Subject: ECOLOG-L Digest - 19 Feb 2001 to 20 Feb 2001
To: Recipients of ECOLOG-L digests <ECOLOG-L@UMDD.UMD.EDU>
Status: R
There are 22 messages totalling 1452 lines in this issue.
Topics of the day:
1. Environmental Science Camp for High School Students: SPECIES
2. Humpty Dumpty (10)
3. gw: Global warming: Kilimanjaro ice cap gone in 15 years
4. M.S. Graduate Assitantship
5. HumptyDumpty
6. Turbidity and chlorophyll sensors
7. humpty dumpty and restoration
8. JOB ANNOUNCEMENT: Assistant Professor, Animal Physiological Ecology
9. Scientists Link Early Puberty to Chemical Exposure
10. Habitat selection, schmelection
11. International Meeting on Palynology in St. Petersburg, Russia.
12. Information about an intership in Puerto Rico
13. aquarium UV sterilizers???
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 23:31:13 -0500
From: "Henshel, Diane S." <dhenshel@INDIANA.EDU>
Subject: Environmental Science Camp for High School Students: SPECIES
I'd like to call attention to an educational opportunity for all High School
Science Students who you know who might be interested in this opportunity.
This Environmental Science camp will run June 17-23. Information is
accessible via: http://www.indiana.edu/~coasinfo/science/species/.
Thank you
Diane Henshel
> SPECIES
> June 17-23, 2001
>
> The Summer Program Exploring Complex Issues in Environmental Science
> (SPECIES) is a one-week residential program that combines a variety of
> field techniques and discussions to teach students about the complex wo
ld
> of environmental science and policy. Students who attend the SPECIES
> program will explore the environment and their place in it with a serie
> of hands-on, inquiry-driven experiments designed to answer questions ab
ut
> environmental issues. Each day will address a different question and
> students will learn to answer the questions with environmental science
> tools. Topics include What is That? How many Deer is too Many? How Wet
s
> a Wetland? What Aquatic Critters Live Here? and Where does my Garbage G
?
>
> Program Title: SPECIES
> Sponsoring Organization: Office for Undergraduate and Science-Outreach
> Programs at Indiana University-Bloomington
> Grade Level: 10-12
> Attendance: 16 students maximum
> Cost: $475.00
> Contact Information:
> Name: Tina Gilliland
> Title: Program Coordinator
> Program: Office for Undergraduate and Science-Outreach Programs
> School: Indiana University-Bloomington
> Address: Kirkwood Hall 104
> City: Bloomington, IN 47405
> Phone: 812-855-5397
> Fax: 812-8552060
> Email: coassci@indiana.edu
> Web site: http://www.indiana.edu/~coasinfo/science/species /
> Location: Indiana University-Bloomington, Bloomington, IN
> Program Dates: June 17-23, 2001
> Program Length: One week
> Program Size: 16 students
> Financial Aid: Available on a case-by-case basis
> Admissions Criteria: Personal essay, 3.0 GPA or higher, and one letter
f
> recommendation from a high school science teacher
>
>
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 10:26:32 -0500
From: Gary Schott <schott@KBS.MSU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Humpty Dumpty
Does this discussion remind anyone else of the words of George Sr. when he
was president? "No net loss of wetlands". If we destroy it here, we'll
rebuild it over there, simple!
**************************************************************************
Gary W. Schott
Kellogg Biological Station
3700 E. Gull Lake Dr.
Hickory Corners, MI 49060
616-671-2242
616-671-2104 (fax)
http://kbs.msu.edu/~schott/
**************************************************************************
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 08:51:30 -0500
From: Karen Claxon <kclaxon@EARTHLINK.NET>
Subject: gw: Global warming: Kilimanjaro ice cap gone in 15 years
Glacier Loss Seen as Clear Sign of Human Role in Global Warming
By ANDREW C. REVKIN
NY Times Feb 19, 2001
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/02/19/science/19MELT.html?pagewanted=all
or
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/02/19/science/19MELT.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
The icecap atop Mount Kilimanjaro, which for thousands of years has
floated like a cool beacon over the shimmering plain of Tanzania, is
retreating at such a pace that it will disappear in less than 15 years,
according to new studies.
The vanishing of the seemingly perpetual snows of Kilimanjaro that
inspired Ernest Hemingway, echoed by similar trends on ice-capped peaks
from Peru to Tibet, is one of the clearest signs that a global warming
trend in the last 50 years may have exceeded typical climate shifts and
is at least partly caused by gases released by human activities, a
variety of scientists say.
Measurements taken over the last year on Kilimanjaro show that its
glaciers are not only retreating but also rapidly thinning, with one
spot having lost a yard of thickness since last February, said Dr.
Lonnie G. Thompson, a senior research scientist at the Byrd Polar
Research Center of Ohio State University.
Altogether, he said, the mountain has lost 82 percent of the icecap it
had when it was first carefully surveyed, in 1912.
Given that the retreat started a century ago, Dr. Thompson said, it is
likely that some natural changes were affecting the glacier before it
felt any effect from the large, recent rise in carbon dioxide and other
heat- trapping greenhouse gases from smokestacks and tailpipes. And, he
noted, glaciers have grown and retreated in pulses for tens of thousands
of years.
But the pace of change measured now goes beyond anything in recent
centuries.
"There may be a natural part of it, but there's something else being
superimposed on top of it," Dr. Thompson said. "And it matches so many
other lines of evidence of warming. Whether you're talking about bore-
hole temperatures, shrinking Arctic sea ice, or glaciers, they're
telling the same story."
Dr. Thompson presented the fresh data yesterday at the annual meeting of
the American Association for the Advancement of Science in San
Francisco.
Other recent reports of changes under way in the natural world, like
gaps in sea ice at the North Pole or shifts in animal populations, can
still be ascribed to other factors, many scientists say, but many add
that having such a rapid erosion of glaciers in so many places is harder
to explain except by global warming.
The retreat of mountain glaciers has been seen from Montana to Mount
Everest to the Swiss Alps. In the Alps, scientists have estimated that
by 2025 glaciers will have lost 90 percent of the volume of ice that was
there a century ago. (Only Scandinavia seems to be bucking the trend,
apparently because shifting storm tracks in Europe are dumping more snow
there.)
