Re: [ECOLOG-L] Ecology Terminology and associated phenomena Colonizing species etc
Hi Jim et al., I guess I don't undertand what one would mean by your question, as to whether they behave differently. No two species behave the same in any event, so any given pair of species behaves differently, regardless of origin. Have you read Ricklefs - Disintegration of the ecological community? If the community is more of an accident in space and time rather than a co-evolved bunch of species, then there is no reason to think that any two species behave the same. Let's put it in terms of testable hypotheses. Let's say we have two species, A and B, both are native and we have C, non native. Hypothesis: (A = B) ne C? (where ne is not equal). Clearly A ne B ne C, because, they are all different species. If you can put your idea of behavior being equal in terms of testable hypotheses, I think we could advance. I would also like to see the word matter as in does it matter? placed into a real context, with hypotheses included. I still think the ambiguity of the terms is the reason behind the confusion. Cheers, Jim James Crants wrote on 10-May-10 19:23: Jim, Actually, you answered the question of whether exotic and native species can be distinguished at all, while the question we could not agree on is whether the distinction is ecologically meaningful. Does an exotic species behave differently from a native one? If not, then why should it matter to an ecologist whether a species is native or not? I say exotic species do behave differently, for reasons I gave in my post, and I think it does matter whether a species is native. Dr. Chew (as I understand it) says exotic species do not behave differently, as a group, that the distinction is ecologically meaningless, and that it therefore does not matter whether a species is native. We define native and exotic based on geographic history, and I think he says that that's the only distinction that can objectively be made between the two categories. I would agree with William Silvert that we are getting wrapped up in irrelevant rigor, except that I think important things might hang in the balance here. Invasive species biology loses most of its social relevance if native and exotic species are not ecologically distinguishable. Also, while I agree that we have to accept fuzzy definitions for fuzzy concepts (i.e., most concepts), a tendency emerged in the off-forum discussion to fuzz everything together to the point where humans are just another organism, nothing we do is exceptional, and we have no moral obligation to modify our ecological impact, one way or another, even if doing so is well within our power. That's a matter of using such fuzzy definitions that they cease to be definitions at all, which is different from what Silvert is advocating, but I guess I'm just saying that it's important not to throw out a categorization just because the categories have fuzzy boundaries. Jim Crants On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 4:52 PM, James J. Roper jjro...@gmail.com mailto:jjro...@gmail.com wrote: Ah Jim, But that question is easy to answer. If humans put the species in a place or it arrived in a place that it would not have gotten to on its own, then it is introduced, otherwise it is native or natural. Clearly this is a mere consequence of the short history of humans as dispersal agents on the planet, but it is a good enough definition for 99% of the cases - just check the classic by Elton. We already have the term naturalized which basically means it's here to stay and there is nothing we can do about it. I personally think that for almost all intents and purposes, those definitions work. When they don't work, we are either splitting hairs or don't have clear objectives. I think a clear consequence of this, is that humans should avoid introducing and we should often actively eliminate introductions. But, that idea is based on the premise that we want nature to run its course without human help - but that is not a universally accepted premise. And, a second premise is that evolution by natural selection and how nature may have influenced that through genetic drift, lateral gene transfer or what have you, is what is interesting about nature. I can see a future in which ecologists merely study how natural selection influenced organisms after their introduction, or as a consequence of the introduction of other species. Boring. After all, those will always be on a short term scale and will only illustrate what we probably already know about evolution. The big picture, long term consequence of continental drift, punctuated equilibrium and so on, which have resulted in the fascinating diversity of life, do not occur in one or two human generations - but we can certainly wipe out the evidence of them in the same short time frame. Extinctions and introduced species will do just
[ECOLOG-L] Term Assistant Professor of Conservation Biology-Smithsonian-Mason Program
Term Assistant Professor of Conservation Biology The Center for Conservation Studies at George Mason University seeks a conservation biologist for a full time term instructional position for 2010-11 (9 month appointment, renewable) to participate in the Smithsonian-Mason Conservation Education Program. The position will be based at the Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute in Front Royal, Virginia. In fall 2010 major duties will include serving as resident faculty fellow for the Smithsonian Mason Undergraduate Semester Program. In spring 2011 duties will include continued planning for the undergraduate program as well as planning and instructional activities in the developing graduate/professional program. Ph.D. preferred. Information about the Mason Center for Conservation Studies may be obtained at: http://mccs.gmu.edu or by contacting Dr. Chris Jones at rcjo...@gmu.edu. Review of applications will start on May 31 and continue until the position is filled. To apply, complete the online faculty application at http://jobs.gmu.edu for position F9375z. All applications must include a summary of teaching philosophy and experience including evaluations and course development work (teaching vita). George Mason University is an innovative, entrepreneurial institution with national distinction in a range of academic fields. Enrollment is 30,000, with students studying in over 150 degree programs at campuses in Arlington, Fairfax, Loudoun and Prince William. George Mason University is an equal opportunity employer encouraging diversity.
