Re: [ECOLOG-L] Taxonomy and Ecology Integrating or Disintegrating?
Wayne's story reminds me that the eminent ecologist Larry Slobodkin once observed that ecology without species is the ultimate abomination. I was giving some lectures on size-structured ecosystems, so I introduced myself as an abominable ecologist. It seemed a fitting title. Still does. Bill Silvert -Original Message- From: Wayne Tyson Sent: Friday, November 12, 2010 7:18 PM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Taxonomy and Ecology Integrating or Disintegrating? Honourable Forum: Recently there was a discussion about the importance of getting nomenclature right in ecological studies. The general conclusion was that this is important. To me, the implication was that ecologists need taxonomists on the team (this may or may not always or even rarely be possible), or at least a procedure by which taxonomic accuracy can be assured. I recently attended a lecture by a botanist of regional and international repute who described a large project to compile a checklist of the vascular flora of an inadequately-explored, but quite large region. It is undeniable that this is important work, and through this person's leadership, significant additions to knowledge of the area have been made. The lecture included maps of bioregions or ecoregions. This botanist dismissed the value and importance of them, adding that they were the province of the ecologists and were highly flawed (I can't quote the lecturer precisely, but this is the best of my recollection and my distinct impression). The lecturer essentially dismissed ecology, remarking that the lecturer was interested only in individual plants and seemed contemptuous of ecologists in general, and particularly those involved in establishing the ecoregions that were a part of the lecture. I may have misunderstood, as I have long held this person in high regard, and those remarks seemed inconsistent with past behavior. Do you find this state of mind to be common among taxonomists in general or botanists in particular? Is this apparent schism real or imaginary? Other comments? WT PS: During the lecture, the speaker remarked about ecological phenomena which were not understood (no clue), but at least one reason for one phenomenon was apparent to me. I said nothing, as the lecture had been very long and the question period short.
Re: [ECOLOG-L] ECOLOGY Fundamentals Principles Laws Other
Wow, to be a law or principle it has to be perfect? I have a PhD in Physics and thought that we had lots of laws, but they seldom pass that test. For hundreds of years we talked about and taught Newton's Laws of Motion, but then Einstein came along with examples of cases where they FAIL. As for propping up, where do hypothetical particles like neutrinos and quarks come from? Do we really want ecology to be a much more rigid and philosophically pure science than physics, astronomy and the rest? Or can we just focus on trying to figure out how nature works? Bill Silvert -Original Message- From: Wayne Tyson Sent: Sunday, November 07, 2010 1:55 AM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] ECOLOGY Fundamentals Principles Laws Other My original question was about whether or not the discipline of ecology (I meant in the broadest sense) recognizes or should try to recognize, some observations about how things function or work that amount to laws or statements (hypotheses), when applied NEVER FAIL to prove valid--pass the test for a law or a principle. (And, I might add, one [or more?] that needs no propping up with qualifiers. (This, I will confess, is one issue I have with the referenced paper, but the author might be right and I might be wrong.)
Re: [ECOLOG-L] ECOLOGY Fundamentals Principles Laws Other
discipline ? Ecology suffers from too much concern with philosophy and not enough science. Consider Gauss' Competitive Exclusion Principle. It is very useful, provides a guide to identifying the niche of an organism, but it has been identified as tautological by the late Rob Peters so we aren't supposed to use it. Lawrence Slobodkin used to complain about theorists invoking principles like conservation of energy as if that were optional for living creatures. Basically the answer to Wayne's question is that if ecologists come up with something useful that might serve as a law or principle, then it would be drowned out by claims that it was not rigorous enough. We worry too much about being scientific and not enough about learning how things work. Bill Silvert -Original Message- From: Wayne Tyson Sent: Sunday, October 31, 2010 2:39 AM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: [ECOLOG-L] ECOLOGY Fundamentals Principles Laws Other Ecolog: In recent years the debate about Laws of Ecology has been re-heated.* If the study of the interactions of living organisms with environments is to have discipline, it seems to me that it should have produced some observations about how things work or function that, when applied, never fail to prove valid. Can such observations, rendered as statements or equations, be termed laws or principles, or? WT *For example, see http://philosophy.unc.edu/people/faculty/marc-lange/Oikosfile.pdf
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Transformations for Normalized Data
I'm not clear on whether this is a thread about ecology or statistics. Jane writes My goal is simply to do a regression which seems a strange kind of goal. If she wants to predict abundances or identify causative factors, that I understand, but what kind of goal is doing a regression? How do we even know that the regression she is looking for exists? Even obvious regressions can be misleading. I was once approached by a colleague who asked for my help finding the relationship between parental biomass and surviving offspring, but a quick look at the data showed that no relationship existed. So instead we set about looking for factors that determined the number of offspring and found a good correlation with environmental factors (Koslow, J. Anthony, Keith R. Thompson, and William Silvert. 1987. Recruitment to Northwest Atlantic Cod (Gadus morhua) and Haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus) Stocks: Influence of Stock Size and Environment. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 44:26-39). We not only identified a predictive pattern, but we could conclude that even though the fish were extremely fecund, the number of survivors depended on an environmental bottleneck so that the number of eggs was not very important. William Silvert -Original Message- From: Jane Shevtsov Sent: Friday, October 29, 2010 12:31 AM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Transformations for Normalized Data Hi Mike, Dividing by the mean helps. Still, there are definitely too many zeros in my data, so what should I do with the distributions you mentioned? My goal is simply to do a regression. Thanks, Jane On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 8:11 PM, mdie...@life.illinois.edu wrote: 1) divide by the mean instead of the maximum 2) abundance data is rarely normal even before normalization because A) abundance can never be negative and B) it usually has too many zeros because one is convolving two processes (probability of presence times abundance given presence). If your data shows (B) I recommend using a zero-inflated distribution while if it shows (A) I would recommend a distribution that is positive (e.g. lognormal or gamma). Because I usually work with count data I prefer the zero-inflated Poisson or zero-inflated Negative Binomial, but once you've normalized that's no longer an option. I'd probably try a zero-inflated lognormal or zero-inflated gamma, with the former being conceptually simpler because it doesn't require a link function. If neither (B) nor (A) is present in your data you're very luck and can stick to the normal (possibly with transformation). -- Mike I have abundance data for a number of different species that I need to use in a regression. Since the data encompasses a variety of taxa (from trees to soil mites) whose abundances are measured differently, I normalized it, dividing abundances of each species by the maximum abundance of that species. This, of course, produces numbers ranging from 0 to 1, with a 1 for every species. Now I'm trying to transform the data into something approaching normality. I've tried various combinations of arcsin, square root, fourth root, and log (after adding 1, as there are plenty of zeros in the data), but nothing seems to help much. The problem appears to be the presence of a 1 in every column. Any ideas for what might work? Thanks, Jane Shevtsov -- - Jane Shevtsov Ecology Ph.D. candidate, University of Georgia co-founder, www.worldbeyondborders.org Check out my blog, http://perceivingwholes.blogspot.comPerceiving Wholes The whole person must have both the humility to nurture the Earth and the pride to go to Mars. --Wyn Wachhorst, The Dream of Spaceflight -- - Jane Shevtsov Ecology Ph.D. candidate, University of Georgia co-founder, www.worldbeyondborders.org Check out my blog, http://perceivingwholes.blogspot.comPerceiving Wholes The whole person must have both the humility to nurture the Earth and the pride to go to Mars. --Wyn Wachhorst, The Dream of Spaceflight
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Spontaneous fermentation
While it is certainly true that this quote is wrong, the underlying ecological principle is correct. During Franklin's time water was considered an unsafe drink, and in general it was. Sanitation was poor and beverages like beer and cider were safer and thus considered preferable. According to some sources Franklin actually was more of a water drinker than most people of his time, but the erroneous quote accurately reflects the ecological views of the time. These attitudes persist to the present time and account for the popularity of bottled water. Bill Silvert -- From: Matt Chew anek...@gmail.com Sent: Sunday, September 12, 2010 9:40 PM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Spontaneous fermentation It has been politely suggested that the Franklin bacteria quotation is dubious. It is worse than that, in two ways. First, the salient facts are readily available but were apparently never checked or even questioned before they were posted. Such naive and incurious assertions should not be emanating from ESA email addresses – no matter how useful they seem for promotional purposes. Second, as the instructor for an upper-division undergraduate (BIO-) course in the History of Biology, I regret to report that ecology students (and the professionals they become) share today's generally profound historical illiteracy–and apathy. This is a pity in a field whose motivations, hypotheses and conclusions are so deeply affected and occasionally even determined by cultural and intellectual fashions. If you don't know the history of ecology, you don't know ecology. Matthew K Chew
