://www.economist.com/node/**18744177<http://www.economist.com/node/18744177>
> >
> > -m
> >
> >
> > On 1/9/2012 9:51 AM, David L. McNeely wrote:
> >
> >>  Jane Shevtsov  wrote:
> >>
> >>> I just checked, and ESA charges nonsubscribers $20 for a single article
> >>> published in the December 2011 issue of Ecology. How is that reasonable?
> >>> And I'm no business maven, but isn't that far past the optimal price
> >>> point
> >>> in terms of revenue generation? I could see paying $2 or $3 for an
> >>> article
> >>> if I was an infrequent reader, but $20?
> >>>
> >>> There's a good blog post on what alternatives publishers might support
> >>> at<
> >>> http://researchremix.**wordpress.com/2012/01/07/what-**
> >>> should-the-publishers-lobby-**for/<http://researchremix.wordpress.com/2012/01/07/what-should-the-publishers-lobby-for/>
> >>>
> >>>> .
> >>>>
> >>> Is it really so difficult to get a paper?  I have never been unable to
> >> get a paper I wanted or needed, and I have never paid the high prices that
> >> publishers demand for instant

Re: [ECOLOG-L] ESA Position on Open Access

[David L. McNeely]

 Wayne Tyson  wrote: 
> Honorable Forum:
> 
> It used to be $15, if I recall correctly; it appears they've jacked it up 
> recently, by 33.33 percent, if my arithmetic is correct--what does that 
> reflect, in policy and business terms? Judging by the deafening silence 
> elicited from previous posts, they are not likely to change their policy of 
> considering access to be a profit center. It would be interesting to see the 
> sales figures, but I suspect that it will be a cold day in hell when they're 
> released. 

So far as ESA, ASIH, and SWAN, three organizations I have a fairly close 
familiarity with, you can get those data from the annual Treasurer's Report, 
which appears in the Minutes of the Annual Meeting, published on the society 
web page and in one of the various journals (in ESA's case, _The Bulletin of 
the Ecological Society of America_.

But I suspect that the objective is not to derive income from such 
> sales, but to discourage low-volume readers to the point of forcing then to 
> "join." After all, once the article is posted, the cost to the organization 
> is practically zero. But I repeat myself.
> 
> The bottom line remains, is it the goal of the organization creating such 
> policies to advance and facilitate the understanding of ecology as a 
> phenomenon, a discipline and a profession, or to retard said understanding 
> (and support)?
> 
> It is ironic that the tradition of science as a practice was, in the "old" 
> days prior to the advent of the Internet, to freely share one's work with 
> all interested parties, not just a selected, connected, well-heeled few, and 
> to "pay it forward." Access to university libraries used to be pretty 
> universal, and almost anyone could, at their own expense, travel to a 
> library, engage with a helpful librarian, browse stacks or order 
> publications, and work in the library. One made notes, and actually wrote in 
> a quiet atmosphere conducive to continuity of thought. This can still be 
> done, but it is inefficient and, if papers must be photocopied from books 
> and journals, rather costly (but for relatively short papers (Lessee, $20 
> divided by $0.10 per page = 200 pages would be the break-even point, no? 
> What are the normal page limits or average paper lengths for most scientific 
> papers?) at least, less so than purchasing 24-hour access to a pdf file).

One can still do all this, or if one prefers, use a free to any user who walks 
in the door computer to do his work in a more "modern" manner.  I worked at a 
public university library in this fashion for four hours today.  Private 
universities generally have more restrictions on who uses their services, but 
they do make them available.  They may ask the non university affiliated user 
to pay a small fee to become a "community user," renewable annually.  They may 
restrict the services that such users may access more than public universities 
do.

mcneely

> 
> One can still email most authors with a "Reprint request" or even send a 
> snailmail request. But this puts the requestor at a competitive 
> disadvantage, under those having institutional (free to the individual, but 
> budget-busting to the taxpayer-supported institution and prohibitive to the 
> smaller institutions, especially those in poorer areas.
> 
> A comparison of price trends over time and the hard-copy subscription and 
> individual reprint costs compared to the electronic access fees would be 
> enlightening. (Social scientists, awake!)

Librarians do this kind of work all the time.  Check their journals for such 
papers, or look at Dissertation Abstracts or University Microfilms.
> 
> Ain't it kinda ironic that as the vastly superior economy of the Internet 
> and computing, etc. have cut publication costs that "publishers" can get 
> away with gouging-on-steroids with a straight (if evasive) face?
> 
> WT
> 
> 
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Jane Shevtsov" 
> To: 
> Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2012 8:25 PM
> Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] ESA Position on Open Access
> 
> 
> >I just checked, and ESA charges nonsubscribers $20 for a single article
> > published in the December 2011 issue of Ecology. How is that reasonable?
> > And I'm no business maven, but isn't that far past the optimal price point
> > in terms of revenue generation? I could see paying $2 or $3 for an article
> > if I was an infrequent reader, but $20?
> >
> > There's a good blog post on what alternatives publishers might support at 
> > <
> > http://researchremix.wordpress.com/2012/01/07/what-should-the-publishers-lobby-for/
> >>.
> >
> > Jane Shevtsov
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 9:08 PM, M.S. Patterson 
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Here's an additional opinion on the matter, and it is rather less
> >> charitable:
> >> http://phylogenomics.blogspot.**com/2012/01/yhgtbfkm-**
> >> ecological-society-of-america.**html?utm_source=feedburner&**
> >> utm_medium=twitter&utm_**campaign=Feed%3A+**TheTreeOfLife+%28The+Tree+of+*
> >> *Li

Re: [ECOLOG-L] ESA Position on Open Access

[David L. McNeely]

 Gavin Simpson  wrote: 
> On Mon, 2012-01-09 at 08:51 -0600, David L. McNeely wrote:
> >  Jane Shevtsov  wrote: 
> > > I just checked, and ESA charges nonsubscribers $20 for a single article
> > > published in the December 2011 issue of Ecology. How is that reasonable?
> > > And I'm no business maven, but isn't that far past the optimal price point
> > > in terms of revenue generation? I could see paying $2 or $3 for an article
> > > if I was an infrequent reader, but $20?
> > > 
> > > There's a good blog post on what alternatives publishers might support at 
> > > <
> > > http://researchremix.wordpress.com/2012/01/07/what-should-the-publishers-lobby-for/
> > > >.
> > 
> > Is it really so difficult to get a paper?  I have never been unable to
> > get a paper I wanted or needed, and I have never paid the high prices
> > that publishers demand for instant access on the internet.  Most of us
> > live within 50 miles of a library.  If the library does not subscribe
> > to the journal in which the paper appears, interlibrary loan will get
> > it for a reasonable cost.
> 
> I question the use of the word reasonable here. In the UK an
> interlibrary loan for a single paper or part of a work costs me £12 -
> for a photocopy!!! My university subsidises this so I must personally
> pay £3.[*]
> 
> If the authors of the paper have paid ESA page charges to produce the
> thing and subscribers to the journal have paid for the print copy, where
> exactly does the $20 charged for the paper go, what does it pay for? The
> website and mechanisms for storing and delivering the content
> electronically, but that can't possibly cost $20.
> 
> There are ways round this and many scientists probably share PDFs of
> papers they shouldn't but the point is that $20 for a stream of bits is
> ridiculously expensive. Those lay people might not be that aware of the
> other methods for getting papers and seeing the price they may be put
> off trying to access the work. If that is work funded by the Government
> it is shameful.

The money that ESA and other scholarly organizations charge for electronic 
copies of their reports goes to support the organization.  The organization 
makes possible the publication and decimination of new knowledge.  There are 
costs involved, whether or not you think that the only thing the organization 
has to pay is for the electrical power to zip electrons around.  Yes, the 
incremental cost of pushing out another copy is small.  But all the 
infrastructure of the organization is involved in getting there, and is at 
stake if we succomb to the idea that only the incremental cost should be paid 
by the user.

Yes, libraries and other institutions pay a substantial subsidy in providing 
photocopies through interlibrary loan.  If they don't, then charges must be 
high like those you paid.  The entity that supports the library has taken the 
position that creation and decimination of knowledge is its role in society, 
and it will recoup costs via whatever funding mechanisms it has.  In a just 
society, that is the public through its various taxing mechanisms and through 
donations that result in successful investment.  Nothing wrong with this.  New 
knowledge into the public realm is worth paying for.  But scholarly 
organizations like ESA don't have access to those funding sources.  Their 
funding is their membership and their publishing.  The publishing is mostly, 
for most such organizations, not really profitable.  It only works because they 
charge institutional subscribers large fees, because some organizations 
actually do pay page charges, and because some scholarly organizations have s!
 uccessful investment programs (endowments, which have suffered along with the 
rest of the economy).

You want the electronic copies for the incremental cost of producing one copy.  
But that is not the whole story, and when you get it for that, you are 
parasitizing the membership of the organization, which already subsidizes the 
functions of the organization substantially.  You place the whole enterprise at 
risk.  Where will we be when there is no ESA, no ASIH, no Limnological Society, 
 ?

mcneely
> 
> G
> 
> [*] things have improved markedly at UCL since I was a grad student
> here, but only at huge cost to my institution through subscription
> charges paid to the publishers. The situation is not sustainable and the
> desperate pleadings of publishers is reminiscent of those from the music
> industry when we all cottoned on to the fact that we really don't have
> to pay what they charge for an MP3 or CD if we don't want to.
> 
> >   The real problem is the demand for instant gratification that we
> > have develope

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Open Access References Re: [ECOLOG-L] NYT OP-ED piece about public access to research publications

[David L. McNeely]

All of us know who the real buck chasing publishers are, and they are not the 
scholarly organizations like ESA.  Elsevier Press comes to mind.  I'm not sure 
what Wayne means when he says, "Concentrate on the work rather than the buck."  
One certainly doesn't get any bucks for publishing in a traditional journal.  
One does get some degree of recognition, depending on the paper and how 
successful one is in getting multiple papers published.  But by and large, 
there is no profit in it for authors.  For Elsevier, there is profit.  For ESA, 
ASLO, ASIH .., h... .

If science wants to turn from traditional, peer reviewed publication to a free 
for all, well, it will do so.  But we need to be very careful about doing away 
with our scholarly organizations.  Whether we own up to it or not, that is what 
is being proposed.

mcneely

 Wayne Tyson  wrote: 
> Honorable Forum:
> 
> >From 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/11/opinion/research-bought-then-paid-for.html?_r=1
> 
> "Researchers should cut off commercial journals' supply of papers by 
> publishing exclusively in one of the many "open-access" journals that are 
> perfectly capable of managing peer review . . ."
> 
> That is, AVOID the "prestigious" journals and concentrate on the work rather 
> than the buck. Be on the leading edge of advancing science in all directions 
> rather than depriving the "lay" public of the fruits of your talent and 
> effort.
> 
> WT
> 
> - Original Message - 
> From: "David Inouye" 
> To: 
> Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 3:32 PM
> Subject: [ECOLOG-L] NYT OP-ED piece about public access to research 
> publications
> 
> 
> > http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/11/opinion/research-bought-then-paid-for.html
> >
> >
> > -
> > No virus found in this message.
> > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> > Version: 10.0.1416 / Virus Database: 2109/4136 - Release Date: 01/11/12
> > 

--
David McNeely

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Open Access References Re: [ECOLOG-L] NYT OP-ED piece about public access to research publications

[David L. McNeely]

 Nicholas Rosenstock  wrote: 
> A simple question that after 8 -10 years in science I still don't really
> get:
> 
> Where does the money go?

So far as ESA is concerned, _The Annual Report_ is published, duh, annually for 
anyone who wants to know:  http://www.esa.org/aboutesa/docs/annualreport2010.pdf

> 
> We often pay to publish. Most journals don't actually print anything
> anymore (or very little and only at an extra charge). 