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Ecology Terminology and associated phenomena Colonizing species etc
Jim misses my point. The difference is not whether we call the transfers natural or anthropogenic, but whether we can control them. I think that we need to focus on what we can do about transfers and not get tied up in trying to define natural and invasive. After all, we can also control some natural events. Bill - Original Message - From: James J. Roper jjro...@gmail.com To: William Silvert cien...@silvert.org Cc: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: terça-feira, 11 de Maio de 2010 15:45 Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Ecology Terminology and associated phenomena Colonizing species etc To go straight to the meat of the issue: William Silvert wrote on 11-May-10 11:31: One of the greatest invasions in ecological history occurred when the Mediterranean connected to the Atlantic Ocean. How fundamentally different is that from the opening of the Suez or Panama canals? Well, sure, but trivially so. We are only talking about rates here. And, the fact that we will lose diversity and richness and local history as a consequence of our introductions. But, over geological time, it's just a drop in the bucket. Indeed, your argument, taken to its extreme is, well, since the big bang, all kinds of things have happened and until the big freeze they will continue, so why does it matter what happens in our lifetimes? Clearly we need to define the word matter as in what does it matter. Cheers, Jim
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Ecology Terminology and associated phenomena Colonizing species etc
The translocation of species around the world can, and do, have dramatic effects on the world's ecosystems. Well known and respected ecologists rank these biological exchanges as one of leading threats to ecosystem integrity in marine, freshwater, and terrestrial ecosystems over the next 100 years (see Sala et al. 2000, Simberloff 1996, and others). These rankings are in part a matter of conjecture, but we also have a great body of quantitative knowledge on the effects of biological exchanges. When we ask the question 'Are non-native species ecologically different from native species?' we must be careful not to lose ourselves in semantics. This said, there is legitimate concern among ecologists regarding the development of a sub-field of invasion biology that operates in isolation from other ecological disciplines such as community ecology. Simply put, non-native species may have very similar ecological functions from native species and lessons learned in community ecology should help drive our understanding of biological invasions. Does this mean there is not a meaningful ecological distinction? Absolutely not. When species are moved around and between continents by human activities (at increasingly high rates) they often leave behind natural predators, competitors, parasites, and diseases. In some cases these non-native species become troublesome, and in a small proportion of cases very troublesome. Thus, from a community ecology perspective non-native species that may be functionally similar to native species may still induce changes in food webs, nutrient cycling, etc that have far reaching implications. So, are exotic and native species ecologically different...they certainly can be. Is the distinction ecologically meaningful...absolutely. Scott Higgins -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu] On Behalf Of James Crants Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 5:23 PM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Ecology Terminology and associated phenomena Colonizing species etc Jim, Actually, you answered the question of whether exotic and native species can be distinguished at all, while the question we could not agree on is whether the distinction is ecologically meaningful. Does an exotic species behave differently from a native one? If not, then why should it matter to an ecologist whether a species is native or not? I say exotic species do behave differently, for reasons I gave in my post, and I think it does matter whether a species is native. Dr. Chew (as I understand it) says exotic species do not behave differently, as a group, that the distinction is ecologically meaningless, and that it therefore does not matter whether a species is native. We define native and exotic based on geographic history, and I think he says that that's the only distinction that can objectively be made between the two categories. I would agree with William Silvert that we are getting wrapped up in irrelevant rigor, except that I think important things might hang in the balance here. Invasive species biology loses most of its social relevance if native and exotic species are not ecologically distinguishable. Also, while I agree that we have to accept fuzzy definitions for fuzzy concepts (i.e., most concepts), a tendency emerged in the off-forum discussion to fuzz everything together to the point where humans are just another organism, nothing we do is exceptional, and we have no moral obligation to modify our ecological impact, one way or another, even if doing so is well within our power. That's a matter of using such fuzzy definitions that they cease to be definitions at all, which is different from what Silvert is advocating, but I guess I'm just saying that it's important not to throw out a categorization just because the categories have fuzzy boundaries. Jim Crants On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 4:52 PM, James J. Roper jjro...@gmail.com wrote: Ah Jim, But that question is easy to answer. If humans put the species in a place or it arrived in a place that it would not have gotten to on its own, then it is introduced, otherwise it is native or natural. Clearly this is a mere consequence of the short history of humans as dispersal agents on the planet, but it is a good enough definition for 99% of the cases - just check the classic by Elton. We already have the term naturalized which basically means it's here to stay and there is nothing we can do about it. I personally think that for almost all intents and purposes, those definitions work. When they don't work, we are either splitting hairs or don't have clear objectives. I think a clear consequence of this, is that humans should avoid introducing and we should often actively eliminate introductions. But, that idea is based on the premise that we want nature to run its course without human help - but that is not a universally accepted premise.