[ECOLOG-L] Population control
Recently there was a long discussion of whether ecologists are the problem, and a few posters pointed out that the biggest problem is overpopulation. There was not much discussion of this, as it is a hrad problem to solve, it is easier to get rid of ecologists. However the following Economist article is quite intriguing. Bill Silvert Green.view Fewer feet, smaller footprint Sep 21st 2009 From Economist.com A world with fewer people would emit less greenhouse gases FAMILY planning is five times cheaper than conventional green technologies in combating climate change. That is the claim made by Thomas Wire, a postgraduate student at the London School of Economics, and highlighted by British medics writing in the Lancet on September 19th. Ever since Thomas Malthus, an English economist, published his essay on the principle of population in 1798, people have been concerned about population growth. Sir Julian Huxley, the first director general of the United Nations Education, Science and Cultural Organisation when it was established in 1945, remarked that death control made birth control a moral imperative. Sir Julian went on to play a role in establishing what was then the World Wildlife Fund, a nature conservation agency, linking population growth to environmental degradation. According to Roger Short of the University of Melbourne, the world's population is 6.8 billion and is expected to reach 9.1 billion by 2050. Some 95% of this growth is occurring in developing countries. In a paper published on September 21st in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, he points out that fewer people would produce less climate-changing greenhouse gas. A companion study published in the same issue by Malcolm Potts of the University of California, Berkeley, reckons that there are 80m unintended pregnancies every year. The vast majority of these result in babies. If women who wanted contraception were provided with it, 72% of these unintended pregancies would have been prevented, according to a report by the United Nations Population Fund called Adding it Up: the Benefits of Investing in Sexual and Reproductive Healthcare. The study by Mr Wire was commissioned by the Optimum Population Trust, a British environmental charity. It examined the cost-effectiveness of providing global access to family planning between 2010 and 2050. Mr Wire totted up the cost of supplying contraception to women who wished either to delay their childbearing years or to end them artificially but who were not using contraception. He examined projections of population growth and of carbon-dioxide emissions made by the United Nations and concluded that reducing carbon emissions by one tonne would cost just $7 spent on family planning, as opposed to at least $32 spent on green technologies. Mr Wire points out that if all women who wanted contraception were provided with it, it would prevent the release of 34 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide between 2010 and 2050. Given the myriad of other reasons to limit human fertility (Dr Potts notes, for example, that slowing population growth is essential if poverty is to be eradicated), your correspondent cannot help but commend the report to mandarins meeting in Bangkok on September 28th to discuss the forthcoming United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen. Copyright © 2009 The Economist Newspaper and The Economist Group. All rights reserved.
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Population control
Empowering women is just one of many steps in the right direction. Education helps, even though one list member in an off-list message complained that since educated people make more and thus have larger footprints, education is bad. Health care is another good step. Poor people often have large families so that the children can work, so anything that alleviates desperate poverty can be beneficial. Bill Silvert - Original Message - From: Abraham de Alba A. aalb...@yahoo.com To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 6:56 PM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Population control I thought this argument was done fore a long time ago, I mean, the sociologists found that enpowering women was more profitable, that is, women that find that can contribute to their well-being WILL use concraception, otherwise it doesn`t matter if all the drug stores are full of contraceptives. It's anybodies guess HOW to empower women, it has been done and it's probably being done right now, but it`s not an overnight thing. Here Mexico, it has finally been accepted by government officials that given money to men, is just another way of subsidicing the beer industry or tequila, but when they give to women's groups it usually flourishes into a small buisness, so much for our macho economy. Abraham de Alba Avila
[ECOLOG-L] Hippos in Columbia
This story from the New York Times, September 11, 2009, raises issues relevant to the list! Bill Silvert Colombia Confronts Drug Lord's Legacy: Hippos By SIMON ROMERO DORADAL, Colombia - Even in Colombia, a country known for its paramilitary death squads, this hunting party stood out: more than a dozen soldiers from a Colombian Army battalion, two Porsche salesmen armed with long-range rifles, their assistant, and a taxidermist. They stalked Pepe through the backlands of Colombia for three days in June before executing him in a clearing about 60 miles from here with shots to his head and heart. But after a snapshot emerged of soldiers posing over his carcass, the group suddenly found itself on the defensive. As it turned out, Pepe - a hippopotamus who escaped from his birthplace near the pleasure palace built here by the slain drug lord Pablo Escobar - had a following of his own. The meticulously organized operation to hunt Pepe down, carried out with the help of environmentalists, has become the focus of an unusually fierce debate over animal rights and the containment of invasive species in a country still struggling to address a broad range of rights violations during four decades of protracted war with guerrillas. In Colombia, there is no documented case of an attack against people or that they damaged any crops, said Aníbal Vallejo, president of the Society for the Protection of Animals in Medellín, referring to the hippos. No sufficient motive to sacrifice one of these animals has emerged in the 28 years since Pablo Escobar brought them to his hacienda. Sixteen years after the infamous Mr. Escobar was gunned down on a Medellín rooftop in a manhunt, Colombia is still wrestling with the mess he made. Wildlife experts from Africa brought here to study Colombia's growing numbers of hippos, a legacy of Mr. Escobar's excesses, have in recent days bolstered the government's plan to prevent them - by force, if necessary - from spreading into areas along the nation's principal river. But some animal-rights activists are so opposed to the idea of killing them that they have called for the firing of President Álvaro Uribe's environment minister. Peter Morkel, a consultant for the Frankfurt Zoological Society in Tanzania, compared the potential for the hippos to disrupt Colombian ecosystems to the agitation caused by alien species elsewhere, like goats on the Galápagos Islands, cats on Marion Island between Antarctica and South Africa, or pythons in Florida. Colombia is absolute paradise for hippos, with its climate, vegetation and no natural predators, Mr. Morkel said. But as much as I love hippos, they are an alien species and extremely dangerous to people who disrupt them, he continued. Since castration of the males is very difficult, the only realistic option is to shoot those found off the hacienda. The uproar has its roots in 1981, when Mr. Escobar was busy assembling a luxurious retreat here called Hacienda Nápoles that included a Mediterranean-style mansion, swimming pools, a 1,000-seat bull ring and an airstrip. He needed a tranquil place to unwind with his family, said Fernando Montoya, 57, a sculptor from Medellín who built giant statues here of Tyrannosaurus rex and other dinosaurs for Mr. Escobar. Hired by private administrators of the seized estate, part of which is now a theme park (imagine mixing Jurassic Park and Scarface into a theme), Mr. Montoya rebuilt the same statues after looters tore them apart searching for hidden booty. But Mr. Escobar was not content with just fake dinosaurs and bullfights. In what ecologists describe as possibly the continent's most ambitious effort to assemble a collection of species foreign to South America, he imported animals like zebras, giraffes, kangaroos, rhinoceroses and, of course, hippopotamuses. Some of the animals died or were transferred to zoos around the time Mr. Escobar was killed. But the hippos largely stayed put, flourishing in the artificial lakes dug at Mr. Escobar's behest. Carlos Palacio, 54, head of animal husbandry at Nápoles, said Mr. Escobar started in 1981 with four hippos. Now, he said, at least 28 live on the estate. With our current level of six births a year set to climb, we could easily have more than 100 hippos on this hacienda in a decade, Mr. Palacio said. Some experts see this herd as a treasure of the natural world in case Africa's hippo population suffers a sharp decline, Mr. Palacio continued. Others view our growth as a kind of time bomb. The number of hippos on the hacienda could have reached 31 had Pepe, the slain hippo, not clashed about three years ago with the herd's dominant hippo, then left with a mate for other pastures. Once established near Puerto Berrío, the mate gave birth to a calf. Faced with the possibility of a nascent colony away from Nápoles, Colombian authorities decided to act. After all, hippos, despite
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Are ecologists the problem?