But the melting is generally quickest in and near the tropics, Dr.
Thompson said, with some ancient glaciers in the Andes - and the ice on
Kilimanjaro - melting fastest of all.
Separate studies of air temperature in the tropics, made using high-
flying balloons, have shown a steady rise of about 15 feet a year in the
altitude at which air routinely stays below the freezing point. Dr.
Thompson said that other changes could also be contributing to the
glacial shrinkage, but the rising warm zone is probably the biggest
influence.
Trying to stay ahead of the widespread melting, Dr. Thompson and a team
of scientists have been hurriedly traveling around the tropics to
extract cores of ice from a variety of glaciers containing a record of
thousands of years of climate shifts. The data may help predict future
trends.
The four-inch-thick ice cylinders are being stored in a deep-frozen
archive at Ohio State, he said, so that as new technologies are
developed for reading chemical clues in bubbles and water in ancient
ice, there will still be something to examine.
The sad fact, he said, is that in a matter of years, anyone wanting to
study the glaciers of Africa or Peru will probably have to travel to
Columbus, Ohio, to do so.
Dr. Richard B. Alley, a professor of geosciences at Pennsylvania State
University, said the melting trend and the link - at least partly - to
human influence is "depressing," not only because of the loss of data
but also because of the remarkable changes under way to such familiar
landscapes.
"What is a snowcap worth to us?" he said. "I don't know about you, but I
like the snows of Kilimanjaro."
The accelerating loss of mountain glaciers is also described in a
scientific report on the impact of global warming, which is being
released today in Geneva by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change, an influential network of scientists advising world governments
under the auspices of the United Nations. The melting is likely to
threaten water supplies in places like Peru and Nepal, the report says,
and could also lead to devastating flash floods.
Kilimanjaro, the highest point in Africa, may provide the most vivid
image of the change in glaciers, but, Dr. Thompson said, the rate of
retreat is far faster along the spine of the Andes, and the consequences
more significant. For 25 years, he has been tracking a particular
Peruvian glacier, Qori Kalis, where the pace of shrinkage has
accelerated enormously just in the last three years.
>From 1998 to 2000, the glacier pulled back 508 feet a year, he said.
"That's 33 times faster than the rate in the first measurement period,"
he said, referring to a study from 1963 to 1978.
In the short run, this means the hydroelectric dams and reservoirs
downstream will be flush with water, he said, but in the long run the
source will run dry.
"The whole country right now, for its hydropower, is cashing in on a
bank account that was built up over thousands of years but isn't being
replenished," he said.
Once that is gone, he added, chances are that the communities will have
to turn to oil or coal for power, adding even more greenhouse gases to
the air.
The changes in the character of Kilimanjaro are registering beyond the
ranks of climate scientists. People in the tourism business around the
mountain and surrounding national park are worried that visitors will no
longer be drawn to the peak once it has lost its glimmering cap.
Dr. Douglas R. Hardy, a geologist at the University of Massachusetts,
returned from Kilimanjaro last Thursday with the first yearlong record
of weather data collected by a probe placed near the summit.
Just before he left, he had a long conversation with the chief ranger of
Kilimanjaro National Park, who expressed deep concern about the trend.
"That mountain is the most mystical, magical draw to people's
imagination," Dr. Hardy said. "Once the ice disappears, it's going to be
a very different place."
And the melting continues. When Dr. Hardy climbed the mountain to
retrieve the data, he discovered that the weather instruments, erected
on a tall pole, had fallen over because the ice around the base was
gone.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 09:53:57 -0600
From: "Dianne L. Hall" <HallDL@MISSOURI.EDU>
Subject: M.S. Graduate Assitantship
Please reply to Dr. Houseman (housemanr@missouri.edu) and not to me. Thanks
Dianne
GRADUATE RESEARCH ASSISTANTSHIP
Department of Entomology
University of Missouri-Columbia
One graduate research assistantship (M.S. level) is available
immediately to investigate the basic biology and ecology of subterranean
termites. Potential projects could examine termite taxonomy,
biogeography of termites in Missouri, landscape ecology of subterranean
termites, seasonal and spatial changes in termite foraging intensity,
depth of termite foraging in the soil profile, or termite tunneling
activity.
The assistantship includes a yearly stipend of $11,800.00 plus a full
tuition waiver.
Interested individuals should contact Dr. Richard Houseman,
housemanr@missouri.edu, or call 573.882.7181. For additional
information on the University of Missouri and the Department of
Entomology, visit our web site at www.missouri.edu.
**************************************************
Postdoctoral Fellow Zzz |\ _, , , - - -, ,_
Department of Entomology /, ` . - ' ` ' -. ; - ; ; ,_
University of Missouri | , 4 - ) ) - ,_. ,\ ( ` ' -
Columbia, MO 65211 ' - - -' ' (_/- -' `-'\_)
Phone (573) 882-2410, Fax (573) 882-1469
e-mail dianhall@showme.missouri.edu
**************************************************
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 09:07:59 -0500
From: Lisamarie Windham <liw3@LEHIGH.EDU>
Subject: HumptyDumpty
I recently came across this concept in a recent paper of J. Ecology, in
which the authors test 4 theories of community "re"assembly using exotic
plants in New Zealand.
Wilson, J.B. et al. 2000. A test of community reassembly using the
exotic communities of New Zealand roadsides in comparison to British
roadsides. J. Ecology 88(5):757-764
They cite two papers relating to this theory. I only remember one at
this moment.
Luh, H-K and S. L. Pimm. 1993. The assembly of ecological communities: a
minimalist approach. Journal of Animal Ecology 62:749-765.