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Ecology Terminology and associated phenomena Colonizing species etc
I think I have not made my arguments clearly enough. I merely intended to summarize my moral case for suppressing invasives as part of my summary of the off-forum conversation. My numbered paragraphs were intended to address the claim that there is no ecological difference between native and exotic species, and the claim that there is no ecological difference between human-mediated dispersal and dispersal by any other agent. My responses to Matt's responses to those paragraphs are below: JC(1) Exotic species, on average, interact with fewer species than native species, and their interactions are weaker, on average. In particular, they have fewer parasites, pathogens, and predators, counted in either individuals or species. This is especially true of plants, and especially non-crop plants. I suspect, but have not heard, that exotic plants also have fewer mycorrhizal associates than native ones, but I doubt that they have significantly fewer pollinators or dispersers. Meanwhile, back in their native ranges, the same species have the same number of associations as any other native species. MC(1) Natural selection only produces interactions good enough to persist under prevailing conditions; there is no gold standard. By definition, 50% of all species interact with fewer species than average, and 50% of all interactions are weaker than average. Preferring stronger, more complex interactions means preferring more tightly-coupled (and therefore) 'riskier' systems with a higher likelihood of failure. JC (1b) The argument about how many species interact with fewer species than average misses my point. I'm saying that, if you counted the biological interactions for each native species and each exotic species in some area (could be a square meter, could be the world), I believe you would find that the average number for exotic species would be significantly lower than the average for exotic species. Thus, exotic species are ecologically different from native species. Actually, having more interactions may mean greater stability, on average, since some of those interactions are functionally redundant. I would have to brush up on my community ecology to be sure I'm not being overly simplistic, but I know this is true in pollination systems; pollinators that interact with more angiosperm species have greater population stability, on average, and angiosperms with more pollinator species have greater reproductive stability, on average (though I don't know if this leads to greater population stability for long-lived species). I'm not sure what you mean by systems with a higher likelihood of failure. It seems to me that failure is a matter of human values not being realized. If, by failure, you mean rapid change, well, that hardly seems to be a problem for you. I would have to agree that systems managed to promote natives at the expense of exotics are more prone to failure than those where any and all ecological outcomes are deemed acceptable, but that's only because failure in the former group means invasion and domination by exotic species, while there is no such thing as failure in the latter group. JC(2) Very-long-distance dispersal by humans confers a fitness advantage over very-long-distance dispersal by other agents, on average, for two reasons. First, humans often disperse organisms in groups, such as containers of seeds, shipments of mature plants and animals, or large populations contained in ballast water, allowing them to overcome the Allee effects (lack of mates, inbreeding depression) their populations would face if introduced as one or a few individuals. We also often take pains to maximize the establishment success of organisms we disperse, by shipping healthy, mature plants and animals and propogating them when they arrive, while non-human dispersal agents usually introduce small numbers of organisms, often nowhere near their peak fitness potential (e.g., seeds, spores, starving and dehydrated animals). MC(2). JC appears to be arguing that once rare occurrences are no longer rare. I agree. But I draw the opposite conclusion, because he is arguing that to generate such changes is morally wrong, while I am just saying: when these conditions prevail, long distance dispersal becomes normal. JC(2b) I'm not saying anything (here) about whether the recent commonness of previously-rare dispersal events is morally wrong. I'm countering the argument that human-mediated dispersal confers no fitness advantage over dispersal by any other agent. Others may be aware of an invasive exotic species that was not imported by humans in far greater numbers than we could reasonably expect from any other agent, even if it had 100,000 years to work, but I am not. Furthermore, most invasive species were carefully planted and tended across large areas. Others may know of a dispersal agent that takes such care of the species it disperses AND has any realistic potential
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Ecology Terminology and associated phenomena Colonizing species etc