I think that a lot of confused thinking is going into this issue. Aside from the recurring question of whether ecologists and environmentalists are the same, I think we need to distinguish between personal and professional footprints. Most ecologists I know live quite modestly and are not wasteful. However research is demanding. How do you survey a large savannah without an airplane, or at least a 4x4? How do you conduct marine research without ships, and ships burn a lot of fuel? Other fields face even more drastic contrasts. The search for low-impact energy through fission or the use of high-temperature superconductors requires research that consumes a tremendous amount of energy. There is also a political issue here. If we follow some lines of reasoning then ecologists/environmentalists would not fly to meetings or use energy guzzling computers, we would communicate by mailing letters to each other and hand-deliver press releases to the media by bicycle. The bad guys could of course take full advantage of modern technology to shout us down. How effective would we green people be in that case? Bill Silvert - Original Message - From: Lesley Campbell l...@rice.edu To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2009 5:56 PM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Are ecologists the problem? While I'm more than happy to agree that the amount that ecologists travel (relative to the average earth resident) is an outrageous disaster,...
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Are ecologists the problem?
I agree with Malcolm's posting that strict vegetarianism has its own problems, but the basic idea of eating lower on the food chain certainly has some benefits. This is particularly true where fish are concerned - most of the land animals killed for food are herbivores, but the most prized fish tend to be carnivores. This has raised a lot of concern. However I think that we should encourage people to think about the problem and make suggestions, even though we may disagree with some of them. Arrogant putdowns like the one below don't encourage people with ideas to speak out, and some of them may even have good ideas that should not be suppressed. Bill Silvert - Original Message - From: Benjamin Lee benjaminjames...@gmail.com To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2009 5:26 AM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Are ecologists the problem? Maybe ESA could conduct a poll of members that live in highly populated desert areas that by definition are unsustainable like Tempe, Arizona. Or maybe vegans and vegetarians should not brag about themselves over the ECOLOG listserv.
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Shannon-Wiener Div Index Question - dealing with zero species per plot??
After reading this posting and several replies I am getting more and more confused. Of course both n=0 and n=1 correspond to zero diversity. What is the issue? More fundamentally, what is the point of all of this? In the rest of her posting (which I have omitted) she describes a project for which she wants an index, but I think that the output of an ecological study should be a statement about the ecosystem, To say that bees prefer substrate X to substrate Y is informative, but to simply report the value of some arbitrarily chosen diversity index is not, at least not so far as I can tell. Perhaps if she has some biologically meaningful hypotheses to test it would be easier to identify some index that can be used to distinguish between them. She writes I am studying substrate preferences of ground nesting bees but it isn't clear how any diversity index fits into the analysis. Bill Silvert - Original Message - From: Maria Van Dyke mt...@virginia.edu To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2009 6:39 PM Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Shannon-Wiener Div Index Question - dealing with zero species per plot?? I have a question about utility of the Shannon-Wiener diversity index in regards to sampling units that have no species in them at a given sampling time. Normally this would get a value of zero, however with Shannon-Wiener a sampling unit that has only one individual of one species would also earn the value of zero when input into the formula -#8721;(1*ln1) = -amp;#8721;(1*0) = 0; therefore there becomes an issue of two different species scenarios having the same values (0 for no species individuals and 0 for 1 ind of one species).
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Shannon-Wiener Div Index Question - dealing with zero species per plot??
If you are trying to synthesize results from different communities, then having some undefined really messes things up. Better to have a poor definition than run to undefined. An alternative is to weight the measure by the number of species so that with zero species you have a real zero. It sounds to me like UA or US (which is it?) may have too many philosophers on staff! Bill Silvert - Original Message - From: Eric Lamb el...@ualberta.ca To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Friday, July 17, 2009 12:14 PM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Shannon-Wiener Div Index Question - dealing with zero species per plot?? The consensus seems to be that diversity should be zero, but we should consider the larger question before the mechanics of calculating a particular index. I recently had to deal with a similar question: what is the evenness of a community with zero species?. The consensus among those I discussed this issue with was that evenness (and hence diversity) should be undefined when there are no species. The reason is that diversity or evenness is a property of a community, not a patch of ground or a pot. If there are no species then there is no community, and thus we cannot define evenness. Cheers, Eric -- Eric Lamb Assistant Professor, Plant Ecology and Biostatistics Dept. of Plant Sciences, University of Saskatchewan http://homepage.usask.ca/egl388/index.html 4D68 Agriculture Building 306-966-1799 eric.l...@usask.ca
Re: [ECOLOG-L] technical writing: comma at thousand mark?