On the contrary, print journals are still produced.  I receive my copies of 
_Ecology_, _Copeia_, _Science_, _SWN_   regularly, though I have recently asked 
ASIH to convert my life subscription to online only to save money for the 
society, and am dropping _Ecology_ for the same reason.  I can go to the 
library, or find other ways to get the papers I want.  Unlike some I suppose, I 
am still encouraging libraries to subscribe to both print and online versions 
(or the databases that supply them).

mcneely

mcneely

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Teaching ecology for Engineers

[David L. McNeely]

 J C Voltolini  wrote: 
> Dear Colleagues, 
> 
> I would like to receive suggestions about textbooks to teach ecology and
> environmental ecology for electrical and mechanical engineers. 
> 
> Thanks for any help!

I still consider Begon, Harper, and Townsend's _Ecology From Individuals to 
Ecosystems_ to be the best general ecology textbook available.  To my knowledge 
it has not been revised in about six years though, so should be read with 
supplements available.  

--
David McNeely

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Are editors coercing citations?

[David L. McNeely]

 Nadine Lymn  wrote: 
> Colleagues-
> 
> Please consider this actual example.  A scholar receives a letter from the 
> managing editor of a journal saying his article had been accepted for 
> publication.  Sometime later, the author receives another letter from the 
> senior editor of the same journal asking the author to add citations from his 
> journal.  Specifically the editor writes, "you only use one (name of my 
> journal) source which is unacceptable. Please add at least five more 
> relevant-(name of my journal) sources."  
> 
> Notice that this citation request does not mention omitted content or 
> shortcomings in the manuscript's analysis; it simply asks the authors to cite 
> related articles in the editor's journal.  
>  
> This practice is controversial.  Some view it as inappropriate behavior, 
> padding citations and diluting the value of the reference list.  Others see 
> it as a legitimate way to introduce readers to past literature in the 
> editor's journal.  This continuing study investigates this issue and we need 
> your help.  Would you please take a moment to complete the following 
> survey?-it will take only a few minutes.  If you consent to this survey just 
> follow the link provided below.  
> 
> As required by our Institutional Review Board, individual identities will not 
> be revealed or linked to specific responses.  In fact, SurveyMonkey(c) does 
> not connect responses to responders; we cannot identify you.  IRB contact 
> information:  i...@uah.edu
> 
> Thank you for your help. 

Certainly a reviewer or an editor is within reason (and indeed within 
responsibility) if an author has neglected relevant, important information from 
the literature in pointing that out.  To simply request (or worse, require) 
additional citations, without consideration of specifics, is inappropriate.

David

> 
> Link to survey:  http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/listserves
> 
>   
> 
> Allen Wilhite
> Department of Economics
> University of Alabama in Huntsville
> wilhi...@uah.edu
> 
> Eric A. Fong
> Department of Management
> University of Alabama in Huntsville
> fo...@uah.edu

--
David McNeely

Re: [ECOLOG-L] best tree species for carbon sequestration

[David L. McNeely]

To consider the possibility that using nursery stock has very negative 
ecological consequences one need only visit a large scale tree and shrub 
production facility.  Certainly the quantity of fertilizers and pesticides 
used, coupled with extensive runoff (the largest one in Oklahoma is in the 
Ozarks east of Tulsa on steep terrain with very shallow and rocky soils in a 
karst geology) have potentially devastating effects.

Cities and other jurisdiction can (and I believe a few have) develop codes that 
require developers to leave what is there so far as possible.  A smaller total 
developed footprint can allow native (whatever that means) landscapes to remain 
in place.  This is not a new notion.

but a lot of the work that is contemplated by cities and developers today is 
renovation in existing developed property, some of it having displaced "native" 
landscape decades ago.  My small city has in place one of the nicer city parks 
in this area.  It was placed atop a former dump (that was there long before the 
term or the practice of "landfill" existed).  The dumping had simply taken 
place amongst clumps of native grasses and trees (for those familiar with the 
southern plains, it is in the mixed oak/prairie area known as the "Cross 
Timbers").  With careful work, the city was able to get a quite nice 
semi-natural park established, and the native trees and meadows that sit atop 
the hills complement the playgrounds and picnic areas in riparian areas.  Some 
replanting was done, mostly with locally native species that are fairly easily 
established, like cedar elm and shumard oak, rather than the more difficult 
cross timbers species such as post oak and blackjack.   The hillsi!
 de and hilltop woods themselves, however, are native Cross Timbers.

Was carbon sequestering a consideration in the park development?  Not at all at 
the time, several decades ago.  Is it a reasonable factor to consider now for 
such work?  Probably not.  Tyson is correct, that a different attitude and 
action regarding the largescale removal of native ecosystems is needed to have 
any effect.  But, has the increase in wooded area in the eastern U.S. over the 
past century slowed the advance of climate change?  I haven't seen an adequate 
analysis to know.

mcneely

 Wayne Tyson  wrote: 
> Honorable Forum:
> 
> Rose's additions and clarifications are illuminating. My concerns too are 
> general--related to principle--not specific to the South-Central Iowa area. 
> While I am not overly concerned with individual projects at local scales, 
> particularly urban areas, I am concerned with the impression left with the 
> public at large, upon which ecological distinctions are largely lost. And, 
> of course, the implication that tree planting on a scale actually large 
> enough to have any measurable effect upon global warming can be effective 
> enough is disturbing, even though I do not necessarily wish to imply that 
> the case instant is itself all that disturbing.
> 
> I only hope that students of all ages and the public at large are not 
> mislead into thinking that the rather romantic practice of tree planting, 
> whether or not a site is actually suitable or historically a tree or forest 
> habitat, will even be a preferable allocation of concern and investment in 
> "solving" the global warming phenomenon. Such investments may be better 
> directed at oceanic organisms and scales, and certainly, as I believe 
> Hernandez may be suggesting, that simply stopping the wholesale destruction 
> of forests, particularly in the tropics, are more likely to have an effect 
> on the carbon balance than Arbor Day-like projects that, while perhaps 
> consciousness-raising, simply seduce us with an appealing fantasy rather 
> than actually educate and move in the direction of actual solutions.
> 
> I would emphasize that considering the ecological context is ALWAYS 
> possible; and it's high time that horticulturalists realize that they can 
> choose to move from fascinating fantasies toward even more fascinating 
> realities if they do so. The too-common, even prevalent idea that 
> landscaping and gardening as currently practiced is "natural" or yes, even 
> "ecological" is in fact far from ecological or natural is largely fiction, 
> and fostering that idea is simply fraudulent.
> 
> I hope that Johnson, Hernandez, Rose and similarly enlightened folks will 
> propagate the idea that urban spaces actually can be made to better fit into 
> local ecosystems, not only without giving up aesthetic considerations, but 
> actually enhancing them.
> 
> The answer to the genetic uniformity issue with nursery stock is to stop 
> using it--at least until the nursery industry stops its 
> industrial-production obsession. Throw out the nursery catalogs. Look to the 
> kinds of ecosystems that existed prior to their destruction, and at least 
> exhaust the ecological options (of which most of the 
> nursery/gardening/landscaping industry is ig

Re: [ECOLOG-L] definition of "native"

[David L. McNeely]

Gunnar, where in the world would that question come from?  Post oak has been in 
Texas probably for much of its existence as a species.  So far as it being 
"preEuropean," if that is required for you to define something as "native," a 
substantial portion of Texas is covered by a "native" forest of post oak and 
black jack, and is called The Cross Timbers."  It likely got its name from 
being made up of Post Oak, which was during Texas colonial days more commonly 
called Cross Oak by English speaking immigrants to that part of northern Mexico.

David McNeely

 Gunnar Schade  wrote: 
> Howdy!
> 
> I am trying to figure out whether post oak (Quercus stellata) can rightfully
> called "native" to Texas (compared to, e.g., a species like water oak,
> Quercus nigra). So I wonder if there is a good definition of what "native"
> means out there ...
> 
> Thanks,
> Gunnar

--
David McNeely

Re: [ECOLOG-L] definition of "native"

[David L. McNeely]

Good grief, Matt.

How long the region we now call Texas has been called that is irrelevant, and 
how much territory the name has encompassed at various times is also 
irrelevant.  The question had to do with whether Post Oak was "native" to the 
region now called Texas.

Short answer, without knowing the inquirer's criteria for "native," is yes.

It is silly to make a statement claiming that I suggest that Texas has been 
Texas for any particular period of time.  The question was about a geographic 
locality, not the political matter of who called it what when.  However, 
historical evidence suggests that Spanish speakers were the first to apply a 
name similar to Texas, and that it was based on their name for one or more 
"Native" American groups.

I pointed out that _Quercus stellata_ has gone by other names (though the 
binomial does suggest "Star Oak," I am not aware of it ever going by that 
common name), one of which (Cross Oak) gives a clue to its presence and indeed 
abundance in the area now known as Texas because the same term was applied to a 
large forested area, the Cross Timbers,  by English speakers during that time.  
Spanish speakers called the same woodland, which stretches across a large swath 
of the state, _Monte Grande_.   The name Cross Timbers seems to have been 
written for the first time formally on a map by Stephen F. Austin in the 1820s. 
 I see no reason to suggest that the English speakers of the time would have 
given a name to a landscape based on an introduced tree.

No one suggested Post Oak is a Texas endemic.  It occurs throughout a fairly 
large portion of the eastern U.S.

McNeely

 Matt Chew  wrote: 
> The general definition of 'native' is 'not introduced'.  It is a historical
> criterion, not an ecological one, and it rests entirely on absence of
> evidence for introduction.  That definition has not changed at all since it
> was first fully codified in England in 1847.
> 
> David McNeely's claim that "Post oak has been in Texas probably for much of
> its existence as a species" suggests that Texas has been Texas for a very
> long time indeed.  But Texas, as a place identified by various sets of
> boundaries, is itself  "post European" by the standard David provided.  By
> 1847 Texas was already flying the fifth of its six European-derived flags,
> during the Mexican-American War. And of course, post oak certainly isn't
> endemic to any version of Texas, no matter how expansively imagined; most
> post oaks have not been in Texas in any way.
> 
> The tree hasn't even been called 'post oak' for "much of its existence as a
> species".  Whether it was a species at all before being described and named
> _Quercus_stellata_ by Friederich Adam Julius von Wangenheim late in the
> 18th century is arguable, but it is certain that _Quercus_stellata_
> translates more literally to "star oak" than "post oak".  Very Texan.
> 
> While this is all good semantic fun, it also draws attention serious
> conceptual weaknesses in our vague ideas and ideals of place-based
> belonging.  For more, see
> http://asu.academia.edu/MattChew/Papers/450641/The_Rise_and_Fall_of_Biotic_Nativeness_A_Historical_Perspective
> a.k.a. chapter 4 of  Richardson's "Fifty Years of Invasion Ecology: The
> Legacy of Charles Elton."
> 
> Matthew K Chew
> Assistant Research Professor
> Arizona State University School of Life Sciences
> 
> ASU Center for Biology & Society
> PO Box 873301
> Tempe, AZ 85287-3301 USA
> Tel 480.965.8422
> Fax 480.965.8330
> mc...@asu.edu or anek...@gmail.com
> http://cbs.asu.edu/people/profiles/chew.php
> http://asu.academia.edu/MattChew

--
David McNeely

Re: [ECOLOG-L] definition of "native"

[David L. McNeely]

Tacy, I believe that a naturalized species is generally considered to be one 
that after introduction has established a viable population.  

http://69.90.183.227/doc/articles/2002-/A-00249.pdf

Post oak is not an introduced species in Texas, it is "native" by any 
definition.  When Europeans came on the scene, it was here.  No human agent is 
known to have brought it.  Unlike honeybees that moved across the landscape as 
an invasive ahead of migrating Europeans, post oak was already here.

mcneely

 Tacy Fletcher  wrote: 
> >From a land-manager's perspective regarding the post oaks of the Texas 
> >region, most likely one would say that post-oaks havenaturalizedas many 
> >introduced species do.  Whether the species was introduced by animal or 
> >weather phenomena is a debate not worth having.  But for fun I thought I 
> >would add the POV of a stewardship technician: that if it isn't running 
> >amok, then I have more aggressive plant species to try to corral.
 