Jim Roper, There's a difference between saying that two species are not ecologically equivalent and saying that two categories of species are not ecologically equivalent. If exotic species (as a category) were ecologically equivalent to native ones, you would still find that every species would differ from every other species by at least a few measures. I'm saying that, as a category, exotic species are ecologically different from native ones. I am deliberately leaving this difference vague because the term ecologically different can serve as an umbrella for all kinds of differences that are relevant to interactions among organisms and between organisms and their environment. Specific differences I would expect to find include: (1) exotic plants have fewer insect herbivore species and lose a smaller percentage of their biomass to insect herbivores than native plants, and (2) exotic species have fewer pathogens than native species. Similarly, I am using vague terms like behave and matters because I want to include a wide array of phenomena, though I suppose you could reasonably argue against the idea of species behaving on the grounds that behavior is something individual organisms or closely connected groups of individuals do. I think most of the confusion in this conversation comes from the fact that Matthew Chew and I just don't agree on whether there's any ecological difference between exotic species and native ones. If they aren't, then what's the point in investing time, money, and energy in controlling exotic species or propagating natives? William Silvert, I didn't really mean to disagree with your fuzzy definitions. In fact, I like them, and I think you could get some ecological insights by using those definitions that you could miss with artificially clear distinctions. Also, I've said more than once that, if we have to throw out any term with indistinct boundaries, we won't find we have much at all left to discuss in the field of ecology. We would not be able to talk about forests, pollinators, the Mediterranean Sea, etc. I just wanted to emphasize, in anticipation of certain everything's the same as everything else arguments that have come up before, that there's a difference between categories with fuzzy boundaries and categories that are totally indistinct and therefore meaningless. One of the keys to arguing against controlling invasive exotic species is destroying the moral arguments that motivate people to bother in the first place. To do this, it helps to use clever language to blur the lines between categories to the point where it's hard to see that native, exotic, invasive, and non-invasive have any meaning at all, except as inflammatory terms used by people who want to manipulate your emotions. The same basic approach is used to stop people doing anything about global warming (e.g., the globe warms and cools all the time; without global warming, earth would be frozen and hostile to life; why do we get excited about human CO2 emissions and not volcanic ones?), species extinctions (repeat the above, modifying appropriately), deforestation (repeat), and so on. For that matter, blurring the lines between humans and everything else (humans are part of nature) is very effective. For one thing, humans ARE a part of nature, and we do cause some harm by saying we're not. For another, it's easy to reduce this down to humans are just another animal, thus ignoring our truly exceptional intellectual abilities and capacity for empathy and moral thought. Anyway, I wanted to head off these sorts of defitions-so-fuzzy-they-mean-nothing, not to disagree with the definitions you gave. As for oceans merging, I can't see a big ecological distinction between the Mediterranean joining the Alantic without human intervention and humans building the Suez and Panama Canals. If anything, I bet the Mediterranean-Atlantic merger was more ecologically dramatic than the canals, in that it probably changed the sea level and salinity of the Mediterranean quite a bit, and the migration of species into the Mediterranean was probably more rapid. Also, it can hardly be argued that two oceanic mergers via human-made canal within a century is a rapidly greater rate of mergers than one merger without human intervention in the same amount of time. All my arguments about humans bringing more species in greater numbers than other dispersal agents, and tending them more carefully after dispersal, do not apply to these cases, as far as I know. Jim Crants
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Ecology Terminology and associated phenomena Colonizing species etc
C'mon, Bill S, It sounds like you're advocating rational policy based on case-by-case evaluation with regard to consensus values. Where ya gonna get with that? Martin Meiss 2010/5/11 William Silvert cien...@silvert.org Although Jim Crants in a later post raised questions about whether by being fuzzy we risk avoiding responsible for human actions, I have to take issue with Roper's definitions. In large part this is because in some cases the distinction between humans and (other) animals is not relevant. Clearly in cases like the introduction of the rabbit to Australia we have a clear case of introduction, 100% in fuzzy terms. But consider the following cases: When American Bison migrate they disperse parasites and disease organisms, clearly this is a natural process. When Bison are depleted due to human depredation they may travel in search of mates, again dispersing parasites and disease organisms. Indians used to stampede Bison over cliffs as a means of hunting them, the survivors may flee and disperse parasites and disease organisms. Cattle grazing in the lands where Bison used to be plentiful may disperse parasites and disease organisms in the same way. Human