One reason for leaving out the comma is that it creates confusion in international journals. An American could write one thousand twelve and a half as 1,012.5, but in Europe the comma and period are reversed so it is 1.012,5. It is better to use just one separator for the decimals to minimise confusion. There is a tendency in journals to Americanise (oops, Americanize) everything, including spelling. It seems strange that a European writing in a European journal is expected to follow American rather than UK spelling. Ironically I have had editors in Hong Kong try to change my UK (actually Canadian) spelling. I suppose that if Melissa is in the US and writing reports for US readers the commas might be justified, but if writing for an international audience she should be able to have it omitted. Bill Silvert Portugal - Original Message - From: Melissa McCanna parmeli...@aol.com To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Monday, July 13, 2009 9:10 AM Subject: [ECOLOG-L] technical writing: comma at thousand mark? Recently, I have been edited to place a comma at the thousand mark in my technical reports.? It was my understanding and my preference for nearly 20 years that the comma in 1000/1,000 was optional, and preferred absent in technical writing.? What is the general feeling out there? Also, I have been noticing more and more a comma added for a month-year designation: July, 2009.? I thought the comma was unnecessary. I turn 40 this year.? Is this just the natural order of things that I become a writing curmudgeon? :-) -Melissa No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.375 / Virus Database: 270.13.10/2230 - Release Date: 07/10/09 17:57:00
Re: [ECOLOG-L] real versus fake peer-reviewed journals
Unfortunately Martin is looking for a magic bullet that doesn't exist. There are too many cases where scientific concensus has been wrong. Although quarks and Higgs bosons may exist, phlogiston and W-rays do not even though they were once well-accepted physical concepts. As for current climate issues, I don't see any easy way to resolve the controversy. Of course we discount the testimony of experts who work for the oil industry just as we did the medical researchers employed by tobacco firms, but how far does this get us? I subscribe to a fisheries list where most of the subscribers feel that any research funded by the Pew Foundation is automatically biased. R. Bruce Lindsay taught me that we never truly know anything, the best we can do is construct the best possible models of what we observe. When you read a scientific paper you are not reading facts, you are reading about a model that the author has constructed to explain observations. It boils down to your ability to evaluate models. Fortunately the fields where we are least able to judge the quality of research are usually not of great concern to us. Martin's world will not collapse if the Higgs boson is not found. Bill Silvert - Original Message - From: Martin Meiss mme...@gmail.com To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2009 7:33 PM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] real versus fake peer-reviewed journals Yes, Dr. Greenberg, I concede your point. In one's immediate research one must go far beyond having faith in the publishing process. By the way, do journals keep accurate data on their rejection rates, on re-submission rates, etc. This would be the sort of information that could be used to distinguish between legitimate journals and journals with political agendas. However, at least in part, my remarks were directed toward our acceptance of work well outside our field. I would like to hold intelligent opinions on climate change, for instance, without having to understand all the climatology, meteorology, oceanography, paleontology, modeling, etc. that truly enlightened opinions are based on. I would like to believe that the voodoo-sounding stuff and the particle zoo that physicists talk about is well-founded in theory and experiment, but I don't understand their mathematics and I never will. So when physicists say they have found the top quark, or that there ought to be a Higgs boson, I have to take that on faith, or perhaps, as Dave Raikow suggested in an earlier post, we should call it confidence. Condidence that those guys know what they're talking about, that their journal editors and reviewers aren't nuts or corrupt, confidence that their mathematics isn't black magic.
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Mosquitoes as keystone species?
It is not clear what Paul means by extensive direct evidence. Flynn indicated that he had a team of colleagues working over several years who made this observation. Isn't this extensive direct evidence? Nor is it unreasonable to postulate that maybe the reason that there are fewer mosquitoes is that they were killed. Bill Silvert, trying to think critically. - Original Message - From: Paul Cherubini mona...@saber.net To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2009 1:10 PM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Mosquitoes as keystone species? Conor_Flynn wrote: we've noticed something interesting: there are no mosquitoes in or near Alamosa. This is because the city sprays for them regularly. We have also noticed fewer grasshoppers, bees, and frogs than we might otherwise expect. A critical thinker would say it wildly speculative for anyone to claim, without , that: 1) There really are no mosquitoes and fewer grasshoppers, bees, and frogs in Alamosa, Colorado. 2) Mosquito spraying is the underlying cause of these declines.
Re: [ECOLOG-L] real versus fake peer-reviewed journals
I support Martin in this, although I think that James raises a valid point. Peer review is only a poor indicator of the quality of a paper, and often editors end up sending papers to graduate students or even people in other fields. About a third of the reviewing requests I receive are inappropriate, and often I can't even understand what the paper is about. Of course this depends on the particular discipline. In fields where there is a standard methodology peer review can certify that the work was done correctly. In other fields though the reviewer may only be certifying that the paper follows the current paradigm (note the quote from Hilborn in another posting on this topic). Basically we have no definitive way of separating valid results from junk. I am sure that there were plenty of senior scientists who would have rejected the papers of Darwin, Einstein, Wegener and many others. There are also hundreds of papers published in good journals which turned out to be wrong. The suggestion that you look at the journal's mission statement may help. Reputable journals abound, the problem arises with obscure new journals that may have an agenda. (Certainly no respectable scientist would want to publish a complicated model in the online Journal of Simple Systems, www.simple.cafeperal.eu - I can say this with confidence, since I am the editor and publisher). If the journal seems strange or inappropriate, think about why the paper ended up there, Bill Silvert - Original Message - From: James Crants jcra...@gmail.com To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2009 3:22 PM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] real versus fake peer-reviewed journals Martin, This all sounds good in the abstract, but it's beyond me how we could do better than peer-review to establish which science is done well and which is not. No matter how reliable a system is, it's always easy to say we should do better than this. But what would you propose to improve on our current systme of vetting scientific research? You don't have to get very far from your own field to run into research you aren't equipped to validate. Most pollination biologists probably aren't prepared to properly assess the quality of research on insect cognition, for example, so they have to rely on other scientists to evaluate the research for them. To what better authority could they possibly appeal? I would certainly not want people who don't have faith in the scientific method deciding which papers can and cannot be published. Jim Crants On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 10:34 AM, Martin Meiss mme...@gmail.com wrote: I find this exchange very interesting, and it points up a major problem caused by the burgeoning of scientific knowledge and the limitations of the individual. As scientists, we believe (have faith) that the scientific method is the best means of arriving at truth about the natural world. Even if the method is error-prone in some ways, and is subject to various forms of manipulation, it is historically self-correcting. The problem is that no individual has enough time, knowledge, and background to know if the scientific method is being properly by all those who claim to be doing so. We hear someone cite a suspicious-sounding fact (i.e., a fact that doesn't correspond to our perhaps-erroneous understanding), and we want to know if it is based on real science or pseudo-science. So what to we do? We ask if the supporting research appeared in a peer-reviewed journal (i.e., has this been vetted by the old-boys network?). This sounds a little like the response of the people who first heard the teachings of Jesus. They didn't ask How do we know this is true? They asked By whose authority do you speak? These two questions should never be confused, yet the questions Did it appear in a peer-reviewed journal and Is that journal REALLY a peer-reviewed journal? skate perilously close to this confusion. We are looking for a short-cut, for something we can trust so we don't have to be experts in every branch of science and read every journal ourselves. I don't know the answer to this dilemma, and perhaps there is none, but we should be looking for something better than Does this have the stamp of approval of people who think like I do? We should be looking for something that is not just an encodement of Does this violate the doctrine of my faith? The pragmatic necessity of letting others decide whether certain research is valid should be no excuse for relaxing our personal vigilance and skepticism. Otherwise, we fall into the same trap that ensnares the religionists who are trying to undermine science because it threatens their faith. Martin M. Meiss 2009/7/8 Kerry Griffis-Kyle kerr...@yahoo.com I am teaching a Sophomore/Junior level evolution course at Texas Tech (where a significant proportion of my students believe evolution is anti-God). One of the activities