Cordially yours,
 
Tacy Fletcher (uses pseudonym "Cayt Fletch" on facebook)  also tflet...@pnc.edu 
Fletch 



>
> From: Martin Meiss 
>To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU 
>Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 8:39 AM
>Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] definition of "native"
> 
>     Even if we agree as to what "native" means, phrases such as "native to
>Texas" are problematic, and not just because, as Matt Chew points out,
>human political constructs vary with time.  If a tree is native to one
>little corner of Texas, then the statement "native to Texas" applies, but
>what does it mean?  It might be politically significant, for instance for
>state laws governing exploitation of the species, but biologically not very
>useful.  It seems to me that for biological purposes, the concept of
>"native" should be tied to some biologically oriented construct, such as
>Holdridge's life zones.
>
>     Of course, a person out for a walk my come upon a species and wonder
>if it is found in the area because of human intervention.  Phrasing the
>question as "Is this species native to this area?" would probably be
>understood, but perhaps it would be better to ask in terms of human
>intervention, i.e., "Is this species introduced?"  Sometimes it is easier
>to account for what humans do than for what nature does.
>
>Martin M. Meiss
>
>
>2012/3/13 Matt Chew 
>
>> The general definition of 'native' is 'not introduced'.  It is a historical
>> criterion, not an ecological one, and it rests entirely on absence of
>> evidence for introduction.  That definition has not changed at all since it
>> was first fully codified in England in 1847.
>>
>> David McNeely's claim that "Post oak has been in Texas probably for much of
>> its existence as a species" suggests that Texas has been Texas for a very
>> long time indeed.  But Texas, as a place identified by various sets of
>> boundaries, is itself  "post European" by the standard David provided.  By
>> 1847 Texas was already flying the fifth of its six European-derived flags,
>> during the Mexican-American War. And of course, post oak certainly isn't
>> endemic to any version of Texas, no matter how expansively imagined; most
>> post oaks have not been in Texas in any way.
>>
>> The tree hasn't even been called 'post oak' for "much of its existence as a
>> species".  Whether it was a species at all before being described and named
>> _Quercus_stellata_ by Friederich Adam Julius von Wangenheim late in the
>> 18th century is arguable, but it is certain that _Quercus_stellata_
>> translates more literally to "star oak" than "post oak".  Very Texan.
>>
>> While this is all good semantic fun, it also draws attention serious
>> conceptual weaknesses in our vague ideas and ideals of place-based
>> belonging.  For more, see
>>
>> http://asu.academia.edu/MattChew/Papers/450641/The_Rise_and_Fall_of_Biotic_Nativeness_A_Historical_Perspective
>> a.k.a. chapter 4 of  Richardson's "Fifty Years of Invasion Ecology: The
>> Legacy of Charles Elton."
>>
>> Matthew K Chew
>> Assistant Research Professor
>> Arizona State University School of Life Sciences
>>
>> ASU Center for Biology & Society
>> PO Box 873301
>> Tempe, AZ 85287-3301 USA
>> Tel 480.965.8422
>> Fax 480.965.8330
>> mc...@asu.edu or anek...@gmail.com
>> http://cbs.asu.edu/people/profiles/chew.php
>> http://asu.academia.edu/MattChew
>>
>
>
>

--
David McNeely

Re: [ECOLOG-L] definition of "native"

[David L. McNeely]

to get back to the original question, here is the USDA take on the matter:

http://plants.usda.gov/java/profile?symbol=QUST&mapType=nativity&photoID=qust_002_avp.tif

mcneely 

 Wayne Tyson  wrote: 
> Are you sure you're not seeing recolonization? The Texas of my boyhood was 
> largely spent camping out in the post-oak timber belt, and I personally 
> pulled stumps as my part of clearing them to plant alien pasture grasses, 
> goobers, hairy vetch, and other "crops" recommended by the county agent. 
> >From the mid-ninteenth century until the present era, such clearing has been 
> tantamount to "doing God's will." Maybe God has something to do with the 
> recolonization of the post-oaks, the grass-burrs, the briar patches, the 
> poison ivy and all the other plants and animals that once populated that 
> region?
> 
> WT
> 
> 
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Tacy Fletcher" 
> To: 
> Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 8:20 AM
> Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] definition of "native"
> 
> 
> >From a land-manager's perspective regarding the post oaks of the Texas 
> >region, most likely one would say that post-oaks havenaturalizedas many 
> >introduced species do. Whether the species was introduced by animal or 
> >weather phenomena is a debate not worth having. But for fun I thought I 
> >would add the POV of a stewardship technician: that if it isn't running 
> >amok, then I have more aggressive plant species to try to corral.
> 
> Cordially yours,
> 
> Tacy Fletcher (uses pseudonym "Cayt Fletch" on facebook) also 
> tflet...@pnc.edu
> Fletch
> 
> 
> 
> >
> > From: Martin Meiss 
> >To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
> >Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 8:39 AM
> >Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] definition of "native"
> >
> >   Even if we agree as to what "native" means, phrases such as "native to
> >Texas" are problematic, and not just because, as Matt Chew points out,
> >human political constructs vary with time. If a tree is native to one
> >little corner of Texas, then the statement "native to Texas" applies, but
> >what does it mean? It might be politically significant, for instance for
> >state laws governing exploitation of the species, but biologically not very
> >useful. It seems to me that for biological purposes, the concept of
> >"native" should be tied to some biologically oriented construct, such as
> >Holdridge's life zones.
> >
> >   Of course, a person out for a walk my come upon a species and wonder
> >if it is found in the area because of human intervention. Phrasing the
> >question as "Is this species native to this area?" would probably be
> >understood, but perhaps it would be better to ask in terms of human
> >intervention, i.e., "Is this species introduced?" Sometimes it is easier
> >to account for what humans do than for what nature does.
> >
> >Martin M. Meiss
> >
> >
> >2012/3/13 Matt Chew 
> >
> >> The general definition of 'native' is 'not introduced'. It is a 
> >> historical
> >> criterion, not an ecological one, and it rests entirely on absence of
> >> evidence for introduction. That definition has not changed at all since 
> >> it
> >> was first fully codified in England in 1847.
> >>
> >> David McNeely's claim that "Post oak has been in Texas probably for much 
> >> of
> >> its existence as a species" suggests that Texas has been Texas for a very
> >> long time indeed. But Texas, as a place identified by various sets of
> >> boundaries, is itself "post European" by the standard David provided. By
> >> 1847 Texas was already flying the fifth of its six European-derived 
> >> flags,
> >> during the Mexican-American War. And of course, post oak certainly isn't
> >> endemic to any version of Texas, no matter how expansively imagined; most
> >> post oaks have not been in Texas in any way.
> >>
> >> The tree hasn't even been called 'post oak' for "much of its existence as 
> >> a
> >> species". Whether it was a species at all before being described and 
> >> named
> >> _Quercus_stellata_ by Friederich Adam Julius von Wangenheim late in the
> >> 18th century is arguable, but it is certain that _Quercus_stellata_
> >> translates more literally to "star oak" than "post oak". Very Texan.
> >>
> >> While this is all good semantic fun, it also draws attention serious
> >> conceptual weaknesses in our vague ideas and ideals of place-based
> >> belonging. For more, see
> >>
> >> http://asu.academia.edu/MattChew/Papers/450641/The_Rise_and_Fall_of_Biotic_Nativeness_A_Historical_Perspective
> >> a.k.a. chapter 4 of Richardson's "Fifty Years of Invasion Ecology: The
> >> Legacy of Charles Elton."
> >>
> >> Matthew K Chew
> >> Assistant Research Professor
> >> Arizona State University School of Life Sciences
> >>
> >> ASU Center for Biology & Society
> >> PO Box 873301
> >> Tempe, AZ 85287-3301 USA
> >> Tel 480.965.8422
> >> Fax 480.965.8330
> >> mc...@asu.edu or anek...@gmail.com
> >> http://cbs.asu.edu/people/profiles/chew.php
> >> http://asu.academia.edu/MattChew
> >>
> >
> >
>

Re: [ECOLOG-L] definition of "native"

[David L. McNeely]

well, you can make word games out of simple concepts if you wish to.  Whenever 
most sane people refer to a species as being native in a place, they mean it 
was not taken there by human agency, but either evolved there or migrated there 
prior to human record keeping.  Pretty simple.  The other constructs you 
mention complicate matters, yes, but they do not define the concept of a 
species being native to a locality.  The multiple maps of native range for 
ponderosa pine may be based on different data sets, or they may be based on 
different definitions of the species.  Those matters do not alter what is meant 
by a species being native in a location, they just illustrate that we don't 
always have all the information, or that sometimes we disagree on the data.

mcneely

 Matt Chew  wrote: 
> Jason Persichetti's contention, "we all know what is meant by the idiom" is
> precisely false.
> 
> I routinely show audiences eight different maps purporting to represent the
> native range of _Pinus_ponderosa_, prepared for different purposes by
> different authorities.  They can't all be correct AND mean the same thing.
> 
> What "native species" denotes actually varies quite a bit, and no wonder,
> since it includes three explicit degrees of freedom (specifications of
> place, time, and taxon) at least two tacit ones (who counts as a human, and
> what counts as human agency) plus an authority claim.
> 
>  Authority claims alone entail ad hoc redefinitions of "native"; e.g., USGS
> NAS roils the waters by calling _Micropterus_salmoides_ a "native
> transplant" in the United States outside a particular set of hydrologic
> units.  That is a political calculation.
> 
> What "native species" connotes also varies, but recently, typically
> indicates the idiomist is making or ratifying a judgment that some organism
> has a moral claim to persisting in a specified place because no human is
> known to have physically moved it – or its forbears.  But we relax various
> aspects of that as easily as we apply them.
> 
> As is (remarkably) typical of ecology's idioms, we have no calibrated
> conception of this supposedly fundamental characteristic.  Blaming the
> shortcomings of language for our failure to formulate a coherent concept is
> a red herring unless our consensus "native" really is an inarticulable
> intuition.  If it is (and nothing I've read so far suggests otherwise)
> there's nothing to calibrate, much less recalibrate, and we're not doing
> science.
> 
> Matthew K Chew
> Assistant Research Professor
> Arizona State University School of Life Sciences
> 
> ASU Center for Biology & Society
> PO Box 873301
> Tempe, AZ 85287-3301 USA
> Tel 480.965.8422
> Fax 480.965.8330
> mc...@asu.edu or anek...@gmail.com
> http://cbs.asu.edu/people/profiles/chew.php
> http://asu.academia.edu/MattChew

--
David McNeely

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Ecology (the journal) stalled?

[David L. McNeely]

 Lonnie Aarssen  wrote: 
> I wonder if Don Strong would explain to us why 
> Ecology is still publishing on paper?  No 
> ecologist that I know reads paper journals 
> anymore, and hasn't for years.  

I read paper journals, and I have for years.  i hope to be able to continue to 
do so.

And libraries 
> everywhere are cancelling their paper 
> subscriptions and supporting only electronic 
> journal subscriptions.

Libraries are doing everything they can to corral costs, mainly because of the 
political climate that is withdrawing funding from education and research 
support.  The fact that they are cancelling paper journals has nothing to do 
with the desirability of keeping them.