herders following the cattle may disperse parasites and disease organisms on their clothing. And so on. Are nomadic tribes totally different from migrating animals? Crants later writes that Invasive species biology loses most of its social relevance if native and exotic species are not ecologically distinguishable. but I do not think that we need to draw sharp lines between them. Migrations can be blocked by fences and roads, nomads may be confined within national boundaries. I don't think that invasive species biology requires that every species be either totally invasive or totally natural. And imagine what would happen if some exotic species that we blamed on ballast water transport turned out to arrive via a parasitic life stage on some migratory fish! All those papers to be withdrawn! One of the greatest invasions in ecological history occurred when the Mediterranean connected to the Atlantic Ocean. How fundamentally different is that from the opening of the Suez or Panama canals? Bill Silvert - Original Message - From: James J. Roper jjro...@gmail.com To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: segunda-feira, 10 de Maio de 2010 22:52 Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Ecology Terminology and associated phenomena Colonizing species etc But that question is easy to answer. If humans put the species in a place or it arrived in a place that it would not have gotten to on its own, then it is introduced, otherwise it is native or natural. James Crants wrote on 10-May-10 12:51: In the discussion off-forum, we were unable to come to any conclusions because we could not agree on answer to even the most fundamental question: is the distinction between exotic and native species ecologically meaningful? If you can't agree on that, there's no point in going on to ask whether there's such a thing as an invasive exotic species, whethere invasive exotics are a problem, and what, if anything, we should do about it.
[ECOLOG-L] REMINDER! May 13th Deadline For Latebreaking Poster Abstracts
REMINDER! Call for Latebreaking Poster Abstracts Deadline for Submission: Thursday, May 13, 2010 95th Annual Meeting of the Ecological Society of America Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania August 1-6, 2010 http://www.esa.org/pittsburgh Authors have one final chance to submit an abstract for the ESA Annual Meeting! All abstracts accepted under this invitation will be presented during a Latebreaking poster session on Friday, August 6, from 8:30-10:30 AM. Abstract titles for posters in this session will be printed in the official conference program and the abstracts will appear on the online program. The theme for the meeting is Global Warming: The legacy of our past, the challenge for our future. Abstracts related to this theme are highly encouraged, but submissions may address any aspect of ecology and its applications. We also welcome submissions reporting interdisciplinary work, that address communication with broad audiences, or that explore ways of teaching ecology at any level. Please adhere to the posted guidelines in preparing and submitting your abstract. For more information and to begin the submission process, please visit the meeting website: http://www.esa.org/pittsburgh/call_latebreaking.php Thank you, Jennifer Riem ESA Science Programs Coordinator jenni...@esa.orgmailto:jenni...@esa.org 202-833-8773
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Ecology Terminology and associated phenomena Colonizing species etc
Seems like this question - whether exotics differ (as a group) from natives - would be fertile ground for research. I assume that there have been many studies where someone has addressed this in some sort of a meta-analysis, but am not personally familiar with those studies (nor with what they found). I suspect, however, that it is more productive to look at this issue on a case-by-case basis as Meiss and Silvert imply. That is, not all exotics are invasives that damage native communities, and some might have valuable functions for sustaining biodiversity. Mark D. Dixon Assistant Professor Department of Biology University of South Dakota Vermillion, SD 57069 Phone: (605) 677-6567 Fax: (605) 677-6557 Email: mark.di...@usd.edu -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu] On Behalf Of James Crants Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2010 11:06 AM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Ecology Terminology and associated phenomena Colonizing species etc Jim Roper, There's a difference between saying that two species are not ecologically equivalent and saying that two categories of species are not ecologically equivalent. If exotic species (as a category) were ecologically equivalent to native ones, you would still find that every species would differ from every other species by at least a few measures. I'm saying that, as a category, exotic species are ecologically different from native ones. I am deliberately leaving this difference vague because the term ecologically different can serve as an umbrella for all kinds of differences that are relevant to interactions among organisms and between organisms and their environment. Specific differences I would expect to find include: (1) exotic plants have fewer insect herbivore species and lose a smaller percentage of their biomass to insect herbivores than native plants, and (2) exotic species have fewer pathogens than native species. Similarly, I am using vague terms