[ECOLOG-L] Forest fluxes
I was intrigued to see this in the New York Times. I have no background in this area and would be interested in seeing what more knowledgable list members might have to say. Also I recently heard a statement that there is a significant amount of anaerobic decomposition under old growth forests that should be factored into calculations of biogeochemical fluxes, and it would be interesting to hear about that too. Bill Silvert January 30, 2009 New Jungles Prompt a Debate on Rain Forests By [LINK: http://query.nytimes.com/search/query?ppds=bylLv1=ELISABETH%20ROSENTHALfdq=19960101td=sysdatesort=newestac=ELISABETH%20ROSENTHALinline=nyt-per] ELISABETH ROSENTHAL CHILIBRE, [LINK: http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/panama/index.html?inline=nyt-geo] Panama The land where Marta Ortega de Wing raised hundreds of pigs until 10 years ago is being overtaken by galloping jungle palms, lizards and ants. Instead of farming, she now shops at the supermarket and her grown children and grandchildren live in places like Panama City and New York. Here, and in other tropical countries around the world, small holdings like Ms. Ortega de Wings and much larger swaths of farmland are reverting to nature, as people abandon their land and move to the cities in search of better livings. These new secondary forests are emerging in Latin America, Asia and other tropical regions at such a fast pace that the trend has set off a serious debate about whether saving primeval [LINK: http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/topics/forests_and_forestry/rain_forests/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier] rain forest an iconic environmental cause may be less urgent than once thought. By one estimate, for every acre of rain forest cut down each year, more than 50 acres of new forest are growing in the tropics on land that was once farmed, logged or ravaged by natural disaster. There is far more forest here than there was 30 years ago, said Ms. Ortega de Wing, 64, who remembers fields of mango trees and banana plants. The new forests, the scientists argue, could blunt the effects of rain forest destruction by absorbing carbon dioxide, the leading heat-trapping gas linked to [LINK: http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/topics/globalwarming/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier] global warming, one crucial role that rain forests play. They could also, to a lesser extent, provide habitat for endangered species. The idea has stirred outrage among environmentalists who believe that vigorous efforts to protect native rain forest should remain a top priority. But the notion has gained currency in mainstream organizations like the [LINK: http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/s/smithsonian_institution/index.html?inline=nyt-org] Smithsonian Institution and the [LINK: http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/u/united_nations/index.html?inline=nyt-org] United Nations, which in 2005 concluded that new forests were increasing dramatically and undervalued for their environmental benefits. The United Nations is undertaking the first global catalog of the new forests, which vary greatly in their stage of growth. Biologists were ignoring these huge population trends and acting as if only original forest has conservation value, and thats just wrong, said Joe Wright, a senior scientist at the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute here, who set off a firestorm two years ago by suggesting that the new forests could substantially compensate for rain forest destruction. Is this a real rain forest? Dr. Wright asked, walking the land of a former American cacao plantation that was abandoned about 50 years ago, and pointing to fig trees and vast webs of community spiders and howler monkeys. A botanist can look at the trees here and know this is regrowth, he said. But the temperature and humidity are right. Look at the number of birds! It works. This is a suitable habitat. Dr. Wright and others say the overzealous protection of rain forests not only prevents poor local people from profiting from the rain forests on their land but also robs financing and attention from other approaches to fighting global warming, like eliminating coal plants. But other scientists, including some of Dr. Wrights closest colleagues, disagree, saying that forceful protection of rain forests is especially important in the face of threats from industrialized farming and logging. The issue has also set off a debate over the true definition of a rain forest. How do old forests compare with new ones in their environmental value? Is every rain forest sacred? Yes, there are forests growing back, but not all forests are equal, said Bill Laurance, another senior scientist at the Smithsonian, who has worked extensively in the Amazon. He scoffed as he viewed Ms. Ortega de Wings
Re: [ECOLOG-L] ecologcal modeling
I guess I should elaborate on my brief posting. I agree with Jane, but most courses on ecological modelling (EM) start with cabinet making. I've given a numberf of short courses on EM at various universities, and almost always the organisers start by asking what software I plan to use. And in fact many (perhaps most) courses deal with the use of a specific package, such as Stella, MatLab or ECOPATH. These packages are restrictive, none can implement all the different modelling approaches that might be appropriate. For example, almost none can handle something as simple as a Leslie matrix. There no principles of ecological modeling that I would describe as such, but there are many concepts that I think should be discussed in a course but are often omitted when the students dive straight into programming. These include the concepts of stability and resilience, the various forms of time series analysis and system identification. As for chaos and catastrophe theory There is no clearly defined set of principles and approaches in EM, and basically every course is different and depends on the views of the teacher. A student who passes one course would likely fail the exam in a different course. By comparison, a student who passes a course in microbiology could probably pass the exams in other courses. This chaotic situation can have disastrous results. I am sure that most modellers would consider me crazy for some of the things I do and teach (a view I often reciprocate!). Some of the materials I have used in modelling courses are on my website, http://ciencia.silvert.org/models/. Bill Silvert - Original Message - From: Jane Shevtsov jane@gmail.com To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2009 1:17 AM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] ecologcal modeling Ideally, you learn some carpentry before you need to build kitchen cabinets. Jane Shevtsov And Wayne Tyson wrote: Bill, what about the principles of ecological modeling; are they uniform across applications? in response to my posting On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 4:04 PM, Bill Silvert cien...@silvert.org wrote: I find this kind of request similar to asking about courses in microscopy. I really don't think that anyone could construct a course that covered all different kinds of ecological modelling. You start with a problem and try to solve it, you don't start with a hammer and look for the right kind of nail. Bill Silvert - Original Message - From: John Claydon jclay...@fieldstudies.org To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2009 3:59 AM Subject: [ECOLOG-L] ecologcal modeling I was interested if there were any intensive courses on ecological modeling available during this summer. Country is not an issue. I would be grateful for any advice. Thanks John Claydon -- - Jane Shevtsov Ecology Ph.D. student, University of Georgia co-founder, a href=http://www.worldbeyondborders.org;World Beyond Borders/a Check out my blog, a href=http://perceivingwholes.blogspot.com;Perceiving Wholes/a Political power comes out of the look in people's eyes. --Kim Stanley Robinson, _Blue Mars_
Re: [ECOLOG-L] ecologcal modeling
I find this kind of request similar to asking about courses in microscopy. I really don't think that anyone could construct a course that covered all different kinds of ecological modelling. You start with a problem and try to solve it, you don't start with a hammer and look for the right kind of nail. Bill Silvert - Original Message - From: John Claydon jclay...@fieldstudies.org To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2009 3:59 AM Subject: [ECOLOG-L] ecologcal modeling I was interested if there were any intensive courses on ecological modeling available during this summer. Country is not an issue. I would be grateful for any advice. Thanks John Claydon
Re: [ECOLOG-L] moving from a PC to a Mac???