When we have only digital information, tell me how that information will be 
guaranteed into the future?  One of the functions of libraries is curation of 
the knowledge we have accumulated.  In the 60 year lifetime of digital 
information storage and retrieval the media of choice have changed more times 
than I care to try to count, from paper punched tapes and cards, to tape, and 
so on, with multiple ways of reading those media.  Most of them can no longer 
be read.

  >In the news this week we 
> also learned that Encyclopedia Britannica has 
> decided to publish its last print edition this 
> year, with only online editions available in the future.

Encyclopedia Britannica is not a journal.

> 
> Is it not time for Ecology to do the same?  

No.

>The 
> advantages seem obvious.  If Ecology "has a 
> limited number of pages that the ESA can afford 
> to publish", then why not simply break free from 
> this limitation by publishing electronically 
> only?  The ecological community could then 
> benefit from a greater number of high quality Ecology articles.

and the disadvantages are also obvious.

BTW, I have paper journals on my bookshelves that I have cherished for years.  
I hope to keep them until I pass them on to a library that is more 
understanding of its curatorial role than those you admire so.

mcneely

Re: [ECOLOG-L] definition of "native"

[David L. McNeely]

prior to human record keeping works for me.  if it was there before people 
started talking about it and writing it down, that's good enough.  do you 
expect the world really was once upon a time in a state of some kind of 
"purity"?  mcneely

 Andrew Pierce  wrote: 
> While the definition you provide might be a suitable working definition, it
> is not a suitable scientific definition. As a counter-example to your
> claim  "it
> was not taken there by human agency, but either evolved there or migrated
> there prior to human record keeping" there are species that the first
> humans brought to North America; these species violate the either-or
> construction of your definition because we don't even 'know' all of the
> species that came to North America this way.
> To further push the envelope, what about species that were moved around by
> other hominids (*Homo habilis, H. erectus*) or neandertals? Are they native
> because they weren't moved by *H. sapiens*? Or are the non-native because
> they were moved by agents?
> What about species that were introduced by humans and then evolved into new
> species? Is the introduced species non-native, but the evolutionary
> descendant is native? Appeals to the crowd (*argument ad populum*) do not
> invalidate these critiques and neither do *ad hominem *attacks.
> Finally, the point that 'native' is a definition that eludes us still
> stands. While local and pragmatic definitions of it might exist, a global,
> scientifically defensible definition of it does not exist.
> 
> Andrew D. Pierce, Ph.D
> Post-Doctoral Research Associate
> Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Management
> University of Hawai'i
> USFS-Institute of Pacific Islands Forestry
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 4:42 PM, David L. McNeely  wrote:
> 
> > well, you can make word games out of simple concepts if you wish to.
> >  Whenever most sane people refer to a species as being native in a place,
> > they mean it was not taken there by human agency, but either evolved there
> > or migrated there prior to human record keeping.  Pretty simple.  The other
> > constructs you mention complicate matters, yes, but they do not define the
> > concept of a species being native to a locality.  The multiple maps of
> > native range for ponderosa pine may be based on different data sets, or
> > they may be based on different definitions of the species.  Those matters
> > do not alter what is meant by a species being native in a location, they
> > just illustrate that we don't always have all the information, or that
> > sometimes we disagree on the data.
> >
> > mcneely
> >
> >  Matt Chew  wrote:
> > > Jason Persichetti's contention, "we all know what is meant by the idiom"
> > is
> > > precisely false.
> > >
> > > I routinely show audiences eight different maps purporting to represent
> > the
> > > native range of _Pinus_ponderosa_, prepared for different purposes by
> > > different authorities.  They can't all be correct AND mean the same
> > thing.
> > >
> > > What "native species" denotes actually varies quite a bit, and no wonder,
> > > since it includes three explicit degrees of freedom (specifications of
> > > place, time, and taxon) at least two tacit ones (who counts as a human,
> > and
> > > what counts as human agency) plus an authority claim.
> > >
> > >  Authority claims alone entail ad hoc redefinitions of "native"; e.g.,
> > USGS
> > > NAS roils the waters by calling _Micropterus_salmoides_ a "native
> > > transplant" in the United States outside a particular set of hydrologic
> > > units.  That is a political calculation.
> > >
> > > What "native species" connotes also varies, but recently, typically
> > > indicates the idiomist is making or ratifying a judgment that some
> > organism
> > > has a moral claim to persisting in a specified place because no human is
> > > known to have physically moved it – or its forbears.  But we relax
> > various
> > > aspects of that as easily as we apply them.
> > >
> > > As is (remarkably) typical of ecology's idioms, we have no calibrated
> > > conception of this supposedly fundamental characteristic.  Blaming the
> > > shortcomings of language for our failure to formulate a coherent concept
> > is
> > > a red herring unless our consensus "native" really is an inarticulable
> > > intuition.  If it is (and nothing I've read so far suggests otherwise)
> > > there's nothing to calibrate, much less recalibrate, and we're not doing
> > > science.
> > >
> > > Matthew K Chew
> > > Assistant Research Professor
> > > Arizona State University School of Life Sciences
> > >
> > > ASU Center for Biology & Society
> > > PO Box 873301
> > > Tempe, AZ 85287-3301 USA
> > > Tel 480.965.8422
> > > Fax 480.965.8330
> > > mc...@asu.edu or anek...@gmail.com
> > > http://cbs.asu.edu/people/profiles/chew.php
> > > http://asu.academia.edu/MattChew
> >
> > --
> > David McNeely
> >

--
David McNeely

Re: [ECOLOG-L] attracting fish food

[David L. McNeely]

David, I would question whether the light would actually increase food 
availability.  It definitely would concentrate flying insects over the water 
and so would concentrate the insects dropping on the water surface.  almost all 
of the insects would be the aerial stages of aquatic forms, and most of those 
would have come from the stream in question (though not all).

Would it increase predation on the feeding fish?  Well, I can't speak to the 
salmon system, and I will rely on non-scientific experience for the general 
thought.  In the southern U.S. people use lights to attract insects and "bait 
fish" to their fishing spots.  I have not seen any science that supports their 
beliefs, but they definitely believe that they catch a lot more of their target 
species when they fish with lights.  Of course, the target species are 
predators on the bait fish that the insects attract, and that the lights may 
also attract directly.

Hope this helps.  David McNeely
 David Inouye  wrote: 
> My brother is involved in restoring habitat for small salmon on a 
> side channel stream in WA.  He's considering putting a small solar 
> light over a beaver pond, to increase insect drops onto the water, as 
> fish food.  Would the fish be likely to feed on such insects, and 
> could there be other consequences, such as increased predation on 
> fish attracted to the light at night?
> 
> David Inouye

--
David McNeely

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Backpacking with an infant?

[David L. McNeely]

I originally responded only to Simone personally.   But, I now see a need for 
wider discussion.  I agree with Hal Caswell and others who have said that child 
safety is paramount.  If at all possible, another approach should be considered.

Hal, in answer to your query:  In forty years of teaching, I had a standing 
policy, supported by the institutions I worked with, that children were not 
allowed on field trips or in laboratories.   The fact that the university's 
insurance stated explicitly that its coverage only extended to such personnel 
made my refusal to allow children a little easier, but in reality, that was a 
convenient excuse for my position.   In all that time, I only had 4 students 
who questioned the policy, and each of those four eventually recognized the 
basis, and found other ways to participate in the field trips.  Once, two 
parents who were in different sections of the same ecology course worked out an 
arrangement whereby they traded child care duties.

All this is easier in institutions that have on campus child care facilities.  
While Dad goes to school, junior can too.

I am a parent and now a grandparent.  I understand the needs that prompt folks 
to want to have their children with them.  But I also understand the concerns 
for child health and safety.  Taking a hike or a camping trip is quite 
different from working in the field (though I have had colleagues over the 
years who sometimes did not understand that).  And I must acknowledge that as 
my daughter grew older I did take her into the field with me. When I first 
started doing so, at least I was accompanied by her mother, who could devote 
more time to supervising her than I could.  She is now an ecologist, a faculty 
member, and a mother.  She has not taken her child into the field for work, but 
I expect she will when he grows older and more self sufficient if she is 
engaged in activities where she can provide adequate supervision, or if the 
child's father is able to be there and assist.

I also remember well the first overnight backpacking we did with her, when she 
was two.  I carried my daughter and a one quarter share of our equipment and 
supplies.  My wife, my daughter's mother, carried everything else.  We didn't 
do another with her until she was five, and we backpacked on trails where she 
could walk on her own.

Sometimes we simply have to make compromises that are not our first choice in 
order to fulfill all our responsibilities in life successfully.

David McNeely

 Hal Caswell  wrote: 
> Dear People,
> 
> This discussion is all very inspiring, but much of it misses the 
> point[s].  While Simone didn't say exactly what mountains she is working 
> in, I assumed from her location that she was speaking of the White 
> Mountains in New Hampshire. I have some experience with those mountains, 
> and they are notorious for difficult terrain, uncertain footing, and 
> unpredictable weather in every month of the year.  Especially in the 
> alpine zone (or to get to the alpine zone), where Simone says she 
> works.  Hence my advice (nothing I have heard here has changed that) 
> that a 3-month old infant is too young.  The happy stories of taking 
> young children "for a hike" may or may not be relevant to Simone's 
> question, depending on what kind of a hike you are speaking of.
> 
> Also not relevant are the discussions of the [very great] rewards of 
> sharing one's scientific activities with one's children and the 
> responses they can give.
> 
> Also very much not relevant are the invocations of how our ancestors 
> lived, and gave birth, and raised children in the wild, unless you want 
> to also bring into the discussion the changes over time in infant 
> mortality rates.
> 
> Child's safety trumps all else.
> 
> I would be very much interested in hearing from other faculty about how 
> they deal with the safety and liability issues arising from taking 
> children in the field, in the care of students under their supervision. 
> I suspect that safety concerns in places like chemistry labs, would 
> immediately rule out the presence of small children there, but field 
> work may (sometimes) invoke different images.
> 
> (Parenthetically, I don't usually supervise students doing field work, 
> so the issue hasn't come up for me.  Most of the students I know who do 
> field work do so on oceanographic research vessels, where children are 
> definitely not going to be taken along.)
> 
> So, to faculty, how do you deal with student safety while working in the 
> field?
> 
> Hal Caswell
> 
> Senior Scientist
> 
> Biology Department MS-34
> Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
> Woods Hole MA 02543
> USA
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 4/9/12 11:16 AM, Sarah Jack Hinners wrote:
> > OK, back to Simone's original question I didn't actually take my babies 
> > into the field with me, but I took my firstborn on his first hike when he 
> > was 13 days old and many many times thereafter.
> > 1. Front carriers: Front carr

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Backpacking with an infant?

[David L. McNeely]

Carolyn, I am the person who mentioned children being forbidden on field trips. 
 I provided that information in response to an explicit question.  The policy 
has nothing to do with whether or not the person who wished to take a child on 
a field trip was a woman or a man.  No parent could take a child on a class 
field trip that I sponsored or supervised.  It is as simple as we are going on 
the field trip to do work.  We do not have time to properly supervise a child.  
And it was in keeping with a university policy, but a policy that I supported.

Beyond that, university insurance did not extend to anyone not a university 
employee and not enrolled in a course.  I am not going to assume liability for 
any person on a field trip without the university having my back.  It happens 
that of the various persons who asked me over the years about taking a child, 
there were as many men as women.  Most of them wanted to take the child to 
expose the child to the environment we were investigating.

There is nothing in any posts I've seen with one exception that makes any 
assumption about whether a woman is able to make reasonable decisions 
concerning her family.  I have seen some posts (and I provided a similar 
perspective) suggesting that taking an infant into such a harsh environment, 
and with the parent focusing on other activities as would usually be necessary 
when working in the field, might not be the best thing to do.