like behave and matters because I want to include a wide array of phenomena, though I suppose you could reasonably argue against the idea of species behaving on the grounds that behavior is something individual organisms or closely connected groups of individuals do. I think most of the confusion in this conversation comes from the fact that Matthew Chew and I just don't agree on whether there's any ecological difference between exotic species and native ones. If they aren't, then what's the point in investing time, money, and energy in controlling exotic species or propagating natives? William Silvert, I didn't really mean to disagree with your fuzzy definitions. In fact, I like them, and I think you could get some ecological insights by using those definitions that you could miss with artificially clear distinctions. Also, I've said more than once that, if we have to throw out any term with indistinct boundaries, we won't find we have much at all left to discuss in the field of ecology. We would not be able to talk about forests, pollinators, the Mediterranean Sea, etc. I just wanted to emphasize, in anticipation of certain everything's the same as everything else arguments that have come up before, that there's a difference between categories with fuzzy boundaries and categories that are totally indistinct and therefore meaningless. One of the keys to arguing against controlling invasive exotic species is destroying the moral arguments that motivate people to bother in the first place. To do this, it helps to use clever language to blur the lines between categories to the point where it's hard to see that native, exotic, invasive, and non-invasive have any meaning at all, except as inflammatory terms used by people who want to manipulate your emotions. The same basic approach is used to stop people doing anything about global warming (e.g., the globe warms and cools all the time; without global warming, earth would be frozen and hostile to life; why do we get excited about human CO2 emissions and not volcanic ones?), species extinctions (repeat the above, modifying appropriately), deforestation (repeat), and so on. For that matter, blurring the lines between humans and everything else (humans are part of nature) is very effective. For one thing, humans ARE a part of nature, and we do cause some harm by saying we're not. For another, it's easy to reduce this down to humans are just another animal, thus ignoring our truly exceptional intellectual abilities and capacity for empathy and moral thought. Anyway, I wanted to head off these sorts of defitions-so-fuzzy-they-mean-nothing, not to disagree with the definitions you gave. As for oceans merging, I can't see a big ecological distinction between the Mediterranean joining the Alantic without human intervention and humans building the Suez and Panama Canals. If anything, I bet the Mediterranean-Atlantic merger was more ecologically dramatic
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Ecology Terminology and associated phenomena Colonizing species etc
To go straight to the meat of the issue: William Silvert wrote on 11-May-10 11:31: One of the greatest invasions in ecological history occurred when the Mediterranean connected to the Atlantic Ocean. How fundamentally different is that from the opening of the Suez or Panama canals? Well, sure, but trivially so. We are only talking about rates here. And, the fact that we will lose diversity and richness and local history as a consequence of our introductions. But, over geological time, it's just a drop in the bucket. Indeed, your argument, taken to its extreme is, well, since the big bang, all kinds of things have happened and until the big freeze they will continue, so why does it matter what happens in our lifetimes? Clearly we need to define the word matter as in what does it matter. Cheers, Jim
[ECOLOG-L] Last Reminder: 2010 National Wetlands Awards 6-8 pm on May 19
The Environmental Law Institute cordially invites you to the 2010 National Wetlands Awards ceremony, which will take place on Wednesday, May 19, from 6-8 p.m. at the U.S. Capitol Visitor Center, Room HVC-215. The National Wetlands Awards program honors excellence in wetlands conservation and has recognized more than 150 individuals for their accomplishments and years of dedication and leadership. Senator Benjamin L. Cardin (D-MD) will present this year's keynote address. Sen. Cardin, along with Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME), Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI), and Rep. Jay Inslee (D-WA), are the ceremony's Honorary Congressional Co-Sponsors. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson will speak at the Awards ceremony. She and senior representatives from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Federal Highway Administration, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Natural Resources Conservation Service, and the USDA Forest Service will present the Awards to: Jim Wilcox for Conservation and Restoration; Bill Volkert for Education and Outreach; The Laszlo Family for Landowner Stewardship; Rebecca Sharitz for Science Research; Michael Cain for State, Tribal, and Local Program Development, and Jan Vandersloot for Wetland Community Leader. To read about this year's recipients, please visit www.nationalwetlandsawards.org. Please join us for this wonderful and inspiring event. Please RSVP to ELI by May 14, at www.nationalwetlandsawards.org/rsvp.cfm.