Maybe my criticisms of Vista were excessive, assuming that you want to spend a lot of time tweaking it. One of my problems is that Windows Explorer doesn't work (I have installed all the Windows upgrades, but it still keeps crashing about 80% of the time I try to do a file copy). So I'll take Joe's advice and get the file handlers he recommends. As for UAC (user access control) I still have not figured out how to access some of my directories despite having an administrator's account, but perhaps that will come with time. Still, it is awfully slow, especially doing things in Windows Mail. Maybe 3 GB is not enough. I should add that our Vista machine is a Sony Vaio laptop, and when I went to the web for advice I found lots of similar complaints from Sony owners. It may be that my hardware is the problem, not Vista. Still, I know that many people who bought new desktops with Vista soon decided to go back to XP. It's an operating system that some people love and others hate. I am one who hates it. By the way, my comment about problems upgrading laptops from XP to Vista are based on discussions with PC technicians, not on my own experience. Bill Silvert - Original Message - From: Joe Ledvina [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 4:09 AM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] moving from a PC to a Mac??? More and more people are coming around to Vista, and for some good reasons... I've been using Vista since January, and I love it. I used to use a 3rd-party file manager (FreeCommander) and copy handler (TeraCopy), but Explorer improvements have made them unnecessary. UAC can be adjusted to be hardly obtrusive, and it works.
Re: [ECOLOG-L] moving from a PC to a Mac???
Scott is right, Vista is a good reason to move to a Mac. However I might point out that PC makers are beginning to offer XP again. The high end Sony Vaios actually come with both, including an optional downgrade from Vista to XP, and I suspect that by the end of the year most suppliers will be offering XP. So all is not lost. A PC with XP is a useful machine, a PC with Vista is nothing but a headache. Of course if you have a desktop machine, you can simply install XP. However the operating systems for laptops are usually tweaked for the hardware, so if you have a laptop with Vista, you are screwed - installing XP is a risky option. Bill Silvert - Original Message - From: Scott D Lapoint [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Monday, August 11, 2008 6:47 PM Subject: [ECOLOG-L] moving from a PC to a Mac??? Hello Ecologers, It's time for me to invest in a new computer. I've long been a fan of Dell computers and PCs in general, but because of the issues I've seen with Vista, I've been considering a switch to Mac.
Re: Are organisms really 4 dimensional objects?
The 3/4 allometry holds for terrestria organisms, but for marine species it is more close to 2/3. An explanation and detailed discussion can be found in Platt, Trevor, and William Silvert. 1981. Ecology, physiology, allometry and dimensionality. J. Theor. Biol. 93:855-860. Bill Silvert - Original Message - From: Oskar Burger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 11:20 PM Subject: Are organisms really 4 dimensional objects? A paper just made available on the American Naturalist website takes a novel and curious perspective on fundamental scaling relationships in ecology. The paper, by Ginzburg and Damuth, is titled The space-lifetime hypothesis: viewing organisms in 4 dimensions, literally. The authors argue that organisms can literally be viewed as four dimensional objects, three spatial and one temporal. While many traits scale with body size, they specifically focus on the well-known finding that metabolic rate scales as the +3/4 power of body mass whereas lifespan goes as the +1/4 power. This makes the product of the two an isometric relationship (m3/4 x m1/4 = m1), such that a doubling in an organism's size predicts a doubling in the energy it metabolizes in a lifetime. While many researchers take this as a consequence of other scaling relationships it is a fundamental role in the 4D view...
Re: [SSWG] Denial * 2: Climate Change and Economic Growth
What it boils down to is that the people who do the science usually know the limitations of their field. I did not mean to imply that scientists in one field would fully appreciate what is the case in other fields. In other words, I don't know many scientists who overrate the capabilities of the work that they are doing, although there are some unfortunate exceptions. Bill Silvert - Original Message - From: Robert Fireovid [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2007 1:57 AM Subject: [SSWG] Denial * 2: Climate Change and Economic Growth Unfortunately, I know too many economists (social scientists) - some in high-level policy-recommending positions within the government - who think in this way. - Bob Fireovid Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 06:10:54 + From: Bill Silvert [EMAIL PROTECTED] I hope that David posted this as a joke. This is the most inaccurate stereotype of scientists that I have seen. If there are scientists that think this way I have yet to meet them. Bill Silvert - Original Message - From: David Johns [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2007 2:16 AM Subject: Re: [SSWG] Denial * 2: Climate Change and Economic Growth Many years back David Ehrenfeld wrote a great book (The Arrogance of Humanism) that amounted to a critique of some Enlightenment assumptions that he thought many scientists subscribed to with religious-like faith. Among them were: All problems humans confront are solvable by them. Most can be solved with technology. If they cannot be solved by technology they can be solved by changes in social organization. If we get it wrong (e.g. Biosphere) we just didn't know enough we'll get it right next time. In tough times we will hunker down do what we need to do to make it through. Some resources are infinite; finite resources have substitutes. Our civilization will survive. He suggested that the observation of history lent itself to a different set of principles, i.e. ones that better fit the data: The world is too complex for humans to fully model or even understand, especially living systems. Techno-social solutions never completely solve problems; we only generate quasi solutions or patches. The quasi-solutions implemented generate new problems at a faster rate than can be solved; these new problems are usually more complex, costly to address, require that more systemic inertia be overcome, etc. Resources do run out. Social systems and entire civilizations do tank when the patches fail and problems become overwhelming. Ehrenfeld did not regard himself as a pessimist-just someone who noted that societies have always risen and fallen and that it's foolish to think we are different. He also noted that given the size of our foorprint and how much natural capital we have drawn down, some options are no longer available.
Re: [SSWG] Denial * 2: Climate Change and Economic Growth
I hope that David posted this as a joke. This is the most inaccurate stereotype of scientists that I have seen. If there are scientists that think this way I have yet to meet them. Bill Silvert - Original Message - From: David Johns [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2007 2:16 AM Subject: Re: [SSWG] Denial * 2: Climate Change and Economic Growth Many years back David Ehrenfeld wrote a great book (The Arrogance of Humanism) that amounted to a critique of some Enlightenment assumptions that he thought many scientists subscribed to with religious-like faith. Among them were: All problems humans confront are solvable by them. Most can be solved with technology. If they cannot be solved by technology they can be solved by changes in social organization. If we get it wrong (e.g. Biosphere) we just didn't know enough we'll get it right next time. In tough times we will hunker down do what we need to do to make it through. Some resources are infinite; finite resources have substitutes. Our civilization will survive. He suggested that the observation of history lent itself to a different set of principles, i.e. ones that better fit the data: The world is too complex for humans to fully model or even understand, especially living systems. Techno-social solutions never completely solve problems; we only generate quasi solutions or patches. The quasi-solutions implemented generate new problems at a faster rate than can be solved; these new problems are usually more complex, costly to address, require that more systemic inertia be overcome, etc. Resources do run out. Social systems and entire civilizations do tank when the patches fail and problems become overwhelming. Ehrenfeld did not regard himself as a pessimist-just someone who noted that societies have always risen and fallen and that it's foolish to think we are different. He also noted that given the size of our foorprint and how much natural capital we have drawn down, some options are no longer available. _ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Prato, Anthony A. Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2007 8:14 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [SSWG] Denial * 2: Climate Change and Economic Growth Brian makes a good point. However, there has been a lot of discussion about using technologies (e.g., injection of CO2 into the wells) that can reduce carbon emissions from coal-fired power plants. This suggests to me there is not a one-to-one lockstep relationship between economic growth and global warming. It's not that simple. Tony Prato University of Missouri-Columbia _ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2007 4:55 PM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [SSWG] Denial * 2: Climate Change and Economic Growth I've been following the ECOLOG discussion on climate change denial science with great interest. Many of the climate change deniers have much in common with those who deny that there is a conflict between economic growth and environmental protection. For example, both camps of deniers tend to be comprised of hirelings of, or were selected in a process strongly influenced by, big money (i.e., pro-growth, typically corporate and anti-regulatory entities). This point would be too obvious to be worth mentioning, except that now we are seeing a fascinating denial dialog developing regarding the relationship of economic growth and climate change. I noticed this at a climate change conference yesterday, where the old CIA Director Woolsey et al., while fully concurring that climate change is upon us, and substantially human-induced, are not yet ready to concede that climate change and other environmental threats are fundamental outcomes of economic growth. (While this is no place to elaborate, I have to at least note that, with a 90% fossil-fueled economy, and ceteris paribus, economic growth simply = global warming. And also that, with economic growth - increasing production and consumption of goods and services in the aggregate - prioritized
Re: Heads up: The new Global Warming Denial Front
Since any serious problem will generate concern and undoubtedly proposals to deal with it, we should therefore be suspicious -- and if we are of a sceptical nature, as Paul is, we will infer that serious problems are fraudulent. Whech makes the world a much better place to live in! Bill Silvert - Original Message - From: Paul Cherubini [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2007 2:29 PM Subject: Re: Heads up: The new Global Warming Denial Front In other words, scientists are not simply interested in seeing federal money spent on direct and immediate solutions to greenhouse gas pollution. They are seeking federal funding to study, monitor and manage species that might be substantially affected by climate change - funding that could create or enhance the professional careers of many hundreds, perhaps thousands of them. So naturally a situation like this raises suspicions. Paul Cherubini El Dorado, Calif.