I wish I had had broader, and more cautionary advice concerning a good many 
things I did over the years.  I might have searched for better alternatives.

I did see one post where the author said that poor planning, getting pregnant 
at an inopportune time, or something like that was perhaps at fault, and that 
people are responsible not to let their personal life interfere with 
obligations to a lab or something of that nature.  I responded to that post, 
rather harshly, that the poster's sexism seemed to be showing, and that perhaps 
he wanted only a June Cleaver model of parenthood to prevail.  I don't know 
whether the post was dropped by the moderator for being overly critical of 
another poster.  But, I've said it again here, and we'll see.

David McNeely


 Carolyn Nersesian  wrote: 
> I could be way off-base here, but it seems like the most prevalent 
> undercurrent in this thread is the implicit assumption that Simone or any 
> woman (given that this issue clearly affects woman more than men) is not 
> capable of making a well-informed and responsible decision regarding their 
> family. Over and over again I see this stream of father-knows-best 
> assumptions - from both men and woman - about what is appropriate and what is 
> not appropriate (with some exceptions of course). From assumptions of poor 
> planning, the child is too young, the situation is too dangerous, all the way 
> to forbidding children from be allowed on field trips.

It is unfortunate that woman have not been afforded the same luxury as men have 
had in the recent past to be awarded their own personal child care service 
through marriage. Yet they are expected to function as though this hasn't been 
a predominate career disadvantage or that their careers are not assessed 
against a bar that clearly favors a situation they don't have access too. It 
doesn't look like that kind of advantage is going to be offered to woman 
anytime soon, so perhaps it's time to re-think the entire underlying dynamic 
driving the topic. Especially because this issue seems to be framed within the 
context of an entitlement that never existed for woman and is probably not 
going to exist much longer for men. 


From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news 
[ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] on behalf of David L. McNeely [mcnee...@cox.net]
Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2012 6:08 AM
To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Backpacking with an infant?

I originally responded only to Simone personally.   But, I now see a need for 
wider discussion.  I agree with Hal Caswell and others who have said that child 
safety is paramount.  If at all possible, another approach should be considered.

Hal, in answer to your query:  In forty years of teaching, I had a standing 
policy, supported by the institutions I worked with, that children were not 
allowed on field trips or in laboratories.   The fact that the university's 
insurance stated explicitly that its coverage only extended to such personnel 
made my refusal to allow children a little easier, but in reality, that was a 
convenient excuse for my position.   In all that time, I only had 4 students 
who questioned the policy, and each of those four eventually recognized the 
basis, and found other ways to participate in the field trips.  Once, two 
parents who were in different sections of the same ecology course worked out an 
arrangement whereby th

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Where have all the earthworms gone?

[David L. McNeely]

For what it is worth, my garden and compost are "wriggling" with worms this 
year, far more than usual.  Like Martin, I have speculated that my bounty, like 
his dearth, is due to the warm, almost snowless winter we experienced here in 
central Oklahoma.  Our soil hardly froze all winter, and when it did it was 
only to perhaps 10-20 cm deep.  Usually when I begin working my compost in 
March it has some ice still in it.  This year there was none.  My worms seem to 
be of a single "kind," dark red with a dark gray clitellum, total length around 
10 cm when extended.  On rainy days, and when I am working the soil, they 
emerge to the surface, where they move surprisingly rapidly.  mcneely

 "Bruce A. Snyder"  wrote: 
> Martin,
> I don't have the answers to your questions but I can provide a little
> background that may help. You live in an area that has no native
> earthworms (this may be true for Susannah, whose message you
> forwarded, as well). All of the earthworms you are seeing are
> non-native, some invasive. It sounds to me like you have at least
> three species of European Lumbricidae, and I have guesses on the
> species, although without specimens I'm hesitant to post those.
> 
> Temperature and moisture dictate much of what the soil fauna do. You
> may indeed be seeing the impact of weather on their activity, but we
> have little phenological data for reference. Digging deep into the
> soil and folding into a ball is a common way that earthworms get
> through the bad times, be they cold or dry. I doubt that more
> individuals are freezing unless you had extremely cold temperatures
> that would have frozen the soil beyond your usual frost depth. With
> warmer air temps and little snow cover I think the soil would stay
> warmer on average. Without that insulation layer there would likely be
> more variation in the upper horizons. It could be the change in
> moisture pattern if changes in moisture is a cue for emergence or
> resuming activity. Your hypotheses are good ones and worth testing.
> 
> Heavy clay is not a problem for some species. Because of the
> arrangement of circular and longitudinal muscles they can get into
> small crevices and make them larger.
> 
> -Bruce
> ~~~
> Bruce A. Snyder, PhD      basny...@ksu.edu
> Instructor; Coordinator, REU and URM Programs
> REU: ksu.edu/reu     URM: ecogen.ksu.edu/urm.html
> Earthworms Across Kansas: ksu.edu/earthworm/
> Personal: www-personal.k-state.edu/~basnyder/
> Office: 136 Ackert Hall
>          785-532-2430
> Mail: Kansas State University
>       Division of Biology
>       116 Ackert Hall
>       Manhattan, KS 66506-4901
> "How many miles of unexplored caves are there?”
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 4:57 PM, Martin Meiss  wrote:
> > Several people have asked what species of earthworm are involved, and
> > sadly, I don't know enough about worms to be able to say.  However, I
> > regularly see these types:
> >
> > 1.  Big (6 to 10 inches) brown night crawlers, who sneak out of their
> > burrows and night and perform hermaphroditic sex acts when they think no
> > one is looking.  Their tails are rather flattened and bristly and they can
> > hang on very tightly to the walls of their tunnels.
> >
> > 2.  Small (3 to 4 inch) reddish worms with very noticeable whitish rings.
> > I often find these in large groups, perhaps 30 or 40 within a square-foot
> > patch of very moist rotting leaves or under the bark of very moist rotting
> > logs.
> >
> > 3.  Small (3 to 4 inch) pale brown-to-pinkish worms without prominent
> > rings, sometimes quite abundant in topsoil and compost.  This might be a
> > juvenile stage of the the large night crawler, but I don't thinks so
> > because they don't have the flattened tail and they don't seem to have
> > permanent burrows.
> >
> > Those are the common types, and all of them seem fewer this year.
> >
> > Occasionally, when I have been digging deep, say for a fence post, I have
> > found little pink earthworms all balled up and in a cavity in a nodule of
> > clay.  The walls of the cavity seem to conform to the coils of the
> > balled-up body of the worm and show delicate sculpting.  I have observed
> > this during warm weather and am very curious how a soft-bodied little worm
> > could dig into tough clay, and without leaving an obvious entrance tunnel.
> >
> > Martin M. Meiss
> >
> > -- Forwarded message --
> > From: Martin Meiss 
> > Date: 2012/4/10
> > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Where have all the earthworms gone?
> > To: Susannah Woodruff 
> >
> >
> > Yeah, it's a reply-all vs. repy-to-sender thing, but I'm not sure of the
> > exact wording because I have my gmail account set up in German.  I'll post
> > your reply to the web.
> >
> >
> > Martin
> >
> > 2012/4/10 Susannah Woodruff 
> >
> >> no i didn't intentionally send it to just you. i should have hit reply
> >> all? not sure how to send to the whole list, but feel free to send my email
> >> to the 

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Families in Science - Balancing your personal and professional life

[David L. McNeely]

Rachel, I believe that the relative success of combining family life and work 
life is similar for scientists and other highly intensive occupations.  It is 
simply a matter of how individuals manage, their temperaments and their 
abilities to deal with stress when it arises, as it inevitably will.  Some do 
better than others.  Knowing oneself, knowing one's family member's needs, and 
making commitments for both work and family that one knows one can keep are 
most important.  I might have done better at both work and family life had I 
understood that better at a younger age, not that I am disappointed with either 
at this late point in my life.

David McNeely

 Rachel Guy  wrote: 
> I've been following the debate Simone Whitecloud inspired concerning babies 
> in the field. This brought to mind something I was told when I was pursuing 
> my B.S.  in Wildlife Ecology:

"You can be a scientist, a spouse or a parent.  Two of these things you can be 
simultaneously great at doing, while the third will suffer."  I'm not sure I 
entirely agree with this statement, but I have seen personal relationships 
tried by professional obligations and professional obligations tried by 
personal obligations. Particularly in a field that often demands long absences 
and irregular hours, I can see how this would particularly be true. Though, I 
have also seen faculty and research scientists with families that seem pretty 
stable and happy. Is there any substance to this paradigm, and if so, are there 
realistic ways in which we can change them? I'd love to hear the communities' 
thoughts on this as it is something that I have often reflected on as I've 
progressed through my career. Can we have it all? What are the key differences 
between the ones that are seemingly able to do it and the one's where the 
challenges become too great?

Rachel Guy
Project Coordinator, Research Assistant





--
David McNeely

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Families in Science - Balancing your personal and professional life

[David L. McNeely]

Andres, do you have any ideas about how we can import that Finlandian model to 
the U.S.?  And how to get more universities and other employers in the U.S. to 
recognize the need to provide for professional couples?  Thanks, David

 Andres Lopez-Sepulcre  wrote: 
> In my experience, it all depends on the country and how easy funding  
> agencies, research institutions and governments make it. I have  
> experience in several countries: Spain, USA, France and Finland. They  
> each have their good and bad points on that respect. Fore example,  
> while the USA and Canada tend to be pretty good at opening jobs for  
> couples, which helps enormously the two-body problem, I find that some  
> European countries offer better conditions to be a parent. For  
> example, in Finland and Sweden the government offers paid maternity  
> and/or paternity leaves of at least 10 months. Since this is a  
> 'stipend' independent of the scientific fellowship or contract, it  
> essentially means that if they had 3-years of funding, they now will  
> have that + 10 months (i.e. the grant or contract 'slides' forward).  
> Moreover, there are good free or cheap daycare services and even  
> sometimes, daycare or family-housing in field stations. The conditions  
> are so good that I have never seen such a high rate of graduate  
> students pregnant or with children as in those countries... and they  
> are consequentially doing better than average at keeping women in  
> science. Of course, many countries (like Spain, my home-country) fail  
> in all aspects.
> 
> Andres Lopez-Sepulcre
> Laboratoire d'Ecologie, UMR 7625
> Ecole Normale Superieure, Paris
> alo...@biologie.ens.fr
> 
> http://web.me.com/asepulcre
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Apr 11, 2012, at 5:54 PM, Rachel Guy wrote:
> 
> > I've been following the debate Simone Whitecloud inspired concerning  
> > babies in the field. This brought to mind something I was told when  
> > I was pursuing my B.S.  in Wildlife Ecology:
> >
> > "You can be a scientist, a spouse or a parent.  Two of these things  
> > you can be simultaneously great at doing, while the third will  
> > suffer."  I'm not sure I entirely agree with this statement, but I  
> > have seen personal relationships tried by professional obligations  
> > and professional obligations tried by personal obligations.  
> > Particularly in a field that often demands long absences and  
> > irregular hours, I can see how this would particularly be true.  
> > Though, I have also seen faculty and research scientists with  
> > families that seem pretty stable and happy. Is there any substance  
> > to this paradigm, and if so, are there realistic ways in which we  
> > can change them? I'd love to hear the communities' thoughts on this  
> > as it is something that I have often reflected on as I've progressed  
> > through my career. Can we have it all? What are the key differences  
> > between the ones that are seemingly able to do it and the one's  
> > where the challenges become too great?
> >
> > Rachel Guy
> > Project Coordinator, Research Assistant
> >
> >
> >

--
David McNeely

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Fwd: [ECOLOG-L] Families in Science - Balancing your personal and professional life

[David L. McNeely]

Clara, I respectfully disagree with some of your points.  I will not detail 
each point, but will simply point out that collaboration is now the norm in 
science.  Look at the lists of authors, sometimes running to 10, on a paper 
nowadays.