[ECOLOG-L] Kahl Scientific - what happened to them?
I am requesting assistance and information regarding Kahl Scientific Instrument Corporation (Kahlsico International) of San Diego, CA, USA. Does anyone know if they were bought out or if any group is supporting or selling their products. Thank you, Ted Lewis Research Scientist and Associate Faculty Department of Environmental Science and Biology The College at Brockport, State University of New York
[ECOLOG-L] exporting data from Excel
I collect phenological data that are then stored in an Excel spreadsheet. But if I want to archive the data in someplace like Ecological Archives, I can't do that in a proprietary format, just plain ASCII text. A previous spreadsheet program I used to use (now extinct) had an option for exporting to a text file and listing for each cell the formula in the cell, if there was one, rather than the result of the formula, which is all I seem to be able to get Excel to do. But there is information in the formula (the frequency distribution of flowers per inflorescence) that would be lost without the formula. Do you know of a way to export the Excel formula? Or another program that would do that? Thanks. David Inouye
[ECOLOG-L] Call for submissions for the special issue on ANIMAL COGNITION
Dear Colleagues, The Journal of CURRENT ZOOLOGY (ISSN 1674-5507, http://www.currentzoology.org/index.asp) is preparing a special issue on ANIMAL COGNITION for the 2nd issue of 2011. The deadline for title and abstract submissions is June 10, 2010, and deadline for manuscript submission is November 10, 2010. You may send your manuscript now or by the deadline. Submitted papers should not have been published previously, nor be under consideration for publication elsewhere. Submitted manuscripts are accepted with the understanding that they are subject to peer review and editorial revision. There is no publication or processing charges. Please visit the Instructions for Authors before submitting a manuscript (http://www.currentzoology.org/instruct.asp. Manuscripts should be submitted by e-mail to Dr. Michael H. Ferkin (mhfer...@memphis.edu) with copies to the Executive Editor, Dr. Zhi-Yun Jia (ji...@ioz.ac.cn). The subject title of the message should be Manuscript for Special Issue on ANIMAL COGNITION. If you intend to contribute to this special issue but can not submite before the deadline, please feel free to submite as regular submissions. CURRENT ZOOLOGY (formerly /Acta Zoologica Sinica, founded in 1935, published in English since 2009) is a bimonthly, peer-reviewed international journal that publishes reviews, research articles, and short communications in all aspects of Zoology, including significant new findings of fundamental and general interest. Submissions in the research fields of ecology, behavioral biology, biogeography, conservation biology, evolutionary biology and genomics are especially welcome. In particular, CURRENT ZOOLOGY seeks to publish research that explores the interface between zoological disciplines, and is truly integrative by illuminating the greater picture. Thank you and looking forwad to your submissions. Zhi-Yun JIA,Ph.D. Executive Editor Current Zoology http://www.currentzoology.org Institute of Zoology The Chinese Academy of Sciences Beichen Xilu, Chaoyang District, Beijing 100101, China
[ECOLOG-L] Graduate Research Assistantship Invasive Plants
Graduate Assistantship in the Agricultural Landscape Ecology Lab – Dr. Mary Gardiner, The Ohio State University Widespread occurrence of the exotic invasive shrub common buckthorn, Rhamnus cathartica, has resulted in cascading ecosystem disservices across the north central U.S. A landscape approach to understanding and managing these effects is required to enhance agricultural production and protect the natural resource base. Common buckthorn invades natural areas where it directly reduces native biodiversity. In addition, it serves as the primary overwintering host of the exotic soybean aphid, Aphis glycines, allowing it to successfully overwinter in the north central U.S. Soybean aphid negatively impacts the production of soybean and vegetable crops by direct feeding and vectoring plant viruses. Moreover, the presence of soybean aphid has facilitated an increase in the exotic multi-colored Asian lady beetle Harmonia axyridis, leading to the decline of several native lady beetle species. Harmonia adults also invade homes where they cause human allergies. The goal of this project is to develop a fundamental quantitative understanding of the cascading impacts of this keystone invader on ecosystem function and services, and to develop economically and ecologically rational strategies for its management at landscape-scales. This USDA-funded project is regional in scope and includes a citizen science component. Both PhD and MS will be considered. Student could begin program in Fall 2010 or Spring 2011. For more information contact Mary Gardiner: gardiner...@osu.edu.