Haven't read Luh and Pimm yet, but the Wilson et al. (2000) is a clever
and revealing test of our knowledge in how species organize into
communities. The Humpty Dumpty theory, however, was not supported by
their results.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Lisamarie Windham
Assistant Professor
Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences
Lehigh University
Bethlehem, PA 18015
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 10:31:48 -0600
From: Charles Bomar <bomarc@UWSTOUT.EDU>
Subject: Re: Humpty Dumpty
----- Original Message -----
From: Gary Schott <schott@KBS.MSU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Humpty Dumpty
> Does this discussion remind anyone else of the words of George Sr. when
he
> was president? "No net loss of wetlands". If we destroy it here, we'l
> rebuild it over there, simple
yes it does--- this is exactly the point that I have been trying to make
and then when it fails, the scientists are at fault
crb
***********************************************************************
Charles R. Bomar
Associate Professor of Biology
University of Wisconsin-Stout
Menomonie, WI 54751
(715)232-2562
(715)232-2192 FAX
bomarc@uwstout.edu
http://biology.uwstout.edu/bomar/bomar.htm
***********************************************************************
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 10:27:16 -0500
From: Peter Schulze <pschulze@AUSTINC.EDU>
Subject: Turbidity and chlorophyll sensors
Earlier I posted a query asking whether anyone had experience with either
YSI or Hydrolab submersible turbidity sensors.
I got very few responses, but one person indicated serious problems working
with YSI customer service. I would be interested to know if anyone else
has had a similar experience.
Of course I remain interested in any additional replies to my original
post, which follows.
Thanks very much, Peter Schulze
Original post:
I am planning to replace an aging multi-parameter water quality sensor and
am considering YSI and Hydrolab models. For my application I need to
include a turbidity sensor and would therefore appreciate any feedback
regarding the YSI "wiped" sensor and the Hydrolab "shuttered" sensor.
I would also be interested in any insights regarding the performance of YSI
and Hydrolab chlorophyll sensors, particularly in circumstances
characterized by significant quantities of suspended materials (e.g.
turbidity of 20-50 NTU).
Peter Schulze, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Biology
Director, Center for Environmental Studies
Austin College
Sherman, TX 75090 USA
Voice 903/813-2284
Fax 903/813-2420
pschulze@austinc.edu
http://artemis.austinc.edu/acad/bio/pschulze/schulze.htm
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 08:19:42 -0800
From: Shawn Perkins <greensun71@HOTMAIL.COM>
Subject: Re: humpty dumpty and restoration
<html><DIV>
<P>I recall reading a similar statement in the book entitled, The Tall
rass
Restoration Handbook for Prairies, Savannas, and Woodlands (by Packard, S.
nd
C. Mutel.1997. Society for Ecological Restoration. Island Press.
Washington, D.C.) The book focuses on tallgrass prairies, obviously,
ut
it also devotes time to the topic of restoration in general. Good
luck.</P>
<P>Shawn </P></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>From: Noah Greenwald <NGREENWALD@BIOLOGICALDIV
RSITY.ORG>
<DIV></DIV>>Reply-To: Noah Greenwald <NGREENWALD@BIOLOGICA
DIVERSITY.ORG>
<DIV></DIV>>To: ECOLOG-L@UMDD.UMD.EDU
<DIV></DIV>>Subject: Re: humpty dumpty and restoration
<DIV></DIV>>Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 17:23:59 -0700
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>I recently read "The Sixth Extinction" by Richard
Leakey and
Roger
<DIV></DIV>>Lewin. If my memory serves me, I believe they use
the
Humpty-Dumpty
<DIV></DIV>>analogy, although they might have borrowed it fro
elsewhere.
Place to
<DIV></DIV>>start anyway.
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>Noah
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>At 03:13 PM 2/19/01 -0600, Charles Bomar wrote:
<DIV></DIV>> >A friend of mine recently made a comment abo
t the concept
of restoration
<DIV></DIV>> >ecology, comparing it to humpty dumpty, wher
"even if we
have all of the
<DIV></DIV>> >parts, it is difficult if not impossible to
eassemble it
properly" he had
<DIV></DIV>> >pulled that comment from a reading that he h
d done, but did
not remember
<DIV></DIV>> >the particular reference. Is any one else fa
iliar with this
phrase, or
<DIV></DIV>> >know of the particular reference that it cam
from??
<DIV></DIV>> >
<DIV></DIV>> >crb
<DIV></DIV>> >
<DIV></DIV>>
>***********************************************************************
<DIV></DIV>> >Charles R. Bomar
<DIV></DIV>> >Associate Professor of Biology
<DIV></DIV>> >University of Wisconsin-Stout
<DIV></DIV>> >Menomonie, WI 54751
<DIV></DIV>> >(715)232-2562
<DIV></DIV>> >(715)232-2192 FAX
<DIV></DIV>> >bomarc@uwstout.edu
<DIV></DIV>> >http://biology.uwstout.edu/bomar/bomar.htm
<DIV></DIV>>
>***********************************************************************
<DIV></DIV><br clear=all><hr>Get your FREE download
f MSN Explorer at <a
href="http://explorer.msn.com">http://explorer.msn.com</a><br>
</p></html>
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 09:56:59 -0800
From: Elisabeth M Ammon <ammon@MED.UNR.EDU>
Subject: Re: Humpty Dumpty
I certainly understand the concerns expressed below (I don't believe
there
is *anyone* out there who seriously argues that preservation is by far
more successful, cheaper, easier, etc. than any attempt to recover
biological systems). However, I would request that the discussion of
policy and science be kept separate. If you are privileged enough to work
in a system that has been preserved, then of course this position is the
only logical one (again, nobody has argued or will ever argue with this).
While this position would also have been the only defendable one in the
American west 100 years ago, I think - no offense - that it is naive to
think that after the whole-sale destruction of western riparian systems,
we can now simply set aside ("protect") the remaining trees/willows/bird
territories etc. and hope for the best without actually addressing the
problem of what caused them to be in trouble in the first place.
In any case, as one of you has remarked earlier, it doesn't help anyone to
be inflammatory about this (it only reflects badly on us all) -
particularly if we are essentially in agreement (just that we seem to be
working on, or perhaps just talking about, different problems).