People should get respect and reputation for the contributions they make, not 
for whether they are an 80 hour per week workaholic.  I've known plenty of 
those who were neither full people, nor very effective either when it came down 
to production.

Things can change without losing quality.  So far as accepting funding, that 
creates a responsibility to try to do one's best to accomplish the purpose of 
the funding, not to commit a life of 80 hour work weeks.

Women are people, too.  Even men are people, and can recognize the humanity in 
others.

Respectfully, David McNeely

 "Clara B. Jones"  wrote: 
> Andres: 1. ...i think i really do "hear" what you are saying, and i "get"
> that the advantages afforded to professional females (including females in
> research science careers) in some countries are beneficial to them and
> their families...
> 2. ...however, what level of Science are these females doing...
> 3. ...is their productivity, including the quality of their research,
> equivalent to that of USA men who work, say, 80+ h/week...
> 4. ...is the quality of work being done in the countries you
> cite equivalent to what would be required to achieve "senior" (i;e.,
> professorship [+]) status in the US...
> 5. ...i don't think i know what the answers to the above questions are;
> however, i suspect the answers are "no"...
> 6. ...from what i do know, however, i THINK that collaborative research is
> acceptable in Europe to a degree that it is not in the USA where, it seems
> to me, females who rely on collaboration are often/usually perceived as
> "hitch(h)iking" on a senior person's research projects...though this
> strategy may, indeed, purchase senior status in the USA, it often does not
> translate to reputation or respect (indeed, there are exceptions)...
> 7. ...following from the threads on this topic in the past few d...i think
> i "hear" females saying that they're not competing for the sorts of
> positions that i describe above...so be it...as one respondent put it,
> after a baby came her "priorities changed"...again, so be it...SORT OF...
> 8. ...what i mean by SORT OF is that i don't see a problem with USA females
> changing priorities UNLESS they've received funding or made other
> commitments under the guise that they want to be senior scientists *as
> defined in USA*...
> 9. ...several female respondents have pointed out that female graduate
> students, post-docs, etc. are "grown-ups" capable of making their own
> "rational" decisions...all good...then they should be prepared to assume
> responsibility for their decisions...understanding *the realities of USA
> science that they signed up for*...
> 10. ...what is the Plan B for these girls that will fulfill their
> commitments *(to USA science)* when they switch priorities...
> 11. ...what is their plan for purchasing UNDIVIDED, UNINTERRUPTED,
> SINGLE-FOCUSED, LONG-TERM, OFTEN UNPREDICTABLE TIME required to accomplish
> the sort of senior science *as defined by USA standards*...
> 12. ...some females & minorities assert that the structure of USA science
> needs to change...for a variety of reasons...
> 13. ...however, why should the USA modify the system producing among the
> best and most successful scientists in the world...
> 14. ...more important, in my opinion...is that "RATIONAL" grown-ups of
> whatever sex or sexual orientation or personal status sign up for this
> system & need not only to have their eyes open but need to step up by not
> changing the rules unilaterally in mid- or late-stream...clara
> 
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: Andres Lopez-Sepulcre 
> Date: Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 4:01 PM
> Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Families in Science - Balancing your personal and
> professional life
> To: ECOLOG-L@listserv.umd.edu
> 
> 
> Andres, do you have any ideas about how we can import that Finlandian model
> > to the U.S.?  And how to get more universities and other employers in the
> > U.S. to recognize the need to provide for professional couples?  Thanks,
> > David
> >
> 
> Ufff... this discussion may become more political than ecological... the
> problem, as I see it is more fundamental. How willing are we to pay higher
> and more progressive taxes, socialize higher education (and health care),
> punish job instability, remove undergraduate and graduate student fees (in
> fact, undergraduates are paid in Finland!!) or increase graduate
> student/post-doc salaries and benefits at the cost of reducing those of
> professors...?
> 
> 
>   Andres Lopez-Sepulcre  wrote:
> >
> >> In my experience, it all depends on the country and how easy funding
> >> agencies, research institutions and governments make it. I have
> >> experience in several countries: Spain, USA, Franc

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Fwd: [ECOLOG-L] Families in Science - Balancing your personal and professional life

[David L. McNeely]

?? Clara simply said everything about the current system as she 
sees it is fine, and those who find it does not provide effectively for them to 
participate and contribute because they have family responsibilities, well, too 
bad, they knew the system when they started, and should not want anything 
different from what they saw.  I saw nothing in her post that challenges the 
current system.  Rather, she challenges those who find fault with it to retreat 
from it and give up on the notion of participation and contribution.

David McNeely

 "Williams wrote: 
> It sounds like Clara is challenging the current theory and questioning it but 
> I don't see that she has in any way perpetuated dysfunction. 
> 
> Facts indicate that woman have been and are still discriminated against but 
> this doesn't explain all the variation we see- not by a long shot I don't 
> think. 
> 
> I am not saying I agree with Clara, but wow, your statement, Silvia, is very 
> dogmatic. Clara presented ideas to be considered and opinion to help inform 
> the collective. Silvia rather, sounds much more bombastic with the intent to 
> stifle her- that is unfortunate.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news 
> [mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of Silvia Secchi
> Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2012 8:43 AM
> To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
> Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Fwd: [ECOLOG-L] Families in Science - Balancing your 
> personal and professional life
> 
> Men make the rules, men win the game, Clara. People like you that do not 
> question the system or do not try to change it perpetuate a dysfunctional 
> professional environment.
> 
> Silvia Secchi
> Assistant Professor, Energy Economics & Policy Southern Illinois University 
> Carbondale
> 
> 
> On Apr 11, 2012, at 11:14 PM, "Clara B. Jones"  wrote:
> 
> > Andres: 1. ...i think i really do "hear" what you are saying, and i "get"
> > that the advantages afforded to professional females (including 
> > females in research science careers) in some countries are beneficial 
> > to them and their families...
> > 2. ...however, what level of Science are these females doing...
> > 3. ...is their productivity, including the quality of their research, 
> > equivalent to that of USA men who work, say, 80+ h/week...
> > 4. ...is the quality of work being done in the countries you cite 
> > equivalent to what would be required to achieve "senior" (i;e., 
> > professorship [+]) status in the US...
> > 5. ...i don't think i know what the answers to the above questions 
> > are; however, i suspect the answers are "no"...
> > 6. ...from what i do know, however, i THINK that collaborative 
> > research is acceptable in Europe to a degree that it is not in the USA 
> > where, it seems to me, females who rely on collaboration are 
> > often/usually perceived as "hitch(h)iking" on a senior person's 
> > research projects...though this strategy may, indeed, purchase senior 
> > status in the USA, it often does not translate to reputation or respect 
> > (indeed, there are exceptions)...
> > 7. ...following from the threads on this topic in the past few d...i 
> > think i "hear" females saying that they're not competing for the sorts 
> > of positions that i describe above...so be it...as one respondent put 
> > it, after a baby came her "priorities changed"...again, so be it...SORT 
> > OF...
> > 8. ...what i mean by SORT OF is that i don't see a problem with USA 
> > females changing priorities UNLESS they've received funding or made 
> > other commitments under the guise that they want to be senior 
> > scientists *as defined in USA*...
> > 9. ...several female respondents have pointed out that female graduate 
> > students, post-docs, etc. are "grown-ups" capable of making their own 
> > "rational" decisions...all good...then they should be prepared to 
> > assume responsibility for their decisions...understanding *the 
> > realities of USA science that they signed up for*...
> > 10. ...what is the Plan B for these girls that will fulfill their 
> > commitments *(to USA science)* when they switch priorities...
> > 11. ...what is their plan for purchasing UNDIVIDED, UNINTERRUPTED, 
> > SINGLE-FOCUSED, LONG-TERM, OFTEN UNPREDICTABLE TIME required to 
> > accomplish the sort of senior science *as defined by USA standards*...
> > 12. ...some females & minorities assert that the structure of USA 
> > science needs to change...for a variety of reasons...
> > 13. ...however, why should the USA modify the system producing among 
> > the best and most successful scientists in the world...
> > 14. ...more important, in my opinion...is that "RATIONAL" grown-ups of 
> > whatever sex or sexual orientation or personal status sign up for this 
> > system & need not only to have their eyes open but need to step up by 
> > not changing the rules unilaterally in mid- or late-stream...clara
> > 
> > -- Forwarded message --
>

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Pond health and maintenance

[David L. McNeely]

Cynthia, answers to you questions might partly depend on where your pond is 
located.

But, in my experience, in my locality, a heavy growth of duckweed usually means 
that there may be some nutrient imbalance.  Does your pond receive runoff from 
a fertilized pasture or other source of excess nutrients?

So far as removal, skimming is about as good as any.  In some cases, 
establishment of other aquatic macrophytes that can utilize the nutrients can 
help through competition.

Your pond is pretty good sized.  Does it have fish in it?  Generally, ponds 
with healthy fish populations fish do not produce a lot of mosquitoes.  If 
there are native fish in nearby bodies of water, placing some of the same 
species in the pond is likely to reduce a mosquito problem.  Some species are 
better mosquito predators than others.  If there is a _Gambusia_ species native 
to the local watershed, then that would be an excellent candidate.  However, I 
would not fall prey to the practice of many public health departments and 
"mosquito abatement districts" of stocking _Gambusia_ outside its native range.

Good luck, David McNeely

 Cynthia Ross  wrote: 
> Dear all,
> 
> I am a marine biologist and as such do not know much about maintaining a 
> fresh water pond.  Our pond is approximately 3/4 to 1 acre and has recently 
> been covered by duck weed.   I have not been able to locate any natural ways 
> to remove it other than skimming.  I am only concerned that the duckweed will 
> harm the other life in the pond if it is too dense.  I would also be 
> interested in finding natural ways to combat mosquitos.
> 
> Thank you,
> CR

--
David McNeely

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Invasion, or progression?

[David L. McNeely]

I appreciate that this question was asked now by an undergraduate.  It is 
always good to hear good questions from young people.

However, it is a question that comes up on here periodically, and this example 
of a native "invasive" is always given, sometimes by me, sometimes by others.  
But now I wonder about the example.  It may be that rather than being an 
example of a native invasive, it simply illustrates, very clearly, why some 
object to this terminology altogether.  Eastern red cedar (_Juniperus 
virginianus_) is native to the central plains of the U.S.   For Matt Chew, let 
me say that by saying it is native there, I mean that it was present before 
Europeans arrived on the scene.  

In much of the prairie portion of eastern red cedar range it formerly was 
confined to riparian areas, canyons, and steep ridges that were not subject to 
periodic burning.  The plant is very susceptible to fire.  Over time with 
settlement it has become more common and more widespread, moving out onto 
formerly treeless prairie, where it has now formed extensive thick woodlands 
where little else grows.  These dense forested areas are often referred to as 
"cedar breaks."

Those who object to the use of the term "invasive" for any organisms point out 
that those that are so described either previously had not had a chance to 
interact in the system where they are considered invasive (exotics) or 
conditions have changed such that their former absence or rarity is becoming or 
has becoming commonness (either exotics or natives).  Some would say they have 
been "released" from former suppression due to conditions, as when a rare 
understory plant becomes abundant in the succession that takes place after a 
canopy is removed.

The point of this is that habitat alteration is frequently responsible for 
"invasion," and eastern red cedar is an example of what happens when the 
habitat is changed in favor of a species formerly rare in a given setting.  
Fire was formerly common in the prairies where red cedar now "invades."  The 
plant would have been common there all along without that single physical 
limiting factor.