[ECOLOG-L] Post-Doc Everglades Methane Productin
We are seeking a highly motivated post-doctoral scientist to work on an interdisciplinary project looking at the interactions between microbial and plant communities of Everglades short hydroperiod marshes that drive methane dynamics. The specific project opportunities will depend on the interests and experience of the applicant, but include: leaf to ecosystem photosynthetic processes, methane release, microbial production of methane, isotopic labeling, microbial ecology and assays. The post doc will interact with an interdisciplinary team from University of Alabama, Florida International University and the Everglades LTER. Applicants should possess a PhD in plant physiological ecology, plant ecology, plant physiology, microbial ecology or microbial physiology. The ideal candidate will have hands-on experience with stable isotopes and a strong background in working across disciplines. Foundation for this study: More than a century of water management and hydrologic modification in the Florida Everglades watershed has dramatically altered the systems freshwater wetlands Historically, the Everglades were dominated by continuous slow sheet flow, but the construction of roads, levees, canals, and other flow control structures throughout South Florida has affected the quantity, timing, and location of water delivery to the Everglades. These anthropogenic changes have altered hydroperiod, carbon (C) cycling and storage, nutrient levels, community assemblages, and fire regimes. The Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP), will further alter the timing and delivery of water to the Everglades, affecting productivity and C balances. The vision of the Plan is the restoration, preservation, and protection of the South Florida ecosystem while providing for other water-related needs of the region, including water supply and flood protection. The role that these continued changes will play on methane emissions in uncertain as these restoration plans move forward. There is an urgent need to develop a comprehensive understanding of how methane is produced and emitted from the Everglades and how this may influence greenhouse-forcing units with alterations in hydrology. The position is funded for two years and includes, competitive salary, health benefits and a small moving allowance. Applicants should submit via email 1) a current curriculum vita, 2) a statement of research interests; and 3) the names, phone numbers and email addresses of three references to Dr. Gregory Starr (gst...@ua.edu or 205-348-0556). For more information contact Dr. Starr, Department of Biological Sciences, University of Alabama. Initial review of applications will begin on June 7, 2010.
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Ecology Terminology and associated phenomena Colonizing species etc
What, then, is the ecological difference between humans as a dispersal agent, and, say, seabirds as a dispersal agent? When we study Hawaiian native plants, are we not studying how natural selection influenced organisms after their introduction, or as a consequence of the introduction of other species? The system is still one of an organism having been brought to some isolated location to which it could not otherwise have gotten on its own. The whole study of island biodiversity is inherently the study of introductions of alien species by various means, except in the case of continental islands formerly connected to the mainland. Jason Hernandez East Carolina University --- On Tue, 5/11/10, ECOLOG-L automatic digest system lists...@listserv.umd.edu wrote: But that question is easy to answer. If humans put the species in a place or it arrived in a place that it would not have gotten to on its own, then it is introduced, otherwise it is native or natural. Clearly this is a mere consequence of the short history of humans as dispersal agents on the planet, but it is a good enough definition for 99% of the cases - just check the classic by Elton. We already have the term naturalized which basically means it's here to stay and there is nothing we can do about it. I personally think that for almost all intents and purposes, those definitions work. When they don't work, we are either splitting hairs or don't have clear objectives. I think a clear consequence of this, is that humans should avoid introducing and we should often actively eliminate introductions. But, that idea is based on the premise that we want nature to run its course without human help - but that is not a universally accepted premise. And, a second premise is that evolution by natural selection and how nature may have influenced that through genetic drift, lateral gene transfer or what have you, is what is interesting about nature. I can see a future in which ecologists merely study how natural selection influenced organisms after their introduction, or as a consequence of the introduction of other species. Boring. After all, those will always be on a short term scale and will only illustrate what we probably already know about evolution. The big picture, long term consequence of continental drift, punctuated equilibrium and so on, which have resulted in the fascinating diversity of life, do not occur in one or two human generations - but we can certainly wipe out the evidence of them in the same short time frame. Extinctions and introduced species will do just that. Cheers, Jim
[ECOLOG-L] Graduate student seeking summer position
I recently graduated from Indiana University in Bloomington with a Master's of Science in Environmental Science. I will be starting a PhD program this fall and I am looking for summer employment to fill in the gap. My specialty is aquatic ecology and surface water quality. I have significant lab experience with standard limnological analyses as well as sampling and analysis of biological specimens. If you have an intern or technician position available this summer I will be happy to provide my CV and references for your consideration. Thank you Thomas Parr