Elisabeth Ammon
On Tue, 20 Feb 2001, Charles Bomar wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Gary Schott <schott@KBS.MSU.EDU>
> Subject: Re: Humpty Dumpty
>
>
> > Does this discussion remind anyone else of the words of George Sr.
when he
> > was president? "No net loss of wetlands". If we destroy it here,
we'll
> > rebuild it over there, simple
>
> yes it does--- this is exactly the point that I have been trying to mak
> and then when it fails, the scientists are at fault
>
> crb
>
> ***********************************************************************
> Charles R. Bomar
> Associate Professor of Biology
> University of Wisconsin-Stout
> Menomonie, WI 54751
> (715)232-2562
> (715)232-2192 FAX
> bomarc@uwstout.edu
> http://biology.uwstout.edu/bomar/bomar.htm
> ***********************************************************************
>
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 14:07:14 EST
From: Aneyww@AOL.COM
Subject: Re: Humpty Dumpty
In a message dated 20-Feb-2001 10:21:19 Pacific Standard Time,
ammon@MED.UNR.EDU writes:
<< I certainly understand the concerns expressed below (I don't believ
there
is *anyone* out there who seriously argues that preservation is by far
more successful, cheaper, easier, etc. than any attempt to recover
biological systems). >>
I guess I'm one who would argue that preservation hasn't really worked as
well as restoration has, at least in the American West. That may have been
because, with a few exceptions, the systems were no longer "pristine" by the
time we got around to preserving them (e.g., forest wilderness, wildlife
refuges, grassland prairies, Great Basin rangelands). Secondly, the
"pristine" systems we did preserve are no longer all that pristine, e.g.,
Yellowstone, Olympics, Crater Lake, Yosemite. Thirdly, in most cases, the
fragments eligible for preservation are very minute compared to the vast
areas needing restoration.
Warren Aney
Senior Wildlife Ecologist
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 13:39:32 -0600
From: Craig Stockwell <Craig_Stockwell@NDSU.NODAK.EDU>
Subject: JOB ANNOUNCEMENT: Assistant Professor, Animal Physiological Ecolog
--=====================_13849273==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
PLEASE POST THE FOLLOWING JOB ANNOUNCEMENT
POSITION TITLE:
Assistant Professor, Animal
Physiological Ecology
DEPARTMENT:
Biological Sciences
CLOSING DATE:
3/1/01 or until filled.
DESCRIPTION:
The Department of Biological Sciences at North Dakota State
University invites applications for a tenure-track
assistant professor position to begin Aug. 15, 2001. The
successful candidate is expected to develop an externally
funded research program in physiological ecology and to train
graduate students. Primary teaching duties include
physiological ecology and endocrinology courses.
MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS:
Ph.D. in a scientific discipline appropriate to animal
physiological ecology; demonstrated research experience in
physiological ecology; good interpersonal skills, effective oral
and written communication skills; evidence of desire and
ability to teach at the undergraduate and graduate levels;
evidence of scholarly potential including scientific publications;
potential to obtain extramural research funding.
PREFERRED QUALIFICATIONS:
Postdoctoral experience; teaching experience; demonstrated
ability in obtaining external funding; broad-based interests
in biology and evolutionary aspects of physiology; use of
integrative research approaches from the cellular to organismal levels.
TO APPLY:
To apply, submit a letter of application; a curriculum
vitae; a statement of teaching and research interests; a statement
of teaching philosophy; copies of transcripts from all
college-level work; copies of publications; three letters of
reference to: Faculty Search Committee; Stevens Hall; North
Dakota State University; Fargo, ND 58105-5517. For
full consideration, complete applications should be received by
March 1, 2001.
Craig A. Stockwell
Assistant Professor
Department of Zoology
Stevens Hall
North Dakota State University
Fargo, ND 58105
phone (701) 231-8449
fax (701) 231-7149
e-mail Craig_Stockwell@ndsu.nodak.edu
--=====================_13849273==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
<html>
PLEASE POST THE FOLLOWING JOB ANNOUNCEMENT<br>
<br>
POSITION TITLE:<br>
&nbs
;&n
bsp;
&nb
sp;
<b>Assistant Professor, Animal Physiological Ecology<br>
</b> DEPARTMENT:<br>
&nbs
;&n
bsp;
&nb
sp;
Biological Sciences<br>
CLOSING DATE:<br>
&nbs
;&n
bsp;
&nb
sp;
3/1/01 or until filled.<br>
DESCRIPTION:<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>T
e
Department of Biological Sciences at North Dakota State University
invites applications for a tenure-track<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>assista
t
professor position to begin Aug. 15, 2001. The successful candidate is
expected to develop an externally<br>
funded research
program in physiological ecology and to train graduate students. Primary
teaching duties include<br>
physiological
ecology and endocrinology courses.<br>
MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS:<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>Ph.D. i
a
scientific discipline appropriate to <b>animal physiological ecology<
/b>;
demonstrated research experience in<br>
physiological
ecology; good interpersonal skills, effective oral and written
communication skills; evidence of desire and<br>
ability to teach
at the undergraduate and graduate levels; evidence of scholarly potential
including scientific publications;<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab> poten
ial to
obtain extramural research funding.<br>
PREFERRED QUALIFICATIONS:<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>P
stdoctoral
experience; teaching experience; demonstrated ability in obtaining
external funding; broad-based interests<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>in biol
gy and
evolutionary aspects of physiology; use of integrative research
approaches from the cellular to organismal levels.<br>
TO APPLY:<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>T
apply,
submit a letter of application; a curriculum vitae; a statement of
teaching and research interests; a statement<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>of teac
ing
philosophy; copies of transcripts from all college-level work; copies of
publications; three letters of<br>
reference to:
Faculty Search Committee; Stevens Hall; North Dakota State University;
Fargo, ND 58105-5517. For<br>
full
consideration, complete applications should be received by March 1,
2001.<br>
<div>Craig A. Stockwell</div>
<div>Assistant Professor</div>
<div>Department of Zoology</div>
<div>Stevens Hall</div>
<div>North Dakota State University</div>
<div>Fargo, ND 58105</div>
<br>
<div>phone (701) 231-8449</div>
<div>fax (701) 231-7149</div>
<div>e-mail Craig_Stockwell@ndsu.nodak.edu</div>
</html>
--=====================_13849273==_.ALT--
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 13:28:19 -0800
From: Heidi Hillhouse <asalufa@YAHOO.COM>
Subject: Re: Humpty Dumpty
Another problem with preservation is that it often
advocates leaving an area completely alone and
eliminating all disturbances. This can be devastating
in ecosystems maintained by periodic disturbances such
as fires. Merely protecting remaining habitat is not
sufficient to maintain the diversity and community
interactions in an ecosystem.