Should it be called "invasive"?  Let the prairie burn again, and eastern red 
cedar would become a prairie rarity except in fire protected locales again.  
But some are finding that the restricted seasons and conditions of controlled 
burns fail to turn back this "invasion."

BTW, a major contributor to the sudden surge of this invasion in the late 20th 
century is the increasing density of settlement of exurban areas by people.  
The land is cut up into smaller parcels and people live on them.  Where people 
live, prairie wildfire is often considered highly undesirable, due to lives and 
property endangerment.

David McNeely
  
 Steve Young  wrote: 
> Interesting question, can a native become invasive? I would suggest that in 
> some instances this is the case. For example, eastern redcedar in the Central 
> Prairie is native, but has now become invasive in many locations. The main 
> reason is the lack of fire that used to occur naturally prior to settlement 
> by Europeans. 
> 
> For those who want to know more, we will be addressing this topic at the 
> NAIPSC later in June. I expect the discussion will be quite good. Maybe I'll 
> post a summary to ECOLOG then.
> 
> Steve
> 
> ___
> Stephen L. Young, PhD
> Weed Ecologist
> University of Nebraska-Lincoln
> 
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news 
> [mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of ling huang
> Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2012 8:37 PM
> To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
> Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Invasion, or progression?
> 
> Hi
> 
> I am a chemist and not an ecologist but I'm very interested in this thread 
> since I enjoy the wetlands area close to Sacramento near the Davis Yolo 
> Causeway. I wondered and am interested in this invasive or progression type 
> question. I saw that there was a species called Purple Loosestrife (Lythrum 
> salicaria) that was introduced in the 1800s (?) and is a wetland flower that 
> has invaded wetlands. I suppose my question is how far do we go back to 
> determine if a species is invasive. Is there a time or case when an invasive 
> becomes a native? I did see this interesting online article where the 
> question asked was "Can native species become invasive?"
> 
> http://ipmsouth.com/2010/11/23/can-native-species-become-invasive/
> 
> Thanks. Ling
> 
> Ling Huang
> Sacramento City College
>     
> 
> --- On Sun, 4/22/12, Amanda Newsom  wrote:
> 
> From: Amanda Newsom 
> Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Invasion, or progression?
> To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
> Date: Sunday, April 22, 2012, 3:40 PM
> 
> Very intelligent members of the public have asked me this question when they 
> approach me in the field and I have some time to chat.  It's a great 
> question, because invasions biology is attacked politically on this front, so 
> it's one to 

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Invasion, or progression?

[David L. McNeely]

 "Russell L. Burke"  wrote: 
> raccoons are native invasives

What are they invading?  Do you mean they are more common than formerly?  An 
individual raccoon invaded my yard, drinking from my bird bath and catching and 
eating crayfish from my pond.  But somehow that doesn't strike me as what is 
meant by invasive in an ecological context.

RBurke


From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news 
[ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] on behalf of Steve Young [steve.yo...@unl.edu]
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2012 9:22 PM
To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Invasion, or progression?

Interesting question, can a native become invasive? I would suggest that in 
some instances this is the case. For example, eastern redcedar in the Central 
Prairie is native, but has now become invasive in many locations. The main 
reason is the lack of fire that used to occur naturally prior to settlement by 
Europeans.

For those who want to know more, we will be addressing this topic at the NAIPSC 
later in June. I expect the discussion will be quite good. Maybe I'll post a 
summary to ECOLOG then.

Steve

___
Stephen L. Young, PhD
Weed Ecologist
University of Nebraska-Lincoln



-Original Message-
From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news 
[mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of ling huang
Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2012 8:37 PM
To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Invasion, or progression?

Hi

I am a chemist and not an ecologist but I'm very interested in this thread 
since I enjoy the wetlands area close to Sacramento near the Davis Yolo 
Causeway. I wondered and am interested in this invasive or progression type 
question. I saw that there was a species called Purple Loosestrife (Lythrum 
salicaria) that was introduced in the 1800s (?) and is a wetland flower that 
has invaded wetlands. I suppose my question is how far do we go back to 
determine if a species is invasive. Is there a time or case when an invasive 
becomes a native? I did see this interesting online article where the question 
asked was "Can native species become invasive?"

http://ipmsouth.com/2010/11/23/can-native-species-become-invasive/

Thanks. Ling

Ling Huang
Sacramento City College


--- On Sun, 4/22/12, Amanda Newsom  wrote:

From: Amanda Newsom 
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Invasion, or progression?
To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
Date: Sunday, April 22, 2012, 3:40 PM

Very intelligent members of the public have asked me this question when they 
approach me in the field and I have some time to chat.  It's a great question, 
because invasions biology is attacked politically on this front, so it's one to 
which professionals really must craft a coherent response in friendly 
conversation.

Another point to consider is the evolutionary history of native vs.
introduced (non-native) species in any particular system.  One of the reasons 
non-natives are of concern is that they do not share evolutionary history with 
the native community, and this contributes to the unpredictable biodiversity 
loss cited by other comments presented here.
 This can also be discussed in light of the homogenization of life on earth, 
because there are many species favored, facilitated, or directly cultivated by 
humans that are now distributed worldwide.  Some of these species threaten 
regional biodiversity (Check out the book Ecological Imperialism for a really 
interesting perspective on colonialism as an ecological process via 
introduction of new dominant species).  There's a lot coming out now on 
evolution and invasive species as well that is, at least in part, reasonably 
accessible to a general audience or the academic in ecology/evolution who is 
wanting to step into invasion biology.

Related to this (somewhat tangentially) is that the buildup of introduced and 
invasive species in systems like San Francisco Bay has also increased the 
number and complexity of biological interactions, both introduced-introduced 
and introduced-native.  Increasing professional interest in 
introduced-introduced interactions hasn't yet yielded a whole lot of 
generalized hypotheses, but it has opened new windows to how complex this issue 
is biologically and how best to protect species of interest as well as local 
biodiversity.

That was a far longer and more convoluted comment than I originally intended!  
Hopefully, Joshua, some of that is useful perspective.  Thanks for posing the 
question to ECOLOG!  It can be intimidating to put something like this out 
there as an undergrad, and I'm glad you took the initiative.
 It comes up a lot, as you can see, and ECOLOG is a  great forum for this 
discussion.
A.

On Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 9:19 AM, Ruhl, Nathan  wrote:

> I posed a very similar question to a group of graduate students and
> professors during a theoretical ecology seminar a few years ago.  The
> central premise was that humans, by virtue of our
> innate-desire/ab

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Invasion, or progression?

[David L. McNeely]

Ling, so far as purple loosestrife is concerned, it is considered invasive and 
a pest, and conservation agencies have active control programs operating.  I 
believe it is considered responsible for degradation of wetlands in many parts 
of the U.S.  
 ling huang  wrote: 

Thanks for your interests in matters ecological.   David McNeely
Hi
> 
> Thank you for all of the email and examples. Again
 I must first say I am a chemist and teach chemistry, not an ecologist, 
and in my initial message I just wondered whether or not Purple 
Loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) that was introduced in the 1800s (?) and
 is a wetland flower. Is this flower today considered invasive or 
native? I then thought that it was interesting to ask if there are 
examples of invasive becoming native; or native becoming invasive? So 
this is all interesting to me. As to using the word "invasive", when I 
do a search there are literally 1000s of articles using the words native
 and invasive.
> 
> So I really thank you for the response and debate.
 Someone mentioned and sent a link about risk assessment (guidelines). 
It seems that would be a good idea as well as using meta analyses in 
such risk assessments.       
> 
> Here are a few of the articles I plan and/or have been looking
 through.
>  
> Cavaleri, Molly A., and Lawren Sack. 2010. Comparative water
 use of native and invasive plants at multiple scales: a global 
meta-analysis. Ecology 91:2705–2715.
> Risk Analysis, Vol. 26, No. 1, 2006 Risk Analysis for Biological Hazards: 
> What We Need
> to Know about Invasive Species by Stohlgren and John Schnase.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Ling Huang
> Sacramento City College
> http://huangl.webs.com
> 
> --- On Mon, 4/23/12, Wayne Tyson  wrote:
> 
> From: Wayne Tyson 
> Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Invasion, or progression?
> To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
> Date: Monday, April 23, 2012, 8:35 PM
> 
> Ecolog:
> 
> Organisms respond to changes in the elements of their habitats. We can call 
> that "invasive," and we do, but we must remember that "invasion" is a 
> cultural concept drawn from a culturally-loaded (biased) observation. It is a 
> conclusion, not a phenomenon.
> 
> WT
> 
> 
> - Original Message - From: "Steve Young" 
> To: 
> Sent: Monday, April 23, 2012 6:22 PM
> Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Invasion, or progression?
> 
> 
> Interesting question, can a native become invasive? I would suggest that in 
> some instances this is the case. For example, eastern redcedar in the Central 
> Prairie is native, but has now become invasive in many locations. The main 
> reason is the lack of fire that used to occur naturally prior to settlement 
> by Europeans.
> 
> For those who want to know more, we will be addressing this topic at the 
> NAIPSC later in June. I expect the discussion will be quite good. Maybe I'll 
> post a summary to ECOLOG then.
> 
> Steve
> 
> ___
> Stephen L. Young, PhD
> Weed Ecologist
> University of Nebraska-Lincoln
> 
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news 
> [mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of ling huang
> Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2012 8:37 PM
> To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
> Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Invasion, or progression?
> 
> Hi
> 
> I am a chemist and not an ecologist but I'm very interested in this thread 
> since I enjoy the wetlands area close to Sacramento near the Davis Yolo 
> Causeway. I wondered and am interested in this invasive or progression type 
> question. I saw that there was a species called Purple Loosestrife (Lythrum 
> salicaria) that was introduced in the 1800s (?) and is a wetland flower that 
> has invaded wetlands. I suppose my question is how far do we go back to 
> determine if a species is invasive. Is there a time or case when an invasive 
> becomes a native? I did see this interesting online article where the 
> question asked was "Can native species become invasive?"
> 
> http://ipmsouth.com/2010/11/23/can-native-species-become-invasive/
> 
> Thanks. Ling
> 
> Ling Huang
> Sacramento City College
> 
> 
> --- On Sun, 4/22/12, Amanda Newsom  wrote:
> 
> From: Amanda Newsom 
> Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Invasion, or progression?
> To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
> Date: Sunday, April 22, 2012, 3:40 PM
> 
> Very intelligent members of the public have asked me this question when they 
> approach me in the field and I have some time to chat. It's a great question, 
> because invasions biology is attacked politically on this front, so it's one 
> to which professionals really must craft a coherent response in friendly 
> conversation.
> 
> Another point to consider is the evolutionary history of native vs.
> introduced (non-native) species in any particular system. One of the reasons 
> non-natives are of concern is that they do not share evolutionary history 
> with the native community, and this contributes to the unpredictable 
> biodiversity loss cited by other comments presented here.
> This can also 

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Plants Invasive natives? Re: [ECOLOG-L] Invasion, or progression?

[David L. McNeely]

Well, several responses have answered in the affirmative so far as natives 
becoming invasive, with examples.  Raccoons and Eastern Red Cedar come to mind 
as examples mentioned so far.  I won't comment further here on my thoughts 
about them. 
 
So far as "When do invasives become native?":  What about when people who never 
knew them as exotics are the oldest people looking.  That would make Russian 
Thistle and both species of Tamarisk now native in the western U.S.  But, there 
are control programs for Tamarisk.  So far as I know, only farmers and ranchers 
make any effort to control Russian thistle (tumbleweed). 

Another example of exotic to native so far as function is concerned might be 
common carp in North America.  Which brings to mind that a fair number of 
exotic fishes have been planted in locales where they have become an accepted 
(and even welcomed) part of the local fish fauna.  Some of them are "sports 
fishes." Among these are several trouts from North America transplanted to 
other parts of North America, Europe, Africa, S. America;  Several centrarchids 
from eastern 
North America transplanted to western North America, Africa, S. America;  Brown 
trout from Europe to North America; striped bass from the Atlantic seaboard of 
North America to interior river systems in North America.   
 