Re: calculating standard error of turnover times
Why would you expect the confidence limits on the parameters of a non-linear model to be symmetrical? In general they are not. For example, if you fit the von Bertalanffy curve to data for young fish the confidence range for L-infinity can run from some finite value to infinity. I have not been following this discussion so perhaps the following reference is off-topic, but my pragmatic approach to nonlinear parameter estimation can be seen in: Silvert, W. 1979. Practical curve fitting. Limnol. Oceanogr. 24:767-773. and the PDF can be downloaded from http://bill.silvert.org/pdf/Practical%20Curve%20Fitting.pdf. Bill Silvert - Original Message - From: Ben Bond-Lamberty [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Monday, April 16, 2007 2:26 PM Subject: Re: calculating standard error of turnover times Erika, If you use a nonlinear regression package to fit your curve to existing data, it should compute standard errors for each parameter estimate. Ideally, I would just report these; certainly don't take 1/k as the standard error of turnover time, because this is a nonlinear transformation. Perhaps calculate 1/k (turnover time estimate) 1/(k+se(k)) (turnover estimate plus error) 1/(k-se(k)) (turnover estimate minus error) and report those. Regards, Ben On 4/13/07 5:50 PM, Erika Marín-Spiotta [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello, I have a quick question on how to convert the standard error of a slope (k) of an equation of the type: ln (y) = b + kx where y = fraction of mass remaining x = time in years, and where 1/k gives you a turnover time in years. In other words, how do you report standard error of turnover time?
Re: Hamerstrom science (deliberate non-use of statistical analysis)
Although Mike doesn't use the term, this is a nicely put statement of the message that modellers have been trying to get across for eons, that one should model a system before doing the field work in order to design the experiments optimally. Too often I have had people approach me with masses of data, but without the critical information that is needed to understand the system. On the other hand, if one only carries out field work to test pre-existing ideas, how can you discover anything new? One of the greatest scientific events of the past century was the discovery of ecosystems based on chemosynthesis rather than photosynthesis, but this was just the result of sending down a ROV and had nothing to do with hypothesis testing. And Darwin did not set out to test evolution, he joined the Beagle as a field naturalist and developed his theory from his observations. I suspect that these and other major scientific developments would not pass the rigorous tests of correct science. Bill Silvert - Original Message - From: Michael Sears [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2006 1:00 AM Subject: Re: Hamerstrom science (deliberate non-use of statistical analysis) If you can design an elegant experiment that only requires a t-test for its analysis, that is admirable. But the simple truth of the matter, in my experience, is that many folks don't take the time to design a good experiment, often collect data with disregard to any theory, and simply collect what is easy or is the data that everyone else collects, hoping in the end that somehow through mathemagic, they can make something out of their efforts. To paraphrase Burnham and Anderson, 90% of our time should be spent thinking and only 10% doing. I'd suggest folks be aware of theory and design experiments with regard to it, such that the design and analysis are set BEFORE the data are collected. Often, but not always, if that is done, an overly complex analysis may not be necessary...but some complicated hypotheses do require complex analyses. This is the nature of good science. Mike Sears
Re: Hamerstrom science (deliberate non-use of statistical analysis)
Ned misses an important point, that statistical models don't give you any idea what to measure. They simply tell you how to do what you are planning to do anyway in a way that might give statistically meaningful results. They do not have any underlying natural structure. When I referred to doing the modelling first I was referring to models that actually describe the system and have some scientific basis. As an example of what I mean, I was once invited to develop a model of aquaculture impacts after several years of data had been collected. I began the workshop by asking about the nitrogen fluxes, since previous studies had shown that these were the most critical variables and would be a key element of any model. After a long pause I was informed that nitrogen had not been measured because no one thought it was important (actually, they didn't have the right equipment). If they had built a simple model first we might have had some useful data to work with. And of course I am not ruling out the possibility that the data might contradict the model. That is fine. That is how science develops. So I assure Ned that I am not talking about statistics, but science. Bill Silvert - Original Message - From: Ned Dochtermann [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'Bill Silvert' [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2006 4:23 PM Subject: RE: Hamerstrom science (deliberate non-use of statistical analysis) Generally however those concerned, after the fact, about the rigor of their statistics (or lack thereof) are not reporting naturalistic observations but attempting to hammer their round data pegs into the square holes of already established theory. If your concern is naturalistic observation, you don't have to have too much concern about whether or not you've properly articulated (or understand) the underlying statistical model you're testing. Ned Dochtermann
Re: Hamerstrom science (deliberate non-use of statistical analysis)
Nonsense. Science involves understanding what is going on, and some arbitrary definition of scientific method is more often a hinderance than a help. Remember what Einstein said - Nature is subtle but not malicious (Raffiniert is der Herrgott, aber Bösehaft ist er nicht). We have to be clever to unravel these secrets. If we get at the truth we are doing science. Bill Silvert - Original Message - From: Malcolm McCallum [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2006 5:13 AM Subject: Re: Hamerstrom science (deliberate non-use of statistical analysis) Good science is a falicy. Either its science following the scientific = method or its not science. Period. I agree with most of the rest of what you said. =20 Malcolm L. McCallum
Re: What's the best energy source?