Preservation has it's limitations, but is still
infinitely better than trying to recreate ecosystems
that have been totally destroyed. I don't have facts,
but it seems reasonable to believe that in many cases
preserved areas have more of the initial community
interactions intact than can be created in any
restoration project.
Heidi Hillhouse
Ecology Lab Research Tech
University of Nebraska Lincoln
--- Aneyww@AOL.COM wrote:
> In a message dated 20-Feb-2001 10:21:19 Pacific
> Standard Time,
> ammon@MED.UNR.EDU writes:
>
> << I certainly understand the concerns expressed
> below (I don't believe
> there
> is *anyone* out there who seriously argues that
> preservation is by far
> more successful, cheaper, easier, etc. than any
> attempt to recover
> biological systems). >>
>
> I guess I'm one who would argue that preservation
> hasn't really worked as
> well as restoration has, at least in the American
> West. That may have been
> because, with a few exceptions, the systems were no
> longer "pristine" by the
> time we got around to preserving them (e.g., forest
> wilderness, wildlife
> refuges, grassland prairies, Great Basin
> rangelands). Secondly, the
> "pristine" systems we did preserve are no longer all
> that pristine, e.g.,
> Yellowstone, Olympics, Crater Lake, Yosemite.
> Thirdly, in most cases, the
> fragments eligible for preservation are very minute
> compared to the vast
> areas needing restoration.
>
> Warren Aney
> Senior Wildlife Ecologist
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 16:54:01 -0600
From: "Klawinski, Paul" <klawinskip@WILLIAM.JEWELL.EDU>
Subject: Re: Humpty Dumpty
To all,
Here in the Missouri/Kansas border area, there is a new move (called Kansas
City Wildlands) to "restore" fragments of glades, prairies and savannas that
exist on public lands. In many cases these areas have large portions of
their original communities intact but are increasingly threatened by
introduced plant species and alterations of the natural processes that have
historically maintained them. The goal of this citizen-based consortium is
to examine the areas that are around the Kansas City area and prioritize
which of them can still be salvaged using the tools available to us (often
simply hard, physical labor). Our first work day for the removal of
introduced shrubs in a number of areas is scheduled for March 10 which is
also the day designated for the public kick-off of the program.
We hope that the activities of our group will help to educate people about
our natural heritage in the KC area and will also have a tangible effect on
the fragments of habitat that have survived the suburban onslaught of KC.
This may not be considered restoration but it certainly beats doing nothing
and may be better than setting aside a plot of land and then doing nothing
to manage the land to insure that the integrity of the systems are
maintained.
My $0.02.
Paul
----------------------------------------------------------
Paul Klawinski
Department of Biology
William Jewell College
500 College Hill
Liberty, MO 64068
Email: klawinskip@william.jewell.edu
Ph. 816.781.7700 ext 5568
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 16:47:53 -0500
From: "Weatherford, Richard K Contractor DPW"
<Richard.Weatherford@STEWART.ARMY.MIL>
Subject: Re: Scientists Link Early Puberty to Chemical Exposure
My understanding after reading the article was that certain chemicals in
plastics were to blame, not environmental toxins across the board. The
other toxins for sure had their own effects, and yes we have definitely
lowered environmental contamination of most of those toxins. However, and I
have no documented proof just my own limited observations, I think that the
use of plastics has greatly increased in the last 20 years, especially in
uses that would most likely pass any unwanted toxins along such as food
preparation and storage. If that is the case, then I believe that the
article could have some merit. On the other hand, I do understand Mr.
Clough's point, we as a society and people do tend to blame first and find
out later what truly causes our problems.
Richard Weatherford
Land Condition Trend Analysis Coordinator
Fort Stewart Integrated Training Area Management Program
richard.weatherford@stewart.army.mil
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steve Clough [SMTP:Stephen_Clough@UML.EDU]
> Sent: Friday, February 16, 2001 11:11 AM
> To: ECOLOG-L@UMDD.UMD.EDU
> Subject: Re: Scientists Link Early Puberty to Chemical Exposure
>
> This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
> --------------CAD8FF3214017C5179BAFFC4
> Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
> boundary="------------44CDA8C7C81D243EAB3DF9CE"
>
>
> --------------44CDA8C7C81D243EAB3DF9CE
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> Isn't this just great science? Blaming chemicals w/o any data. Whenev
r
> there
> is an environmental problem, chemicals are always the first to take the
> hit.
> Why weren't kids attaining earlier puberty back in the 60's and 70's an
> 80's
> when there were much higher concentrations of residues and additives in
> our toys
> and foodstuffs than there are today? Recent articles show that dioxin,
> mercury,
> DDT, PCBs, etc. are all DECREASING in concentration in the general
> environment,
> yet they are gaining more headlines because the detection limit is gett
ng
> much
> lower (Hg can now be detected in the sub-ppt range in water). And, if
t
> can be
> detected, then there must be SOME risk, right? Which leads to absurd
> statements
> like that in the article: "Some of us have had more, some of us have h
d
> less,
> but none of us have had no exposure." Duh. The question is how much
> exposure....so let's see some data, not lousy journalism.
>
> My hometown has a "cluster" of breastcancer cases. Right now there is
> veritable witch hunt going on (same general area as the one in the
> 1600's),
> trying to blame power plant emissions across the harbor.....despite the
> fact
> that there is NO EVIDENCE that environmental chemicals (e.g., PAHs) cau
e
> breast
> cancer in women (in fact, recent research continues to verify that
> genetics
> plays a major role, as does early/late conception). But, in today's
> society,
> someone has to take the blame....might as well be someone with deep
> pockets.....