If the introduction is on purpose for a supposed benefit, does it still count 
as invasive when it becomes widely established? 

David McNeely

 Wayne Tyson  wrote: 
> Ecolog,
> 
> I am dismayed that there has been so little response to Huang's questions. 
> Perhaps I am wrong in that assumption and they have been. But it seems to me 
> that the questions should be addressed and some conclusions concluded, even 
> if they are two-headed.
> 
> I suggest that everyone read the article to which Huang supplied a link. It 
> is not long, nor is it complicated. I suspect that there may be a 
> fundamental flaw in the article's premise, but I will leave that judgment up 
> to my betters . . .
> 
> Coincidentally, Joshua Wilson's original post (Invasion or progression?) did 
> not define "progression," nor has anyone else, and Wilson has not responded 
> to my request for a definition. I think it is essential that it be defined 
> before his question can be answered. If Josh was just joshing us, or he is 
> incapacitated, I may have to lower his grade from an A+ to, say, a "C" for 
> mediocrity, due to his unresponsiveness. Are you there, Josh?
> 
> I will await the responses from others on the questions by Huang:
> 
> 1. (When) do invasives become native?
> 
> 2. Can natives become invasive?
> 
> I hope that greater responsiveness will encourage Huang, the chemist, to 
> continue to take his cross-fertilization attempt seriously and not to give 
> up on ecologists.
> 
> WT
> 
> 
> - Original Message - 
> From: "ling huang" 
> To: 
> Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2012 6:37 PM
> Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Invasion, or progression?
> 
> 
> Hi
> 
> I am a chemist and not an ecologist but I'm very interested in this thread 
> since I enjoy the wetlands area close to Sacramento near the Davis Yolo 
> Causeway. I wondered and am interested in this invasive or progression type 
> question. I saw that there was a species called Purple Loosestrife (Lythrum 
> salicaria) that was introduced in the 1800s (?) and is a wetland flower that 
> has invaded wetlands. I suppose my question is how far do we go back to 
> determine if a species is invasive. Is there a time or case when an invasive 
> becomes a native? I did see this interesting online article where the 
> question asked was "Can native species become invasive?"
> 
> http://ipmsouth.com/2010/11/23/can-native-species-become-invasive/
> 
> Thanks. Ling
> 
> Ling Huang
> Sacramento City College
> 
> 
> --- On Sun, 4/22/12, Amanda Newsom  wrote:
> 
> From: Amanda Newsom 
> Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Invasion, or progression?
> To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
> Date: Sunday, April 22, 2012, 3:40 PM
> 
> Very intelligent members of the public have asked me this question when
> they approach me in the field and I have some time to chat. It's a great
> question, because invasions biology is attacked politically on this front,
> so it's one to which professionals really must craft a coherent response in
> friendly conversation.
> 
> Another point to consider is the evolutionary history of native vs.
> introduced (non-native) species in any particular system. One of the
> reasons non-natives are of concern is that they do not share evolutionary
> history with the native community, and this contributes to the
> unpredictable biodiversity loss cited by other comments presented here.
>  This can also be discussed in light of the homogenization of life on
> earth, because there are many species favored, facilitated, or directly
> cultivated by humans that are now distributed worldwide. Some of these
> species threaten regional biodiversity (Check out the book Ecological
> Imperi

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Families in Science - Balancing your personal and professional life

[David L. McNeely]

This is not meant as a wet blanket, as I encourage family friendly employment 
practices for all countries and for all occupations.  But, I wonder how those 
figures would look if all areas of science were considered?  It may be that 
smaller economies, and the Scandinavian countries in particular, put a greater 
fraction of their available resources for scientific research into ecology than 
do larger economies and non-Scandinavian countries.  Is U.S. science more 
diversified than Finnish or Icelandic science?

David McNeely

 Andres Lopez-Sepulcre  wrote: 
> Since we're at it, it did the same calculation for all four countries  
> ranked first in gender equality by the Global Gender Gap Report. All  
> four, as far as I remember, provide generous paternity leaves that  
> guarantee job security and can be shared between mother and father.
> 
> ISI indexed publications in Ecology per capita (countries ranked in  
> order of 'gender equality index')
> Iceland: 1167
> Norway: 1794
> Finland: 1500
> Sweden: 1361
> 
> Not only do these countries do significantly better in ecology 'per  
> capita' than the less family-oriented scientific powerhouses (e.g.  
> USA: 650, UK: 660), but it almost seems that if anything, their  
> ranking in the gender equality index is correlated with their  
> productivity, not an 'impediment' ... safe for Iceland, but do  
> remember that Iceland suffered the largest financial collapse in world  
> history in these last 5 years.
> 
> Even when this small sample and oversimplified analysis is not proof  
> of anything, I hope it can change peoples' perceptions that countries  
> that have increased social welfare, gender equality and more  
> protective labour laws are less productive.
> 
> 
> 
> Andres Lopez-Sepulcre
> Laboratoire d'Ecologie, UMR 7625
> Ecole Normale Superieure, Paris
> alo...@biologie.ens.fr
> 
> http://web.me.com/asepulcre
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Apr 27, 2012, at 6:43 PM, Cecilia Hennessy wrote:
> 
> > PERFECT response, thank you so much!  If we Americans could stop  
> > patting ourselves on the back long enough to realize that other  
> > countries have successful ways of doing things too, maybe we could  
> > learn from international example and progress more efficiently.   
> > cheers!
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 7:48 AM, Andres Lopez-Sepulcre 
> >  > > wrote:
> > "...however, why should the USA modify the system producing among  
> > the best and most successful scientists in the world..."
> >
> > I would simply like to add a quick clarification. I struggled with  
> > how to respond to this US-centric statement. There is no doubt that  
> > the USA is a scientific powerhouse and I have wonderful things to  
> > say about my experience as a scientist there, which has brought me  
> > wonderful collaborations I hope last long. However I am not sure it  
> > is fair to compare a country of over 300 million inhabitants with  
> > another of 5 (Finland). In fact, I took the liberty do do a quick  
> > search in Web of Science for articles in the area of 'Environmental  
> > Sciences and Ecology' for both countries in the last 5 years. USA  
> > showed 204,414 in front of 8,119 Finnish articles indexed in ISI. If  
> > one thinks 'per capita', the USA has produced 650 indexed articles  
> > in ecology per million inhabitants, while Finland has produced  
> > 1,500. With this I do not mean to say that Finland is better or  
> > worse... but just to show that, when the comparison is done  
> > 'fairly', maternity leaves do not seem to be hampering Finnish  
> > ecology. Productivity can be achieved without equality and social  
> > welfare suffering.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Andres Lopez-Sepulcre
> > Laboratoire d'Ecologie, UMR 7625
> > Ecole Normale Superieure, Paris
> > alo...@biologie.ens.fr
> >
> > http://web.me.com/asepulcre
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Apr 12, 2012, at 6:52 PM, Amanda Quillen wrote:
> >
> > "...however, why should the USA modify the system producing among  
> > the best and most successful scientists in the world..."
> >
> >
> >
> > -- 
> > Cecilia A. Hennessy
> > PhD Candidate
> > Purdue University
> > 715 W. State St
> > Pfendler Hall, G004
> > West Lafayette, IN 47907-2061
> > lab: 765-496-6868
> > cell: 574-808-9696

--
David McNeely

Re: [ECOLOG-L] new HR bill requires NSF funders to justify funding

[David L. McNeely]

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"  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,  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  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 justif

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Recent PhDs on Food Stamps - Overwhelmed with Replies

[David L. McNeely]

 Kevin Klein  wrote: 
> I haven't been able to follow the entire thread but one thing I draw from
> what I have read is that it is incumbent on those of us who work with
> students at all stages in their academic careers to also advise them to
> consider the job market in their chosen disciplines.  In so doing, they
> make more informed decision and they study with eyes open wide on the
> possibilities open to them at the next stage in their life and career
> journey.  Much easier said than done.  It reminds me of two PhD markets in
> recent years.  One, where hundreds of applicants vied for the reported 2 or
> 3 job openings that year and second the hundreds of positions open for the
> 2 or 3 PhD candidates graduating each year.  Hopefully we advise our
> students of the job market realities.  One place a student might look for
> this information can be found here.
> http://www.bls.gov/ooh/occupation-finder.htm
> 
> 
Hmmm .  I was an academic biologist for 35+ years, after the time spent 
preparing.  I cannot recall a time when there were "hundreds of positions open 
for 2 or 3 Ph.D. candidates graduating each year."  I do recall a good many 
times when the opposite was true.

David McNeely

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Recent PhDs on Food Stamps - Overwhelmed with Replies

[David L. McNeely]

Well, the "adjunct" positions, a fancy word for part-time jobs, are the main 
problem at the Ph.D. level.  A majority of credit hours at some institutions 
are taught in that way.  At community colleges there are often only a handful 
of full-time faculty, with part-time teaching almost all the courses.  Some 
four year schools have gotten onto the same track.  

Twenty years ago it was a beneficial thing to both the institution and those 
who wanted to teach a course while pursuing another full-time position, or to a 
person who wanted to teach a course while caring for children.  The institution 
benefited because it could fill out a schedule when there were not enough 
additional courses to make for a full teaching load for another faculty member. 
But institutions came to see it not as a way to fill out a course schedule, but 
as a way to avoid the expense of full-time faculty.  At many institutions, 
part-time faculty really dilute quality, because they are not even provided an 
office to work out of and to meet with students.  Meanwhile, there are many 
available, quality Ph.D. holders who would be very glad to get the work and 
would do a great job as full-time faculty members.

A major cause of this situation for state institutions is the drive by state 
governments to reduce the funding to higher education, mostly driven by 
anti-tax political groups.

 Neahga Leonard  wrote: 
> One thing that would help a lot would be to get rid of the system of unpaid
> and underpaid internships and make those real-paying jobs.  Many graduates
> at all levels of education find themselves in a position where the majority
> of positions available are internships, more and more of which require
> graduate degrees to participate in.  If even a portion of the internships
> were shifted to paying positions it would mitigate the economic woes of
> graduates tremendously and the work done would increase in quality as well.
> 
> Neahga Leonard
> 
> *There is not just a whole world to explore, there is a whole universe to
> explore, perhaps more than one.*
> http://writingfornature.wordpress.com/
> 
> 
> 
> On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 12:57 PM, David L. McNeely  wrote:
> 
> >  Kevin Klein  wrote:
> > > I haven't been able to follow the entire thread but one thing I draw from
> > > what I have read is that it is incumbent on those of us who work with
> > > students at all stages in their academic careers to also advise them to
> > > consider the job market in their chosen disciplines.  In so doing, they
> > > make more informed decision and they study with eyes open wide on the
> > > possibilities open to them at the next stage in their life and career
> > > journey.  Much easier said than done.  It reminds me of two PhD markets
> > in
> > > recent years.  One, where hundreds of applicants vied for the reported 2
> > or
> > > 3 job openings that year and second the hundreds of positions open for
> > the
> > > 2 or 3 PhD candidates graduating each year.  Hopefully we advise our
> > > students of the job market realities.  One place a student might look for
> > > this information can be found here.
> > > http://www.bls.gov/ooh/occupation-finder.htm
> > >
> > >
> > Hmmm .  I was an academic biologist for 35+ years, after the time
> > spent preparing.  I cannot recall a time when there were "hundreds of
> > positions open for 2 or 3 Ph.D. candidates graduating each year."  I do
> > recall a good many times when the opposite was true.
> >
> > David McNeely
> >

--
David McNeely