I am surprised by the variety of answers this question generated. To me it is like asking what is the best food to give an animal?. The answer is, it depends. The world will always require a mix of power sources, depending on availability and the type of use. There is no question that Iceland has its optimal power source, but geothermal energy is not globally available. Hydro power is more widespread, but still confined to certain regions and useful only for fixed demand (like factories or aluminum smelters). The same goes for wind and tidal power. Power for mobile applications poses a different set of problems. Even Iceland doesn't power its cars with geothermal energy. There is also the problem of balancing different kinds of environmental impacts. Hydro power is basically free, but the dams and power lines can have a major impact. So my answer to what I consider a meaningless question is this - the best way to power the world is brain power. Bill Silvert - Original Message - From: Leslie Mertz [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 1:29 PM Subject: What's the best energy source? I got an interesting question yesterday. From an environmental point of view, what is the best, yet still feasible, way to power the world? Any thoughts? Leslie Mertz, Ph.D. science writer/author, educator
Re: Online journals and publications
That works fine for what I assume is a regional society in a rich country, but the critical issue raised by Werner is what happens with international journals where some of the authors and some of the readers may not be able to pay the kinds of fees that we are used to in Canada? I might point out that even in a country like Canada not every author can pay for publication. I retired in 1998 and thus lost support for page charges, but I am trying to remain active. Without funding I find I have to be very selective in where I submit. We shouldn't assume that everyone has access to generous research grants. Bill Silvert - Original Message - From: John Simaika [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2005 9:55 AM Subject: Re: Online journals and publications The Entomological Society of British Columbia asks authors to pay for their submissions. However, each submission published in the society's journal is available online, free of charge. I think that this is a brilliant way of sharing a wealth of knowledge and new developments, if only on a relatively regional scale. Certainly, bigger journals should follow this approach. Best wishes, JP Simaika. -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill Silvert Sent: December 20, 2005 2:34 PM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Online journals and publications Werner raises a good point, for some scientists it simply is not reasonable to pay to read articles in their field. The result is that science becomes concentrated in wealthy countries and labs with institutional subscriptions. If you are not in such a place, you just don't have access. I don't think that science should be just for the wealthy. Those of us with institutional subscriptions should be willing to download and transfer papers to our less fortunate colleagues. I find it a bit embarassing that I have to rely on a former student to help me keep abreast of developments in my field, but that is the way that scientific publishing works. It is a lousy system, and we should do our best to subvert it. Bill Silvert - Original Message - From: DeerLab [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2005 7:39 PM Subject: Re: [Tws-l] online journals When I am asked to pay 1-2 days-worth of salary to download a paper, I just move on. From what I gather, many colleagues are in the same boat. There are some good journals which supposedly on purpose do not even provide an email contact for the author, that is unacceptable because it is counterproductive. Werner Flueck National Research Council Argentina
Re: Online journals and publications
Just a short comment on this. Authors do not always have reprints. Some of you may recall my posting a message I received from Springer saying that a paper of mine had been published and if my institute subscribed to Springer Online I could download the PDF. Several of you were kind enough to send me copies of my own paper, but I have not received any reprints, paper or PDF, from Springer. I have had the same experience with other journals. And my point is that if even an author cannot get copies of his own paper, it won't be easier for anyone else who cannot pay. This is a problem that needs fixing. Bill Silvert - Original Message - From: Ted R. Feldpausch [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2005 6:36 PM Subject: Re: Online journals and publications One could argue that reprints can easily be requested from authors.
ESA Copyright
While I appreciate Robert Peet's explanation of ESA policy, the following paragraph seems disingenuous. There are many better ways to deal with this. One obvious solution would be to share the copyright so that either the author or ESA could authorise further use. There are many other options, such as Creative Copyright (http://creativecommons.org/), which offer refinements on this theme. Bill Silvert - Original Message - From: Robert K. Peet [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Monday, November 21, 2005 7:42 AM Subject: Re: ECOLOG-L Digest - 19 Nov 2005 to 20 Nov 2005 (#2005-299) Note that ESA does require transfer of copyright. There is a good reason= =20 for this. We expect ESA to last a long time, longer than most authors=20 will live or be locatable. We want to make sure that in the future it=20 will be easy to find the owner of an article so that its contents can be=20 used in another work.
Copyright Law and Science
The recent discussion of copyright law seems to have managed to bypass the key issues in a very disappointing way. One set of postings comes from people who are confused because they don't see what is wrong with copying a book that is out of print and totally unavailable, while the other set comes from legal scholars who write things like I love to see discussios over copyright lead by people who don't know what they are talking about. Debate about copyright tend to focus on the right of creators of intellectual property to receive fair compensation for their labours, and I have never heard copyright defended on the grounds that it is a mechanism for the suppression of ideas - but this often happens. Sometimes copyright is used to deliberate material intentionally. Hollywood will sometime buy the rights to a film, withdraw it from circulation, and replace it with a remake. Some very important films, such as the Marcel Pagnol Fanny trilogy, were suppressed in this way, although many continued to circulate in bootleg versions and are again available. Rich companies and individuals have often tried to buy the rights to unfavourable books so that they can suppress them. More often works are suppressed through a combination of negligence and greed, such as when a company drops a CD, book or video game from its catalogue but will not release it into the public domain. While the loss of an art work in this way is sad, in science it is totally unacceptable. Scientific progress requires the open exchange of ideas, and withdrawing books and journals from the scientific community is tantamount to burning them. Suppose that the Vatican, instead of issuing bodily threats against Galileo and Copernicus and actually burning Bruno at the stake had simply been able to buy up their copyrights? Or that Hitler had been able to withdraw from circulation all the German journals where Einstein and others published their results? Although these examples are exaggerated, copyright law is a serious problem for modern scientists. If you want to publish you have to transfer the copyright to the publisher, giving up even your own rights to what you wrote. Your work may simply vanish into limbo - the publisher declares bankruptcy, the book never gets printed, the journal becomes defunct - but the copyright never reverts to you. Maybe the publisher decides to drop the book because it serves a market where books favourable to evoloution are not selling well! Let me end with an example: Suppose that you write a paper in your field which you want to distribute in its entirety to your graduate students. According to at least some of the expert postings on this list you have no right to do this unless you buy the reprints from the publisher. Would you really be prepared to tell your graduate students that they can't have copies of the paper on which their theses are to be based because you can't afford the reprints? I think that the basic point comes down to this - a scientist should have access to all revious work in his field. If he can get access through legal means, buying a book or such, that is the proper route to take. But if there is no legal access, then copyright law should not be an obstacle to the free flow of information. Bill Silvert
Re: scientific misconduct survey
I finally got around to reading the guide and looking at the questionnaire, and while I think that Montgomerie raises some interesting issues which it would be worthwhile to discuss on this list (but we can't because the questionnaire is copyrighted!), I think that these are issues to discuss and not simply rank without considering different situations. I found it impossible to fill out the questionnaire because for many of the questions I could easily envision situations where they action described would be serious misconduct and others in which it would be OK, or even praiseworthy. Perhaps Dr. Montgomerie could be persuaded to modify his copyright so that we can discuss these issues on the list. Even though most of the material in his list is stuff we talk about all the time, given that the colour BROWN has been patented (by UPS) and there is a current lawsuit over whether the word VIRGIN is in the public domain (wow, think of the implications for ecological research!), I m reluctant to comment on the specifics of his questionnaire. Bill Silvert -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Wendee Holtcamp Sent: October 31, 2005 8:04 AM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: scientific misconduct survey For those who didn't read the May 2005 essay posted by Morty, A = beginners guide to scientific misconduct=20 (http://web.unbc.ca/isbe/newsletter/commentarieseditorials/MontgomerieBirkhead_vol17(1).pdf) I thought I'd post the URL to a survey mentioned within and currently = being conducted by is author Dr Robert Montgomerie:=20 http://biology.queensu.ca/~montgome/sm Take the survey because I'm interested in his results! :o) Wendee