>
>
>
>
> Alison Gillespie wrote:
>
> > I came across this story on the ENN newswire today, and it reminde
me
> of =
> > a recent string on this list regarding the same topic. I can't fo
ward
> =
> > the whole story due to copyright laws, but it is about research
> published =
> > in the journal Pediatrics and I thought some of you might find it
> > interesting.
> >
> > To read it online go to:
> >
> > <<
> http://enn.com/news/enn-stories/2001/02/02152001/earlypuberty_41939.asp
=
> > >>
> >
> > ___________________
> >
> > Alison Gillespie
> > Public Affairs Officer
> > Ecological Society of America
> > 1707 H Street NW
> > Suite 400
> > Washington, DC 20006
> > 202-833-8773 ext 211
> > alison@esa.org
> > fax: 202-833-8775=20
> > http://esa.sdsc.edu
>
> --------------44CDA8C7C81D243EAB3DF9CE
> Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> <!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
> <html>
> Isn't this just great science? Blaming chemicals w/o any data.&nb
p;
> Whenever there is an environmental problem, chemicals are always the fi
st
> to take the hit. Why weren't kids attaining earlier puberty back
> in the 60's and 70's and 80's when there were much higher concentration
> of residues and additives in our toys and foodstuffs than there are
> today?
> Recent articles show that dioxin, mercury, DDT, PCBs, etc. are all
> DECREASING
> in concentration in the general environment, yet they are gaining more
> headlines because the detection limit is getting much lower (Hg can now
> be detected in the sub-ppt range in water). And, if it can be
> detected,
> then there must be SOME risk, right? Which leads to absurd
> statements
> like that in the article: <i>"Some of us have had more, som
of us
> have had less, but none of us have had no exposure." </i>Du
.
> The question is how much exposure....so let's see some data, not lousy
> journalism.
> <p>My hometown has a "cluster" of breastcancer cases. Right
now
> there
> is a veritable witch hunt going on (same general area as the one in the
> 1600's), trying to blame power plant emissions across the
> harbor.....despite
> the fact that there is NO EVIDENCE that environmental chemicals (e.g.,
> PAHs) cause breast cancer in women (in fact, recent research
> continues
> to verify that genetics plays a major role, as does early/late
> conception).
> But, in today's society, someone has to take the blame....might as well
> be someone with deep pockets.....
> <br>
> <br>
> <p>Alison Gillespie wrote:
> <blockquote TYPE=CITE>I came across this story on the ENN newswir
today,
> and it reminded me of =
> <br>a recent string on this list regarding the same topic.
can't
> forward =
> <br>the whole story due to copyright laws, but it is about resear
h
> published
> =
> <br>in the journal Pediatrics and I thought some of you might fin
it =
> <br>interesting.
> <p>To read it online go to:
> <p><< <a
>
> href="http://enn.com/news/enn-stories/2001/02/02152001/earlypuberty_419
9.
> asp">
>
> http://enn.com/news/enn-stories/2001/02/02152001/earlypuberty_41939.asp<
/a
> >
> =
> <br>>>
> <p>___________________
> <p>Alison Gillespie
> <br>Public Affairs Officer
> <br>Ecological Society of America
> <br>1707 H Street NW
> <br>Suite 400
> <br>Washington, DC 20006
> <br>202-833-8773 ext 211
> <br>alison@esa.org
> <br>fax: 202-833-8775=20
> <br><a href="http://esa.sdsc.edu">http://esa.sdsc.edu</a>
</blockquote>
> </html>
>
> --------------44CDA8C7C81D243EAB3DF9CE--
>
> --------------CAD8FF3214017C5179BAFFC4
> Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii;
> name="Stephen_Clough.vcf"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Content-Description: Card for Steve Clough
> Content-Disposition: attachment;
> filename="Stephen_Clough.vcf"
>
> begin:vcard
> n:Clough;Stephen
> tel;fax:(978) 323-4599
> tel;work:(978) 323-0400
> x-mozilla-html:FALSE
> url:www.ncasi.org
> org:NCASI;Exposure Assessment
> version:2.1
> email;internet:sclough@ncasi.org
> title:Sr. Research Scientist
> adr;quoted-printable:;;600 Suffolk Street, 5th Floor=0D=0A;Lowell, MA
> 01854;;;
> fn:Stephen R. Clough, Ph.D., DABT
> end:vcard
>
> --------------CAD8FF3214017C5179BAFFC4--
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 14:49:30 -0800
From: "Bob Parcelles,Jr." <rjparcelles@YAHOO.COM>
Subject: Re: Humpty Dumpty
--- Charles Bomar <bomarc@UWSTOUT.EDU> wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Gary Schott <schott@KBS.MSU.EDU>
> Subject: Re: Humpty Dumpty
>
>
> > Does this discussion remind anyone else of the
> words of George Sr. when he
> > was president? "No net loss of wetlands". If we
> destroy it here, we'll
> > rebuild it over there, simple
>
> yes it does--- this is exactly the point that I have
> been trying to make
> and then when it fails, the scientists are at
> fault
*******************************************************
Gary, Charles and all:
This tends to be very evident in the failure of many
mitigation projects. Many ecoystems need succession
in order to be restored. Many companies and agencies
think that the "sum of the parts equals the whole".
This is often not the case. For example, in Florida
along the central ridge, phosphate mines replace sand
and pine scrub. These are unique communities and they
require succession in order to be completely restored.
Providing habitat for vertebrates (especially
threatened species like the Gopher Tortoise) is very
nice but this does not always give us all of the
populations necessary to define the original
ecosystem.
Of course, we would rather have woods or fields than
golf courses.
Bob Parcelles, Jr.
RJP Associates
Environmental Consultants
Pinellas Park, FL
------------------------------------------------------
=====
Bob Parcelles, Jr
Pinellas Park, FL
RJP Associates <rjpassociates@yahoo.com>
rjparcelles@yahoo.com
http://rainforest.care2.com/welcome?w=976131876
"Choose a job you love, and you will never have to work a day in your life."
Confucius
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices!
http://auctions.yahoo.com/
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 15:48:16 -0800
From: Wayne Tyson <landrest@UTM.NET>
Subject: Re: Humpty Dumpty
Honorable Forum:
Common sense is often right. It also is often wrong. That's why the
faculty of critical thinking, especially about one's own thinking, is so
critical.
It's easy enough to favor preservation--when it's possible. It's easy
enough to favor restoration--when it works.
Especially in the intermountain west, where years of "range management" and
"forestry" have decimated ecosystems, I would like to see some real data
demonstrating that restoration has been more effective than
preservation. For example, how many acres have been chained and seeded
with alien "range" grasses and to what tangible benefit? How many of these
acres have been restored, to what tangible benefit?
Extended fire frequencies also no doubt do have some "devastating effects,"
but where have they been quantified?
Best,
WT
At 01:28 PM 02/20/2001 -0800, Heidi Hillhouse wrote:
>Another problem with preservation is that it often
>advocates leaving an area completely alone and
>eliminating all disturbances. This can be devastating
>in ecosystems maintained by periodic disturbances such
>as fires. Merely protecting remaining habitat is not
>sufficient to maintain the diversity and community
>interactions in an ecosystem.
>
>Preservation has it's limitations, but is still
>infinitely better than trying to recreate ecosystems
>that have been totally destroyed. I don't have facts,
>but it seems reasonable to believe that in many cases
>preserved areas have more of the initial community
>interactions intact than can be created in any
>restoration project.
>
>Heidi Hillhouse
>Ecology Lab Research Tech
>University of Nebraska Lincoln
>
>--- Aneyww@AOL.COM wrote:
> > In a message dated 20-Feb-2001 10:21:19 Pacific
> > Standard Time,
> > ammon@MED.UNR.EDU writes:
> >
> > << I certainly understand the concerns expressed
> > below (I don't believe
> > there
> > is *anyone* out there who seriously argues that
> > preservation is by far
> > more successful, cheaper, easier, etc. than any
> > attempt to recover
> > biological systems). >>
> >
> > I guess I'm one who would argue that preservation
> > hasn't really worked as
> > well as restoration has, at least in the American
> > West. That may have been
> > because, with a few exceptions, the systems were no
> > longer "pristine" by the
> > time we got around to preserving them (e.g., forest
> > wilderness, wildlife
> > refuges, grassland prairies, Great Basin
> > rangelands). Secondly, the
> > "pristine" systems we did preserve are no longer all
> > that pristine, e.g.,
> > Yellowstone, Olympics, Crater Lake, Yosemite.
> > Thirdly, in most cases, the
> > fragments eligible for preservation are very minute
> > compared to the vast
> > areas needing restoration.
> >
> > Warren Aney
> > Senior Wildlife Ecologist
>
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
>a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 18:36:33 -0500
From: Michael Kost <kostma@STATE.MI.US>
Subject: Re: Humpty Dumpty
The situation is further aggravated by the funding disparity between money =
for wetland creation and lack of funding for acquisition and stewardship =
of high quality wetland plant communities. As an ecologist with the =
natural heritage program in Michigan, I regularly encounter wetland plant =
communities that appear to be in very good condition but may have a few =
individuals of an invasive species like purple loosestrife of glossy =
buckthorn. Without active management to remove or control the invasive =
species, these otherwise high quality sites are likely to degrade. While =
at least in Michigan I see a lack of funding for management activities =
aimed at keeping these sites in a relatively pristine condition, millions =
are spent on attempting to build new wetlands, many of which become =
dominated by cattail or fail as wetlands all together. I believe that the =
conservation community needs to reevaluate where funding could have the =
most impact. It seem to me that the money spent on attempting to recreate =
what has been destroyed may be better spent on protecting and managing the =
high quality sites that remain.
*******************************************
Mike Kost, Ecologist=20
Michigan Natural Features Inventory, MSU Extention
Mason Building, PO Box 30444
Lansing, MI 48909-7944
(517) 373-4817 fax: (517) 373-6705
kostma@state.mi.us
*******************************************
>>> Charles Bomar <bomarc@UWSTOUT.EDU> 02/20 11:31 AM >>
>
----- Original Message -----
From: Gary Schott <schott@KBS.MSU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Humpty Dumpty
> Does this discussion remind anyone else of the words of George Sr. when
=
he
> was president? "No net loss of wetlands". If we destroy it here, we'l
> rebuild it over there, simple
yes it does--- this is exactly the point that I have been trying to make
and then when it fails, the scientists are at fault
crb
***********************************************************************
Charles R. Bomar
Associate Professor of Biology
University of Wisconsin-Stout
Menomonie, WI 54751
(715)232-2562
(715)232-2192 FAX
bomarc@uwstout.edu=20
http://biology.uwstout.edu/bomar/bomar.htm=20
***********************************************************************
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 20:23:35 EST
From: Aneyww@AOL.COM
Subject: Re: Humpty Dumpty
In a message dated 20-Feb-2001 15:54:44 Pacific Standard Time,
landrest@UTM.NET writes:
<< I would like to see some real data
demonstrating that restoration has been more effective than
preservation. For example, how many acres have been chained and seeded
with alien "range" grasses and to what tangible benefit? How many of these
acres have been restored, to what tangible benefit? >>
1. Few, if any, areas have been "preserved in pristine condition" -- all
that I know of had some kind of anthropogenic disturbance pre- or
post-preservation.
2. Restoration does work; sometimes just by protecting an area from
disturbance but more often by removing and remediating some of the
disturbance so as to promote natural recovery. We can point to thousands of
acres of stream systems where restoration is working. We can't point to ver
many where pure preservation is either indicated or working, at least not on
less than a geological time scale.
3. Manipulations such as the rangeland treatment you mention are not
restoration by any sense of the word. Juniper and brush chainings might be
tools to accelerate restoration of particular prior shrub-grassland
conditions, but exotic seedings are not.
Warren
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 17:26:26 -0800
From: Wayne Tyson <landrest@UTM.NET>
Subject: Re: Habitat selection, schmelection
Honorable Forum:
Where confusion persists, and/or communication is an exercise in semantics,
could the terminology be weak?
Habitat conditions change, some rapidly and some slowly, eh? Geese
migrate. Populations advance and decline, no? Do organisms "prefer" the
habitat they "select?" It would appear that either way, if they "prefer"
or "select" sub-optimal conditions that they will pay a "price" rather than
reap a "profit." And they do, yes? And the result is thus defined and the
habitat thus determined, right? Wrong?
What are the relevant aspects of this issue and how do they fit together?
Respectfully submitted,
WT
At 08:36 AM 02/18/2001 +0200, Yaron Ziv wrote:
>Warren: There is no contradiction between habitat preference and habitat
>selection. As I have written in my previous message: "habitat preferenc
>is only the first step in the process of exploring what the organisms
>indeed do in a realistic environment." (which is habitat selection). If
>one finds out after serious exploration that the organisms s/he studies
re
>not constrained directly or/and indirectly by competitors and predators
>(and mutualists, etc.) and there is only one relevant habitat for these
>organisms, then habitat selection is simply habitat preference -- organi
ms
>are only where they "want" to be (and if there is only one habitat they
>don't have a choice; the alternative is extinction . . ..) However, if
>there are more than one habitat, Ideal Free Distribution suggests that w
>should define not only primary preference but also secondary preference,
>and so on. Habitats are species-specific and fitness-based; at a certai
>point where relevant habitats (r>0) are already occupied by individua
s,
>the selection of habitat by the nth individual depends on the other
>individuals; hence, it is almost always more complicated than the simple
>first-step habitat preference.
>-- Yaron.
>
>
>
> >In a message dated 17-Feb-2001 06:43:50 Pacific Standard Time,
> >yziv@BGUMAIL.BGU.AC.IL writes:
> >
> ><< it is indeed so important to measure habitat
> > selection and not habitat preference. >>
> >
> >What about organisms that can choose on the basis of preference? I
an
> >organism is constrained, it may be best to consider just selection
nd not
> >think of it as preference. If an organism is not constrained, e.g.
large
> >mammals, then we may need to consider preference when manipulating
abitat.
> >Comments?
> >
> >Warren Aney
> >Senior Wildlife Ecologist
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 17:39:11 -0800
From: "Sergei B. Yazvenko" <yazvenko@LGL.COM>
Subject: International Meeting on Palynology in St. Petersburg, Russia.
A friend of mine has asked me to post this on ECOLOG-L. Please send all
inquiries directly to the Seminar Secretariat at "confer@vnigri.spb.su"
(write "Palynology" in Subject line), or Dr. Olga Dzyuba at <dof@piter.ne
>.
====================================
International Seminar
POLLEN AS INDICATOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL STATE AND
PALEOECOLOGICAL RECONSTRUCTIONS
St.-Petersburg, Russia, 19-24 March, 2001.
Organized by:
Palynological Commission of RAN
Russian Academy of Sciences
Ministry of Natural Resources
VNIGRI, and
Public Regional Ecological Fund
"Organism and Environment"
The venues covered by the seminar include:
1. State of pollen grains and spores of higher plants in connection with
environmental state (morphology, embriology, physiology, physiology and
biochemistry) at present and in the past.
1.1. Aeropalynology. Biological (including morphological) traits of
plant pollen - pollen allergens in connection with environment quality;
1.2. Biological (including morphological) traits of nectariferous
plant pollen in connection with environment quality. Evaluation of honey
quality. Evaluation of environment quality on the pollen in bee-products;
1.3. Biological traits of accumulating harmful substances (heavy
metals, radionuclides) by the pollen (spores) of higher plants.
2. Palynoindication of global ecological processes in Earth history
(bio-variety and actualization principle; methodical aspects).
3. Palynoindication of environmental state and archaeological investigations
4. Palynological investigations (in particular, palynoindication) for
solving the problems of criminalist science and environmental protection.
For more information contact Seminar Secretariat.
REGISTRATION FEES - 200 $. Registration fees cover : Book of Papers,
Cultural program, Hotel reservation, Coffee breaks, Visa support.
PAYMENTS MUST BE MADE TO THE FOLLOWING ACCOUNTS:
BANK SAINT-PETERSBURG, PLG KUIBYSHEVSKY BRANCH SWIFT CODE: JSBSRU2P N
40702840419000203222 (USD)
ON BEHALF OF "VNIGRI-1"
Seminar Secretariat, VNIGRI, Liteiny ave., 39, St.-Petersburg, Russia, 19110
.
Fax: (812) 275-57-56
Phone: (812) 272-36-77
E-mail: confer@vnigri.spb.su (write "Palynology" in Subject line)
Sergei B. Yazvenko, Ph.D.
LGL Limited, environmental research associates
9768 Second Street, Sidney
British Columbia, CANADA V8L 3Y8
Tel. +1 (250) 656-0127, ext. 206
FAX +1 (250) 655-4761
Email: Yazvenko@LGL.com
http://www.LGL.com
ftp://ftp.LGL.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 16:45:23 -0800
From: Marcela Suarez <marcesua@ROCKETMAIL.COM>
Subject: Information about an intership in Puerto Rico
I will like to inform that whe are offering a research
intership opportunity for this summer (2001)in Puerto
Rico about Tropical Ecology and Evolution. For more
information plese write to rp942177@rrpac.upr.clu.edu
or see our webpage: http:\degi.rrp.upr.edu
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices!
http://auctions.yahoo.com/
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 20:16:43 +0000
From: Wes Dowd <wes@VIMS.EDU>
Subject: aquarium UV sterilizers???
ECOLOG subscribers-
I'm looking for information on a relatively inexpensive UV sterilizer
that would be able to process ~1000L of seawater in a couple of hours.
This will be for a research application, but it's not crucial to have
100% sterilization. Does anyone have experience or suggestions on models
that I might try?
Thanks in advance,
Wes Dowd
wes@vims.edu
------------------------------
End of ECOLOG-L Digest - 19 Feb 2001 to 20 Feb 2001
***************************************************
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ
Thanks to discussion with TVR, I have decided to put a link to back files of the discussion group. This months back files.
The link to complete archives is available elsewhere.
This text was originally an e-mail. It was converted using a program
RUPANTAR- a simple e-mail-to-html converter.
(c)Kolatkar Milind. kmilind@ces.iisc.ernet.in